Featured Post
I Am... Mama and Writer
First Mama. Then Writer. Though, of late, the latter has consumed a great deal of time as I work to get things in order to potentially be ...
Friday, May 17, 2013
Freaky Friday
The following is copied completely from this is the URL: http://www.thewomenwarriors.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=483
Once again, before you begin reading, please KNOW that i am NOT the originator of the following information. i have copied and pasted from the above site, which is a copy and paste from a PDF pages 10-12. The URL for the PDF is: http://www.teamlaw.org/Warn1.pdf
Thank you for reading and sharing with me!
Family Ties
My sister-in-law lives in a very conservative Utah community wherein most of the people place a stringent guard over the sacred union between husbands, wives, and children.
Yet several years ago, in that community, my sister-in-law’s natural born son came home from school shortly after he left in the morning.
On his way to school he’d been beaten up by a bully and ran home. His mother called the school to inform them that her son would not be to school that day, relating the reason why. The receptionist said she’s have the principal call in about a half hour because he was in a meeting that would last that logn.
About 20 min. later, there was a knock at the door. It was the principal. He demanded she bring her son to the door threatening that he would call the police, have her arrested and declared an unfit mother if she didn’t. Out of fear she got her son.
The principal said, ‘During school hours you are not his mother or guardian, the state is his parent.’ The principal then took her son back to school with him.
That day, my sister-in-law went to the school board and filed the papers to allow her son to be home schooled.
The next day she kept her son home and about an hour after school started there was a knock at the door. It was the principal again demanding entry. This time he had a social worker with him and he was intent on having her whole family removed from her as an unfit mother.
She refused their entry and showed the social worker the school board documents which proved that the state determined she was competent sufficient to home school her son.
Disappointed by the fact the intruders left.
Two years later, in Texas, my sister’s daughter was just starting First grade. Her father often drove her to school and because he thought her classes started ten minutes later than they did she was often tardy.
In that county a certain amount of tardies equals an absence, and, if a person goes beyond a certain number of absences the parent are subpoenaed with the child into the local court where they are fined a minimum of $100.oo as if a crime had been committed. The court has been recognized as having ‘state aurthorty’ to remove the children from the family.
What’s going on?
How could the state have gained such power over the people?
Over our children?
Or, are they our children?
Who are we?
Where are we?
The answers to these questions are found in history, logic, and Law.
They will surprise you. Marriage
In America, people with children are usually married --- with a corporate state granted marriage license.
Now, everybody knows that a license is “permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal’; and,
Where Common Law marriages are lawfully recognized in every state, it is not otherwise illegal married without a license.
Remember how you first learned about common law marriages. I was walking to school with a friend. A new family had just moved into the neighborhood and my friend told me that they had a common law marriage.
I asked, “What is that?”
My friend told me it meant they had lived together in sin for over seven years, so now their marriage was legal.
Most of us learned about marriage from parents, churches, or from school. But, did we learn the whole truth?
The truth is that the seven year rule is common law. It’s even Biblical. It’s a property law called the “Law of Jubilee”, which says that every seven years (grand jubilee = 50 years) all debts are forgiven, and whatever has been called something for seven years, or more, is what it was called.
Though a responsibility in marriage is proven by jubilee, that is not the limits of common law marriage.
Common law marriage is defined by “agreement” and “consent”.
Jubilee proves the existence of both agreement and consent, because if you haven’t contested the union within seven years jubilee says you waived your right to contest it and therefore you gave your consent by tacit admission.
In a common law marriage the “agreement” is between the spouses to be, they must agree to be married.
“Consent: comes from the father of the bride. He must agree to give his daughter to the bridegroom.
Under common law, if a couple has both agreement and consent they are married. That’s all there is to it.
The moment agreement and consent are in place the bride and groom are married, and that marriage can then be lawfully consummated.
Marriage often result in the creation of children. Children are created in the image of God. Therefore such a union is sacred and often tied to a great deal of ceremony, religion, pomp, and circumstance.
Now, back to the “License”. Marriage License
Whereas, “license” means permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal’; and,
Whereas, it is not otherwise illegal to be married under the law; and,
Whereas, the only other reason it would be unlawful for two consenting adults to be married is if they ware otherwise incompetent;
Therefore, if a couple goes to “the state” and asks for the state a license, where there is no other reason for them to need a license other than incompetence, in law, those requesting a license must be incompetent because that is the only reason they could possibly need a license.
Now, one must ask, “When a bride and groom are incompetent to be married without a state license and that state grants that license, Who is responsible for the marriage?”
Answer: The grantor, the state.
Who is responsible for anything created in such a license marriage?
Answer: The grantor, the state.
And, what, typically, is the only thing “created” in such a marriage?
Answer: Children.
So I ask you, “Who do the children created in a state license marriage belong to?”
Answer: They belong to the state.
Believe it, or not. Just check out the evidence:
Evidence #1 --- The state social services stand their authority on a doctrine called “Parens Patria” which is Latin for “parent by the country”. In modern usage parens patria is understood to mean “the state is the parent” [if you’d like to see an in depth WARN report on this doctrine let us know].
