Get US out!

The U.N. has become a trap. Let’s go it alone.1
• U.S. Senator Robert Taft

Until my dying day, I will regret signing the United Nations Charter.2
• U.S. Senator Patrick McCarran

[T]he time has come to recognize the United Nations for the anti-American, anti-freedom organization that it has become. The time has come for us to cut off all financial help, withdraw as a member, and ask the United Nations to find a headquarters location outside the United States that is more in keeping with the philosophy of the majority of voting members, someplace like Moscow or Peking.3
• U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater

Unless the U.N. is completely reorganized without the Communist nations in it, we should get out of it.4
• former President Herbert Hoover

More than at any time in its history, the United Nations should indeed be recognizable as a terrible trap. Yet the nations of the world continue marching forward, step by step, into a UN-led global tyranny. Like sleep-walking automatons, oblivious to approaching peril, millions of normally intelligent individuals pass by the danger signs each day without paying the slightest notice. The world’s peoples seem incapable of comprehending the looming danger, even though it is so plainly evident. Ours is the age of omnipotent government.


Because it is, we have had ample exposure to the lessons of totalitarianism; we have no excuse if we close our eyes and minds to the danger. We can take no refuge behind a plea of “ignorance.” It has been well observed that the “increasing quantity of government, in all nations, has constituted the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century.”5


This tragedy, however, is but the manifestation of an even deeper spiritual tragedy: the decreasing quantity and quality of the Christian faith in all nations.

The century now drawing to a close has witnessed man’s greatest achievements in science, engineering, and technological progress. Our monumental advances in medicine, agriculture, communications, transportation, space exploration, and virtually every field of learning have far eclipsed the most ambitious hopes of those who lived only a generation ago. So sweeping and breathtakingly rapid have these advances come that peoples everywhere have been seduced by the “gospel of progress,” the beguiling doctrine of salvation through the all-powerful cognitive powers of man.


“Science” and “reason,” this secular faith contends, will ultimately triumph over religious “superstition” and then usher in a new age of enlightenment, peace, prosperity, and continuous progress. The adherents of this “new” faith come in many stripes. Their “spiritual” lineage may be traced to Rousseau, Bacon, Hume, Descartes, Kant, Weishaupt, Marx, Lenin, Asimov, or a myriad of other masters. Darwin is certainly one of the leading points of light in this glittering firmament.

Charles Darwin was not the originator of the ideas that have led to the abandonment of belief in the existence of objective, transcendent truth. “But Darwin’s role was to dignify these ideas with ‘scientific’ backing and to make them accessible to the average man in terms he could understand,” observed Jane H. Ingraham. “His shattering ‘explanation’ of the evolution of man from the lower animals through means excluding the supernatural delivered the coup de grace to man’s idea of himself as a created being in a world of fixed truth.


Confronted with the ‘scientific proof’ of his own animal origin and nature, Western man, set free at last from God, began the long trek through scientific rationalism, environmental determinism, cultural conditioning, perfectibility of human nature, behaviorism, and secular humanism to today’s inverted morality and totalitarian man.”6


The rejection of Divine revelation and the sovereignty of God has resulted in the enthronement of man’s “reason” as the ultimate source of truth and the apotheosis of the State as the supreme authority.

More recently, we have seen defections from the cult of science to the cult of nature. But, as was discussed in earlier chapters, this development has involved merely switching from one pagan “church” to another, while maintaining the same faith in the god of the State.


More Deadly Than War

The fruits of this “faith” have been horrific as totalitarianism (fascism, nazism, communism, socialism, etc.) and its various wars and revolutions have wrought death, suffering, and destruction on a scale undreamt of before. There are few who will argue the point that war is hell, and that a nation should go to great lengths to avoid it. But is war the ultimate evil? Must we be willing to accept anything — even tyranny and slavery — in order to avoid war? Before answering, the peace-at-any-price advocates would do well to consider the sobering research compiled by Professor R. J. Rummel about the human cost of 20th century totalitarianism.


The results of Dr. Rummel’s exhaustive investigation, published under the title Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917, can be ignored only at the peril of every living being on this planet. The “shocking” (his own word) conclusion of the professor’s meticulous research is mind-numbing. Rummel found that ... independent of war and other kinds of conflict — governments probably have murdered 119,400,000 people — Marxist governments about 95,200,000 of them. By comparison, the battle-killed in all foreign and domestic wars in this century total 35,700,000. These monstrous statistics sharply reoriented my research.


For more than thirty years as a political scientist and peace researcher, I had focused my research on the causes and conditions of war, conflict, and peace. I had believed that war was the greatest killer and that nuclear war would be a global holocaust. Now I have found that the total killed by government in cold blood was almost four times that of war. It was as though a nuclear war had already occurred.7 [Emphasis in original]

The “Cold War” body count alone is at least 22.5 million. That’s the number of human beings murdered by the Soviet Communists from the end of World War II until 1987. To describe this phenomenon of mass homicide, Dr. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, coined the word “democide,” which he defined as “a government’s concentrated, systematic, and serial murder of a large part of its population.”8


For Soviet democide alone, Rummel arrived at “the most probable estimate of 61,911,000 murdered.”


This, he pointed out,

“is more than four times the battle dead (15,000,000) for all nations in the Second World War. Indeed, it exceeds the total deaths (35,654,000) from all this century’s international, civil, guerrilla, and liberation wars, including the Russian Civil War itself.”9 (Emphasis in original)

For still another quantitative perspective, the professor reported that,

“from 1918 to 1953 [the Lenin- Stalin years], the Soviet government executed, slaughtered, starved, beat or tortured to death, or otherwise killed some 39.5 million of its own people.... In China, under Mao Tse-tung, the communist government eliminated ... 45 million people. The number killed in just these two nations is about 84.5 million, or a lethality of 252% more than both world wars together.” (Emphasis added)


“Yet,” asks Rummel, “have the world community and intellectuals generally shown anything like the same horror or outrage over these Soviet and Chinese megakillings as has been directed at the much less deadly world wars?”10

These figures, horrendous as they are, do not begin to tell the whole story. Quantitatively, it is very likely that they err on the low side and, says Rummel, “may underestimate the true total by 10 percent or more. Moreover, they do not even include the 1921-1922 Soviet famine and the 1958-1961 Chinese famine, which caused about four million and 27 million deaths, respectively.”11


Those deaths should certainly be included, since they were the direct, intended result of conscious, cold-blooded policies of the communist regimes.

