Here's Some Old News That Is Re-Emerging...

This was published about 2 years ago, but the issue remains open today - same requester, same amount, same Western nations targeted:

UN asks: How can we extract payment of $100 Billion a year from westerners to redistribute to other countries?

The Manchester (England) Guardian newspaper reports that Larry Summers, President Obama's chief economics adviser, George Soros, the hedge fund trader, Lord Stern, the economist, and others have met in London at the request of Ban Ki-moon to discuss ways in which $100 billion dollars a year could be raised from the citizens of western countries and redistributed to Africa, South and Central America and other poorer areas

QUOTE -

--------------------------------------…
"the world's top financiers have been told to work out how to raise at least $100bn a year for the rest of this decade, cash that will be used to help the world's poorest countries adapt to climate change.

"The prices we pay for our goods do not reflect one key cost: the damage that their production does to the planet's climate system," said Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the LSE. "We need to find ways to extract payment from those who cause that damage and then use that money to fund developing nations so that they can protect themselves from the worst effects of global warming."

"The Trillion Dollar Question" The Guardian. Available online at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…
--------------------------------------…

To use their terminology for a moment, as we "Western nations" are "the ones causing the damage", how do you think the UN could best "extract payment" from us in the west to give to other countries?
Please keep in mind that it's only $100 Billion dollars PER YEAR, for at least a decade... so where will the money come from? Numerically speaking, we're talking about $100,000,000,000. That's a number that very few people can relate to, and I'm one of the majority who cannot. It boggles the mind! How does one quantify and visualize a number containing 12 digits? It has been estimated that there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy - the Milky Way - but we can't see them all simultaneously. Besides, how many lifetimes would it take to count them?

Consider first of all, that the United Nations consists of 192 nations, most of which are communist, socialist, and/or dictatorships... which goes a long way toward explaining their failure to thrive. "Western Nations" - also known as "First World Nations" - are comprised, at the most, of only 25 countries (I say "at the most" because there is yet some discussion over exactly what qualifications a "Western Nation" must exhibit). The majority of those 25 nations are made up of Western European countries, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Assuming this "global warming debt" is apportioned equally, the cost per nation, per year, is $4,000,000,000 - that's 4 Billion USD per Western Nation. If, however, only the top ten industrialized nations are expected to foot the bill for the UN, that expense increases to $10,000,000,000 (10 Billion USD) per Western Nation.

The first question that comes to my mind is; Who objectively says there is such a thing as man-made global warming? Larry Summers, George Soros, and Lord Stern are all notorious left-wingers! Who were the "others"? Where is the balance in this meeting?
My second question is; Where does the U.N. get its authority to determine who must pay for this man-made non-problem?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT - NEAR AND DEAR!

Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States of America states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


The Second Amendment is near and dear to my heart. I fired my first rifle 60 years ago, under the supervision of my grandfather and an uncle, and bought my first pistol at the age of 17. Since that time I have owned, at one time or another, in excess of 75 assorted rifles and pistols - none of which have ever been used in the commission of a crime. As much enjoyment as I have gotten from the shooting sports, and, being as enthusiastic a supporter of "The Second" as I am, I have dedicated relatively little space in my blog to that powerful portion of the most powerful document on the planet - our Constitution. Nine entries, in which The Second was mentioned in some fashion, out of two hundred seventy postings. I prefer not to work it to death, and try not to be a one-issue blog, but... if I were only allowed a single issue I might well have chosen The Second.

