One WorldPosted Saturday, October 3, 2009, at 12:15 AM
Then I read a few more articles (American Thinker, http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/05-21-0... 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/freed....
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 Here is the most frightening fact: the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency has never been formerly withdrawn and some of it's steps have been implemented.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 Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
I've lived in Mtn Home for over 20 years. I love my city and my country. Since I am a writer, my decision to blog here seemed appropriate. I enjoy acting so I've been blessed with the opportunity to work on some independent films and with Prairie Dog Productions and Bogus Creek Ranch. I hope that something I have to write about has some value for others or just amuses someone.
Hot topics Mayfield? Here's my thought.(5 ~ 10:39 AM, Aug 18)
Watch myi48 short film
FINALLY USAMA BIN LADEN DEAD
i48 Film Festival
Pakistan, the Lying Nation
|
Email link
Read comments (23)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mountainhomenews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
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.
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.
Keep in mind, that most of the things you mention, are things we have PAID INTO all our working lives. Unless you're a foreign nation, an illegal alien, or a deadbeat, the government never GAVE anybody ANYTHING.
The government doesn't create wealth. It consumes it.
Twil.......whenever they get behind, the FIRST thing they do is either raise current taxes, or create NEW ones...............that's their "fix"
And so.........cigarette taxes are up, alcohol, and soda pop is next....there is no limit to what they will contrive.......
YET............the government CONTINUES to give billions away in useless grants, perks, foreign aid..............when they SHOULD be LEADING by example.
Twil, you often mention the fact that we consumers need to be more frugal and responsible, with our spending habits. And you are dead right about that. Absolutely no argument.
But when I'm driving to Oregon in a old Volkswagen to save gas, when I COULD be a lot more comfortable in my T-Bird, I don't want to hear on my car radio that Congress is taking what we've all been cutting back on to save...............and giving MILLIONS to some country, BILLIONS to some OTHER country, huge bonuses to CEO's of corporations the government now OWNS, Nancy's new jet,........TWO flights to Denmark when ONE would have sufficed.
When I pull my little bug into Bend and have lunch at Denny's, I don't like hearing about Michelle Obama flying her kids to London for fish & chips.
We're ALL supposed to be in this together, aren't we?.............especially NOW, with the "people's party" running things?
I'm dodging potholes in the road, while they're doing "tunnels for turtles" back east.
Twil ol' buddy, I know you mean well, and I agree that we ALL need to watch what we spend, but I keep hearing that from the left, as if this is all OUR fault, but aside you YOU, I have YET to hear any Democrat point any heat towards this out of control government, which throws truckloads of our tax dollars into every crooked, non-essential project you can name...............then turns around.....blames US......then hits us up for MORE!
And OH YES............I'm talking about BOTH sides of the aisle. We have thieves in OUR midst as well, not nearly as many, but I'm ashamed to admit we DO have some.
It's OUR fault alright. Everytime we walk into a booth....................RRRRRRRRRRRRR or DDDDDDDDDDDDDD. "Don't bother thinking now........ Don't check anybody's congressional history. Just fill in the circles, everyplace you see "YOUR letter." Make grandma and grandpa proud.........that's the way THEY always voted, by golly!"
Hey Twil.............don't ya wish you could just print up more money when YOU needed it? How about just a raise? Ever worked anywhere where you could just get together with your co-workers and give YOURSELVES a pay raise whenever you so desired?
What? The boss would have FIRED you guys if you tried that?
Why don't we fire OUR "employees" when THEY do that, and continue to FLEECE this nation term after term? We ARE still the "boss", aren't we? If we're NOT, this is no longer a Republic, or even a Democracy.
If our Constitution still means anything more than something you "take after breakfast", WE.......meaning you and I, Kim, Bouncer, Dave Censored and millions of others..........are the "BOSS"...........every voting November, it is WE who hire and fire
WE get to say the "have to's" and the "don't have to's"
When we choose NOT to fire these bums (or worse, not even participate), we are telling the fox it's ok with US, for HIM to continue raiding the chicken coop. We're obviously ok with that.
It's incredible. I constantly hear people come on these blogs and in the newspapers, lamenting they they are just one person....just one of the little people.........what can THEY do?
Everyone old enough, without a felony record, is entitled to ONE vote, (unless you're involved with ACORN, where you might have 4 or 5). But for the most part, we're all entitled to ONE. Your vote counts the same as the president's (supposedly).
