McCain Advisor Resigns: "I will not work against Obama"

Obama's bill S2433 would commit the US to the UN's Millenium Declaration.

The UN Millenium Declaration "ensure(s) the implementation, by States Parties, of treaties in areas such as arms control and disarmament" (the actual text from the UN site.)

The language sounds benign, but it puts UN soverignty over that of the US, and would allow the UN to in effect override the 2nd amendment.

I can't support that.
 
Imagine this: February 2009. Senate bill 2243, with the help of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, passes both house and senate, and is signed into law by President Obama. SCOTUS moves at its customary molasses in January pace. Confiscation begins, according to the letter of the law.

People in the UK simply couldn't believe it when their guns were confiscated. It couldn't happen to them until it did. Do you want that shocked look on your face when the all-Democratic government tells you that your legally owned firearms are now illegal? On that day you would have two choices for your future: Outlaw/Freedom fighter, or disarmed UN Subject.

Although the term "United Nations" sounds like a positive force, don't forget that its members include our good friends in Angola, Bahrain, Cambodia, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Morocco, Mozambique, PRK, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda, and Yemen.
 
While other have already chimed in regarding Obama, and the UN, the fact remains that Obama is negatively obsessed with US Citizens gun ownership. Even with his recent slip up with PA resident holding on to their guns and religion, gun control will be first on the agenda if he is elected. I really don't see the UN as a threat right now. Fear of the Blue Helmets is for people who where tin foil hats. However he is doing something here that is concerning.

Sections of the United Nations Millennium Declaration

9. We resolve therefore:

• To strengthen respect for the rule of law in international as in national affairs and, in particular, to ensure compliance by Member States with the decisions of the International Court of Justice, in compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, in cases to which they are parties

• To ensure the implementation, by States Parties, of treaties in areas such as arms control and disarmament and of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and call upon all States to consider signing and ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

• To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons.

VIII. Strengthening the United Nations

29. We will spare no effort to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for pursuing all of these priorities: the fight for development for all the peoples of the world, the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease; the fight against injustice; the fight against violence, terror and crime; and the fight against the degradation and destruction of our common home.
Click to expand...

I think if he cannot ban guns using the US law with US police/ Military, he has opened the door to have UN law take over and to have UN troops help out.

What other bills did Obama sponsor? Name me something else?

Again McCain has not supported this piece of legislation
 
Fear of the Blue Helmets is for people who wear tin foil hats.
Click to expand...
The Democrats wouldn't need the blue helmets to physically come to US soil, all they need is a way to cause UN law to have jurisdiction in the US, and the task is done.

The Bradys and Obamas of the world are not going to tell you "this is the law that will make your guns illegal," they are going to quietly sneak it in through the back door, get it enacted, and then say "I guess you should have been paying more attention." Just because a person wears a tinfoil hat doesn't make him wrong. I bet a lot of people in the UK and Australia wish now that there had been more tinfoil hat wearers in their ranks in the past couple decades.
 
Hm. Two guys in blue helmets just made my dog (black Lab, 6 years old) surrender her carry gun.

She's all angry about it. But her thoughts are quickly turning toward dinner.

Is this how it starts?
 
I think some are missing the point here.

The danger is not that the UN will somehow enforce international law within the borders of the US. They will never be strong enough to do that.

The danger comes from people like Obama who agree with the UN agenda expressed in these UN resolutions, and who seek to incorporate them into US law. There is nothing "tin-foil hat" about that concern.

Unlike the "blue-helmets", our Federal, State, and local LEO certainly do have the capability of enforcing gun control measures inside the US.

Remember how the California Highway Patrol was illegally assaulting and disarming (confiscating legally owned guns) the residents of New Orleans after Katrina based only on the directive of one US Army Reserve Colonel?
 
Currently the UN security force is a joke.

Obama wants to strengthen them and give them jurisdiction to enfore internation law on US soil.

That pretty much makes the them not a joke anymore.

Also the China's PLA soldiers made up a good majority of UN peace keeping forces in Sudan, Libera, Lebanon, etc.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2008-05/16/content_6689612.htm

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6402040.html

http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2006/01/chinese-security-forces-in-sudan.html

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=856


Penguin mention,
You object to his wanting to see an end to hunger and poverty?
Click to expand...

No but understand the Obama is commiting a percentage of our GDP to this, during not the best of economic times.

Also why do you need to disarm a population to feed them?
 
You object to his wanting to see an end to hunger and poverty?
Click to expand...
See? That's how they sneak it in the back door.

The main motif of the Millenium Declaration is ending hunger and poverty (which of course no decent person would ever oppose) but buried in the details is a disarmament clause. Of course, Obama and Brady and their ilk will claim that this clause is only to disarm places like Sudan and Afghanistan. That is, until the US signs on.

Seriously, considering Obama's and Pelosi's track record, if the force of law allowed them to subvert the 2nd amendment, do you think that they wouldn't?
 
A better idea would be to donating the money to starving people. I don't see the need to bow down to the UN to accomplish the goal.
 
You object to his wanting to see an end to hunger and poverty?
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? The U.S. can't eliminate poverty and hunger here, but we're going to do it all over the planet? C'mon, this will have the same effect as the "War on Poverty": bloated, corrupt bureaucracies, fraud, and ever increasing demands from the beast we will have created. No thanks.
 
The danger is not that the UN will somehow enforce international law within the borders of the US. They will never be strong enough to do that.
Click to expand...

Never say never in my 65 years+ I've seen too many things happen that folks thought impossible if we live long enough and continue to be complacent and vote in guys like Obama no end to where the left may take us, it will truly be a wild ride.:(
 
You're joking, right? The U.S. can't eliminate poverty and hunger here, but we're going to do it all over the planet? C'mon, this will have the same effect as the "War on Poverty": bloated, corrupt bureaucracies, fraud, and ever increasing demands from the beast we will have created. No thanks
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer my question at all. I asked if you object to his desire to end hunger and poverty. You simply tried to explain why you feel it impossible, not whether it is a worthwhile cause. All great ideas have had people nay-saying them since the beginning of time. His ideals are not impossible, just improbable.

There were people that said man would never fly, slavery would never end, man would never reach the moon, etc. Should we have listened to them or is it better that we listened to a few visionaries that were willing to do the improbable?
 
That doesn't answer my question at all. I asked if you object to his desire to end hunger and poverty. You simply tried to explain why you feel it impossible, not whether it is a worthwhile cause.
Click to expand...

It's a perfect answer to your question.

Let's try it this way......It's nothing but campaign rhetoric, pure and simple.

It's a talking point. You don't even know if Obama wants to do any such thing.
 
sasquatch

...and you do not know that he doesn't.

Once again that is not and answer to the question. That is just more nay-saying. I guess the people in power find it easier to stay in power if they keep the peasants doubting anything can ever get better. That way they do not rally behind the idealists.
 
I want to end global poverty, I want peace in our time, I want to be rich and famous and thin. When you tell me that you can give me those things by taxing me more and giving it to a global super-bureacracy, I know you're a liar (n.b.: referring to BHO). I also know Barack is a liar on a lot of things, but he's certainly a liar on that one too.

That way they do not rally behind the idealists.
Click to expand...


The way they did around the Bolsheviks, around the Nazis, the fascists, all "idealists" at one time. We have a right to fear demagogic "idealists", we've been down this road before.
 
Mikeyboy said:
...the fact remains that Obama is negatively obsessed with US Citizens gun ownership. Even with his recent slip up with PA resident holding on to their guns and religion, gun control will be first on the agenda if he is elected.
Click to expand...

Really? We don't have much bigger problems to solve first? Maybe a war to tend to? An economy in trouble? People who can't afford food and healthcare simultaneously?

Wait! I know - lets worry about guns - and if there is time later, maybe we'll get to that other stuff...:rolleyes::barf:

Come on now. :)
 
Well what does Obama have to say about it

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008
Click to expand...

OK so he want to get guns off the streets but he wants people in rural areas to have guns for hunting and whatnot.

According to his website re-enacting the AWB is a top priority. He also wants to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which keeps your gun purchase information private from anyone except for law enforcement investigating a crime (his site mentions it helping local law enforcement in traces, but that is BS).
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement

That is know...but

He also voted on the Illionis State Legislative National Political Awareness Test (1996 and 1998)to;

1) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
2) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
3) Ban Handguns

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4655 (yes I'm using hilary as a source)

So that leaves you with just bolt,lever, pump and single shot rifles.

At that point if he wants to send in the police or military to take the rest of your guns away, your not going to be able to stop it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top