Evidence #2 --- When U.S. doctors deliver chidren from the womb they are required to create a document known as a: Record of Live Birth.
Is it given to you? No.
You’re given a: Birth Certificate.
So what happens to the Record of Live Birth?
It’s sent to the, “BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS”.
And what is that?
It is a subdepartment of the “DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE”.
And, what is the, “DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE”.
It is where the U.S. keeps track of its possessions.
This evidence indicated that the state is declaring the children as their possession at birth.
Evidence #3 --- New statutes require hospitals to assign Social Security Numbers to each child before birth, or without the natural parents signature or permission. (read “Independence Day” in this issue)
Evidence #4 --- Why are each of the childbirth performing hospitals in the U.S. registered as “Ports of Entry” into the U.S. when virtually none of them have incoming foreigners?
Evidence #5 --- Birth records and Census reports are used as collateral for U.S. loans and as proof of the subservient nature of the people under control of the U.S. government.
It’s Scary.
It’s proof of the war.
It’s fulfillment of Biblical prophesy.
And, if we don’t do something to change things we’ll have no promise from the King of Kings (other than judgment).
First we learn what happened.
In times past, there were no licenses of marriage except in cases where it was unlawful to otherwise marry.
For example, Biblical Law forbids the intermarriage of races, so, the statutes of this nation (which were based on Biblical law) prohibited marriage between persons of different races. If a white person wanted to marry a black or an Indian they were, by statute, required to get a license.
Marriage records were kept in family Bibles, then in the County Clerk and Recorder’s offices. Statutes were created to allow anyone desiring a license to obtain one. Churches were used to assist in getting people to use marriage licenses as a manner or recording marriages. Over time people began to believe the licenses were required by law, even though they were otherwise incompetent.
Now, remember, the promise given to Israel, was that if we maintain our stewardship, we’ll inherit the earth.
Our stewardship starts with our families. Isn’t it ironic that the document typically used to being a marriage is the same document used by the corporate state to remove our children from us? And nobody ever even warned us, because government employees were just doing their jobs.
Whenever we discover we’ve erred, we can repent. The error was asking the state of a marriage license.
Repenting includes fixing the damage.
Some people would tell you that to remove the marriage license you have to revoke or rescind your signature from the request for the license.
However, as a matter of law, revoking or rescinding a signature admits that you signed it in the first place.
What if you never signed the request for license? Then there would be no license in existence.
In contract law there is no signature if full disclosure is not given with presentation of the agreement.
In the case of the marriage license, if you used one, you were likely not informed that:
1. The grantor of the license is a privately owned corporation;
2. licensing with them wasn’t necessary for you to be married;
3. If you request a license from them you were declaring yourself incompetent; and,
4. You were signing over possession of your future children to them as collateral.
Therefore, if 1, 2, 3 and/or 4 above are true in your case then the contracting license is void, without signature from the beginning.
So what about your marriage? Legal & Lawful Marriage
Well think about it. If the two of you want to get a “required” license, you must have had agreement. And, if you had her fathers blessing you had his consent and therefore under common law (and/or Biblical Law) you were married without the license before the license was issued.
The churches rightfully want people to have “legal and lawful” marriages.
A common law marriage is a “lawful” marriage, meaning it fulfills law. The accent in the lawful marriage is the fact the parties of the marriage have an agreement, they have the father’s consent, and they are bound by their acceptance of, and consummation of, the marriage.
A “legal” marriage indicated a written contract or marriage. The accent in the legal marriage is the document that binds the marriage.
All you have to do to make a lawful common law marriage a “legal and lawful” marriage is make a legal record of the union made under common law.
In other words, if you legally record your contract of marriage with the County Clerk and Recorder. Such a record is a legal record and the common law marriage is both a lawful fact and a matter of legal record, i.e. “legal and lawful”.
If your original marriage agreement was verbal, you can later legally reduce it to writing and make it binding from the first moment of your agreement and consent by making your contract “nunc pro tune”, which means, “now as if then.”.
Knowing these things prior to marriage on some interesting questions especially if you or the father of the bride have religious beliefs (like I do) that cause you to desire to go through an ecclesiastic leader that may be unaware of the truth and therefore believes that you have to have a state issued marriage license.
The solution is simple.
If it was me, I would obey the law.
With agreement and consent, I would:
Create a Notice of Marriage stating that:
I and my spouse to be have an agreement to marry, show that we have consent of the bride’s father, and, give notice of the intended ceremony which when performed will bind, seal, and/or begin the Marriage union. I would have all related parties sign the document.
I would then go to the County Clerk and Recorder’s office and legally record the Notice with the marriage licenses. I would then get a couple of state certified copies of the Notice.
I would take a state certified copy to the ecclesiastic leader as evidence of the legal right to lawfully marry.
In Law your Notice has a greater authority than the state issued marriage license. The authority you will be using is the authority of common law in original jurisdiction, as was endowed upon man by birth. It is the same authority and power that makes you sovereign. It follows law.
