-Caveat Lector-
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War!
CONGRESS ACTION: July 29, 2001
=================
EXPANDED ISSUE: This will be a double issue of CONGRESS ACTION because the
United Nations has been working overtime trying to destroy our economy, and
undermine our Constitution and our national sovereignty; while the United
States Congress has been working overtime subverting our freedom. There will
be no CA issue next week.
CONFERENCE ON SMALL ARMS: By a resolution on December 12, 1995, the United
Nations General Assembly "requested the Secretary General to prepare a report
on small arms". In the years that followed, that request grew into the
spectacle that was held in New York from July 9 through 20, called the United
Nations Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All
Its Aspects. As the agenda developed, the usual groups in the U.S., who have
been unable to disarm the American population by legislative or judicial
means, saw the U.N. conference as a golden opportunity to impose
extra-national laws on American citizens through mandates from unelected and
unaccountable U.N. bureaucrats. Why worry about the U.S. Constitution when
there's the United Nations? As the U.N. conference took shape, U.S. gun
banners saw smooth sailing with Bill Clinton in power and the expectation
that Al Gore would be the next president. In September, 1999, Clinton
Secretary of State Albright, commenting on the upcoming conference, said
something that should have sent the gun banners into fits of outrage --
unless they knew it was just a throw-away line to appease gun rights groups,
and wasn't to be taken seriously: "The proliferation of small arms and light
weapons plays a significant role in exacerbating conflicts and
underdevelopment, but it is not the legitimate international trade in arms,
or the sale of weapons to law-abiding citizens in stable societies, that
contributes most significantly to these problems." What's this? A Clintonoid
defending the right of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons? The left is
very clever in cloaking their true agenda in harmless sounding rhetoric that
they don't really mean. Recall the observation by George Stephanopoulos'
about Bill Clinton: "The president has kept the promises he meant to keep."
Then came the collapse. George W. Bush, not Al Gore, became President, and
worse yet (for the gun banners), John Ashcroft became Attorney General.
Ashcroft really incurred the wrath of gun ban extremists when he expressed
his belief that the Founders of this country actually meant exactly what they
wrote: "I believe it is clear that the Constitution protects the private
ownership of firearms for lawful purposes. .when I was sworn as Attorney
General of the United States, I took an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution. That responsibility applies to all parts of the Constitution,
including the Second Amendment." The gun banners saw their carefully laid
schemes dissolving before their very eyes. Then came the final blow, when the
head of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. conference, John Bolton, made it
clear that the United States would not agree to any document that circumvents
the U.S. Constitution and the individual right to keep and bear arms. Here
are excerpts from Bolton's statement to the U.N. conference on July 9:
"As U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has said, 'just as the First and
Fourth Amendments secure individual rights of speech and security
respectively, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and
bear arms.'" "We do not support measures that would constrain legal trade and
legal manufacturing of small arms and light weapons." "We do not support
measures that prohibit civilian possession of small arms. . The United States
will not join consensus on a final document that contains measures abrogating
the Constitutional right to bear arms." "We do not support measures limiting
trade in [SA/LW] solely to governments. . Perhaps most important, this
proposal would preclude assistance to an oppressed non-state group defending
itself from a genocidal government."
As is typical of U.N. conferences, numerous Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs) attended the conference to present their views. Among those was a
representative of the Million Mom March. According to her, ".the head of the
United States delegation to this Conference does not represent the thinking
of the American public. That delegate represents a minority view of a
minority government. . The American public is learning that guns purchased in
legal markets here can and do flow into the illicit market in worldwide
illicit trafficking in small arms." Thus the line between legal and illegal
ownership is blurred and all ownership becomes "illicit", a theme that the
conference also adopts. Many of the NGOs and many European representatives
dwelled on emotion, stressing "the humanitarian impact of the illegal arms
trade on the world's most vulnerable populations, namely, disabled persons,
women and children."
Unmentioned amidst the hyperbole were the millions of lives saved by
potential victims who defended themselves with firearms. In the United States
alone, as the anti-Second Amendment Reno Justice Department found, about
83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their
property (another Justice Department study put the minimum at 108,000
annually), and further, that number could be as high as 4.7 million every
year. And those numbers reflect only self defense against criminal
depredations within a stable society. Worldwide, how many oppressed
populations have used small arms and light weapons to oppose invasion (it was
the civilian population of Afghanistan, using imported small arms and light
weapons, that fought the Soviet invasion of their country to a standstill),
and to overthrow tyrannical governments? The individual right to keep and
bear arms was enacted as part of our Bill of Rights specifically for the
purpose of allowing private individuals to oppose a tyrannical government:
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned
from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas
Jefferson.
As is also typical of the U.N., this conference generated reams of studies
and communiqués defining "The Problem" and refining the agenda for the
conference, including a Draft Programme of Action issued in February, 2001.
The details of that Draft Programme generated so much heat within the United
States that U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan felt compelled to issue a
statement as the conference opened, assuring everyone that, "This week's
conference is not meant to infringe on national sovereignty, limit the right
of states to defend themselves, interfere with their responsibility to
provide security, or subvert the right of peoples to self-determination. Nor
is it meant to take guns away from their legal owners." As thin as this
assurance was, the Deputy Secretary General of the U.N. was even less
forthright: "It is necessary to distinguish between the licit and illicit
trade, and take account of national sovereignty, the responsibilities of
States to provide security and the right of States to self-defence enshrined
in Article 51 of the Charter." Article 51 of the U.N. Charter provides,
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defence.". But the term "individual" in this context does
not refer to individual people (as does our bill of Rights), but refers only
to individual nations. The Deputy Secretary General's assurance thus dwelled
solely on the right of States -- governments -- to self defense. Respecting
the right of private individuals to possess the means of self defense, or the
ability to oppose tyrannical governments, was not what this conference was
about.
The stance of most of the European nations that have already effectively
disarmed their populations, brings to mind echoes of the wisdom of our
Founders from two centuries ago: "[T]he advantage of being armed, which the
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence
of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which
the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises
of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any
form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several
kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will
bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James
Madison. "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as
they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America
cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people
are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that
can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -- Noah Webster.
America, standing almost alone at the U.N. to preserve the rights of people
against encroachments by government, once again defended the finest
traditions of individual liberty, which is the whole purpose of our
Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The U.N. conference adopted a final Draft Programme of Action that did
nothing to affirm the individual right to possess arms, but simply affirmed a
global intention to fight the "illicit" trade in small arms and light
weapons. "Illicit" had been previously defined as "contrary to the laws of
any of the States involved and/or contrary to international law", and
included "surplus" weapons; and in a direct reference to the United States,
the U.N. noted that "surplus" includes all weapons "not required for the
purpose of national defense and internal security" -- in other words, all
arms not held by government authorities should be considered "surplus".
Further, ".aspects.of legal transfers of small arms.are directly related to
illicit trafficking in.small arms.". The U.N. praised the government of
communist China for its "new and more stringent regulations.on the control on
guns within the country". Of course totalitarian dictatorships prefer their
populations disarmed and helpless. Oppressing their own helpless people is
what totalitarian States do best.
The original Draft Programme of Action encouraged governments to "seriously
consider the prohibitions of.private ownership of small arms.specifically
designed for military purposes." Other U.N. documents made it clear that
"small arms.designed for military purposes" applied to all weapons, including
revolvers, pistols, and rifles. In the final Programme, this was rephrased to
a more onerous "seriously consider legal restrictions on.ownership of small
arms." -- "designed for military purposes" was eliminated, and "prohibitions"
replaced with "legal restrictions". So the final Programme ended up even more
offensive to the U.S. Constitution than the original. The final Programme
stated that small arms and light weapons should be supplied only "to
governments or to entities duly authorized by governments". Of course the
puppet government set up by the Soviets in Afghanistan would not have "duly
authorized" the freedom fighters resisting their invasion to receive arms,
nor would Nicaragua's Ortega have "duly authorized" the Contras who overthrew
his communist regime to be supplied with arms. Significantly, on the last day
the Programme was amended to eliminate both those clauses entirely. The final
Programme still requires that "comprehensive" records be kept "for as long as
possible on the manufacture, holding and transfer of small arms". History
teaches that such records have always been used by totalitarian governments
to achieve the total confiscation of firearms.
