« Happy Valentine's Day | Main | The 3rd House Is on Wall Street »
February 14, 2008
A Great Reply To "Obama's Bill"
By Reader Brown
I found this article informative, and I am entirely against taxing the people to pay for the "Millennium Development Goals". However, I was unable to find in the text of the resolution where it suggested how the money needed should be acquired, but the author of the AIM article makes the intuitive leap that it must come from we who are already taxed to the gunwales.
One thing is troubling; the article states,"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons". However, the text of the resolution reads,To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.
I think the connotation between the word banning and "to end illicit traffic in" is distinctly different. I will agree though that "supporting regional disarmament measures" is a quite ominous statement and reeks of NWO doublespeak. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Posted by Post Scripts at February 14, 2008 08:24 AM
Comments
You are very welcome, ReaderBrown, and thank you for a well written and informative response. Had it not been close to bedtime when I posted this, I might have taken the time to post from the UN Millenium Declaration.
Your observation about "banning" as contrasted with "to end illicit traffic in" is accurate. Without having read the text (good for you by the way) I think the concern comes from the following:
supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the
forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.
What are the "regional disarmament measures"? What will be included in the "forthcoming" Conference on Illicit Trade..." As we know many countries believe that individuals do not have the right to keep and bare arms and their laws reflect that belief. Many other countries believe in Marxism or socialism, and some are governed by dictators. It is of further concern to me that at least one of our Supreme Court Judges thinks that the Constitutionality of our laws should be determined by the documents of other countries as well as our own Constitution. The slippery slope is not fantasy...we have seen it happen.
The other troubling language from the article is the following:
The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."
"The entire human family" is another way of saying we shall all ne governed by the UN now. When we consider the countries that now sit in the UN in important positions of power, and their stated aspirations, it seems more than caution is required as a response. In addition, I don;'t believe for one minute that a single governing body will bring greater peace and prosperity to mankind but rather will open the door to greater opression and misery.
This is an ominous warning we had better heed in my humble opinion. I do fear no one is listening or paying attention.
Thanks again ReaderBrown, I enjoyed this exchange very much and look forward to more in the future should you decide to again "opine".
Posted by: Tina at February 14, 2008 11:05 AM