The figures also do not include suicides, which by many accounts occurred in very significant numbers due to widespread fear, terror, shock, and despair under Soviet totalitarianism. From a qualitative perspective, it is impossible for the raw statistics to convey the immeasurable mental, physical, and spiritual agonies suffered by each of those millions of souls who were starved, tortured, executed, or otherwise disposed of as if they were nothing more than so much debris.12


Furthermore, says Rummel,

“these figures do not measure the misery among those loved ones left alive, the mothers and fathers, the husbands or wives, or the children, friends, and lovers of those killed. No accounting is made of those who died of heartbreak, who gave up on life and succumbed to disease or privation, or whose remaining years were full of anguish and bitterness.”13

All of this horrendous record of annihilation and desolation can be attributed, says Rummel, to “utopia empowered,” the “melding of an idea and power.” (Emphasis in original) It is the natural and inevitable result of the implementation of Lenin’s brutal dictum: “The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this: power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules.”14 Anyone truly committed to the cause of peace must confront the terrible realities that are the ineluctable consequences of Lenin’s unrestricted absolutism.


They are: 1) Unrestrained government invariably results in the regime waging war against its own people, a development described by G. Edward Griffin as “more deadly than war [between nations]”15; and 2) governments not bound by strict constitutional limits and vigilant, moral citizens are those most likely to cause wars with other nations. In fact, notes Dr. Rummel:

Absolutist governments ... are not only many times deadlier than war, but are themselves the major factor causing war and other forms of violent conflict. They are a major cause of militarism. Indeed, absolutism, not war, is mankind’s deadliest scourge of all.16 Rummel observes that the essential wisdom to be gained from any study of utopian barbarism, empowered and unlimited, is that “the more freedom in a nation, the fewer people killed by government. Freedom serves as a brake on a governing elite’s power over life and death.”17 (Emphasis added)

And this salutary freedom is itself, of course, the result of keeping government small and strictly contained.

No one who wants to be free should forget Lord Acton’s famous axiom, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” From the Christian perspective, it could more accurately be said that power tends further to corrupt man (any man) because of his already fallen, sinful, corrupt nature. This unfortunate but unassailable fact about government power was duly noted and amply illustrated decades before Rummel’s revelations by Harvard University sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin.


In 1956 Professor Sorokin published the results of his own survey of the criminality of rulers. His study of various heads of state, in a selection large enough to constitute a very fair sample, demonstrated that there was an average of one murderer for every four of these rulers! “In other words,” said Professor Sorokin, “the rulers of the states are the most criminal group in a respective population. With a limitation of their power their criminality tends to decrease; but it still remains exceptionally high in all nations.”18 Commenting on Sorokin’s findings, John Birch Society founder Robert Welch observed:


An obvious reason for this is the greater temptation to criminality on the part of those who control or influence the police power of a nation, of which they would otherwise stand in more fear. Another is that ambitious men with criminal tendencies naturally gravitate into government because of this very prospect of doing, or helping to do, the policing over themselves. A third reason is that so many apologists can always be found, for criminal acts of governments, on the grounds that such acts ultimately contribute to the public good and that therefore the criminal means are justified by the righteous ends.19 Bind Them Down From Mischief


The framers of our constitutional system were hardly unaware of these truths. “Whoever would found a state and make proper laws for the government of it,” said John Adams, “must presume that all men are bad by nature.”20

“If men were angels,” concurred James Madison, “no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”21

The difficulty referred to by these men should be readily appreciated by all who seriously ponder the perennial problems of governance. Aldous Huxley, who was certainly neither a constitutionalist nor a conservative, grasped it well.

Sounding remarkably like Adams and many other early Americans, he noted:

In actual practice how many great men have ever fulfilled, or are ever likely to fulfill, the conditions which alone render power innocuous to the ruler as well as to the ruled?


Obviously, very few. Except by saints, the problem of power is finally insoluble. But since genuine self-government is possible only in very small groups, societies on a national or supernational scale will always be ruled by oligarchical minorities whose members come to power because they have a lust for power.22

Unrestricted “democracy,” that modern political idol, offers no solution to the dilemma. For as John Adams again accurately observed, “We may appeal to every page of history we have hitherto turned over, for proofs irrefragable, that the people, when they have been unchecked, have been as unjust, tyrannical, brutal, barbarous and cruel as any king or senate possessed of uncontrollable power.”23

Adams fully comprehended the fundamental truth of George Washington’s maxim, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”24


In order that it remain the servant and not become the master, it is incumbent upon the citizenry to keep governmental force small, fragmented and decentralized, allowing it only those powers necessary to perform its essential functions, and scrupulously guarding against the temptation to rely on government to do for them what they ought to do for themselves. It was this philosophy of strictly limited government that Thomas Jefferson endorsed in his first inaugural address when he stated:

[A] wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government....25

The key to effectuating this “good government” is, first of all, a moral people. A society of moral people who practice self-restraint, respect the rights and property of others, responsibly provide for themselves and their families, and voluntarily practice charity toward the truly destitute, have no need for large government. But a moral people must also be a wise people if they are not to fall victim to the tyranny of good intentions.


For, as Daniel Webster sagely remarked:

Good intention will always be pleaded for every assumption of power.... It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.26

Always, the would-be masters promise to supply this benefit and inaugurate that program, or to solve this problem and provide for that need. But before they can “give” to one, they must first take from another. To do so, they must assume more power. They say, “trust me.” Thomas Jefferson, who would have none of it, warned that “confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism.... In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”27


Are these “first principles” any less valid today than they were two centuries ago? Has human nature so drastically changed for the better that these warnings should no longer be heeded? Are the rulers of the nations that make up the United Nations saints and angels with whom we may confidently entrust unrestrained powers? More than a hundred million voices of the victims of totalitarianism in this century alone cry out from their graves with a thunderous “NO! NEVER!”


The recent findings of Professor Rummel, together with all the recorded history of our world, echo that cry and solemnly warn those who would indulge such vain hopes and folly that they are inviting global tyranny and democide of a magnitude never seen before on this planet.


Answering UN Clichés

But we will place constitutional limits on the United Nations or any other world-state system.

This is the plea, for instance, of Time magazine’s Editor-at-Large Strobe Talbott (CFR director, TC). His blatant appeal for world government, “The Birth of the Global Nation,” appeared in the July 20, 1992 issue of Time. The global government he envisions, he claims, “is not an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate, but a federation, a union of separate states that allocate certain powers to a central government while retaining many others for themselves.” We hear these explanations and many others like them. Yet who but a fool believes that promises to limit world authority would be kept — even if such commitments were made in good faith by honorable men.

Addressing the Virginia Convention in 1788, Madison stated: “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”28 Jefferson, writing in 1800 about this same concern for our new government, expressed his belief that “a single consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on the earth.”29


Twenty-one years later he remarked, “Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.”30


If these men could entertain such pessimistic views of government and perceive the dangers in their day when government was remarkably smaller, the populace still vigilant, and the constitutional chains still firm, how is it possible that the far greater peril from our own ever-growing government and the incalculable dangers of global government under the UN create so little apprehension? It is painfully obvious to anyone with eyes to see that abridgements of our freedom by gradual and silent encroachments have already proceeded to the point that the federal government has very nearly become our “fearful master.”


And the consolidation and corruption in Washington have indeed followed the grim course outlined by Jefferson, though he could not possibly have imagined the incredible depravity to which government has sunk in our day. Certainly there is nothing in our present predicament to contradict this warning expressed by Jefferson:

When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.31

If Jefferson’s admonition was valid concerning our national government — and it was — it must apply infinitely more to a centralized global government. Considering the past and present makeup of the United Nations membership, the background of the communist criminals and conspirators who founded the organization, and the total lack of fundamental constitutional restraints in the UN Charter to protect against encroachment or usurpation, there can be no excuse whatsoever for any hope that, once vested with increased power, the UN will not abuse it. To restrain growing UN power we must contend against not only the natural tendency toward the accumulation of power in government but also a long-standing, organized conspiracy of powerful forces working to build, piece by piece, step by step, an omnipotent global government.

The Club of Rome asserts that “world policing will have to be provided under the authority of the United Nations,”32 and virtually every day brings new proposals from official sources and private groups for UN policing and control of the environment, the economy, industry — essentially every part of the globe and every aspect of our lives. Strobe Talbott’s assurances notwithstanding, UN conventions on ozone depletion, carbon dioxide and biodiversity, and the massive Agenda 21 program for global ecofascism have the potential all by themselves to turn the UN into “an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate.”

The UN is the world’s last best hope for peace.

This cliche has achieved near universal acceptance because of sheer repetition; it has been repeated so often that people assume it must be true. However, only by some tortured application of Orwellian “Newspeak” can the UN be referred to as a “peace” organization. During the summer of 1945, Ambassador J. Reuben Clark, Jr., one of America’s foremost scholars in the field of international law, prepared an analysis of the UN Charter.


His learned appraisal and cogent remarks fly in the face of popular platitudes and conventional “wisdom” concerning the “revered” document. Ambassador Clark’s examination led him to conclude that the Charter “is a war document not a peace document,” and that it “is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace.”


The Ambassador noted:

[T]here is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war.33 Moreover, said Ambassador Clark, Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.34

The Ambassador’s predictions were soon borne out — first in Korea and then in Vietnam, the first two wars America fought with UN involvement and the only two which the United States has ever failed to win.35


Dr. J. B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and one of America’s outstanding scholars on Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, was but one of many leading Americans who exposed the UN-as-peace-dove myth. Dr. Matthews was not one to mince words. “I challenge the illusion that the UN is an instrument of peace,” he said. “It could not be less of a cruel hoax if it had been organized in Hell for the sole purpose of aiding and abetting the destruction of the United States.”36


Senator William Langer (R-ND), one of only two senators with enough courage and foresight to vote against the UN Charter, said “I feel from the bottom of my heart that the adoption of the Charter ... will mean perpetuating war.”37


The UN’s monstrous war against the people of Katanga should forever lay to rest any reference to the UN as a peace organization. The UN and its supporters may persist in the charade of calling the UN’s warmaking powers “peacemaking” or “peacekeeping,” but no sensible person of goodwill should give the slightest credence to such patently deceitful abuse of language. We cannot have peace as long as the world is divided into warring countries and armaments continue to proliferate. Only a disarmed world under some world authority offers an answer.

Observing that wars are most often between nations, many people mistakenly believe that nationhood itself is the cause of war and have thus fallen for the fallacious argument that an “end to nationhood” would mean an end to war. But what are the causes of war? The Apostle James asked this same question, “From whence come wars and fightings among you?” And he answered, “Come they not here, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not; ye kill and desire to have, and cannot obtain; ye fight and war....” (James 4:1-2).


His answer points us back to the faults of our own human nature. Will forming a world government change man’s basic nature? Obviously not. So how can we expect peace to come from transferring our weapons to a global authority? As Professor Rummel’s research so clearly pointed out, our paramount political concern should be with limiting and restraining existing governments. Creating an unrestrained global bureaucratic behemoth goes in the opposite direction, violates every principle of sound government, and virtually guarantees global democide.

World government, unless it be led by the Prince of Peace, can offer our world no salvation from the troubles that beset us. Even such a New World Order luminary as Princeton professor Richard A. Falk (CFR), a leading “World Peace Through World Law” proponent and a member of the World Order Models Project, has admitted, “There is nothing intrinsic about the idea of world government that precludes elitism, mass poverty, ecological decay, or even large-scale violence.”38


Writing in 1955, Frank Chodorov noted:

Ten years ago the United Nations was ushered into the world as the guarantor of peace. It has failed. Despite that obvious fact, there are many whose faith in some sort of Superstate as an instrument of peace is unshaken, and who lay the failure of the UN to the limitations put upon it by the autonomy of its members. That is to say, they believe in peace through coercion; the more coercion, the more peace.

History cannot give this faith the slightest support. The grandeur that was Rome did not prevent the parts of that empire from coming into conflict with one another nor from rising up against the central authority. Even our American coalition of commonwealths came near breaking up in war, and uprisings have all but disintegrated the British Empire.39 Still, the cult of statism has continued to grow, and, most unfortunately, has converted many believers in the Bible to its cause. They fail to appreciate that statism is not only politically unwise, but is actually an idolatrous, humanist doctrine completely at odds with Christianity.


Concerning this basic and neglected truth, author Douglas R. Groothuis writes:

Christian realism demands that no one political institution claim total power. Since all people are sinners and imperfect, political power should be counterbalanced between various institutions and nations. A centralization of power (statism) in a fallen world is even more dangerous than current national diversity. To put one’s hope for peace and prosperity into a world government and not God is the same idolatry committed by the builders of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9).

The Christian political conscience must reject idolatrous internationalism with as much enthusiasm as it rejects any idolatrous nationalism.40 The UN will be restricted to using its military forces for “collective security” and to supervise disarmament.

All the assurances of the UN and the CFR Establishment notwithstanding, the fact remains that once we have reached the stage “where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force,” we will, by definition, have established a worldwide military dictatorship. At that point, so-called “restrictions” on its use of force will offer about as much protection as the paper on which they are written. As Lord Acton aptly observed:

“Absolute power and restrictions on its exercise cannot exist together. It is but a new form of the old contest between the spirit of true freedom and despotism in its most dexterous disguise.”41

“Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,’” preached Mao Tse-tung. “Our principle is that the Party commands the gun ... All things grow out of the barrel of a gun.”42

Following Mao’s principle, the UN-new world order globalists intend to hold all power by commanding all the guns. If they should succeed, it is certain they would also follow Mao’s program of terror and mass murder.

Nations, like individuals must be made accountable to the rule of law. It is not possible to have world peace without world law. Such appeals are “dangerously misleading,” counseled legal scholar Lyman A. Garber, because they convey “the thought that law has some self-enforcing quality. This is not so. No such thing as ‘law’ exists unless there is the combination of a court, plus adequate force.”43 Which, as former American Bar Association president Frank Holman so logically pointed out, “necessarily adds up to world government.”44 And again we are confronted with the dangerously insoluble problem of power.

Historian Rev. Frederick Copleston, S.J., has observed:

History shows that there never has been a truly world-wide government. It does not exist, never did exist, and never could have existed. Su‡rez maintained as we have seen, that the existence of a single political community for all men is morally impossible and that, even if possible, it would be highly inexpedient. If Aristotle was right, as he was, in saying that it is difficult to govern a very large city properly, it would be far more difficult to govern a world-State.45

Morally impossible, yes. And certainly impossible to govern properly. But the “world-State” as an immoral global dictatorship is rapidly being built. The new world order advocates can prattle all they want about “the rule of law,” but the facts remain that the UN is a completely lawless organization; its charter and its actions are based not on law but on arbitrariness and caprice. And for the UN to become the basis for a fully-functioning world government, the “rule of law” in America (our constitutional system) and in every other nation must be destroyed.

What could we really expect from a world government? Cutting through the syrupy platitudes and deceitful propaganda that usually attend this topic, John F. McManus offered this realistic appraisal in 1979 in his book The Insiders:

  • One: Rather than improve the standard of living for other nations, world government will mean a forced redistribution of all wealth and a sharp reduction in the standard of living for Americans.

  • Two: Strict regimentation will become commonplace, and there will no longer be any freedom of movement, freedom of worship, private property rights, free speech, or the right to publish.

  • Three: World government will mean that this once glorious land of opportunity will become another socialistic nightmare where no amount of effort will produce a just reward.

  • Four: World order will be enforced by agents of the world government in the same way that agents of the Kremlin enforce their rule throughout Soviet Russia today.46

For those who insist on the necessity of “world law,” consider how the United Nations has repeatedly violated its own charter in opposition to the best interests of world peace. Congressman Philip Crane (RIL) made these observations in 1976:

According to Article Four of the Charter of the United Nations, “Membership in the UN is open to all peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter....” Many now seem willing to forget that communist China was condemned by the United Nations for its aggressive role in Korea. In fact, the UN went to war to protect South Korea against Communist aggression. Now, by stretching the definition found in Article Four to include Communist China, the UN has shown that its own Charter is irrelevant to its real operating procedures. It has now embraced the philosophy of “universality,” a phrase not found in the Charter, rather than the concept of “peace-loving,” which is specifically set forth. Yet “universality” does not cover Taiwan, which has been expelled; Rhodesia, against whom an embargo has been declared; or the Republic of South Africa.47

It is a cruel mockery even to speak of world law, world peace, and world government emanating from an organization that welcomes, honors, and treats as members-in-good-standing the world’s premier criminals and greatest threats to peace.

World federalism merely means extending to the world arena the same federal principles that united American colonists. How could any American oppose that?
Concerning our own federation, leading federalist John Jay had this to say:

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs....48 Can anything remotely similar be said of the United Nations? Do we have any common ground with practitioners of genocide, democide, and religious and political persecution? Should we unite with sponsors of international terrorism and revolution?

The President must have latitude to commit U.S. forces for collective security under the mandate of the UN Charter.

It is to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the UN Charter, that the President (and every other U.S. official) swears an oath when entering office. The Constitution, not the Charter, is still the “supreme law of the land.” The Constitution specifies that Congress alone shall have the power to declare war. Yet, from Korea to Vietnam to the Persian Gulf, our nation has been on an increasingly slippery slope as a result of violating this constitutional provision. In Essay No. 69 of The Federalist Papers, Hamilton carefully explained the executive war powers.


He said:
First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and the navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.49 [Emphasis in original]

This constitutional concept is not difficult to understand; the thinking behind it is marvelously simple.

Abraham Lincoln summarized it this way:

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons.... Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.50 [Emphasis in original]

At least the UN provides a forum where the nations of the world can come together to talk and work out their differences.

If we had some means of assuring that the United Nations would never go beyond that function, it might be tolerable, but the effectiveness of such a forum would still be highly dubious. Author G. Edward Griffin offers the following analogy to illustrate the folly of expecting the UN to be a workable platform for dealing with world grievances:

Consider what would happen if every time a small spat arose between a husband and wife they called the entire neighborhood together and took turns airing their complaints in front of the whole group. Gone would be any chance of reconciliation. Instead of working out their problems, the ugly necessity of saving face, proving points, and winning popular sympathy would likely drive them further apart. Likewise, public debates in the UN intensify international tensions. By shouting their grievances at each other, countries allow their differences to assume a magnitude they would otherwise never have reached. Quiet diplomacy is always more conducive to progress than diplomacy on the stage.51

At the UN, of course, bellicose “diplomacy on the stage” has always been the order of the day. “Not only has the United Nations become a travesty and farce as a unified system of political world government,” noted William Henry Chamberlain long ago, “but its meetings and operations have contributed greatly to international disunity, hostility, and bellicosity. Its meetings provide an unprecedented platform and sounding board for denunciation, vituperation, and bitter accusations.”52


Interdependence is a fact; a return to isolationism would be not only counterproductive, but dangerous.

Isolationism is a bogeyman internationalists trot out every time the American people begin to rebel against globalist, interventionist plotting. The truth is that America has never been “isolationist”; as a people we have always had a vigorous and extensive involvement with the peoples of other countries.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations,” wrote President Washington in his farewell address, “is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”53 (Emphasis in original)

That wise counsel remains completely valid today.