The Notice is in accord with the laws of the individual states and is binding. Taking your Family back
This problem started many years ago. It wont’ be removed overnight. The state took charge of our stewardships because we allowed them to.
People are a great source of wealth. If the state can convince you that you are under their control, as their asset or subject, then you won’t control them.
We are living with allege contractual bonds to parens patria, and we have been doing so in condemnation for at least three generations. It’s time we recognized the truth. It’s time to take responsibility for our families, our stewardships, and our lives.
Removing the marriage license won’t remove the entire problem in and of itself. It will, however, remove the foundation upon which the state builds its entire “parents patria” doctrine.
With the state’s foundation removed you’ve taken the first step to prepare for any battle that may come up where the state attempts to use social workers, or other forces, to interfere with your family.
You’ll be beginning to act like the sovereign that you are.
If your marriage is not made under their authority, they have no lawful right to interfere with your family unless you invite them to.
Step two: Stop inviting them to solve your family problems. Be self reliant.
It doesn’t’ mean that they won’t ever interfere. It does mean that if they do you’ve disarmed their #1 weapon.
You’ll need to learn more and to prepare to turn back any attack they bring against you, but foundationally you’ll be ready.
Even after we resolve our marriages, the problem is that the system that set up the parens patria system of control still exists and government officials still want us to believe we are their incompetent servants. We need to solve that problem by eliminating the incompetence. Thus:
Step three: You’re sovereign and therefore you’re responsible, so start acting like it. Learn the Law --- Obey and apply it, and when others trespass against you or yours, mercifully and justly hold them accountable to their trespasses. Accountability is the key.
If you’ll do it you’ll be well on the path to true freedom and liberty, and we’ll get our nation back.
Team Law can help.
That’s why we’re here, to help people wake up and learn the law. Re-tie Family Ties
Typically for about the same reasons we had the marriage license problem we have the problem or raising our children in that same system that taught us that we needed to have the marriage license. That system that wanted us to be incompetent workers providing all of the “government’s needs”, believing that the “government” was supposed to provide our needs. When in reality we are responsible for providing all of our own needs and government’s responsibility is to insure that our rights and property aren’t trespassed.
The question is, “What are we allowing that system to teach our children?”
You don’t have to take your children out of the public school system. Though many have, successfully.
Within the public school system you do have to take an active part.
At the very least pay attention to what your children are learning.
I’m not talking about the school’s alleged subject matter. I’m talking about the public school’s end results: drugs, immorality, and crime.
You decide what’s best of your children. After all, ultimately, when it comes time for you to stand accountable for your stewardship, you won’t be able to blame the school for the outcome.
After all, you are the sovereign.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Freedom From War
Yes, we desire peace. But as our forefathers knew, there is no freedom, nor any peace, in tyranny. If we do not retain the right to self-protection, there is no freedom. If we are in fear of the govenment of our land, there is no peace nor freedom. I've recently learned of an old document... memorandum... http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html that reveals the plans some in the leadership of this country have been making to disarm and completely disregard the Second Amendment. You will find it alarming if you read with discernment. If you read it superficially, unable to see what the words really mean as they come together, you may be glad. But if you are, I have a river to sell you....
I, for one, desire no more war anymore. Certainly. I'm enough of a realist to know in a soul piercing way that this simply will not come to pass in a long-standing way if the way it happens is by force. If a nation is forced to give up rights to give up its laws that are meant to protect it and its people, then there is no real peace. There is only tyranny. A wolf in sheep's clothing.
There is yet another truth that is not spoken loudly or clearly by any of the news conveyors I've found. The news/information sources that are super unpopular because the majority refuses to see what is going on in plain sight. Big hint: they are not liberal.... What is the truth to which I refer? I'm refering to the fact, yes FACT, that humanity will never know true peace until our Savior has returned and rules in truth and in reality here on the earth. That's just the way it is.
We will have a semblance of peace... as we live day to day shaking in the very deepest parts of ourselves for fear... for some period of time before and during the seven year tribultion. This is true. However, if you live in fear of the powers-that-be and don't know what of Law you can trust, is that freedom OR peace? I think not. A police state is not freedom and there is no true peace within. It is neither the peace nor freedom of the kinds that were intended to be ours by our forefathers as they wrote and ratified the Constitution and, subsequently, those of its Amendments that were included quickly.
How have we gone so far wrong? I believe prosperity and blissful ignorance are the means to the end at which we find ourselves now. Our public schools don't teach the Constitution in any impression-making and abiding way. There is no real understanding of how our forefathers hoped and wanted things to be for and in this country. Just the fact that prayer is defamed and denigrated as not having any place in meetings of our Nations' leaders (House, Senate, Committees)... umm... really? And taken out of schools... give me a break. God was included in and consulted throughout the laying of the foundation of this country. Yet, somehow, we think to push Him out now because we know better than those who organized the laws and protections we have so slovenly allowed to be eaten away by modern legislation. I think not. We are fools.
All these thoughts... and I have only shared a small portion because I would go on far too long otherwise.
