Replies

Just got sent this story as well:

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/editorial/102232783877310.xml Grant County's fury

05/26/02

R eally, there was but one question on the ballot in Oregon's Grant County last Tuesday: Why the hell not?

The answer, of course, was obvious.

Grant County's citizens voted to give themselves the authority to cut trees on the public land that surrounds their towns and scattered ranches. They also approved a second measure demanding the United Nations stay out of their county.

Why not?

Maybe it will draw attention to a desperately poor and deeply frustrated county noticed by the outside world usually once a year. Each summer when the wildfires burn close to town, somebody elbows the governor and he declares Grant County a disaster area.

Sure, it's crazy. The federal goverment can't just stand by while these good folks oil up their chain saws, fan out and decide among themselves which of the stands of ponderosa and lodgepole pine are ripe for the cutting.

The U.N. ballot measure claimed the U.N. Charter promotes seizure of small arms and private land, worldwide taxation and "one-world controlled education of our children." All that's both untrue and just plain weird, but 58 percent of voters went ahead and demanded that the U.N. stay out of Grant County anyway.

Why not?

Grant County doesn't have much left to lose. It has the second-highest unemployment rate in the state, approaching 16 percent, twice the rate that has prompted all the cries of pain in the Portland metropolitan area. And when you're unemployed in Grant County, you stay that way. New employers come around about as often as the United Nations General Assembly.

These people are furious. They've been locked out of the public forests and rangelands that surround them, that fed their mills and their families for generations. The feds keep promising a better, saner, predictable forest policy, one allowing some logging, some fire prevention, some salvage of timber after the inevitable fires that sweep through the county. It never comes.

Meanwhile, the families keep streaming away. Grant County's population has dropped from 8,100 to about 7,500 in the past decade. Its schools have 200 fewer children. Before last week's election, "For Sale" signs hammered into front yards outnumbered campaign signs. The one growing local population is cougars, freed from hound hunting thanks to protections approved by city folk. Now the big cats sometimes wander into the city limits of John Day, Prairie City and Granite, which recently was the last community in Oregon to get phone service.

Why not? By a 67 percent to 33 percent margin, voters approved the measure giving themselves stewardship rights of federal forests. The ballot backers already have scheduled a meeting this week to discuss how to begin removing dead and dying trees from the national forest. They say they plan to begin cutting roadside trees that pose danger to passing cars, and move onto others that could feed wildfires.

They can't do that. Both measures are clearly unconstitutional. The public forests of Grant County don't belong to the people who live around them. At the same time, they don't solely belong to the rest of us. Lands so rich in resources can and should be managed to sustain the communities of Grant County.

This election was a show of anger. It demands a serious response from the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.

Meanwhile, as tempers and temperatures rise further this spring, the people of Grant County must remember that they do have something left to lose: Their dignity. When they're invited to exploit this measure by breaking the law, and they again ask themselves, "Why not?," they need to have an answer.

For anyone who doesn't already know I thougt I would debunk the article you thoughfully put up.

These Oregonian staff writers are liars, plain and simple. They are the equivelent of the people who worked for Goebels writing propaganda for Hitler. Read this gem:

Lies! Is this reporter just ignorant, has he or she never even bothered to surf the UN web stie. The truth of what is claimed in this new law is easy to find with even a little tiny bit of work. Of course the UN promotes seizure of small arms. (I will site official UN information outside the charter. This use of "not in the charter" is a dodge)

They had a huge conference on it in NY last year to promote global civilian disarmament. It's always been a top UN agenda item. In front of the UN building is this statue:

Not any gun, but the quentessential gun of the free US citizen, a revolver. Not a Nazi Luger, not the AK-47, tool of Communists worldwide for 50 years, no a nice all-American big bore revolver. (Hopefullly someday we can modify this monstrosity to be a nice snub gun with a fixed site. But I digress... )

What's on their web page? Well this gem sets the big picture agenda:

"• To take concerted action to end illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons, especially by making arms transfers more transparent and supporting regional disarmament measures, taking account of all the recommendations of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons."

Here's the LINK TO UN WEB SITE so you can see I'm not inventing things.

Here are the specific recomendations:

Among the national measures undertaken by States was to ensure that licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process, as well as ensure that comprehensive and accurate records were kept for as long as possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms and light weapons under their jurisdiction.

In contradiction to US law and tradition requires UN members to keep permanant records of all gun owners.

Here is where they regret that they were not able to pass a full civilian disarmament program:

Unfortunately, he continued, there had been no agreement reached on two of the most important issues -– maintaining and controlling private ownership of small arms and the transfer of such weapons to non-State actors -- even though there was overwhelming support for their inclusion in the outcome document. While congratulating all delegations for reaching consensus, he expressed disappointment that deliberations on those issues had been hampered by inflexibility on the part of one delegation.

And again, the LINK from UN Website

Look they are not a secret conspiracy. It's all right in the open. It took me five minutes to find these documents on the web. Why is it that so called "professional reporters" can't do research but instead only make snide comments "just plain weird". What is weird is that a major daily newspaper has forgotten the basics of reporting and turned into a propaganda tool of the New World Order interationalists.

Oh, yeah. Who do you think that "one nation" preventing this was? The USA under the leadership of G.W. Bush, no doubt.

How about world wide taxation. A nother untrue "weird myth" or rural Oregonians acting out? I don't think so. (Do the idiot reporters at the Oregonian even READ the news?) Here is an excerpt of a news report on this topic:

If you think this is fanciful then you need to read the recently-published report of the United Nations' "High-level Panel on Financing for Development".

The report of the Panel, chaired by Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico, has 12 major recommendations, every one of them scary, but the four that particularly concern taxation are the creation of an 'International Tax Organization', the imposition of global taxes (eg the Tobin tax), the creation of a fund from the proceeds of global taxation and a levy (ie, tax) of 0.7% of GDP on all developed nations, and the establishment of a 'Global Economic Security Council' = a world government in all but name. The GDP levy just on its own is reckoned to create a flow of $1.5 trillion dollars a year - the UN's bureaucrats could achieve quite a lot with that!

LINK TO STORY in TAX-NEWS.COM
For the benefit of idiot Oregonian reporters perhaps I should put in a link to GOOGLE

I won't bother to find the details to debunk the rest of this junk story right now, it's really not worth my time. Today is Memorial Day, I'm going to go walk through the nearby cemetary and think about the sacrafices made to create the freedom the UN so clearly is set on destroying.