In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
How Do You Spell Hypocrisy?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
How Do You Spell Hypocrisy?
U-N-I-T-E-D N-A-T-I-O-N-S
The United Nations has spouted the dogma of "human rights" for more than half a century. This is an act of pure public- relations genius. It has reduced half the world to a state of starry-eyed wonder, convinced that the U.N. is on a noble, selfless mission of love and peace.
What the United Nations does is another matter.
While talking the grand and glorious talk, it actually promotes policies that prevent human rights from blossoming in some of the most long-suffering nations on earth. Its policy on disarmament is a case in point -- and the horror of Iraq is an excellent example of how the U.N. uses such policies to support brutality.
THE U.N. WORKS AGAINST SELF DEFENSE
The story of Iraq is one of 34 years of incomprehensible suffering. Iraqis have endured brutal, sadistic tortures, as well as daily life under a Stalinist security state. (For details see http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html).
Yet the U.N. actively and aggressively seeks to prevent these wretched people from freeing themselves (and, perhaps, from ridding the world of a beast, Saddam Hussein, who fosters September 11-style terrorism against the U.S.).
At its 2001 "Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects," the U.N. paid lip service to the right of individual or group self defense, while the conference's entire purpose was to shut off all trade in weapons, except that sanctioned by governments.
Now really, do you envision Saddam Hussein approving of the sale of militia weapons to the Kurds? Or to any of the anti- Saddam factions that fester in this country whose leader is so universally hated, even by his own people? Not in a million years. Yet how does the U.N. imagine these people could ever arm themselves against their oppressor, except through the "illicit," (that is, unregulated, free-market) trade U.N. conferees want to halt?
At the same time, the U.N.'s agreement on small arms, which was approved at that conference (http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/), encourages entrenched "leaders" like Saddam to obtain all the military small arms they desire to crush their opponents.
THE U.N.'S FATAL AGENDA
Does it make sense to you -- to anyone -- that terrorist dictators should have all the arms they want, while potential freedom fighters must be prevented by a world government power from arming themselves?
Whose side is the United Nations on, anyway?
It's on the side of power -- its own and that of oppressive governments. Dominated by the very third-world nations that are among the worst abusers, the U.N. seeks to keep potential opponents down and in misery.
The U.N. has, and always has had, great PR. It's got everyone from UNICEF-collecting school children to network anchor people singing its praises.
But we'd all be a lot better off if the U.N.'s fans quit rhapsodizing and started looking at the reality.
Hypocrisy is spelled U-N-I-T-E-D N-A-T-I-O-N-S. But tragedy is spelled W-I-L-L-F-U-L I-G-N-O-R-A-N-C-E.
The Liberty Crew
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20020517a.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
U-N-I-T-E-D N-A-T-I-O-N-S
The United Nations has spouted the dogma of "human rights" for more than half a century. This is an act of pure public- relations genius. It has reduced half the world to a state of starry-eyed wonder, convinced that the U.N. is on a noble, selfless mission of love and peace.
What the United Nations does is another matter.
While talking the grand and glorious talk, it actually promotes policies that prevent human rights from blossoming in some of the most long-suffering nations on earth. Its policy on disarmament is a case in point -- and the horror of Iraq is an excellent example of how the U.N. uses such policies to support brutality.
THE U.N. WORKS AGAINST SELF DEFENSE
The story of Iraq is one of 34 years of incomprehensible suffering. Iraqis have endured brutal, sadistic tortures, as well as daily life under a Stalinist security state. (For details see http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html).
Yet the U.N. actively and aggressively seeks to prevent these wretched people from freeing themselves (and, perhaps, from ridding the world of a beast, Saddam Hussein, who fosters September 11-style terrorism against the U.S.).
At its 2001 "Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects," the U.N. paid lip service to the right of individual or group self defense, while the conference's entire purpose was to shut off all trade in weapons, except that sanctioned by governments.
Now really, do you envision Saddam Hussein approving of the sale of militia weapons to the Kurds? Or to any of the anti- Saddam factions that fester in this country whose leader is so universally hated, even by his own people? Not in a million years. Yet how does the U.N. imagine these people could ever arm themselves against their oppressor, except through the "illicit," (that is, unregulated, free-market) trade U.N. conferees want to halt?
At the same time, the U.N.'s agreement on small arms, which was approved at that conference (http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/), encourages entrenched "leaders" like Saddam to obtain all the military small arms they desire to crush their opponents.
THE U.N.'S FATAL AGENDA
Does it make sense to you -- to anyone -- that terrorist dictators should have all the arms they want, while potential freedom fighters must be prevented by a world government power from arming themselves?
Whose side is the United Nations on, anyway?
It's on the side of power -- its own and that of oppressive governments. Dominated by the very third-world nations that are among the worst abusers, the U.N. seeks to keep potential opponents down and in misery.
The U.N. has, and always has had, great PR. It's got everyone from UNICEF-collecting school children to network anchor people singing its praises.
But we'd all be a lot better off if the U.N.'s fans quit rhapsodizing and started looking at the reality.
Hypocrisy is spelled U-N-I-T-E-D N-A-T-I-O-N-S. But tragedy is spelled W-I-L-L-F-U-L I-G-N-O-R-A-N-C-E.
The Liberty Crew
http://www.jpfo.org/alert20020517a.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
05/26/02
R eally, there was but one question on the ballot in Oregon's Grant County last Tuesday: Why the hell not?
From Our Advertiser
The answer, of course, was obvious.
Grant County's citizens voted to give themselves the authority to cut trees on the public land that surrounds their towns and scattered ranches. They also approved a second measure demanding the United Nations stay out of their county.
Why not?
Maybe it will draw attention to a desperately poor and deeply frustrated county noticed by the outside world usually once a year. Each summer when the wildfires burn close to town, somebody elbows the governor and he declares Grant County a disaster area.
Sure, it's crazy. The federal goverment can't just stand by while these good folks oil up their chain saws, fan out and decide among themselves which of the stands of ponderosa and lodgepole pine are ripe for the cutting.
The U.N. ballot measure claimed the U.N. Charter promotes seizure of small arms and private land, worldwide taxation and "one-world controlled education of our children." All that's both untrue and just plain weird, but 58 percent of voters went ahead and demanded that the U.N. stay out of Grant County anyway.
Why not?
Grant County doesn't have much left to lose. It has the second-highest unemployment rate in the state, approaching 16 percent, twice the rate that has prompted all the cries of pain in the Portland metropolitan area. And when you're unemployed in Grant County, you stay that way. New employers come around about as often as the United Nations General Assembly.
These people are furious. They've been locked out of the public forests and rangelands that surround them, that fed their mills and their families for generations. The feds keep promising a better, saner, predictable forest policy, one allowing some logging, some fire prevention, some salvage of timber after the inevitable fires that sweep through the county. It never comes.
Meanwhile, the families keep streaming away. Grant County's population has dropped from 8,100 to about 7,500 in the past decade. Its schools have 200 fewer children. Before last week's election, "For Sale" signs hammered into front yards outnumbered campaign signs. The one growing local population is cougars, freed from hound hunting thanks to protections approved by city folk. Now the big cats sometimes wander into the city limits of John Day, Prairie City and Granite, which recently was the last community in Oregon to get phone service.
Why not? By a 67 percent to 33 percent margin, voters approved the measure giving themselves stewardship rights of federal forests. The ballot backers already have scheduled a meeting this week to discuss how to begin removing dead and dying trees from the national forest. They say they plan to begin cutting roadside trees that pose danger to passing cars, and move onto others that could feed wildfires.
They can't do that. Both measures are clearly unconstitutional. The public forests of Grant County don't belong to the people who live around them. At the same time, they don't solely belong to the rest of us. Lands so rich in resources can and should be managed to sustain the communities of Grant County.
This election was a show of anger. It demands a serious response from the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
Meanwhile, as tempers and temperatures rise further this spring, the people of Grant County must remember that they do have something left to lose: Their dignity. When they're invited to exploit this measure by breaking the law, and they again ask themselves, "Why not?," they need to have an answer.
http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/editorial/102232783877310.xml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
Edited by - will270win on 05/27/2002 10:03:04