FTL_Ian's Personal Attacks on CNHT

[Russell Kanning]

I don't think the UN has been able to take over in Somalia, but I really have no idea what is happening there.

[FTL_Ian]

Personally, I have limited reading time.

But lots of time to post this stuff? ???

This has been far more entertaining than the UN website could ever hope for.   

[tracysaboe]

Ron, perhaps you can devote yourself to this nonsense instead:
[/quote]

??? There's nothing there?   

Tracy

[Lex]

Because you act like the threat does not exist...and it does...it is very much a threat. There is ALWAYS going to be SOMEONE who will impose 'government' upon you, so the only safe thing is to have one of your own that is as limited as possible and respects individual liberties as much as possible. Head in the sand refers to the fact that simply ignoring a threat will not make it go away, UNFORTUNATELY!

Several questions, some related to the quoted message above and some beyond that:

Jane never responded to this one:

You think the UN can take over the USA? Why didn't Hitler invade Switzerland?

Lets say a couple of us in NH acquire nuclear weapons and tell the UN to go pound sand, do you think they will still try to impose their one world government on us? We live in a time when a single individual with the ability to push a button can bend the will of the world. Switzerland has nuclear weapons, at least they had them in '95 when one of their secret nuclear weapons programs came to light and i'm sure they still have them today. Point is, if NH were to become an independent state, outside of the US/UN it could remain so much like Switzerland did.

The UN Headquarters is located in New York! It was created in large part by the United States Government, the same government that Jane and others are calling on to FIGHT the UN. I see a contradiction here, someone care to elaborate? As was pointed out earlier in this thread there are Americans all over the world wearing UN uniforms... are we going to shoot them? Practically speaking we ARE the UN!

If we have a "limited" government how will it have the power to protect us from the UN?

Lets say we create a slightly larger than a "limited" government so that it would have the power to protect us from the UN. At that point what would be the incentive for the US Government to oppose the UN? The concept of the UN matches one-to-one with the US foreign policy, it would be in "our" best interest to join with the UN and create a world government. Just because we on this board do not like the idea of one world government that does not mean that "most" people don't, in fact i'd bet that MOST people in America and in the world would love the idea of a one world government, it would allow them to travel freely to distribute wealth on a much larger scale, etc.

To say that we can convince people that the UN and one world government is bad is just as likely as it would be to convince people that welfare is bad and I think explaining welfare is much easier than the UN. Am I wrong?

Lets say Jane gets her way and somehow our government manages to tighten up the borders to keep the illegals out, this will cost us all billions of dollars and more lost freedoms, etc... then without much delay there will suddenly be a huge influx of LEGAL immigrants... My point is that if the powers that be wanted more immigrants to come to this country they would find a way to do it and make it look like they are doing everything they can to stop it. Am I wrong?

[Atlas]

I'd be happy if the US just rescinded their UN membership.

[Lex]

It's kindof ironic. A lot of us here are Free State Project members because we have given up fighting the beast in our home towns and states and have decided that the only way we can achieve liberty in our lifetimes is if we move to one state and make that state as free as possible. That is the purpose of the FSP, isn't it?

Then why are so many so eager to save the entire country? When you have already given up that fight by moving to NH.

Am I missing something?

If we can make America free again why bother moving to New Hampshire? Just stay where you are! ;-)

[ravelkinbow]

You can work to make NH more free but that doesn't mean disregard the rest of the world.  World events do have an impact on our lives...especially when the UN is involved.

[CNHT]

Lets say a couple of us in NH acquire nuclear weapons and tell the UN to go pound sand, do you think they will still try to impose their one world government on us?

One of their goals is to eradicate nuclear weapons, so I think they would impose some sort of sanctions on the state. After all, just for comments here about my possibly being a racist, they have been monitoring my internet sites...

We live in a time when a single individual with the ability to push a button can bend the will of the world. Switzerland has nuclear weapons, at least they had them in '95 when one of their secret nuclear weapons programs came to light and i'm sure they still have them today. Point is, if NH were to become an independent state, outside of the US/UN it could remain so much like Switzerland did.

Yes, and virtual secession by refusing to participate in things like Real ID would be good steps to take to first get untangled from the US and then the UN.

The UN Headquarters is located in New York! It was created in large part by the United States Government, the same government that Jane and others are calling on to FIGHT the UN.

Hrmm, I'm not calling on the USG to fight them, I am calling on the people of the US to get the US to stop funding and participation and enforcing UN global governance. Stop giving them so much power and authority. Their rules and demands are in every aspect of our society - social, economic, environmental, health, etc.

I see a contradiction here, someone care to elaborate? As was pointed out earlier in this thread there are Americans all over the world wearing UN uniforms... are we going to shoot them? Practically speaking we ARE the UN!

Well, if you would stand up to your own gov't, then yes, you will stand up to a blue helmet, I would hope. There are other countries wearing blue helmets as well...so it could be one of them. We also have military of other countries here, as we've handed over some of our ports to them, etc.

If we have a "limited" government how will it have the power to protect us from the UN?

Limited means no Real ID, state's rights, and minding our own business by not being involved with the UN. If you don't join, then you are in a better position to refuse to follow the laws they  agree upon at these 'joint' summits they have all the time, where all the countries agree to do this or that.

Lets say we create a slightly larger than a "limited" government so that it would have the power to protect us from the UN. At that point what would be the incentive for the US Government to oppose the UN? The concept of the UN matches one-to-one with the US foreign policy, it would be in "our" best interest to join with the UN and create a world government. Just because we on this board do not like the idea of one world government that does not mean that "most" people don't, in fact i'd bet that MOST people in America and in the world would love the idea of a one world government, it would allow them to travel freely to distribute wealth on a much larger scale, etc.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Do YOU like the idea of one world gov't? What happens when that gov't becomes oppressive, and demands you lose all your ideology as is their goal? What happens to freedoms, religious and otherwise?

