Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Greatest Analogy Ever Told - and you still don't get it! Wake up citizens before we are no longer!
Cross posted from http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2008/11/bearophobia_and_the_coming_holocaust.html
Bearophobia and the Coming Holocaust
Posted by Bernie on November 13, 2008 09:10 PM
My name is Bernie and I am a bearophobe. I do not hate bears but I do fear meeting one Mano-a-Urso in the woods. Having a healthy fear of bears is not a prejudice against the species and I should think sane people would agree.
But some readers will object. They'll point out that there are very few people killed each year by bears and that perhaps we should have more fear of cars given that each year tens of thousands of Americans die from auto accidents. However, after a short examination we find this argument specious. Let me explain: considering the volumes involved, millions of drivers and hundreds of billions of car-miles, there are relatively few fatalities, only 1.37 per 100,000,000 miles driven which is the lowest level in decades. [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]
What this means is that millions of us can spend a lifetime coming in contact with hundreds of thousands of cars without worrying about getting killed; however, all that's needed for a deadly bear attack is one or two incidents. The chances of getting killed by a car if you see one on the road is less than a trillion to one so there is very little to worry about. If you come face to face with a bear in the woods there is a good chance you'll be killed.
Of course, one can always find a nut-job who makes fun of bearophobes like me; take for example, Timothy Treadwell, whose book, Among Grizzlies: Living with Wild Bears in Alaska
, advanced the theory that fear of bears is over-exaggerated. It should be noted that Treadwell often received citations for violating Park Service rules; even worrying authorities by refusing to install an electric fence around his camp or carry bear spray as a deterrent. Who needs that when bears are such pussy cats, eh?
In October 2003, Treadwell and his girlfriend, a physician assistant, Amie Huguenard, visited Katmai National Park in Alaska. On Sunday, 5 Oct 2003, Treadwell spoke with an associate in Malibu, California by satellite phone. Treadwell mentioned no problems with any bears. The next day, October 6, the bodies of Treadwell and Huguenard were discovered by Willy Fulton, the Kodiak air taxi pilot who arrived at their campsite to pick them up. Treadwell's disfigured head, partial backbone, and left forearm and hand still wearing his wrist watch were recovered at the scene. Huguenard's partial remains were found near the encampment somewhat buried in a mound of twigs and dirt. In the 85-year history of Katmai National Park, this was the first incident of a person being killed by a bear. [Wiki]
The first bear-caused fatality in the 85-year history of the park and one that would not have occurred if Treadwell were simply a bearophobe instead of a bears-are-harmless moron. I can assure you that if I were stupid enough to camp near bears, I would have had an electric fence and something stronger than pepper-spray for defense. There are those who make fun of bearophobes and there are those who are alive and bear-fearful.
Seven decades ago, very intelligent people from a culture that spawned operas, great literature, and scientific genius closed their eyes to the evil unfolding before them, refusing to believe that intelligent, civilized, cultured fellow Germans could be capable of unspeakable brutality. By their blindness, their tolerance for wickedness and savagery, they allowed a military system with religious overtones bent on world domination to take control of their country. Had I been living back then, criticizing Nazi ideology, I would have been called a Nazi-phobe, a fearmonger, a spreader of hatred for people who are different from me.
Of course, by the 1940s I would have been proven right for fearing Nazis, for calling them barbaric and brutal. But it was not Hitler who killed tens of millions of people but normal, ordinary volk who were blind to the monstrous evil so obvious to us now.
Those who were 20 or 30 years old when Hitler rose to power are now 98 to 108 years old, so there are very few left who remember how easily they accepted the lie that Hitler is just like any other national leader; that if we don't make waves, if we tolerate his silly demands, if we acquiesce to his requests for accommodation, if we simply appease, bend in submission, then everything will be OK - we will have peace in our time.
How soon we forget. Young Americans who are 20 to 30 years old and who think Islam is just another religion will one day learn otherwise: that a world Caliphate is not just the dream of fanatics but the aspiration of every faithful Muslim. I have never advocated harming any Muslim in this country; likewise if this were America 1930 I would not suggest that we shoot Nazis in the street. However I certainly would be demanding that my government not allow them to come into our country.
Many people come here precisely because of our religious freedoms. This does not mean we should tolerate those who believe in human sacrifice as did the Aztecs, for example. If a cult sprang up in Chicago that proclaimed that they are Aztecs and that they have a right to sacrifice a few virgins each year and we should allow them to do so because of religious freedom, no sane person would tolerate it. Not even complete morons like Al Franken.
Yet we tolerate a backward, barbaric, primitive, savage, vile, evil military system known as Islam because we misguidedly call it a religion similar to Christianity and Judaism. I will give bare props to Mohammed for pretending that Islam is merely a continuation of the faith of Moses and Jesus by sprinkling the Quran with a few stories from the Old Testament and a few paragraphs on Mary and Jesus. Amazingly, Mohammed praises the People of the Book, as Christians and Jews are called by Muslims, all the while exhorting the faithful to convert, subjugate or kill them. It's worthy of a Kafka novel.
Hitler, should have said his inspiration came directly from Gott, sprinkled a few stories about Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus into Mein Kampf and called it a Holy Book. Had he done so, he could have killed Christians and Jews with impunity as do Muslims now and no one dare criticize his followers because, after all, it's a religion just like all others. Had Hitler done that, I bet American Liberal Jews who lost more than 90% of their families in the Holocaust, would be denouncing anyone who criticizes Nazism, calling them Naziphobes and intolerant bigots just as today they call me an Islamophobe (and I am a proud Islamophobe) and an intolerant bigot.
