UN proposes to regulate gun ownership in America!

This from Forbes:

Under the guise of a proposed global "Small Arms Treaty" premised to fight "terrorism", "insurgency" and "international crime syndicates" you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2. Confiscate and destroy all "unauthorized" civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single "bang" manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Brilliant - there is already a proposal for the UN to institute global taxation and now they want to regulate gun ownership in the United States.

What other amendments should we ignore all in the name of global equality? This administration has already assaulted the 1st amendment where they thought it prudent to make religious organizations pay for contraceptives against their religious teaching. You could argue the 10th as well - Limits the powers of the federal government to those delegated to it by the Constitution with its massive power grab via Obamacare.

Does the Constitution mean nothing to these people? Wait never mind don't answer that..

UN proposes a global tax on financial transactions

Call me old fashioned but didn't we fight a war about this about 250 years ago? You know that outdated notion of taxation without representation. By what authourty does the UN propose to administer this tax?

According to this statement posted by the UN, under the auspices of the Human Rights Council (emphasis mine):

"Where the world financial crisis has brought about the loss of millions of jobs, socialized private debt burdens and now risks causing significant human rights regressions through wide-ranging austerity packages, a financial transaction tax (FTT) is a pragmatic tool for providing the means for governments to protect and fulfill the human rights of their people," said the rights experts on extreme poverty, food, business, foreign debt and international solidarity.

"EU countries must take bold leadership now to pave the way towards what should eventually be a global FTT," they urged, welcoming recent EU proposals to implement the financial transaction tax across the Eurozone.

Ahhh, social justice of course. And given the UN's record of corruption and mismanagement how much of these dollars will actually find its way to the intended targets? Well the group are called the Human Rights Council so they must be good global citizens right? Well here is a partial list of members:

Libya
Cuba
China
Saudi Arabia
Russia
Cuba

Sounds like an amicable group if you want to be robbed blind. These countries are on the Human Rights Council - Seriously!

Listen, the UN jumped the shark a long time ago. Why the US and our allies give this corrupt group of bandits any credence is beyond me. Let me ask this question. Given China and Russia have veto power in the Security Council - what exactly is our reason for even being part of this group of misfits? If we pulled out of the UN tomorrow what would happen that is not happening anyway. Iran is still building nuclear weapons; North Korea is still trying to develop missiles that will reach America's mainland.

Honestly, if we pulled out of the UN it would do nothing less that de-legitimize the entire organization to the point that it would cease to exist. And that would not be a bad thing.

Once again government is the answer

I found this report over at the Royal Society's web site called: People and the Planet Report. The purpose of the report is to emphasize the precariousness of the planet as it relates to population growth and the scarceness of resources and how badly the resources that do exist are poorly distributed. But the best part is their recommendations on how to avoid the looming catastrophe that awaits us (emphasis theirs):

Recommendation 1

The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health.

By 'international community' they mean the dysfunctional UN of course. But more importantly the 'reduce the inequality that persists in the world today' should give you the real purpose. You guessed it income redistribution on a global scale.

Recommendation 2

The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.

'Investment in sustainable resources' read: the same pixie dust Obama and the greenies have been pandering for the last thirty years.

Recommendation 3

Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high.

Sandra Fluke would be so proud - international governments paying for other people to have sex without consequences!

Recommendation 4

Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings.

Sweeeet - gotta get the climate change nonsense in there!

Recommendation 5

Governments should realise the potential of urbanisation to reduce material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency measures. The well planned provision of water supply, waste disposal, power and other services will avoid slum conditions and increase the welfare of inhabitants.

This is nothing short of the collectivists' wettest of wet dreams. Gotta get everybody close together because it is so much easier to control them when they are in one place and all services will be provided by the omnipresent government.

Recommendation 6

In order to meet previously agreed goals for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school attendance need to work with international funders and organisations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and Education for All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all the world's young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and boys.

By and large I could agree with this in principle, however, I do have a problem with the 'non-financial barrier'. And the greatest 'non-financial barrier' that exists are the varying types of governments around the world that they suggest we help and in many cases (North Korea, China, any one of the dysfunctional African countries) are run by tyrants/dictators who have no interest in educating the masses because it will only undermine their power.

You know what, why not?

Congress woman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen(R-FL), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, wants to make the dues paid to the UN voluntary. At first blush this sounded isolationists to me but upon further reflection…

"Making U.N. funding voluntary will give the U.S. control over how our contributions are spent at the U.N. Otherwise, U.S. taxpayer dollars will keep being spent on the bad, the ugly and the indefensible, and there will continue to be no incentive for the U.N. to reform," she said.

It appears that her goal is not for the U.S. to pull out of the U.N. altogether, but rather reform the institution. And how better to do that than controlling the purse strings? Currently the U.S. is responsible for almost a quarter of the U.N.'s budget, by far the largest contributor. So withholding that kind of funding would certainly get the attention of those in charge. And given the abuse, corruption and outright anti-American/Israeli sentiments, Congress woman Ros-Lehtinen's proposal would seem reasonable. So what does the state department have to say about it?:

"We just don't think this is the right way to go about it," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at a briefing Tuesday. "Rather, we would like to work within the U.N. system and will continue to try and do so on U.N. reform."

Reform from within? REALLY! Let's take a look-see at just a few of the great deeds this hollowed body has accomplished:

1. Many sternly worded letters to North Korea that accomplished absolutely nothing.
   
2. Members of the Human Rights counsel include: Libya, China and Cuba (Murderer's row huh?)
   
3. Condemnation of Israel's attack on the Gaza Flotilla (sovereign nations can't defend their borders anymore)
   
4. Israel is the only UN member not permitted to stand for election to the full range of UN bodies (a restriction not applied to such upstanding global citizens like Iran, Cuba and until recently Libya.
   

But no the Administration and the State Department are exercising smart power here. See people like Congress woman Ros-Lehtinen and me are just not clever enough to see that by allowing the U.N. to continue its naughty ways, it is somehow good for America. The one thing these folks have in common is their lack of understanding that America as unique in the world. Something other nations should aspire too be. Rather, they see a utopian one government world order based on autocracy where the elite are the only ones qualified to rule.