"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) 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 of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.
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.
Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas."
The above statement is from an article that caught my attention on WorldNetDaily. What had initially caught my eye was a picture of Senator Obama standing in front of a prop of Superman. This propaganda technique definitely worked since I ended up reading the whole article.
Here is the url: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405
I think we could all agree that ending global poverty is a good thing; but, I must ask: what does taking away our second amendment rights have to with that? We have that right for a reason, to protect ourselves from our government.
Is this the "change" that Obama has promised if he becomes our president? That the UN will be making all the decisions for the US? Why does that simply NOT sound right?
Does the prop of the superman make you think that Obama is a "superman" himself and ready to handle any problems? Or do you think that it is a distraction from a very different purpose of this bill?
To me, anyone who would willing WANT to give our rights away to the UN is NOT a superhero, he or she would be a super-foe.
Leave me a comment!