When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They
swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the
Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."1
— Rudyard Kipling, "The Gods of the Copybook Headings"
I am a United Nations fighting person.... I would fire upon U.S. citizens
who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the
— from a "Combat Arms Survey" given to members of the United States Marine
It's high time to gun down the 2nd Amendment... America will continue to
have its own versions of the killing fields as long as there are millions of
handguns floating around waiting for another psychopath with a grudge.3
— Walter Shapiro, USA Today columnist, antigun diatribe for September 17,
I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns ... and
now I think we're prepared to get rid of the damned things entirely — the
handguns, the semis and the automatics.4
— Roger Rosenblatt essay in Time, August 9, 1999
The incredibly audacious schemes for national disarmament set forth in
Freedom From War, Blueprint for the Peace Race, the Gorbachev-CFR Global
Security Project, and other programs discussed in Chapter 2 are transparent
plots to subject all the nations of the world, including the United States
of America, to a global military-police state under an empowered United
Nations. This is perfectly clear from any reasonable reading of the
Please understand this critically important point: These proposals do not
advocate "world disarmament," as is generally supposed, based on the "peace"
rhetoric used to promote them. Instead they propose to transfer world
armaments from the nation states to the global superstate envisioned by the
one-world Insiders and their Communist-socialist cohorts.
This represents the most gigantic, naked grab for power this world has ever
seen. No previous world power or dictator has ever enjoyed such vast,
unchecked power. Not Napoleon or Queen Elizabeth; not Stalin, Mao, or
These proposals amount to giant "trust me" schemes that are so facially
fraudulent as to be ludicrous. They could be compared to the situation in
which city officials get together with Mafia kingpins and announce that they
are going to join forces to fight the crime and violence that are ripping
the community apart. Under any circumstances, such a proposal would rightly
be viewed as absurdly dangerous and a betrayal of office by those elected to
uphold justice. The sanity and integrity of the officials involved would be
However, there would be no lingering doubts about integrity if it became
known to citizens that the mayor is involved in a multimillion dollar
business deal with a mafia-owned dummy corporation, the police chief's
election campaign is being financed by mob-controlled unions, the district
attorney's former law firm (in which his wife and brother are still
partners) is the main counsel for the chief mafia don, and all the top
judges are driving Rolls Royces and springing gangsters from jail, on the
flimsiest of excuses, faster than they can be apprehended.
would especially be the case if the officials involved are so flagrantly
arrogant that they are regularly seen socializing in public with leading
mafiosi and are regular "guests" at gang-owned restaurants, brothels, and
Under such circumstances, only the most dimwitted or willfully blind would
fail to see that the city is facing a campaign of systemic corruption
conceived and orchestrated by a criminal conspiracy. And if the police chief
appoints a notorious mob hit-man, with an arrest record as long as his arm,
to head a "task force" of convicted felons to go about the city disarming
all the citizens — in the interest of peace and security, of course — it
should then be crystal clear that the good citizens had better organize
immediately and sweep the criminals from office, if they hope to have any
chance of saving themselves and their community. In the face of such
overwhelming evidence, only total fools, complete cowards, or corrupt souls
who had already joined the conspiracy would fail to heed the call to battle.
We are, almost literally, at that very point today. Not only are the
one-world Insiders pushing relentlessly for national disarmament, but for
individual disarmament as well. For many decades the same globalists who
have lobbied ceaselessly for empowering the UN — the Ford, Rockefeller, and
Carnegie foundations, the CFR, etc. — have carried on a continuous campaign
against personal ownership of firearms.
Who is really calling the tunes and setting the agenda for the gun control
As usual, if you really want to know, follow the money.
Handgun Control Incorporated, the National Council for a Responsible
Firearms Policy, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, the ACLU, the
National Council of Churches, and other groups that have led this campaign
have been dependent upon these insider feed troughs for funding. And they
have depended on the
CFR-dominated media cartel to disseminate their
disinformation, while demonizing guns, gun owners, and all organized
resistance to personal disarmament.
However, what even most of the organized gun-rights forces have failed to
realize until very recently — and what some are
still oblivious to — is the fact that the program for disarming the
individual private citizen, depriving him of his means of self-defense, is
directly tied to the United Nations and the program for national
disarmament. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has
Free people with the means to defend themselves are viewed by the
United Nations as a threat to "peace."
They Want Your Gun
The same militant anti-gun organizations that are
pressing for ever more restrictive limitations on private gun ownership have
obtained NGO status at the UN and have been busy during most of the 1990s
developing the UN's gun control plans. And though their opening wedge
cleverly suggests that they are targeting "illicit" civilian possession of
"military" weapons, it is clear that their real agenda is outright
confiscation of all civilian-owned firearms, including handguns, rifles, and
In May 2000, hordes of NGO activists converged on New York City to attend
the UN "Millennium Forum," a giant rehearsal session to prepare the global
rent-a-mob for its role as the voice of "civil society" at the upcoming
"main event," the Millennium Summit of world leaders, which would be
gathering at the UN in September. At their May confab, the NGO leaders
produced their Millennium Forum Action Plan which, among other things, calls
on the UN "to expand the United Nations Arms Register, including specific
names of arms producers and traders, in order to show production and sale of
small arms and light weapons."5 (Emphasis added.)
For those familiar with the UN's record over the past several years in
promoting an increasingly hostile attitude toward individual private
ownership of firearms, this is a clear call for accelerated pressure on
national governments to ratchet up their gun control efforts at all levels.
Well aware of Mao Zedong's dictum that "political power grows out of the
barrel of a gun," the one-world revolutionaries are accelerating their
pressure from above
and below to restrict (and eventually outlaw) private ownership of firearms
and concentrate all power in the hands of government.
In his report to the heads of state attending the Millennium Summit,
entitled We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century,
Secretary-General Kofi Annan asserts that,
"Some of the most rabid anti-gun propagandists have occasionally vindicated
the fears of freedom-loving Americans by admitting that their attacks on
handguns or "assault weapons" are merely incremental steps in a piecemeal
onslaught on all private firearm ownership."
The Washington Post, for
example, in an August 19, 1965 editorial, stated:
"We are inclined to think
that every firearm in the hands of anyone who is not a law enforcement
officer constitutes an incitement to violence."6
The Post has given no
evidence of having changed this totalitarian bent in the years since.
Likewise, Joyner Sims, deputy commissioner for the Florida State Health
Department, offered this gem, as quoted by the Chicago Tribune, on October
"The goal is an ultimate ban on all guns, but we also have to take
a step at a time and go for limited access first. Lawmakers are scared to
death of this issue. If we create anger and outrage on a national level, it
would really help the local folks."
