whether this institution serves the purposes that it was intended to serve. and i think we ve reached with this resolution a new point in all of this. you have, conservative internationalists like lindsey graham questioning whether the united nations really serves much purpose anymore. whether the united nations, whether the u.s. should be providing funding to the united nations? that s a new moment i think in this whole debate over the united nations and what it does. eric: kofi annan even said they have too often failed in their expectations and have just been discussing issues that are of no interest beyond the building. in the book finally i wrote, the problem they let everybody in. 192 nations, many of them as you rightfully pointed out, oppose the values upon what it was founded. steve hayes, great to see you. thank you for your insight. thanks, eric. eric: of course. patti ann? patti ann: postholiday shoppers
non-ints vengsists like donald trump sounds like he will be. along with conservative internationalists who have had it with the united nations. you look back at the history of the united nations, it s a history of presiding over genocides, accommodating authoritarians, excusing dictators. think back to the oil for food scandal. coffee anone went into that and said we can do business with saddam hussein. they did do business with husse hussein. this is what the united nations has become. its obsession with israel is emblem attic of a broader misplace of its priorities. to that point, ted cruz tweeted on christmas eve, quote, spoke with israeli prime minister netanyahu tonight to wish him happy hanukkah. no u.s. dollars for u.n. until reverse. what do you make of that? what kind of a movement do you see building in congress or in a new trump administration to pull money from the united nation snz. most americans are not aware
it s funny. the guy that used to be the maverick is now the establishment. i remember when you were the maverick. i m old enough to remember. there you go. but i have a cordial relationship with him. he does come to a number of hearings. there s no reason for me to have any personal disagreement with him. do you have a better relationship with president obama than you do ted cruz? oh, no. no, no. i have a good relationship with ted cruz. it s just that we have stron disagreements. that s all. there s a lot of people i disagree with. over the many years, chuck, i ve grown to be able to have disagreements with people without having personal enmity. there does seem as if there s a larger debate happening in your party. yes. there s a group of you who i would call internationalists, overall your pro trade, you believe america s a superpower and they need to provide
redistributing the wealth and any foot soldiers who get out of line, a lot of discipline. republicans, i mean we say this, you say that we believe in free speech. you have internationalists, interventionalists. republicans believe in free thinking. not free stuff. but there s no unity on that side. what s wrong with adding context. at least asking for context, these two people are targeted by change.org to be fired. it was worse than that i got to tell you something, i said to me the most shocking part is that if you go to change.org to this petition, not only if you, so if you say yes, i want to sign this petition. then change.org says so make a contribution to change.org. they re trying to raise money off of this. it s for profit. my feeling is that part of the petition also speaks to race. that it says we don t want black commentators on the air who don t represent the wide consensus of black opinion. in other words, they re
field. you had people like bobby jindal weighing in with harsh rhetoric. rick santorum of course building on criticism from chris christie that s unfolded this week and last. you know, this is an intensifying critique from around paul. the presidential candidate in iowa today. we have the pjs hitting the the wall street journal hitting the senator. the headline is rand paul created isis. it begins, okay, our headline goes too far. the claim is it as plausible as rand paul s outburst that republican internationalists like lindsay graham and john mccain are responsible for the rise of the islamic state. and then it goes on to later say an aide might want to remind senator paul which party s nomination he is seeking. a lot would say st. paul an isolationist who doesn t want to enter into these issues. how will it course correct rand paul in his approach to the white house? it s an interesting question and interesting balancing act