Hidden in United States Code

[fantacmet]

This is a portion of something hidden in the United States Code. It outlines an article and section of our "new" constition which was written in 1961, that our government is currently working to slowly implement. Liberal and Conservative alike. Every two years they vote to appropriate funds to this program. Every year it passes by a margin of 100%. There is also a special committee on how to best achieve this goal. This is of paramount importance, and should not be belittled in any way.

The congress is allowing our military bases to be closed down, except for those that will be used by the world army. You will find that plan in Publication 7277 and in "The Blueprint for the Peace Race."

If the president and congress can promote a "Constitutional Convention" you will find yourself with two new constitutions (communist in structure) which in one states in Article VIII, Section 12: "No person shall bear arms or possess le-thal weapons except the police and members of the armed forces ..." The Congress has praised these documents and is on record in Senate hearings seeking ways to install these constitutions. Ask your librarian for "Revision of the United Nations Charter – Hearings Before a Sub-committee {Foreign Relations} Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S. Government Printing Office." Nothing has changed since. They are still viable.

Rather interesting. Especially the second "paragraph" there. Our tax dollars at work. With the bringing of the new Patriot Act 2(which is still considered classified by the way, just as the original was not allowed to be viewed by congress until AFTER they voted and passed it) welcome to the new Communist America. Or rather that was the intent, but in reality the PAtriot Act 1 and 2, have brought about our new form of government which is not Democracy but one of the oldest styles ina ll of history, it's called DESPOTISM.

Rev. Michael

 

[SOT]

Click Here

 

[thereisnospoon]

Linky????????

Can you provide any documentation links that would bolster this claim? Your post would be taken much more serious if you could back it up with documented proof......

ETA: This was the first link that popped up when I researched "Revision of the United Nations Charter – Hearings Before a Sub-committee {Foreign Relations} Feb. 2-20, 1950 U.S. Government Printing Office" using google...

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/us/globalist_plan_to_disarm_america.htm

Several morelinks to various web sites outlining this same material, but NONE with a link to the Article and Section of the US Code you list as "Article VIII, Section 12" which my research shows to be about Immigration and Nationality...

I'm confused...

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

If you google for "The Blueprint for the Peace Race", you will find much more complete write-ups on most of this theory. For the silly "The PATRIOT Act was classified and no one could read it until they passed it" stuff, you're on your own.

 

[MarkDido]

Man, I have GOT to start investing in Alcoa!

 

[dave_pro2a]

I think he's talking about "Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World" State Department Publication 7277, presented by John Kennedy to the U.N in September 1961.

There's also something called "Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World," which Kennedy presented at a U.N. confrence in Geneva in '62.

The gist of the issue is outlined at:
http://www.getusout.org/artman/publish/article_59.shtml

Paranoid? Tinfoil? Frontal labotomy? Bottle in front of me? I don't know. If 1/2 of it is true, then it's some scary stuff.

 

[JohnBT]

I just read Publication 7277 www.geoffmetcalf.com/7277.html

We haven't made much progress on it in the past 45 years, huh? Still got the nukes, still got the biological stuff, still got the big military, and so forth.

John

 

[LAK]

I posted this on here - or possibly TFL a couple of years back IIRC. The bottom line is that it is codified, and in force.

Regardless of what sits presently contrary to it's stated goals - and that of the U.N. - let's not forget the exact words of our present hero;

"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land". - George W Bush, United Nations General Assembly, 2001.

And they are - full speed ahead. 45 years ago we did not have the 1968 Gun Control Act, and a very long list of other things.

--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[JohnBT]

After more reading of the linked material, I see that the goal was studying the issues of peace and effects of disarmament - military disarmament.

I still don't see any actual movement in that direction. I don't see much studying going on either.

John

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I posted this on here - or possibly TFL a couple of years back IIRC. The bottom line is that it is codified, and in force.

If it is codified as you state, then can you point us towards the sections of U.S. Code that implement this 1960s era wishlist from the State Dept.? About all this shows so far is that liberals have maintained the same absurdist fuzzy notions for a very long time now.

