Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Kimber45, Jul 24, 2010.

  1. Kimber45

    Kimber45 New Member

    261
    0
    0
    [Washington Times Editorial: UN Threatens 1st and 2nd Amendments
    Today's Washington Times features an editorial about the UN's Arms Trade Treaty. They call it a threat to both the First and Second Amendments of our Constitution. Of course, they are right. The editorial follows on the heels of a report released by the Heritage Foundation on the UN and "arms control".

    Theodore Bromund, one of the authors of the Heritage Foundation's report, is quoted as saying that he thinks micro-stamping will be included, that there will be some sort of gun registration and licensing system, that this licensing system will cover both guns and ammo, and that there may even be restrictions on trade between private individuals.

    The Washington Times takes a dim view of the whole thing as well as the role of the Obama Administration in it.
    Any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will undermine freedom around the world. The right to bear arms is an individual's protection against oppression anywhere. It took herculean efforts by George W. Bush's administration to thwart this U.N. power grab a few years ago. Unfortunately, we now have a left-wing White House working to make this dangerous treaty a reality.]
     
  2. Kimber45

    Kimber45 New Member

    261
    0
    0
    Than where do you get your news? MSNBC, CNN, or . . . ? And you can go right on believing this current or any administration is going to follow the Constitution. The Bush's didn't, old "i didn't have sex with that woman" didn't, nor did the peanut turd and just how far back must we go to find and honest politician? Lincoln? God help us but I do not trust any congressional rep that has been in office for more than two terms. I believe that if it will benefit them they would sell the UNITED STATES and it's citizenry down the drain in a heart beat. Unconstitutional you scream? What about the health care taxes, or the US-mexican border being the safest it's ever been, what about taxes upon taxes, what about taxation without representation, what about these wars we are involved in where key congressional members fight against them in one administration and then turn right around and support the next administration in getting more of OUR UNITED STATES fighting men and women KILLED. You get your news where you want but when I see a leftist liberal newspaper like this saying the things that I've been hearing from conservative rags I pay attention. And do you really believe that any news source out there is not spinning every single news piece they print.
    Honest politician? No f'n such thing and you can bet they are not listening to any of us. Vote? LOL! I guess some people still believe in the easter bunny and santa claus. Our system of voting is so corrupt that it is worthless.
     

  3. freefall

    freefall New Member

    2,325
    3
    0
    I too have voted for many 3rd party candidates in presidential elections. It does send a message. Unfortunately the message that seems to be inferred is that there is a small percentage of cranks and contrarians whom the politicians can't please and had thus just as well forget them.
     
  4. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    First, treaties that do not supersede other parts of the constitution are treated as the Supreme Law of the Land. But treaties that DO supersede the constitution are usually not ratified. Even if they are, challenging them in court usually nullifies the treaty. If even that doesn't happen, individual state legislatures have the legal right of nullification and can refuse to abide by the law/treaty if deemed unconstitutional.

    Second, laws, treaties and other legislative or judicial mandates to not establish our rights. The Bill of Rights does not give us rights, it merely acknowledges that we have them. Rights are unalienable. That means they cannot be taken away. We would be acting within reason and within the law if and when we disregard anything that seeks to deprive us of our rights.

    Third, the Washington Times is a very good paper. The Washington Post, on the other hand, stinks out loud.
     
  5. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
    This is what will end up causing violence if they try to do away with the 2nd Amendment.
     
  6. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    19
    38
    its no biggee. UN talk pfft. no one seemed to care when John McCain took a huge dump on the constitution and wiped up with the bill of rights when he wrote the mccain/feingold campaign finane bill. republocrats flocked to his worthless socialist *** in the 08 primaries leaving us with a choice between a socialist POS or a socialist POS... so what if a buncha UN thugs and dictators run their yaps. no one pays attention to much past the last set of commercials on TV anyway.
     
  7. Kimber45

    Kimber45 New Member

    261
    0
    0
    " BBC, the Christian Science Monitor and NPR. They report the news, not slant it."

    Ah BULLCRAP! The BBC hates America and the NPR is the American version of Pravda. The washington times or any main stream newspaper conservative? LOL! You are out of your mind! There is not one conservative newspaper in America and there is only one half-way-kind-of-sort-of news channel that leans a wee bit to the right, way to moderate in their reporting the news, and that is Fox. MSN, CNN and the rest are just an extension of this socialist administration. The sooner we rid ourselves of the incumbents the better off America will be. Tar and feathering is too good for the likes of many in congress, I think the real answers is a stout tree with a sturdy limb in which a rope can be thrown over.
    Here is a LIBERTARIAN site that clearly shows the direction this administration and many past administrations are leading us.

    Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

    and to close out I leave you democrats/liberal/socialist with this comment;
    Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:
    “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”
     
  8. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
  9. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Yes. That's exactly how 2A is supposed to work: We have the power to visit violence on those who would seek to take our natural rights away, and those who might try to do that know it.
     
  10. noremf

    noremf New Member

    18
    0
    0
    Who are u referring to ?
     
  11. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Over 5000 former inhabitants of Halabja are unavailable for comment.

    The fact is, Iraq DID have WMD. Hans Blix said so in the U.N. Security Council meeting when Bush and Powell were seeking a resolution against Iraq.

    I invite you to read the book Disinformation.

    Sherrod resigned at the prodding of the Obama administration before Fox said anything about her. Get your facts straight.

    And you might want to keep current on her comments because they don't portray her in a very good light.