The following is the text of the memorandum to which I have linked above. Figured you might not want to click over, so you can read it right here if you so desire. :) Yes, I have highlighted parts I hope you'll take especial notice of... and if you'd like to know what I think about them, in particular, just ask and I'll formulate another post of explanation. ^_^
Freedom From War
The United States Program
for General and Complete
Disarmament in a
Peaceful
World
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents
INTRODUCTION
The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the United States has introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.
This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:First, there must be immediate disarmament action:
A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific measures be put into effect as soon as possible.Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective international controls:
The control organization must have the manpower, facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process.Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established:
There is an inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery and institutions on the other. Nations are unlikely to shed their means of self-protection in the absence of alternative ways to safeguard their legitimate interests. This can only be achieved through the progressive strengthening of international institutions under the United Nations and by creating a United Nations Peace Force to enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.
There follows a summary of the principal provisions of the United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The full text of the program is contained in an appendix to this pamphlet.
FREEDOM FROM WAR
THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE
DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD
SUMMARY
DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:
- The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
- The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
- The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
- The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.
TASK OF NEGOTIATING STATES
The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.
GOVERNING PRINCIPLES
The program sets forth a series of general principles to guide the negotiating states in their work. These make clear that:
- As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of disputes;
- Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed, in stages containing balanced, phased, and safeguarded measures;
- Each measure and stage should be carried out in an agreed period of time, with transition from one stage to the next to take place as soon as all measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and verified and as soon as necessary arrangements for verification of the next stage have been made;
- Inspection and verification must establish both that nations carry out scheduled limitations or reductions and that they do not retain armed forces and armaments in excess of those permitted at any stage of the disarmament process; and
- Disarmament must take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state.
DISARMAMENT STAGES
The program provides for progressive disarmament steps to take place in three stages and for the simultaneous strengthening of international institutions.
The first stage contains measures which would significantly reduce the capabilities of nations to wage aggressive war. Implementation of this stage would mean that:
- The nuclear threat would be reduced:
All states would have adhered to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons.
The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons would be stopped and quantities of such materials from past production would be converted to non-weapons uses.
States owning nuclear weapons would not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and would not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture.
States not owning nuclear weapons would not manufacture them or attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states.
A Commission of Experts would be established to report on the feasibility and means for the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
- Strategic delivery vehicles would be reduced:
Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of specified categories and weapons designed to counter such vehicles would be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps; their production would be discontinued or limited; their testing would be limited or halted.
- Arms and armed forces would be reduced:
The armed forces of the United States and the Soviet Union would be limited to 2.1 million men each (with appropriate levels not exceeding that amount for other militarily significant states); levels of armaments would be correspondingly reduced and their production would be limited.
An Experts Commission would be established to examine and report on the feasibility and means of accomplishing verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of all chemical, biological and radiological weapons.
- Peaceful use of outer space would be promoted:
The placing in orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable of producing mass destruction would be prohibited.
States would give advance notification of space vehicle and missile launchings.
- U.N. peace-keeping powers would be strengthened:
Measures would be taken to develop and strengthen United Nations arrangements for arbitration, for the development of international law, and for the establishment in Stage II of a permanent U.N. Peace Force.
- An International Disarmament Organization would be established for
effective verification of the disarmament program:
Its functions would be expanded progressively as disarmament proceeds.
It would certify to all states that agreed reductions have taken place and that retained forces and armaments do not exceed permitted levels.
It would determine the transition from one stage to the next.
- States would be committed to other measures to reduce international
tension and to protect against the chance of war by accident, miscalculation, or
surprise attack:
States would be committed to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter and to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
A U.N. peace observation group would be available to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
States would be committed to give advance notice of major military movements which might cause alarm; observation posts would be established to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
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.
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.
DECLARATION ON DISARMAMENT
THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE
DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD
The Nations of the world,
Conscious of the crisis in human history produced by the revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by serious ideological differences;
Determined to save present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of the arms race and to create conditions in which all peoples can strive freely and peacefully to fulfill their basic aspirations;
Declare their goal to be: A free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world where adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations; a world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control and where the resources of nations shall be devoted to man's material, cultural, and spiritual advance;
Set forth as the objectives of a program of general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world:
(a) The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
(b) The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
(c) The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations;
(d) The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
Call on the negotiating states:
(a) To develop the outline program set forth below into an agreed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved;
(b) To this end to seek to attain the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date;
(c) Also to seek --- without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program --- agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form a part of that program.
Affirm that disarmament negotiations should be guided by the following principles:
(a) Disarmament shall take place as rapidly as possible until it is completed in stages containing balanced, phased and safeguarded measures, with each measure and stage to be carried out in an agreed period of time.
(b) Compliance with all disarmament obligations shall be effectively verified from their entry into force. Verification arrangements shall be instituted progressively and in such a manner as to verify not only that agreed limitations or reductions take place but also that retained armed forces and armaments do not exceed agreed levels at any stage.
(c) Disarmament shall take place in a manner that will not affect adversely the security of any state, whether or not a party to an international agreement or treaty.
(d) As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations shall be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security and the peaceful settlement of differences as well as to facilitate the development of international cooperation in common tasks for the benefit of mankind.
(e) Transition from one stage of disarmament to the next shall take place as soon as all the measures in the preceding stage have been carried out and effective verification is continuing and as soon as the arrangements that have been agreed to be necessary for the next stage have been instituted.
Agree upon the following outline program for achieving general and complete disarmament:
STAGE I
A. To Establish an International Disarmament Organization:
(a) An International Disarmament Organization (IDO) shall be established within the framework of the United Nations upon entry into force of the agreement. Its functions shall be expanded progressively as required for the effective verification of the disarmament program.
(b) The IDO shall have: (1) a General Conference of all the parties; (2) a Commission consisting of representatives of all the major powers as permanent members and certain other states on a rotating basis; and (3) an Administrator who will administer the Organization subject to the direction of the Commission and who will have the authority, staff, and finances adequate to assure effective impartial implementation of the functions of the Organization.
(c) The IDO shall: (1) ensure compliance with the obligations undertaken by verifying the execution of measures agreed upon; (2) assist the states in developing the details of agreed further verification and disarmament measures; (3) provide for the establishment of such bodies as may be necessary for working out the details of further measures provided for in the program and for such other expert study groups as may be required to give continuous study to the problems of disarmament; (4) receive reports on the progress of disarmament and verification arrangements and determine the transition from one stage to the next.
B. To Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Force levels shall be limited to 2.1 million each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R. and to appropriate levels not exceeding 2.1 million each for all other militarily significant states. Reductions to the agreed levels will proceed by equitable, proportionate, and verified steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reductions shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the states party to the agreement have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) The production of agreed types of armaments shall be limited.
(d) A Chemical, Biological, Radiological (CBR) Experts Commission shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verifiable reduction and eventual elimination of CBR weapons stockpiles and the halting of their production.
C. To Contain and Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
(a) States that have not acceded to a treaty effectively prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons shall do so.
(b) The production of fissionable materials for use in weapons shall be stopped.
(c) Upon the cessation of production of fissionable materials for use in weapons, agreed initial quantities of fissionable materials from past production shall be transferred to non-weapons purposes.
(d) Any fissionable materials transferred between countries for peaceful uses of nuclear energy shall be subject to appropriate safeguards to be developed in agreement with the IAEA.
(e) States owning nuclear weapons shall not relinquish control of such weapons to any nation not owning them and shall not transmit to any such nation information or material necessary for their manufacture. States not owning nuclear weapons shall not manufacture such weapons, attempt to obtain control of such weapons belonging to other states, or seek or receive information or materials necessary for their manufacture.
(f) A Nuclear Experts Commission consisting of representatives of the nuclear states shall be established within the IDO for the purpose of examining and reporting on the feasibility and means for accomplishing the verified reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons stockpiles.
D. To Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
(a) Strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles in specified categories and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be reduced to agreed levels by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished in each step by transfers to depots supervised by the IDO of vehicles that are in excess of levels agreed upon for each step. At specified periods during the Stage I reduction process, the vehicles that have been placed under supervision of the IDO shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(b) Production of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be discontinued or limited.
(c) Testing of agreed categories of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be limited or halted.
E. To Promote the Peaceful Use of Outer Space:
(a) The placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of weapons capable c,f producing mass destruction shall be prohibited.
(b) States shall give advance notification to participating states and to the IDO of launchings of space vehicles and missiles, together with the track of the vehicle.
F. To Reduce the Risks of War by Accident, Miscalculation, and Surprise Attack:
(a) States shall give advance notification to the participating states and to the IDO of major military movements and maneuvers, on a scale as may be agreed, which might give rise to misinterpretation or cause alarm and induce countermeasures. The notification shall include the geographic areas to be used and the nature, scale and time span of the event.
(b) There shall be established observation posts at such locations as major ports, railway centers, motor highways, and air bases to report on concentrations and movements of military forces.
(c) There shall also be established such additional inspection arrangements to reduce the danger of surprise attack as may be agreed.
(d) An international commission shall be established immediately within the IDO to examine and make recommendations on the possibility of further measures to reduce the risks of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, or failure of communication.
G. To Keep the Peace:
(a) States shall reaffirm their obligations under the U.N. Charter to refrain from the threat or use of any type of armed force--including nuclear, conventional, or CBR--contrary to the principles of the U.N. Charter.
(b) States shall agree to refrain from indirect aggression and subversion against any country.
(c) States shall use all appropriate processes for the peaceful settlement of disputes and shall seek within the United Nations further arrangements for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and for the codification and progressive development of international law.
(d) States shall develop arrangements in Stage I for the establishment in Stage II of a U.N. Peace Force.
(e) A U.N. peace observation group shall be staffed with a standing cadre of observers who could be dispatched to investigate any situation which might constitute a threat to or breach of the peace.
STAGE II
A. International Disarmament Organization:
The powers and responsibilities of the IDO shall be progressively enlarged in order to give it the capabilities to verify the measures undertaken in Stage II.