To say that we can convince people that the UN and one world government is bad is just as likely as it would be to convince people that welfare is bad and I think explaining welfare is much easier than the UN. Am I wrong?

It can be explained in simple terms of diversity...don't you think? A free market of gov'ts just as with anything else. Why should there be a monopoly of one?

Lets say Jane gets her way and somehow our government manages to tighten up the borders to keep the illegals out,

HUH? I did not say that this was 'my way'. Did you miss the whole conversation? I said, it was a *symptom* of the manipulation of the masses and should be looked upon as such!

... this will cost us all billions of dollars and more lost freedoms, etc... then without much delay there will suddenly be a huge influx of LEGAL immigrants... My point is that if the powers that be wanted more immigrants to come to this country they would find a way to do it and make it look like they are doing everything they can to stop it. Am I wrong?

I'm not sure what you mean, and secondly, it doesn't matter because I am not arguing for tightening up borders. I am arguing for DUMPING the UN. They are the very ones who will impose more rules and laws on us to benefit anyone coming here who appeals to them for 'justice'.

[CNHT]

You can work to make NH more free but that doesn't mean disregard the rest of the world.  World events do have an impact on our lives...especially when the UN is involved.

To those who think the UN is just going to 'go away', good luck to you. I don't let my guard down that easily.

And to think we have some on here that admit they are leftovers from the 60's socialist dropouts yet calling themselves liberty lovers while advocating that the state guarantee  rights with respect to 'economic rent' is just insane.

[BillyC]

You can work to make NH more free but that doesn't mean disregard the rest of the world.  World events do have an impact on our lives...especially when the UN is involved.

To those who think the UN is just going to 'go away', good luck to you. I don't let my guard down that easily.

And to think we have some on here that admit they are leftovers from the 60's socialist dropouts yet calling themselves liberty lovers while advocating that the state guarantee  rights with respect to 'economic rent' is just insane.

I was doing some UN info-hunting and I found this interesting tidbit.
Tell me what you think. 

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/do.htm

TURN TO PAGE 651. Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions.  The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms. (This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

[ladyattis]

Two problems with the NWO proposition.

1) The means to enact the force required. Every empire since the first [probably pre-Egyptian or older...] has tried to control larger and larger populations, larger and larger land masses. And with each successive empire, one truism continues unfalsified; that all empires greatly depend on the compliance of the population to its whims. If the population is divided, even among themselves and against a given empire, it is true that such empires will fall. Right now, the only thing keeping the UN and the crony states in power is the momentum created by industry and science. Take that momentum away, you get a dark age. It's happened before and it will happen again. In fact, I dare say it's happening right now...

2) The fact that a complex society is hard to assimulate. When you let different opinions, different fashions, and even different languages exist, then you got problems. Especially the sort that any empire really hates. That's why in Rome, to be considered a 'proper' Roman citizen, you had to know proper Latin, otherwise you were just part of the 'Vulgar' masses and not worthy of citizenship or Legion duty. That's how Rome survived, cultural elitism[sp?], but today such a system is not even possible because of the simple fact of modern consumerism being directly tied to our diverse cultural choices. One day, I can be sitting with a rough neck chicano, wolfing down some home cooking at a local diner. Another day, I could be in a Greek Week [a common Michigan festival in some cities of that state] and learning about greek culture. Etc. It's not hard to conceive why cultural diversity destroys the capacity to form empires.

But that doesn't mean they're not trying, and that is what I give as my important point on this issue. They are trying, despite Nature's damnation of their efforts. And that makes them more dangerous. These are the sorts of folks that would push the 'button' if they couldn't have it at all. That's why one should be wary of them, these empire builders.

-- Bridget

[CNHT]

You can work to make NH more free but that doesn't mean disregard the rest of the world.  World events do have an impact on our lives...especially when the UN is involved.

To those who think the UN is just going to 'go away', good luck to you. I don't let my guard down that easily.

And to think we have some on here that admit they are leftovers from the 60's socialist dropouts yet calling themselves liberty lovers while advocating that the state guarantee  rights with respect to 'economic rent' is just insane.

I was doing some UN info-hunting and I found this interesting tidbit.
Tell me what you think. 

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/do.htm

TURN TO PAGE 651. Here you will find Public Law 87-297 which calls for the United States to eliminate its armed forces. This law was signed for the United States in 1961. John F. Kennedy signed it and every president since has worked to enact its provisions.  The government knows you will not approve which is why they want to take away your firearms. (This is Title 22 USC section 2551)

I knew about this.

[CNHT]

We also have military of other countries here

Gulag America

(The New World Order's Concentration Camp Program & Foreign Troops on US Soil)

"There's not going to be some future event when the invading troops are going to show up. They're already here! When martial law is implemented, these foreign U.N. troops will be policing our country, carrying out the plans of the New World Order."

During the 1950's, the elitists planning for world government made plans to use occupation forces in every country that did not submit to their greedy, arrogant ambitions. Their plan called for using Chinese troops in America.

More:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/gulagamericaandchinesetroops1997.shtml

Hmm, the UN is no threat to us aye?   

[Lex]

Hmm, the UN is no threat to us aye?   

Can you quote someone on these boards saying that the UN is not threat? Thanks!

[CNHT]

Hmm, the UN is no threat to us aye?   

Can you quote someone on these boards saying that the UN is not threat? Thanks!

There are plenty of people saying that if you get rid of the Feds the UN will disappear or that the UN has no authority and is therefore not a threat...plenty of people have said as much! Just read any of the threads about the UN and you'll see a few who have said that.