    Determining what's true and what's hyperbole, lies or propaganda is no easy task. Relying on only one source (like Fox) is unwise; you will get misinformation from time to time. But wasting your time with CNN or MSNBC or CBS is nothing short of stupid because you WILL NOT get the facts. The BBC, CSM and NPR are lean very hard left. If those are your idea of centrist, you might consider a recalibration.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2010
  12. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    No, I'm not mistaken. I remember sitting in my car in front of my house listening to the radio as live airing of comments at the U.N. were taking place. Blix did state that as of 1998 when the weapons inspectors were kicked out that they had visually catalogued significant stockpiles of chemical weapons. These comments were made in February, 2003 -- a few months before we invaded Iraq. In his report, Blix stated that Iraq failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents. Please see here, here, here, here and here for more information.

    Blix and ElBaradei wanted to continue their work, yes, but it is established fact that the Iraqis were in no way cooperating with them. The purpose of the inspectors was to work WITH the Iraqi government, not against it. In short, there was no way Blix et al would uncover the truth.

    We know Hussein had WMD at some point -- he used them extensively. If he wanted to pretend he was still a threat so Iran wouldn't take advantage of his weakness and if he presumed that Russia, France and Germany -- all involved in the illegal shipment of goods to Iraq under the failed oil-for-food program -- would block any military action in Iraq by the U.N., he presumed wrong.

    The point is, it was Breitbart who released the video segment, not Fox. It was Glenn Beck on Fox news who showed the video in full context, in fact.

    Yes, exactly. But the "propagandist" in this case was Breitbart, not Fox.

    I believe it was Bill O'Reilly who aired the short video that painted Sherrod in a bad light, but that aired AFTER she resigned, not before. The Obama administration could not have used that O'Reilly segment as the precursor or justification for its act.

    It's not just "them"; it's all media. That's why having just one source for your news is a bad idea.

    There are countless examples where the MSM launched pretty significant stories that were outright false. CBS' Dan Rather and the National Guard memos...Newsweek and the koran-in-the-toilet lie (after which people died)...and countless instances of "fauxtography". You have my sincere sympathy if you honestly believe the MSM is not biased.

    Just don't mistake something that might contradict conventional wisdom or your preconceived notions as a "partisan hit piece".
     
  13. Kimber45

    Kimber45 New Member

    261
    0
    0
    You vant some cheeeese vith dat vine mr liberal/socialist/I'm going to name all my children barack/berry/hussein/obama? Yes mr prezident I'll be a good little socialist/communist and tow the banner of hope and change with me every where I go.

    New title for this prez, WORST UNITED STATES PRESIDENT EVER!!!! Yeah, even worse that the f'n peanut farmer.
     
  14. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Hindsight being what it is (what is it, exactly? Certainly not 20/20 in this case!), it is important not to confuse what we think we know now with what we accepted as true THEN which was the pretext for going to war with Iraq. If you need a refresher, here are some comments by some friends of yours that might shine a somewhat different light on the issue:

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

    "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.​

    You're right that Blix later backpeddled and said there was no indication Hussein had any WMD. Whether he said that because he honestly believed it, he was following orders, or he wished to soften his previous statement, we'll never know.

    If you want to find out the Sherrod timeline and when who said what, google it. You're obviously far superior to research than I am.

    For the record, I do listen to NPR, the BBC, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, AP, ABC, NBC, Al Jazeera and a bunch of other crap-laden agitprop sources. That's how I keep up with what you and those like you are thinking and planning.

    As for examples of MSM mis/disinformation and outright lies, again, I'll leave that to you. There are sites out there that do nothing but highlight exactly that. I won't be wasting my time providing information to you any more than I have already. It hasn't escaped my notice that you failed to refute what I said or the links I posted other than to say that you remember it differently. Whatever.

    Reality is settling in with me. It is apparent to me now that where we are and where we came from are worlds apart. It is clear that countless "useful idiots" (and up until 10 or 12 years ago, I counted myself among them) have allowed us to get to this point.

    I did have one question for you, though, and I sincerely hope you will take a moment to answer it. We can keep going with this thread if you want, or let it die a merciful death. Your choice. But I would appreciate an answer to this question:

    In your opinion, why does the Second Amendment exist?
     
  15. Kimber45

    Kimber45 New Member

    261
    0
    0
    Man you have been busy! Thanks for the information.:D
     
  16. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Nah. I posted this info a while ago and just copied/pasted it for this thread.

    These days, defending the media is like defending a political party. They all suck, they're all guilty of corruption, they all put their personal interests ahead of serving us, etc. To garner the truth is impossible unless you witness an event. But to tease the likely truth requires some work...poring over numerous sources.

    When someone suggests that our mainstream media are largely unbiased, that is a clear indicator to me that that person is not up to speed yet.
     
  17. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
    Very true. I don't read the news as much as I should... What are some good middle of the road sources that I should check out?
     
  18. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    All of them.

    Watch ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC if you want and listen to NPR and reading the Huffington Post. But also hit Drudge, Lucianne.com, and as many milblogs as you can find. My favorite is Michael Yon's.

    Hit gata.org, lewrockwell.com, scour youtube for commentary from Schiff and others. Most things will lead you to other worthwhile things.

    What you can't be is in a hurry. There's no way to spend 30 minutes a day watching the news and expect to know anything.
     
  19. Angry_bald_guy

    Angry_bald_guy Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    1,687
    0
    0
    Unfortunately about 30 mins a day is all I get any more...