Black Hills Candidacy for UN Site in 1940s Was Better Than NYC

“The U.N. fancies itself as a super-national government-in-waiting for the post-national world. The American people’s response to that smug attitude,” says former US Senator and Congressman Jim DeMint, “is a red MAGA hat.”   Even more, “The UN is so corrupt, so warped by bias, that it needs a disinfectant. It’s met its match in Trump.”  Back in the 1940s, however, there was only virgin, untested optimism surrounding the creation of the United Nations.  Few foresaw back then how the leftist bad guys would eventually hijack the organization.

     The UN is now bent on “globalization and centralization of power” with a “uniquely toxic culture [that] thrives on the subtle curlicues and faux-sophistication of diplomatic niceties,” he says, good neither for the US nor for international peace and prosperity.  Any big city in the world could have been chosen—even Brussels or Washington, DC—but New York City was chosen.  Undoubtedly, there was an eye on the economic prosperity and prestige that international ambassadors and tourists would bring.  Many must have secretly thought that America would use the location to dominate world affairs, thus funding most of the UN’s budget over the years for this purpose. 

       But the strong America that came out of World War II became weaker and weaker over time, DeMint argues:  “Presidents before Trump tried to reform the U.N., but their mistake was trying to do so from the inside, playing by the unfair rules of an entrenched bureaucracy. American officials patiently sat on committees and councils, bit their tongue while tyrants and outlaws thumbed their nose at the international community, and spoke in the flowery, phony rhetoric of elite diplomacy. Meanwhile, the organization rotted from the inside out.”  Democrats and Establishment GOP gradually let it all slip away.

      As it ironically turned out, Sanctuary NYC proves to be a better match for the UN’s socialistic culture today.  Both are managed by money-grabbing elites who seek to dominate those they govern.  Things might have turned out differently had President Trump been in the political equation earlier.  His recent speech to the UN General Assembly seems the embodiment of the “U.N.’s founding principles of peace, freedom, and equal rights” at the very beginning.  His family was with him (below) at the speech, which was measured and flawless while openly confronting outlaw nations.

     The UN might have been far more conservative if Rapid City and the Black Hills had been chosen as the site of UN over NYC.  We were one of the top five US contenders for the honor, thanks to lobbyist businessman Paul Bellamy, who hoped that the “Black Hills would provide a tavern-free, prostitute-free and tax-free space that would be fair and ideal for quiet political deliberations,” according to the local newspaper.  Many smaller nations apparently didn’t want to send their delegates to a corrupt urban jungle, preferring the current site of Reptile Gardens.

 

Share

1 comment for “Black Hills Candidacy for UN Site in 1940s Was Better Than NYC

  1. Brad Ford
    September 30, 2019 at 8:54 am

    Beyond sinecurist incumbents from both parties in the US house and senate, DeMint points out that “If he stays his current course, the U.N. is the second swamp Donald Trump can drain.” Of course, the whole federal bureaucracy is full of entrenched and “protected” incompetents doing as little as possible to hold on to benefits while waiting for retirement.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *