GOP: Party of Pettiness?

[budgie]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27015.html


Joe Wilson’s outburst Wednesday night earned more than a personal rebuke from the president and a dagger-eyed gasp from the speaker of the House; it drew winces from Republicans worried that their party is becoming known less for the power of its ideals and more for the pettiness of its vitriol.

Discuss....

[Zoomie]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4228/picardfacepalm2j.jpg
Obvious Flame Bait is Obvious. :roll:

[JKD]

The anybody left of Limbaugh is a commie, talk radio, tea party, The UN's gon take mah gunz, elements of the party from deep down in the birther belt(thanks, CJ) seem to be the loudest voices in the GOP room right. Which is a shame because they're not the only voices in that room. The party has and will continue to have good ideas unfortunatley those are being drowned out by all the histrionics.

James Baker, Colin Powell, those are the types of Republicans I always liked. Unfortunately they're the ones who get called "RINO" by the base.

It's not just a Republican problem though. American politics in general, from both sides of the isle, has been taking a Jerry Springer-esque turn for the worse for years now.

[Kletterbuxe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PN47GsdtDo

[Geezah]

The anybody left of Limbaugh is a commie, talk radio, tea party, The UN's gon take mah gunz, elements of the party from deep down in the birther belt(thanks, CJ) seem to be the loudest voices in the GOP room right. Which is a shame because they're not the only voices in that room. The party has and will continue to have good ideas unfortunatley those are being drowned out by all the histrionics.

James Baker, Colin Powell, those are the types of Republicans I always liked. Unfortunately they're the ones who get called "RINO" by the base.

It's not just a Republican problem though. American politics in general, from both sides of the isle, has been taking a Jerry Springer-esque turn for the worse for years now.

Are you saying that the UN has not at any point attempted to get the US to sign onto some type of agreement which would disarm law abiding citizens?

[JKD]

Are you saying that the UN has not at any point attempted to get the US to sign onto some type of agreement which would disarm law abiding citizens?

The US entering into such an agreement is extremely unlikely. It would be absolute political suicide for the politicians and party responsible. I'm as worried about that as I am being locked up in a FEMA death camp.

[Zook]

There are a few good Republicans out there, namely people like John McCain and Ron Paul, but the truth is that the loudest voices in the Republican party are extremists who nobody should ever listen to.

The Republican vision for the United States that has been prominent since Reagan and the world died with the Bush Administration, and right now the only thing they are betting on for returning to power is to try as hard as possible to obstruct and character assassinate every move and policy that Obama makes.

What the party needs is to return to a positive agenda with a platform of ideals and values that appeal to the masses, and not be the party of corporations, anti-abortion activits and gun nuts.

[Invisigoth]

I don't think it's the GOP persee. The problem is that the vocal people in the Republican party right now are not the classic conservatives, but a faith-based, hysterical minority that are led by talking heads into some kind of sad frenzy. On top of that, the party has chosen the completely wrong leaders.

There are plenty smart conservatives out there, but their ideas are being drowned out by the vocal minority of idiots.

[Skutatos]

I don't think it's the GOP persee. The problem is that the vocal people in the Republican party right now are not the classic conservatives, but a faith-based, hysterical minority that are led by talking heads into some kind of sad frenzy. On top of that, the party has chosen the completely wrong leaders.

There are plenty smart conservatives out there, but their ideas are being drowned out by the vocal minority of idiots.

And the vocal people on the left tend to be a bunch of pseudo-intellectual paranoid schizophrenics. This country is going to **** because of these total ****ing morons on both sides.

[shocker1]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27015.html



Discuss....
Pot calls kettle black......News at 11

[Henry's Fork]

This country is going to **** because of these total ****ing morons on both sides.

Hear Hear.

Im also getting sick and tired of having to choose the so called lesser of 2 evils. When are we going to get politicians who are more concerned with the matters at hand instead of trying to get re-elected or suck off lobbyists? whine whine whine, never going to change. bleh.

[Dominique]

This country is going to **** because of these total ****ing morons on both sides.

I couldn't agree more! Loud mouthed, self serving, pompous windbags, have seized control of both the major US parties, or become their self appointed spokes people. Instead of trying to actually figure out how to run the country, get us out of finical hole we're in, and rebuild some of the bridges we've burned, they're spending all their time trying to sabotage each other, and making sure that "their guy" gets reelected.

[brainplay]

There are plenty smart conservatives out there, but their ideas are being drowned out by the vocal minority of idiots.

Problem there is that if it doesn't lean to the left its not going to heard by the left.

Instead they are grouped in with the hard right, called neocons, are left out of decision making process, and are seen as a threat. Saying that anyone that isn't willing to compromise their ideals and beliefs to get a half arsed accomplishment that creates more problems than it solves has a personality disorder isn't helping (looks at JKD :bash: ).

[JKD]

Problem there is that if it doesn't lean to the left its not going to heard by the left.