On a wall in Dachau there are words in five languages all saying "Never Again". It seems that most of the world just does not understand what that means. Worse, Jews have completely forgotten the lessons of the Holocaust. Look at how we appease Muslims in America and how Europeans cannot scrape their knees enough to fellate them. In a few years when my generation is gone, if Liberals have their way, then young people will look at the photo above and ask, "What were pizza ovens doing in a prison camp?"
Never again? More like, here we go again.
My name is Bernie and I am a bearophobe. I do not hate bears but I do fear meeting one Mano-a-Urso in the woods. Having a healthy fear of bears is not a prejudice against the species and I should think sane people would agree.
But some readers will object. They'll point out that there are very few people killed each year by bears and that perhaps we should have more fear of cars given that each year tens of thousands of Americans die from auto accidents. However, after a short examination we find this argument specious. Let me explain: considering the volumes involved, millions of drivers and hundreds of billions of car-miles, there are relatively few fatalities, only 1.37 per 100,000,000 miles driven which is the lowest level in decades. [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]
What this means is that millions of us can spend a lifetime coming in contact with hundreds of thousands of cars without worrying about getting killed; however, all that's needed for a deadly bear attack is one or two incidents. The chances of getting killed by a car if you see one on the road is less than a trillion to one so there is very little to worry about. If you come face to face with a bear in the woods there is a good chance you'll be killed.
Of course, one can always find a nut-job who makes fun of bearophobes like me; take for example, Timothy Treadwell, whose book, Among Grizzlies: Living with Wild Bears in Alaska
In October 2003, Treadwell and his girlfriend, a physician assistant, Amie Huguenard, visited Katmai National Park in Alaska. On Sunday, 5 Oct 2003, Treadwell spoke with an associate in Malibu, California by satellite phone. Treadwell mentioned no problems with any bears. The next day, October 6, the bodies of Treadwell and Huguenard were discovered by Willy Fulton, the Kodiak air taxi pilot who arrived at their campsite to pick them up. Treadwell's disfigured head, partial backbone, and left forearm and hand still wearing his wrist watch were recovered at the scene. Huguenard's partial remains were found near the encampment somewhat buried in a mound of twigs and dirt. In the 85-year history of Katmai National Park, this was the first incident of a person being killed by a bear. [Wiki]
The first bear-caused fatality in the 85-year history of the park and one that would not have occurred if Treadwell were simply a bearophobe instead of a bears-are-harmless moron. I can assure you that if I were stupid enough to camp near bears, I would have had an electric fence and something stronger than pepper-spray for defense. There are those who make fun of bearophobes and there are those who are alive and bear-fearful.
Seven decades ago, very intelligent people from a culture that spawned operas, great literature, and scientific genius closed their eyes to the evil unfolding before them, refusing to believe that intelligent, civilized, cultured fellow Germans could be capable of unspeakable brutality. By their blindness, their tolerance for wickedness and savagery, they allowed a military system with religious overtones bent on world domination to take control of their country. Had I been living back then, criticizing Nazi ideology, I would have been called a Nazi-phobe, a fearmonger, a spreader of hatred for people who are different from me.
Of course, by the 1940s I would have been proven right for fearing Nazis, for calling them barbaric and brutal. But it was not Hitler who killed tens of millions of people but normal, ordinary volk who were blind to the monstrous evil so obvious to us now.
Those who were 20 or 30 years old when Hitler rose to power are now 98 to 108 years old, so there are very few left who remember how easily they accepted the lie that Hitler is just like any other national leader; that if we don't make waves, if we tolerate his silly demands, if we acquiesce to his requests for accommodation, if we simply appease, bend in submission, then everything will be OK - we will have peace in our time.
How soon we forget. Young Americans who are 20 to 30 years old and who think Islam is just another religion will one day learn otherwise: that a world Caliphate is not just the dream of fanatics but the aspiration of every faithful Muslim. I have never advocated harming any Muslim in this country; likewise if this were America 1930 I would not suggest that we shoot Nazis in the street. However I certainly would be demanding that my government not allow them to come into our country.
Many people come here precisely because of our religious freedoms. This does not mean we should tolerate those who believe in human sacrifice as did the Aztecs, for example. If a cult sprang up in Chicago that proclaimed that they are Aztecs and that they have a right to sacrifice a few virgins each year and we should allow them to do so because of religious freedom, no sane person would tolerate it. Not even complete morons like Al Franken.
Yet we tolerate a backward, barbaric, primitive, savage, vile, evil military system known as Islam because we misguidedly call it a religion similar to Christianity and Judaism. I will give bare props to Mohammed for pretending that Islam is merely a continuation of the faith of Moses and Jesus by sprinkling the Quran with a few stories from the Old Testament and a few paragraphs on Mary and Jesus. Amazingly, Mohammed praises the People of the Book, as Christians and Jews are called by Muslims, all the while exhorting the faithful to convert, subjugate or kill them. It's worthy of a Kafka novel.
Hitler, should have said his inspiration came directly from Gott, sprinkled a few stories about Abraham, Noah, Moses and Jesus into Mein Kampf and called it a Holy Book. Had he done so, he could have killed Christians and Jews with impunity as do Muslims now and no one dare criticize his followers because, after all, it's a religion just like all others. Had Hitler done that, I bet American Liberal Jews who lost more than 90% of their families in the Holocaust, would be denouncing anyone who criticizes Nazism, calling them Naziphobes and intolerant bigots just as today they call me an Islamophobe (and I am a proud Islamophobe) and an intolerant bigot.
On a wall in Dachau there are words in five languages all saying "Never Again". It seems that most of the world just does not understand what that means. Worse, Jews have completely forgotten the lessons of the Holocaust. Look at how we appease Muslims in America and how Europeans cannot scrape their knees enough to fellate them. In a few years when my generation is gone, if Liberals have their way, then young people will look at the photo above and ask, "What were pizza ovens doing in a prison camp?"
Never again? More like, here we go again.
Fraud and Virus Warning
Cross posted from: http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/about/news/service_updates/fraud.html| Fraud and Virus Warning |
 |
| |||||||
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Goodbye America...our last best hope on earth
The night we waved goodbye to America... our last best hope on Earth
This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column
Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.
The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.
I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.
Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.
If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.
He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.
Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn’t know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don’t try this at home).
I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.
And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn’t join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He’d have been better off bursting into ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.
Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.
They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.
If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.
If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.
And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.
I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.
As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.
They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.
Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.
These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.
They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Prelude To War...I guess nobody cares.
Preface: From an e-mail. Name has been changed to protect the innocent.
Here they go, making more plans to control us. These people are building the system used by the "Beast". We need to see it for that. Also, our leaders are participating in it as well. Our labor is being used to formulate this system world-wide. Our tax dollars are spent globally establishing the very system which will enslave us and the rest of the world.
This link is to the people, and organization, which is controlling the moves on this earth. They are responsible for setting up this system. These people are on the devil's side! - Xyz
www.cfr.org/publication/17709/previewing_bretton_woods_two.html
Thank you Xyz.
While reading this I get the distinct feeling that these people are setting policy and speaking with blatant authoritative voices...like they are in charge or as you say, "...making more plans to control us." Further...and you know what? We didn't vote for these guys!
Previewing 'Bretton Woods Two'
| Interviewee: | Peter B. Kenen, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International Economics, CFR |
|---|---|
| Interviewer: | Lee Hudson Teslik, Associate Editor, CFR.org |
November 11, 2008
Can you give your general preview of the summit meeting and what sorts of policy you think will come of it?
I really doubt that the summit leaders are going to come out with a set of policy proposals. They're more likely to come out with a declaration calling for some policy reforms without being very specific. After all, these are not economists or even finance ministers, although some of them have been. Their main message, I think, will be that reforms are needed, without being terribly specific. It's not clear to me whether they plan to convene a so-called Bretton Woods Two to hammer out a set of reform proposals, or whether as they look at the situation they will discover that the reforms needed in one place are different from the reforms needed in others, and that a grand conference to try and negotiate common reforms, or create new institutions, is a bit unrealistic.
So perhaps some of the expectations that have been pinned on this are a little bit overblown at this point.
I think they are.
Given the abandon with which the phrase "Bretton Woods II" is being thrown around, could you give a little historical perspective on exactly what happened there, and how this might be different?
First of all, Bretton Woods was not a meeting of heads of state. It was a meeting of finance officials, and some central bankers, but mainly finance ministry people. And they had a fairly specific mandate, which was the creation of the International Monetary Fund [IMF], and as a sort of afterthought, the creation of the World Bank. There had been preparatory meetings going on between the United States and the UK. It was a considerable battle between the U.S. Treasury and the British as to how such an arrangement, such institutions, should be structured. The British were led by Lord [John Maynard] Keynes, the Americans by [economist and U.S. Treasury official] Harry White. Ultimately the weight of facts and economic power led to an IMF much more conservative in its powers than Keynes had wanted. The American view did prevail. And then, as I say, the charter of the World Bank was also drafted, but drafted rather quickly, as the membership recognized that postwar reconstruction and subsequent development were going to require public financing.
But the fund itself, as created, was simply a pool of national currencies, plus some gold, which could be used for short- to medium-term lending. Most of the early lending was to developed countries, but even that was restricted, since countries which were receiving Marshall Plan Aid in 1948 and thereafter were excluded from drawing on the IMF, at least temporarily. The IMF itself, of course, experienced a radical transformation in the years that followed as the ex-colonies became members, and as Latin America and Asia and Africa joined the fund, until it now has some 185 members. It was initially a pretty small body in terms of the number of members, but it did include all of the major countries except for Germany and Japan, with which we were still at war. They joined afterwards. The Russians at first indicated interest, but then pulled out and pulled a couple of their satellites out with them. But it was carefully structured-Keynes and White had been negotiating bilaterally for at least two years, probably longer, on the structure of the fund. And ultimately the U.S. view of the fund, as a pool of national currencies available for lending, prevailed. Here, if the summit comes up with at least a set of objectives for subsequent negotiation, I think it will achieve a remarkable purpose. But I'm not even sure at this stage that anyone quite knows what they are really aiming at achieving.
On a basic level, do you think the global financial system is best regulated by global institutions or by local institutions with increased global coordination?
I'm going to equivocate and say both. For example, a lot of the re-regulation that may be necessary is national and not global. If we decide to do something about the business model of the rating agencies, that's going to be national, because the rating agencies of which we are concerned, though they do international business, are U.S. firms. There are certain to be some tighter regulations, perhaps even the prohibition of some kinds of financial instruments. But it is not going to be a massive reorganization of the monetary system, which is what the [International Monetary] Fund was concerned with. It's going to be essentially an attempt to restructure regulation of the private financial sector. And there is, as I said, this disagreement lurking as to just how that should be done. But the distinction that I would draw is the fund was concerned with the monetary system, and this conference, if it focuses at all, will be concerned with financial markets. And those are not the same.
Do you think the IMF as it currently stands is adequate? Should there be new institutions, or simply modifications to the IMF?
I don't know which way it's likely to go. I'm not even quite sure how it should go, though I have skepticism about the extent to which the fund was presently equipped to do this job-my friends at the fund disagree, but that's natural enough.
