Another Reason . . .

. . .To oppose the health bill. Check it out. If this article doesn't tear you up, nothing will.

More Socialist BS at the UN

I was pointed to this video by WRSA. Also provided was a link to the copy of the treaty document.

Now, I consider myself a simple but smart fellow, and the way that treaty is written is certainly to discourage simple folks from trying to decipher it. However, when it came down to it, I was able to find some stuff I don't need a lawyer to comprehend. Here are some quotes directly from the document, page number noted at the end of the quote if you want to check me.

2. Recognizing that the right to development is a basic human right that is undeprivable. (p58)

Okay, am I missing something, or did they just say that it is an undeprivable human right for a nation to develop? First off, the reason most of these nations are not developing is because of their own governments, not the United States. The people and their countries are being held back by their own leaders. Get rid of the poor leadership, and you will have development. Welcome to Free Enterprise 101, a class on the very principle which developed America.

Now, another thing, this is coming from the same group of mo-rons who don't believe the right to defend one's family and property is an undeprivable right. Not only that, but a right which must be taken away!

3. Recalling that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and

overriding priorities of the developing countries. (p58)

See above class listing for Free Enterprise 101 and also Advanced Free Enterprise: Keeping Business Booming By Keeping Government Small.

Now, before looking at this next section, consider that this is a bill about "climate change" which means cutting off non-renewable resource use (eg. coal).

1. Recognizing the special difficulties of those countries, especially developing countries, whose

economies are particularly dependent on fossil fuel production, use and exportation, as a consequence of

action taken on limiting greenhouse gas emissions,

2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that

are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of those Parties, especially

developing country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under the

Convention, should be given full consideration. 2

3. There is a need to undertake a global transition to a low-emission economy in order to tackle

climate change. Although this transition presents a major opportunity for all countries to follow a clean

development path, it can also pose challenges for all Parties, in particular the most vulnerable countries.

Parties should work together to ensure that this transition is congruent with sustainable development

processes in all countries.

4. The difficulties of assessing the complex issue of potential impacts of policies are compounded

by the fact that some of these impacts are unintended and often unanticipated. Wider economic and

political factors can play a role in the vulnerability of socio-economic sectors and can amplify or

diminish the impacts of policies.

Okay, so let me understand this. We want the nations to have their right to develop by regulating the very opportunity for their development. Yeah, cause that will work. Then, let's imply here (maybe directly state elsewhere, it's the notion I've gotten, but again, trying to work through legal BS) that the developed countries will have to lend a financial hand to the developing countries whose way to wealth we have just regulated into dirt.

Here's the great part, let's give ourselves an out when it all comes crumbling down by saying that "some of these impacts are unintended and often unanticipated." Well, dad-gummit, passing a law that may have unintended consequences . . . I'd of never expected the day to come (eyes rolling). . .

Oh, wait, here's that part about us giving more money to the countries whose industry we are crushing:

16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressed

by proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economic

diversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries,

paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developing

country Parties.]

Alternative to paragraph 16:

[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means,

including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding,

insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected

countries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storage

technologies.]

17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All

Parties] [shall] [should]:]

(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost

opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental

refugees;

(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for

environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response

measures. (p122)

19. [The permanent [forum] should also formulate/implement a work programme that [includes]

[addresses inter alia] the following components:]

(a) [Insurance and financial risk management;]

(b) [Modelling, analytical and methodological tools;]

(c) [Economic diversification;]

(d) Early warning and systematic observation;

(e) Disaster management and preparedness;

(f) Compensation procedures and actions including funds;

(g) Funding;

(h) Other related matters.](p123)

Knew it had to be there somewhere. And again . . . (perhaps with an extra word thrown in there of my own doing, you'll recognize it.)

2. Objective and scope

6. The provision of financial resources shall be guided by the principles of [SOCIALISM]the Convention and the

priorities of developing country Parties, and arrangements shall be made for financial resources to be

made available to enable developing country Parties, especially those particularly vulnerable to the

adverse impacts of climate change, to take nationally appropriate mitigation and adaptation actions, in

the context of sustainable development priorities.

7. The objective of the provision of financial resources is to promote equity and justice through

further enhancement of the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention and the Bali

Action Plan, so that the ultimate objective of the Convention can be achieved.

8. Parties agree to establish, in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention, the Financial

Mechanism of the Convention with a structure that meets the specific requirements laid down under

Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the Convention. The Financial Mechanism shall enable, enhance and support

mitigation and adaptation actions by developing country Parties to meet the objective(s) in accordance

with Article 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of the Convention through the provision of financial resources to meet the

agreed full incremental costs of such actions, including the full cost of adaptation activities, technology

transfer and capacity-building.(p126)

The rest of the document is pretty much saying how they are going to take our money and technology and give it to the tyrannical governments of the countries which haven't developed yet because of the very government to whom the money is being given.

And now for the punchline of the entire thing: page 15 says that all of this will be based on "sound science." Doesn't "sound science" take away the whole purpose of a climate change treaty, given that global warming has already been thoroughly debunked, if that's what the treaty is truly about? I would venture to say, yet again, this UN treaty isn't about the issue which is being stated; it's about bringing America to its knees by whatever means possible in order to create a fake Utopian communistic world order.

