Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: More U.N. news

  1. #1
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Here's an article on the U.N. trying to take them away.



    http://www.newswithviews.com/Nemerov/howard5.htm
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Here's an article on the U.N. trying to take them away.



    http://www.newswithviews.com/Nemerov/howard5.htm
    they are going to disarm the entire world and we'll take over or what? because we won't give our guns up for rice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    I worked for the UN in 2004 (MINUSTAH) and can tell you that if they can't pay thier employees for 3 months at a stretch, they can't take over a country.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    johnnyb wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    Here's an article on the U.N. trying to take them away.



    http://www.newswithviews.com/Nemerov/howard5.htm
    they are going to disarm the entire world and we'll take over or what? because we won't give our guns up for rice.
    Well, johnnyb, we finally agree on something. The only way I give up my guns is bullets first.

    Don't underestimate the U.N., doc.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    You need to work for them to truly understand just how inept and corrupt they are. I don't worry about the UN as much as I worry about the far Left and the far Right in this country, both of which seem bent on restricting my own personal freedoms.

    The UN can't control a riot in a Port-Au-Prince Haiti, so I am sure they couldn't control an entire nation of armed and pissed off Americans.

  6. #6
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    docwatson wrote:
    You need to work for them to truly understand just how inept and corrupt they are. I don't worry about the UN as much as I worry about the far Left and the far Right in this country, both of which seem bent on restricting my own personal freedoms.

    The UN can't control a riot in a Port-Au-Prince Haiti, so I am sure they couldn't control an entire nation of armed and pissed off Americans.
    It's not the fact whether they can or can't control us. I don't want them to try.

    With a voting record like Obama's, do you think he won't appoint someone who will go along with it? Sure he will. I just want everyone to be informed of the possibility.

    After his speech yesterday in Germany, I'm convinced that he will reach for a one world government, and this will probablyinclude turning our military over to U.N. control. I justpray the majority of our people in uniform will NOT go along with it. If that happens, there will be pandemonium in this country.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    The Bush administration brought us unrestricted domestic evesdropping on your phone calls, email, and data exchanges, the attempted elimination of Posse Comitatus and Habeus Corpus, into a war that we didn't need to be in, and actively fought against the individual right to bear arms.

    Keep in mind that Bush Sr. coined the phrase 'New World Order' and signed the '86 MG Ban as well.

    Obama will make us worse off how???

    I don't like either of the present candidates and we are - again! - stuck with a choice of lesser evils to vote for.






  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    It is beyond one world gov't. It is simply an elitist mindset that the masses world wide need a few people in gov't to tell them what to believe, how to think and how to act and for those gov't elites to punish any deviation from their world-view. A UN conceived world gov't would = world dictatorship.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    263

    Post imported post

    docwatson wrote:
    The Bush administration brought us unrestricted domestic evesdropping on your phone calls, email, and data exchanges, the attempted elimination of Posse Comitatus and Habeus Corpus, into a war that we didn't need to be in, and actively fought against the individual right to bear arms.

    Keep in mind that Bush Sr. coined the phrase 'New World Order' and signed the '86 MG Ban as well.

    Obama will make us worse off how???

    I don't like either of the present candidates and we are - again! - stuck with a choice of lesser evils to vote for.




    Obama says on his website that he wants a pretty much total and permanent assault weapon ban. He has a very anti gun voting record and has in the past supported a ban on all semi autos. That's how he will make us worse off.

    Except for that weird "gunshow loophole" thing McCain has a pretty good pro gun record. He has also said that he wants supreme court justices who will rule on what the constitution actually says rather than whatever they think would be a good idea.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    I'd like a candidate who would put us back on a metal standard for our money, lift the '86 ban, and hold monthly Q&A sessions with the House of Reps like the Brits do with their PM. I think the latter would hold anyone in the office accountable to open questions from the floor and the people.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    dumries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    321

    Post imported post

    I saw a video about IANSA a few years back, scary!