Let me put it this way. The ideal outcome would be a fairly short list of commonly needed regulatory changes: increases in bank capital; restructuring of the credit rating agencies; tightening and restructuring of the mortgage market, not only in the United States but in some other countries as well, to discourage the issuance of mortgages to people who are unlikely to pay; and perhaps also some arrangements for rescuing homeowners who have gotten in over their heads. I'm not quite clear in my own mind how far we might go toward what I think I would like-the trading of derivative instruments on organized exchanges. That would provide financial backup to some of those derivatives, and also some standardization. The trouble is the derivative instruments are tailor-made to the needs of individual clients, and therefore if you were to standardize the instruments, they would lose some of their value to the customer. But I still believe that exchange-traded derivative instruments would be more sensible than the terribly elaborate and unique instruments we have. And I would hope that the summit meeting, if it makes any specific recommendations, will look at the question of the origination and the trading of derivative instruments, particularly the credit-default swaps, as well as higher standards for mortgage lending. But again, the problem here is that [using the term] Bretton Woods raises the expectation that we will somehow derive a whole set of new rules for the system, and perhaps new institutions for the system, and you just can't do that in a day. And what the follow-up will be is not clear.
Do you think you could do it granted a longer time frame? Or are there just existential problems here to any sort of global financial regulator?
There are obviously existential problems, and most countries are not going to want to delegate authority over their own financial markets to international supervisors. But in any case, it is a long and tough process because an awful lot of issues have to be covered. Even in respect to individual instruments, such as whether they should be exchange-traded or not, and what are the terms and conditions for these instruments? Some standardization is needed, and the role of individual investment banking firms in the tailor-making of these instruments has to be seriously reconsidered.
If you want to call it that...here's some more good news!
Will it be REVOLUTION before the big one? Hard to say...but one way or another we're headed there sooner than you think.
And in a somewhat related story ( see below ) ...the more they knead into the dough (pun intended), the greated the rise...in turmoil from the masses.
...another message from the innocent.
"OMG!!!! Pray this doesn't happen!!! If it does, we are doomed." - Wxy
I understand Wxy. But what will be, will be. The American people are asleep on this issue...but worse yet, the people in charge are still out to lunch and do not have a clue as to what they're doing. Deep in their troubled and corrupt minds they really know it's all their fault and are really grasping sail boat fuel (wind in the air) to fix a problem that requires ECO 101 vs "Islamic Finance 101".
GAFFNEY: Treasury submits to Shariah
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. - Nov 04, 2008
The Washington Times
The U.S. Treasury Department is submitting to Shariah - the seditious religio-political-legal code authoritative Islam seeks to impose worldwide under a global theocracy.
As reported in this space last week, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt set the stage with his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Persian Gulf states. His stated purpose was to promote the recycling of petrodollars in the form of foreign investment here.
Evidently, the price demanded by his hosts is that the U.S. government get with the Islamist financial program. While in Riyadh, Mr. Kimmitt announced: "The U.S. government is currently studying the salient features of Islamic banking to ascertain how far it could be useful in fighting the ongoing world economic crisis."
"Islamic banking" is a euphemism for a practice better known as "Shariah-Compliant Finance (SFC)." And it turns out that this week the Treasury will be taking officials from various federal agencies literally to school on SFC.
The department is hosting a half-day course entitled "Islamic Finance 101" on Thursday at its headquarters building. Treasury's self-described "seminar for the policy community" is co-sponsored with the leading academic promoters of Shariah and SCF in the United States: Harvard University Law School's Project on Islamic Finance. At the very least, the U.S. government evidently hopes to emulate Harvard's success in securing immense amounts of Wahhabi money in exchange for conforming to the Islamists' agenda. Like Harvard, Treasury seems utterly disinterested in what Shariah actually is, and portends.
Unfortunately, such submission - the literal meaning of "Islam" - is not likely to remain confined long to the Treasury or its sister agencies. Thanks to the extraordinary authority conferred on Treasury since September, backed by the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the department is now in a position to impose its embrace of Shariah on the U.S. financial sector. The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Treasury's purchase of - at last count - 17 banks and the ability to provide, or withhold, funds from its new slush-fund can translate into unprecedented coercive power.
Concerns in this regard are only heightened by the prominent role Assistant Treasury Secretary Neel Kashkari will be playing in "Islamic Finance 101." Mr. Kashkari, the official charged with administering the TARP fund, will provide welcoming remarks to participants. Presumably, in the process, he will convey the enthusiasm about Shariah-Compliant Finance that appears to be the current party line at Treasury.
As this enthusiasm for SCF ramps up in Washington officialdom, it is worth recalling a lesson from "across the pond." Earlier this year, the head of the Church of England, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, provoked a brief but intense firestorm of controversy with his declaration that it was "unavoidable" that Shariah would be practiced in Britain. Largely unremarked was the reason he gave for such an ominous forecast: The U.K. had already accommodated itself to Shariah-Compliant Finance.
This statement provides an important insight for the incumbent U.S. administration and whomever succeeds it: Shariah-Compliant Finance serves as a leading edge of the spear for those seeking to insinuate Shariah into Western societies.
Regrettably, SCF is not the only instrument of the stealth jihad by which Shariah-promoting Islamists are seeking to achieve "parallel societies" here and elsewhere in the West. The British experience is instructive on this score, too. Her Majesty's government has allowed the establishment of at least five Shariah courts to hear (initially) family law cases. Polygamists in the U.K. can get welfare for each of their wives (as long as all the marriages beyond the first were performed overseas).
Thus far, we in this country may not have reached the point where evidence of this sort of creeping Shariah is so manifest. But Treasury's accommodation to SCF demonstrates that we are on the same trajectory - the one ordained and demanded by the promoters of Shariah, one to which we serially accommodate ourselves at our extreme peril.
After all, the object of Shariah is the supplanting of our government and Constitution, through violent means if possible and, until then, through stealthy ones. Islamists, having secured footholds via their parallel societies, inevitably use those to extend their influence over Muslims who have no more interest in living under authoritative Islam's Shariah than the rest of us do. Inexorably, it becomes the turn of non-Muslims to accommodate themselves to ever more intrusive demands from the Islamists. It is known as submission, or dhimmitude.
Soon - possibly as early as this Wednesday - the Treasury Department and the other federal agencies will be taking orders from representatives of Barack Obama or John McCain. It may be that the outgoing administration's determination to advance the Islamist agenda via "Islamic Finance 101," and what flows from it, may be the first, far-reaching policy decision inherited by the new president-elect. If he does not want to have his transition saddled with an implicit endorsement of submission to Shariah, the winner of the White House sweepstakes would be well-advised to pull the plug on Thursday's indoctrination program and the insidious industry it is meant to foist on the "policy community," our capital markets and our country.
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.
November 12, 2008 - Rupert Wright
[1] The National (UAE)
Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008
Among the captains of industry, spin doctors and financial advisers accompanying British prime minister Gordon Brown on his fund-raising visit to the Gulf this week, one name was surprisingly absent. This may have had something to do with the fact that the tour kicked off in Saudi Arabia. But by the time the group reached Qatar, Baron David de Rothschild was there, too, and he was also in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Although his office denies that he was part of the official party, it is probably no coincidence that he happened to be in the same part of the world at the right time. That is how the Rothschilds have worked for centuries: quietly, without fuss, behind the scenes.
“We have had 250 years or so of family involvement in the finance business,” says Baron Rothschild. “We provide advice on both sides of the balance sheet, and we do it globally.”
The Rothschilds have been helping the British government – and many others – out of a financial hole ever since they financed Wellington’s army and thus victory against the French at Waterloo in 1815. According to a long-standing legend, the Rothschild family owed the first millions of their fortune to Nathan Rothschild’s successful speculation about the effect of the outcome of the battle on the price of British bonds. By the 19th century, they ran a financial institution with the power and influence of a combined Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and perhaps even Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China today.
In the 1820s, the Rothschilds supplied enough money to the Bank of England to avert a liquidity crisis. There is not one institution that can save the system in the same way today; not even the US Federal Reserve. However, even though the Rothschilds may have lost some of that power – just as other financial institutions on that list have been emasculated in the last few months – the Rothschild dynasty has lost none of its lustre or influence. So it was no surprise to meet Baron Rothschild at the Dubai International Financial Centre. Rothschild’s opened in Dubai in 2006 with ambitious plans to build an advisory business to complement its European operations. What took so long?
[2]
The answer, as many things connected with Rothschilds, has a lot to do with history. When Baron Rothschild began his career, he joined his father’s firm in Paris. In 1982 President Francois Mitterrand nationalised all the banks, leaving him without a bank. With just US$1 million (Dh3.67m) in capital, and five employees, he built up the business, before merging the French operations with the rest of the family’s business in the 1990s.
Gradually the firm has started expanding throughout the world, including the Gulf. “There is no debate that Rothschild is a Jewish family, but we are proud to be in this region. However, it takes time to develop a global footprint,” he says.
An urbane man in his mid-60s, he says there is no single reason why the Rothschilds have been able to keep their financial business together, but offers a couple of suggestions for their longevity. “For a family business to survive, every generation needs a leader,” he says. “Then somebody has to keep the peace. Building a global firm before globalisation meant a mindset of sharing risk and responsibility. If you look at the DNA of our family, that is perhaps an element that runs through our history. Finally, don’t be complacent about giving the family jobs.”
He stresses that the Rothschild ascent has not been linear – at times, as he did in Paris, they have had to rebuild. While he was restarting their business in France, his cousin Sir Evelyn was building a British franchise. When Sir Evelyn retired, the decision was taken to merge the businesses. They are now strong in Europe, Asia especially China, India, as well as Brazil. They also get involved in bankruptcy restructurings in the US, a franchise that will no doubt see a lot more activity in the months ahead.
Does he expect governments to play a larger role in financial markets in future? “There is a huge difference in the Soviet-style mentality that occurred in Paris in 1982, and the extraordinary achievements that politicians, led by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, have made to save the global banking system from systemic collapse,” he says. “They moved to protect the world from billions of unemployment. In five to 10 years those banking stakes will be sold – and sold at a profit.”
Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.”
So how did the Rothschilds manage to emerge relatively unscathed from the financial meltdown? “You could say that we may have more insights than others, or you may look at the structure of our business,” he says. “As a family business, we want to limit risk. There is a natural pride in being a trusted adviser.”
It is that role as trusted adviser to both governments and companies that Rothschilds is hoping to build on in the region. “In today’s world we have a strong offering of debt and equity,” he says. “They are two arms of the same body looking for money.”
The firm has entrusted the growth of its financing advisory business in the Middle East to Paul Reynolds, a veteran of many complex corporate finance deals. “Our principal business franchise is large and mid-size companies,” says Mr Reynolds. “I have already been working in this region for two years and we offer a pretty unique proposition.
“We work in a purely advisory capacity. We don’t lend or underwrite, because that creates conflicts. We are sensitive to banking relationships. But we look to ensure financial flexibility for our clients.”
He was unwilling to discuss specific deals or clients, but says that he offers them “trusted, impartial financing advice any time day or night”. Baron Rothschilds tends to do more deals than their competitors, mainly because they are prepared to take on smaller mandates. “It’s not transactions were are interested in, it’s relationships. We are looking for good businesses and good people,” says Mr Reynolds. “Our ambition is for every company here to have a debt adviser.”
Baron Rothschild is reluctant to comment on his nephew Nat Rothschild’s public outburst against George Osborne, the British shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nat Rothschild castigated Mr Osborne for revealing certain confidences gleaned during a holiday in the summer in Corfu.
