I've lived in Mtn Home since 1989, so that's...hold on...I'm thinking...WOW! Exactly 25 years! Boy, I think I can almost declare myself an Idahoan. But my family is British and I grew up in Louisiana around lots of other Brits so I still think I'm a little bit of a mutt. Those of you who have been around awhile may remember when I used to blog all the time. My opinions weren't very accepted and there was always an issue because I work for the county. That really wasn't fair because I NEVER blog at work! And I am still entitled to my opinions and thoughts about city and county issues, right? However, it stirred a lot of pots and those pots certainly can make a lot of noise! Since I'm a writer, I took what I wrote in my blog seriously so I spent a lot of time researching things which got exhausting to do when you're not even get a paycheck for it. So I stopped. That was a blessing to many! However, to this day, I still have people stop me and ask me why I wasn't blogging and t! hey missed it. I've missed it. Mainly because there are so many issues that come up and I have no voice except around my friends and I'm sure they are tired of it.

One World

Posted Saturday, October 3, 2009, at 12:15 AM

I saw the post that Bazooka had about that Montana, American Police Force. I went and looked at several pieces. It was unsettling to say the least, especially after watching that movie "State Of Play" Great film. I highly recommend it. So weird that I watched it last night and see this Guns for Hire stuff in Montana.

Then I read a few more articles (American Thinker, http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/05-21-06/discussion.cgi.68.html) that lead me to this work of art in the plan for a war-free world. I just couldn't grasp it. So readers, go read it and tell me what you think.

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html.

Kennedy his speech opened with the following statement. "The program to be presented to this assembly for general and complete disarmament under effective international control...would achieve...a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force."

Then we got Public Law 87-297, signed by President Kennedy, establishing the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency charged with "'the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds...under an effective system of international control.'"

I read the whole thing and I know that it was introduced during Kennedy's administration in 1961 at the U.N. I know that many will say it has no meaning today, but I beg to differ. Here is the most frightening fact: the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency has never been formerly withdrawn and some of it's steps have been implemented.

Phase three of this plan is to turn all military forces into domestic soldiers who must turn their weapons on their own citizens in order to keep the peace.

Yes, I know that the patriotic person within screams in outrage to even success such a thing could happen. There is no way that we would turn into war against each other but intelligent minds have come up with a situation in which that transition would occur. These UN internationalists know that Americans will not turn on each other unless something profoundly dangerous occurred.

And medical emergencies such as a life-threatening disease that is transmitted quickly and easily could certainly fit the bill. How hard would it be to do? Look at other disasters where our police and national guard had to point guns at Americans. If a flu pandemic were to occur, then the government would be justified in detaining, setting marital law, and get that ball rolling to disarm everyone. Facts don't matter in cases such as this because media and carefully planned propaganda will over-rule common sense. They need only hint at being rational. So I don't give this information to state that only this current administration is defective. I say that Bush as well as other Presidents have all played into this plan at one time or another. The war crisis of others and more current desperate events will give Obama exactly what he needs to change our military from defenders into "peace-keeping" enforcers. With a crisis, many people will back the idea of gun control without realizing what door they are opening. Desperate times call for desperate measures! A crisis will set the stage for completing Stage II.

Then we move on to the last stage. 'In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament...would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force...." There ya go! Disarm the countries, giving weapons to the U.N. to dispose of. Or better, they can just store it all until they need to show the world who the real power is. That sure sounds like a "One-World" Government and many have voiced that concern in connection with our involvement with the U.N. I am simply re-enforcing the need for caution and alertness when this crisis occurs.

So I look for more information. Check this out. I read about Dr. Lincoln Bloomfield who authored for the Kennedy State Department a Study Memorandum called, A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations. He writes, "A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which "world government" would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force." He wrote that it would be extremely difficult to sell this idea unless the "national leaders utilized "a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose." The United Nations Exposed (Look it up)

I end this little research with the words of Helio Jaguaribe from the Conference on Conditions of World Order, which met from June 12-19, 1965. "none of the governments will be able to escape public pressure for establishing world order... It is incumbent upon the intellectuals to play the decisive role in the formation of pressure groups in favor of world order...the establishment of world order demands the mobilization of groups dedicated to international pressure for the gradual implantation of that world order..."

I will read more but for now, I'm falling asleep at the computer.

Comments

View 12 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

I guess this kinda puts a damper on your movie and writing careers?

-- Posted by censored on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 1:29 AM
See the problem is the fact that so many of you out there will believe anything some yahoo types up and presents as facts. Even if these people are clearly hysterical manics with connections to christian conservative groups. You want the apocalypse to happen so bad that you'll believe anything that seems to go along with what the bible says about the so-called end-times. And the funny thing is, this card-board sign "dooms-day" prophets have been around since biblical times.

Here's a list that some obsessive type has compiled have all the notable and failed prophets of the end and what years they were around and when they predicted "the End". It's quite fun reading.

http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm

hopefully the link won't break.

-- Posted by censored on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 10:54 AM
The U.N. building didn't represent capitalism to the terrorist like their other targets.

