Is a World Government Next?
Jul 27, 2009 Political
I used to be sure it would never happen- after all, there are some great cultural divides between cultures and countries, not to mention the religion aspect- that one’s a biggie. But what is emerging with the ouster of Manuel Zelaya, former President of Honduras, is beginning to change my mind about the possibility of something beginning to stir.
First, some background on the Honduran situation. The ouster of Zelaya was not a coup in the strict sense of the word, as the Honduran military does not control the government, but just assisted in removing the former president, who was trying to pull a Chavez- like “President- for- Life” scheme out of his hat by changing the Honduran Constitution. This was (and is) illegal, so he was removed. The new President is a member of Zelaya’s own party.
Ask yourself, what would we do, if Hussein tried to do illegal, unconstitutional things- wait, that IS happening, isn’t it? But I digress—-
Hussein and Chavez seem to be partnering on a resolution where the UN will re-instate Zelaya- a wrong move on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.
The United Nations on Thursday begins a debate over a new U.N. military doctrine called the “Responsibility to Protect,” which would authorize the world organization to be used as cover to intervene in the sovereign affairs of a nation state, supposedly to protect the people of a country against their own government. The first target could be anti-communist Honduras.
The “Responsibility to Protect,” also known as RtoP or R2P, is mostly the work of the World Federalist Movement, a group dedicated to world government by strengthening the United Nations system. It is the major force behind the “International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect.”
R2P was sold as something to be exercised against regimes practicing genocide against their own people. But the new doctrine is so vague and subject to political manipulation that one can speculate it could be used to justify some form of U.N. intervention in Honduras on the pretext that the people there are somehow being victimized by a popular military-backed regime. In fact, some Hondurans are telling this columnist that they are fearful that U.N. “blue helmets” are right now being prepared to invade their country.
newswithviews.com
Yep, it is looking as if our hemisphere is going “bananas”, as in Banana Republics (not the clothing store)- as power will be consolidated by “partnerships”, managed by the UN in a world where international law is ascendent, and every other country’s liberties and laws are secondary.
It is difficult to dismiss these concerns as baseless rumors, considering what will be happening at the U.N. The key U.N. official orchestrating the debate, General Assembly President and Lenin Peace Prize recipient Miguel D’Escoto, is the same figure who recently managed passage of a U.N. resolution supporting the return to Honduras of Manuel Zelaya, who was removed by the military on the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress. Zelaya is a lackey of Venezuelan communist ruler Hugo Chavez, who is using his oil money to buy and influence governments throughout Latin America.
In an ominous development, blogger Jason Poblete, an astute observer of Latin American affairs with excellent sources,reports that “The Obama Administration is considering a United Nations Security Council Resolution against the constitutional government of Honduras.” If true, anticipated U.N. sanctions against Honduras could be followed by the world organization being used as cover for outside forces to invade Honduras and reinstate Zelaya.
The new government in Honduras replaced Zalaya because he was trying to set himself up as president-for-life, Chavez-style. All of this was found to be in violation of Honduran law and the Constitution. Despite what officials of the Obama Administration said in trying to orchestrate media coverage of this crisis, it was not a military coup in any sense. The military doesn’t run Honduras today. In fact, the new president, appointed by Congress, is from Zelaya’s own political party. Zelaya was dismissed because of the simple fact that he tried to violate the law and the Constitution.
newswithviews.com
This “Responsibility to Protect” is just a cheap way to legalize the “change in management” by the UN, and a way for the UN to get a foot in the door for consolidation of power by the few, to the detriment of the many. And it’s not just State powers that seem to have a stake in this quiet struggle, but the Catholic Church seems to have anted up, all while denying that they are in the game at all.
D’Escoto, or as he is called, “Father D’Escoto,” will preside over the U.N. debate, which is expected to run into Friday. Pope Benedict XVI endorsed the “Responsibility to Protect” in an April 2008 speech before the U.N. but has been unclear about how it should be implemented. He has called for dialogue in Honduras.