On July 18, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) proposed amendment # 190 to H.R.2500,
to send a message to the U.N. that American taxpayers' money would not be
used to subvert our sovereignty. The amendment would have defunded our
payments to the United Nations. Paul's amendment was defeated 62 - 364 (Roll
Call vote # 245).
For over two centuries our Constitution and Bill of Rights have stood as
bulwarks protecting individual liberty in America, and as symbols of freedom
around the world. Global tyrants despise us for our freedom. And arrogant
politicians in this country try to render those documents irrelevant, because
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights block their dreams of unlimited
personal power. When Charles Schumer demands congressional power
"unconstrained" by the courts; when Hillary Clinton demands an end to family
autonomy because "It Takes a Village"; when Bruce Babbitt demands a
"communitarian" approach to private property; when congress takes trillions
of dollars every year from the productive economy, then demands more because
their outrageous spending is totally out of control, forcing citizens into
tax slavery more oppressive than any feudal lord; when 85% of the
republican-led House of Representatives refuses to defend American
sovereignty against U.N. encroachment; it is long past time to remind those
charlatans that they are our servants, not our masters; to remind them, with
our votes, who is in charge here -- "We, the People".
KYOTO SAVED: The Conference of the Parties that was held at the Hague last
year, designed to implement the Kyoto Climate Change treaty, collapsed at
just about the same time that Al Gore's dreams of getting America enmeshed in
Kyoto collapsed. But the Kyoto agreement was not yet dead, and was saved from
well deserved oblivion by the Sixth Session of the Conference of the Parties
(COP-6) held July 16 through 27, 2001, in Bonn, Germany.
According to an analysis by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, "The Hague
talks collapsed upon EU insistence that specific greenhouse gas (GHG)
reductions not remain the key objective, but instead how any developed
country - particularly the U.S. - achieves reductions. That is, would
countries be given credit for land use practices actually pulling GHGs from
the atmosphere ("sinks"), and paying other countries such as Russia whose
economic downturn left them emission "credits" to sell? Or, must most
reductions come through actual lifestyle changes, that is, in all probability
dramatic energy use reductions, by the end of this decade? . EU arrogance
here can be summed up as: only they can channel the sole solution, to a
theory that they refuse to entertain might not be a problem, which is
exacerbated by the U.S. refusing to live the more spartan EU lifestyle."
It is not the intention of this newsletter to go over once again, in detail,
the fundamental issue of global warming. In summary it can be said, without
dispute, that the expectation of human caused (anthropogenic) global warming
is produced solely by computer models predicting such an occurrence, models
that their own designers and users admit are far from comprehensive,
analyzing physical processes that are, at best, imperfectly understood. It
can also be said, without dispute, that hundreds of thousands of years of
data demonstrate quite clearly that our planet has undergone periodic
temperature shifts far more extreme than those predicted by those computer
models, with absolutely no human influence whatsoever. It is true that of the
scientists dealing with climate science and other related disciplines, of
those who have expressed an opinion on the subject far more have expressed
serious doubts about the existence of anthropogenic global warming than have
accepted the issue as proven; many believe that even if the warming were to
occur as predicted, it would be far more of a benefit than a catastrophe for
mankind; and most of those scientists also believe that the specific
mechanism of the Kyoto Treaty is "ill-advised, premature, wrought with
economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive" (The Leipzig
Declaration). Many scientists worry about "the emergence of an irrational
ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes
economic and social development" (The Heidelberg Appeal). It is
scientifically beyond dispute that atmospheric carbon dioxide, which the
Kyoto Agreement aims to cut (through massive and economically catastrophic
worldwide reductions in energy use), contributes less than 2% to the total
greenhouse effect that keeps our planet livable, and that all human activity
contributes about 4% of that 2% of atmospheric carbon dioxide. And the goal
of the Kyoto agreement is to cut that human contribution of carbon dioxide
(cut the 4% of 2%) by 5.2% below 1990 levels. U.S. emissions of carbon
dioxide are expected to be 55% above 1990 levels by 2010. Finally, 30 years
ago, the same scientific community that is now doom-saying about global
warming was apoplectic about another climate catastrophe just around the
corner -- global cooling. They were just as certain, 30 years ago, that the
entire human race was about to be obliterated by an impending ice age.
According to them, at that time, if we didn't immediately accept their
draconian "solutions" (we didn't) we would all be dead and in a solid deep
freeze by now (we aren't).
>From the beginning it has been clear that the particular mechanisms of the
Kyoto Treaty were not designed to alter the global climate in any meaningful
way (even if that were possible), but was rather a manifestation of the
hatred of economic progress in general, and American prosperity in
particular. Kyoto was, and unfortunately still is, basically a global tax on
American prosperity, aimed at redistributing much of the wealth generated by
the American free market system to those countries whose own predilections
for socialism have stifled their own economic prosperity.
After eleven days of wrangling over the Kyoto agreement at COP-6 in Bonn, the
major backers of the agreement accepted a number of modifications of the
agreement that they had previously declared "unacceptable" (which
declarations led to the collapse of the Hague conference). The agreement now
allows countries whose emissions exceed the allowable levels, to buy
"emissions credits" from underdeveloped nations whose emissions are below
allowable levels, a direct wealth transfer from rich to poor nations. Thus
will wealthy, free market economies be forced to subsidize -- and perpetuate
to the continuing detriment of their poverty-stricken and oppressed
populations -- failing socialist economies; and Kyoto establishes a "least
developed countries fund" and a Kyoto "adaptation fund" to help facilitate
wealth transfer. The agreement also allows countries to take credit for
activities and national attributes that, while not reducing energy use, still
result in the actual elimination of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such
as extensive forests that absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide, otherwise known
as "carbon sinks". This latter provision could prove to be a classic
demonstration of the law of unintended consequences. Environmentalists love
to babble about preserving "old growth" forests, those containing trees that
are hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years old. The only problem is that
such mature trees don't absorb a lot of carbon dioxide. Young, growing plants
do that much better. So perhaps one result of the Kyoto agreement will be a
mad dash by wealthy industrialized nations to cut down their "old growth"
forests and replace them with -- how about golf courses, with lush acres of
growing grass and new trees and shrubs? In fact, idiotically, Kyoto actually
encourages cutting old forests, by refusing to allow forests existing prior
to 1990 to be included in the carbon sink accounting. Now won't that make
environmentalists happy?
CARA: Never let is be said that left-wing extremists and democrats are the
only ones enamored of the destruction of private property rights. On February
14, 2001, Congressman Don Young (R-AK) introduced H.R.701 (which has 235
co-sponsors), the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (known to supporters as
"CARA", known to opponents as "the land grab" bill). The stated purpose of
the bill is "To use royalties from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
production to establish a fund to meet the outdoor conservation and
recreation needs of the American people.".
The federal government already owns or controls an estimated 40% of the land
area of the United States. And by all accounts, the government's management
of those vast holdings is deplorable. According to a 1999 General Accounting
Office (GAO) study, "Even though Interior is the caretaker for much of the
nation's natural and cultural resources, it frequently lacks information on
the condition of these resources. In addition, Interior does not know the
scope and extent of maintenance problems at the tens of thousands of
buildings, dams, and other facilities it is responsible for. As a result,
Interior does not know the status of key issues like the nature or extent of
many problems relating to the resources it is legislatively mandated to
foster, protect, and preserve; the effectiveness of measures taken to deal
with the problems; or the areas where the limited financial resources
available should be allocated to achieve the most good." "We [the GAO],
Interior's Inspector General, the Department, and others have documented many
management problems facing the agency and have recommended reforms. However,
in many cases, progress has been slow. . resolving some of these
problems.will likely be expensive and will take years."
What has Congress proposed as a solution? The government's tried-and-true
response to any failing agency or program, which is to throw more taxpayer
money at it? Perhaps more oversight? More accountability? No -- the solution
that Congress has proposed is to buy even more land. CARA is the means
devised by Congress to finance what has been called the "environmentalists'
war on rural America". The preferred method for environmentalists to "save"
land from its owners is to prevent those owners from using their own land, by
finding an endangered species or a wetland nearby and then simply prohibiting
those owners from using the land -- while still retaining the privilege of
paying taxes on it, of course. A more direct approach is to have the
government just buy the land outright (as required by the Fifth Amendment of
the Bill of Rights), but that gets to be very expensive. Enter CARA, and its
Conservation and Reinvestment Act Fund (CRAF). It is true that CARA does
state that "Nothing in the Act shall authorize that private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation as provided by the Fifth and
Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution" (to remind Congress
that we do still have a Bill of Rights).
So we have an Act that at least pays lip service to the "takings" clause in
the Fifth Amendment, that proposes to use the free market to actually buy
land, rather than just rendering it useless with wetland and endangered
species burdens. What's the problem? Consider this: last week this newsletter
reported on the plight of the farmers in the Klamath basin on the
California-Oregon border, who have been denied water to irrigate their land.
That water was reserved for the endangered suckerfish, so the farms were left
high and dry (and so were many other animal species that once used the
200,000 acres of now-parched farmland, but that's another story). As a
result, the Wall Street Journal reports that once productive farmland that
was worth $2500 per acre is now worth $35 per acre. According to Senator
Gordon Smith (R-OR), "foreclosure notices are already going out." As farms go
broke, so the local community that depends on farm income will also
disappear. Pretty soon the environmentalists' dream realized -- no more
people.
The Oregon Natural Resources Council has an alternate view: ".the Klamath's
beleaguered farmers are being callously exploited as part of an
extraordinarily well financed media campaign to discredit the [Endangered
Species] Act. . The situation is so bad that, even if the Endangered Species
Act were gutted, as some frustrated farmers demand, and there were absolutely
no restrictions placed on diverting public water to farms, there would not be
enough water to bring crops to market. So it's futile to use what little
water remains to irrigate farms this year. . The unfortunate reality is that
even during 'normal' years there is just not enough water to go around. The
government created today's crisis by first enticing farmers to the area and,
until very recently, grossly mismanaging water allocation. Drought, combined
with unsustainable water demand, now threatens the very foundation of this
spectacular ecosystem. . Loss of farm income will certainly cause dislocation
for some families, but the economy in the region will still be strong and
still provide many alternative sources of income." But why do
environmentalists pose the false choice -- between the absolute destruction
of either "beleaguered farmers" or the "spectacular ecosystem" -- when both
have successfully co-existed for more than half a century?
Anyone want to buy some used farmland? "Dirt cheap", so to speak? Perhaps
CARA will provide the funding.
FOR MORE INFORMATION.
========================
U.N. Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its
Aspects: http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/
Statement of the head of the United States delegation, John R. Bolton, to the
U.N. Conference: http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/CAB/smallarms/statements/usE.html
Legislative Text: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c107query.html
House of Representatives Roll Call votes (vote # 245):
http://clerkweb.house.gov/evs/index.htm
Congressional Record: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces150.html
Congressional Record Page H4175 -- Ron Paul's July 18 House statement
introducing his amendment # 190):
http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0648625485+2+0
+0&WAISaction=retrieve
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: http://www.unfccc.de/
Conference of the Parties, Sixth Session (COP-6) website:
http://www.unfccc.de/cop6_2/index.html
Competitive Enterprise Institute: http://www.cei.org/CEImain.asp
General Accounting Office study "Major Management Challenges and Program
Risks: Department of Interior": http://www.gao.gov/pas/cg99006.pdf
Oregon Natural Resources Council: http://www.onrc.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Kim Weissman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107,
any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational
purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]
Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists!
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