B. To Further Reduce Armed Forces and Armaments:
(a) Levels of forces for the U.S., U.S.S.R., and other militarily significant states shall be further reduced by substantial amounts to agreed levels in equitable and balanced steps.
(b) Levels of armaments of prescribed types shall be further reduced by equitable and balanced steps. The reduction shall be accomplished by transfers of armaments to depots supervised by the IDO. When, at specified periods during the Stage II reduction process, the parties have agreed that the armaments and armed forces are at prescribed levels, the armaments in depots shall be destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
(c) There shall be further agreed restrictions on the production of armaments.
(d) Agreed military bases and facilities wherever they are located shall be dismantled or converted to peaceful uses.
(e) Depending upon the findings of the Experts Commission on CBR weapons, the production of CBR weapons shall be halted, existing stocks progressively reduced, and the resulting excess quantities destroyed or converted to peaceful uses.
C. To Further Reduce the Nuclear Threat:
Stocks of nuclear weapons shall be progressively reduced to the minimum levels which can be agreed upon as a result of the findings of the Nuclear Experts Commission; the resulting excess of fissionable material shall be transferred to peaceful purposes.
D. To Further Reduce Strategic Nuclear Weapons Delivery Vehicles:
Further reductions in the stocks of strategic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and agreed types of weapons designed to counter such vehicles shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure outlined in Stage I.
E. To Keep the Peace:
During Stage II, states shall develop further the peace-keeping processes of the United Nations, to the end that the United Nations can effectively in Stage III deter or suppress any threat or use of force in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations:
(a) States shall agree upon strengthening the structure, authority, and operation of the United Nations so as to assure that the United Nations will be able effectively to protect states against threats to or breaches of the peace.
(b) The U.N. Peace Force shall be established and progressively strengthened.
(c) States shall also agree upon further improvements and developments in rules of international conduct and in processes for peaceful settlement of disputes and differences.
STAGE III
By the time Stage II has been completed, the confidence produced through a verified disarmament program, the acceptance of rules of peaceful international behavior, and the development of strengthened international peace-keeping processes within the framework of the U.N. should have reached a point where the states of the world can move forward to Stage III. In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1961 O 609147
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.
[end of document]
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Reconciliation?
Would you know what I'm talking about if I suggested that the Senate might go for reconciliation to push ObamaCare through? If not, PLEASE read or you can just keep scrolling down. I rarely ever include the whole of someone else's writing in my blog, but this is really important to understand why EVERYONE needs to STAND UP and SPEAK OUT! Make calls to our leaders.
Did you know that one call is equivalent to 12,999 constituents? That's what the peeps on Capitol Hill think. They figure that if one person calls there are around 13,000 others who think the same way. Let's tell them they will lose their livelihood if they don't represent us properly!
GOP Should Shut Down Senate If Dems Use Procedural Tactic to Ram Through Health-Care Bill, Says Conservative Leader
Thursday, August 20, 2009
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor
(CNSNews.com) – Conservative leader Gary Bauer warned Wednesday that Democratic leaders in Congress will try to ram through their unpopular health-care reform plan later this fall, employing a little-used tactic first conceived as a way to maneuver around the budget deficit battles of the 1980s.
“I’m afraid that they (Democratic leaders) will do it because I’m convinced that the people running America are intent on changing America in ways that will not be reversible,” Bauer told CNSNews.com.
The tactic, known as “reconciliation,” is designed to get around the filibuster, a Senate procedure used to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority.
“When you have a filibuster, it takes 60 Senate votes to pass something,” Bauer said. “The Democrats don’t have 60 votes that they can count on for the health-care bill, making reconciliation all the more likely,” Bauer said.
“It’s a little esoteric, but the bottom line is that they will be able to ram this through with just 51 votes,” Bauer added.
The controversial 1,000-page bill overhauling the nation's health-care system is currently before Congress, which remains in recess until September.
If liberal Democrats do force through the legislation over the significant objections of conservatives, the former Republican presidential candidate says the minority party should be prepared to shut down the Senate.
“The only remedy for this, is for the minority in Congress...to make it clear that if this is used on such a major piece of legislation, that the minority Republicans will literally shut down the Senate by using parliamentary maneuvers, and so forth--so that literally nothing else will pass this year and next, until there is another election,” Bauer, who is president of the group American Values, said.
“That would turn Washington into an even more partisan battleground, but it may be the only solution to the threat that’s being rumored right now,” Bauer added.
Reconciliation is an option that was created in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act to allow Congress a way out of intractable budget battles.
Wesleyan University government professor Elvin Lim said it was invented as a way to achieve a balanced budget--not to force through highly controversial legislation.
“It wasn’t passed to allow Congress to go ahead and do anything it wants, but as it turns out, that’s the way it’s been used, quite frankly, by both sides of the aisle,” Lim told CNSNews.com.
In fact, he said, President George W. Bush was the last to utilize the tactic--getting Congress to pass tax cuts three times in ‘01, ‘03 and ’05--because he wanted to bypass a Senate filibuster by Democrats.
