Posted on 11/16/2001 1:05:27 PM PST by DCE
Freedom From War- State Department Document 7277
Please remember that in light of the news of President Bush telling Vladmir Putin he is cutting our Nuclear arsenal whether he cuts it or not is very bad. If you do a search on the State Department site, or just a normal search on MSN, you will find a document titled Freedom From War- State Department Document 7277- Blueprint for Peace.
People, I beg of you to read this. It has been revised 21 times and strengthened since 1961. It was originally read on the floor of the UN by JFK on 9/25/1962. This has not been stopped. If you wonder why the reductions are going on, or other strange things our occurring, just read this. I do not accept what a person tells me as fact. Only the document from the source will do. I can assure you also, that we are almost through the second stage mentioned in this document.
I am very sad that GW is going through with this document, as I had the misfortune of living in Fort Lauderdale the last two years, and voted for him. I did not like Gore, or the other Leftists that were running. I am really down about the FTAA agreement being carried through as well. Many of you do not know much about this, but in essence it takes all of the North American countries and makes them into a Free trade area exactly as you see in the EU. It will be called the OAS. You may do a search for this document by putting the Title "Words Into Deeds" into your search engine as well. The thing most disturbing about this among the other socialist garbage that runs through it, is the fact that the borders of all countries from Northern Canada to Costa Rica will come down. Cuba is the only country left out of this at this time. Why has this not been reversed in light of what is currently happening to our beloved country??
I have spent roughly the last 6 years reading many International treaties, and they take many hours. America, we are in serious trouble. Treaties that many of you will want to review are the Millenium Declaration, Our Global Neighborhood, Treaty on Reform, ICC Treaty from June 18th 1998 (Titled Plenipotentiary), and the Anti Gun treaties that are in existence since then.
The only way that I have been able to get through to people is by showing them the facts. These treaties are straight from www.un.org. I wish all the best, and God Bless All! If any of you need help in finding these, please email me, and I will provide the links etc.
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22127-2001Nov13.html Notice something about this???
Hell no, it's them.
"United Nothings"?
P.S. The link to your source doesn't work for me.
You have a nice day too.
When the U.N. gets a standing army that can rival that of the U.S., then perhaps we can start to be concerned. I refuse to be afraid of reams of paper drafted by busybodies in Brussells -- especially when there is no method of enforcing these edicts. We do not live in a world where -- to quote Paul Begala -- it's "stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool."
Besides, have any of these horrible treaties that will take away our liberties been ratified by the Senate? I doubt it, considering we seem to be enjoying our freedoms today as well as we did yesterday.
Go and read the press conference with Presidents Bush and Putin from YESTERDAY: Bush/ Putin Press Conference Oh, and take in some air!
Also we will still own a couple of THOUSAND nuclear warheads, our best and newest ones, even if Putin gets his wish list. I think that's a deterrent to anyone that might cobble together one backyard nuke. And we can take the savings from maintaining obsolete weapons and buy some NEW toys.
I have had that up on my "Liberty or Death" Site for almost five years.
OWK, I believe DCE is expressing understandable concern regarding what have been ongoing plans over the last few decades for our induction in to a global governance architecture. The plans call for the reduction in our national and individual "arms" capabilities and activitieds in our own Congress and in the UN have lined up with them through the entire period. We continue on that path even as we fight those who have attacked us in such a horrific manner.
But, I don't want to put words in DCE's mouth so I'll leave it at that.
The size of our arsenal is HUGE. Reduction to 1700-2000 nukes will leave more than enough to accomplish any and all goals for their use. The next time a (large)nuclear device is used by any major power in the world will probably be the last. Either we will respond with a nuke and be ballyhooed into disarming altogether or we will find ourselves in a rather distaseful game of repetitive launches wherewith we, along with our oppponent, will wreak havoc upon the face of the earth leaving the planet uninhabitable for some time.
Needless to say, but I am definitely PRO-MDS.
Had DCE expressed that concern (valid though it may well be), I would not have asked my question.
I didn't get a whole lot of anything out of his post.
The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:
• The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
• The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
• The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
• The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
The above from THIS
Washpost Article
-------------------------
DCE and all, Nah, it don't mean nuthin'. {/SARCASM} Peace and love, George.
(Sigh)
You know, you could achieve the same purpose by simply bumping your own thread every so often. But no, you have to threaten to post the same article twenty-four times today.
That gives me a headache before I even attempt to hit your link.
DCE is apparently still "learning the ropes" on posting here at FR, even though being registered since April of this year.
DCE did post this on another occassion where concerns appear to be better expressed (at least IMHO) and apparently wanted it in breaking news to get more exposure.
Just an FYI DCE, be careful on abusing the "Breaking News" category. While I understand your concerns, the rules at JR's forum should be followed. FR is a GREAT place to get the word out regarding threats to our Constitutional Republic (and you will also find many here already are well aware of them) but it will only remain available to you if you don't border on, or actually abuse the means available. Just my advise.
ps - How is the book(s) going?
Get a clue. We are going to globalize no matter what anybody does. There are two ways to do this. 1- the socialists way, and the conservative way.
