Why Colin Powell’s Morality And Not Yours?

May 2018
East Coast Of U.S.A.
Here are three strikes and they are out:

Colin Powell, Madam Short Legs, and CNN's Fareed Zakaria:

Former U.S. Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright both questioned the dramatic negative effects the Trump administration has had on the United States and its people Sunday.​
NOTE: Rice Cakes was one of the two worst choices Bush the Younger picked for his cabinet. Colin Powell was the other.

Powell is another military man who got it in his head that he is a political genius on par with President Eisenhower and a few other famous military leaders. In truth, Powell knows doodly-squat about governing a free people.

Frankly, I always believed that Colin Powell was the first U.N.-loyalist to make it all the way to the top. He was certainly the most successful “security risk” Senator McCarthy warned about. Only the good Lord knows how many others occupy the upper ranks of every armed service. To no one’s surprise the MSM praises U.N.-loyalists to high heaven. After all, they are not like Benedict Arnold; so who would dare challenge the loyalty of a man wearing a chest full of ribbons?

Colin Powell, a professed Republican, endorsed Obama for president. If that endorsement was not racially motivated it will do until a better one comes along.

After Powell announced his support for self-appointed spiritual leader, Barack Obama, somebody forgot to tell Powell to go to the Vatican because Americans elect presidents not moral leaders:

Guys like Powell can never govern a free people until they can answer this question to everyone’s satisfaction: Why your morality and not mine?

Powell citing the First Amendment was a piss-poor way to make his case:

“You see things that should not be happening,” Powell told CNN's Zakaria. “How can a president of the United States get up and say that the media is the enemy of Americans? Hasn’t he read the First Amendment? You are not supposed to like everything the press says, or what anyone says…that’s why we have a First Amendment, to protect that kind of speech.”​

Colin Powell Says Donald Trump has Turned America from 'We the People' to 'Me the President'​
By Benjamin Fearnow On 10/7/18 at 12:53 PM​

Powell demonstrated his political preference when he combined freedom of the press with freedom of speech:

If Americans want to protect the First Amendment start by eliminating these four words ——“or of the press” —— so that it reads:​
First Amendment​
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​
Notice that the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending a constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.​
Democrat Secretary of State Madam Short Legs was a joke minus the humor, while “Republican” Secretary of State Powell was a political disaster.
The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly, established pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 3357 (XXIX) of 18 December 1974.​
International Civil Service Commission - Wikipedia

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was my first serious encounter with International civil servant when he used that phrase to define U.N. parasites. It made no sense for obvious reasons.

civil servant (noun)​
A person employed in the civil service.​

civil service (noun)
Abbr. CS​
1. Those branches of public service that are not legislative, judicial, or military and in which employment is usually based on competitive examination.​
2. The entire body of persons employed by the civil branches of a government.​

No matter which dictionary you check, a civil servant has to work for a government to be defined as a civil servant. Did someone establish a global government and hire International civil servants while I was not watching? And where were the competitive exams given?

Print journalists and talking heads are well aware that international law is newspeak for Socialist law. It is probably too late to undo decades of propaganda spent on legitimizing “international law,” but there is still a chance to shoot down “International civil servant” every time it pops up.

Use Americans as an example. Which entity is our International civil servant loyal to? Some might say they loyal to both the U.N. and the U.S., but then you ran into the matter of divided loyalties; serving two masters and so on. Would you trust an employee who espouses loyalty to a competitor? As a matter of fact, quite a few American Internationalists who support the U.N. do not say things that encourage trust in their loyalty to their own country.
If the Americans in my example are paid by the American government they cannot really be an International civil servant regardless of their U.N. duties. They are American civil servant paid by American tax dollars. That is not to say that every “American” assigned to the United Nations is a loyal American. I am simply pointing out that if my examples are paid by the U.N. or one of its agencies they are working for an organization and cannot be defined as civil servants —— International or otherwise.

What if the U.N. administered civil service exams? I suppose that would be okay so long as corporations give exams and are legally entitled to claim the people they hire are civil servants.

Finally, there is a lot about the U.N. that has been lurking in the shadows for too long. Things like diplomatic immunity, and U.N. ships that fly no national flag, The U.N. even has its own postage stamps. Do you know of another organization in the world that gets away with that crap?