Monthly Archives: March 2013

All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

Well worth the read – written by Michael Rivero of http://whatreallyhappened.com

Text: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU2MvXVBURUwTAd30AHyN6Cg&feature=player_embedded&v=5hfEBupAeo4

HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. (Meeting of Friday, December 17, 1993)

Here is another one of those “That’s to old to matter” documents.  I’m not sure why the sheeple think its odd that the powers that be plan way ahead.

giuliani01

*****************************************

HANDGUN CONTROL, INC. (Meeting of Friday, December 17, 1993)

Meeting of Friday, December 17, 1993Rough Draft Proposal for Internal Memo and Five Year PlanHANDGUN CONTROL, INC.Following is a summary of Notes and Minutes of a meeting held December 17, 1993 at the Western Regional Office of Handgun Control, Inc. for the purpose of discussing strategy and defining an agenda for the formulation of gun control legislation in 1994 and the following five years. The document is on Handgun Control stationary, and is marked CONFIDENTIAL-Not For General Distribution. Also included is an attachment on HCI stationary which is marked:

HCI – Confidential Document DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR COPY/NOT FOR GENERAL CIRCULATION. The attachment is also marked CONFIDENTIAL, and Confidential Information for use by Lobbyists or Senior Officers Only. The attachment is dated December 29, 1993 and contains details relative to the Notes and Minutes of the December 17, 1993 meeting. The material was distributed to the following individuals:Richard Aborn David Birenbaum Lee Fisher
Larry Lowenstein John Phillips Helen Raiser
Maurice Rosenblatt Jeanne Shields Odile Stern
N.T. Shields Sarah Brady Stanley E. Foster
John Hechinger Edward O. Welles Charles J. Orasin
Lois Hess Sandy Cooney Amy Weitz

The contents of the document were to be forwarded to the national office for reference, and a series of brainstorming sessions are to be held at the White House through the winter of 1994. A brief discussion on Fundraisers and Press Releases follows, with reference to swaying votes for Sen. Feinstein’s Assault Weapon Ban, and the drafting of a letter of support to Rep. Charles Schemer to offer additional materials for his use in testimony and press conferences. The document urges HCI members to continue their high profile supporting gun control issues and to continue with their praise of President Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno, and Senator Dianne Feinstein for their political courage in standing up to the Gun Lobby. The following is summarized from the content of the general document and the Attachment.

WHAT IS PENDING NOW, AND CAN BE LAW IN 1994!

A)Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.

B)Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.

C)Ban on possession of parts.

D)Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to over 5 shots without reloading.

E)Banning of all machine guns, destructive devices, short shot guns/rifles, assault weapons, Saturday Night Specials and Non- Sporting ammunition.

F)Arsenal licensing for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition.

G)Elimination of the Department of Civilian Marksmanship.

H)Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.

I)Ban on all realistic replicas/toy guns or non-firearms capable of being rendered realistic.

J)The right of victims of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers to be affirmed and perhaps, aided with money from government programs.

K)Taxes on ammo, dealers licenses and guns to offset the medical costs to society.

L)The eventual ban of all semi-automatics regardless of when made or what caliber.

WHAT WAS ONLY A DREAM TEN YEARS AGO CAN BE REALITY AS EARLY AS THIS YEAR!!!

The memo describes subjects discussed during a “brain storming” session conducted after the formal meeting. The focus of this session was to guide gun control initiatives over the next five years. The document states that these subjects may not be politically feasible ideas for 1994, but the members are confident that with continued pressure they can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years. These goals are summarized below:

FIVE YEAR PLAN:

1) National licensing of all handgun purchases.

2) License for rifle and shotguns. Strict licensing should be mandatory for all firearms, whether handguns or not.

3) State licenses for ownership of firearms. It is reasonable to require that all individual must prove that they require a firearm.

4) Reduction of the number of guns to require an arsenal license. The suggestion is that the number be reduced to possession of greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.

5) Arsenal license fees. It is reasonable to require an annual fee of at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00.

6) Limits on arsenal licensing. No license permitted in counties with populations in excess of 200,000.

7) Requirement of Federally Approved storage safe for all guns.

8) Inspection licensing of all safes. This would be a good revenue source, and would be conducted yearly.

PUBLIC SAFETY REGULATIONS:

9) Ban on manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.

10) Ban on all military style firearms. This will be based on a “point system” and hopefully can be expanded to include high powered air guns and paint ball weapons.

11) Banning of any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun.

12) Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range. There should be a federal mandate to the states regulating the carrying of firearms.

13) Banning replacement parts.

14) Elimination of the Curio relic list. A gun is a gun.

15) Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms.

16) Eventual ban on handgun possession. We think that within 5 years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.

17) Banning of any ammunition that fits military guns (post 1945).

AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES:

18) Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.

19) Ban on the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kilogram at any one time.

20) Banning of high powered ammo and wounding ammo.

21) A national license for ammunition.

22) Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

23) National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.

24) Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.

GUN RANGES:

25) Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.

26) Special licensing of ranges. The range must have the written permission of all property owners within 7 miles.

27) Special range tax to visitors. $85.00/day/person proposed.

28) Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.

ACTIVITIES WHICH PROMOTE GUN VIOLENCE:

29) Banning gun shows.

30) Banning of military re-enactments. This includes survivalist and paramilitary, as well as WW1, WW2, and Civil War re-enactment’s on federal land. We hope to encourage the states to prohibit them from state and county lands as well.

31) Making unlawful the assembly of more than 4 armed individuals who are not peace officers or military.

32) Begin to curb hunting on all public lands.

33) Making gun owners records and photos a matter of public record.

34) Random police checks for weapons (like sobriety checkpoints).

THE NEXT FIFTEEN YEARS:

The document goes on to say that with the present allies in the White House and Congress it is now possible to remove guns from public hands. Following is a discussion on the banning of military accouterments (military clothing, camouflage, pouches, gear, boots and other combat gear). There is also a discussion on the formation of strict guidelines for violence in television and the movies. This includes the provision for suing the makers of shows deemed violent in content. If the industry will not regulate itself, then there should be an independent branch of government to determine which scenes cause more harm than good to the public, and regulate the number of violent acts portrayed.

The document concludes with a discussion on the total elimination of arms from society. This includes the control of dangerous literature. The statement is made that there is too much irresponsible material covered by the first amendment, and that there can be such a thing as too much freedom where literature poses a serious threat to the public safety.

ATTACHMENT 1:

I. PROPOSED LICENSE FEES – 1994-1995 GUN CONTROL PROPOSALS:

The document includes an attachment which gives an overview of the proposed license fees for 1994/1995 Gun Control Proposals. This includes an escalation of fees, which start at $50.00 in the first year, and conclude with fees of $625.00 in the eighth year. The enclosure also covers a $1,000.00 fine and 6 months jail for failure to acquire a license, followed by recommendations of $5,000.00 and 12 months jail for failure to maintain a license, and $15,000.00 and 18 months jail for failure to turn over guns for destruction after lapse of license. Failure to re-new a license or notify issuing authority of change of status would be considered a felony. All firearms owned would then be considered contraband and could be confiscated. There is also a schedule for the licensing of rifles and shotguns, and the proposal for arsenal licensing. This includes a $300.00 to $1,000.00 annual fee, and $200.00/gun if over the prescribed limit. There is also a provision for assessing $100.00/50 rounds over the limit for ammunition. Included is an outline covering the suggested fee schedule for a Safe License of $228.00 to $392.00 per year, and Ammunition Registration and License of $55.00 to $117.00 per year to purchase ammunition. Other fees discussed include: Federal Re-Loading License of $130.00 to $175.00 per year. Ammunition Safe License Fee of $55.00 to $75.00 per year. Range License fee of $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 per year. Range Tax fee of $85.00 to $100.00 per person per visit. Inspection License fee of $588.00 to $688.00 per year.

II. SUGGESTIONS WHICH CAN BE MADE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO KEY POLITICIANS AND THE SECRETARY OF THE U.S. TREASURY:

The attachment recommends members suggest the following to key politicians and the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury: Increase dealers license to $600.00 to $700.00 per year. Increase Title 1 Manufacturing License fee to $6,200.00 to $9,400.00 per year. And increase Title 2 Manufacturing License fees to $13,000.00 to $18,000.00 per year.

III. AN ESTIMATE OF THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THE LICENSING ON FIREARMS OWNERSHIP:

A recap of the fiscal impact of the licensing of firearms ownership is shown to be $1,556.00 to $3,473.00 per year. The document states that this cost is not unreasonable, since it would offset considerably the estimated $60 billion in medical and social costs related to gun violence. Ultimately, such action would take the glamour and attraction out of firearms ownership and decrease the numbers of gun owners to a manageable number.

