Well, I’ve been reading several articles on this UN treaty. As an NRA member, I’ve always distrusted the sincerity of the UN when it comes to arms agreements. This is because there is an international effort to ban private possession of firearms, and we have seen how successful they were in infringing gun rights in English speaking countries. The 90’s saw guns being banned in the United Kingdom and Australia, the later of which has also banned swords. In Canada, a gun registry was implemented, but anti-gunners were unable to go further due to the mass civil disobedience of Canadians. After two registration systems were successfully used to confiscate guns, it is no wonder that Canadians thought that that would be the next phase after registering them.
And so, I have studied these articles:
After reading them, I have come to the conclusion that, even if their stated intention of reducing illegal arms traffic is the true goal on the part of some, others have the ulterior motive of creating a gun registry and of using this tool and the commission set up by the treaty to advance a gun banning agenda. After all, what kind of action would really benefit those poor men, women, and children suffering from genocide and other forms of violence in Africa? We’ve seen the use of violence throughout history by various greedy, power hungry, and bloodthirsty individuals. The only recourse held by these people is to fight. America was never in a position to right all the wrongs of the world, and, if we attempted to help the people of Africa, we should have to resort to force on their behalf anyway.
The primary tool for fighting for the past three hundred years has been the firearm. Instead of passing laws trying to restrict individuals, primarily African Muslims, who would be just as happy to kill Christians with a blade or by bludgeoning, perhaps we should be more concerned with arming the beleaguered peoples of Africa and giving them military training. That would be a UN resolution I would sincerely endorse.
Those of my dear readers who may have chanced upon another blog of mine, Aquila et Infans, know that I have been reading C. S. Lewis’s That Hideous Strength. The novel is very powerful. In particular, it highlights certain excesses which we see in our own times. I have less than 100 pages to go, and the evil organization, which has the precious abbreviation N. I. C. E., has thoroughly appalled me by their tactics and even more by their vision for mankind. Lest I give away too many spoilers, let me speak generally about what their horrifying fault is. Pride, a most diabolic and insane pride runs through the veins of the top members. Their pride consists in thinking that they can recreate mankind according to their own conceptions. Rather than discovering what man is and then deciding how to benefit mankind through understanding human nature, they attempt to force their silly notions upon human society and work from ideals which destroy people’s way of life and even their very being. Aristotle claimed that virtue was found between two extremes or vices. Humility places man exactly where he is. Pride puffs man up or deflates him beyond reason. The latter is certainly a form of pride, and may be seen in the vices of despair, materialism, and melancholy. (If cheerfulness is a virtue, as St. Francis de Sales claimed, then melancholy may surely be listed as a vice!) But, the people of N. I. C. E. do not miss the mark–αμαρτιζειν, if you will–by undershooting. Their arrow of arrogance flies far above the target and lands no where near it! Rather than follow the Master’s words: “The poor you may always have with you. You may do good to them whenever you wish,” they think that might eliminate poor persons as deadweights, which, to their mind, is the benefit of famine and war. Natural things have germs; therefore, we ought to destroy the forests and replant them with artificial trees. Sex is disgusting; therefore, let people coddle artificial replicas of their lovers rather than each other. Everyone else’s reason–especially the lower classes–is inferior and corrupt; therefore, let us lie and distort the truth. And the frightening thing is that we see reflections of these attitudes in modern times! Margaret Sanger believed that blacks were inferior and ought to be eliminated. And so, we have the establishment of Planned Parenthood. In the movements advocating sexual freedom, no-fault divorce, and gay marriage, we see the destruction of the family–that natural environment for the rearing of children and mutual love. People also assert the right, formerly held only by God Himself, to determine which infants will live and at what time one ought to die. To reference couples with their replicas, what else is pornography and the sex industry? To many a modern, man exists not in nature, but above it. So, what is the use of speaking of human nature? Or the nature of man? Or the nature of woman? In these times, it is more often heard that man created God in his image than that God created man out of the slime of the earth. The zeitgeist holds that man can make himself whatever he wishes to be. How many ills would be cured if a men tried to be men and women women! A fish is not happy on dry land nor a wolf in the Pacific Ocean. Neither is a man happy when he tries to be a god.