Instead they are grouped in with the hard right, called neocons, are left out of decision making process, and are seen as a threat. Saying that anyone that isn't willing to compromise their ideals and beliefs to get a half arsed accomplishment that creates more problems than it solves has a personality disorder isn't helping
Did you just use the left's unwillingness to compromise as a vice and then turn around and use your own unwillingness to compromise as some sort of virtue? What?


(looks at JKD :bash: ).
Did you just put a bunch of words in my mouth and then hit me with a cartoon stick?

[11 Bravo]

Did you just put a bunch of words in my mouth and then hit me with a cartoon stick?

I think he did and appropriately so. Seems budgie's continuious left of center propaganda threads just go on and on.... entertaining to a point and ignored otherwise for their blatant bias.

[JKD]

I think he did and appropriately so.
Putting words in my mouth and hitting me with cartoon sticks is appropriate? Do elaborate.

[sct1886]

Deport all of our self serving traitorous politicians on a leaky Titanic replica, then torpedo it for good measure. If they do not abide by their oath of office and or the Constitution, get the hell out!! Allowing open borders, terrorist, the rape of our treasury and country is inexcusable and intolerable. The GOP and Democrats are both equally traitors to their country and people. May they all rot in hell...

[USMCRTop]

There are a few good Republicans out there, namely people like John McCain and Ron Paul, but the truth is that the loudest voices in the Republican party are extremists who nobody should ever listen to.

The Republican vision for the United States that has been prominent since Reagan and the world died with the Bush Administration, and right now the only thing they are betting on for returning to power is to try as hard as possible to obstruct and character assassinate every move and policy that Obama makes.

What the party needs is to return to a positive agenda with a platform of ideals and values that appeal to the masses, and not be the party of corporations, anti-abortion activits and gun nuts.

X2 -- Republican was the party of Lincoln after all....

[budgie]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/4228/picardfacepalm2j.jpg
Obvious Flame Bait is Obvious. :roll:


Actually I should have worded it better than simply 'discuss'. I was referring to the quote posted. Are Republicans really worried that petty politics is getting in the way?

[JKD]

Actually I should have worded it better than simply 'discuss'. I was referring to the quote posted. Are Republicans really worried that petty politics is getting in the way?
If not, they should be. Doing nothing but stroking the base is a good way for any political party to lose elections.

[vryhpyammoadded]

In my opinion, more of the “becoming known less for the power of its ideals and more for the pettiness of its vitriol” and the wing nut fringe, has more to do with distraction and shaping perceptions, propaganda, to divert gazes elsewhere to avoid the real elephant in the room; just why is it we all need such a huge, expensive, unreliable, antagonistic, manipulative and coercive government when a smaller, less expensive, less obtrusive one has worked fine before? What’s so special this go around? Why should we trust them when there’s so much evidence that they shouldn’t? Whose side are they really on?

I know the real answers and that they cannot give in. They’ve burned the bridges and there’s no turning back for them and they think we’d all rather serve in hell (they claim heaven) than rule our own little slice.

Very bad form DC. Republics don’t survive these sorts of antics long.

[XShipRider]

All politics and all politicos are petty... It's the nature, the heart and essence of the political beast.

When in doubt resort to name calling because it distracts from real problems. Sad as it is to say, we Americans are easily distracted with innuendo and populist culture BS. We focus on a problem only until the next "crisis" or "big issue" comes along. How we manage to dominate culture, politics and world opinion so well when all we do is worry about how Michael Jackson died or who should win American Idol is beyond me.

Wouldn't it be nice if people just took some responsibility for their own lives for a change? Imagine how wonderful it would be if law libraries got smaller rather than bigger because people actually took it upon themselves to be just a bit independent. But no, we look to the government for every little problem. Worse, we have stopped looking to our local or state government and demand federal action. And not just for the big things, we demand federal action for just about everything these days.

Here's a simple test: Walk up to 10 people on the street and ask them; a) who their mayor or county commissioner is, b) who their city councilman is (if they live in a city), c) who is on their local school board. Most can't answer who their own child's school teacher or principal is let alone their school board, councilman or mayor.

My point here is, if people stuck to local politics for local issues, state politics for state issues and only called on the feds for real national problems we would all be much better off. The fact is national politics gets all the press which makes people only want to call on federal resources for just about everything.

Our republic is on it's death bed. As more and more power is federalized our once powerful local and state governments become nothing but window dressing, there to placate the masses into thinking they have a voice.

[budgie]

Are you saying that the UN has not at any point attempted to get the US to sign onto some type of agreement which would disarm law abiding citizens?

Geezah you have far too many guns as it is. Give me one - the sexy black AK will do. And a box of ammo. Call it redistribution of wealth...

[brainplay]

Did you just use the left's unwillingness to compromise as a vice and then turn around and use your own unwillingness to compromise as some sort of virtue? What?


Did you just put a bunch of words in my mouth and then hit me with a cartoon stick?