“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?” Washington asked. “Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?” Why indeed? Rather, he said, “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct.”54

His is a true prescription for peace among nations. It was in this same spirit that the 19th century British statesman Richard Cobden declared: “Peace will come to this earth when her peoples have as much as possible to do with each other; their governments the least possible.”55


In foreign relations as in all other areas of public affairs, government involvement beyond what is absolutely necessary was wisely viewed with suspicion and alarm during our republic’s early history. Until the ascendancy of the CFR foreign policy elitists in our State Department, private citizens engaging in real people-to-people exchange — through commerce, tourism and educational, charitable and church contacts — were considered far better ambassadors of goodwill than were professional diplomats. And they provided far less opportunity for getting America involved in foreign quarrels and intrigues.

John Quincy Adams’s “isolationist” position commends itself well to our era and offers a philosophical compass to guide us out of much of our current distress.


Adams said:

America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.56

From Liberty to Force For failing to heed the wise counsel of these founding patriots and allowing conspiratorial internationalists to lead us into schemes of global conquest, we have already paid dearly in blood and treasure. However, a far higher price may soon be extracted. Unless sufficient numbers of Americans awaken shortly from their slumber, they will find they have joined the long list of this world’s victims who have paid for their lethargy with their liberty, their property, their countries, and their lives.


While Americans exult at the “end of the Cold War” and the supposed triumph of capitalism over communism, America is being transformed (a favorite word of the Insider globalists) before our very eyes into Amerika. The globalists call this transformation convergence: an ex-USSR and soon-to-be ex- America will be merged with all nations into a new world order UN superstate.


Recognizing this phenomenon years ago, historians Will and Ariel Durant wrote in their 1968 philosophical retrospective, The Lessons of History:

Socialism in Russia is now restoring individualistic motives to give its system greater productive stimulus.... Meanwhile capitalism undergoes a correlative process of limiting individualistic acquisition by semi-socialistic legislation and the redistribution of wealth through the “welfare state.” ... [I]f the Hegelian formula of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is applied to the Industrial Revolution as thesis, and to capitalism versus socialism as antithesis, the third condition would be a synthesis of capitalism and socialism; and to this reconciliation the Western world visibly moves. Year by year the role of Western governments in the economy rises, the share of the private sector declines.... East is West and West is East, and soon the twain will meet.57 [Emphasis added]

While the Durants fairly accurately described the fact of what has been occurring, they inaccurately gave the impression that the process results from disembodied Hegelian forces over which we have no control. And from their matter-of-fact description of the final “synthesis,” one could be easily misled into thinking it is nothing to get alarmed about.

But it is time to get alarmed! Americans have already ignored far too many danger signals. Far too few paid heed in the 1950s and ’60s when Norman Dodd warned of the U.S.-Soviet merger plan as it was told to him by one of the planners, Rowan Gaither. The East-West synthesis now underway is not the result of unstoppable, blind, historical forces, but the consequence of the purposeful, long-range planning and actions of evil men.

The nation should have come to full attention in December 1987 when Senator Jesse Helms, in a speech before the U.S. Senate, exposed and denounced the CFR-Trilateral plans for U.S.-USSR merger.

“A careful examination of what is happening behind the scenes,” he said, “reveals that all of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create what some refer to as a new world order.”

Moreover, said Helms:

In the globalist point of view, nation-states and national boundaries do not count for anything. Political philosophies and political principles seem to become simply relative. Indeed, even constitutions are irrelevant to the exercise of power. Liberty and tyranny are viewed as neither necessarily good nor evil, and certainly not a component of policy. In this point of view, the activities of international financial and industrial forces should be oriented to bringing this one-world design — with a convergence of the Soviet and American systems as its centerpiece — into being.58

Americans should also have paid sharp notice nearly a decade earlier when Senator Barry Goldwater sounded a similar warning. In his 1979 personal and political memoir, With No Apologies, the Arizona senator wrote:

In my view the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power — political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical....

Freedom — spiritual, political, economic — is denied any importance in the Trilateral construction of the next century....

What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved.... As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future.59

What kind of future will that be? Almost a decade before Senator Goldwater’s warning, in a speech entitled “Which World Will It Be?” Robert Welch outlined our current situation with remarkable prescience. Speaking in Atlanta, Georgia in August 1970, he warned:

The United Nations hopes and plans — or, more accurately, the Insiders, the Conspiratorial bosses above it, hope and plan for it — to use population controls, ecological or environmental controls, controls over scientific and technological developments, control over the arms and military strength of individual nations, control over education, control over health, and all the controls it can gradually establish under all of the different excuses for international jurisdiction that it can devise. These variegated separate controls are to become components of the gradually materializing total control that it expects to achieve by pretense, deception, persuasion, beguilement, and falsehoods, while the enforcement of such controls by brutal force and terror is also getting under way.60

To most Americans at that time, Welch’s alarm probably would have sounded, well, “alarmist.” It was too far ahead of the managed news they were accustomed to receiving from the Establishment media. That should not be the case today. The “news” is just as managed, but those who are not willfully blind can now see the prison walls rising about them on all sides. Many are finally beginning to recognize, as Senator Taft eventually did, that the UN is a trap.


Even so, many are still reluctant to grasp consciously that the approaching world order will entail the use of “brutal force and terror” — right here in America. Unless we face up to the whole, brutal truth, however, we are deceiving ourselves, and we run the terrible risk of contenting ourselves with ineffectual, half-hearted efforts at resistance.


Project Their Track Record

We are deceiving ourselves if we think that the Insider globalists who have consistently supported democidal totalitarian regimes all over this planet will spare Americans from the same gruesome fate already suffered by millions of victims of the New World Order. Consider, for instance, David Rockefeller, current patriarch of the Rockefeller empire.


For 15 years, he was chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (of which he is still a member). He founded and remains honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission. For many years, he was chairman of the board at Chase Manhattan Bank. As the recognized “Chairman of the Establishment,” he is one of the foremost partisans for world government under the UN.


Rockefeller had this to say after visiting mass murderer Mao Tse-tung in 1973:

Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose....
The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.61

Just one chairman to another, right? Equally at home in Moscow or Beijing, Rockefeller then sent these greetings to his Kremlin comrades in November 1977: “My congratulations on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the October Revolution.”62


Congratulations? To the totalitarian monsters who are responsible for the heinous crimes cataloged by Professor Rummel? But Chairman David’s support hasn’t been limited merely to words. He and his banker friends have showered the communist world with billions of dollars in loans (guaranteed and subsidized by the American taxpayers).63


More importantly, he and his CFR confreres directing American foreign policy opened the official U.S. aid spigots to the communist world, allowing the massive transfusions of capital, technology, and expertise that have saved the Marxist-Leninist totalitarians from collapse time after time and helped the communist butchers to consolidate control over much of the earth.64 For half a century, the CFR elitists have controlled or greatly influenced much of our government’s foreign and domestic policies.


