(courtesy of ACTIVISTPOST, in part)
The UN Plans To Implement Universal Biometric Identification For All Of Humanity By 2030
Even after writing several articles about these new Global Goals, I still don’t think that most of my readers really grasp how insidious they actually are. This new agenda truly is a template for a “New World Order”, and if you dig into the sub-points for these new Global Goals you find some very alarming things.
For example, Goal 16.9 sets the following target…
By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration.
The United Nations is already working hard toward the implementation of this goal – particularly among refugee populations. The UN has partnered with Accenture to implement a biometric identification system that reports information “back to a central database in Geneva.” The following is an excerpt from an article that was posted on findbiometrics.com…
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is moving forward with its plans to use biometric technology to identify and track refugees, and has selected a vendor for the project.Accenture, an international technology services provider, has won out in the competitive tendering process and will oversee the implementation of the technology in a three-year contract.
The UNHCR will use Accenture’s Biometric Identity Management System (BIMS) for the endeavor. BIMS can be used to collect facial, iris, and fingerprint biometric data, and will also be used to provide many refugees with their only form of official documentation. The system will work in conjunction with Accenture’s Unique Identity Service Platform (UISP) to send this information back to a central database in Geneva, allowing UNHCR offices all over the world to effectively coordinate with the central UNHCR authority in tracking refugees.
I don’t know about you, but that sure does sound creepy to me.
To me, as well, Mr. Snyder!
He further states:
If you aren’t using cash, that means that all of your economic activity is going through the banks where it can be watched, tracked, monitored and regulated.
Every time the elite propose something for our “good,” it somehow always results in them having more power and more control.
I hope that people will wake up and see what is happening. Major moves toward a one world system are taking place right in front of our eyes, and yet I hear very, very few people talking about any of this.
Of course, pile this upon other agenda items (like ‘universal disarmament’ of the civilian population) and we’re back to the (one-world) governmental wish list of CONTROL.
Supporters of the U.N. are fond of claiming critics are paranoid, and that the U.N. does so much good. Here is a corrupt organization, made up largely of despotic regimes and poorer nations (sometimes conflated) mostly financed by The United States, and largely ineffective in resolving world conflicts.
Remember The Korean War? It still continues! And most of the time, the U.S. pays for most of the aid given poorer nations.
I remember seeing signs by the side of the highway intoning ‘Get Us Out Of The U.N.!’ in the 50’s.
Maybe it’s time we left…
(remembering, this is opinion, not news – Guffaw)
The idea that law-abiding concealed carry permit holders could potentially stop mass shooters is nothing more than a “myth,” the New York Times editorial board proclaimed on Monday.
Citing a study from the anti-gun Violence Policy Center, the editorial board claimed “at least 763” concealed carry permit holders “have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense” since 2007.
More from the opinion column:More @ The Blaze
“How much fail can there BE in one photo and paragraph?” – paraphrasing ‘Chandler Bing’ (the Matthew Perry character on TV’s Friends)
Now, you guys KNOW I’m no tool guy, and even I saw the ridiculousness of this image and comment. ‘Automatic assault rifle’ verbiage, aside…
‘Did some research’? Seriously?
(from the lovely, talented, and geekily knowledgeable Roberta X, in part…)
Everyone running for the Democrat nomination wants to turn a large number of gun-owning citizens into some kind of Federal criminal, with the only question being, “felon or malefeasant?” But only one of them has hands-on experience in the kind of police-state tactics it would take to make that work, and in making them palatable to a population of people who could reasonably be expected to be skeptical.
Meanwhile, most of GOP’s hot prospects are sellin’ various flavors of Return-to-Jesusland* and shippin’ out the Dangerously Brown (a difficult trick — y’know how there are so many guns in the U.S. that no power could ever grab ’em all? Imagine if those guns had volition didn’t want to be found…). I’ll grant that there are serious, good reasons — including humanitarian ones — for a more secure and better-patrolled border; it’s this business of plannin’ to comb through the population and root out a “dangerous element” often referred to as “parasitic” that stinks on ice to me — and it should to you, too. Do you recall what kinds of societies had any success at that kind of thing? Do you realize what it takes to make it work? (Ahem, “Papers, please?”) Did you sleep through World History class?
This is one of the lousiest candidate pools I have ever seen. Mr. Bloomberg is the worst of them — worse than Mr. Sanders, worse than Mr. Trump. If he enters the race, I may have to vote in the Democrat primary just so I can vote against him.
