UN Determined to Destroy America’s Second Amendment
The United Nations declared the week of May 10-16 to be the “Global Week of Action against Gun Violence.”
According to the UN, guns destroy personal freedom:
Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety, and a vested interest in providing human security and an environment conducive to development to their citizens. However, the excessive accumulation and universal availability of small arms negatively impact on security, human rights and social and economic development in many parts of the world.
The UN seeks a “comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”
Last October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared the Obama administration’s support for the United Nations plan to regulate “convention arms transfers.” Brady-endorsed Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D, CA-10) was chosen as under secretary for arms control and international security in the State Department.
Fortunately, sufficient data exists among UN non-governmental organizations to determine if civilian firearms ownership will “negatively impact on security, human rights and social and economic development.”
The Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland, publishes an annual report entitled “Small Arms Survey.” This organization doesn’t support civilian firearms ownership. Its mission page illustrates its agreement with the UN’s goals:
The proliferation of small arms and light weapons represents a grave threat to human security. The unchecked spread of these weapons has exacerbated inter- and intra-state conflicts, contributed to human rights violations, undermined political and economic development, destabilized communities, and devastated the lives of millions of people.
The 2003-2005 and 2007 editions of “Small Arms Survey” contain estimates of civilian firearms ownership rates in 59 surveyed countries.
Freedom House, founded in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt and others “concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy,” is a leading international advocate for personal liberty. Their annual report, “Freedom in the World,” rates each country’s level of individual political rights and civil liberties, defined as follows:
Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in legitimate elections, compete for public office, join political parties and organizations, and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate. Civil liberties allow for the freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state.
Freedom House rates countries on a scale of 1 to 7 for each category, with 1 equating with the most rights. Countries are “Free” if they attain an average score of 1 to 2.5 (for both political and civil rights). Countries averaging between 2.5 and 5 are “Partly Free;” countries over 5 are “Not Free.”
The chart below collates countries’ average political and civil rights ratings with their level of civilian firearms ownership. The overall trend line shows the general correlation between firearms ownership and freedom. As civilian firearms ownership increases, freedom ratings decrease: more guns, more political and civil rights.
According to UN rhetoric, as firearms ownership increases, people should be less free: the trend line should slope up as it travels from left to right.
The Heritage Foundation is America’s “most broadly supported public policy research institute,” promoting “public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”
Each year, the Heritage Foundation publishes the “Economic Freedom Index,” which analyzes ten economic variables for each country. The Heritage Foundation defines economic freedom as:
[I]ndividuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, and that freedom is both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state.
The Heritage Foundation rates countries by the following grading scale: Economically “Free” countries have an overall score of 80-100; “Mostly Free” between 70 and 79.9; “Moderately Free” between 60 and 69.9, “Mostly Unfree” between 50 and 59.9; and economically “Repressed” countries average an overall score under 50.
The Heritage Foundation explains the difference between economic freedom and repression:
All government action involves coercion. Some minimal coercion is necessary for the citizens of a community or nation to defend themselves, promote the evolution of civil society, and enjoy the fruits of their labor…
When government coercion rises beyond the minimal level, however, it becomes corrosive to freedom—and the first freedom affected is economic freedom.
The chart below collates countries’ economic freedom with civilian firearms ownership. The overall trend line shows that as civilians firearms ownership increases, people have more economic freedom: more guns, more prosperity.
According to the UN, “excessive accumulation and universal availability of small arms negatively impact … economic development.”
Transparency International is a “politically non-partisan” global organization “leading the fight against corruption.” They publish an annual report entitled “Corruption Perceptions Index,” which evaluates “the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians.”
The index “defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain.” The ideal government would score a 10: organized government corruption doesn’t exist; there’s no manipulation of political and economic processes for personal gain by bureaucrats or their families and associates.
The chart below collates countries’ corruption indices with civilian firearms ownership. The overall trend line shows that as civilians firearms ownership increases, governments are less corrupt: more guns, better-behaved government.
In the face of such facts, the UN’s agenda becomes obvious: By disarming civilians, governments will have free reign to abuse public office for private gain. Moreover, people won’t be able to do anything about it, because civilian disarmament also correlates with reduced political and civil rights. Disarmament also correlates with reduced economic freedom.