Nope, I expect the left to fight for their beliefs tooth and nail as I expect the right to do so as well. But if they're going to play the "bipartisan moral high ground" then they darn well better play it instead of playing the American people.

Do you know what histrionics means? Maybe you got it from another website and blog and didn't grasp the jab they were trying to make.

Budgie: Can you prove you won't shoot yourself in the foot first? Responsible firearm safety is a must. p-)

[Roaming East]

X2 -- Republican was the party of Lincoln after all....
Except todays Republican party would have called Lincoln a pinko commie socialist cocksucker if he were alive and running for office today.

[brainplay]

Except todays Republican party would have called Lincoln a pinko commie socialist cocksucker if he were alive and running for office today.

With his history of mental breakdowns and social aversions it would be political suicide to let him run under any party's flag.

[JKD]

Nope, I expect the left to fight for their beliefs tooth and nail as I expect the right to do so as well. But if they're going to play the "bipartisan moral high ground" then they darn well better play it instead of playing the American people.
^I agree completely.

But you wouldn't want the Left to "compromise their ideals and beliefs to get a half arsed accomplishment that creates more problems than it solves" as you put it?


Do you know what histrionics means? Maybe you got it from another website and blog and didn't grasp the jab they were trying to make.


1 : theatrical performances
2 : deliberate display of emotion for effect

"You lie!", taking guns to public meetings, *fake cry* "I...I just love mah country" *fake cry*, "Death panels!!", "Unplug grandma!", "I want my country back!", "Kenyan usurper!", plenty of indecipherable shouting and Obama as Hitler posters at town halls and tea parties, and any random sampling of posts here in PD&R on any given day...and the rest of the sad spectacle going on that's off putting to moderates and independents and drowning out the calmer, more rational voices of the GOP

[Connaught Ranger]

Are you saying that the UN has not at any point attempted to get the US to sign onto some type of agreement which would disarm law abiding citizens?

I believe they (U.N.) did suggest / propose a strategy to try keep surplus military weapons out of the hands of unscrupulous weapons dealers, who were selling them onto Third World countries with dodgy End-User Certificates.

But it was never put to the U.N.S.C. as far as I am aware.

If the U.N. (which is not a sovereign state, nor does it have the power to force one of the big players, like the USA to do it, despite what the tinfoil hatted conspiracy theorists allege) tried this with the U.S. then it would have to be initiated in all countries who are part of the U.N..

Connaught Ranger.

[LineDoggie]

Except todays Republican party would have called Lincoln a pinko commie socialist cocksucker if he were alive and running for office today.
Yes, because you say so it should be believeable.....:roll:

[vryhpyammoadded]

Nicely said XShipRider!

For the past hundred or so years, the cancer of corruption, i.e. the leveraging of the Federal powers to legislate/regulate money out of pockets into whoever has the favor of the Hill, has metastasized spreading so deep throughout the people that it has become the rule, not the exception. This has transformed the Federal government into a looting machine dependent on satiating the avarice of its constituency for someone else’s hard earned bacon.

Pick whatever reasons, there are a multitude, for the public’s corrupt behavior and the politico’s who facilitate. My current favorite has been the “I’m going to game the system like the corrupt fat cats do and take what’s mine.”

This, by the way, is pretty much what I got out of a bunch of ACORN activists pushing for a gerrymandered redistricting of my congressional district to solidify the significant lead they already have in votes rightly fearing the 2010 census that’s certain to show a large population increase in white, middle class conservatism.

I informed them that these sorts of actions were considered unethical, immoral and could be illegal and the response was “Well, you rich white men did it to us for over a century, now it’s our turn for payback”. It didn’t matter jack to these creeps that these actions were wrong, immoral, corrupt! All that mattered was that they coerce a slice of my pie because they feel I owed them for the sins of others.

I owe them jack sh*t. Get out of the hood mentality, clean up and get a job punks. I escaped, so can you! All you have to do is toss that slave mentality that makes you someone else’s b*tch, grow up, have a little integrity and make your own life rather than parasitizing someone else’s. If some corrupt punk gaming the system to put you down blocks your path, don’t lower yourself to his level to beat him. I’m immersed in this immature culture every working day and have seen it all my life from my work environment to local government to DC politics.

In my opinion the national identity has fractured into 300 million individual bits now easy pickings for the con men and their minions. The people have lost trust, civilization is built on trust, and leaders untarnished by the culture of corruption, willing to take responsibility for their actions, do the hard work of sticking to the law and our founding principles need to take charge and set the example. Obama, the Hill is not this at all. Their actions, their legislation, their philosophy are pretty much an extension of the clueless ACRON kids still stuck in the hood mentality.

Face it, America has devolved into a kleptocracy!

[Geezah]

The US entering into such an agreement is extremely unlikely.

Why, the UN tried it in the around 2003, it was to our favour that Amb John Bolton was there and told them where to stick it.