 

[JohnBT]

I think some folks need to do some in-depth reading on what this agency is all about. They even have their own web site to make it easy to get to the facts. I've looked and can't find U.S.-civilian disarmament in there. John

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda

Welcome to the Home Page of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
To contact us:
320 21st St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20451
1-800-581-ACDA
fax: (202) 647-6928

 

[Gordon Fink]

You do know that we already outlawed war in A.D. 1928?

~G. Fink

 

[hankdatank1362]

Wouldn't anything of that sort be unconstitutional?

It's against the constitution that the country was founded on, the supreme law of the land, and no one is required to adhere to any law that conflicts with the original consitution.

Just like if Bush came out tomorrow and told everyone to turn in their guns or face prosecution, no one would be required to do so, because he issued an unlawful, unconstitutional command?

 

[papabear47]

None Dare Call It Treason.

If you can find it, read "None Dare Call It Treason"by John A. Stormer it is still rellavent.

 

[Art Eatman]

I made a valiant effor to read all the way through "None Dare Call It Treason". It had about the same validity as "A Texan Looks At Lyndon". Certainly a great cure for insomnia.

There's a lot of this alleged-conspiracy stuff that has facts contained therein. That's not the problem. It's the irrational conclusions which are commonly drawn from the usually-incomplete data.

Most of it reminds me of a Molly Ivins column...

Art

 

[LAK]

THE UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE ACT
Title XVII of the Defense Authorization Act of 1985, Public Law No. 98-525 (Oct. 19, 1984), 98 Stat. 2492, 2649, 22 U.S.C. 4601-4611, as enacted

SHORT TITLE
Sec. 1701. This title may be cited as the "United States Institute of Peace Act".

DECLARATION OF FINDINGS AND PURPOSES
Section 1702. (a) The Congress finds and declares that—

(1) a living institution embodying the heritage, ideals, and concerns of the American people for peace would be a significant response to the deep public need for the Nation to develop fully a range of effective options, in addition to armed capacity, that can leash international violence and manage international conflict;

(2) people throughout the world are fearful of nuclear war, are divided by war and threats of war, are experiencing social and cultural hostilities from rapid international change and real and perceived conflicts over interests, and are diverted from peace by the lack of problem-solving skills for dealing with such conflicts;

(3) many potentially destructive conflicts among nations and peoples have been resolved constructively and with cost efficiency at the international, national, and community levels through proper use of such techniques as negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and arbitration;

(4) there is a national need to examine the disciplines in the social, behavioral, and physical sciences and the arts and humanities with regard to the history, nature, elements, and future of peace processes, and to bring together and develop new and tested techniques to promote peaceful economic, political, social, and cultural relations in the world;

(5) existing institutions providing programs in international affairs, diplomacy, conflict resolution, and peace studies are essential to further development of techniques to promote peaceful resolution of international conflict, and the peacemaking activities of people in such institutions, government, private enterprise, and voluntary associations can be strengthened by a national institution devoted to international peace research, education and training, and information services;

(6) there is a need for Federal leadership to expand and support the existing international peace and conflict resolution efforts of the Nation and to develop new comprehensive peace education and training programs, basic and applied research projects, and programs providing peace information;

(7) the Commission on Proposals for the National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution, created by the Education Amendments of 1978, recommended establishing an academy as a highly desirable investment to further the Nation's interest in promoting international peace;

(8) an institute strengthening and symbolizing the fruitful relation between the world of learning and the world of public affairs, would be the most efficient and immediate means for the Nation to enlarge its capacity to promote the peaceful resolution of international conflicts; and

(9) the establishment of such an institute is an appropriate investment by the people of this Nation to advance the history, science, art, and practice of international peace and the resolution of conflicts among nations without the use of violence.

(b) It is the purpose of this title to establish an independent, nonprofit, national institute to serve the people and the Government through the widest possible range of education and training, basic and applied research opportunities, and peace information services on the means to promote international peace and the resolution of conflicts among the nations and peoples of the world without recourse to violence.

