THE DEGENERATION OF NIKKI HALEY

Haley reportedly used to have some moral principles and occasionally advocated certain moral causes.
*
*
A political whore by excellance:
Nikki Haley sacrifices moral integrity for political ambitions
 
By Khalid Amayreh
*
I am quite sure that deep in her heart, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nicky Haley, disdains her boss,  Donald Trump, viewing him with utter contempt.
 
Haley reportedly used to have some moral principles and occasionally advocated certain moral causes.
 
But what made the daughter of an Indian immigrant grovel so cheaply, so dramatically  and so submissively at Trump’s feet, effectively giving up any semblance of  honesty  and moral integrity as we saw recently in her ignominious behavior during the UN discussion of the Palestinian issue, especially Trump’s impetuous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital?
 
Contrary to Trump, who is almost conspicuously ignorant, Haley looks smart and educated. Hence her moral downfall is clarion and scandalous.
 
Haley was a focal critic of Trump until several years ago, but when Trump’s star started to rise, leading up to him getting elected as President of the United States, she began undergoing a downturn moral metamorphosis which, more or less, eventually reduced her to a political prostitute par excellance..
 
I am not concerned at all about media insinuations pertaining to her alleged extramarital affair with the White House bull.
 
But I am concerned about her dishonest public discourse, which is bound to affect me and undermine the survival, future and interests of my people.
 
For example, in her pathetic defense of the scandalous decision by her boss (or current lover) to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the apartheid Israeli regime, Haley claimed that the decision was legitimate since it represented the collective will of the American people.
 
 But since when was the legitimacy or moral validity of a given decision or certain policy contingent upon the “collective will” of any country or nation-state, powerful or otherwise?  Besides, one is prompted to ask: whose collective will would come first? The powerful and rich nations? Well, then we would be talking about a jungle-world, not a civilized world!
 
But, even if Haley’s argument had some  ostensible moral validity, one might  then argue that no government under the sun, even if democratically elected, has the right to dictate the future of other peoples and other countries  with a strike of a pen or on the spur of the moment.  There are far more important considerations, such as justice, human rights and international law than the flimsy concept of a collective will of a certain nation.   Needless to say, these principles were utterly ignored when Trump embarked on his fateful decree over Jerusalem, which has further emboldened Israeli insolence, intransigence, hegemony and arrogance of power, making peace in the Middle East more distant and more elusive than ever…
 
Adolph Hitler, who by the way came to power via ballot boxes, could have argued that his decision to affect a holocaust against Europe’s Jewry represented the collective will of the German nation and should therefore be accepted as legitimate without any reservation. Isn’t this Trump’s and Haley\s logic?
 
Haley, apparently echoing her idiotic boss’ twisted logic,  argued that the Palestinian didn’t show respect for America by rejecting his provocative move  over Jerusalem.
 
But what does “respect for America” exactly mean and imply?  Indeed, does Trump think that in return for receiving politically-motivated aid, recipients would just give up their freedom, sovereignty, honor and self-respect? Well, if some regimes would, the Palestinian people wouldn’t.
 
More to the point, one might wonder what does “respect for America”  have to do with the enduring struggle of a virtually crushed people to survive the century-old  blitz of Zio-Nazism, a decidedly evil force seeking to obliterate the Palestinian people from their ancestral homeland on the ground that some Jewish tribes inhabited Palestine some 4000 years ago!!?
 
Moreover, since when capitulation to tyranny, oppression, foreign military occupation, racism and fascism was an expression of respect or gratitude, especially for a country whose primary schools require  school kids to memorize Patrick Henry’s iconic slogan “give me freedom or give me death.” ?  
 
There is no doubt that invoking “respect for America” by Trump and hangers-on to justify the illegal and immoral move on Jerusalem constitutes a contemptible abuse of the honorable concept of respect. Don’t these people around that fool  have any iota of intellectualism?
 
The Palestinian people do respect and admire the people of the United States. But, it is true, this respect doesn’t and shouldn’t extend to the bulk of America’s political leaders who shamelessly sacrifice the values of justice, equity, simple fairness as well as respect for human rights and international law in order to appease their Zionist pimps at home or overseas.
 
Yes, our respect wouldn’t encompass either the political whores, like Trump. Haley and Pence, or, indeed, their political pimps such as Netanyahu and his puppets in Congress who bow their heads in submission once AIPAC’s money appears!

5 Comments

  1. Khalid Amayreh said,

    February 5, 2018 at 10:29

    I think I made a mistake at the end of the article. Israel’s puppets in Congress are actually political sluts than political pimps.

  2. JOHN CHUCKMAN said,

    February 5, 2018 at 18:13

    I am totally with you on the thrust of this article.

    Trump has no right to do what he did about Jerusalem and Nikki Haley’s behavior, especially at the UN, is simply appalling.

    However you weaken your basic points with references like “For example, in her pathetic defense of the scandalous decision by her boss (or current lover)…”

    That after just saying you were not concerned with rumors about an affair. That’s not the way to build a convincing argument.

    Finally, you make an error made by many about Hitler. He was not elected.

    https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2018/02/05/john-chuckman-comment-in-discussing-putins-coming-election-we-get-the-inevitable-and-utterly-ignorant-comparison-with-hitlers-popularity-the-facts-about-hitlers-rise-to-power/

  3. Richard Wicks said,

    February 5, 2018 at 18:36

    Haley has been scum since she got at the UN. This is the woman that famously asked if “Russia has no shame”, as the US funds and aids ISIS with weapons and money, and plants false flags against Assad so Israel can annex the Golan Heights without complaint.

    She’s a Neocon. She’s lower and more loathsome than the stuff I have to dig off from my shoe after walking through a dog park at midnight.

  4. Khalid Amayreh said,

    February 5, 2018 at 20:17

    Dear JOHN CHUCKMAN

    Thank you for your important remarks.

    I admit I am not expert on this subject (the advent of the Nazi party to power). But I red the following in this regard, which I thought made some sense!: “Hitler becoming Chancelor in 1933 resulted from the democratically elected seats that his party held. As head of the party, Hitler could either be directly elected to a position, like the one he lost to Hindenburg, or he could gain the Chancellorship by his party having a clear majority in the Reichstag and get appointed by the President, OR HE COULD become Chancellor without a clear majority via a coalition government… It is the last option that saw Hitler rise to power and the “back room deals” many Americans lament as having got him there, were simply a normal part of forming a coalition government in a democratic parliamentary system. Hitler’s party was elected, it formed a legitimately democratic coalition government with a condition of that coalition being Hitler’s appointment to the chancellery… Which was just the German title (although much weaker position) of Prime Minister. So yes, Hitler was elected via his role as party leader within a democratic institution.” MY point was that the majority rule, a people’s collective will, or a consensus, or similar cliches, shouldn’t be viewed as giving the leadership of a country a carte blanche to act against another country or people. the issue of morality, lawfulness and legality should always come first. Would a solemn decision by the Chinese government to recognize Washington D.C. to the Seminole tribe be acceptable to the US?

  5. February 6, 2018 at 12:51

    Reblogged this on seachranaidhe1.


%d bloggers like this: