The U.N. will Design Your Next Motorcycle

Re: Touche

Man, ya'll read a lot into what I post. All of a sudden I'm Mr. UN? All I said was that if you rank the sinister-ness of all the international organizations, the UN would be pretty far down the list.

As far as your list of grievences, well, those are your opinions. And as far as your rejection of the commerce clause, well, the emperor has no clothes. There's case law supporting federal regulation of interstate commerce going back a long time- even before that evil usurper FDR. So stop presenting your (bizzare and fringe-belief)opinions as fact.

And how does my service in the gulf make me less willing to "prostrate" myself before the UN? Tim McVeigh aside, all us veterans are not murderous wing-nut loonies filled with paranoia. I'm a thinking member of a democracy, and my opinions are just as valuable as anybodies, and I won't lock-step to the corporate controlled media.

If you truly think the UN has enslaved our country and desires only world domination, you need to stop watching James Bond movies. This si the real world, a world with 6 billion hungry, teeming souls, all people who feel their lives and needs are just as important as yours. global organizations are inevitable and neccessary if we ever want to evolve past the point we are in now.

If we isolate ourselves, we run the risk of becoming a staganant, backward culture. Anthropologists will tell you that the result of geographic isolation is to revert a culture to impoverished savegery. We have to participate in world government and make sure it is a just, democratic, and accountable institution.

If you can't fight it, (and trust me, you can't.) you have to make it work for you. It's up to us. We can either stockpile 5.56 ammo and canned goods, or we can act like responsible, informed citizens. The choice is ours.

When you can't beat 'em, join 'em....

1..2..3..4.....

"We are the world, we are the children....."

All the judicial activist, impeachable commerce clause rulings in the world don't change the fact that imposing national (or world, for that matter) standards on motorcycles has nothing to do with the act of transporting and selling them. This is simply another case of the judiciary usurping the freedom of the people via some mystical concept in the "commerce" clause. Once again, Madison will tell you in the Federalist Papers that these clauses DO NOT give the fed unlimited power over everything. Think back to logic 101: that would negate the rest of the constitution.

You make no legitimate argument for relinquishing control of our sovereignity to a global orginization. "Evolve past where we are now"? That's a highly vague, undefinable concept at best. Let's look at where the globalisation we have participated in has gotten us so far: less freedom. Maybe you don't want to be free. Fine. Whatever. Freedom, however, is the most cherished concept and principle in this country. More important than ANYTHING. More important than health care, education, welfare, feeding starving children, the environment, ANYTHING. What is life without freedom? Give me liberty, or give me death!

Nice sentiment. I'll give you $1 for it.

Well, it's too bad Madison isn't on the supreme court,

huh? He'd set us straight!

Unfortunately for him, he's doing what Beethoven is

doing right now- decomposing! He has no say in how we

run our modern world.

What you want is to kneel before a small cabal of men

long since turned to dust. Ordinary guys, no smarter

than you and me, who happened to write a good (but not

perfect) that still works, somewhat.

So we should supine ourselves before this

patriarchical clatch, and ignore the needs and desires

of millions of people for justice, equality and

freedom.

I don't go for your strict interpretation arguments

because they are used by neo-conservatives to strip

the people of the only power they have- the right to

use government to foster equality and justice for

everybody, not just a priveliged minority. If we

elevate the Constitution to some kind of holy

, we place our trust in the hands of corpses

and turn our backs on the great achivemnts made last

century by thousands of activists, like Mother Jones,

Susan B. Anthony, Thurgood Marshall, Malcolm X, Martin

Luther King jr., and many others.

And I don't see how the Commerce Clause "usurps the

freedom of the people" by regulating interstate

commerce. As decided by many a Supreme Court

decision, "Commerce" starts and ends way outside the

process of transporting it somewhere. It includes

manufacture, distribution, raw materials, and

sometimes even usage.

As far as freedom goes, I agree with you. But we can

have all of those things and still be free. We just

need a voice in globalization, so why don't

conservatives protest the WTO and the world bank? Why

is it all about the UN? We actually don't live under

UN rule, but the WTO CAN and will tell local

governments what to do. That's scary. I guess the UN

could get out of hand, but I have to prioritize. I

fear the WTO, and you should too.

Hey, I'm not arguing with you there.....

I've no love for the WTO either. They can suck on the same rotten egg as the U.N. (although they're not the ones telling our troops what to do and where to do it, that would be the U.N.)

In regards to the constitution, you present the same tired argument that every liberal does: the Constitution is only written for white people. That is patent B.S. Nowhere is it written in the Constitution that "these truths are self-evident, and only pertain to white people". Millions of succesful black, hispanic, and especially asian people can testify to that. (Funny how asians never complained about their civil rights. They just came over, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and started slamming and jamming.)

What you are really saying is that the constitution doesn't benefit them because it doesn't say that you can take money from rich white people and give it to those that aren't both rich and white. Just as it shouldn't. Government-sanctioned stealing is still stealing. Taking my money and giving it to someone else is theft, and it reduces my freedom. Those are socialistic ideas, and entirely incompatible with freedom. If I am forced to give the fruits of my labor to someone else, I am a slave.

Unfortunately for those concerned about freedom, the government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. Thus the cycle continues.