DEFINITIONS
Sec. 1703. As used in this title, the term—

(1) "Institute" means the United States Institute of Peace established by this title; and

(2) "Board" means the Board of Directors of the Institute.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INSTITUTE
Sec. 1704. (a) There is hereby established the United States Institute of Peace ........


http://www.usip.org/aboutus/history/act.html


....... REPORTING REQUIREMENT AND REQUIREMENT TO HOLD HEARINGS
Sec. 1712. Beginning two years after the date of enactment of this title, and at intervals of two years thereafter, the Chairman of the Board shall prepare and transmit to the Congress and the President a report detailing the progress the Institute has made in carrying out the purposes of this title during the preceding two-year period. The President shall prepare and transmit to the Congress within a reasonable time after the receipt of such report the written comments and recommendations of the appropriate agencies of the United States with respect to the contents of such report and their recommendations with respect to any legislation which may be required concerning the Institute. After receipt of such report by the Congress, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the Senate shall hold hearings to review the findings and recommendations of such report and the written comments received from the President.

[END]

Yes, codified, funded with public money, and ... hearings every two years on progress towards their stated goals.

Wonder how much money is seeping into this, and why CNN, FOX and all the other Global Village News Networks are not giving us a run down every now and then.

---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[JohnBT]

What's wrong with strengthening the military AND studying the possibilities for peace?

"...to preserve the peace and guarantee our freedom."

"Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. Our dialog with the Soviets on arms control will also continue. We remain ready to reduce nuclear arms, ready to negotiate a fair deal, and ready to meet the Soviet Union halfway." - From President Reagan's signing speech. You can read the entire speech below.

__________________________________


Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1985
October 19th, 1984:
___________________________________

The Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1985, that I am signing today, H.R. 5167, continues our previous efforts to rebuild America's defenses. Although the funding is substantially below my original request and even below my request submitted as part of our deficit reduction package last May, it is the most we could expect from the 98th Congress. And it allows us to continue our efforts, at a reduced pace, to preserve the peace and guarantee our freedom.

I am pleased that the major elements of our program continue to receive bipartisan congressional support. Our strategic deterrent posture is being strengthened, and the B-lB and ICBM modernization programs are right on schedule. Congress has provided the funds necessary to enable the Peacekeeper to become operational within 2 years, and we are working hard on a new small missile. This program is important to our national security and to the achievement of real arms control, and I am confident that the Congress will keep the program on track.

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. Our dialog with the Soviets on arms control will also continue. We remain ready to reduce nuclear arms, ready to negotiate a fair deal, and ready to meet the Soviet Union halfway. With continued support from the American people and bipartisan support from the Congress, I am confident that we will see progress.

This bill also continues our efforts to improve the basic readiness and staying power of our conventional forces. Our men and women in uniform at last are getting the modern equipment and training they need to do their jobs. The job of rebuilding is not yet finished, but we have made a lot of progress in the past 3 years, and today our military forces are better equipped, better trained, and better led than ever before.

I am also pleased that this bill provides our service men and women a fair and honorable wage. Once again, young Americans wear their uniforms and serve their flag with pride. We must not return to the days when our military people suffered low morale and when they had to wonder from day to day if they could make ends meet. And the administration is committed to the supplemental funding necessary to carry out the education program contained in this bill.

The act establishes the United States Institute of Peace. I have been advised by the Attorney General that section 1706(f), relating to the President's power to remove members of the Board of Directors of the Institute, is neither intended to, nor has the effect of, restricting the President's constitutional power to remove those officers.

Much credit for passage of this bill goes to the congressional leadership. Howard Baker worked closely with Tip O'Neill on the broad outlines of the compromise, and leaders like Mel Price, Sam Nunn, and Bill Dickinson accomplished the tough bargaining to achieve the final result.

But as much as these fine legislators contributed to this bill and our security, there is one Senator whose contribution to our nation's defense over the years has been unique and enduring—that Senator is John Tower. The final passage of this Defense Authorization Act marks one of the last milestones in a legislative career spanning nearly 24 years in the Senate. His lasting contributions, and especially those during his outstanding service as chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, bear the mark of a true statesman and an extraordinary American. We can only hope that he will not consider his retirement from the Senate to be a retirement from public life. Thank you, John

- President Reagan

 

[Thin Black Line]

The congress is allowing our military bases to be closed down, except for those that will be used by the world army.

