Rejecting Mandates By Nations And Organizations That Share Neither Our Interests Nor Our Values

The U.N.’s New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, which imposed guidelines for the acceptance of migrants and refugees on member nations, was (naturally) endorsed by the Obama Administration, which embraced wholeheartedly the concept of expanding world government in many areas, even those where international mandates would have  profound domestic consequences.

The Trump administration has withdrawn from the accord, saying that it was not compatible with U.S. principles, interests and priorities.


The U.S. Mission announced that the Declaration “contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies.” Added  U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley:

“Our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter the country.”

Well, of course. The amazing thing is that the previous administration would surrender this control. By what warped reasoning would elected officials pledged to preserve and protect that U.S. Constitution conclude that turning over the protection of U.S. sovereignty over a crucial matter like deciding who gets the privilege of coming here should be turned over to international authorities? Whatever it was, Barack Obama had it in abundance, and no matter how it happened, American citizens should be relieved that a basic principle has been rescued from peril. This was also one more agreement having the force of a treaty that somehow the Obama administration never got ratified by Congress: another Constitutional principle saved.

33 thoughts on “Rejecting Mandates By Nations And Organizations That Share Neither Our Interests Nor Our Values

  1. “the concept of expanding world government in maaby areas, even those with profound domestic consequences.”

    So there are maaby areas without domestic consequences?

    • Well, you have a point: not likely to be sure. Maaby areas, despite their innate instability, will occasionally overcome their chaotic tendencies. But this should be regarded as the exception, not the rule.

      I dropped a few words and letters somehow. Fixed.

  2. Let’s say there’s a grading scale of “good for the United States”. I won’t give an upper number for the grading scale, but let’s pick an arbitrary grade of 50 for the effects of Trump’s policies so far.

    If Trump pulled us completely out of the UN, what would you change that 50 to and then what’s your upper grade so I can calibrate my brain to how important you think “membership” in the UN is…

    Then for fun, would it be better or worse for the other civilized nations for us to leave the UN?

    I know it would be better for us to form a UN-like agreement with civilized nations only.

    Then for fun, would it be better or worse for the non-civilized nations for us to leave the UN?

  3. The U.N. did a good job in the Korean War and that’s about it. I wish we’d turn the building into a Macy’s superstore and tell them they can start again in Sweden or someplace else.

    • The U.N. did a PASSABLE job in Korea, and that’s only because the USSR didn’t veto UN action, and then because the US and allies still had officers and men with battle experience from WW2 and a super-competent overall commander (MacArthur). Since then, they’ve been mostly a forum for dreamers and terrorists. Who can forget Yassir Arafat addressing the assembly in full keffiyeh with pistol at his side, or Hugo Chavez telling the same assembly he still smelled the hellfire and brimstone from GWB being there?

      I’d be all for telling the UN they have 6 months to vacate the building. They can start over in the Hague. In the meantime, we’ll turn the building into a summer Capitol, complete with a super-luxury train (a la South Africa’s Blue Train) that carries government officials between them twice a year, which everyone else can take at other times.

      • I would submit that South Korea is one of the great triumphs of post WWII American foreign policy. Contrast the vibrant democracy of South Korea with the plight of the North, South Korea is one of the economic powerhouses of the world. None of that would have happened if we had not successfully defended and liberated South Korea from the North.

        As far as MacArthur, he was extremely inconsistent during his tenure in the Korean War. He pushed through the Inchon landings, which were a great success, but failed to complete a smashing strategic victory by closing the trap on and destroying the entire North Korean army in the south. He let his army be completely surprised by the Chinese intervention, resulting in one of the biggest battlefield defeats ever suffered by the U.S. Army. As well, he wanted us to nuke China — with results that are impossible to imagine but unlikely to have been good.

        Still, we won the war that the UN originally voted to fight — defending South Korea from aggression. Our actions then and our troops still stationed in South Korea bought them the time and security needed to build the country they have today. I do think that’s a very good thing.

    • I have my suspicions that even the Korean ‘police action’ was a dismal failure, given where we are today. A terrible stalemate (the conflict was never officially ended) is not exactly something to brag about.

      But that WAS the high watermark of the UN, by many objective standards.

  4. Here’s one that’s good for a laugh. The U.S. is supposed to consult with the world’s air carriers before establishing immigration policies, or at least their trade association IATA:

    “The global airline industry’s main trade group reiterated its opposition to the curbs, which affect people from Iran, Syria, Chad, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. International Air Transport Association Chief Executive Officer Alexandre de Juniac said Tuesday that the steps risk imposing “unbearable constraints” on airlines and passengers.

    “We are not in favor of travel bans,” De Juniac said in Geneva, where he was providing an update on airline earnings. “If there is a travel ban that has to be imposed for urgent security needs, please consult the industry before to properly implement the set of measures.”

    Fuck you, Alexandre, you cheese eating surrender monkey. I fart in your general direction.

    • Tell ya what, Juniac, you give us your email, and we’ll get back to you as soon as our security policy’s “bearability” to you becomes important to us.

      Hehehe OB, you’ve been hanging out with Groundskeeper Willie. Bonjooooooouurrrrrrrrrr, ya cheese-eatin’ surrender monkeys!

      • Last heard the expression shouted by a Brit friend of a friend who was liquored up during a late night to early morning birthday party celebration outside our bedroom window in a rented farmhouse in Provence.

        “Why are there trees planted along all the roads in France?”

        “So the German soldiers can march in the shade.”

        • Yes, I modified that joke in the run-up to the Iraq War.

          “Why are they planting trees along the main street in Baghdad?”

          “So the American army can march in the shade.”

          BTW, did your Brit friend ever tell you the joke about the schoolboy who brought his RAF pilot granddad to class?

          The story goes that he shows up, all smart in his blue jacket and light blue RAF vet beret, then starts telling stories about how “I took that Fokker down.” On hearing the buzz, particularly among the boys, Miss Holyoake interjected that a Fokker was a brand of German plane. “Aye,” said the old vet. “And some of those Fokkers were flying Messerschmitts!”

          • Unfortunately if you know your history that one doesn’t work. In all fairness to our kepi-wearing on and off friends, in 1914 the French Sixth Army received a timely reinforcement of about 6,000 French soldiers carried in taxicabs, sent by Paris military governor Joseph Gallieni, and stopped the Germans from making the breakthrough that would have taken Paris in the First Battle of the Marne. German field marshal Moltke said at the time that he believed this failing short of the Schlieffen Plan represented a broader failure, and they were never going to win the war.

              • Yes, but it’s not hard to understand the Brits’ enduring anger and frustration with the French given Paris escaped unscathed while London and other major English cities were pretty severely bombed. Not to mention how many Brit kids were killed or maimed freeing France from the occupation.

                Another joke along the same lines we’re treading: A commercial airline pilot is flying into Frankfurt or Berlin in the ’50s or ’60s. The German air traffic controller gets irritated with the pilot and asks sharply, “Haven’t you ever flown to Berlin [or Frankfurt] before?” To which the American pilot responds, “Not since early 1944.”

            • In 1870 the Paris commune defended the city for months after the rest of France had surrendered, in defiance of both the German army and the French government.

              If memory serves, there were massive reprisals by the French government after the war against the communards.

  5. Accepting immigrants is one of our values.

    Can I ask what the specific requirements of this accord were, and how they would be damaging to our nation?

    • Simple. It’s not any other nations’ business to dictate our numbers and standards regarding immigrants and migrants. The US has the most immigrants of any nation in the world. We do fine by immigrants. It is always damaging—and irresponsible— when the US cedes its autonomy elsewhere.


    • “Accepting immigrants is one of our values.”

      I don’t think that is necessarily true. Not in how you wrote it.

      1) I think “Being accepting OF immigrants is one of our values”
      2) I think “encouraging and assisting immigrants in adopting the mainstream culture is one of our priorities”
      3) I think “Immigration has been one of our core modus operandi for filling our vast and empty land in pursuit of national interests”

      I’m not sure that merely “accepting immigrants is one of our values” as a blank generalized statement.

      I’m not even certain we have historically gone out of our way to make sure we’ve accepted immigrants in increased numbers based purely on being pushed away from home nations for humanitarian reasons — regardless of whether or not immigration has actually increased naturally because of that.

      • Historically, I think that discriminating against immigrants has generally been one of our core principles. Then, of course, the next generation of those immigrants — now pretty much assimilated — exercised their newfound core American principles to discriminate against the next generation of immigrants.

        It’s kind of rough on the newbies, but over the long haul it has worked out pretty well for us as a country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.