Winston_Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2008 14:39:26 -0700 (PDT), Ajax
> <vha6ib902@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Gordon Brown's Call to Repeal Our Declaration of Independence
>> by Phyllis Schlafly
>> http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/apr08/08-04-30.html
>
>> Brown's tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a
>> "Declaration of Interdependence" in order to submit to global
>> governance. That's another way of calling on us to repeal our
>> Declaration of Independence.
>
> Bologna. Text of the speech.
>
http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_nt1.asp?d=5&i=41029&L1=41004&L2=41029&a=48052
>
>> ||Nothing in President Kennedy’s enduring legacy has greater
im****tance
>> ||now - at the beginning of the 21st century - than his words on your
>> ||Independence Day in 1962 when he proposed a new and global
declaration
>> ||of interdependence.
>
> Brown was actually he was quoting President Kennedy not "calling on us
> to repeal our Declaration of Independence". Kennedy called for
> something; Brown agrees. Something? You tell me.
>
>> ||>And so let us have confidence we can discover anew in ourselves the
>> ||values we share in common, let us have confidence we can act upon
>> ||John Kennedy’s declaration of interdependence, and let us have
>> ||confidence we can create a global covenant across nations to make
>> ||peace and prosperity real in our generation.
>
> Covenant? That means agreement, not submission.
>
Did you agree to NAFTA, GAT, the latest American Union proposals?
Decisions by these unelected committee-run NGOs directly effect your
life.
If you don't agree you will be forced to submit.
>
>> ||And if in the 18th and 19th centuries nation states looked to the
>> ||concept of the balance of power for their security - and in the
latter
>> ||half of the 20th briefly put their faith in the concept of mutually
>> ||assured destruction - we, amid the emerging complexities of the
>> ||21st century, must recognize afresh the power of John Kennedy’s
>> ||Declaration of Interdependence. And must firmly root our
>> ||international system in the values we hold in common - shaping
>> ||more than a new world order, creating instead a truly global society
>
>
>> ||Acting upon our interdependence does not mean a new version
>> ||of the old balance of power arrangements based on opposing
>> ||powers bargaining for their own narrow advantage. But nor does
>> || it mean abandoning national interests.
>
> So much for submitting to global governance.
>
> Me thinks the good Ms. Phyllis Schlafly goes off the deep end a bit.
>
This Gordon Brown character tells us that we must accept a "world
government" because of impoverished countries, global climate change,
economic justice, "rogue" (non-aligned) nations, and terrorism.
In order to escape these evils you must relinquish your control
and your government.
It's collectivism.
Who prodded wasp nests to create terrorists?
Who imposed monetary standards on subsistence level cultures?
Who impoverished countries?
Who wrote the rules which some countries oppose?
Collectivists caused the problems they now cite as dangers.
Brown manipulates the left-right paradigm to fool the unwary.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.pronews.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