Y'know, you have to remember that the US is a member of the UN and
the Congress approved it. And although we have figureheads who talk
tough about "going it alone" they still have to make sure that everyone
at the Security Council approves so-called unilateral actions in advance.

There are a lot of mods here who can explain globalism to you, how it is
inevitable, and how the US will still somehow be its leader a couple
generations from now. I, of course, disagree. But, don't take my word for
it. Read F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" (Foreward by Milton
Friedman). Their credentials and knowledge base are unimpeachable.
However, sadly most people of the last couple of generations will not be
able to fully grasp what he had to say because of the gross changes in
language that have been manipulated by the very people he warned us
about. Someone called a liberal today is far different than the 19th
Century version of liberalism that Hayek harkened back to. In any case,
he should be on the short list of required reading for American citizens.

He makes a compeling case explaining how economic restrictions ends up
affecting individual freedom.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Hayek quote:

The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they ... have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretense that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most effective way to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning.... Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed.... If one has not one's self experienced this process, it is difficult to appreciate the magnitude of this change of the meaning of words, the confusion it causes, and the barriers to any rational discussion which it creates... And the confusion becomes worse because this change of meaning of words describing political ideals is not a single event but a continuous process, a technique employed consciously or unconsciously to direct the people. Gradually, as this process continues, the whole language becomes despoiled, and words become empty shells deprived of any definite meaning, as capable of denoting one thing as its opposite and used solely for the emotional associations which still adhere to them.

This explains how gun control (among other programs) has been advanced in
this country over the last few decades.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes, codified, funded with public money, and ... hearings every two years on progress towards their stated goals.

I guess I don't understand the part that links the United States Institute of Peace, which is a do-nothing committee that holds hearings every two years and has less administrative power than your local tag agency, with the 1961 proposal by Kennedy? According to your info and links, the USIP was established in 1984 under Reagan and nothing I could find on their website references the Kennedy proposal.

How are the two linked besides the name "peace" and the general desire for avoiding nuclear war that we all seem to share?

 

[fantacmet]

I just posted it relaying it thought someone here could shed some more light on it perhaps.

Michael

 

[LAK]

JohnBT

What's wrong with strengthening the military AND studying the possibilities for peace?

"Strengthening the military"? That is the job of the DOD - the Pentagon - is it not? Using 200+ years history of our military experience culminating in two world wars, a number of others before, between and after, and a thousand years or two of human history in general. Deciding what it needs, and how it will deal with military threats, as it surely knows best - does it not?

It is then a matter of Congress allocating the money as needed and as it deems fit as the proper oversight.

Why yet another publicly funded "instutute", another compartment outside several other compartments, to haggle and argue over who knows best and over who has the most influence?

"Peace"? That is a pie in the sky - literally. It is an illusionary concept fronted for a global geo-political and corporate agenda. This is blatantly evident when one looks at the who is who of these "institutes", their links with other organizations, and their strings with that merry band of international crime known as the "United Nations".

That's what's wrong with it.

Bartholomew Roberts

LAK: Yes, codified, funded with public money, and ... hearings every two years on progress towards their stated goals.

Bartholomew Roberts: I guess I don't understand the part that links the United States Institute of Peace, which is a do-nothing committee that holds hearings every two years and has less administrative power than your local tag agency, with the 1961 proposal by Kennedy? According to your info and links, the USIP was established in 1984 under Reagan and nothing I could find on their website references the Kennedy proposal.

This particular "institute" was formally established in 1984 as a publicly funded operation. Kennedy signed a number of Executive Orders which run from EO 10995 to 11051. These were later rolled under William Clinton's EO 12919. In sum total they represent what will be our de facto "constitution" in the event that the WH declares _______ [pick a word - any word or phrase - remember it's "anything goes" in time of "war"]

So it is a "do nothing go nowhere" organization? Why is it funded with the public purse, and a "detailed report" presented to the president and Congress? Do both just skim it over and yawn over the money wasted?