    A George Soros funded organization, very deep pockets.

    Doc, you are right that the UN is inept, totally corrupt (what ashame a plane didn't hit that building instead). The problem is, Obama wants to run this country as a follower, a country the rest of the world smiles upon and can dictate to. When you couple that witha UNworld wide treaty to eliminate small arms with Obamas view of total ban on semi-auto riflesand abolishing right to carry, (CC or other wise). It will be Congress and that administration that disarms this country, so as to comply with the UN.
    http://www.iansa.org/

  12. #12
    Regular Member desert-prospector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    (City of the Crosses), Las Cruces New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    72

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    It is beyond one world gov't. It is simply an elitist mindset that the masses world wide need a few people in gov't to tell them what to believe, how to think and how to act and for those gov't elites to punish any deviation from their world-view. A UN conceived world gov't would = world dictatorship.
    You have no idea how true this is.

    I have been told by a US Senator and a State Legislator, and I quote verbatim "We know what's best for you".

    These are people that have never had to bleed to make a buck in their lives and they know "what's best for me"!

    Very elitist. Comes down to the haves and the have nots...

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    docwatson wrote:
    The Bush administration brought us unrestricted domestic evesdropping on your phone calls, email, and data exchanges, the attempted elimination of Posse Comitatus and Habeus Corpus, into a war that we didn't need to be in, and actively fought against the individual right to bear arms.

    you know that is not true. why do you say it?

  14. #14
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    docwatson wrote:
    The Bush administration brought us unrestricted domestic evesdropping on your phone calls, email, and data exchanges, the attempted elimination of Posse Comitatus and Habeas Corpus, into a war that we didn't need to be in, and actively fought against the individual right to bear arms.

    Keep in mind that Bush Sr. coined the phrase 'New World Order' and signed the '86 MG Ban as well.

    Obama will make us worse off how???

    I don't like either of the present candidates and we are - again! - stuck with a choice of lesser evils to vote for.





    Know what you are talking about before you make a comment.

    George W. Bush

    1. The Homeland Security Act plainly states that the eavesdropping is to bedone on phone calls, emails, and the like are to effect foreign originated or going to foreign lands. Not domestic.While I do not agree with the HSA or FISA, you misstated it's provisions.

    2.It might not be a bad idea to get rid of Posse Comitatus because they are extremists that believe Jews and blacks are subhuman and that Northern European whites are God's chosen people. The Hebrews (or Jews) are God's chosen people. Plainly stated several timesin the Bible I carry with me.

    3. As far as eliminating Habeas Corpus,if you are referring to the enemy combatants down in Gitmo, these people are not citizens nor did they commit any laws while on U.S. soil. Therefore they are NOT covered by the Constitution, I don't care what a bunch of liberal activists in black robes said. They are also not P.O.W.'s because they were not uniformed or under a flag of a nation, therefore not covered under the Geneva Convention. As far as I'm concerned they can be treated as the animals that they are.

    4. As far as the war we didn't need to be in. Well, since the war against terrorism started, there have been NO ATTACKS AGAINST THEU.S by terrorists since 9/11/2001, here or abroad. That's almost 7 years.

    5. When didGeorge W. Bushcampaign against our right to keep and bear arms. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think so.

    George H.W. Bush

    1. I don't think he coined "New World Order". I amalso fairly certain he was not referring to a "One World Government" when he said it.

    2. If he signedanything into law in 1986 he wasthe most powerful Vice-President we've ever had. Ronald Wilson Reagan was President in 1986. AND WENEED SOMEONE LIKE HIM NOW MORE THAN EVER.

    I do agree with you on the choices for President. However, it's not a hard decision.



    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    You write like a Bush/Karl Rove fanboi, so I'll go straight to the heart of your arguments.

    I refer you to Wired magazine and Slashdot.org for references in regards to the egregious errors of the Bush Administration and the wiretapping done *without a warrant* on ALL US Internet traffic after 9/11. Provisions be damned - they were executed without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment and how the information was actually used seems to be something that we are unable to get a straight answer about!