-- Posted by censored on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 10:59 AM
bazookaman, Is this the same Operation Garden Plot you referred to earlier? I'm trying to find some info on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Garden_Plot

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 1:56 PM
bazookaman, Is this the same Operation Garden Plot you referred to earlier? I'm trying to find some info on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Garden_Plot

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 2:22 PM
Did you see what those dastardly feds have done now?

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-oct0109-slickspot_peppergrass.1...

-- Posted by censored on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 7:35 PM
I just read the remarks made to the United Nations by President Kennedy back on September 26, 1961. The entire speech can be read at:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/...

In section III of his address, President Kennedy urges progress in nuclear disarmament actions between the United States and the Soviet Union. That section contains this quote: "It would achieve under the eyes of an international disarmament organization, a steady reduction in force, both nuclear and conventional, until it has abolished all armies and all weapons except those needed for internal order and a new United Nations Peace Force. And it starts that process now, today, even as the talks begin."

Note that the President makes an exception for those weapons needed for internal order, which I believe is a recognition of each nations right to sovereignty and an affirmation of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

Since 1961, the U.N. has failed to prevent five, (Israel may make six) nations from developing a nuclear capability.

If the U.N. is bent on a one world government, these developments could not have been favorably received by the U.N.

The U.N. has continued it's efforts at nuclear disarmament.

Iran is now developing technology that could lead that country being counted among the nuclear armed.

Now, take a look at this huge agenda of the sixty fourth session of the U.N. General Assembly:

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/64/251

Some believe that the U.N. is a useless, failing assembly that desires to govern the world.

If you subscribe to this point of view, consider the success the U.N. has had at nuclear non-proliferation and the agenda of the sixty fourth session linked above. What rationale can you present that would convince anyone any attempt at a one world government controlled by the U.N. could possibly meet with any success within the next 100 years?

Some say the U.S. should get out of the U.N. I'm with Sun Tzu. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Sat, Oct 3, 2009, at 11:05 PM
I have a hard time giving this a lot of credence. This sounds like political evangelism. Radical ideas have been circulating since the time of Mesopotamia and they rarely take root.

U.N., it had its purpose in the beginning. I am not sure about now but I will leave that for others.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Sun, Oct 4, 2009, at 9:18 PM
I too remember the soldier who refused to wear the uniform with the UN on it. I applauded him. I also have real reservations about our involvement with the UN and what that involvement has done to our military. Furthermore, I will continue to be concerned about the strength of the "Peace Force" since the very name is deceiving. Our soldiers as a Peace Force have been killed too often under that guise. There will be a Peacemaker who will rise to power using this ploy of disarming the nations as a peacekeeping plan when in fact it is nothing but a plot to centerlize all weapons and therefore gain the power needed to establish a themselves as a superpower. Granted, it may not happen in our lifetime if we are smart, but it will happen. (Time: 6:47am)

-- Posted by kimkovac on Mon, Oct 5, 2009, at 6:48 AM
Social insurance like disability, social security, and unemployment amongst others are socialistic. Its natural for people to want a fall back option. Its natural as well for people (nations included) to like to know that they are not alone. One cant trade with oneself. Isolating oneself from the world (economically speaking) leads to fewer transactions and therefore less income. Everyone (old, young, conservative, not-so-conservative, gay, straight, etc.) likes income. Now where the line is to be drawn is the rate of taxation causes public expenditures to decrease to a level that is below the optimum. Health care and other initiatives by this admin. would increase the rate of taxation. By how much, no one knows. This taxation may not be readily apparent but that matters not. Some taxation is to be expected. When society can no longer compensate or substitute in their spending patterns and achieve the same level of basic welfare, the line has to be drawn.

Decreasing their spending is a must. Also, the demand for the services rendered must decrease. People must be able to do without. Every time that their income or situation dips below that comfort zone, they do not govt. intervention to make it right. Taxing everyone to fit the needs of a few will decrease incentive to work or innovate. Ok, enough about this.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Oct 5, 2009, at 2:52 PM
I would agree whole-heartedly with that last statement of yours. I hope to work for the government some day and possibly bring this quality to whatever office I work for.

I am currently hot on the research trail to show that increased govt. spending is not going to have an equal effect on GDP. That is the justification most use to increase govt. spending. The idea is that expenditures or outlays today will increase GDP in the future. Either the increase will be the same as the initial outlay or greater. There have been many cases where this is true. There are also many cases where this is not-so-true. I am leaving Dept. of Defense and related items out. Spending money on things like that have different rewards and different time horizons.

Overall, the purpose of these last two posts is to show the economics behind these ideas. Not everyone knows or cares about the economics. Yet, everyone is affected by it. We all react to shrinking income and decreased standard of living. The costs or benefits of govt. actions are not always immediately apparent. It can sometimes take years and by then concerned citizens have usually moved on to other things.

Yes, I am only one person but actions performed by all levels of govt affect not only me but everyone else so why not care and try to make the situation better for yourself and those you love. My hope is that Americans will look behind propaganda, biased reporting, and stereotypes. I hope that knowing the truth or logic behind an issue they will feel compelled to take action.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Tue, Oct 6, 2009, at 1:33 PM
twilcox1978,

Considering the economic variables your research must take into consideration to test your hypothesis, you have a daunting task ahead of you. Let the data take you where it takes you. Good Luck.

-- Posted by DaveThompson on Tue, Oct 6, 2009, at 5:06 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register