20 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyCarbon taxes are goooood!!!
So what would make the relavent? Would not a global tax going directly to the UN help make them relavent? I think that was their goal and still probably is. Just think how irrelavent those in Washington would be if they were not taking half our income.
I can dream can't I?
20 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI veiw the current role of the UN as the federal government of the US, only it has very little sway over the countries it presides. Can it acheive its objectives? Yes, but with limited success. However, if you empower them with world wide taxes and a standing army to boot and look out!! If they had this they would become the monsters that the current US federal government has become as the states stand idely by as their freedoms slowly errode away.
The UN has 15 or so peacekeeping missions at the moment. Are you saying they are all useless?
21 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA peacekeeping mission can be the same as a humanitarian mission. If the relevant parties are willing to have them, there's nothing wrong with international peacekeepers. That's not the same as the UN making security decisions that they have no moral authority to make; nor practical ability to enforce.
The UN has 15 or so peacekeeping missions at the moment. Are you saying they are all useless?
21 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyI agree with you on this wadster! We don't want to let the genie out of that bottle. If that power shift ever happens, it will be nearly imposible to reverse it. Say for some reason another revolution was needed in the country, it would be difficult at best to win. If a revolution was needed in the country with the UN in power it would be just about impossible to take on the whole world. Plus that our constitution would be meaningless if there is no way to defend it. More layers of govenment is a step backwards in my oppinion.
I veiw the current role of the UN as the federal government of the US, only it has very little sway over the countries it presides. Can it acheive its objectives? Yes, but with limited success. However, if you empower them with world wide taxes and a standing army to boot and look out!! If they had this they would become the monsters that the current US federal government has become as the states stand idely by as their freedoms slowly errode away.
21 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76It may start out as peacekeeping missions, but once the tipping point of power is reached it will be world domination. Of course that is what the plan is anyway.
A peacekeeping mission can be the same as a humanitarian mission. If the relevant parties are willing to have them, there's nothing wrong with international peacekeepers. That's not the same as the UN making security decisions that they have no moral authority to make; nor practical ability to enforce.
21 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by joe beyserAs some of you may know, I am reading Mark Levins, "Liberty and Justice". In it, he better articulates how I feel about the next great entitlement push.
I agree with you on this wadster! We don't want to let the genie out of that bottle. If that power shift ever happens, it will be nearly imposible to reverse it. Say for some reason another revolution was needed in the country, it would be difficult at best to win. If a revolution was needed in the country with the UN in power it would be just about impos ...[text shortened]... s if there is no way to defend it. More layers of govenment is a step backwards in my oppinion.
"The Statist has an insatiable appetite for control. His sights are set on his next meal even before he has fully digested his last. He is constantly agitating for government action. And to furtherance of that purpose, the Statist speaks in the tongue of the demagogue, concocting one pretext and grivance after another to manipulate public perceptions and builk popular momentum for the divestiture of liberty and property from its rightful possessors. The industrious, earnest, and successful are demonized as perpetrators of various offenses against the public good, which justifies governmental intervention on behalf of an endless parade of "victims". In this way, the perpetrator and the victim are subordinated to the government's authority -- the former by outright theft, the latter by a dependent existence. In truth, both are made victims by the real perpetrator, the Statist. The Statist veils his pursuits in moral indignation, intoning in high dudgeon the injustices of liberty and life itself, for which only he can provide justice and bring a righteous resolution. And when the resolution proves elusive, as it undoubtedly does -- whether the Marxist promise of "the workers paradise" or the Great Society's "war on poverty" -- the Statist demands even more authority to wring out the imperfections of mankind's existence. Unconstrained by constitutional prohibitions, what is left to limit the Statist's ambitions but his own moral compass, which has already led him astray? He is never circumspect about his own shortcomings. Failure is not the product of his beliefs but merely want of power and resources. Thus are born endless rationalizations for seizing ever more governmental authority. In the midst stands the individual, who was a predominate focus of the Founders. When living freely and pursuing his own legitimate interests, the individual displays qualities that are antithetical to the Statists 's--initiative, self-reliance, and independence. As the Statist is building a culture of conformity and dependency, where the ideal citizen takes on dronelike qualities in service to the state, the individual must be drained of uniqueness and self-worth, and deterred from independent thought or behavoi. This is achieved through varying methods of economic punishment and political suppression. The Statist also knows that despite his successful usurpations, enough citizens are still skeptical and even distrustful of politicians and government that he cannot force his will all at once. Thus he marches in incremental steps, adjusting his pace as circumstances dictate. Today his pace is more rapid, for reisistance has slowed. And at no time does the Statist do an about-face. But not so with some who claim the mantle of conservatism but are, in truth, neo-Statists, who would have the Conservative abandon the high ground of the founding principles for the quicksand of a soft tyranny.. Michael Gerson, formerly chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, has written in his book, Herioc Conservatism, that "if Republicans run in future elections with a simplistic anti-government message, ignoring the poor, the addicted and children at risk, they will lose, and they will deserve to lose." Gerson argues for a "compassionate conservatism" and "faith-based initiatives" in which the federal government plays a central role. Gerson all but ignores liberty's successes and the civil society in which humans flourish, even though he is surrounded in his every moment by its magnificience. So numerous are liberty's treasures that they defy cataloguing. The object of Gerson's scorn is misplaced. Gerson does not ask, "How many enterprises and jobs might have been created, how many people might have been saved from illness and disease, how many more poor children might have been fed but for the additional costs, market dislocations, and management inefficiencies that distort supply and demand or discourage research and development as a result of the federal governments role?"......The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherance to it. An "effective" governement that operates outside its constitutional limitations is a dangerous government. By abandoning principles for efficiency, the neo-Statist, it seems, is no more bound to the Constitution than is the Statist. He marches more slowly than the Statist, but he marches with him nonetheless."
You know he wrote this right before Obama became President. Prophetic!!
21 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraActually it is interesting to note that the Jehovahs witnesses are or were an NGO of the United Nations. Now shut the f#$@! up and read what whodey posted.
You sound like those paranoid Jehovah's Witnesses, who think the UN plans to "ban" religion.
21 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyMany thanks brother!!
As some of you may know, I am reading Mark Levins, "Liberty and Justice". In it, he better articulates how I feel about the next great entitlement push.
"The Statist has an insatiable appetite for control. His sights are set on his next meal even before he has fully digested his last. He is constantly agitating for government action. And to furtherance ...[text shortened]... know he wrote this right before Obama became President. Prophetic!!
21 Jun 09
Originally posted by whodeyI have this same book ,its good reading.But,for many here, its like "throwing pearls to the swine".
As some of you may know, I am reading Mark Levins, "Liberty and Justice". In it, he better articulates how I feel about the next great entitlement push.
"The Statist has an insatiable appetite for control. His sights are set on his next meal even before he has fully digested his last. He is constantly agitating for government action. And to furtherance ...[text shortened]... know he wrote this right before Obama became President. Prophetic!!