In what the British press are calling “Yachtgate”, the tale involved Russia’s richest man, Oleg Deripaska, Lord Mandelson, a controversial British politician who has just returned to government, Mr Osborne and a Rothschild. Classic tabloid fodder, but one senses that Baron Rothschild frowns on such publicity. “If you are an adviser, that imposes a certain style and culture,” he says. “You should never forget that clients want to hear more about themselves than their bankers. It demands an element of being sober.”
Even when not at work, Baron Rothschild’s tastes are sober. He lives between Paris and London, is a keen family man – he has one son who is joining the business next September and three daughters – an enthusiastic golfer, and enjoys the “odd concert”. He is also involved in various charity activities, including funding research into brain disease and bone marrow disorders.
It is part of Rothschild lore that its founder sent his sons throughout Europe to set up their own interlinked offices. So where would Baron Rothschild send his children today?
“I would send one to Asia, one to Europe and one to the United States,” he said. “And if I had more children, I would send one to the UAE.”
While Your Government Does Nothing...The're here, folks!
This is not all George Bush's fault...STORE CLOSINGS AND LAYOFFS
"If the American people knew what we just did, they would hang us from a lamppost." - President George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush 41)
...need I say more?
ps: After you read this ask youself, "Where is Wal-Mart?"
(NWO clan, you bet!)
On the lighter side, there should be a lot of great sales going on! Shop early or shop late, some of the best deals are made when store managers are desparate!
Ann Taylor closing 117 stores nationwide. A company spokeswoman said the company hasn't revealed which stores will be shuttered. It will let the stores that will close this fiscal year know over the next month
Eddie Bauer to close more stores. Eddie Bauer has already closed 27 shops in the first quarter and plans to close up to two more outlet stores by the end of the year.
Cache closing stores. Women's retailer Cache announced that it is closing 20 to 23 stores this year.
Lane Bryant, Fashion Bug, Catherines closing 150 stores nationwide. The owner of retailers Lane Bryant , Fashion Bug , Catherine's Plus Sizes will close about 150 under performing stores this year. The company hasn't provided a list of specific store closures and can't say when it will offer that info, spokeswoman Brooke Perry said.
Talbots, J. Jill closing stores. About a month ago, Talbot's announced that it will be shuttering all 78 of its kids and men's stores. Now the company says it will close another 22 under performing stores.. The 22 stores will be a mix of Talbot's women's and J. Jill , another chain it owns. The closures will occur this fiscal year, according to a company press release.
Gap Inc. closing 85 stores. In addition to its namesake chain, Gap also owns Old Navy and Banana Republic . The company said the closures - all planned for fiscal 2008 - will be weighted toward the Gap brand.
Foot Locker to close 140 stores. In the company press release and during its conference call with analysts, it did not specify where the future store closures - all planned in fiscal 2008 - will be. The company could not be immediately reached for comment
Wickes is going out of business. Wickes Furniture is going out of business and closing all of its stores, Wickes, a 37-year-old retailer that targets middle-income customers, filed for bankruptcy protection last month.
Goodbye Levitz / BOMBAY - closed already. The furniture retailer, which is going out of business. Levitz first announced it was going out of business and closing all 76 of its stores in December. The retailer dates back to 1910 when Richard Levitz opened his first furniture store in Lebanon , PA. In the 1960's, the warehouse/showroom concept brought Levitz to the forefront of the furniture industry. The local Levitz closures will follow the shutdown of Bombay .
Zales, Piercing Pagoda closing stores. The owner of Zales and Piercing Pagoda previously said it plans to close 82 stores by July 31. Today, it announced that it is closing another 23 under performing stores. The company said it's not providing a list of specific store closures. Of the 105 locations planned for closure, 50 are kiosks and 55 are stores.
Disney Store owner has the right to close 98 stores. The Walt Disney Company announced it acquired about 220 Disney Stores from subsidiaries of The Children's Place Retail Stores. The exact number of stores acquired will depend on negotiations with landlords. Those subsidiaries of Children's Place filed for bankruptcy protection in late March. Walt Disney, in the news release, said it has also obtained the right to close about 98 Disney Stores in the U.S. The press release didn't list those stores.
Home Depot store closings. (E. Brunswick, Rt 18 just put up their closing sign) ATLANTA - Nearly 7+ months after its chief executive said there were no plans to cut the number of its core retail stores, The Home Depot Inc. announced that it is shuttering 15 of them amid a slumping U.S. economy and housing market. The move will affect 1,300 employees. It is the first time the world's largest home improvement store chain has ever closed a flagship store for performance reasons. Its shares rose almost 5 percent. The Atlanta-based company said the under performing U.S. stores being closed represents less than 1 percent of its existing stores. They will be shuttered within the next two months.
CompUSA (CLOSED) clarifies details on store closings. Any extended warranties purchased for products through CompUSA will be honored by a third-party provider, Assurant Solutions. Gift cards, rain checks, and rebates purchased prior to December 12 can be redeemed at any time during the final sale. For those who have a gadget currently in for service with CompUSA, the repair will be completed and the gadget will be returned to owners.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9834177-7html
http://www.newscom/8301-10784_3-9834177-7.html
Macy's - 9 stores
Movie Gallery - 160 stores as part of reorganization plan to exit bankruptcy. The video rental company plans to close 400 of 3,500 Movie Gallery and Hollywood Video stores in addition to the 520 locations the video rental chain closed last fall.
Pacific Sunwear - 153 Demo stores
Pep Boys - 33 stores
Sprint Nextel - 125 retail locations. New Sprint Nextel CEO Dan Hesse appears to have inherited a company bleeding subscribers by the thousands, and will now officially be dropping the ax on 4,000 employees and 125 retail locations. Amid the loss of 639,000 postpaid customers in the fourth quarter, Sprint will be cutting a total of 6.7% of its work force (following the 5,000 layoffs last year) and 8% of company-owned brick-and-mortar stores, while remaining mute on other rumors that it will consolidate its headquarters in Kansas . Sprint Nextel shares are down $2.89, or nearly 25%, at the time of this writing.
