Thursday, November 29, 2012

The UN States of America?

Are we heading for the time when Amerika will be ruled by the U.N.? Does that sound a bit nutty to you? Well, maybe you shouldn't start laughing just yet.

For a long time, there have been those on the Left calling for a "one-world government", with the UN being that govt. Remember Hitlary Clinton telling us that Amerika was just part of the "global village" when she and Bubba were in the WH? Now that our country is controlled by Socialists, Marxists, and the "one-world" crowd, the idea of having the UN running the world, and especially the US, is starting to grow legs.

As we speak, the Muslim-in-Chief and Hitlary are deeply involved in treaty talks at the UN. And one of those treaties is about "arms control". (see: gun control ) That's right. The US would have to abide by any treaty we sign, no matter what our Constitution says.

Do you think having the UN flag flying above the WH and Capital Hill would bother the notoriously gullible and brain-dead American sheeple? Do you think they would even notice it? No, neither do i...


Schteveo said...

They can talk ALL they want, but the "People Buying ALL the Guns" will have the last say.

I asked this question before, but WHICH Army from WHAT country do you think can take on the New American Minute Man? You and I were talking about the FBI Background Check Server crashing on Black Friday because of the 1.5 MILLION new requests hitting the interweb. That's frigging awesome to me, millions of people taking the time to think, "...something is about to pop off, and I'll be damned if MY family is going to be unprotected!". I know you and I already disagree on how or how many will actually shoot somebody. But the Founders had that same dilemma, remember?

That's WHY we have the Federalist Papers.

It was a few SMART people pounding the drum of freedom and explaining how and why a NEW government would work. Now we have people pounding the same drum, and ,many of us know we need to go BACK t that 'New' government.

My buddy at my favorite gun outlet says a third of his customers are NEW gun owners, and most of them are buying a shotgun and a handgun on their first visit. The next third are guys like me who started buying slowly over the last 7 - 10 years. People like those of us in here who saw this coming and were ahead of what I like to call, "The AW Shit Curve".

You're in that group too, and probably a number of years ahead of me. When was it that YOU first looked at the government, monetary system, 'entitlements', etc and thought, "AW Shit!"

For me it was before I ever went in the Navy. I was saying aw shit during the damned Oil Embargo. But I'm betting you said it when someone put a hole in RFK? Or before THAT even. I know the campus riots and anti-war protests were a big deal to a NYC LEO, so you did AW Shit in what '65, '67?

(see below)

Schteveo said...


But my point is, millions and Millions and MILLIONS of men and women in this country have woken up. They are stock piling food, guns, ammunition, and medicines. They know in their gut that shit is about to hit the fan. They have made the decision to NOT be part of the sheeople. And in my opinion, it's a very short step from protecting your own home, to protecting your neighbors too, to joining the county militia, to be attached to the state militia, to throwing every MFer with a blue helmet into a plane and sending them BACK to wherever they came from.

Two things, and I'll shut up for now. [yeah, right]

First, there are only a few countries that would attempt to put troops in blue helmets on U.S. soil. Russia, China, maybe Cuba, Hugo Chavez would LOVE to put troops in here, and maybe some of the Muslim countries.

I don't see ANY English peaking countries doing it. And I don't see Americans holding back on the shooting guys from those countries, if it means freedom vs subjugation.

Second, before, during and even after the Revolutionary War, there were plenty of people who were loyalists. They either had it good under the King, or they were just traditionally aligned to the King. How is THAT any different than what we have now?

Many people with money and running big companies are attached to the Government, because it PAYS well. There are also politicians and judges who are attached monetarily and philosophically to the current Government set up. Those people existed THEN too.

Then you have the people who are traditionally aligned with the Government. But NOW, unlike then, they are ALSO aligned FOR the $$$. They vote AGAINST the (R) side because they have a tradition AND economic reason to do so.

There were Tories who, although they supported the Revolution, never actually lifted a gun. They gave support TO the Torie cause. Food, meds, places to sleep, hide, plan, practice, etc.

There were Whigs, who were the same, but for the King / King Troops.

Here, in my mind, is the difference. the new Tories have a system of being armed and ready.

The new Whigs are anti-gun, and are pretty much convinced of their own moral superiority and 'educated' way of life.

I'll bet my guns against their education any day of the week. And IF the Whigs want to 'hire' some new Hessians (UN Troops with Blue Helmets, not Red Coats), we'll be willing to shoot them TOO.

And just for the tally sheets, the military right now, is NOT full of Whigs. For the most part, they vote FOR the (Torie side of the) country NOT themselves, they joined AFTER 9/11, the joined TO protect the country and they will NOT follow orders contrary to their Oaths.

I'm no longer sure of the Upper echelon of our military. If David Petraeus was THAT easily duped, then the guys just behind him may be 'easy' too. But three levels down, there are still guys who have Purple Hearts and CIB's earned SINCE 9/11. Those MFers are definitely not going to answer to the U.N., and they will NOT tell their troops to do so either.

And at that point, WE have heavy weapons and armor and planes and choppers on our side. And if the blue Helmets have their hands full with the threat of an American citizens 'militia', WTF do you think they'd do under threat of going up against the U.S. military?

I believe the term is 'shit their pants'.

[I told you I couldn't shut up...but you just wouldn't listen!]

alan said...

I think Schteveo has a strong point, there are way to many people beholding to the gov't and it is "too big to fail".

but on the other hand, if you look at the hunting tags purchased this year, Minnesota has a bigger "army" than most countries.

I always find it humourous when someone points out that the fed spends a disproportional amount on roads and infrastructure in the red states than they do in the blue. Then they point out that the red should be grateful for it.

Then I get that deer in the headlites look when I ask "but what would happen if those roads and power lines didn't exist? The red states would still have plenty of food and power.....what would you in the city have? the only thing we would be missing is Justin Beiber and the latest tweet from the Kardasheans
maybe it wouldn't be so bad if we cut the roads.

Sorry BoW, but at least my baby bro is there with you. He may be a leg shorter than most men, but he is still a great sniper.

Spider said...

You're right bud. I "saw the light" back when JFK got whacked and they wouldn't tell the people is was actually a coup. In fact, knowing him to be a liberal, i wasn't at all sad. But, after seeing what LBJ did to the country, i realized they hit the wrong guy that day in Dallas.

Perhaps you just have more faith in our fellow Americans than i do. I'm a realist, so i base my feelings, thoughts, opinions, etc. on what i see and have seen, not on what i wish or hope for.

So here's my one question: While we're all "loading up" and looking for threats from Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea. etc, how is it our "well-armed" fellow Americans have allowed an "invading army" to "attack" us from south of the border without so much as firing a shot?

IMO, what comes from Mexico, (drugs, parasites, terrorists, etc.) is far more damaging to us than what might come from the above-mentioned countries.

Schteveo said...

that Jack Kennedy was THEN labeled a liberal, in light of where we are now is almost laughable.

I have reminded any number of uber-Liberal people that Kennedy was once the Democrat that every Democrat wanted to be, and even he said, "...ask NOT...". The older ones back away from him and that thinking with some tap dancing, mumbling and "...different times call for different thinking...", kinds of BS. The younger idiots have never heard of JFK and think his, "...ask not..." speech was chopped up and redone on a computer or with video tape, in 1963 by the Republicans, to just make us 'think' that's what he said.