Read the fine print. It's about sovereignty. We must fight these things peacefully while we can. Concerned American wrapped up their post quite well with these words:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
- John F. Kennedy, 1962

Need some help

Alright, so here's my situation. I have an opportunity to purchase a NIB S&W M&P15 in 223/5.56. Due to a promotion S&W is running, if I make this purchase before Dec. 31, I also get 5 free 30-round magazines. My cost, paying cash, would be $891, tax and background check included.

Here's the catch - in order to get it, I would have to sell the first two guns I ever bought, a Rossi 223 with a 20 ga exchange barrel, and a Springfield M6 Scout in 22lr/410. Both of these guns are single shot. I do not own a semi-auto rifle, and my only other rifle is a Mosin M38 Carbine.

So, thoughts and some input on what I should do?

Good Read

And relatively short, too. Read it all. Yes, I know I'm a little behind.

Comments

Due to a little piece written over at Sipsey Street Irregulars, I will start moderating comments. Unless there is something tremendously screwed up about your comment, you can expect it to show up. Anonymous posts will bear more scrutiny, because I think if you are going to say something, especially in the negative, you should be mature enough to sign your name to it.

Anyway, on to writing!

Christians at War

Currently my mind has been called to dig a little and write an essay about whether or not a Christian can go to war with their own government and maintain a moral footing. Now, being a Christian, and also being very opinionated about what's happening in our country now, I find this important. I cannot give many details about the thoughts currently swirled together in my head, because that would lead to a long post which I do not have time for, given that I have to leave for business in half an hour.

I would like to open up a forum in the comments of this post regarding reasoning one way or the other in order to help me consider things more fully as I write the essay. So, please leave me some feedback on the issue, and send some respectable folks my way to leave their thoughts as well. Thanks to all!

Hardball

Sipsey Street Irregulars posted about Steward Rhodes of Oath Keepers being on "Hardball with Chris Matthews. Here is a transcript.

I was rather angry, so following is the e-mail I sent to Chris Matthews, if he even reads it.

Mr. Matthews,

I would like to offer you some encouragements as far as your "investigative journalism" goes.

In your October 20 segment on Oath Keepers, your bias showed through as clearly as day. Your questions to Stewart Rhodes were not really questions, but pre-formulated statements in question form. You constantly referred to the Oath Keepers as "armed people" and even called them "vigilantes". When Rhodes tried to answer your questions, you constantly interrupted, then went on to ask him the same questions over and over again, because you didn't want the answers he was giving you. You wanted the answers you had already formulated in your mind. However, when you allowed Mark Potok to answer, you did not interrupt him, but let him speak freely except for, I believe, one time.

You did not challenge Potok when he said that the SPLC does not lump Oath Keepers together with white supremacists. Indeed, research the SPLC web sight, and you will find such insinuations. Besides that, the title given to the segment states that the SPLC has Oath Keepers in a blog called "Hatewatch". Proper research and understanding of Oath Keepers and their underlying principles would prove to you that they are not about hate at all.

Now, on to some of your questions for Stewart Rhodes and the answers.

You asked about the firepower to repel the government. Rhodes answered that it's not about firepower, it's about not following orders. Oath keepers is about standing down when unconstitutional orders are given, not fighting.

You asked why he is trying to recruit law enforcement and military, who are "all armed". He said it is because these are the people who will be given the unconstitutional orders. I would like to venture a couple of other thoughts. Number one, you need to stop complaining about these people being armed, because you pay them to protect you and defend your liberties. Another consideration as to why it is these people who are recruited is that these are the ones who took the oath to defend the Constitution. Hence the name "Oath Keepers".

You stated that you don't care about the philosophy, you just don't like the idea of these people being armed. See above answer and again remember what Rhodes said; this is not about fighting, it is about non-compliance. Nor is it a "war footing" as you called it.

You accuse Rhodes of creating a mindset. This point I will concede, though I disagree with you as to what mindset he is creating. He is trying to create a mindset of awareness of the Constitution and its provisions, as well as a mindset to resist any orders which are against the Constitution.

Mark Potok made a comment about Oath Keepers being paranoid about militias and the like being labeled as right-wing terrorists. This is not paranoia. The Department of Homeland Security has already issued a document containing such statements. Again, you did not challenge Potok.

You constantly ignored Stewart Rhodes' references to history. If it has happened before, it can happen again. Perhaps you should go take a few more history classes.

You continued during the entire discourse to come back to the idea of armed people. You seem to be a bit paranoid yourself. You forget that it has always been armed people who have fought and died for you to have the freedom to say whatever you want. Some of those people defied the government (think American Revolution). Without them doing so, you would not be able to spout such lies and bias as you currently do. You forget that those of us who are legally armed are the most law-abiding citizens, and that there are nearly 100million of us currently. One third of the population.

Perhaps if you would study history and facts altogether, you would be able to do true investigative journalism instead of simply spouting off liberal, bedwetting, liberal lapdog hysterics. Be willing to have your ideas challenged. Grow some balls and act like a real man.

Regards,
Matthew
III

Doubt if the point will get across, but I'm past the point of sitting idly by . . .