Nobody's watching you behind the curtain nor is there anyone holding a knife to your throat. Check their voting records PRIOR to the election-----ALL of them. THEN, put your party aside for once in your life, and VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!
If this nation would do that altogether----just ONCE, that would probably be enough to turn things around.
But Mr Twil..........I've worked hard for what I have, and I expect the GOVERNMENT to be as careful with my money as the BAZOOKAMAN has to be.
You and everyone else on this blog have that same right to demand the same frugalty with OUR MONEY, that they expect US to have.
Yes? No?
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.
Twil.............yes, the U.N. was originally a concept that once was referred to as the League of Nations.
And it WAS a good idea in the beginning.
The Ku Klux Klan started out the same way. A handful of guys who just wanted to start a private club and get involved with the community from time to time. Harmless at first, but we all know what it turned into.
Like the Klan, the U.N. ALSO has become a haven for murder and terrorism.
Like the Klan, U.N. membership is ALSO exclusive.
The Klan's agenda was racial.
The U.N.'s agenda is GLOBAL.
The Klan is gone.
...........................?
Exactly right, Kim. I enjoy reading columns written by those who look at both sides and are swayed only by facts.
I am behind ANY politician who stands behind our Constitution and puts our country FIRST.......ahead of anything else. This is why I've even supported various Democrats from time to time, and have taken part in rallies to REMOVE a Republican or two, over the years.
"Big Brother" comes in all parties, colors and backgrounds. In the age-old quest for power and wealth, he uses many venues to keep the people off balance and confused.
He comes up with his own "laws and regulations" for "our own good." He knows that the majority of us out here don't know the difference, which is why we pay THEM to sort through it. I think it's safe to say that a MINIMUM of 90% of the people have NOT read the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, since they got out of school and were no longer required to.
It's reasonable to believe it isn't being taught today and has gone the way of the Pledge of Allegiance and school prayer. The less our kids KNOW about some of these things, the easier it'll be for future governments. These tea parties haven't come a moment too soon.
Someone (I don't remember who it was now), once said "You only have the rights you're willing to fight for." Basic human rights ar God-given, not government-granted.
Those who support Socialistic agendas abd WANT the government in charge of everything, are of course, free to do so. This is still a free country (for now), and if it gives ya the "warm fuzzy" of Linus' security blanket, great! Everything's cool, "it's all good."
But you're not taking the rest of us down that path to the slaughterhouse. Since one way or the other, we're all gonna die eventually anyway, there's a hell of a lot of us out here who prefer to have a little "discussion with Big Brother" on the way out.
These thousand page bills and stimulous packages are a PRIME example of how "Brother" keeps us off-balanced and confused. We don't get to see them, most of our elected stooges don't bother to read them, and most of THEM wouldn't understand it if they DID read them...............easier just to "sign the thing" and let the "commoners" worry about paying for it all...........or the "commoners KIDS.............or GRAND-kids."
Anybody who truly believes these tea-parties and townhall meetings are all about Obama being black, have been watching too much of the "View" and are in serious need of a urinalysis.
The strength of the "boogieman" is that people will NOT believe in him. All this "consriracy", the "sky is falling", all those dudes in the black cars and suits............it's all Hollywood.......it's all make-believe.
Is it?
DOD doesn't print manuals up and train troops just to have something to do.
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)
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.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as we still have our 1st Amendment (for the time being, anyway).
I stand with Huckabee, Paul, Crapo and millions of others. I don't want another tax dollar supporting this organization. I want our country OUT of the U.N., and I want the U.N. booted OUT of this country.
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+Res...
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...
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."
Boy, are you in for an ugly, ugly surprise in the middle of a couple of chuckles some day.
Hey.............whatever works for ya.
Did you see what those dastardly feds have done now?
http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stori...
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_G...
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_G...
PS.............what you read and hear from the Ney York Times, and MCNBC ain't exactly the gospel, either!
Yeah, I guess you WOULDN'T bomb the hands that feeds you.
Qaddafi said when he was here last week, that the U.N. should be moved to Libya.
As much as I hate to AGREE with one of those whack-jobs................
The U.N. building didn't represent capitalism to the terrorist like their other targets.
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.
Darn it!................did it AGAIN..........Sorry, folks. Maybe I need to go back to the stone tablet and chisel!
In 1995, Army Spc Michael new was given a Bad Conduct discharge from the Army, for having REFUSED to wear a U.N. uniform.
