All Posts Tagged With: "second amendment"
American Politics and That Which is Owed…
“In a democracy, the people (always) get the government they deserve.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America,
Being an Englishman and therefore European, I have always fully understood the importance of the United States as the hegemonic leader of the free democratic world. But what I fail to understand is the sheer tinsel “Hollywood” run-up to the actual Presidential elections.
Americans don’t seem to be bothered that millions and millions are spent on spin, media infighting and travel — money hugely wasted on these presidential candidates, money that could be so useful helping the American needy, particularly in these worsening economic times. The people place all their faith in one candidate and then rant and rave about their policies, leadership qualities and seem to trust them implicitly. Hope does have this effect on people, but the eventual reality can be so cruel. The real acid test is what the elected candidate will actually do when he or she becomes president. Isn’t this the whole point ? Put it this way, is there anybody out there who regrets the fact the Dubya was elected instead of Gore or Kerry in the last two presidential melees ? I, for one, cannot understand the reasons why the American public ever even considered Bush Jnr. His reign has been continually characterized by mumbling gaffs, bad grammar in full media view, apparently non-existent geopolitical knowledge, an unhealthy infatuation with World Terrorism, who supports outright torture, zero-level diplomacy, complete disrespect for the UN and therefore the International Community, shadow agendas and he is someone who has a distinct penchant for taking the Second Amendment to illegal international extremes. I surely don’t have to describe anymore do I ? It is notable that Colin Powell served briefly as Secretary of State in the Bush administration. His moderate and calm diplomatic voice was always at loggerheads with The Shrub. Powell was a man who fully understood both the necessity for National Security (having served very favourably as US National Security Adviser under Reagan), as well as for the clear need for the support of the international community. He had wide experience as well as international respect. If ever a particular person should have become President of the United States — he was it. Simply because he had that international respect.
So, how could the American electorate get it so wrong ? How come the American Electorate actually trusted G. W. Bush and elected him to be President — and not just once but twice ?
In my thoughts and wonderings about all this, my conclusions seem to point to differences in personality and character regarding the Presidential front runners and not their policies. Or perhaps it’s just a case of “I have always been and always will be a Republican” and has nothing whatsoever to do with leadership qualities or policies ? Is this true ? I think it is. After the feckless leadership by Bush Jnr under the Republican flag, why else is McCain neck and neck with Obama ? It is certainly not based on Dubya’s winning Republican Presidential achievements is it ? And, as a comparison, how does Dubya compare with the present unpopular English leader and Labour PM — Gordon Brown? Both Bush Jnr and Brown compare very favourably in regard to current national hatred and dissent although, in terms of international respect, I would suggest that Gordon Brown is just a tad ahead. And I can safely tell you now that the Labour party in England has not got a cat in hellfire’s chance of winning the next election (even with a diffferent Labour leader) in 2010. It’s already a foregone conclusion. That is the punishment which is politically due to the Labour party(Brown’s party). But not so with the current Republican candidate and the American electorate. No, no — McCain will definitely be different…
So how do you find out what any presidential candidate stands for or what their policies are and, most importantly — Why ? Trouble is, the US system is not particularly transparent — not as transparent as the UK system anyway. Particularly in the support and funding by that candidates’ backers. It’s far less transparent in America. It even allows a running candidate such as Hillary Clinton and husband to refuse to declare their funding or earnings openly. In UK it is Law, any politician or political party must declare all earnings, funding and support.
Has Electorate America ever thought of looking “behind the door” to see who is supporting Obama or who is supporting McCain ? Who are the Oil Barons supporting or funding ? Who is Big Business funding or supporting ? Who is the Mafia supporting ? Who are the Green Ecos funding (indeed, have they got any money to do this?). Doesn’t this tell you anything significant about the real policies of the candidate? Remember that words are just that — words. But actions are the only thing that should ever convince us. Not high platitudes, plagiarism, promises, blah, blah. This, of course, is only a guarded European view.
But one thing I do know — the monetary candidate support from the Oil Barons, Big Business or Mafia or whomever can only mean one thing - Of this, I am sure…
Payback in full by any future American President.
Obama Trillion Dollar World Welfare Bill Called “Shocking”
The United States Senate may vote any day on the stealth imposition of what could amount to an $845 BILLION United Nations style global tax on American citizens? It’s called the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and it is being sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama.
This disastrous legislation could eventually force U.S. taxpayers to fork over $845,000,000,000.00 — in welfare to third-world countries. Here’s what Phyllis Schlafly, conservative activist and founder of Eagle Forum, recently wrote:
“Obama’s costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend $845 billion on foreign handouts…” [Emphasis Mine]
Ultra liberal Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just issued a report on the Global Poverty Act and it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on Thursday the 24th.
The bill defines the term ‘Millennium Development Goals’ as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration…”
“In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning ’small arms and light weapons’ and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
“Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.”
And, how would the United States pay for this $845 BILLION commitment? According to a report on the legislation; “A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.”
And that $845 BILLION global tax is in addition to our nation’s current Foreign Aid programs, which, in the single year 2006, cost American taxpayers about $300 BILLION!
Senator Obama’s Global Poverty Act has already passed the House (many Members unfortunately voted in favor of it without carefully noting exactly what was in it) and President Bush may very well sign it!
Here are some of the additional provisions of the Millennium Development Goal:
a “currency transfer tax,” that is, a tax imposed on companies and individuals who must exchange dollars for foreign currency;
a “tax on the rental value of land and natural resources”;
a “royalty on worldwide fossil energy projection — oil, natural gas, coal”;
“fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on the carbon content of fuels.”
a “standing peace force,” meaning a standing United Nations army that might, in time, be large enough to force us to bend to its will;
a “UN arms register of all small arms and light weapons,” the beginning of the end of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
the “eradication of poverty” by the “redistribution [of] wealth and land” – How do you suppose the United Nations expects to “redistribute” the land and the wealth? And what country do you think the third-world majority will go after first?
cancellation of “the debts of developing countries,”
“a fair distribution of the earth’s resources.”
and “political control of the global economy.”
In other words, it’s a blueprint for a world government, owned and operated by the United Nations.
One thing is clear: the Millennium Development Goal is a dagger aimed at the heart of America.
While the Global Poverty Act, as presently championed by its Senate supporters, embraces certain aspects of the Millennium Development Goal, one should wonder if some of our legislators also support land and wealth “redistribution.”