On the ground in Honduras, an overwhelmingly Catholic Central American country, the Catholic Church has backed the ouster of Zelaya because of the realistic fear that he was a front man for Chavez. In a statement, the Catholic bishops of Honduras declared that Zelaya had been removed from office on the basis of a valid court order.But not all of the Catholic elements in the country are opposing Zalaya’s return. The Jesuit-run Radio Progreso has been acting as a mouthpiece for Zalaya and his supporters and is the source of the recent report that Zelaya intends to invade the country in cahoots with something called the Peaceful Resistance Front. The Catholic Church in Honduras fears that Zelaya could spark a bloodbath. Such a spectacle could provide the cover for U.N. intervention.
newswithviews.com
It appears that everyone wants a slice of the pie, but the real losers will be the smaller countries in this hemisphere, and indeed, beyond, as you could reasonably expect that Russia might seek to re- instate their control over the satellite countries that surround them, evoking a “Cold War” era look to the revised map.
Likewise, China might decide that Korea, Viet Nam, and even Japan might look good as trophies- who would stop them?
R2P is usually offered as a possible remedy in the case of Darfur, a region of Sudan where people are being massacred by the Islamic regime. But this was never realistic. President Obama promised but has failed to do anything about this. The real source of the problem in Darfur is the communist regime in China, which directly finances the Sudanese regime through oil purchases. Obama won’t confront China because he needs Chinese help to finance his tax, spend and debt policies.
newswithviews.com
Actually, he won’t confront China, because he can see himself doing much the same with the countries here in our hemisphere, all with this quasi- legal UN “law”, and he looks like he is going to begin with Zelaya and Honduras.
He should let democracy run its course, but he just can’t do that.
Because at his core, Hussein does not believe in democracy.
And that is bad for all of us.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: democracy, R2P, revolution, un
Democrats Ruin Economy, Hurt Stimulus, Increase Gas Prices
Apr 26, 2008 Political
The Democratic party, the party currently in control, is responsible for the economic slowdown and the problems facing long term recovery. When they ran in 2006 they promised to be more open and run a more ethical government. They also promised to fix every problem that faced this country. The Democrats told the American people that they had a plan to make fix it all. Nancy Pelosi put out a press release promising the American public that the Democrats had a plan to bring gasoline prices under control. It would appear as if her claims are as phony as the Biblical passage she constantly quotes.
Interestingly, many Americans are uninformed and unaware of what is going on so many of them will either not know this or will not understand it. What can we expect from people who follow a candidate who promises change but never says what change? Anyway, President Bush was discussing the redistribution of income plan [Congress calls it the economic stimulus plan] where “rebate” checks are sent to Americans in hopes they will spend them and put more cash flow into the economy. It is a stupid plan concocted in an election year in order to buy votes. Both parties want to be able to tell voters that they gave them money to help them out. Interestingly, this is an admission by the Democrats that allowing us to have more of our money is good for the economy but too many people will be too busy taking money they did not pay in and spending it on gasoline that was supposed to be cheap after Democrats took power.
President Bush, in talking about the checks, stated that they would allow people to pay for the rising cost of food and gas. Democrats jumped right on this and said that the economic stimulus checks were not meant to line the pockets of the oil companies. The Democrats blamed President Bush for this and said it was all his fault (it is an election year so they have to lie, once again, about being able to fix this problem) and that he needed to get OPEC to increase production. In other words, they are saying that the President needs to fix the problem that they caused and that they said they could fix if we elected them.
“It’s galling to think that taxpayers’ stimulus checks will be lining the pockets of OPEC. The sad truth is that the average American family will spend almost their entire stimulus check on higher gas prices this year,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.
OPEC is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
“Unless the administration gets OPEC to increase oil supply, American consumers are going to be in for a scorching summer of $4 gasoline with no relief in sight,” Schumer said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., agreed that people “need this rebate to cope with the rising cost of gas and groceries.” She said that, while the rebates would help to get the economy moving, there was a need for a second stimulus package “and we have begun some conversation with the administration and Republicans.” My Way News
No Mr. Schumer, what is galling is that you Democrats promised Americans that you had a plan to fix the high price of gasoline when you didn’t. What is galling is that you lied about this to get elected and what is even more galling is that you now expect the President to fix the problem when your premise during the election was that he was incapable of fixing it so we needed to elect you to get it done. Mr. Schumer, if Americans will spend almost their entire check on gasoline it is because YOU failed to do what you promised.