Had Kerry got it in, I think it would have gone the other way, as he is no friend to those that repsect the Constitution and the 2nd.

Rebecca Peters through INASA(which is funded by George Soros) works through the UN and sees no reasonn why law abiding citizens should own firearms. After all she helped push through the ban and restrictions in Australia.

The thing is, once you let down your guard that is when they will strike.


U.N. Wants Global Gun Ban

The U.N. is after Americans' Second Amendment gun rights – it wants gun ownership banned in the U.S., and it's not going to stop until it gets its way.
That’s the warning from the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, who reveals that "for the first time in the history of the world, a United Nations conference has set its sights on global disarmament – disarming citizens worldwide – including you and me."

At an 11-day meeting beginning July 9 at U.N. headquarters in New York, every extremist anti-gun group in the world will show up at a summit on "small arms," where the delegates will attempt to create a global standard of gun control, banning civilian fire arms ownership worldwide.

Their aim, LaPierre warns, is "to bring the nightmare of England, Australia and Canada into our country and our homes."

Those nations, along with South Africa and others, have caved in to international pressure and severely restricted civilian gun ownership. Canada has gone so far as to make handgun ownership a felony. As a result, crime rates in England and Australia have skyrocketed since the gun limits went into effect, once again proving the truth of the old saying that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

While the U.N. has no power to force the U.S. to ban gun ownership, it can, with the enthusiastic help of the foreign and domestic anti-self-defense media, create a powerful international movement to shame the U.S. into junking the Second Amendment rights of private gun ownership.

"You and I won’t go one day without hearing that the rest of the world is banning guns and it’s time for the U.S. to get in line and do the same," LaPierre wrote.

As a prelude to this frightening gathering of anti-self-defense fanatics, a number of proposals have already been advanced at various U.N. forums. Among them:


Strategies to reduce the number of guns in private hands that include mandating a maximum one-gun-per-person rule;

A ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than government officials and target shooters who would be forced to store their weapons at shooting ranges;

Worldwide licensing of firearms registered in a vast U.N. computer bank.
"The bottom line is that international gun banners want every gun – every single gun worldwide – to be under U.N. and government control," warns LaPierre. "And that includes your rifle, your shotgun, your handgun, and even family heirlooms that have been handed down from generation to generation."

LaPierre urges Americans to`contact Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and express their outrage at this latest U.N. power grab.

Helms, he notes, is already on record as deploring the U.N.’s anti-gun project. He wrote a letter to the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1999 in which he described the U.N. gun ban project: nothing less that a brazen international expansion of the [Clinton-Gore] domestic gun control agenda."

Link (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/130646.shtml)


The 40-year gun grab
'60s disarmament plan still going strong, say U.N. critics


For nearly 40 years, a few groups on the political right have sounded the alarm over a seemingly absurd scenario -- that gun control legislation was actually a key part of a plan for total national disarmament and the eventual replacement of United States troops by a United Nations army as part of the law enforcement arm of a one-world government.
The idea that such an improbable plan could exist, if only on paper -- or even more improbable, that people were working behind the scenes to implement it - has always been dismissed by the mainstream media and government officials as a paranoid, right-wing delusion.

So where exactly does the truth lie in this decades-old controversy - the cause of great alarm for some, and for others, an occasion to heap ridicule and contempt?

At the center of this issue is a 20-page State Department pamphlet published in 1961, titled "Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World" - Department of State Publication 7277. The program outlined was presented by President Kennedy to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25, 1961, and offered "specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts." These included:

* The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their re-establishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force.

* The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining order.

The disarmament process would take place in three stages:

* Stage I: Measures that would "significantly reduce" the capabilities of nations to wage war.

An International Disarmament Organization would be created within the United Nations; an inspection infrastructure would be established with observation posts set up at ports, highways, airbases and railway centers to monitor troop movements and other military activities; and -- most important -- States would develop arrangements for establishment of a U.N. Peace Force and U.N. peace observation groups would be "staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace."

"A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles."

"Arms and armed forces would be reduced: The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men."

* Stage II: Further reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states would be made, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons; a permanent international peace force would be established within the United Nations;

"The dismantling or conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located" would continue;

The International Disarmament Organization would be strengthened and enlarged to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.

* Stage III: "During the third stage, the states of the world ... would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:

"States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining order; they would also provide support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. PeaceForce.

"The manufacturing of armaments would be prohibited except for those agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.

"The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world."

Shortly after his address, President Kennedy signed Public Law 87-297 (H.R. 9118) that created the United States Arms Control Agency, a separate organization operating outside the jurisdiction of any department and charged with overseeing the disarmament agenda.According to the statute creating the agency, the terms "arms control" and "disarmament" mean "the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement to establish an effective system of international control.... "

On April 18, 1962, the new Arms Control and Disarmament Agency carried the ideas in Freedom From War another step -- offering a draft of a treaty entitled, "Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World," which reiterated the provisions of "Freedom from War." When word of Document 7277 got around, the State Department was deluged with requests, and after the supply was quickly depleted, the U.S. Government Printing Office didn't print any more copies. In response to the demand, the ultraconservative John Birch Society took on the task of keeping the nation supplied with facsimile copies -- exact replicas of the original, right down to its bright blue cover. The document is also on the State Department's website in the archives section.