* Except this country never was. The American Revolution can be cast as a kind of dialogue between the Enlightenment/Age of Reason ideas that pushed it and the Great Awakenings that bookended it. From that angle, the Establishment Clause of First Amendment represents a brilliantly common goal: neither party was desirous of a State church. Thus the United States was explicitly made a safe place for believers and nonbelievers of every stripe. This is a delicate balance and has been maintained with varying degrees of elegance and civility though the years. We should fear any politician who feels a mandate to Do Good — especially if he or she believes it was granted by Divine authority.
There’s really nothing further to say on this subject.
Last week, law professor and Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokh, exposed how the District Attorney’s Office in Nassau County, New York, was unconstitutionally prohibiting its prosecutors from possessing handguns, even in their homes. We registered our disapproval as well. On Wednesday, mere days after the story broke, Prof. Volokh reported that the policy had been rescinded. Well, mostly rescinded.
Prof. Volokh’s Wednesday post includes a copy of a memo issued by Albert Teichman, Chief Assistant District Attorney for Nassau County. The memo notes the policy was enacted in 2006, and predates the tenure of current Nassau County Acting District Attorney, Madeline Singas. Although the memo doesn’t say so, it would also mean the policy predated the Supreme Court’s pivotal holdings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Of course, those cases should be well-known to any lawyer, especially one working in law enforcement, so that does not excuse the fact that the policy persisted, even when it was clearly at odds with the high court’s statements on the Second Amendment.
The memo claims, unlike the explanation provided to Prof. Volokh when he inquired about the policy, that the restriction was enacted “to prevent friendly fire tragedies like those that have occurred in recent years in Nassau County and neighboring jurisdictions.” It then embarks on a litany of incidents occurring between 2006 and 2011 in which law enforcement officers were killed by other law enforcement officers in the New York City Metropolitan area. None of the incidents involved prosecutors or other officials who do not routinely carry as part of their law enforcement duties.
The memo concludes, “Upon review, the public safety interests served by the policy can be substantially effectuated though a less-restrictive means that does not preclude ADAs from owning handguns, but strictly prohibits work-related possession and use.” It goes on to recommend that assistant district attorneys be “strictly prohibited from carrying or possessing a weapon any time they are working … without the express written permission of the District Attorney or the District Attorney’s authorized designee.” Violations, it states, should be punishable by termination.
A follow-up memo, also dated Sept. 30, shows the policy being enacted “immediately” and superseding any previous policy. It also states, “Assistant District Attorneys are permitted to own and possess a legally registered handgun in their homes or for legally permitted activity unrelated to their employment and workplace.” Such employees are “encouraged” to take a firearm safety course. They are also required to provide copies of their “licensure and registration documentation to the DA’s office.”
We took Acting District Attorney Ringas strongly to task in our original remarks, as she is ultimately responsible for the policies of her office, whether she originally implemented them or not. We now credit her, however, with taking positive and expeditious steps to correct an obviously untenable situation. We certainly agree with her office’s recommendation that DAs who choose to own handguns take a firearm safety course, and NRA’s network of certified trainers – the finest in the nation – stand ready to assist in that regard. While we believe that any prosecutor lawfully able to do so should also have the option of remaining armed while operating their own private automobiles, we are glad to know that they will now be able to own and use handguns on their own time and for their own purposes.
More troubling is the office’s continued insistence that “[m]any neighboring jurisdictions impose handgun restrictions on Assistant District Attorneys.” We checked the hiring websites for the District Attorney’s Offices of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties. None of them mentioned any such requirements. Clearly, however, the use of public employment or civil service as a means of depriving individuals of their Second Amendment rights while they are at home or on their own time is a problem in any context. Public employees subjected to any such a blanket policy are encouraged to contact the NRA with their stories.
The original author of the Nassau County policy is former District Attorney and current U.S. Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY). Rice told the media through a spokesperson that assistant district attorneys “shouldn’t be walking around armed” when dealing with victims, witnesses, and defendants. Why she believed that necessitated banning prosecutors from owing handguns at home, however, is not explained. It suggests deficiencies not just in her grasp of the U.S. Constitution but in her legal drafting ability. Her NRA-PVFF-rating, meanwhile, indicates she takes a dim view of firearm ownership in general.