Ms. Pelosi, we do not need another stimulus package where you take money from those of us who paid taxes and give it to those who did not. We do not need any more government interference in our lives. If you want to make things easier on Americans then cut our taxes. Reduce the amount of taxes we pay on our income, privatize social security (so we have all our OWN money when we retire or we can pass it to our heirs), and eliminate the gasoline tax. You Democrats promised to go after gouging. You people in Congress have absolutely nothing to do with the production of gas but you gouge consumers for 18.4 cents on every gallon of gas we use. Ms. Pelosi, if you want things to be better than live up to your campaign promise and execute your so-called plan to lower gas prices. Typically, you promised something you could not and had no intention of delivering on. I actually believe that a bunch of monkeys could do your jobs better.
For those of you who think that George Bush and the Republican party is to blame for the slowdown, keep in mind that when these folks were elected the economy was in great shape and the major focus of their campaigning was the war in Iraq (which they continue to cite as a reason for winning). The price of gasoline was $2.19 a gallon and they were crying about it being high and promising to fix the problem. Nearly two years later and we are in an economic downturn and gasoline is more expensive as is nearly everything. The economy went in the tank with the Democrats in charge so much so that they have hardly mentioned Iraq and they are trying to pin all this on Bush. Remember the Carter years and you will have an idea of what it will be like with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratically controlled Congress.
Who will they blame then? Just keep this in mind:
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon and crude was $50 a barrel;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon and crude to $117 a barrel;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
This is what Democrats do to us. Vote for them at your own risk. I can’t see how the workers in this country will continue to fund a government that has an increasing appetite for our hard earned money. It will not take too much more of the income redistribution schemes (universal health care, Social Security, welfare) before people rebel. We did it once to expel the tyranny of government and we can do it again. I think it appropriate that I end with these words from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [emphasis mine]
Our government would do well to remember these words. We have a Second Amendment for a reason (which is why they keep trying to take our weapons)…
Tags: democrat lies, gas prices, income redistribution, lies, Pelosi, revolution, schumer, secret plan, taxes
How Will Ron Paul Do It?
Jan 6, 2008 Political
I have not decided on a candidate yet and since my state primary is after Super Tuesday it might not matter. I have tried to give everyone of them a fair shot at earning my vote. I have watched Ron Paul as I have the others and I like some of the things that he says. I agree with most of his domestic policy ideas and some of his foreign. I have a hard time taking his blame America for everything position. Yes, we as a country have done some things that are not nice. But we are not to blame for all the world’s woes. I would love to see us bring our troops home from Germany, Japan and South Korea and Iraq (but only after we win). I just have some trouble with his insistence that we caused the attack to happen and that our only interest is oil.
The thing that bothers me most about Ron Paul is that he never says HOW he is going to accomplish the things he espouses. He says that he will abolish the IRS. How will he do that when it will take Congress to pass the legislation? Paul says that he will go back to the gold standard. How will he do this without Congress enacting it? I like some of what Ron Paul says but he never tells me how he is going to get it done. Considering he has been in Congress for quite some time I assume he knows that Presidents do very little (regarding these kinds of issues) other than set an agenda and either sign or veto what Congress passes. Without Congress Ron Paul cannot do anything that he says he will. Paul cannot change things because of the very Constitution that he believes in following (and rightly so) and that means nothing will ever get done, regardless of who is president, without Congress.
This is not to say that the other candidates will accomplish what they say because they will face the same hurdles but at least they say how they intend to do things. McCain says he will work with members of both parties to hammer out bills they can agree upon. Thompson says he will put forth plans to work with Congress to get his things done. That is true for all the candidates except for Ron Paul. I like the guy and I like what he believes in but I want to know the HOW part.
As I stated, I have not selected any candidate and there might not be as many by the time I get a chance but I want to give them all a fair look. I want each to have a fair chance at convincing me why I should vote for them.
If some of his supporters, after reading this post, could comment and tell me how he will do these things I would be appreciative. I am not talking about the fringe folks who attack and go all nuts when someone writes anything perceived as negative about Paul. I mean the folks who support him and know his policies. If you know how he will do it or can steer me in the right direction then I would appreciate it.
Please don’t tell me why I should vote for him. Tell me what he is going to do and how he will do it. Convince me that he is the best person for the job.
Tags: assistance, how, method, revolution, ron paul