Nelson T. Shields, who preceded Sarah Brady as chairman of Handgun Control,
Inc., was quoted in The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, as saying:
to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily ...
going to be very modest.... And the final problem is to make the possession
of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military,
policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed
gun collectors — totally illegal."
The Los Angeles
Times opined, in an editorial for November 8, 1993, that,
"we must severely
constrict if not virtually end the private possession of guns.... This
country does not need one more gun in circulation; in fact, it needs about
200 million less."9
Michael K. Beard, president of the Coalition to Stop Gun
Violence, made this admission in an interview:
"Our goal is to not allow
anybody to buy a handgun.... The stated goal of the most active supporters
of restrictions, aside from the 'moderate' goals they often espouse in the
heat of legislative battle, is to abolish gun ownership totally."10
campaign to disarm American citizens has intensified in recent years, rising
to near hysteria following the Columbine school shootings.
objective of this media-driven campaign was given full voice by "comedienne"
Rosie O'Donnell, who declared on her nationally televised talk show of April
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's
your right. I say, "Sorry.' It is 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You
are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go
"small arms proliferation is not merely a security issue; it is also an
issue of human rights and development."12
He went on:
Even if all arms transfers could be eliminated, however, the problem posed
by the many millions of illicitly held small arms already in circulation in
the world's war zones would remain.... Controlling the proliferation of
illicit weapons is a necessary first step towards the nonproliferation of
small arms. These weapons must be brought under the control of states....13
Further, he announced,
"The United Nations is convening a conference on the
illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in 2001."14
NGO activists and
government delegates alike have made it very clear in disarmament forums
already held by the UN that virtually all private ownership is considered
The first notice most Americans received concerning the UN plan for
targeting firearms came on May 24, 1994, when they opened their newspapers
to a story by Associated Press reporter Charles J. Hanley on a new UN
stealth gun control initiative for the whole world.
The AP article reported:
So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn't noticed, the United Nations is
beginning to set its sights on global gun control.
The U.N. Disarmament Commission has adopted a working paper, a basis for
future debate, that proposes tighter controls on the gun trade in the United
States and other member nations as a way of combating international arms
That same day, the Washington Times, in an article entitled "U.S. OKs study
of U.N. gun control," reported:
The Clinton administration has agreed to participate in a discussion of ways
for the United Nations to control the manufacture of guns and their sales to
This represents the first U.N. effort to foster regulation of the
multibillion-dollar trade in small arms.... The U.N. working paper declares
that governments individually
are "impotent" to deal with global arms trafficking and proposes
"harmonization" of gun control standards around the world to make
trafficking easier to spot and prevent.
"The arms permitted for civilian use ... should be subject to controls at
all points in the chain, from production and/or acquisition up to the time
they are sold to an individual. From then on they should remain subject to
monitoring and control," the paper says.
Any "harmonization" would inevitably mean tightening controls on the loosely
regulated U.S. gun business....16
Concerning the above story, we should note, first of all, the ploy commonly
used in selling UN schemes, which invariably involves portraying the current
U.S. Insider administration (whether Republican or Democrat) as the coy and
Thus it is reported that "the Clinton administration has
agreed to participate" in the UN gun grab conference, implying that Clinton
and his one-world CFR crew running the executive branch of the most powerful
country in the world are yielding to reason and the entreaties of the "world
In truth, the Clinton administration was
working furiously behind the scenes leading the UN effort. This has been
standard procedure, in both Republican and Democrat administrations, since
World War II. The Insider-chosen occupant of the White House feigns
opposition to the UN treaty, or at least expresses "grave concern" about
some clause or provision (as, for instance, in the case of the Genocide
Convention, the Law of the Sea Treaty, or the treaty for an International
Criminal Court), so that when the administration embraces the treaty during
the final push for ratification, we are supposed to be satisfied that all of
our concerns have been addressed by a president who is looking out for
U.S. involvement in the UN gun control plot came long before the Clinton
administration, but, in the words of Harlan Cleveland, that involvement has
been carried out "mostly below the surface of public attention."
* It quickly became apparent that the Insiders intended that the UN gun-grab
conference not rise above "the surface of public attention." Considering
this campaign's brazen assault on the U.S. Constitution, American national
sovereignty, and the fundamental human right to self-defense, it is
understandable that both the UN and the Clinton administration would want to
keep this subversive initiative as quiet as possible and would be reluctant
to discuss it. Officials at the U.S. State Department and the UN rebuffed
repeated attempts by this writer to obtain a copy of the working paper or to
discuss it in detail. First we were told that the AP and Washington Times
reports were erroneous and exaggerated, and that concern was overblown.
Unconvinced, we insisted we would like to judge for ourselves by examining
At the State Department, after several office transfers, we were informed
that Ambassador Stephen Ledogar, the U.S. representative on the Disarmament
Commission, was out of the country and no one else knew how to obtain a copy
of the document. At the UN, after six departmental transfers, we reached the
director of the UN Disarmament Commission, a Mr. Sohrab Kheradi, who
informed us that the report would not be released until mid-July (1994).
However, under our persistent entreaties, Mr. Kheradi agreed that he would
arrange for The New American to receive a pre-release copy forthwith. Days
passed, but still no working paper. More calls to the UN and more promises
to send the report. Weeks passed. Finally, we reached the Secretary of the
Disarmament Commission himself, Mr. Kuo-chung Lin, who had been away on
vacation. Mr. Lin assured us that the concerns stirred by initial news
coverage of the working paper were "based on a misunderstanding" of the
nature and significance of the report. "This is only the report of the
chairman of the Working Group for discussion over the next two years," he
explained. "It doesn't establish any policy or have any binding effect." But
is it not true, we asked, that its purpose is to bring about the
establishment of policy that will have "binding effect"? No, no, he laughed.
Its purpose is simply to encourage "debate and discussion."17
Of course, as a UN official from Communist China, where debate and
discussion can land you in prison, and where unarmed dissenters are
unceremoniously squashed beneath the tracks of army tanks, Mr. Lin's
cavalier attitude toward attacks on the Second Amendment is understandable,
even expected. It is the attitudes and actions of American officials, who
collude with the likes of Comrade Lin, that are far more troubling.
that the 1961 Freedom From War plan is a three-stage program for the
complete disarming of nation states and the simultaneous arming of the
United Nations. In its own words, Freedom From War states:
In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge
progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force....
The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those agreed
types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required
maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted
to peaceful purposes.18
"All other armaments would be destroyed."