The budget reconciliation process is a two-stage process. First, reconciliation “directives” must be included in the annual budget resolution. In fact, directives for the health-care reform bill were placed in the 2010 budget resolution, which was passed April 29.
If utilized for the health-care bill, House and Senate committees would be ordered to develop a final version of the legislation by a specific date (in this case, Oct. 15) to meet certain spending or revenue targets. The committees would then send their legislative recommendations to their respective budget committees, who would be tasked with packaging all recommendations into one omnibus reconciliation bill.
The resulting bill would be fast-tracked and sent to the floor of both chambers of Congress for debate. A 20-hour limit is placed on debate of any measure considered under the reconciliation process, which effectively strips the minority party of the filibustering option in the Senate.
“The bottom line here is that this reconciliation procedure allows the Senate to bypass its normal filibuster procedure of 60 votes--and instead only requires 51 votes for passage of bills,” Lim said.
That means the Democrats could pass health-care reform in the Senate with a simple majority.
Lim, however, said the procedure has a downside. Any measure passed under the reconciliation procedure will be “sunsetted”--meaning, it would automatically expire when it reaches a cutoff date.
“They may get what they want, but it’s only going to last 10 years, if they go the reconciliation route,” Lim said.
In fact, Lim said Democrats are counting on having the 10 years to sell the public that their health-care reform doesn’t mean that the system is going to fall apart.
“If Americans are happy with the health care, and health-care costs go down, as Democrats promised, then there may be room for an extension of the sunset provision,” Lim told CNSNews.com. “If things go awry, then obviously Republicans would be able to say ‘I told you so.’”
House and Senate Democratic leaders are being pushed towards reconciliation from two directions, Lim said.
“They know they cannot get many Republicans on the public option, but they also know they are going to lose their liberal base if they don’t go for a public option, they are forced into rather narrow band of being not too far to the left while not offending the right,” Lim added.
Ironically, the White House is even thinking of bringing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in for behind-the-scenes politicking on the health bill, Lim said.
“I don’t think they (Democrats) fathomed the depth of antipathy to the possibility of a public option in health care, I honestly don’t think they foresaw this. They thought that it was going to be relatively easy because they had this grand mandate from the 2008 elections,” Lim said.
But Lim warned Democratic leaders not to underestimate the extent of opposition to the public option. Townhall outrage and tea parties have not been ginned up by the opposition, he said, but reflect a huge subterranean split in America that goes all the way back to the founding of the country.
“It’s a fundamental divide,” Lim said. “I think it goes to the heart of America. Think about it – what was the first political debate Americans ever had? It was about the state – how are we going to trust a federal government and how much power are we going to give to it. The health-care debate sits exactly on that tectonic.”
If the Democratic leadership uses the reconciliation process about such a major bill, what then?
“It’s only going to reinforce the conservatives’ and Blue Dog Democrats’ belief that (liberal) Democrats insist on having their way – they are intolerant of alternate conceptions of what the state should look like,” Lim said.
Bauer, meanwhile, predicts that the Obama administration will insist upon using reconciliation.
“These are Chicago machine politicians -- people who are used to playing incredible hardball, of ramming through what they want, no matter the cost.”
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Out of the Loop
There is also this bit about a town hall meeting that has already been held in another area. You may have heard about it. I believe Sean Hannidy spoke about it.
You might be interested in this petition. It refers to the liberal bias (especially about the health "care" issue) of the media and our desire for unbiased information. If you have such a desire, check it out.
This is a letter to our leaders in DC asking them to support two bills that will specifically help move us away from CODEX efforts to end of free speech concerning health, nutrients, and herbal remedies. The thing that is most particularly interesting in these bills is that they are short and direct especially in relation to the ObamaCare bill. Why is this so interesting to me? Well, it immediately brought to mind something Nephi referred to much: plain and precious things being removed from the Bible and that the removal caused many to stumble. I suggest that, were he to live now, he might direct our attention to the lengthy discourge of Obamacare and how it requires lawyers to interpret it. Nephi also said something about how his soul delighted in plainnes. From other verses around those and some personal pondering, I think it is NO stretch to say that if something is not presented in PLAIN language, then it is not something that is quite as good as its interpreters might claim it to be, don't you think? If it were so good, couldn't they write it so that even a 4th grader could understand it? What are they hiding in all the Lawyer-ease? Me thinks they hide MUCH too MUCH for freedom to stand against!
HR 2749 passed the House on July 30th. This is a big problem because if it passes the Senate, it will suppress organic farmers, small farmers, ranchers, as well as natural food products, and could even be interpreted to disallow family farming (see Square Foot Gardening in your backyard - or any kind of back yard gardening). By so doing this bill pinches freedom into less than what Americans are Divinely Determined to have (since Father has established this land as free).
Please read and take action, if you believe in your right to choose the kind of food you consume. Of course, if you don't mind GM foods and don't mind big businesses (who have a bottom line to consider over our health) determining the kind of food you consume and don't mind if at some point you're incarcerated for having a back yard garden... don't read it. As for me, I think you know what I'm doing. STANDING FOR FREEDOM!