On June 12, 1994, Vice-President Al Gore, referring to 15 U.S. Servicemen killed while enforcing a "no-fly zone" in Iraq, said...."I want to extend condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations."
"We must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward world government.".............Walter Cronkite
"Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single, global authority"............Strobe Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State
"With respect to U.S. policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we obviously are bound by U.N. resolutions".............Colin Powell, Secretary of State
"Let me give you this final message. If we use the U.S. military, we can make the United nations a really meaningful, effective voice for peace and stability in the future"..............George Bush SR, December 1990
The U.N. on guns................
"So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn't noticed, the United Nations is beginning to set its sights on global gun control"..........Assoiated Press, May 24, 1994
Nations emerging from conflicts should, as soon as practicable, impose or re-impose licensing requirements on all civilian possession of small arms and light weapons"...........U.N. Panel of governmental Experts on Small Arms Report, 1997
"Some progress is already being made as nations tighten their arms export legislation and collect and destroy surplus weapons".........U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in his 2000 Report to the General Assembly.
(There in an easy to find statue on the U.N. grounds of a Colt Python revolver with it's barrel twisted in a knot for all to see).
The U.N. on terrorism:
"Syria won a seat on the U.N. Security Council, with overwhelming global support and NO opposition from the United States, despite its prominent position on the U.S. list of nations sponsoring terrorism"...............Associated Press, October 8, 2001
Earlier in this same year, the U.S. was voted OFF the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission
The U.N. on private land ownership:
"Private land ownership, contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable".........United Nations "Habitat I" conference report, 1976 (and haven't we seen "Eminant Domain" since then?) Sounds just a tad bit "SOCIALIST too!, doesn't it?"
Incidently, does it seem odd to anyone else out there. that on 9/11, the U.N. Building wasn't a target?
Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Bazookaman, and a WHOLE LOT of Americans want us OUT of the "One World Order" U.N., and want the U.N. OUT of this country.
How do the rest of you bloggers out there feel about that?
In 1995, Army Spc Michael new was given a Bad Conduct discharge from the Army, for having REFUSED to wear a U.N. uniform.
On June 12, 1994, Vice-President Al Gore, referring to 15 U.S. Servicemen killed while enforcing a "no-fly zone" in Iraq, said...."I want to extend condolences to the families of those who died in the service of the United Nations."
"We must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward world government.".............Walter Cronkite
"Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single, global authority"............Strobe Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State
"With respect to U.S. policy, when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we obviously are bound by U.N. resolutions".............Colin Powell, Secretary of State
"Let me give you this final message. If we use the U.S. military, we can make the United nations a really meaningful, effective voice for peace and stability in the future"..............George Bush SR, December 1990
The U.N. on guns................
"So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn't noticed, the United Nations is beginning to set its sights on global gun control"..........Assoiated Press, May 24, 1994
Nations emerging from conflicts should, as soon as practicable, impose or re-impose licensing requirements on all civilian possession of small arms and light weapons"...........U.N. Panel of governmental Experts on Small Arms Report, 1997
"Some progress is already being made as nations tighten their arms export legislation and collect and destroy surplus weapons".........U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in his 2000 Report to the General Assembly.
(There in an easy to find statue on the U.N. grounds of a Colt Python revolver with it's barrel twisted in a knot for all to see).
The U.N. on terrorism:
"Syria won a seat on the U.N. Security Council, with overwhelming global support and NO opposition from the United States, despite its prominent position on the U.S. list of nations sponsoring terrorism"...............Associated Press, October 8, 2001
Earlier in this same year, the U.S. was voted OFF the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission
The U.N. on private land ownership:
"Private land ownership, contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable".........United Nations "Habitat I" confeerence report, 1976 (and haven't we seen "Eminant Domain" since then?) Sounds just a tad bit "SOCIALIST too!, doesn't it?"
Incidently, does it seem odd to anyone else out there. that on 9/11, the U.N. Building wasn't a target?
Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Bazookaman, and a WHOLE LOT of Americans want us OUT of the "One World Order" U.N., and want the U.N. OUT of this country.
How do the rest of you bloggers feel about that?
If you want to see it in the government's own "black & white", check out "Operation Garden Plot."
One of those things that "could never happen here." I got my hands on copies of the actual government field manual a few years ago, and still have them around here somewhere. I'll dig it out in the next few days.
I guess this kinda puts a damper on your movie and writing careers?