They have betrayed us at every turn. Consider the following small sampling of betrayals leading to their new world order:

  • In order to frighten Americans into world government through the ostensible threat of nuclear confrontation, they built the USSR into a nuclear superpower with transfusions of nuclear materials and technology for accurate missile guidance systems and mirving capabilities.65

  • They initiated as the cornerstone of American strategic “defense” the indefensibly insane policy of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD), whereby the American people would be held permanently hostage by the threat of nuclear annihilation from a totalitarian, megalomaniacal enemy. Moreover, they frustrated nearly every effort at civil or antiballistic missile defense, even as the Soviet Union pushed forward with massive efforts in both areas.66

  • Tens of thousands of our finest men — sons, fathers, brothers — have been killed or left captive in wars they were not allowed to win. CFR policy makers tied their hands with impossible restrictions. After abandoning our POW/MIAs to lasting captivity, they lied and covered up evidence of POW survival and thwarted all investigations.67

  • They have bankrupted our nation with “foreign aid” that has been used for decades to fund communism, socialism, and one-worldism around the globe.68

  • One anti-communist ally after another has been betrayed and destroyed by the CFRcontrolled State Department and the CFR-controlled media. An abbreviated list of those betrayals would include Eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Chile, Katanga, Rhodesia, the Philippines, and South Africa.69

  • They have supported the most brutal terrorist groups and communist “liberation” movements worldwide.70

  • They have sabotaged our constitutional process by capturing the party machinery of both major parties in order to control the selection of presidential candidates.71

  • They have subverted our constitutional system by fastening on America Marxist programs like the graduated income tax and the Federal Reserve central banking system.72

  • They are leading the call for a new constitutional convention in order to overthrow completely our constitutional order.73


Reversing the Course

Throughout the years since its founding in 1958, The John Birch Society carried forth a lonely crusade to warn the American public of the deadly peril to our nation and our liberty from the United Nations.

With an ever-increasing arsenal of books, pamphlets, flyers, films, filmstrips, audio tapes, petitions, billboards and other educational materials, Society members continued to expose the corrupt, bloody record of the UN megalomaniacs and their sordid New World Order plans for global dictatorship. Gradually, those educational efforts paid off. Public support for the UN declined dramatically. The non- CFR-controlled media became better informed and began to take a more critical look at UN activities. During the late 1970s, members of the Society collected over 11 million signatures on petitions urging Congress to “Get US out! of the United Nations.”

In the mid 1980s, however, the Establishment media commenced an enormous pro-UN propaganda campaign playing off U.S.-Soviet arms treaties, Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost, alleged global ecological crises, refugee and famine relief, Middle East peacekeeping, and other high-profile activities designed not only to rehabilitate the UN’s tarnished image, but to make the global menagerie on New York’s East River appear indispensable to man’s survival. It worked.


Opinion polls began to show increasing support for the United Nations. Then came the Persian Gulf War. President George Bush and his fellow globalists magnificently exploited the patriotic fervor it elicited to promote their the UN-New World Order plans. They are still riding high; but that could begin to change very rapidly, as the information in this book becomes more widely known.

America’s pro-UN attitude must begin to change very rapidly if we are to have a realistic chance of averting global tyranny and worldwide democide. That will not happen unless significant numbers of Americans join the fight to “Get US out! of the United Nations,” to stop the New World Order, and to preserve American independence.

“If we wish to be free,” declared Patrick Henry in a time of similar peril, “if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending ... we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!”74


When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
• Edmund Burke (April 23, 1770)

Since 1958, members of The John Birch Society have been working to expose the drive for totalitarian world government. For more information about The John Birch Society’s programs, write:

The John Birch Society
P. O. Box 8040
Appleton, WI 54913



1. U.S. Senator Robert Taft, quoted by Representative James B. Utt, Congressional Record House, January 15, 1962.
2. U.S. Senator Patrick McCarran, quoted by G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations (Apple, WI: Western Islands, 1964), p. 158.
3. U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater, Congressional Record, October 26, 1971, p. S 16764, quoted by Robert W. Lee, The United Nations Conspiracy (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1981), p. 194.
4. Herbert Hoover, quoted by Representative James B. Utt, Congressional Record, January 15, 1962.
5. Robert Welch, The Blue Book of The John Birch Society (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1959), p. 125.
6. Jane H. Ingraham, “The Consequence of Error,” The New American November 24, 1986.
7. R. J. Rummel, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder since 1917 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1990), p. xi.
8. Ibid., pp. 191, 217, 3-4. Professor Rummel places the number of victims killed during the “Postwar and Stalin’s twilight period, 1945-1953,” at 15,613,000. For the “Post-Stalin period, 1954-1987, his research indicated a toll of around 6,872,000 victims.
9. Ibid., p. 5.
10. R. J. Rummel, “War Isn’t This Century’s Biggest Killer,” Wall Street Journal, July 7, 1986.
11. Ibid.
12. The following books recount the human cost of Communism: The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; The Great Terror by Robert Conquest; The Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest; Kolyma by Robert Conquest; Execution by Hunger by Miron Dolot; Utopia in Power by Mikhail Heller; The Ordeal of the Captive Nations by Hawthorne Daniel; The Uses of Terror by Boris Lewytzkyj; Chekisty by John J. Dziak; Murder of a Gentle Land by John Barron and Anthony Paul.
13. Rummel, Lethal Politics, p. 9.
14. Ibid., pp. 11-12.
15. G. Edward Griffin, “More Deadly Than War,” transcript of a filmed lecture (Thousand Oaks, CA: American Media, 1968).
16. Rummel, Wall Street Journal.
17. Ibid.
18. Pitirim A. Sorokin quoted in Welch, p. 119.
19. Welch, pp. 119-20.
20. John Adams, quoted by Philip M. Crane, The Sum of Good Government (Ottawa, IL: Green Hill, 1976.), p. 3.
21. James Madison, Essay No. 51, in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers (New York: Mentor, 1961), p. 322.
22. Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy (London: Collins, 1958), pp. 133-34.
23. John Adams, quoted by Crane, p. 3.
24. George Washington, quoted by Griffin, The Fearful Master (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1964), p. 196.
25. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801, quoted in A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. I (New York: Bureau of National Literature, 1897), p. 311.
26. Daniel Webster, quoted by Lyman A. Garber, Of Men and Not of Law: How the Courts are Usurping the Political Function (New York: Devin-Adair, 1966), p. 170.
27. Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions.
28. James Madison, speech in the Virginia Convention, June 16, 1788, quoted by John Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1980), p. 398.
29. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Gideon Granger, Monticello, August 1800, quoted by John P. Foley (ed.), The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 130.
30. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Nathaniel Macon, Monticello, 1821, quoted by Foley (ed.), p. 130.
31. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to C. Hammond, Monticello, 1821, quoted by Foley (ed.), p. 133.
32. Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution, a report by the Council of The Club of Rome (NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1991), p. 149.
33. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., quote by Lee, p. 35.
34. Ibid.
35. Both the Korean War and Vietnam War were fought under the auspices of SEATO (the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization) a regional alliance under the authority of the United Nations. SEATO was formed in 1954 under the guiding hand of John Foster Dulles for the purpose of involving the U.S. militarily in Southeast Asia. The SEATO treaty states:
Article 1. The parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations ... and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 4. ... [Military] Measures taken under this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations.... In Korea, CFR Insiders allowed the UN to dictate the “no-win” policies that guaranteed heavy losses of our soldiers and, ultimately, defeat. Secretary of Defense George Marshall admitted that the U.S. “hot pursuit” policy allowing our pilots to pursue attacking enemy aircraft back into their own territory was abandoned because the policy had failed to win UN support. Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated:
“There have been resolutions of the General Assembly which make clear the course that the General Assembly thinks wise; and the United States is endeavoring to follow the course which has tremendous international support and is not contemplating taking unilateral steps of its own.”
General Douglas MacArthur, in explaining the unprecedented and unconscionable restrictions placed on his military options said: “I realized for the first time that I had actually been denied the use of my full military power to safeguard the lives of my soldiers and the safety of my army. To me, it clearly foreshadowed a future tragic situation in Korea, and left me with a sense of inexpressible shock.”
Through the UN, the Communist forces were kept informed of “allied” military plans and operations.
General MacArthur stated: “That there was some leak in intelligence was evident to everyone. [Brigadier General Walton] Walker continually complained to me that his operations were known to the enemy in advance through sources in Washington.” General Mark Clark said: “I could not help wondering and worrying whether we were faced with open enemies across the conference table and hidden enemieswho sat with us in our most secret councils.”
Red Chinese General Lin Piao made this shocking admission: “I would never have made the attack and risked my men and military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication.” He knew the fix was in in Washington.
For more in-depth coverage of the Korean and Vietnam betrayals, see especially: Robert W. Lee, The United Nations Conspiracy (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1981), Chap. 5, “Korea,” pp. 51-60; G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations (Apple, WI: Western Islands, 1964), Chapter 14, “A Substitute for Victory,” pp. 169-83; James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations And The American Decline (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1988), Chap. 6, “The Truman Era,” pp. 81-83, and Chap. 8, “The Estab’s War in Vietnam,” pp. 120-35; Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964); Mark Clark, From the Danube to the Yalu (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954); and Hilaire du Berrier, Background to Betrayal: The Tragedy of Vietnam (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1965).
36. J. B. Matthews, quoted by Griffin, The Fearful Master, p. 158.
37. Griffin, The Fearful Master, p. 158.
38. Richard A. Falk, quoted by Mark Satin, New Age Politics: Healing Self and Society (West Vancouver, B.C.: Whitecap Books, 1978), p. 127.
39. Frank Chodorov, “One Worldism,” The Freeman, March 1955, p. 334.
40. Douglas R. Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), p. 128.
41. Lord Acton, quoted in The Freeman, March 1955, p. 373.
42. Mao Tse-tung, “Problems of War and Strategy” (November 6, 1938), Selected Works, Vol II, (Peking).
43. Lyman A. Garber, Of Men and Not of Law: How the Courts are Usurping the Political Function (New York: Devin-Adair, 1966), p. 7.
44. Frank E. Holman, “The Problems of the World Court and the Connally Reservation,” a pamphlet (Seattle, WA: Frayn Printing Co., Seattle, July 25, 1960), quoted in Garber, p. 8.
45. Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy, Volume III: Ockham to Suarez (New York: Doubleday, 1963), p. 397.
46. John F. McManus, The Insiders: Architects of the New World Order, (3rd ed.) (Appleton, WI: The John Birch Society, 1992), p. 20.
47. Crane, p. 63.
48. John Jay, Essay No. 2 in The Federalist Papers, p. 38.
49. Alexander Hamilton, Essay No. 69 in The Federalist Papers, p. 417-18.
50. Abraham Lincoln to William H. Hendon, quoted by John F. McManus, “Sins of Our Fathers,” The New American, April 9, 1991, p. 25.
51. Griffin, p. 229.
52. William Henry Chamberlain, “The Bankruptcy of a Policy,” in Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers, 1953), p. 523.
