“It sucks, but marketing matters.”
Not when you have no upkeep costs. WordPress is free.

“A brash general will lose the support of his troops,”
“an extravagant blogger will lose support of his readers,”

So, Rob, are you going to fight alongside Luke to the death?
No? Your support is worthless then.

Death To women’s Rights.
Viva Men’s Liberty

–MikeeUSA–

We do agree that the U.N. is full of evil-doers. I assume that we also do agree that there are many social parasites in this world, and that there are many things that are wrong and that should be changed.

What we don’t agree is how to address this issue. Your post is too effusive IMHO. I used to be like that, but what I have learned is that you just can’t charge up the hill against the bad guys in a frontal attack. You do that and you end up like Custer in Little Big Horn. The whole point I am trying to make is: don’t display your ideas so honestly, and try to be more polished and moderate. A brash general will lose the support of his troops, and an extravagant blogger will lose support of his readers, no matter how good his/her ideas are. It sucks, but marketing matters.

Just google U.N. threatens soverignty, and you’ll come up with dozens upon dozens of documented instances where they’ve been guilty of doing it.

I think you’re like most intelligent people, and in that, you see how the U.N has been purposely detrimental to the U.S., but you figure that the U.N. has been around for so long that you can’t imagine us ever getting the U.S. out of the U.N. and the U.N. out of the U.S.

It’s a giant international organization, and thus a lot of people are cowed by it, but if the U.S. doesn’t take a stand, then what other country will?

It seems that the only thing you stand for is confrontation. In case you haven’t noticed, your radicalisms are only alienating the readers.

You sound like the merchantilists in Europe in the 18th century. I also hate the UN, but give me a break! Oh yeah, a bunch of parasitic bureaucrats of an organization that does nothing at all REALLY threaten the sovereignty of the mightiest nation on Earth.

Luke, get a girlfriend and be at peace with the world. Take that as a word of advice.

Peace

They are not (for the most part) U.S. citizens. Their organization is not a U.S. organization. They are a foreign* organization that happens to be located on U.S. soil**. They have no inherent right to be here, they are guests in our house, and as such they are liable to being removed if we as a nation decide that they don’t deserve to be here.

The only thing that might be seen to be semi-extreme is the part about deporting the foreigners among them and never allowing them to return. But when you look closer at this, even this is not extreme. They are not U.S. citizens, they are involved with an organization which has been attempting to undermine the soverignty of the U.S., and causing trouble overall, and as such, they are liable — legally — to being deported and not being allowed to return.

——————————————————————-

*Ok, technically they are an internationalist organization rather than a strict foreign organization. But everything that would apply to a foreign organization as to how we can and cannot act toward them would logically apply to them in this case.

**Technically, some schmuck in the federal government “gave away the land” that they are on to them, so it is now supposedly owned by them instead of by the USA.

But this is actually a misconception. What the government did by giving that land away to them is actually unconstitutional. It says right in the constitution that the national government may not tamper with the land of any state. It may not cut a state into two states, it may not join two states together, and it may not give a state’s land away to another state or anyone else without the consent of that state. And I don’t remember New York ever consenting to that. That’s something that the federal government did on their own. So what the federal government did by giving New York’s land away is unconstitutional.

So therefore the agreement by which that land is now “U.N. land” rather than U.S. land is unconstitutional, and therefore null and void.

Please note that I am a follower of this blog, and I have generally enjoyed it, but I think this post is of very low quality and all it does is diminish the good posts you’ve written before. You obviously have a lot to learn still.