My dusty, old but good Webster's Unabridged defines the word "omen" as: "a thing or occurrence thought to portend good or evil; a sign or indication of some future event ...".
For many years now myself and others have made fun of, and laughed aloud at, the lunatic musings of the "one-world government" conspirators. It's easy to think ill of these folks when life seems so good in our present day. The chuckles subside rapidly as one delves into the reality of things.
The U.S. has once again staved off the U.N.'s oft attempted usurpation of the "World Wide Web" (see article). http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175717,00.html This event is significant because of what the U.N has publically said it would do with "WWW" once it wrestles control from the archenemy, America ( http://www.un.org/english/ ). Like other worldwide "laws" the U.N. would create, confiscation of all guns from private citizens, for example, the U.N. has stated the following concerning the "WWW".
1. A tax on each email delivered.
2. A tax on all internet connections.
3. User fees (tax) on all public and private institutions accessing the "WWW".
4. Control over all content on the web and eradication of all material that fails to promote the "one-world ethic", devisive religious material, for example.
... the list goes on.
What would the U.N. do with this money? Why, support the U.N. and it's domination over world leaders, of course. Does a Republican really seem different than a Democrat where the U.N. is concerned? No, I don't think so... and, my apologies to all those one-world conspiracy folks. 'Cause, you are absolutely correct!
6 comments:
Do you know how the U.S.fought them off on this one? I heard mention of the story today but am not familiar with the details.
Yep, I knew we fought 'em off once again. But, I think it's a battle we'll eventually lose. This is why we must get out of the U.N. as quickly as possible! Our Pols will give in eventually.
No, I say do you know how we fought them off?
Oh! ... sorry, yes! The discussions occurred in Tunis, Tunisia at a yearly U.N. "Technology" summit. The ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), a private non-profit American group argued that changing the control of the Internet now would cause great harm to private American and worldwide business interests. The U.N. members took a vote and the ICANN still has control. The very fact that the U.N. has been given (by it's member states) the authority over this issue is the real worry. We have had sex too many times with this whore and the only way to stop the insanity is to divorce ourselves from it.
Isn't it better to stay involved and try to ward off the nonsense before it can really get started? Maybe stay as a member but reduce contributions.
well... we have several choices, I would say.
1. Start our own competing Internet and leave this one to the "world" community. (we would be blocked out in the end)
2. Stay involved, as you suggest, with the strong eventuality that we will lose control. or ...
3. Understand and accept that the U.N. is a bad organization as principle. Perhaps we could start a competing U.N.? My approach comes from the belief that the U.N. is inherently bad for us. As "Peanut Carter" says, we Americans have to come to the realization that some of our Sovereignty has to be given up for the Worldly good. (paraphrased)
To use the "Whore" imagery. We have been infected with a a bad case of V.D. already. It's time we cut and run from the whore, change our way of living, and treat the illness. Anything else is a delaying tactic 'til the eventual world confrontation or our whimpering takeover.
Post a Comment