Witless for the Prosecution: New York DA Forces Staff to Forgo Second Amendment Rights Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney for Nassau County, New York, is a hypocrite.
Worse, she is willing to gamble with the lives and safety of her
staff and their families for her own perceived political benefit.
While claiming “a commitment to justice, compassion, and integrity”
and boasting about keeping “more vulnerable people safe,” she enforces
a policy of mandatory disarmament amongst the attorneys who put their
own safety on the line to administer justice in her jurisdiction.
On Monday, Prof. Eugene Volokh broke the story that the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office bars prosecutors from having handguns, even at home.
|I remember, in my previous life, working as a private investigator/process server.
And the county presiding Superior Court judge (the guy over the courts,
staffs, attorneys, and clerks) made a decision that all shall be
And it came to pass that metal detectors were installed in the Superior Court,
and that unless one had credentials and a badge,
one was required to be defenseless on the premises. This meant leaving one’s
sidearm in one’s vehicle, subject to burglary – as the court parking lots
were not very secure!The judge further conveyed even process servers under his jurisdiction shall be unarmed!
In the field!I’m sorry, your honor, but many process servers were attacked and even shot!
Fortunately, as this is Arizona, he didn’t extend his ‘authority’ to our homes.
AND, an historic court decision (1873?) held that court officers had the right
SO, many of us were.
(Thankfully, at least in the federal building, they provided lockers!)
Hopefully, New York will get a clue…
Let’s say your speech from a soapbox in the public park plays well in NYC’s Central Park. But, not as well in rural Missouri.
Should your right to free speech be restricted in Missouri.? But not in New York?
I don’t think so.
A Right is a Right is a Right. PERIOD.
How about your right to practice (or not) a religion? Or freely assemble? Or deny troops access to your home for quartering in peacetime? Or your right to not self-incriminate?
Different in the Big City versus the small town?
You know where I’m going.
(courtesy of David Codrea)
Jeb’s ridiculous and arrogant view of location-based rights is still not enough for Debbie, who expressed no objections when Obama said the same thing. They all know it’s a lie, and the edicts they’re going after, from the baby steps of “universal background checks” to the end game, will have no “home rule” regional limitations. They just use that term for the suckers.
Still, it wouldn’t be out of line to ask Jeb to explain in detail what specifically works for New York City. Matter of fact, those who have given him “A” ratings and endorsements in the past ought to be demanding it…
UPDATE: Not that I expect this will be anything but ignored…
Of course, old-timers like me remember when William Jefferson Clinton’s running mate (you know, the guy who invented the Internet, and global warming) was the guy who roomed at Harvard with Texan actor Tommy Lee Jones. And Mr. Jones (a Texas rancher and gun owner) ascribed to the same beliefs! That it was okay to carry firearms in Texas, but in D.C. and N.Y.C. (the big city) it was a no-no.
That argument didn’t hold for Tommy Lee Jones, and it doesn’t hold for Jeb and Barack, either!
Well, BILL, anyway…
‘We’ used to say “Bill Clinton was the best gun salesman in the United States!” (Due to the Assault Weapons Ban, Waco, etc…)
A woman had her guns taken from her because her husband had a psychiatric issue. She’s suing:
The city took her 12 guns away in 2013. KNTV reports that she went to federal court recently to get them back. She contends in her lawsuit, which also seeks damages and an injunction to prevent future seizures, that she has a right to have guns in her home, despite her husbands mental health issue.
In California, of course…
from Say Uncle
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. …” – William Jefferson Clinton
The Quote of The Day (courtesy of Joe Huffman)
The term “assault weapon” is the fake term. “Assault rifle”, or Sturmgewehr, is the correct term for a light rifle or carbine firing an intermediate power cartridge (more powerful than a typical pistol but less powerful than a typical high powered rifle), having full automatic fire capability and feeding from a detachable magazine. The largely cosmetic feature of the pistol grip stock is a other, possibly defining trait, being the THE original Sturmgewehr (fielded by the National Socialist Workers’ Party) had a pistol grip stock.
The serious use of the term “assault weapon” pretty well defines a person as having little or no credibility in regard to firearms. Today’s socialists are pissed off at seeing anything that even resembles an assault rifle, I do herein posit, mainly because it’s THEIR weapon design and they don’t like seeing advocates of liberty carrying THEIR weapon.
August 9, 2015
Food for thought.
Or at least food for amusement.