When added together, the result is feudalism, which historically is the most common socio-economic system, where the elite few control the vast majority of arms, power, and resources.
In case you think our Second Amendment will protect you, consider Obama’s perspective regarding our unique right to liberty as you watch him bow to the Saudi king and China’s president.
Instead of bowing to the UN’s global aspirations, we should share our hard-earned lessons of liberty with the rest of the world.
(The UN plans to take the next step on their arms treaty at the meeting planned for July 12-23, 2010.)
For more in-depth analysis of this topic, see “Is There a Relationship between Guns and Freedom? Comparative Results from 59 Nations,” co-authored with Professors David B. Kopel and Carl Moody.
This is a much-needed reminder. The UN has never been friendly toward the right to keep and bear arms — it’s an organization composed of governments, after all — and now that it’s wholly in the control of tyrants and Islamic fanatics, we can only expect that tendency to intensify.
Concerning the inclinations of tyrants, it’s also well to remember that the “champion” tyrannies of our recent past have made the elimination of private firearms ownership one of their first undertakings. Only the State may have guns! What’s followed has never been pleasant. If America should fall into that snare, especially under its current administration, we will suffer as no people has ever suffered before, because we have so far to fall and so much to lose.
Keep a good grip on your right to be armed, friends. It ain’t just for hunting. If you let it go, you’ll never, ever get it back.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace, and keep your powder dry!
Francis W. Porretto
The only “freedom” the UN has ever been interested in, is the freedom of those who think they have a right to rule over everyone else, to do whatever they want.
This is true. Look at the actions the “peace-” keeping forces take against the unarmed victims they are “protecting…” Food for sex, even (or especially) with underage girls, human trafficking (again with emphasis on children for sex) and more mundane things like smuggling or about every form of evil known to mankind… so disarming ALL private individuals WOULD be high on their agenda, just so the troops can have their recreation!
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
Benjamin Franklin
I have no objection to the tenor of this quotation, but Franklin is quoted often, and often mistakenly. There is no evidence he ever wrote or said this.
Yes, I know – but its such a fine quote, and it looks even better with his name attached – rather than anonymous (yech).
Indeed it is a fine quote. Nevertheless, lying for liberty still makes one a liar.. Is that how you wish to be viewed by others? Is that how you wish our quest for liberty to be viewed by others? Now you have given the “progressives” a quote yourself, a presumed conservative, showing that you know the information you provided was false yet you chose to use it anyhow. Dishonesty from “our team”, heaped upon the dishonesty about us provided by the socialists, helps them to prevail over freedom and personal liberty. Think about it.. Perhaps honesty is better than cutesy.?
The UN, as usual, has got to be kidding. This whole proposal is such a waste of time. Unfortunately, it’s what the UN does best, waste time. I dare you, I double dare anyone at the UN, to go to a country like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Chad, and about fifty other countries and tell them that you are going to regulate the amount of guns going into their countries. Go ahead, I DARE you. After those people stop laughing at you, they’re still going to do whatever they want to do, which is carry as many weapons as they can afford.
Don’t you think it’s odd that the UN always tries to target laws against stable nations, and never, ever, against lawless or unstable nations? Why do you think that is? Because they know they can’t enforce laws in unstable nations, let alone convince those people to give up their guns. As usual, the UN thinks it can impose its will on stable, successful, nations and then claim succeess when they do so. But the successful nations are NOT the problem, it’s the failed states with the lawless regimes that cause the bulk of the problems in this world. But you’ll never get the UN to admit that, let alone scold the very Third-World nations that use guns not only to influence their own governments, but also to export terror to neighboring states. Just another example of what a waste of time the UN is. The only thing worse than this is the idea that our tax dollars are subsidizing this horrifically inept organization.
The problem wouldn’t be so bad if the UN were merely inept.
The problem is that the UN is thoroughly corrupt. From top to bottom. With it’s current structure, it can’t be saved, only abandoned.
This is nothing new- there is plenty of evidence out there that shows the corelation between gun ownership and personal freedom. All dictators have been for gun control ( Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc), and the UN slides tight in with them.With the “o” and company in power (for now) we must be more active and aggressive than ever at protecting our 2nd Amendment rights.I look for him to try some sort of shenigans in the future( maybe Nov.?) ,and we may be forced to act. . . .we will see. Meanwhile, stock up on those precious metals. . . .