The socialists way is the baloney coming out of the UN and is essentially based on jealousy of the US's incredible success and power- point of the socialists is to run the global trade system to accomplish their "social justice" crap, take away individual rights, and so forth- their "eutopia" is to have the world "governed" by trade agreements that place elitists into power OVER YOU AND I.
The conservative vision for globalization is RAW COMPETITION where each nation has SOVERIEGNTY to do what its culture and people want as far as personal liberties, social programs, etc.. Problem is that if a country aims to be socialists, it won't be as ATTRACTIVE to businesses to locate their and commerce will FLOW TO those nations that have LOW taxes, less ridiculous regulations, and less labor problems. The Socialists hate this with a vengenance. Secondly, most environmental policies like global warming and forest policies are based on politics and NOT ON SCIENCE. If the only way socialists loonies can hold power is create issues that don't exist and they try to impose those issues on a trading partner, the trading partner can ask that nation to prove the science. If the country fails to prove there is a scientific basis for something like restricting US meat in the French market, then the TRADE COURT determines that the silly policy is a trade violation.
Look at Ireland for example- part of the EU, was told by the EU that it would be penalized for having such a TERRIFIC economy and LOWERING TAXES. Ireland told the EU to go f themselves. Ireland is attracting European commerce in droves as a result of a decent business climate with REALISTIC enviro and business regulations. That scares the hell out of the Socialists.
So, we are going to "globalize" now matter how much anyobe protests, and the EU loonies are absolutely pissed that Bush put together the OAS. The EU was hoping to create a FORCED system of Socialist Union, and now the AMERICAS are much more attractive.
Remember in the 1970's and early 80's when US businesses where moving to the pacific rim to take advantage of the cheaper labor costs and less silly regulations?
Commerce will go to where it is welcome and will remain there as long as it is treated nice.
The Socialists vision of glibalization is to make it so that commerce will have no choice but to stay where they are. The conservative vision is to allow commerce to go to where it is welcome and treated well- in other words countries COMPETE to improve their economic well-being. The socialists have the marxists philosophy that economic well being is BAD for people and they want to stop it.
Let's put it this way. Are you scared of FREE trade between California and Nevada? Hardly. Then what's your problem with FREE trade between Mexico and the US, or Canada and the US.
When you have Raw competition, some will be losers and others will be winners in various aspects of it. When it's all over, the countries, LIKE THE UNITED STATES that has regulation after regulation and labor problem after labor problem, it will eventually become apparent to even the Democrats that no matter how hard they try to avoid the reality of it- other countries will protect their environment and labor relations in responsible and fair ways and realistically, and commerce will flow to those nations rather than the United States.
The Socialists HATE FREE TRADE. They want to instead impose their vision of marxism on the rest of the world. The conservatives do not.
That, in a nutshell is what the "battle" about globalization is about. If you insist on being a paranoid about it and remaining ignorant of what is actually being attempted by either camp, you'll find yourself so far behind the curve you won't matter in the debate.
Elect Conservatives and globalization will be no different that the free trade that exists between all 50 of our states. Elect Democrats and you'll see a marxists vision of of the globe- it's that simple.
Jefferson Davis didn't run last year.
With respect to my book :
... it is going great. Quite a few sales as a result of ths site itself, and am now getting a number of reviews by larger publishing houses. Hopefully, one of them will take it and mass produce it. I am hoping for that, but will continue getting it out as best as I can on my own in the mean time.
I'll BUMP the latest thread to you.
Regards.
maybe a couple of weeks without cable TV, internet and a cushy japanese car will be good for the soul. One World Order -- I THINK WE SHOULD WELCOME IT AND EMBRACE IT - it might be the only wake-up call for us pathetic SHEEPLE- Yes- SHEEPLE -who are more concerned about Regis and "Who Wants to be a Millionaire rather than paying attention to a disintegrating constitution ..... bring it on !
I think our focus in the future should be with SDI and putting an anti-missile umbrella around North America and not simply building up an already formidable arsenal.
More importantly, our real enemy these days is not Russia but those third-world crackpots from the Middle East who are so desperately trying to blow up our cities with dirty nukes and spread smallpox. We need to concentrate on wiping this scum from the face of the earth.
I'll say this for the Russians. Even when they were the big, bad communist Soviet Union, they were a civilized nation that never attacked America on its own soil. They never slaughtered thousands of our civilians by hijacking planes and flying them into skyscrapers. Yes, we had our differences with those Soviets and forty years of "Cold War" to prove it. But never, even during the Cuban missile crisis, did the Soviet citizens chant "Death to America" in Red Square and take citizen hostages. Yeah, they shot down a spy plane or two but even the captured pilot was treated humanely and eventually sent back home.
Now that Russia had tried their little experiment with Marxism and Communism and wisely concluded that it was a failure, they are trying to adopt some good old American concepts like democracy and capitalism. Instead of pushing them aside and still treating them like our enemy, we need to assist them along the path to democracy and capitalism, which won't be an easy road for them. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should jump into bed with them just yet. We still need to be wary of an unstable empire with enough nukes to destroy us several times over. But we need to make the attempt to help them along in their transition and in the process, make them our trusted ally. If Germany and Japan can go from mortal enemies to trusted allies, so can Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.