Notice that no provision is made
to exempt arms owned by private citizens. An innocent oversight? Hardly. The
UN itself, as we've already seen, is hardly sympathetic to private gun
That's to be expected, since the Insiders who designed it and
support it, along with all of the Communist regimes and most of the
non-Communist countries who make up the UN membership, share a statist
hostility toward civilian possession of arms. Anyone familiar with the UN's
history in this matter, as well as the history of its legal interpretation
of treaties, will recognize that private arms are targeted for destruction
under the term "all other armaments."
We can expect that this terminology in
Freedom From War and other agreements, conventions, and treaties will be
cited as legally requiring the U.S. to disarm its civilian population.
under the guise of following "the rule of law."
To initiate the Freedom
From War program, President Kennedy signed Public
Law 87-297 (H.R. 9118), creating the United States Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency (ACDA). According to that legislation,
"as used in this Act, the terms 'arms
control' and 'disarmament' mean 'the identification, verification,
inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed
forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement ... to
establish an effective system of international control..."19
In its "Second Annual Report to Congress" (February 1963), the ACDA
presented a simple graphic depiction (see top of next page) demonstrating
its proposed three-stage disarmament process.20
U.S. THREE-STAGE DISARMAMENT PLAN
This diagram appeared in the 1963 "Second Annual Report to Congress" of the
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
From War and Blueprint for the Peace Race, the U.S. armed forces cease to
exist and only "internal security forces" — i.e. those to be used against
American citizens — are permitted. Of course, under this scheme, the UN
"peacekeeping machinery" will be superior to the "internal security forces"
and will be able to dictate the "laws" that will be enforced.
Authors of Freedom From War Official responsibility for developing and
initiating the disarmament program outlined in Freedom From War goes to
President Kennedy and his Secretaries of State (Dean Rusk) and Defense
(Robert S. McNamara), both of whom were members of the CFR. The real authors
of Freedom From War and Public Law 87-297, however, were John J. McCloy, the
chairman of the CFR, and Arthur H. Dean, a CFR director — together with
Valerian Zorin, their Soviet counterpart.21
McCloy, Kennedy's chief disarmament adviser and negotiator with the Soviets,
entered the Establishment through the Wall Street law firm of Cravath,
Swaine and Moore, and later became
a senior partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, and McCloy, a firm closely tied
to the Rockefeller family. He served as an Assistant Secretary of War under
FDR and as U.S. High Commissioner to occupied Germany.
He headed the World
Bank, Chase Manhattan Bank, the Ford Foundation, and, most importantly, from
19531970 was chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was an adviser
to nine presidents and sat on the boards of directors of many corporations.
He and a small group of CFR confederates "selected" the presidential
candidates for both the Republican and Democrat parties, and then selected
the cabinets, ambassadors, and other top appointments of the winning
Few would dispute journalist Richard Rovere's characterization
of McCloy in the May 1962 Esquire magazine as "chairman of the American
McCloy's blue-chip resume, however, included a few red flags. While serving
in the War Department, McCloy approved an order permitting Communist Party
members to become officers in the
He defended identified Communist John Carter Vincent and
supported pro-Communist atomic scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer.25 In 1946,
FBI head J. Edgar Hoover warned President Truman of an "enormous Soviet
espionage ring in Washington," and expressed concern over the "pro-Soviet
leanings" of McCloy, Dean Acheson, and Alger Hiss.26
Hiss, of course, was
later exposed as a Soviet agent. He was also a member of the CFR and one of
the main architects of the United Nations.
Assisting McCloy in drafting Freedom From War and the statute for the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency was Arthur H. Dean.27 Dean was chairman of
the U.S. delegation for two years to the UN disarmament conferences in
A junior partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, Dean became the senior partner when
the prestigious law firm's headman, John Foster Dulles (a CFR founder), was
appointed to fill a vacant Senate seat.28 Dean was also vice-chairman of the
Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), the Communist-run outfit most
— together with our State Department — for turning China
over to the Communists in 1949.29
When IPR member Alfred Kohlberg tried
heroically to expose the treason within IPR, it was Dean who scuttled the
investigation.30 In 1952, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee issued a
scathing report on the IPR, citing it as "an instrument of Communist policy,
propaganda and military intelligence."31 The Senate report also concluded:
Members of the small core of officials and staff members who controlled IPR
were either Communist or pro-Communist.... The effective leadership of the
IPR used IPR prestige to promote the interests of the Soviet Union in the
United States.... The IPR was a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate
American far eastern policy toward Communist objectives.32
With the above information in mind, we direct the reader's attention to
Wise Men, the glowing 1986 hagiography of McCloy and five of his globalist
CFR cohorts, authored by Walter Isaacson (CFR) and Evan Thomas (CFR).33 This
one-world apologia provides many admissions against interest, including a
very significant photograph on page 605 showing McCloy and Soviet dictator
Nikita Khrushchev chest deep in the waters of Khrushchev's swimming pool, in
a warm, comradely embrace, with Khrushchev's arm around McCloy's neck.
So, let us summarize some of the ground we've just covered:
The Freedom From
War scheme for disarming the U.S. (nationally and individually) can be
traced back directly to a Russian Communist (Valerian Zorin) and two top
Pratt House one-worlders with extensive ties to Communist intelligence
operations, one of whom cavorted in a swimming pool with the "Butcher of
Budapest," the Communist dictator who bellowed at the U.S., "We will bury
Yet Dean and McCloy, with the help of their CFR associates in the media,
passed themselves off as Republicans, and conservative, anti-Communist
Republicans at that!
Destructive Duo: Clark and Sohn Still another important key to understanding
the true nature
and history of the Kennedy-CFR disarmament plan, and its successor
incarnations, is the team of Establishment Wall Street lawyer Grenville
Clark and Harvard law professor Louis B. Sohn (CFR). John J. McCloy had been
strongly influenced by Grenville Clark at a military training camp during
the summer of 1915.34
Clark was a vice president and founder of the United
World Federalists (UWF, which later changed its name to the World Federalist
Association).35 The UWF/WFA, which has been one of the most hardcore groups
advocating world government, was actually conceived at a private Conference
on World Government in 1946 at Clark's home in Dublin, New Hampshire.36
"It has been well said," according to Mr. Clark, "that in our modern age the
obdurate adherence to national sovereignty and national armed forces
represents a form of insanity which may, however, be cured by a species of
He spelled out that "shock treatment" in
Through World Law, a detailed plan for socialist world government through a
revised UN Charter.38
This text, co-authored with Professor Sohn and published in 1958 by Harvard
University Press, is venerated by all "world order" advocates. It proposes a
global superstate in which a "world police force" known as the United
Nations Peace Force would be invested with "a coercive force of overwhelming
"This world police force," wrote Clark and Sohn, "would be the
only military force permitted anywhere in the world after the process of
national disarmament has been completed."40
However, these architects of "world order" would not be satisfied with a
monopoly of military power.