"This document is one of the most revolutionary and subversive proposals ever put foreword by any government official," wrote William Jasper, senior editor of the Birch Society's magazine, The New American, in the Nov. 22 edition. "Incredibly, the program originally introduced in this document became -- and remains - official U.S. policy."

Jasper adds, "And since no provision is made for an exemption of arms owned by private citizens (and since the U.N, itself is hardly sympathetic to private gun ownership), it is reasonable to assume that private arms are intended for destruction under the term."

Tom Mason, a Portland, Ore. Attorney who lobbies for the National Rifle Association in the international arena, corroborates at least part of Jasper's contention - that gun control is connected to the disarmament movement.

"In the United Nations, the movement against guns started in 1995 with two almost simultaneous efforts," said Mason. "To this day it remains a two-****ged approach -- a dynamic between two centers of action: one centered in Vienna, one in New York City."

Vienna is home to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice -- which approaches gun control as part of an effort against international crime.

"Half the action is in Vienna, where the focus is on crime prevention," said Mason. "The other is in New York and the Department of Disarmament Affairs at the United Nations headquarters."

David Patterson, deputy historian at the State Department, downplayed the possible significance of Freedom From War and the Blueprint for the Peace Race -- identifying them as "part of the propaganda war."

"It's a recurring issue which conservative groups would put forward as an example of how we were willing to capitulate to the Soviet Union during the Cold War -- disarm unilaterally," Patterson said. "Of course, none of this was true, but it's still going the rounds of right-wing publications. We get these calls."

Asked about the draft treaty Blueprint for the Peace Race, Patterson answered, "It was submitted to the U.N. and Kennedy had talked about it in more general terms in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in 1961. So it was a blueprint. It was an outline of what the United States was prepared to do if we could come to an agreement with the other parties, particularly the Soviet Union, on the issue of general and complete disarmament."

"Of course," he continued, "It was pie in the sky, because there wereso many conditions put on the proposal that the Soviet Union would never accept it. And if they had accepted it they would have had to open up their society and be prepared to have all kinds of comprehensive inspections, which at the time they were totally unprepared to do."

"It [the proposal] met a quick death -- nothing happened," said Patterson, who added that as far as he knew it was never implemented.

"I think that it's far-fetched to say that the current efforts at gun control in the United Nations go back to 1961. Unless you can show some kind of linkage over the past almost 40 years between those two issues [gun control and disarmament] it would be hard to demonstrate."

William Nary, who was with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1963 until his retirement in 1994 and historian for the agency for 20 years, described the proposal as "visionary" and said it had "not technically" been withdrawn. Total disarmament, he said, meant "exactly what the plan says: Only the police and armed forces would have arms."

"But I know we were never going after hunters or sportsmen - despite what the plan says," he added.

"It was advocated in part because the Russians had proposed it. They had proposed a plan calling for general and complete disarmament - but radical disarmament," Nary said. "It seems to me it [the proposal] was idealistic and visionary, and I don't know who would have expected that we would achieve it. But it was a bit of a plan, and many of those measures have been adopted. Specifically, test ban agreements, reductions in manpower of the armed forces, controls on the transfer of armaments -- treaties like SALT I and II and START -- control of nuclear weapons systems and large conventional forces."

Asked whether, under the plan, a private citizen would be allowed to own a gun, Nary recalled: "That issue came up, and I know that our leadership made it clear to the Congress that we were not trying to disarm private citizens in that sense -- not just the precise wording of the plan. I know that our leadership testified to the Congress that we weren't about to completely do in the National Rifle Association. That wasn't part of the design -- at least we interpreted it as not to include disarming the citizens or hunters." Natalie Goldring is director of the newly-established Program on General Disarmament at the University of Maryland, a founder of the International Action Network on Small Arms, and director of the Security and Disarmament Program at the National Center for Economics and Security Alternatives, a non-governmental organization. This last, she says, is useful when she wishes "to take off my academic hat" and work on issues through IANSA as a representative of a non-governmental organization. WorldNetDaily documented recently how such groups are lobbying hard at the United Nations - and being heard - in their efforts to bring about international gun control.

Goldring is familiar with Kennedy's Blueprint for the Peace Race and Freedom from War proposals, and told WorldNetDaily how far the proposals had come toward being implemented.

According to Goldring, the term "general disarmament," as used in U.N. circles and by non-governmental groups, does indeed encompass smallarms - including rifles, shotguns and handguns.

"The idea is that we're opening the discussion," she said, explaining the current emphasis at the United Nations on disarmament and its focus on light weapons and small arms -- which she sees as a revival of interest, rather than a completely new issue.

"There hasn't been any public discussion on this in 35 years -- the last hearings were in the 1960s," she explained. "I think that during the Kennedy administration you had a lot of actual research being done on broader disarmament programs. Some of that was purely political in nature and wasn't very practical even then -- and it was a fairly idealistic time. But a lot of the principles that were enunciated are still relevant today."

"People talked about three stages of disarmament a lot in the early '60s, but in the decades since then we've done much of Stage One, bits of Stage Two, and maybe a little bit of Stage Three," she said. For example, "We've got a non-proliferation treaty. We more or less have a comprehensive test ban. We've got a treaty banning national missile defense. Since that time we've had a significant buildup of strategic weapons, but we've also had a dismantling and a destruction of a great number of nuclear weapons. So a lot of things have happened that are on the positive side of the measure."

Other parts of the program required by Stage II in the plan have also been realized, Goldring said, notably the dismantling of certain military bases, the reduction of military forces and the buildup of the U.N. peace-keeping forces -- though as she sees it, the balance between U.S. military infrastructure and force levels is "completely skewed."

Addressing the issue of base closures, "We need to do more," she said. Specifically, "at least one and probably several more rounds of base closures. They're still implementing the last round of base closures, but if they don't keep going, you'll have a very inefficient set-up, because a disproportionate percent of the defense budget will go towards facilities and infrastructure."

"That's happening now," she continued, "But we're getting the annual Army whining about how they don't have enough people. They're telling Congress the units aren't ready to go to war -- and it turns out that many of the people in those units are currently on peacekeeping missions -- it's not as though they've left the military."

"So there has been a reduction in military forces -- but not to my mind as much as needs to," Goldring said.

Link (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17280)

Again, IANSA are involved, which again is funded by Soros, and who met Soros with Sorso at his office December 4th 2006?

Obama, who does not have a steller history where firearms are concerned.

If the Dems maintain the majority after the election in 2010, I see an all out ASSault on privately held firearms.



It would be absolute political suicide for the politicians and party responsible. I'm as worried about that as I am being locked up in a FEMA death camp.

Now you talk about political suicide, but the Dems pushed the AWB, and while alot of Dem Sen and Rep lost their seats they still harp on about enacting another AWB, even though it has been proven time and again it did nothing to stem firearm crime.

[Geezah]

Geezah you have far too many guns as it is. Give me one - the sexy black AK will do. And a box of ammo. Call it redistribution of wealth...

It would be hard for me to give you the AK, as it went a while back, as to all the others......well, they were all lost in a boating accident...................

[JKD]

Why, the UN tried it in the around 2003, it was to our favour that Amb John Bolton was there and told them where to stick it.

Had Kerry got it in, I think it would have gone the other way, as he is no friend to those that repsect the Constitution and the 2nd.

Rebecca Peters through INASA(which is funded by George Soros) works through the UN and sees no reasonn why law abiding citizens should own firearms. After all she helped push through the ban and restrictions in Australia.

The thing is, once you let down your guard that is when they will strike.



Link (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/130646.shtml)



Link (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17280)
Newsmax and world net daily......I'm not going to even bother


Again, IANSA are involved, which again is funded by Soros, and who met Soros with Sorso at his office December 4th 2006?

Obama, who does not have a steller history where firearms are concerned.
Well that settles it then. Obama met with someone who knows someone who doesn't like firearms...we're doomed.


If the Dems maintain the majority after the election in 2010, I see an all out ASSault on privately held firearms.
What makes you think they want to lose elections in 2012?



Now you talk about political suicide, but the Dems pushed the AWB, and while alot of Dem Sen and Rep lost their seats they still harp on about enacting another AWB, even though it has been proven time and again it did nothing to stem firearm crime.
In large part the AWB cost the Dems the House for the first time in 40 years and the Senate....another one would do what for them politically do you think? Hell, most of the Dems I know are gun owners themselves. Politicians and political parties aren't in the habit of deliberately falling on their swords. They like staying in power.

[brainplay]

But you wouldn't want the Left to "compromise their ideals and beliefs to get a half arsed accomplishment that creates more problems than it solves" as you put it?

No I leave that to Colin Powell and Baker which is who was referenced in your earlier post.

My mistake on the histrionics. Darn psychology degree crept up on me thinking you were talking about HPD.

[Geezah]

Newsmax and world net daily......I'm not going to even bother

While you may not agree with the sources, it still does not take away from the fact that the UN would like to see law abiding citizens disarmed in the US.


Latin America: 'The More Guns, the More Violence'

Traffic in light weapons and small arms is one of Latin America's major disarmament concerns, because they fuel urban violence, especially in countries like Mexico, Guatemala and Brazil.

This is one of the issues on the agenda of the 62nd Annual Conference for Non-Governmental Organisations associated with the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI/NGO), attended by 1,700 delegates from 75 countries under the banner 'For Peace and Development: Disarm Now!'

'These weapons, trafficked illegally for huge profits, are used by common criminals and organised crime to attack society and the members of the security forces,' Mexican Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa said Wednesday at the start of the conference, which is being held at a former convent near the historic centre of the Mexican capital.

Small arms are a particular scourge in Mexico, because of the widespread activities of drug cartels. An undetermined number of weapons are acquired on the legal market in the United States, or are smuggled in from Central America.

Defence Ministry statistics indicate that between 2000 and 2006 a total of 257,993 firearms were destroyed, 723 lost, 2,367 stolen, 238,838 registered and 31,931 transferred between owners or jurisdictions.

Since taking office in late 2006, conservative President Felipe Calderón has deployed thousands of soldiers around the country to fight drug trafficking. However, since then drug-related killings have soared, leaving over 14,000 people dead up to August this year, according to unofficial counts.

Behind these deaths are the small and light arms which provide the drug mafias with most of their fire power.

Worldwide there are more than 500 million light arms in circulation, an average of one for every 12 people. They were instrumental in 46 out of the 49 major conflicts fought since 1990, and were responsible for the deaths of four million people, most of them civilians, women and children, according to the United Nations.

It is estimated that only about half the global trade in small arms is legal. Furthermore, legally exported weapons often end up on the black market.

Illegal dealing in small arms is estimated to net between two billion and 10 billion dollars a year, according to the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), founded in 1998 and made up of 800 NGOs from 120 countries.

Nearly seven million rifles and handguns are manufactured every year, mainly in the United States and the European Union.

To tackle the problem, a United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects was held Jul. 9-20, 2001 at U.N. headquarters in New York.

'In Mexico, armed violence and violence against women are severe problems. The more guns, the more violence,' Héctor Guerra, IANSA representative in this country, told IPS.

IANSA is proposing legislation to ban or revoke firearm licenses for people convicted of using guns to commit gender violence.

The high levels of violent crime in this country of over 107 million people have had an impact on life expectancy, shortening it by more than half a year, according to a study by researchers from the United States, Canada and Switzerland published late July in the British journal Criminology and Criminal Justice.

Mexico is a keen supporter of efforts toward an international agreement on the small arms trade and fighting illegal arms traffic.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is another concern at the DPI/NGO Conference, which runs through Friday. This is the second consecutive year that the meeting has been held outside of U.N. headquarters in New York.

In his opening address, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that there are 20 million nuclear warheads on the planet, available for instant use, and called on the international community to work towards nuclear disarmament.

'There can be no development without peace and no peace without development. Disarmament can provide the means for both,' Ban said.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-I) signed in 1991 by the United States and the then Soviet Union, which imposed a cap on the nuclear arsenals of both powers, expires in December.

On Sept. 24, a special session of the U.N. Security Council will discuss global nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

A conference to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in force since 1970, will also meet in New York in May 2010.

U.S. activist Jody Williams, winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her campaign against land mines, told reporters Wednesday she would 'press for a convention on nuclear weapons,' because 'if we continue to talk about the eventual elimination of these weapons,' they will never actually be banned.

The Latin American and Caribbean region is a nuclear weapons-free zone under the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, better known as the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which was signed in Mexico City in 1967. Mexico was one of the sponsors of the ban.

The U.N. strategy for achieving a world free of nuclear weapons proposes that disarmament must enhance the security of nations, be reliably verified, be rooted in legal obligations, be visible to the public and anticipate emerging dangers from other weapons, Ban said.

Williams said that if, at this critical juncture, NGOs did not step in and push for the abolition of nuclear weapons, the moment would be lost, and a new, uncontrolled and terrifying arms race might ensue - a frightening prospect for the future.

In Guerra's view, this week's conference should conclude with a strong declaration against all kinds of arms, particularly small arms and light weapons.


Link (http://www.globalissues.org/news/2009/09/10/2768)

The latest rally cry is Mexico.

They will try anything to push their agenda, and Obama and Holder jumped on board, but it all of a sudden died a death, atleast when it comes to the left leaning media.





Well that settles it then. Obama met with someone who knows someone who doesn't like firearms...we're doomed.

It's amazing that that someone, supported Kerry and Gore, and now Obama, plus also funds INASA, which is in the forefront of gun control.

While you might not like to connect the dots, they are there.


Obama Meets Party Donors in New York

Senator Barack Obama treaded onto Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s home turf last night to meet with prominent Democratic donors and feel out those who might prefer the sound of President Obama to President Clinton (as in Hillary, not Bill).

Amid intensifying presidential musings by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama met with George Soros, the liberal billionaire philanthropist, then some other donors last night at Mr. Soros’s offices. Afterward he spoke at a charity event that was to be followed by a news conference.

One of the donors who met with Mr. Obama, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to offend Mrs. Clinton, said that he and several others had supported Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaigns but were not committed to her as a presidential candidate.

“I like Hillary a lot, but I’m also impressed with Obama — his message, the way he connects to people,” said the donor, a prominent businessman. “It’s a little too early for Democrats to be certain that Hillary is the strongest bet for 2008. There are a lot of good people interested in running.”

Mr. Obama’s reconnaissance mission came as Mrs. Clinton was starting to talk about 2008 not only with New York elected officials, but also with some prominent donors whom she would like to lock in for a possible White House bid.

John Catsimatidis, a loyal Clinton donor, said he had recently received a phone call from Mrs. Clinton asking to have dinner before the holidays. He believes she wants to run for president and is moving to ramp up her Senate fund-raising operation for a White House campaign.

“I think they have a phenomenal political machine set up that’s far superior to any of the other candidates, or theoretical candidates,” Mr. Catsimatidis said. “Now they’re getting ready to put that machine to use.”

To that end, the Clinton team disclosed yesterday that they had a new national finance director lined up in case the senator decided to run. Jonathan Mantz, a fund-raiser for Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and a former finance official for the Washington-based operations to elect a Democratic House and Senate, has agreed to work for her if she is a candidate.

“It’s not anything that is imminent,” said Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to Senator Clinton. The senator is expected to decide this winter whether to create an exploratory presidential committee.

Derek Shearer, a former ambassador, a donor to President Bill Clinton’s campaigns and a supporter of Senator Clinton, said he believed that Mrs. Clinton’s moves did not reflect concern about financial or political competition from Mr. Obama or others, but rather an orderly process of consultation and preparation.

“She’s very deliberate about these things,” he said. “What most concerns her is, does she think she could win and really make a difference in the country.”

Supporters of Mr. Obama, a freshman senator from Illinois, described his New York visit as a combination of fact-finding and meet-and-greet as he considers whether to seek the Democratic nomination. They said, and political analysts echoed, that Mr. Obama acknowledged Mrs. Clinton’s home-state advantage in New York, but that there was surging interest in Mr. Obama, an eloquent antiwar Democrat who, if successful, would be the country’s first black nominee for president.

“Most of the people Barack is seeing are either doing it out of respect for anyone who is a United States senator, or out of curiosity, or to leave their options open in case she decides not to run,” said Ken Sherrill, a political scientist at Hunter College. “I can’t imagine his picking up any significant support, but he can establish good will.”

Mr. Soros, an early supporter, was the host of a fund-raiser during Mr. Obama’s campaign for the Senate in 2004, said Michael Vachon, a senior aide to Mr. Soros. Mr. Obama’s staff asked to use the Soros offices for last night’s meetings since it was near the Midtown hotel where the senator spoke last night at a fund-raiser for K.I.D.S. (Kids in Distressed Situations), which assists children living in poverty.

Mr. Soros has not publicly endorsed or committed to any 2008 presidential hopeful.

While another possible Democratic candidate, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, raised $500,000 in New York last week, others have been less aggressive in reaching out to New York donors than in past cycles, some of these donors say.

Former Senator John Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore have been in New York recently, and others plan to be, including Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware and Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa. Yet the donors say that neither Mr. Edwards nor Mr. Obama, who are receiving perhaps the most buzz as possible opponents of Senator Clinton, nor anyone else has made an assertive push to challenge Mrs. Clinton and her local donor base in the aftermath of the 2006 elections

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/us/politics/05obama.html?ei=5090&en=d45c54c42290ee99&ex=1322974800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)




What makes you think they want to lose elections in 2012?

Come on, the Dems get ahead of themselves, they think they control the House, Senate and Whitehouse and it's in the bag.

Feinstein, Schumer and a few others want to push their agenda no matter what, so it's just a matter of time soemthing is brought to the table.

All I suggest, if that happens, make sure you have plenty of standard capacity mags for your new XD;)




In large part the AWB cost the Dems the House for the first time in 40 years and the Senate....another one would do what for them politically do you think? Hell, most of the Dems I know are gun owners themselves. Politicians and political parties aren't in the habit of deliberately falling on their swords. They like staying in power.

For most this isn't the case, but as we have seen many times before, there are those that make it in the politcal world and they suddenly think they are untouchable.

[Connaught Ranger]

It would be hard for me to give you the AK, as it went a while back, as to all the others......well, they were all lost in a boating accident...................

So in other words you declared them lost,

while stashing them in bunker, paranoid or what?:roll:


While you may not agree with the sources, it still does not take away from the fact that the UN would like to see law abiding citizens disarmed in the US.

If you are illegally stashing weapons do you qualify as a law abiding citizen.:roll:



While you might not like to connect the dots, they are there. Even if you add a few extra dots to make life easier.:roll:


All I suggest, if that happens, make sure you have plenty of standard capacity mags for your new XD

Yup, worst case a paranoia seen in a plastic yank this year. rofl

Connaught Ranger.