IV. REDUCTION OF GUN OWNER POPULATION AND POTENTIAL YEARLY REVENUE:

The document states that it is estimated the referenced proposals would allow us to take guns out of the hands of an estimated 30 million unsuitable or ineligible individuals. The fees for the remaining qualifying individuals would additionally reduce the number to about 14 million gun owners. The ultimate goal is to reduce the number of licenses to zero.

V. POSSIBLE USES FOR THE REVENUE:

Revenue generated from fees could be used to institute a mandatory national educational campaign in the public schools (K thru 12) to de-glamorize guns and gun ownership, and to tell the truth about the Second Amendment. Fees could also be used to mount a well funded and concerted campaign to add credence to the calls for eliminating the Second Amendment entirely via constitutional amendment. Also, fees would provide a revenue source for the cost of enforcement of the new laws by Federal and State Law Enforcement officials, and provide an offsetting monetary fund to provide medical services and legal services to victims of gun violence. There is also a recommendation for the establishment of a national toll free number for reporting violators of the new gun restrictions and non-licenses. A sum may be set aside for cash rewards for tips which result in conviction.

There is discussion on additional revenue sources via gun related activities (range fees, taxes, etc.), It is estimated that there will be a drop of 40% in such activities in the first year, and an additional drop of 35% the second year.

VI. LEGAL ACTION AND POSSIBLE NEW REVENUE SOURCES:

The attachment discuses legal actions and possible new revenue sources, and states that pending issues are to be given at the appropriate time to the LCAV office for investigation as to feasibility, implementation, and public reaction. At no time should these suggestions be made public before it can be ascertained what the current public reaction might be, and have this information given to the LCAV attorneys before release.

There will be a concerted P.R. campaign over the period of several years, which will include press releases, press conferences, direct lobbying, and constant pressure via the national media. The aim of this campaign is to change the way America thinks in regards to guns and gun owners. Once gun owners in America have been identified through a verifiable source, it would be possible to seek further compensation for the victims of gun violence through legal means. As a group, the gun nuts would constitute an identifiable entity for class action suits and other legal actions for compensation.

It would be expected that gun groups and lobbying groups such as the NRA would encourage non-compliance. Thus, nationally recognized groups will be technically “organizing to break the law”. Once this can be proven, these groups will be vulnerable to lawsuits based on the RICO statute and drained of their financial resources through repeated legal action. There is a discussion on the suing of the makers of toy/replica guns, toy weapons, and violent entertainment. The threat of legal action would convince many manufacturers and distributors that other non-violent related toys would be more worthwhile to sell. Items could include: Violent video games, television shows, movies, video tapes, water guns, super soakers, electronic noise guns, replica guns, toy weapons like swords, batons, and martial arts items. The attachment concludes by stating that Tort law as we know it may not have to undergo a change in order to facilitate these actions. It is not necessary to actually win in order to affect change, since the constant threat of legal action will induce change in the way people do business.

A Quick Guide to Arguing With The Gun Zealots

There is also a page on Handgun Control stationary titled “A QUICK GUIDE TO ARGUING WITH THE GUN ZEALOTS” which lists strategic points to remember for public speaking. It points out that the general public is confused between semi-automatic and automatic weapons and that this confusion can work in HCI’s favor. Constantly dropping the words submachine gun, fully automatic, machine gun, military weapon, and high tech killing machine are good debater’s tricks used to instill a sense of dread over these weapons. Other points include a discussion on semi-automatic weapons, endangerment of children, enough is enough, and there are too many guns in the U.S. There is also a brief listing of “Points of Victory in the Past Ten Years”.

http://varmintal.com/hci.htm

It’s Obama’s Fault, No Its Bush’s Fault, No Its Obama’s Fault… Blah Blah Blah

Damn people are ignorant.  If you spend anytime on the interweb, you will see that retarded statement over and over – It’s so and so’s fault, and of course the person they are referring to is always the tyrant they did not “Vote” for.  Because God help us all if the person they “Voted” for ever did anything bad.

The current memory span for the typical sheeple seems to max out at 2 to 4 years.  Just short enough to conveniently forget all the crap “Their Guy” did.  This include both the Democrats/Progressives and the Fake Republican Conservative wannabe’s (RHINO’s).  Both of theses groups only know what FOX or CNN tells them to think and who to “Vote” for.

Below you will find a document from 1961 that shows that the anti gun agenda and UN control goes much farther back than Obama or Bush 2.  What’s that?  You say its to old and doesn’t matter or mean anything in these times?  Grow up.