Hey Rick…another from greenville here!
By banning guns, the UN may indeed limit the severity of a few conflicts. But, firearm restrictions will open up a far larger problem of oppression. The English Whigs, of which the Founders are derived, saw three sources of tyranny: the street thug, foreign invasions, one’s government. Historically, the last has been far and away the most deadly. That’s why we had the Second amendment – secure the citizenry’s right to revolt. 150 million people in the 20th century were killed by their own government. The Whigs feared centralized political authority for this very reason as over two thousand years of human history says as much. The UN, and other socialists, obviously feel that human history and logic can be overcome by good intentions. One: question: with governments and international organizations in control, who controls them? Who watches the watch dog?
No, trying to ban guns will not reduce violent conflicts. Rebels can always find some government willing to sell them weapons, and that’s assuming some hostile gov’t is not behind the violence to start with.
Limiting firearms this way once again makes war a “Game of Princes”. Read “Plough, Sword, and Book”. Heavy going, but it does lay out why gov’ts have developed as they have. We are as free as we are because our ancestors were always able to move West, away from those who wished to use the powers of the state to control the public. We started losing that freedome when we ran out of “West”.
The UN,…” You’ll not find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany”.
Nah, the Capitol wins that dubious distinction!
Other than counting the bodies after an atrocity has been committed, what is the UN good for?
They do a pretty good job of comforting the perpetrators of such atrocities.
Are they good for that much?
Their performance in Iraq indicates that the UN’s abilities to count dead bodies are greatly exagerated. As are the counts that they generate.
Calling for a mutli-national conference to investigate the atrocity and assign blame at some time in the future.
Raping girls in Africa and looting hundreds of billions in the Food for Oil scam along with giving shelter to terrorists and wasting aid money in Haiti.
I expect the Obama Administration to “get behind” this UN initiative, as they will see it as a way to do an end run around the SCOTUS decision in Heller. Their logic being, “It doesn’t matter what the U.S. Constitution says, we must obey UN mandates”.
Never mind that UN mandates are routinely applied only to those countries where there is enough of a government, run by politicians of a patrician bent, that there is a chance they will be applied as the UN’s leadership desires.
Meanwhile, China will still be selling fully-automatic AKMs to anybody in the Third World who wants them and has the liquid assets to pay up front. (Just no conflict diamonds, please- or at least not ones you don’t have adequate false documentation for.)
clear ether
eon
Eon,
The ‘end-run’ around our Constitution was already initiated from within SCOTUS. I believe that it was Breyer that advocated using international law as additional instruments to interpret Constitutionality. I believe that the evolving constitutionalists will set the stage for some kind of ‘reconciliation’ of our laws with international laws, and huge chunks of our Constitution are just too outdated to be applicable in the modern world.
Where do we think Ms. Kagan sides on this? Do we think that the ‘wise Latina’ will balk at changing our founding documument in light of international norms of jurisprudence? I hate that Republican Senators refuse to fight to prevent saboteurs from joining the Court, and weakening us from within.
Is this the same UN that just placed Iran on the Council for Womens Rights? Without objection from the US delegation? Not a peep from the Obama team while Iranian women are brutalized by I’manutjob on a daily basis! Earlier Presidents would have vehemently objected what this President embraces. We voted for what was far from the truth.
Sorry, but we don’t need false quotes from the founders to support our position on the ownership and carry of the tools of political and moral power – aka weapons. Every time a gunnie doesn’t do their homework and check their quotes, it makes us look stupid. Quaint, but stupid nonetheless.
Kick the UN out of NYC–the money we save can be used to fund NYC’s security from Islamic Terrorists! Simple, right?
Considering that the UN is controlled by oligarchs, absolute monarchies and tyrants, is it really surprising that they want to deprive people of their guns. The first thing dictators do is disarm the population, that way they can be controlled. Considering the UN has destroyed Africa, continued human trafficking and allowed the continuatin of “boy soldiers” they have no right to foster rights deprivation on the rest of the world. I am not surprised that Obama thinks this is a good idea. He is also considering revoking posse comitatis when there is a major national disaster. They even have a special military unit training for that eventuality. Can you see American military taking over your streets? That is where Obama is headed, and he thinks he can use the UN as his mandate.
Whenever the UN talks about “human rights,” keep in mind that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has an opt-out clause in Article 29.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Scroll down to Article 29 and look. The UN isn’t being hypocritical; it’s acting the way you’d expect it to.
In case you think our Second Amendment will protect you, consider Obama’s perspective regarding our unique right to liberty as you watch him bow to the Saudi king and China’s president.
What a steaming load of panty wetting. What protects us isn’t the 2nd amendment, but knowledge. Firearms have been around for centuries. Anyone with motivation and a handful of tools can create firearms. The left could ban gun ownership and all guns could magically disappear on monday morning, and by friday the people who wanted guns would have them anyway.
Liberty is all about willpower and brains, not hardware.
Good luck in getting that brainpower to stop a slug.
Not too bright, G.L. Firearms making involves more than just a handful of tools. It’s a rather complex, capital-intensive industry. At least, I wouldn’t want a Zip gun as a replacement for my AR-15 or my M1911A. Then there’s ammo making, another complex and capital-intensive industry. If the gun manufacturers were banned from selling to private individuals, you could bet your bottom dollar that the ammo makers would be under similar restrictions.
But that’s not the reason for your comment, is it? You want us to relax, not to be so paranoid. Which is exactly the sort of attitude toward an initiative like the UN’s and an administration like Obama’s that gets you caught with your pants down.
Weaponry is the only true bastion of freedom. Man has only those rights he can defend. Which means that to surrender our last means of defense against an overweening State would surrender our rights as well. As we mathematical types like to say, quod erat demonstrandum.
Actually, there are thousands of machine shops out there that can make firearms. And probably tens of thousands of guys who can make one in their garage. It isn’t as hard as you think, nor does it require as much equipment as you’d think.
Mr. Alston: Sorry you were that upset by my sentence. In my long years of researching and talking to people, I have found that many allegedly pro-rights people do indeed think that the Bill of Rights will protect them without their needing to be politically active. My conclusion is that our biggest enemy to future Liberty is not the anti-rights proponents, but those allegedly in our camp who expect somebody else to do the dirty work, while they sit around and polish their hardware, and argue about whether the 1911 design is superior to the new striker technology.
And many DO start spewing “The Second Amendment…” verbiage as if saying those three words is some sort of magic talisman to protect their gun rights, and as if somebody who doesn’t understand their rhetoric is stupid beyond words. That doesn’t help us in recruiting new support.
Perhaps if it pisses you off that much, you could instead focus your energy on talking to one new person today. Explain to them why my research shows the truth about the UN. If you could get one more person to drop support of the UN, that would be a victory.
This is why I write: To convince new people to support Liberty.
In the future, if you want to make a cogent point, falling off-topic with your “steaming load of panty wetting” only makes you look bad. I am sure you can do better.
‘The Right to own weapons is the Right to be Free.’ A. E. Van Vogt
‘A ballot that is not secured by Arms is a worthless piece of paper.’ R.A. Heinlein
The UN is and has been a den of thieves for a few decades now and a facilitator of genocide. Their goal in removing the “horrible” personal firearm is to make it even easier to steal more and kill more. The same goal as their global warming agenda.
The only valid argument for keeping the UN in the USA was “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. Now that argument isn’t valid any more because it is crystal clear that the UN is the enemy of all freedom loving mankind and can never be anything else. The UN could hardly be more corrupt, being infested with demon spawn and all of the haters of freedom and liberty, of course they want our guns. The UN should now be on the enemy combatant list and should be banned from the USA altogether. The problem: the current White House adminstration has the same agenda as the UN if you lisen to what they say and watch what they do. The answer? Vote the dopes out and replace them with freedom loving Americans who are committed to the truth. Shut down the UN.
UN Determined to Destroy America
’s Second AmendmentThat’s all you needed.
An organization largely dominated by nations governed by dictators and authoritarian regimes supports disarming the populace and gun control in general.
Why do I not find this surprising?
Several have eluded to what I said about kicking them out–apparently we need a conservative president not at all interested in being re-elected and willing to “do the right things”. Like kicking out the UN, like cutting the appendages off the EPA, etc etc. A national Chris Christy is what I’m thinking.
This just is another confirmation of why I dislike (polite word) so much. They are a waste of my tax dollars. Their membership is so anti-America. And their building is taking up valuable real estate that I am sure that we could find a better use for. Please relocate the UN to a place where they can do the least amount of harm…like Zimbabwe.
Imagine, the UN wants to confiscate civilian firearms, just like every fascist and communist government has already done. If they come for my guns, they will get to see what I think of their collectivist claptrap. I am already way past being fed up with the UN. GET THE UNITED NATIONS DEBATE SOCIETY OUT OF THE UNITED STATES.
The US out of the UN.
The UN out of the US.
We learn about checks and balances in grade school, but the one that is often missed is the check that guns in the hands of members of individual States provide on the power of a Federal military. Every State was expected to be able to fend for itself, and only as needed folded into a central military, which was not intended to be standing.
In this model, all adult men are theoretically responsible for the defense of them and theirs, and by extension the community as a whole. This makes perfect logical, political, and moral sense. To achieve this end, guns are needed. That is why the right is not to be infringed.
We need to be very clear about the legal status of the UN. We are not bound to adhere to ANY of their rules. To claim otherwise is to deny the national sovereignty of the United States, which is, in my view, treasonous. It is categorically the OPPOSITE of the defense of the Constitution which our Commander-in-chief swore to defend.
Ask the u.n. how the Iranians like thier personal freedom.
The UN seeks a “comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms….Hillary Clinton…Obama administration’s support for the United Nations plan to regulate “convention arms transfers.
That’s a riot, since no one on the planet is capable of regulating arms transfers, small or large, “conventional” or otherwise.
Maybe “the UN” should focus more on getting rid of its own Blue Helmeted rapists.
Or getting rid of some some of the crooks and criminals sitting on its sundry commissions, like “human rights”.
Maybe the organization could divest itself of its current mentally challenged leader, Ban Ki Moon. (Well, it never divested itself of its corrupt former Secretary General, Kofi Annan, throughout his long, painful 7 year tenure)
That crowd needs to lose its 22+% US funded budget, lose its building at “Turtle Bay” and be sent off to Antarctica, in chains.
According to UN rhetoric, as firearms ownership increases, people should be less free: the trend line should slope up as it travels from left to right.
Don’t count on the idiotlogues, agendists and transnationalists at the UN every responding to logic or fact in concocting their schemes devoted to the evolution of world governance.
I’m reminded of the rash of school killings China is experiencing right now. They aren’t gun crimes, just belligerent guys with meat cleavers and hammers. Even the cops don’t have guns their; they’re training them to “pin down attackers with long forks.” The fork of horripilation?
Where I came from, it’d be the sheriff with a shotgun, not some dude with a fork.
I recently saw a bumper sticker that would’ve made Charlton Heston envious:
“If they take my gun it’ll be HOT and EMPTY”
Our new Scotus can shred gun ownership by a “flexible” interpretation of 2nd amendment and I am sure Obama Admin will try it- they can say only MILITIAS, (Obama-Janet approved ones) can have weapons- all dictators and wannabes, commie societies– took guns away from populations- and it worked– as someone mentioned here to very deadly results.
We do have to be vigilant with these Muslim sympathizers, white haters and communists in charge of our nation
I forgot to express my utter disgust at the present UN- though mostof yo covered the topic adequately- the Obama admin rescinded GWB stand on signing agreements that override our laws- in fact OBAMA willingly sponsored to effort to squash speech- making it an international crime to criticize ISLAM- worse than just signing onto it- he co-sponsored it’s passage with EGYPT- of cours ethis bill was passed under guise that any religion should not be “disrespected” but if he were serious and not a Muslim lover he would have made sure every ISLAMIC nation was prosecuted for denigrating all other faiths in their media dn forums- I HAVE NO DOUBTS this man despises Americans and is pro ARAB
“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once”.
JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI
MOLON LABE!
The UN agenda should read,” As small arms increase to lawful Americans, the threat to global Marxism increases.”
BZO, or Die!
Great article.
Francis W Porretto:”Not too bright, G.L. Firearms making involves more than just a handful of tools. It’s a rather complex, capital-intensive industry. At least, I wouldn’t want a Zip gun as a replacement for my AR-15 or my M1911A.”