53. George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796, quoted in A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. I, p. 214.
54. Ibid., pp. 213-15.
55. Richard Cobden, quoted by Welch, p. 150.
56. John Quincy Adams, quoted by Barnes (ed.), frontpiece.
57. Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), pp. 66-67.
58. Senator Jesse Helms, Congressional Record, December 15, 1987, p. S 18146.
59. Barry M. Goldwater, With No Apologies (New York: William Morrow & Co., 1979), pp. 284-85.
60. Robert Welch, “Which World Will It Be?,” American Opinion Reprint Series (Appleton, WI: The John Birch Society, 1970), p. 23.
61. David Rockefeller, “From A China Traveler,” New York Times, August 10, 1973.
62. David Rockefeller, quoted in the Soviet New Times, November, 1977, reported by The Review Of The News, January 18, 1978, p.59.
63. See volumes on Western aid to the Soviet Union by Evans, Finder, Sutton, et al. listed in Chapter 2, endnote 27. Also see: Werner Keller, East Minus West = Zero (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1962); Sol Sanders, Living Off the West (New York: Madison Books, 1990); Jane H. Ingraham, “The Great Wealth Transfer: Establishing the New International Economic Order,” The New American, May 8, 1989.
64. Ibid. See also: Aid and Trade Documents: A Compilation (Appleton, WI: Larry McDonald Crusade, revised and updated July 1987); Testimony of Lawrence J. Brady, Acting Director of Export Administration, before House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Research and
Development, May 24, 1979; Richard E. Band, “The Traders: Selling Rope for the Hanging,” American Opinion, January 1974.
See also the following articles from The New American: John W. Robbins, “Birds of a Feather: American and Soviet traders are flocking together,” April 27, 1987; Kirk Kidwell, “Bolsheviks Bankrupt at 70,” October 26, 1987; James J. Drummey, “Building the Evil Empire,” July 20, 1987; Drummey, “By Trade Betrayed,” February 12, 1990; Drummey, “Defenseless: Our Patriot and Other High-Tech Giveaways,” April 9, 1991.
65. See for examples: George Racey Jordan USAF (Ret.), Major Jordan’s Diaries (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1952); Medford Evans, The Secret War for the A-Bomb (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953); Antony C. Sutton, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (Billings, MT: Liberty House Press, 1986); John Barron, KGB Today: The Hidden Hand (New York: Reader’s Digest Press, 1983).
66. See for examples: Gregory A. Fossedal and Daniel O. Graham, A Defense That Defends, (Old Greenwich, CT: The Devin-Adair Company, 1983); Daniel O. Graham, High Frontier (New York: Thomas Doherty Associates, 1983); Quentin Crommelin, Jr. and David S. Sullivan, Soviet Military Supremacy: The Untold Facts (Los Angeles: Defense and Strategic Studies Program, University of Southern California, 1985); Brian D. Dailey and Patrick J. Parker, editors, Soviet Strategic Deception (Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1987); M. Stanton Evans, The Politics of Surrender (New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1966); Joseph D. Douglas and Neil C. Livingston, America the Vulnerable: The Threat of Chemical/Biological Warfare (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1987).
67. The following book and reports provide extensive evidence of intentional abandonment of known POWs to lasting captivity: U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Republican Staff, An Examination of U.S. Policy Toward POW/MIAs (Washington, DC: U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Republican Staff, May 23, 1991); Monika Jensen-Stevenson and William Stevenson, Kiss the Boys Goodbye (New York: Dutton, 1990); POW/MIA Policy and Process, hearings before the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, United States Senate, two volumes (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992).
The following selection from The New American represent a sampling of the many articles on the POW/MIA issue that have appeared in that magazine over the years and will provide the reader with a good overview of the coverups, the betrayals, and the facts concerning our missing soldiers from World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam: John M. G. Brown and Thomas V. Ashworth, “Mikhail Gorbachev, Let Our People Go,” a two-part series, May 21, 1990 and June 4, 1990; William F. Jasper, “Official Policy: Abandon POWs,” February 12, 1991; Jasper, “They Deserve to Come Home,” September 10, 1991; Sarah E. Foster, “Pentagon Flim-Flam Masters,” and Jasper, “Bring Them Home!” September 24, 1991; Jasper, “Betrayed in Action,” November 19, 1991; William P. Hoar, “President Bush to POW/MIA Families: ‘Shut Up and Sit Down,’” August 24, 1992.
68. See for examples: Herman H. Dinsmore, The Bleeding of America (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1974); James J. Drummey, “Building the Evil Empire,” The New American, July 20, 1987; Robert W. Lee, “International Welfare,” The New American, March 23, 1992.
69. See the following: Arthur Bliss Lane (U. S. Ambassador to Poland, 1944-1947), I Saw Poland Betrayed (Bobb-Merrill Company, 1948); John T. Flynn, While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951); Robert Welch, May God Forgive Us (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1952); Earl E. T. Smith, U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, 1957-59, The Fourth Floor: An Account of the Castro Communist Revolution (New York: Random House, 1962); William J. Gill, The Ordeal of Otto Otepka (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1969).
For evidence of more recent betrayals see: Anastasio Somosa and Jack Cox, Nicaragua Betrayed (Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1980); Henry R. Pike, A History of Communism in South Africa, (Primrose Hill, Germiston, South Africa: Christian Mission International of South Africa, 1985); Warren L. McFerran, The Betrayal of Southern Africa (Winter Park, FL: Garfield Publishing Corp., 1985); David B. Funderburk, Pinstripes and Reds: An American Ambassador Caught Between the State Department and the Romanian Communists, 1981-1985 (Washington, DC: Selous Foundation Press, 1987).
See also the following articles from The New American: James J. Drummey “The Captive Nations: How they were captured and why they are still enslaved,” July 14, 1986; Robert W. Lee, “No Accident: The continuing betrayal of American interests is amatter of policy,” March 30, 1987, Warren F. McFerran, “[South Africa] On the Edge,” October 22, 1990.
70. See for examples: Pike, op. cit.; McFerran, op. cit.; and William P. Hoar “Making of a Monster,” The New American, September 7, 1992, which shows how Insiders Kissinger, Bush, Baker, Eagleburger provided critical weapons technology to Saddam Hussein even while he was known as a primary sponsor of international terrorism.
See also the annual reports of the Council on Foreign Relations, which include a roster of the speakers who have addressed CFR programs. These have traditionally included many foreign communist leaders, even those heading terrorist organizations. Besides Nelson Mandela, officials of the communist/terrorist ANC (African National Congress) who have graced the CFR dais include Thabo Mbeki, John Samuel and Chris Hani. Other terrorist leaders and supporters who have enjoyed honored slots on the CFR’s Meetings Program include Joe Slovo, General-Secretary of South African Communist Party; Sam Nujoma and Andimba Toivo ja Toivo of SWAPO (Southwest Africa Peoples Organization); Robert Mugabe of ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union); Joshua Nkomo of ZAPU (Zimbabwe African People’s Union); Guillermo Ungo of the National Revolutionary Movement of El Salvador; Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.
71. See for examples: Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (Rossmoor, CA: Concord Press, 1971); Allen, The Rockefeller File (Seal Beach, CA: ’76 Press, 1976); James Perloff, The Shadows of Power; and Robert W. Lee, “The Power Behind the Throne,” The New American, September 21, 1992.
72. See for examples: Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy; Perloff, The Shadows of Power; and Robert Adelmann, “The Federal Reserve System,” The New American, October 27, 1986.
73. See for examples: Donald L. Robinson (ed.), Reforming American Government; James MacGregor Burns, The Power to Lead (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1984); Perloff, The Shadows of Power, Chap. 14, “On the Threshold of a New World Order,” pp. 199-208; Don Fotheringham, “The Con-Con Network,” The New American, February 10, 1992.
74. Patrick Henry, speech in Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775, quoted by Bartlett’s, p. 383.

Back to Contents