J. C. Penney, Lowe's and Office Depot are scaling back
Ethan Allen Interiors: The company announced plans to close 12 of 300+ stores in an effort to cut costs.
Wilsons the Leather Experts - 158 stores
Pacific Sunwear will close its 154 Demo stores after a review of strategic alternatives for the urban-apparel brand. Seventy-four under performing Demo stores closed last May.
Sharper Image: The company recently filed for bankruptcy protection and announced that 90 of its 184 stores are closing. The retailer will still operate 94 stores to pay off debts, but 90 of these stores have performed poorly and also may close.
Bombay Company: (Freehold Mall store closed) The company unveiled plans to close all 384 U.S.-based Bombay Company stores. The company's online storefront has discontinued operations.
KB Toys posted a list of 356 stores that it is closing around the United States as part of its bankruptcy reorganization. To see the list of store closings, go to the KB Toys Information web site, and click on Press Information
Dillard's to Close More Stores. Dillard's Inc. said it will continue to focus on closing under performing stores, reducing expenses and improving its merchandise in 2008. At the company's annual shareholder meeting, CEO William Dillard II said the company will close another six under performing stores this year.
There's also others...Circuit City, for one, is filing bankruptcy. Maybe others can add more to the list, or correct and update any listed here.
Sadly, this may be (IS) just the beginning.
#2  November 11th, 2008, 5:11 am | ||||
| ||||
 Gun stores, however, are reporting record sales. __________________Liberal democrats are responsible for that, too.  |
#3 November 11th, 2008, 5:25 am | |||
| |||
| Quote:
God help us. |
Congressman Broun Warns of Obama Dictatorship
Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.
Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."
Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.
Congressman Broun Warns of Obama Dictatorship
“You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential.”
Congressman Broun fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship:
“The thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force… That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”
Obama’s comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Barack Obama, July 2008
Let’s hope that the Congressman is over-reacting, although, for the record, the quotes of Obama are accurate, word per word. Maybe he [Obama] didn’t mean it that way:
Kim Jong Ill: “Internal police force? I am not concerned, why should you be?”
“The only police I fear is Team America, World Police.”
Cross post http://americannonsense.com/?p=17299
If Obama Succeeds...this will come back haunt you.
Paranoid About Gun Ownership?
by Geoff Metcalf
from WorldNetDaily.com
Thomas Paine observed that "Tyranny is always better organized than freedom." He also noted "... the strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance." The gun grabbers are at it again. President Clinton (the presumed ineffective lame duck impeached president) continues to pursue his ultimate goal of total gun confiscation. The enemies are those who would erode Liberty and Freedom. Their weapon is incrementalism. Although the U.S. senator from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, has been unable to find any co-sponsors for his insidious S2099 finesse to gift the IRS with new gun-licensing authority, the battle is joined. Some have suggested the Reed bill is the product of mere legislative brain flatulence. Others see it as the opening gubmint gambit, which will be followed with "more reasonable" gun control proposals. Limousine liberals will often ask me, "Why are you so paranoid about the Second Amendment?" The answer is in facts, which contradict their preconceived opinions, but nevertheless remain facts. The list is too long for this space, but herewith is a Reader's Digest flavored version: » In 1911, Turkey established for real gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed. » Senator Diane Feinstein, speaking on "60-Minutes" immediately after the passage of the Brady Bill said, "if I thought I could get the votes, I'd have taken them all." That's not paranoia; that is the clearly stated objective of a liberal Democrat U.S. senator. » The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Then from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-millon dissidents — again, deprived of the means to defend themselves — were rounded up and killed. » April 5, 1996, Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post, "the Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." "Ultimate," as in inevitable, eventually, sometime in the future ... not now ... BUT soon. » Forget the phony Hitler quotes, and focus on the facts. In 1938 Germany did establish gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed. » Editor of the Boston Globe T. Winship wrote in Editor and Publisher Magazine, April 24, 1993, "Investigate the NRA with renewed vigor. Print names of those who take NRA funds. Support all causes the NRA opposes. ... The work a day guy doesn't envision total confiscation, but many with the real power to sway public opinion and effect change in America do." » China has more practice than anyone does in disarming potential dissenters. Once upon a time they banned knives and swords. In 1935 they established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million dissidents, again deprived of the tools for self defense, were rounded up and killed. » Democrat Representative W. Clay was quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch of May 8, 1993, regarding the Brady Bill. He said it is "the minimum step" Congress should take. "We need much stricter gun control and eventually we should bar ownership of handguns except in a few cases." » Cambodia enshrined gun control in 1956. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed. » Guatemala locked in gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves. » Former President of NBC News M. Gartner was quoted in USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992, as saying, "I now think the only way to control handgun use is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution." Hello?! » Uganda got gun control in 1970. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed. Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc. was quoted in the New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, with what frankly crystallizes the alleged paranoia many of us have for preserving the Second Amendment. "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily ... given the political realities ... very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal." Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century. Is there an identifiable trend? A common denominator? Sure! The victims were unarmed. In the shadows of the recently orchestrated whizzing match between the NRA and the president, two ignored factoids remain axiomatic. When law-abiding citizens have easy access to firearms for self-protection, crime goes down. When law-abiding citizens are denied easy access to firearms, crime increases ... significantly. For those who continue to insist, "Hey, that stuff could never happen here," permit me to annoy you with two more facts. "Operation Garden Plot" and "Department of State Publication 7277." I had almost forgotten about Garden Plot until I got halfway through this column. It is an old Operations Plan relating to Civil Disturbance. Here are some selected quotes: "If any civil disturbance by a resistance group, religious organization, or other persons considered to be non-conformist takes place, under Appendix 3 to Annex B of Plan 55-2 hereby gives all Federal forces total power over the situation if local and state authorities cannot put down said dissenters." "Annex A, section B of Operation Garden Plot defines tax protesters, militia groups, religious cults, and general anti-government dissenters as Disruptive Elements. This calls for the deadly force to be used against any extremist or dissident perpetrating any and all forms of civil disorder." The Department of State Publication 7277 was Disarmament Series 5 released September 1961. It states, 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 permitted at any stage of the disarmament process. Third, adequate peacekeeping 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 peacekeeping 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. The cartoon character Pogo once observed, "We have met the enemy and he is us." It is an irony that the fictional character resided in a swamp, and the District of Criminals rests on a reclaimed swamp. Frederick Douglass noted that "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong, which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either rods or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." |
THE POWER TO DESTROY
Global taxon guns?