Alston is half right.you can churn out acceptable basic weapons pretty easily if you have the equipment and there is enough reloading supplies floating around to keep ammo available.
It really doesn’t matter anyway… even if the government some how disarmed the population of hundreds of millions of guns and the billions of rounds-we would immediately see a staggering flow of illicit weapons.
The US has been arming the world for decades,they would gladly return the favor if given the chance.
Only a fool listens to the SMERFS!!!
Count me in with those who think the U.N. has negative value. We never should have been in it…and we ought to withdraw from it now.
And, I’ll own any weapons I choose, regardless of what the people in the U.N. want.
If push comes to shove, handguns will be made clandestinely. With the “democritazation” and proliferation of affordable manufacturing design technology going on these days, coupled with all the gunsmiths, all sorts of small outfits wil be able to manufacture excellent quality contraband guns in small batches at a reasonable price.
Insuring a matching supply of ammunition could be more problematic, but can be solved through theft, corruption and bribery — through both theft of manufactured ammunition, and of the raw materials needed to make bullets. If the UN wants to fully criminalize handgun ownership, they may get their wish and live (briefly) to regret it.
It’s not so much the ability to manufacture clandestine firearms….
The reality is privately owned firearms are limited by the supply of ammo.
It is necessary to be able to use captured ammo–hence only the need to initially capture both weapon and ammo.
The PRC policy of unarmed Police is for many reasons:
1) Lack of resources to arm the Police….once perhaps but not currently…except for reasons of economy.
2) Distrust of the police….likely a major factor.
3) The realisation that Police weapons can be commandeered—likely a major
factor.
All represive governments and regimes, are notoriously paranoid of over-throw.
The forces deployed by the PRC to Tienamin were from far out of town….paranoia…distrust of local forces.
The Soviet use of non-northern originating troops, such as Ukrainians, in the Russo-Finnish “Winter War”
Then there was the Soviet use of strictly ethnic Russians in Afghanistan…distrust of their other ethnic groups….
Then there is the old saw…
“An Irishman always keeps a pike concealed in the thatch.”
Without our second Amendment all the others mean nothing !!
Indeed, the reason the first two Amendments were listed first is that the rights secured by the First are the most fundamental to liberty, without which, claiming that freedom exists is a lie, and the rights secured by the Second guarantee the right and means to defend those secured by the First.
I believe it was Jefferson who said, “The great thing about the Second Amendment is that we don’t need it until someone tries to take it away.”
“UN Determined to Destroy America’s Second Amendment”
Over my moldy, decomposed, everyone-else-in-my-family-along-with-me, cold, hard, DEAD BODY.
Not kidding, here.
Ready to stand up to anyone, even National Guard. (And, let’s face it. National Guardsmen are the biggest pro-2nd Amendment citizens in the nation. So … ha, ha.)
Biggest mistake leftists made was to jettison gun rights. (You’ll be sorrr-eeee …. *grin*)
That is JUST FINE with me.
The UN , to repete the obvious, is corrupt and selfserving. Many of the menbers do not have the right to vote in their own countries and are participants in suppressive gun owning governments. The only chance they have to vote is in the UN. The UN is a smoke screen for its own advancement to “community Organize” the world. When Obama is out of office after his first term he will likely be high on the list for the top UN post (his next best chance to be world emperor). Obama is surrounded by security with guns to protect his safety and righs, as are many others in congress. Yet the rest of us must patiently wait for the police to show up after the crime has succeeded. NOTE: Acquire your Concealed Carry Permit, appropriate firearm, training, and take responsibility for the safety of yourself and your family. The only time guns need to be removed are from criminals – not from law abiding citizens. The UN and anti gun rights fanatics make the assumption that if you have a gun you therefore must be a criminal. In other words if you are not in the elete political class you do not deserve the right to protect self and family. Wake UP ! Gun rights keep us free and safe. Politicians and the UN feel threatened by the freedom of the masses. They advocate ” Trust us- let us take control of your life cradle to grave” Wake UP
Here is an idea, and I believe it is something the Tea Party could run with and do multiple good for the US. Currently, the US pledges .7% of GNI (Gross National Income) which in 2008 was $8,847,000 in millions of dollars. We actually provided .35% of GNI which was still over $3.6 trillion dollars, which makes our country by far the #1 contributor to the UN.