Follow the USIP links to the "board members" and track the other organizations and political agendas these people are linked to and running. Some of them lead to organizations like IANSA, "Safer World", BASIC(UK) etc all the way to that wonderful band known as the "U.N.".

----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

LAK, that isn't an answer to my question. Telling me that Kennedy issued a bunch of executive orders and so did Clinton doesn't do anything to demonstrate how the USIP is linked to Kennedy's 1961 proposal. Can you please explain that for me?

In sum total they represent what will be our de facto "constitution" in the event that the WH declares _______ [pick a word - any word or phrase - remember it's "anything goes" in time of "war"]

OK, what is the evidence to support this statement? Is this your opinion or can you point to some administrative order or law that supports this conclusion?

So it is a "do nothing go nowhere" organization? Why is it funded with the public purse, and a "detailed report" presented to the president and Congress? Do both just skim it over and yawn over the money wasted?

The legislation that created it assigns it no real powers. It can charge for its publications, make grants and scholarships, etc. It is essentially an academic organization that gives scholarships to study peace and diplomacy. I'm pretty appalled that they have a budget of $22 million which seems like a tremendous waste of taxpayer money to me; but the actual existence of the agency doesn't support the claims you have made regarding the Kennedy proposal.

"Strengthening the military"? That is the job of the DOD - the Pentagon - is it not?

Which would probably explain why the Secretary of Defense is part of the Board of Directors for the USIP.

 

[LAK]

Bartholomew Roberts

Telling me that Kennedy issued a bunch of executive orders and so did Clinton doesn't do anything to demonstrate how the USIP is linked to Kennedy's 1961 proposal. Can you please explain that for me?

"Linked"? What linkage do they need? They are both in place. Two thugs with two shotguns do not have to be holding hands on the same street corner to walk into a bank and rob it together do they?

OK, what is the evidence to support this statement? Is this your opinion or can you point to some administrative order or law that supports this conclusion?

If you read them, what constitutes "a national emergency" and juxtapose this beside the all encompassing all as needed "war on terror", you do not even have to use your imagination. The actual worded provision for instituting all the listed EOs are explicitily stated in the one dealing with declared "time" or "state of national emergency". It could easily have been declared on September 11th 2001. Who would argue with it? A gelded Congress? The ACLU?

It is as simple as fire drill. No, the fire drill is not intended to be used "today", the "20th of December", or "in 2008" - but it is there to be used on any ocasion deemed by those in charge it is necessary.

The legislation that created it assigns it no real powers. It can charge for its publications, make grants and scholarships, etc. It is essentially an academic organization that gives scholarships to study peace and diplomacy. I'm pretty appalled that they have a budget of $22 million which seems like a tremendous waste of taxpayer money to me; but the actual existence of the agency doesn't support the claims you have made regarding the Kennedy proposal.

Information - the control of information - is power. The mere fact that it exists, is publicly funded, and is permitted by pres and Congress to continue existing and operating is a problem. Again, does there have to be an openly stated link? Did you not take the trouble to see who all the other board members are other than the Secretary for the DOD? What exactly they are?

It is amazing to me that you need any kind of signpost to see what it represents. The "U.N." does not explicitly say, "we are going to disarm American citizens"; but it is blatantly clear that it is part of their agenda simply by examining the organization and all connected to it.

Which would probably explain why the Secretary of Defense is part of the Board of Directors for the USIP.

The SOD's presence does not change the nature of the organization as a whole. Other than a few like Lt. Gen. Wilson - what on earth do people like Betty Bumpers know about our national defense? Other than a fraction of the people listed, do the others know better than 500 of the longest serving and highest ranking in our military and it's institutions?

No, this is a club politco, nothing more, that is operating and we can safely assume has some influence (why else would anyone let it continue?) the WH and Congress.

-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[JohnBT]

"What exactly they are?"

I don't know? What's the question?

John