They believed that,
"even with the complete
elimination of all [national] military forces there would necessarily remain
substantial, although strictly limited and lightly armed, internal police
forces and that these police forces, supplemented by civilians armed with
sporting rifles and fowling pieces, might conceivably constitute a serious
threat to a neighboring country in the absence of a well-disciplined and
heavily armed world police."41
Thus, Chapter 3, Article 13 of the Clark/Sohn UN scheme mandates that "the
strength of the internal police forces of any nation shall not exceed two
for each 1000 of its population,"42 and Article 14 orders strict controls on
the possession of arms and ammunition by police and private citizens:
No nation shall allow the possession by its internal police forces of any
arms or equipment except of the types permitted by the regulations adopted
by the General Assembly ... and in no case shall the number of revolvers and
rifles combined exceed one for each member of the internal police forces,
the number of automatic rifles one for each hundred members of such forces,
and the ammunition supplies 100 rounds per rifle or revolver and 1,000
rounds per automatic rifle. No nation shall allow the possession by any
public or private organization or individual of any military equipment
whatever or of any arms except such small arms as are reasonably needed by
duly licensed hunters or by duly licensed individuals for personal
Care to speculate as to how difficult it would be under the envisioned UN
regime to become "duly licensed" for hunting or personal protection? Try
next to impossible, based upon the known animus of the one-world elite
toward popular ownership of firearms, and the established record on this
matter of the Communist, socialist, and authoritarian regimes that
constitute the overwhelming majority in the UN.
The Clark/Sohn plan also would eliminate the "problem" of private citizens'
access to ammunition by providing that "no nation shall produce or allow the
production of any explosives except insofar as the General Assembly may
"every nation shall obtain a special license from
the [UN] Inspector-General for ... [t]he operation by it or by any public or
private organization or individual ... engaged in the production of any
light arms, ammunition ... or of tools for any such production."45
It also provides that "no nation shall produce or allow the pro
duction of any arms, weapons or military equipment whatever, or of tools for
such production, except" (emphasis added), and then goes on to list those
few exceptions: internal police and the tiny minority of "duly licensed
In "Annex I" of the Clark/Sohn program, we are told:
"Finally, this Annex
makes provision for enforcement measures against individuals, organizations
and nations who may commit violations of the Annex or of any law or
regulation enacted thereunder."47
And, presaging the
International Criminal Court, which would not be formally launched until 40
years later (1998), it states: "All penal proceedings against individuals
and private organizations would be brought by a new legal official — the
United Nations Attorney-General — to be appointed pursuant to Part D of
Annex III."48 So, you see, the global prosecutor post established by the ICC
Statute of Rome in 1998 was actually the implementation of the
Insider-directed Clark/Sohn plan issued 40 years earlier.
And supposing some "individuals, organizations and nations" decide they
don't like the emerging tyranny of the globalists and determine to defy the
"authority" of the new behemoth?
For precisely these contingencies the World
Peace Through World Law plan provides that,
"the United Nations Peace Force
shall be regularly provided with the most modern weapons and equipment,"
with special provision being made "for the use of nuclear weapons in extreme
We needn't worry about abuse of such awesome power because the UN,
no event employ nuclear weapons except when the General Assembly ... has
declared that nothing less ... will suffice to prevent or suppress a serious
breach of the peace or a violent and serious defiance of the authority of
the United Nations."50
Who could ask for better assurance
No need for concrete checks and balances when we have the
promises of the one-worlders and the sound judgment and moral rectitude of
the UN General Assembly to Protect us!
The Plot Continues
Grenville Clark passed on to his eternal destination in
1967 but Professor Sohn has remained actively involved in the "new world
order" business, writing legal treatises and training new generations of
one-world lawyers, legislators, judges, and propagandists. The current UN
drive for civilian disarmament is unmistakably a continuation of the scheme
so methodically scripted by Clark and Sohn, adopted as official policy under
Freedom From War, and developed in subsequent treaties under successive
In language very similar to that used by Clark and Sohn, the August 19, 1999
UN "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" lists, as
weapons to be banned, and ultimately confiscated, "revolvers and
self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, submachine guns, assault rifles
and light machineguns."51
Furthermore, the 1999 "Experts" document is listed as part of the UN's
provisional agenda for "general and complete disarmament"52
— a phrase that figures prominently in the texts of World Peace Through
World Law, Freedom From War, and subsequent policies. Suffice it to say the
UN has a very literal understanding of the phrase "general and complete
And what if you fail to turn in or register, say, your .22 rifle, your .38
pistol, or your gunpowder and reloading equipment, and you are charged with
unlawful possession of "military equipment" under the UN General Assembly's
ever-changing regulations? The UN Attorney-General (or his subordinates)
will bring charges and a UN tribunal will be your judge and jury, Clark and
And since they anticipate far more "business" than can be handled
by a single court, a whole new global judiciary system must be put in place:
In order to provide means for the trial of individuals accused of violating
the disarmament provisions of the revised Charter or of other offenses
against the Charter or laws enacted by the General Assembly ... provision is
also made for regional United Nations courts, inferior to the International
Court of Justice, and for the review by the International Court of decisions
of these regional courts.
Our Global Neighborhood
The UN is proceeding according to the Clark and Sohn
prescription — with help from the usual suspects. In 1995, the UN's 50th
anniversary year, the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance (CGG)
released Our Global Neighborhood, its much-heralded report for UN reform.54
But the CGG's recipe for "reform" is in reality a regurgitation of Clark and
Sohn's deadly brew.
Targeting America's heritage of gun ownership, the CGG
"Widespread criminalization can threaten the very functioning of a
state. In the United States, the easy availability of weapons goes with a
startling level of daily killings." "What is needed," according to the CGG's
globo-savants, "is demilitarization of international society."55
Militarization today not only involves governments spending more than
necessary to build up their military arsenals. It has increasingly become a
global societal phenomenon, as witnessed by the rampant acquisition and use
of increasingly lethal weapons by civilians — whether individuals seeking a
means of self-defence, street gangs, criminals, political opposition groups,
or terrorist organizations.56
Yes, in the view of these globalists, the man defending his family and his
home against robbers and gangsters, or the woman defending her person and
her virtue against a rapist, have no more right to a firearm than do the
rapists, robbers, gang bangers, and other vicious predators causing the
"widespread criminalization" the CGG is decrying. Accordingly, the CGG
statists "strongly endorse community initiatives ... to encourage the
disarming of civilians." 57
The CGG report, remember, was a collaborative effort of top members of the
CFR, the UN plutocracy, the European Union, the Socialist International and
various Communist Parties (see Chapter 2).
It prefigured the 1999 UN "Report
of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms," which complained
"there are wide differences among States [nations] as regards
which types of arms are permitted for civilian possession, and as regards
the circumstances under which they can legitimately be owned, carried and
used. Such wide variation in national laws raises difficulties for effective
regional or international coordination." 58
Among the proposals adopted by the panel and enthusiastically endorsed by UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his foreword to the report are measures
aimed at increasing,
"control over the legal possession of small arms and
light weapons and over their transfer," expanding prohibitions on "trade and
private ownership of small arms and light weapons," and tightening efforts
to "control ammunition." 59
The UN Charter bars UN intervention in "matters which are essentially within
the domestic jurisdiction of any state," 60 but the UN, in typical fashion,
has been defining "domestic jurisdiction" out of existence. Kofi Annan
explained in a September 20, 1999 address before the UN General Assembly
that "state sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined."
is needed, Annan continued, is,
"a new, more broadly defined, more widely
conceived definition of national interest in the new century [where] the
collective interest is the national interest."61
Four days later, Annan
"controlling the easy availability of small arms was a
prerequisite for a successful peace-building process," which is why the
United Nations "had played a leading role in putting the issue of small arms
firmly on the international agenda."
All of this could, of course, be dismissed as meaningless UN blather —
except for the fact that it is fully supported by the U.S. Insiders,
including elected officials whom American citizens are naively counting on
to protect us against any encroachments from the UN. Kofi Annan emphasizes
in his foreword to the "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" that it was
"prepared, and adopted by consensus" and was the product of "unanimity"
among the "expert" members of the
If we accept Annan's assertion at face value, we can presume that none of
the "experts" objected to this full-tilt assault on the right to keep and
bear arms. Yet among the "experts" who drafted the report was U.S. State
Department Senior Foreign Affairs Specialist Herbert L. Calhoun.
other than Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (CFR) told the first-ever
UN Security Council Small Arms Ministerial, on September 24, 1999, that,
United States strongly supports these steps," that we "welcome the important
precedent which the UN has set," and that the U.S. would work to "commit to
finishing negotiations on a firearms protocol to the UN Transnational
Organized Crime Convention by the end of 2000." 64
The Orchestrated Disarmament Choir
The orchestrated "pressure from below"
was already building steam by that time.
In November 1998, the UNESCO
Courier noted that,
"the political tides may be changing. An international
campaign is now underway with nongovernmental organizations of all stripes
and colors — disarmament and gun control groups along with development and
human rights associations in the North and South — building common ground
with the active support of governments like Mali, Canada, Norway and Japan."
As in every other case we have seen, this "international campaign" of
NGOs is entirely a front for the one-world internationalists, who pay the
bills via foundations and government (i.e., taxpayer-funded) grants.
On September 24, 1999 Kofi Annan reported to a ministerial-level meeting of
the Security Council on small arms:
"The momentum for combating small arms
proliferation has also come from civil society, which has been increasingly
active on this issue. The establishment early this year of the International
Action Network on Small Arms [IANSA] has helped to sharpen
public focus on small arms, which has helped us gain the public support
necessary for success."66
IANSA is intended to "provide a transnational
framework" for the mobilization of a broad citizen movement in favor of gun
control, according to the organizational goals posted on its website.67 The
services IANSA intends to provide the UN-led global gun control movement
include "campaigning and advocacy strategies," "developing culturally
appropriate 'message' strategies," "information sharing" among NGOs, and
"constituency building." 68
And where will the funding for this propaganda campaign come from?
notes on its website that its eight most significant financial donors
include five government agencies: the Belgian Ministry for Development
Cooperation; the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Netherlands
Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the United Kingdom Department for International
Development; and the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In other words,
this "nongovernmental" organization is purely a front for the
disarmament-obsessed totalitarians in the increasingly militant socialist
regimes of the European Union.
The UN is putting our tax dollars to effective use in this campaign as well.
Among other things, it is aggressively pushing its recent video, Armed to
This UN "shockumentary" is a brutal, hour-long diatribe aimed
at convincing the viewer that "small arms" are the cause of all violence,
crime, and bloodshed in the world. Replete with gruesome film footage of
victims of crime and genocide, it relentlessly demonizes firearms and pounds
home the message that this carnage will not stop until civilian populations
Armed to the Teeth invests firearms with human-like qualities, so as to more
easily and effectively vilify these targeted instruments.
"A killer is on
the loose," we are told in the video's opening scenes.
The "killer," of
course, is "small arms," i.e., guns, which are shown over and over in the
most menacing ways that the video's creators could come up with.
We are told
"small arms are not fussy about the company they keep.... They can
murder indiscriminately. Men and women, young and old, rich and poor."
Amidst Hollywood-style edits of sound effects and images of gore and
violence, comes the message:
"Humankind is beginning a new millennium under
the sign of the gun, and small arms are like uninvited guests who won't
leave. Once they take over a country they are virtually impossible to get
Yes, according to this UN propaganda, a horde of "small arms" are "taking
over" countries. Utilizing dramatic footage from Mozambique, Rwanda, South
Africa, Brazil, Kosovo, Albania, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the video
repetitiously hammers this theme. At the same time, it conspicuously
refrains from pointing any fingers at the real criminals responsible for the
carnage it depicts: the human agents who are using the firearms for criminal
purposes. This would be like fomenting a worldwide campaign against matches
and gasoline because of the death and destruction caused by arson — and
completely ignoring the need to apprehend the arsonists!
The UN filmmakers
know this, of course.
They have focused on the matches and gasoline and
ignored the arsonists for some very important reasons.
One reason is that they intend to so vilify "small arms" and associate them
with everything evil that people will have an automatic emotional aversion
to firearms and agree to civilian disarmament. Another reason for the
conscious failure of the UN videographers to mention the responsibility of
human agency is to divert attention from the UN's role in the very crimes it
is denouncing. In virtually all of the examples shown in Armed to the Teeth,
the UN and its institutions (particularly the IMF and World Bank) played
major roles in creating chaos and revolution that produced the bloody
The UN's video treatment of Rwanda is especially
noteworthy. Rwanda's 1994 genocide is one of the strongest examples
imaginable proving the case against civilian disarmament. The slaughter of
some 800,000 Rwandans in just 103 days makes it the most concentrated
genocide in the bloody 20th century. This
horrible mass-murder was possible because the killers — in this case, the
government forces and government-organized mobs — were armed and the victims
were not. Rwanda's draconian 1979 gun control legislation made it almost
impossible for civilians to possess firearms. The government was thus given
a monopoly on lethal force. Ultimately it used that force, and its victims
were helpless before it.
Most of the Rwandan victims were not shot; they were brutally hacked to
death with machetes or speared and clubbed to death. According to survivors
and eyewitnesses, many of the victims did not meekly submit to slaughter;
they tried to defend themselves with stones, sticks, and their bare hands.
In the few instances where the victims were able to obtain firearms they
succeeded in delaying or limiting the carnage and saving lives. The most
detailed and enlightening analysis of the Rwandan genocide we have seen is
published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO).
heavily documented 1997 study, Rwanda's Genocide, 1994, authoritatively
"The careful planning of this genocide — and the near-total disarmed
state of its victims — explains the speed and intensity of the murder
The JPFO study cites abundant evidence to support the claim "that 'gun
control' was a critical element in this genocide."71
"Had the citizens ...
not been disarmed," it notes, "they might have deterred the genocide
entirely, or at very least reduced its extent. Those who place their faith
in any other form of prevention — especially in the UN or other
supranational organizations — seem blind to some hard realities." 72
surveying the facts compiled by JPFO researchers, it is difficult to dispute
that assertion. Rwanda's Genocide, 1994 concludes with this sobering
The hard lesson of Rwanda is that the only potential saviors for the
intended targets of a genocidal government are the intended victims
themselves. No one else is likely to care enough to do anything beyond
protest, or to be able to provide direct help fast
enough. The intended victims of a genocidal government can save themselves
only if they have ready access to firearms, particularly military-type. For
them to have access to firearms, 'gun control' must be destroyed. How many
more mountains of corpses need to be piled-up before this lesson is learned?
This bitter truth learned from the horrors of Rwanda comports completely
with what we know of the other major genocides of the 20th century. Again,
we can thank the JPFO for documenting the critical role of civilian
disarmament, i.e., "gun control," for the slaughters in all of these cases.
In their important 1994 study, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" is the Key to
Genocide, the JPFO provides a valuable examination of the massive genocides
in Ottoman Turkey, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Red China, Guatemala,
Uganda, and Cambodia.74
The report also photographically reproduces the gun
control laws (along with English translations) that disarmed the victims and
made the genocides possible in each of those countries.
It is a devastating
indictment of the program for civilian disarmament that the UN is pushing
for the entire world!
UN "Peacemaking": Drenched in Blood
The one-worlders' totalitarian scheme
for personal disarmament and subjugation of all to an omnipotent UN is no
longer idle theory; it has already received several recent trial runs,
albeit on a limited scale. In Somalia, Haiti, and Kosovo the UN's
"peacekeepers" have disarmed the civilian populations and left them at the
mercy of UN-supported totalitarian thugs.
(In Rwanda too, it should be
noted, it was the UN-supported totalitarian regime of General Habyarimana
that carried out the horrendous slaughter.)
To get a picture of what the UN program for "peace" through disarmament is
really all about, we need to take a brief look at one of the UN's most
vicious crimes: its brutal 1961 invasion of peaceful Katanga, in the Congo.
In that murderous assault on the people of the Congo, the UN's sainted "Blue
Helmets" were tasked with supporting Soviet-trained Communist terrorist
Patrice Lumumba against the democratically elected, Christian, pro-Western
president of Katanga, Moise Tshombe.
Since the incredible story of the UN's atrocities in Katanga has been
consigned to the Orwellian "memory hole" by the CFR's "ruling class
journalists" and "court historians," it is important that we make at least a
modest attempt to recount what happened there.
In The Blue Helmets: A Review
of United Nations Peace-keeping, a self-serving encomium published by the
UN, we read:
"The United Nations Operation in the Congo ... July 1960 until
June 1964, is by far the largest peacekeeping operation ever established by
the United Nations in terms of the responsibilities it had to assume, the
size of its area of operation and the manpower involved. It included ... a
peace-keeping force which comprised at its peak strength nearly 20,000
officers and men...."75
What were all of these "peacekeepers" doing in the Congo? Supporting
Congolese "self-determination" and "independence" says the UN.
they were propping up a succession of Soviet stooges who were conducting a
grisly reign of terror. For many years the Soviets had been supporting and
establishing "independence" and "anti-colonialist" movements throughout the
world — always with the aim of converting European colonies into new
colonies in the global Communist empire. The United Nations proved over and
over again that it supported this new Soviet colonialism by materially
supporting the Kremlin-backed terrorists through its various agencies and by
bestowing political legitimacy on them from the rostrum of the General
In the Congo, Moscow had hedged its bets, as usual, by backing several
thugs. As soon as Belgium's King Baudouin announced that the Congo was to be
given its independence, however, the Soviets made clear that their top
choice for viceroy in the area was Patrice Lumumba.
Lumumba, a thoroughly corrupt dope addict, ex-convict, and murderer, was
the CFR media machine as the George Washington of Africa.
Emboldened by his international acclaim
and the financial and military backing of the U.S.S.R. and Red China,
Lumumba dropped all pretenses of "democratic rule" and began an orgy of
rape, pillage, torture, and terror.
On September 15, 1960, he issued a lengthy and detailed directive to the
heads of the various provinces of the Congo which left no doubt as to his
brutal intentions. Dictators frequently disguise their brutal decrees in
genteel-sounding prose or bureaucratic legalese, but Lumumba, intoxicated
with his new power, and brimming with the Marxist drivel he had learned from
his Soviet masters, did not bother with such camouflage. In his directive,
entitled, "Measures To Be Applied During the First Stages of the
Dictatorship," he let it be known that he had assumed "full powers" and then
listed the following points as the "most effective and direct means of
succeeding rapidly in our task":
Establish an absolute dictatorship and apply it in all its forms.
Terrorism, essential to subdue the population.
Proceed systematically, using the army,
to arrest all members of the opposition.... I sent the National Army
to arrest Tshombe and Kalonji and even
to kill them if possible....
Imprison the ministers, deputies and senators.... Arrest them all without
and treat them with ten times more severity than ordinary individuals.
Revive the system of flogging....
Inflict profound humiliations on the people thus arrested.... [S]trip them
public, if possible in the presence of their wives and children.
...If some of them succumb as a result of certain atrocities, which is
and desirable, the truth should not be divulged but it should be announced,
instance, that Mr. X has escaped and cannot be found....76
That was just the first stage of Lumumba's Communist revolution. He ended
his directive with the promise that "the second stage will be to destroy
anyone who criticizes us."77
He ended a
subsequent memorandum with this finale:
"Long live the Soviet Union! Long
live Khrushchev!" 78
Long before this, however, Lumumba had left no doubt as to his brutal nature
and totalitarian orientation. He had actually put his dictatorship of
terrorism into practice before announcing it to his provincial officials in
the directive cited above. Nevertheless, President Eisenhower (CFR) joined
Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in supporting a resolution authorizing the
UN to send troops to assist Lumumba! He then dispatched U.S. Air Force
planes to transport UN troops and supplies for that "peacekeeping" mission.
He welcomed Lumumba to the U.S. with a royal reception and showered
Lumumba's new regime with millions of dollars.
However, there was widespread opposition to Lumumba's Soviet brand of
"independence" throughout the Congo. The stoutest opposition arose in
Katanga Province, a multi-racial area about the size of France, under the
able leadership of the educated and pro-Western Moise Tshombe.
am seceding from chaos," President Tshombe announced Katanga's independence
from Lumumba's murderous central Congo government. Amidst the sea of carnage
and terror that was then the Congo, the province of Katanga remained, by
comparison, an island of peace, order, and stability.
Did the UN peacekeepers try to put an end to Lumumba's reign of terror —
which included the systematic slaughter of civilian men, women, and
children? No, they instead used UN power to squash the fledgling republic of
Katanga and force it back under Lumumba's control.
"From the outset of the hostilities," say the UN disinformation specialists
in The Blue Helmets, "United Nations military and civilian officers did
their best, in cooperation with the International Committee of the Red
Cross, to relieve the distress caused to innocent civilians." 79
as well as hundreds of others in the book's treatment of the Congo
operation, could have been written by propagandists from the Kremlin (or
Pratt House) — and, in fact, probably was. In truth, the UN's blue helmets engaged in the very war crimes that the UN now demands
global jurisdiction to protect the world from. UN planes knowingly and
intentionally bombed hospitals, churches, and schools. Its troops attacked
the same targets, as well as ambulances, and slaughtered noncombatant men,
women, and children.*
* More details of this important and incredibly vicious chapter of UN history
can be found in the following: The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffin;81
Who Killed the Congo? by Philippa Schuyler;82 Rebels, Mercenaries, and
Dividends by Smith Hempstone;83 and 46 Angry Men by the 46 doctors of
Elisabethville.84 In 1962, a private group of Americans, outraged at our
government's actions against the freedom-seeking Katangese, attempted to
capture on film the truth about what was happening in the Congo. They
produced Katanga: The Untold Story, an hour-long documentary narrated by
Congressman Donald L. Jackson.85 With news-reel footage and testimony from
eyewitnesses, including a compelling interview with Tshombe himself, the
program exposed the criminal activities and brutal betrayal perpetrated on a
peaceful people by the Eisenhower and then Kennedy administrations, other
Western leaders, and top UN officials. It documents the fact that UN
(including U.S.) planes deliberately bombed Katanga's schools, hospitals,
and churches, while UN troops machine-gunned and bayoneted civilians, school
children, and Red Cross workers who tried to help the wounded. This film is
now available on videotape, and is "must-viewing" for Americans who are
determined that this land or any other land shall never experience similar
UN atrocities. (For ordering information, please see above-referenced
After Lumumba's mysterious death, UN support swung to the militantly
pro-Communist Cyrille Adoula, and then to Communist Antoine Gizenga. In
September 1961, U.S. newspapers carried this account of the UN invasion of
Elisabethville, the capital of Katanga:
The UN declared martial law and ... Michel Tombelaine of
France, deputy UN civilian commander, announced over the UN
controlled radio that any civilians found in illegal possession of arms will
be summarily executed.
Yes, here was the UN imposing Communist-style disarmament
— which is always a prelude to Communist-style terror. What the CFR-run U.S.
media didn't tell the American people was that Mr. Tombelaine had been
identified as a member of the French
Communist Party by a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.86
What they also failed to report (with a few brave exceptions) was that the
UN forces were carrying out vicious atrocities against unarmed Katangese
men, women, and children. Nevertheless, the CFR-dominated Kennedy
administration, like the Eisenhower CFR gang before it, backed the
Lumumba-Adoula-Gizenga lineup and opposed the pro-U.S. Tshombe.
More CFR-UN Treachery and Butchery
This sickening, treacherous pattern has
been repeatedly reenacted in more recent times. In Somalia, for instance,
the U.S.-led UN misadventure, Operation Restore Hope, was launched under
"humanitarian" pretenses to suppress the forces that had ousted the brutal,
Soviet-installed Communist dictatorship of Mohammed Siad Barre. During his
reign of over two decades, Siad Barre had been the recipient of hundreds of
millions of dollars from the U.S. and the UN.
After U.S. troops were sent to provide humanitarian assistance, their orders
mutated into disarming the "civilian militias."
The CFR team in the Bush
administration and the CFR team in the succeeding Clinton administration —
together with their CFR media allies — aimed all of their vitriol at the
forces of General Mohammed Aidid, the leader most responsible for the
overthrow of Communist dictator Barre, and the leader with the broadest
General Aidid became the villain du jour. He and his civilian "militias" had
to be disarmed, we were told. The disarmament program escalated into an
illegal UN order for the arrest of General Aidid, with U.S. Army Rangers and
Delta Force commandos assigned the job of effecting the arrest warrant. The
result: a bloody U.S. defeat, with 19 American soldiers dead, 75 wounded,
and ugly video footage — agonizingly reminiscent of Vietnam — of an American
pilot being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by an angry Somali mob.
What very few Americans ever learned was that the basis for the illegal
warrant issued by the UN Security Council was a deceptive report written by
a CFR operative. The document cited by the UN as justification for the
warrant was The Report of an Inquiry, Conducted Pursuant to Security Council
Resolution 837, Into the 5 June 1993 Attack on UN Forces in Somalia written
by Tom Farer (CFR), a professor of international law at American University
in Washington, D.C.87 This "Farer Report" was claimed to "prove" General
Aidid's guilt in various crimes, most particularly the June 5, 1993 attack
of Somalis upon UN Pakistani troops that resulted in the deaths of a number
of the "Blue Helmets."
The Farer Report, however, proved to be a tissue of lies and deception. It
also proved to be an unintended indictment of the UN, rather than Aidid. For
the report showed that the deadly attack of June 5th had been precipitated
not by General Aidid, but by a UN provocation. Specifically, it was the UN's
blatantly illegal seizure of Radio Mogadishu, an organ of the free press of
Somalia, that caused a spontaneous attack by the Somali people on the UN
criminals.88 Moreover, the Farer Report inadvertently shows that the UN-CFR
cabal knowingly used this provocation as a pretext for grabbing more power —
and for using American troops to do its dirty work!89
Obviously, the UN had to suppress its own self-indicting report. Which is
precisely what it did. It refused to release the report to the
U.S. Congress and the American people — even though we were paying for
almost the entire operation and our soldiers were dying because of the UN's
illegal and deceitful orders.
The New American magazine obtained a copy of the forbidden Farer Report and
published a major expose revealing the conspiracy and deception involved.90
To date, this remains the only significant press exposure given to this
incredibly explosive report. The CFR media cartel did not touch it,
naturally; they were busy, instead, diverting the public's attention with
the O.J. Simpson and Menendez brothers murder trials and other simi-larly
bizarre scandals. And the CFR's Republican managers in
Congress, such as Newt Gingrich (CFR) and Bob Dole (who might as well be CFR), made sure that GOP members wouldn't raise a fuss over this UN outrage
— even after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.
As a result, soon after the Somalia debacle, American troops were sent into
Haiti on another UN assignment. Their job: restore to power the murderous,
Communist, psychopath Jean-Bertrand Aristide,91 so beloved by the CFR
clerisy. Our troops had another job, as well: Disarm Aristide's opposition.
Thanks to the mandatory gun registration program in effect for many years in
Haiti, the soldiers knew exactly where to go to confiscate the weapons.
soldiers interviewed by this writer said they did not like this job because
they could see that it was leaving many obviously law-abiding citizens and
their families open to slaughter by Aristide's Communist mobs and common
thugs. Some soldiers admitted that they frequently disobeyed the orders to
confiscate weapons and left them in the hands of those they believed needed
protection. Several of these soldiers couldn't help commenting that they
feared the Haiti exercise might prove to be a rehearsal for similar
house-to-house searches for arms at some not-too-distant point in America's
More recently, U.S. forces were sent into Kosovo — again, initially, with
the task of restoring order and providing support for "humanitarian
assistance." Soon, however, they were ordered to disarm the Serbs, while
concomitantly helping to arm the narcoterrorist Kosovo Liberation Army
The KLA is a vicious Albanian Communist mafia that is flooding heroin
and other drugs into Europe and the U.S.92 It is also closely allied with
the terror regime in Iran and Osama bin Laden, the notorious financier of
anti-American terrorism.93 The KLA's well-documented, sordid record,
however, did not sour the CFR coterie in the State Department or in the
Establishment media on the terrorist group's "potential."
Subversive Marine Survey
On May 10, 1994, several hundred Marines stationed
at the Twenty-nine Palms, California Marine base were given a survey with
potentially frightening ramifications.
The "Combat Arms Survey" asked the
Marines to respond along a scale running from "strongly disagree" to
"strongly agree" to a series of questions and statements, including the
"Do you feel that U.S. combat troops should be used within the United States
for any of the following missions? Drug enforcement; Disaster relief...;
Federal and state prison guards; National emergency police force; Advisors
to S.W.A.T. units, the FBI, or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
"U.S. combat troops should be commanded by U.N. officers and
non-commissioned officers (NCOs) at battalion and company levels while
performing U.N. missions."
"I feel there is no conflict between my oath of office and serving as a U.N.
"I feel a designated unit of U.S. combat soldiers should be permanently
assigned to the command and control of the United Nations."
"I would like U.N. member countries, including the U.S., to give the U.N.
all the soldiers necessary to maintain world peace."
"I would swear to the following code: T am a United Nations fighting person.
I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and every nation's way of
life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.'"94
The final statement of the "Combat Arms Survey" posed this shocking
The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation,
and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period
is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities.
At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over
Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse
or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government.95
The "Combat Arms Survey" was first brought to public attention when a Marine
sent a copy to The New American magazine.96 Disclosure of the survey by The
New American touched off a firestorm of public and congressional outrage.
According to a press release from the Marine Corps public affairs office at
Twenty-nine Palms, the survey originated from Presidential Review [Decision]
Directives 13 and 25, under which President Clinton (CFR),
[Department of Defense] to create a U.S. military force structure whose
command and control would include the United Nations." 97
But most of those things happened during the nasty old Clinton regime; now
that we have
George W. Bush in the Oval Office, we can breathe a lot easier.
Don't believe that for a moment. Yes, George W. received the endorsement of
the NRA. But so did his father before him. As a Texas congressman in 1968,
the senior Bush (CFR) voted for that year's draconian Gun Control Act.
Twenty years later, he wrote to the NRA during his victorious presidential
campaign, pledging to oppose "federal licensing, gun registration,
background checks or a ban on firearms."98
Once in office, however, George the senior promptly issued an executive
order banning the importation of 43 "military-style" semi-automatic rifles
and endorsed a crime bill that called for the registration of rifle and
pistol magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds.99 He also endorsed
a five-day version of the Brady (waiting-period) bill, which caused Sarah
Brady, chairman of Handgun Control, Inc., to exclaim that she was "very
Perhaps even more important than those actions was George Bush's ambush of
the NRA — and all gun owners, for that matter
— in May 1995, shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing. It was a very
crucial time, when all the country was reeling from
shock over that deadly terrorist act, and the CFR media mavens
were fastening blame for that vile deed on the NRA, "gun fanatics,"
"right-wing extremists," and "anti-government" Republicans.
George Bush, as
the immediate past president of the United States and the most prominent and
well-known Republican, greatly aided that vicious smear campaign of the
whole Political Right by very dramatically resigning from the NRA and
denouncing the organization with the false claim that an NRA fund-raising
letter harshly critical of ATF excesses was a slander against law
Is it fair to judge junior by daddy's record? No, unless he indicates that
he is following in daddy's footsteps. George W. has done that.
campaign and policy advisers were taken wholesale from his dad's CFR-Trilateralist cabinet:
To these he
added Pratt House venerables Henry Kissinger and George Shultz and
fast-rising CFR star Condoleezza Rice.102
Cheney, of course, then came on board as vice president
Powell as Secretary
Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of Defense
Zoellick as U.S. Trade
Rice as National Security Adviser
They were soon joined
by other Pratt House regulars who were tapped for high Cabinet posts:
Christine Todd Whitman
...to name a few.
One of the first persons Colin Powell officially received as Secretary of
State was Frank Carlucci, who recently chaired the CFR's panel on
restructuring the State Department.103 Powell then traipsed off to the UN
for a meeting with Kofi Annan, where he announced that the new Bush
administration would be putting an end to the Republican Party's traditional
antagonism to the world body.104
Writing in the CFR's Foreign Affairs for September/October 2000, James M.
Lindsay of the Brookings Institution noted that "Both Al Gore and George W.
Bush are internationalists by inclination...."105
In the CFR's globalese, that can be taken as
meaning that, rhetoric notwithstanding, George W. will
reliably continue to advance the one-world agenda of empowering the United
Nations, including its attack on the right of private American citizens to
And because of the widespread misperception that Bush is a
genuine "conservative" (thanks to the CFR's "ruling class journalists"), he
is well-positioned to make strategic cave-ins on the gun issue that a
Clinton or Gore could not pull off.
Back to Contents