Now, if a national referendum were called and put to a national vote in 2012, what do you think the public would vote for if:
1) We used the funds originally slated for the UN instead to pay for the medical expenses of every US citizen as last noted by the US Census that as a nation we spend $2.2 trillion a year.
The following benefits would occur rapidly:
A) Businesses would become more competitive globally and profitable
B) People would no longer be spending $4k-$20k a year on health insurance
C) No new taxes needed
D) Those uninsured would be fully covered
E) A stimulus to the economy that far exceeded the BS that was put forward by the politicians in 2009
F) A healthy economy then would result in an increase in tax revenues, more than making up for that deficit to the UN which frankly should be reviewed anyway as far too many of those nations are not our friends and efforts that are truly warranted would receive the needed funds.
G) The party that did this, would be hero’s in the publics eye for how long and carry how much political clout?
H) Last but not least, this would be a fantastic reminder to the UN just who they are screwing with.
Nice thought, but the savings won’t be enough to do all that. We should still defund the UN, but we wouldn’t save enough to pay for Obamacare.
I don’t own a gun; but now that the UN wants to butt into our business, I think I may just go buy one.
The UN wants to get rid of the guns because armed citizens interfere with their being able to control the world.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
“Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety, and a vested interest in providing human security and an environment conducive to development to their citizens.”
Yeah, right. That’s rich coming from an organization that was more than happy to have folks like Joe Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al as voting members.
Donnez-moi une break.
The U.N. has ALWAYS had the same policy re governments: go ahead and brutalize your people, murder millions…as long as you pay your dues.
UN-AMERICANS FIGHT FRANKLIN GRAHAM !
What kind of wine has Mikey Weinstein been drinking?
As an anti-Christian Jewish supremacist and as the president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, he’s doing all he can to create an anti-Jewish backlash and help bring about the predicted endtime Holocaust of Jews that’ll be worse than Hitler’s.
Neither Falwell, Hagee nor any other Christian initiated this prediction. But Weinstein’s ancient Hebrew prophets did.
In the 13th and 14th chapters of his Old Testament book, Zechariah predicted that after Israel’s rebirth ALL nations will eventually be against Israel and that TWO-THIRDS of all Jews will be killed!
Malachi revealed the reasons: “Judah hath dealt treacherously” and “the Lord will cut off the man that doeth this.”
Haven’t evangelicals generally been the best friends of Israel and persons perceived to be Jewish? Then please explain the hate-filled back-stabbing by David Letterman (and Sandra Bernhard, Larry David, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Sarah Silverman etc.) against followers of Jesus such as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.
Weinstein wouldn’t dare assert that citizens on government property don’t have freedom of speech or press freedom or freedom to assemble or to petition the government.
But God-hater Weinstein maliciously wants to eliminate from government property the “free exercise” of religion – especially by evangelicals – a freedom found in the same First Amendment. Significantly, this freedom was purposely listed FIRST by America’s founders! (Not-so-subtle Weinstein has even authored a book which has “One Man’s War Against an Evangelical Coup” in its title!)
And Weinstein wouldn’t try to foist “separation of church and state” on strongly-Jewish Israel, but he does try to foist this non-Constitution-mentioned phrase on strongly-Christian America.
In light of Weinstein’s Jewish protectionism and violently anti-Christian obsession, Christians in these endtimes should be reminded of Jesus’ warning in Mark 13:9 (see also Luke 21:12) that “in the synagogues ye shall be beaten.”
Maybe it’s time for some modern Paul Reveres to saddle up and shout “The Yiddish are Coming!”
PS – Some, like Weinstein, are so treacherously anti-Christian they will even join hands at times with enemies, including Muslims, in order to silence evangelicals. It was Weinstein, BTW, who put pressure on the Pentagon to dis-invite Franklin Graham from speaking there on the National Day of Prayer!
PPS – Weinstein is an echo of the anti-Christian, anti-American Hollywood which for a century has dangled every known vice before young people. We seriously wonder how soon the lethal worldwide “flood of filth” (global harming!) that Hollywood has created will engulf and destroy itself and help to bring to power the endtime Antichrist (a.k.a. the Man of Sin and the Wicked One)!
Oh wow, that first graph’s trend line…. I think my stats prof would BLUSH if he saw that. absolutely brutal.