I haven't written much about State Department Publication 7277, and correspondent Oliver B asks me to . He also asks me to bring Public Law 87-297 to the attention of WarOnGuns visitors.
I've had a hard copy of "Freedom from War" for over a decade now, and probably ought to talk about it more. I guess the reason I haven't is because I figure blue helmets on American soil mean we're past the writing stage, and the only way to keep it from happening is to focus on more immediate domestic threats.
Unfortunately, efforts to ensure public hostility and ridicule for "conspiracy theories" have been pretty successful--to the point that one of the most authoritative sources for information about the globalist agenda, The New American, has been marginalized even in the RKBA community due to bias against and outright contempt and derision for "Birchers."
I suspect if most of us put down our preconceived notions and looked for ourselves, we'd find more common ground than we might expect. But it's always easier to take someone else's word for it that they are somehow disreputable, kooky and hateful.
I've found them to be quite the opposite. But then again, you'll find no shortage of those who think the same of beliefs expressed here.
Thanks for mentioning them, because I didn't know about them before now.
ReplyDeleteBut as usual, I am not surprised.
A cursory read seems to indicate that all parties should reduce their standing armies, and reduce WMD. Doesn't sound bad to me. It doesn't say anything about civilian arms, or civilian arms production. "States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order" I'll add 'and deterring agression by other states'. Hey a citizen militia! I'll take a BAR and 2 RPGs. A little tweaking and this could be a reasonable document. Of course there are those "International Peacekeeping Forces" but I think that a nation with the entire citizenry armed would be able to handle that.
ReplyDelete