Brazil, France propose international levy
on arms sales to eliminate world hunger
Posted: June 03, 2003
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
Some world leaders at the G8 summit meeting are floating the idea of a global tax on arms sales, including – at French President Jacques Chirac's suggestion – a tax on gun purchases by individuals.
In a speech at the annual meeting of the "Group of Eight," or G8, Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva pushed the arms-sales tax as a scheme whereby the world's wealthiest nations could fund efforts to eliminate world hunger, reports Bloomberg News.
The "Group of Eight" includes the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia.
Citing the Brazilian paper Folha de S. Paulo, Bloomberg reports Lula said such taxes would create "a global fund capable of giving food to those who are hungry and for creating the conditions to end the causes of hunger."
Calling the Brazilian leader's proposal "forceful and convincing," Chirac was reluctant to back a levy on weapons manufacturers in France and elsewhere, but suggested a global tax on firearms purchases made by individuals, said the report.
"Lula's idea is a simple one. People must be able to eat three times a day, and that is not the case today," Chirac added, according to Agence France-Presse. "This unacceptable situation must be debated."
Lula's speech containing the controversial proposal came after a meeting of leaders of 12 developing countries with the G-8. The Brazilian leader also suggested wealthy creditor nations could donate part of the debt payments they receive back into a global fund to relieve hunger.
Chirac later said the proposed tax on arms sales might serve as an alternative to the "Tobin tax," which has been floated previously as a possible global tax on currency transactions, according to a CNSNews.com report. "Perhaps a tax on the sale of weapons would be quite justified," Chirac said, according to CNSNews.com. "I'm very much in favor of studying this proposal. For the time being, that's all he's asked. There's lots of trade in weapons, and there's no doubt whatsoever that this trade attracts everyone's concern."
The very thought of a global tax on arms sales and possibly even on individual gun purchases is like walking on glass to many, who feel doubly threatened by a global tax and by another encroachment on private gun-ownership. Although many in public policy positions might downplay such concerns as overblown or even paranoid, global bodies do have a long, if rarely reported, history of trying to foster various sorts of international gun bans.
As far back as Sept. 24, 1999, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on members of the Security Council to "tackle one of the key challenges in preventing conflict in the next century" – the proliferation and "easy availability" of small arms and light weapons, which Annan identified as the "primary tools of violence" in conflicts throughout the world. (Though the terms tend to be used interchangeably, the United Nations defines small arms as weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are those designed for several persons operating as a crew. Together, they account for virtually every kind of firearm from revolvers, pistols, rifles, carbines and light machine guns all the way to heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, mortars up to 100 mm caliber, and land mines.)
"Even in societies not beset by civil war, the easy availability of small arms has in many cases contributed to violence and political instability," said Annan at that time. "Controlling that easy availability is a prerequisite for a successful peace-building process."
Talk is one thing, but the Security Council then unanimously adopted the "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms." The 26-member group's various recommendations, two dozen in all, add up to a comprehensive program for worldwide gun control, and call for a total ban on private ownership of "assault rifles." A few of the recommendations:
- All small arms and light weapons which are not under legal civilian possession and which are not required for the purposes of national defense and internal security, should be collected and destroyed by States as expeditiously as possible.
- All States should determine in their national laws and regulations which arms are permitted for civilian possession and the conditions under which they can be used.
- All States should ensure that they have in place adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the legal possession of small arms and light weapons and over their transfer in order ... to prevent illicit trafficking.
- States are encouraged to integrate measures to control ammunition ... into prevention and reduction measures relating to small arms and light weapons.
- States should work toward ... appropriate national legislation, regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which firearms can be acquired, used and traded by private persons. In particular, they should consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes, such as automatic guns (e.g., assault rifles and machine-guns).
The report notes with approval countries like China that have enacted measures to "strengthen legal or regulatory controls." China reported that some 300,000 "illicit" guns were seized and destroyed by officials acting in response to "new and more stringent national regulations that have come into force ... on the control on guns within the country and on arms exports."
France, too, in 1998 "acted to reinforce governmental control over military and civilian arms and ammunition, and introduced more rigorous measures regulating the holding of arms by civilians."
A State Department official, requesting anonymity, has previously told WND "the United Nations will not dictate domestic gun control for any nation. They can make recommendations and nations can act on those recommendations as they see fit, but we will never have the United Nations telling countries what they should do."
Questioned about specific recommendations, he replied, "Those are just recommendations – and surprisingly, a number of countries, including the U.S., take them up on those recommendations. In fact, we support all 24 of those recommendations."
Department of State Publication 7277
THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD
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 ot 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 overall 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.
TASKS 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.I 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;
- 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 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;
- 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:
- 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;
- To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- a General Conference of all the parties;
- a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and
- 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:
- ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon;
- assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures;
- 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;
- 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.I 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: 11161 O-609147