    I design and build global data networks for a living - mostly in scary, @#$%ty hellholes like Haiti, Iraq and, now, DC - so when it comes to traffic engineering for data, voice, and video I *do* know what I am talking about; the rerouting all of the Internet traffic through San Francisco so it could be copied sure did violate our 4th Amendment rights. The recent bill that basically excuses the behavior of the telcos - and gives them a pass in the future to do it again - was easily the biggest slap in the face to the Amercian public in 35 years.

    I was correct on the Bush Administrations attempt to suspend Habeus Corpus; the Bush Administration has made it so that *any* US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant and held indefinitely.. The outcome of this is chilling and we need to consider that if Obama comes to power that he could declare any of us 'enemy combatants' and held indefinitely without trial. The issue isn't what's today in law but how it could be used against us in the future. Think very, very hard about a scenario where the President or his designate declares the NRA, GOA, and VCDL 'terrorist organizations' and thier members 'enemy combatants'. Won't happen? Too extreme? History says that we can imprison our own citizens soley based on their national or racial origins much less any actual proof of participation in a terrorist act.

    The statement that because of GWOT we're safe is a logical fallacy. We don't know for sure if that is true - we had over 45 years without an attack on US soil without the jackboots of DHS - invading Iraq sure has pissed off more Muslims than it has made allies. 9/11 in and of itself forced the US intel community to reassess it's priorities and raised our own awarenessof the actual threat and that more than anything else has prevented terrorists from getting off of the x.

    The Bush family has a long history of hostility toward 2A. Bush had his Attorney General file in support of DC in the Heller case!

    As far as Bush Senior goes, he said in his NWO speech

    Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    docwatson wrote:
    You write like a Bush/Karl Rove fanboi, so I'll go straight to the heart of your arguments.

    I refer you to Wired magazine and Slashdot.org for references in regards to the egregious errors of the Bush Administration and the wiretapping done *without a warrant* on ALL US Internet traffic after 9/11. Provisions be damned - they were executed without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment and how the information was actually used seems to be something that we are unable to get a straight answer about!

    I design and build global data networks for a living - mostly in scary, @#$%ty hellholes like Haiti, Iraq and, now, DC - so when it comes to traffic engineering for data, voice, and video I *do* know what I am talking about; the rerouting all of the Internet traffic through San Francisco so it could be copied sure did violate our 4th Amendment rights. The recent bill that basically excuses the behavior of the telcos - and gives them a pass in the future to do it again - was easily the biggest slap in the face to the Amercian public in 35 years.

    I was correct on the Bush Administrations attempt to suspend Habeus Corpus; the Bush Administration has made it so that *any* US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant and held indefinitely.. The outcome of this is chilling and we need to consider that if Obama comes to power that he could declare any of us 'enemy combatants' and held indefinitely without trial. The issue isn't what's today in law but how it could be used against us in the future. Think very, very hard about a scenario where the President or his designate declares the NRA, GOA, and VCDL 'terrorist organizations' and thier members 'enemy combatants'. Won't happen? Too extreme? History says that we can imprison our own citizens soley based on their national or racial origins much less any actual proof of participation in a terrorist act.

    The statement that because of GWOT we're safe is a logical fallacy. We don't know for sure if that is true - we had over 45 years without an attack on US soil without the jackboots of DHS - invading Iraq sure has pissed off more Muslims than it has made allies. 9/11 in and of itself forced the US intel community to reassess it's priorities and raised our own awarenessof the actual threat and that more than anything else has prevented terrorists from getting off of the x.

    The Bush family has a long history of hostility toward 2A. Bush had his Attorney General file in support of DC in the Heller case!