No less important is this whole swine flu craziness. Okay, so it is virulent. Do you know why it is so much so? It was created in a lab. Did you know that? Did you know that all available vaccines for it intensify the symptoms of it?
Anyway, an outrageous number of people die from the whatever-flu every year and there's not a yearly MANDATORY vaccine for any of them. Is there? Have you looked at the ingredients list on some (if not most/all) vaccines? Scroll down on this page and look for a section that looks like a list for a gander. Do you want any of those ingredients in a newly concocted vaccine that may or MAY NOT work better than existing stock shot straight into your blood?
I have no problem with a voluntary vaccines, as has been to date. I DO have a problem with freedom being pinched and cut and squeezed and broken away from us without even an opportunity to fight for it. We are guaranteed the right to choose by our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the movement toward socialism will/is reduce/reducing that right. Shouldn't we have the right to self-shield (meaning not taking a vaccine and staying at home until a quarantine is lifted (as opposed to being carted off to prison or held in an internment camp for refusing a vaccine)? It can happen. There is policy in place already that makes it possible for the government to declare mandatory vaccination and neither religious nor medical reasons will exempt us.
You might be interested in reading more about Oath Keepers. I'm in process of that now. So far it looks interesting. I'd love to hear what you think.
JUST ANOTHER THING TO BE AWARE OF
And back to HR 3200 (our Congresspersons will be revisiting this ObamaCare issue upon return after the current break). If you are a parent or grandparent, or hope to be either, this next bit might get you in the gut. It's a letter from another mother who homeschools, but the issue she presents does not concern only homeschoolers!
The health care bill pending in the House of Representatives contains a provision that is a great threat to homeschooling.
This provision provides federal funds for states to institute and promote "program-determined child and parenting outcomes."
It establishes home inspections by government employees to observe parent and child behavior, and monitor the attainment of outcomes - outcomes established by government. Those conducting the inspections are required to collect information about families, and provide this information to other government agencies.
This is a very dangerous provision.
"Program-determined child and parenting outcomes" is Washington-speak for "government bureaucrats will tell you how to raise and educate your children."
Setting aside its threat to parents everywhere, this provision will enable those who are hostile to homeschooling to establish any kind of outcomes they wish, including defining what constitutes quality
homeschooling.
Under current law, government employees may not enter our homes without our permission unless they have a warrant. Families should not be made to allow government employees to enter their homes when they have committed no crime.
Don't think it can't happen here.
It is already happening in Great Britain.
Two thousand British "problem families" are already subject to home monitoring, with plans to place even more families under 24 hour video surveillance - inside their own homes. Funds have been allocated to install cameras in 20,000 homes to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time, and eat proper meals.
I am not making this up.
"Sin Bins for Worst Families"
http://www.express.
In our nation, homeschooling is already seen as outside the mainstream by those who oppose it.
For those who oppose homeschooling, it does not require a great intellectual leap to move from describing homeschoolers as "outside the mainstream families" to "problem families."
If this provision is allowed to move forward, I believe it will lead to the elimination of homeschooling as an educational option for American families. Regulation will become so strict and there will be so many
hoops to jump through, homeschooling in America will die a slow, quiet death.
Please contact your congressmen and senators - contact information is below.
* Let them know that the current health care bill, HR 3200, includes the "Support for Quality Home Visitation Program."
* Explain to them that this provision will allow government bureaucrats to establish "quality parenting outcomes." This means the government will tell you how to raise and educate your children.
* Encourage them to read the provision. They are the ones who will be voting on the bill - they should read it and understand it before they vote. It is in "Title IX - Miscellaneous Provisions, Section 1904,
Subpart 3 - Support for Quality Home Visitation Program, Section 440, Home Visitation Program for Families with Young Children and Families Expecting Children" of HR 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
* Encourage them to not rely on staff members to provide them with a summary. Staff members are often provided with inaccurate information as to what these bills really say.
* Ask them if they want someone in Washington to tell them how to raise and educate their children and grandchildren.
* Tell them you oppose any health care bill that includes a provision that grants government the authority to tell parents how to raise and educate their children.
* Tell them you want to preserve your right to raise and educate your children as you see fit - not according to a standard written by a government bureaucrat. This provision will erode that right.
Please make your voice heard. Contact your members of Congress.
It will be a sad, sad day if families in America are prevented from homeschooling years from now because we failed to act today.
Please post this email on your blog or website, and forward it on to all those you know who support homeschool freedom.
Karen Smith
Marietta, GA
************
Contact information for your senators and representatives
www.congress.org
Enter your zip code in the upper right hand search box.
The text of the bill is here.
http://www.opencong
Scroll down about 3/4 of the way to find the text of the provision.
It is in Title IX - "Miscellaneous Provisions"
Section 1904
Subpart 3 - "Support for Quality Home Visitation Program"
Section 440 "Home Visitation Program for Families with Young Children
and Families Expecting Children"
Interesting