Let's take it apart for a minute. What qualifies as "A militia"? According to the Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia a militia is a - "Military organization of citizens with limited military training who are available for emergency service, usually for local defense."
Black's Law Dictionary identifies a militia as - "A group of private citizens who train for military duty to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government."
The U.S. History Encyclopedia says a militia is - "a form of citizen-based defense that shaped early American history and created an American tradition of citizen soldiery." Further on the article states, "The militia emerged from the Revolution with its military reputation mixed but its symbolic importance enhanced immeasurably. Americans no longer viewed the militia solely as a practical necessity; instead, republican thought imbued the militia with an ideological role as a guarantor of liberty, particularly in opposition to standing armies."
A militia, therefore, is essentially an armed citizenry, ready to defend itself (and in our case our Constitution) against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The role of the "well regulated Militia" has, for the most part, been assigned to our National Guard by the government. But, by virtue of that government assignment and recognition, they no longer meet the technical definition of a "militia". Now that we're all on the same page, let us continue...

The militia was considered as "being necessary to the security of a free State". The individual State units of the National Guard could at least partially fill that role... IF THEY WERE IN THE UNITED STATES! But, even then, their numbers alone would be insufficient to successfully defend our country from an attack. With slightly less than 20,000 miles of combined coastline and north-south land boundaries, and approximately 400,000 combined Army and Air Guard personnel, that would be a dispersal of 20 per mile, or one Guardsman every 264 feet, with zero depth. (The Japanese chose not to invade the United States during WWII because they envisioned "there is a gun behind every blade of grass.")

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you are a native born, English-speaking American, you should have no difficulty understanding that phrase. It's really quite straightforward. We the People, have a God-given right to keep and bear arms so that we may maintain our other Constitutional rights and freedoms. The government cannot and does not give rights - the government can only grant permission. As human beings we are born with rights.

Who wishes to deny us the right defined by The Second? Most of the world - some from envy of that freedom, others from unfounded fear, and yet others who wish to see us subjugated as they are. The largest organized external attack on our Constitution comes from the United Nations. I invite you to watch this video that I borrowed from the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute (see link in left-hand column). It is enlightening...

The UN has been trying to negotiate an arms control treaty for decades, but past US administrations have never supported such flagrant attempts by the UN to interfere with our sovereignty or strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

However, the CURRENT administration has reversed the long standing position of the US and has publicly stated that it supports an arms control treaty.

Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty, the Senate would have to ratify it before it could become the law of the land. The Senate has the power to nullify it by refusing to ratify the treaty.

Should a treasonous administration sign an arms control treaty AND the Senate ratified the treaty, then the final check and balance to protect our liberty and sovereignty would lie in the hands of tens of millions of American gun owners.

The Second protects the other 26 Amendments... and all the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.

Obama Revives Talk of U.N. Gun Control - All Our Rights Are In Danger!

As you enter the U.N. Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel. This should give you an idea of how the U.N. views our 2nd Amendment Right.The United Nations is, as the name implies, a concentration of voting representatives of 192 nations of the world, and two non-voting "Observer States" - the Mission of the Holy See (Vatican City) and the Mission of Palestine (Terrorist City). Those states are "united" only inasmuch as they attend meetings in a single place. Even as this blog is being composed there is some discussion among the sovereign nations of the European Union not just to have a President of the EU, but to convert the EU into a single government state with a single president! (Front runners for this position are rumored to include Belgium's center-right Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and French President Nicolas [get 'em while they're young] Sarkozy.)

As most of us are aware, the United Nations makeup is primarily left-wing nations, dictatorships, and "enforced governments" (voting permitted, but ballots ignored in favor of the incumbent). We are also aware that our Constitution is what makes the U.S. unique among world governments... it GUARANTEES us certain rights that most of the people of the world do not enjoy. Among those rights is the Constitutional right - and power - to replace a non-responsive government that has forgotten the its people ARE its power.

We are NOT Europe, nor do we wish to imitate Europe. We ARE the United States of America. We do not need the United Nations, "International Law", or the "International Court" to dictate how we will run our country. We do not need the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29 to supercede our Constitutional rights -

Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Vaguely worded, legal mumbo-jumbo that can be interpreted in any fashion the dominant authority, which, in this case would be the United Nations (after Obama signs over ownership of We the People to the U.N.) desires. It's a "they win, we lose" situation, just waiting for an opportunity to manifest itself.

Obama's plan seems to be designed to destroy both our national and our individual economies, thereby making submission to a One World government more attractive to those who cannot see through the smoke, and are not misdirected by the mirrors. Our government has spent its way into a very large hole, which it made even deeper by borrowing money from our "good friends" in Communist China. Then Obama has more US currency printed and minted, thereby further devaluing it, and reducing our personal buying power. From March to September 2009, the dollar's value fell 14.9% against the Euro. How did this happen? The dollar is declining for the following reasons:

1. The U.S. debt has risen to over $12 trillion. Foreign investors are concerned that the U.S. will let the dollar decline so the relative value of its debt is less.
2. The large debt could force the U.S. to raise taxes to pay it off, which would slow economic growth.
3. As more countries join or trade with the EU, demand for the euro will increase.
4. Foreign investors may want to diversify their portfolios with more non-dollar denominated assets.
5. As the dollar continues its decline, investors will be less likely to hold assets in dollars as they wait for the decline to stop.

The government is fully aware that this path to destruction will not rest well with "We the People". And, much to the chagrin of that same government, it realizes that it cannot just rescind the 2nd Amendment without a firestorm of response. What's the politically correct, high-deniability, cowards way out? Be able to blame it on somebody else - like the United Nations - by way of "treaty"or "agreement". To me, that doesn't seem like a really feasible way to avoid that firestorm... does it to you? But then, I'm not a politician... I just "call it like I see it"- not how somebody else thinks it should be. If any of these things happen we need to...

UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

Although it sounds like an ideal worth supporting, the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" becomes a bit disconcerting as you approach the end (29/30) of it:

Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Doesn't the sub-paragraph that I have highlighted make you a bit uneasy? Essentially it is saying that you can do almost anything - so long as it is not at odds with what the U.N. says you may do! It seems that the U.N. gives with one hand... while simultaneously taking away with the other.

The implied possibilities are far reaching simply because they are so vague. The one that seems most obvious to me is that one would be in "violation" of this edict if one spoke out against the plans and desires of the U.N. The entire document sounds unsurpisingly socialistic and totalitarian to me.

For those few of you who may be interested, the entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights is viewable at (copy-n-paste): http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

It's an interesting document to read, even though it is reminiscent of Fritz Lang's disturbing and depressing 1927 film "Metropolis".

It's possible I could be misinterpreting the entire thing... but I doubt that. The purpose of politics is control - and the purpose of international politics is total and universal control.

Somali Pirates - Part II

The Somali Pirates are not a baseball team... they aren't even a romanticized version of swashbuckling seamen on deck beneath billowing sails... but rather, they are thieves and thugs! Their successes should be an embarrassment to the shipping countries of the entire world, and to the naval forces of those countries patrolling the shipping lanes of the Indian Ocean.

The gravity of the situation was compounded by the thugs' use of the Maersk Alabama's Captain as a bargaining chip for both financial reward and freedom. There are several problems arising from this single act of piracy:

1. Piracy itself is a violation of the United Nations Maritime Law (International Maritime Law) which was signed by 150 nations.

2. Merchant vessels are currently prohibited from arming themselves, which makes them relatively easy targets for the Somali sea thieves.

3. Although 150 nations signed the UN's Maritime Law in 1982, there are only about a dozen countries providing naval patrols along the shipping routes. Another fine example of the effectiveness of the United Nations. This extremely limited response should be a major embarrassment to the United Nations.

4. Four Somali thieves - with a hostage in a lifeboat - are holding a ship of the line from the United States Navy at bay, while the thugs try to negotiate their way out of the problem they have created for themselves. This must be an embarrassment for the US Navy, if not for your doesn't-have-a-clue President! There are a couple of ways of looking at it:

a. The USS Bainbridge and the USS Halyburton have been instructed not to attempt a rescue of the freighter's Captain for humanitarian reasons. These would include bringing the power of a US Naval Destroyer to bear on four ingnorant, thieving natives in a lifeboat, or accepting that the pirates would, as threatened, kill their hostage should any rescue attempt be made.
b. These four Somali thugs are extremely threatening to the US Navy combat vessels, and the ship's Captains are afraid that the thugs will sink their ships ... yeah - right.
c. The entire standoff is to preserve the life of the Maersk Alabama's Captain. This one is my personal choice - simply because if it were not for his presence on that lifeboat, it would have already been converted to a deathboat!

My suggestion would be to send 5 Navy Seals over the side after dark, and simply have them kill the pirates, and rescue the hostage, in one single synchronized movement. End of standoff, and everybody except the bad guys goes on about their business. But, perhaps that's an oversimplification of how to deal with thugs.

I could be wrong about this... but not as wrong as choosing to let this standoff go on for an extended period. Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!

Here's An Eye-Opener For The Sheep of The World

For those of you who think the United Nations is the savior of the world, the following was taken directly from the UN website (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm) under the heading of "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (UDHR).:

"Article 29

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to suchlimitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

The coloring and bold facing of the text was added by myself for emphasis - to make a point - but the words are theirs. That point being, the UN says we have rights and freedoms so long as they don't conflict with the interests of the UN (plans for world domination?). So, any freedom you may choose to exercise could be found to be "contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" (even though "1984" is 25 years in the past, that phrase has a very Orwellian sound to it).

IF I believed all the lunatic "conspiracy theories" on the Internet, I would be in some totally uncontrollable maximum panic mode by now. I do, however, read and comprehend the English language... an ability which tells me that there is a very definite threat implied in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Perhaps everybody needs to pay closer attention to what's going on in the world around us...

I could be wrong about this... I could also be a space alien from the planet Urantia (somebody call Las Vegas and get the odds on that!).

United Nations - Those Who Would Rule The World

Our left-wing loonies, most of whom worship at the temple of the United Nations in New York City, are supporting the following, extracted from the United Nations "Declaration of Human Rights" (emphasis added to Article 29 (3)):

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Congratulations, Article 29(3) has given you the right to agree with the UN (in their infinite wisdom)! According to (1) you also may fully develop your personality within the scope of your "duties" to the community (this sounds quite Orwellian to me ... shades of 1984). And then there's (2), wherein your "rights and freedoms" are restricted "as are determined by law", as distinguished from a Constitution - which is the basis for OUR laws. Exactly whose "laws" are we talking about here? The UN's laws? It couldn't possibly be the individual laws of each sovereign nation, because there are too many inconsistencies between the cultures - and therefore the laws - of each country. It would also be a virtual impossibility for any objective organization to accurately monitor and interpret 192 assorted laws covering a single infraction, misdemeanor or felony. So, it appears that the UN is out to establish a universal set of laws ... perhaps cloaked in the mantle of "International Law". Good luck with that!

I'm not claiming that there are no good aspects to the UN's UDoHR, there are many ... but they are, for the most part, vaguely worded and easily interpreted in any manner the reader desires. Am I the only person who has wondered (sometimes aloud to others) if the EU, and NAFTA (the obvious precursor to the North American Union, or perhaps just the American Union) are the first two steps to world domination by the UN? The third, and final step, would be the formation of the Asian Union - which, given the significant antagonism and distrust between most of the Asian countries, will be the greatest challenge of this unification project. It is much easier to exercise control over 3 entities than 192 independent ones. BUT, once the Asian Union has been accomplished through 'diplomacy' (read: intimidation and ostracism), there is only one obvious Puppet Master. What controlling body would be more apparent than the UN? There would be only one independent state left in the world - The Vatcian - assuming the UN allows them to retain their independent status , rather than incorporating the Vatican into Italy. You can use your own imagination for drawing further conclusions ... my imagination is fatigued!