    As far as Bush Senior goes, he said in his NWO speech

    Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders
    typical.

    you use wired and "slashdot" as sources. pathetic

    you've taken bush sr. words way way way way out of context.

    you have NO clue what you are talking about. the world trade center was attacked several times before dubya was president. don't you remember the truck bomb?

    you just proved that you're a POSER to the highest degree. the "internet" would come to a complete stand still if they routed ALL TRAFFIC THROUGH ONE PLACE. idiotic at best.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    @ jonnyb

    Like I said in my previous post, I stay current in my industry and the illegal wiretapping by this Administration is a reality and a bitter, bitter truth. The fact that it was done for expediency and is now going to be allowed to happen again without recourse for the American public just boggles my mind.

    The problem people have is that they see the 5 meter target (Fight Terrorism!) but don't see the long term effects of those laws in the hands of a government MUCH less friendly to individual feedoms and liberties.


    We need to be diligent about how we fight the battles and wars and what the outcome of those policies will be on the society.

    Ben Franklin said
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.


  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    docwatson wrote:
    @ jonnyb

    Like I said in my previous post, I stay current in my industry and the illegal wiretapping by this Administration is a reality and a bitter, bitter truth. The fact that it was done for expediency and is now going to be allowed to happen again without recourse for the American public just boggles my mind.

    The problem people have is that they see the 5 meter target (Fight Terrorism!) but don't see the long term effects of those laws in the hands of a government MUCH less friendly to individual feedoms and liberties.


    We need to be diligent about how we fight the battles and wars and what the outcome of those policies will be on the society.

    Ben Franklin said
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    1. PROVE IT. if they were doing that, and you know it for a fact, then prove it, and put them all in jail. me thinks you will not be able to.

    2. your quote is wrong and way off.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    Be vary careful about the whole 'poser' thing - you could embarass yourself. My creds, certs, and clearance are verfiable.

    Lookup traffic mirroring and what a span port is and there you will have your answer on how all of the traffic was monitored. There are deep packet inspectors in use today with ISPs that can read the entirety of your email passively.

    NAPs are farily large places with large, multiple OC's running though them and were actually designed to take over the traffic during a nuclear strike.

    Slashdot requires you to have a brain and be familiar with the industry; they helped break the story about the monitoring.

    Feel free to hide your head in the sand about what this administration has done but do consider what the result is and how an Obama administration could use it against you.


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    It's not my job to put them in jail and the wiretapping has been proven:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_war...ce_controversy


    ben franklin:

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/q110256.html

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St Helens, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    340

    Post imported post

    it is your job, you are a citizen. if you have proof this is happening, it is your job to put them in jail.

    now you're quoting Wikipedia for "facts"

  22. #22
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    I think docwatson is a conspiracy theorist. He's using Wired magazine and slashdot.org. I wouldn't trust sucha rouge Internet source for any info. Don't you think that if G.W. was violating the Constitution, as much as the Dems hate him, he would have been impeached before the sun went down.

    GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    At least the last several president's have clearly violated the Constitution. You think its hard to get the courts to take your word over a LEO? That's an absolute joke compared to going after a sitting president.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    @the Texas Unabomber Wannabe

    It seems you don't like - or understand technology - so I won't use it to argue with you. It's like naming a pig 'Einstein' - it's still a pig and no smarter for the experience.

    I was referring to the scope, size, and degree of response of the US government; Pearl Harbor was a much closer analogy of the attack on 9/11 in regards to casualties and the response of the American people.

    We seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and then look at folks who say "WTF!?" and call them un-American or worse. The truth is the truth and we have an administration that has laid the groundwork for the next administration to utlize it in some significant, unforseen, and possibly dangerous ways.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    johnnyb wrote:
    it is your job, you are a citizen. if you have proof this is happening, it is your job to put them in jail.

    now you're quoting Wikipedia for "facts"
    Don't take my word for it - Google 'NSA Wiretapping' for yourself and educate WTF is going on outside of your mother's basement.


    @Texas Unabomber
    Slashdot and Wired are 'rogue sources'? ROFL!!!! :what:



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •