Chapter 9
Civilian Disarmament

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 U.S. government.2
— from a "Combat Arms Survey" given to members of the United States Marine Corps, 1994

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, 1999

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 documents themselves.

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 Hitler.

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 immediately suspect.

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.

 

This 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 casinos.

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 "citizens network"?

 

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 to go.

 

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 shotguns.*

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 31, 1993:

"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:

"We're going 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

The campaign to disarm American citizens has intensified in recent years, rising to near hysteria following the Columbine school shootings.

 

The ultimate 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 21, 1999:

"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 to prison."¹¹

"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 illicit.

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 trafficking.¹⁵

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 civilians.

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 reluctant lover.

 

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 community."
 

Behind-the-Scenes Leadership

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 American interests.

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 the document.

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.

 

Recall 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 the 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 to 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 ownership.

 

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.

 

All 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 contestant.²²

 

Few would dispute journalist Richard Rovere's characterization of McCloy in the May 1962 Esquire magazine as "chairman of the American Establishment."²³

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 U.S. Army.²⁴

 

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 Geneva.

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 responsible — 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 The 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 you."

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 shock treatment."³⁷

He spelled out that "shock treatment" in World Peace 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 power."³⁹

"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 protection.⁴³

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 authorize...."⁴⁴

Moreover,

"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 individuals."⁴⁶

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 circumstances."⁴⁹

We needn't worry about abuse of such awesome power because the UN,

"shall in 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 than that?

 

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 administrations.

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 disarmament."

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 Sohn say.

 

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 warned,

"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

The report explained:

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 bitterly that,

"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."

 

What 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 emphasized that,

"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 group.

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.

 

And none other than Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (CFR) told the first-ever UN Security Council Small Arms Ministerial, on September 24, 1999, that,

"the 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." ⁶⁵

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?

 

IANSA 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 the Teeth.⁶⁹

 

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 are disarmed.

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 that,

"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 rid of."

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 scenes.

 

Rwandan Genocide

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).

 

Their heavily documented 1997 study, Rwanda's Genocide, 1994, authoritatively states:

"The careful planning of this genocide — and the near-total disarmed state of its victims — explains the speed and intensity of the murder process."

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

After surveying the facts compiled by JPFO researchers, it is difficult to dispute that assertion. Rwanda's Genocide, 1994 concludes with this sobering assessment:

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? ⁷³

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.

 

In reality, 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 Assembly.

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 lionized by 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 pity 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 in public, if possible in the presence of their wives and children.

• ...If some of them succumb as a result of certain atrocities, which is possible and desirable, the truth should not be divulged but it should be announced, for 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.

 

Declaring, "I 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

That lie, 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 endnote.)

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 national support.

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.

 

U.S. 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 future.

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 (KLA).

 

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 following:

"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 (B.A.T.F.)...."
"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. soldier."
"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 scenario:

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 their firearms.

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),

"directed DOD [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. Right?

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 pleased." ¹⁰⁰

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 enforcement.¹⁰¹

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.

 

His top campaign and policy advisers were taken wholesale from his dad's CFR-Trilateralist cabinet:

• Dick Cheney

• Brent Scowcroft

• Colin Powell

• Paul Wolfowitz

• Robert Zoellick

• Stephen Hadley

• Robert Blackwill

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 of State

• Wolfowitz as Deputy Secretary of Defense

• Zoellick as U.S. Trade Representative

• Rice as National Security Adviser

They were soon joined by other Pratt House regulars who were tapped for high Cabinet posts:

• Donald Rumsfeld

• Elaine Chao

• Christine Todd Whitman

• Kenneth Juster

• Faryar Shirzad

• John Negroponte

• George Tenet

...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 own firearms.

 

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