*************************************************

Freedom From War

The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a Peaceful
World

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. – Price 15 cents

INTRODUCTION

 

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

 

This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

First, there must be immediate disarmament action:

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.

Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:

The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.

Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:

There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.

——–

There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.

FREEDOM FROM WAR

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

SUMMARY

DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES

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.

TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES

The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:

  • As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
  • Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
  • Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
  • Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
  • Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.

DISARMAMENT STAGES

The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions.

FIRST STAGE

The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:

  • The nuclear threat would be reduced:
       All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons.
       The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.
       States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.
        States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.
       A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

     

  • Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced:
       Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.

     

  • Arms and armed forces would be reduced:
       The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
       An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.

     

  • Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:
       The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction would be prohibited.
       States would give advance notification of space vehicle and missile launchings.

     

  • U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:
       Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangements for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force.

     

  • An International Disarmament Organization would be established for effective verification of the disarmament program:
       Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.
       It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.
       It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.

     

  • States would be committed to other measures to reduce international tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or surprise attack:
       States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
       A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
       States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm; observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
SECOND STAGE

The second stage contains a series of measures which would bring within sight a world in which there would be freedom from war. Implementation of all measures in the second stage would mean:

  • Further substantial reductions in the armed forces, armaments, and military establishments of states, including strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and countering weapons;
  • Further development of methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes under the United Nations;
  • Establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations;
  • Depending on the findings of an Experts Commission, a halt in the production of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons and a reduction of existing stocks or their conversion to peaceful uses;
  • On the basis of the findings of an Experts Commission, a reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons;
  • The dismantling or the conversion to peaceful uses of certain military bases and facilities wherever located; and
  • The strengthening and enlargement of the International Disarmament Organization to enable it to verify the steps taken in Stage II and to determine the transition to Stage III.

THIRD STAGE

During the third stage of the program, the states of the world, building on the experience and confidence gained in successfully implementing the measures of the first two stages, would take final steps toward the goal of a world in which:

  • States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
  • The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
  • The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
  • The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

Appendix

DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

The Nations of the world,
Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences;
Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;
Declare their goal to be: 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 where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted to man’s material, cultural, and spiritual advance;
Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world:
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
(c) The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;
(d) 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.
Call on the negotiating states:
(a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;
(b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
(c) Also to seek — without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program — agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.
Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:
(a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
(b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.
(c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.
(d) As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
(e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.
Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:

STAGE I

A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:
(a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.
(b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.
(c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.

B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.
(d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.

C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
(a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.
(b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.
(c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.
(d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.
(e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.
(f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.

D. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
(a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.
(c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.

E. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space:
(a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable c,f producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.
(b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle.

F. To Reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack:
(a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.
(b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
(c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.
(d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.

G. To Keep the Peace:
(a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force–including nuclear, conventional, or CBR–contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
(b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
(c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.
(d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.
(e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.

STAGE II

A. International Disarmament Organization:
The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.

B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.
(d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.
(e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.

C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the Nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.

D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.

E. To Keep the Peace:
During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations:
(a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.
(c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.

STAGE III

By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.

The progressive steps to be taken during the final phase of the disarmament program would be directed toward the attainment of a world in which:
(a) States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N Peace Force.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
(c) The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
(d) The peace-keeping capabilities of the United Nations would be sufficiently strong and the obligations of all states under such arrangements sufficiently far-reaching as to assure peace and the just settlement of differences in a disarmed world.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 O 609147

[end of document]

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

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

The knowledge that 95% of Americans have about what is or is not Lawful would barely fill up a thimble among the oceans.  I don’t claim to be a scholar on Law or anywhere near it – there are many who have a much deeper understanding than I. But I have read and listened enough to know that what we are told/taught in the Government Indoctrination Centers (schools) is bullshit.

The Lawyers & Legal system will have you believe that Law is way above your pathetic pay grade and only they could possibly understand the law and legal-speak.  That would true if you rely on a standard English Dictionary.  You must use a Legal Dictionary like Blacks Law and/or Bouviers to understand and see the real meaning of words in law – as opposed to everyday communications.

Below is some case law that i think many will find eye-opening.  It can be found on the Constitution.org site – http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

That is an excellent site to learn what you should have been taught in “school”.

Edit:  Here are 2 other links to very good reads that are pertinent to the info below:

Resistance is Dangerous; Submission is Frequently Fatal

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2013/03/resistance-is-dangerous-submission-is.html

From the Right To Resist the ‘Duty To Submit’

http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w242.html

—————————————————————————————————————–

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

“Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all … it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: “The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm