John Kerry has lauded the work of international institutions, such as the United Nations, and expressed plans to transform our foreign policy to place more responsibilities on these multilateral bodies. Kerry should be more cautious regarding the company he keeps. Many of these international bodies (for instance, the UN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights),are controlled by corrupt dictatorships.

The United Nations itself has been corrupted by, among other things, the oil—for—food scandal which may have been used as a cover to fund terrorists.

Overseas, in the past, Libyan diplomats have been involved in murder and been expelled from Britain. 

Now news reports indicate that the recent terror alerts regarding the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund may involve information gathered from international employees of these august institutions (i.e., an "inside job").

These organizations are resisting inquires from our law enforcement agencies by claiming that diplomatic immunity protects them from such requests. One official even defended this stance by stating that they would not give this information regarding their employees in Iran if Iranian officials made the request.

Someone should explain the difference between a terror—supporting theocratic dictatorship and a democratic secular America. But it would probably do no good. In the eyes of the United Nations and the globalist diplomats, the most corrupt dictatorships are morally equal to the most advanced democracies, in terms of the respect due to their sovereignty and their status as members of the "international community."

Since truck bombs may be used to attack these buildings and may harm American bystanders, does it seem a bit much for us to respect such diplomatic niceties? John Kerry would, but how would that square with innocent Americans killed because JFK, son of a diplomat, is in thrall to these diplomats?

Posted by Ed  8 3 04