At present, I happen to be living in Richmond. I must confess to having fallen in love with the state to the extent that I wish to transform myself into a Virginian, which—if nationality is a matter of heart rather than birth—seems possible. To this end, I picked up a work covering one of Virginia’s most famous sons: Robert E. Lee on Leadership by H. W. Crocker III. This work combined with a Civil War documentary have inflamed my desire to study about the man. To this end, I have begun reading the biography by Emory Thomas, who happens to have grown up in Richmond.
His work is apparently the best single volume life of the man. A friend of mine and native of Lynchburg recommended a work by one of that city’s sons to me: Douglas Southall Freeman’s four volume biography. This work was published in 1934, needed 10 years of research, and is still considered the best life of the man. Interestingly, Thomas mentions that this work represents a more hagiographic view. In the 60’s, a new vision of Lee came about which focused on the man’s faults: his obsessive concern with sin, his feelings of failure after the war, hatred of paperwork, and his love of female company and flirtaceous dialogues with them. True, these are faults, but hardly the worst into which a man can fall. Thomas endeavors to find the real Lee, neither a melancholic nor a demi-god.
But, in reading the first fifty pages of the work, there do not yet seem to be any grave faults in the man, which one might expect of someone who said: “Duty is the most sublime word in the English language.” One officer referred to him as polished marble, which is a remark reminiscent of George Washinton, to whom Lee has been compared. Lee did not receive a single demerit during his time at West Point. He always treated both his men and fellow officers with respect and kindness and performed his duty with such diligence that General Winfield Scott called him “indefatigable.”
At any rate, I hope that this biography gives me a balanced portrait of the man and that I can share my thoughts with you soon.
An Honest President by H. Paul Jeffers stands as a wonderful account of a president forgotten by all save history majors and New Jersey residents. At any rate, as a citizen of New Jersey, I can be proud that Grover Cleveland is the sole New Jersey born president. Even though we presently number first in political corruption, Grover Cleveland’s presidencies of 1885 – 1889 and 1893 – 1897 distinguish themselves by the integrity of the chief executive.
Grover Cleveland was not a career politician or even really interested in politics. Basically, he worked as a very diligent and honest lawyer and assistant D. A. until some of his friends, impressed by his integrity–an integrity much lacking during the period of Reconstruction, convinced him to run for mayor of Buffalo, New York. After one year as mayor and one term as governor, he found himself president of the United States. The people of America were so impressed by his integrity and honesty that they elected him. This was despite a scandal which erupted over the fact that Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child in his 37th year (Cleveland remained a bachelor until during his first term as president) and had declined to be drafted during the Civil War by paying someone else to enlist for him. Rather than deny either, he confessed exactly what he had done.
Cleveland used his power to veto quite freely in all of these offices. “Public Office is a Public Trust” stood as Grover Cleveland’s motto, and he refused to sign any bill that was written sloppily, wasted public money, evinced political corruption, or was outside of his Constitutional authority. One of his most famous acts of political courage was to veto a very popular bill which would have lowered elevated train fares in NYC from 10¢ to 5¢. He vetoed this bill despite believing that the public would turn on him, because he felt that he had no Constitutional authority to alter a company’s contract if they had neither violated the contract nor broken any laws. Instead, he found that even newspapers which opposed his politics praised this as an act of political and moral courage.
While president, his staunch defense of the gold standard and attempts to repeal free silver laws caused him to lose re-election, but he never wavered in his policies. Interestingly, both his wife and a close friend believed that Cleveland would return to the White House four years later, which he did! The American voters decided that they missed the honest leadership of Cleveland.
His last words were “I have always tried to do the right.” May God bless this great president and our land with another man of integrity for this office.