DP Tool Club 17/CD_ASCQ_17_101194.iso/vrac/gungrab2.zip/091994N2.TXT

Text File | 1994-09-10 | 22KB | 436 lines

=================================================================
The BIRCH BARK BBS / 414-242-5070
=================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- September 19, 1994
Copyright 1994 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913    414-749-3784

==================================================================

ARTICLE: Front Page
TITLE: "Gun Grabbers' Global Gestapo"
       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AUTHOR: William F. Jasper

==================================================================

That the citizens of the United States of America are being
disarmed -- both as individuals and as a nation -- can hardly be
questioned. Succumbing to the siren promises of peace and safety,
we are giving up our weapons to Godless global planners, who in
turn are delivering us over to enemies -- both foreign and domestic
-- who despise the foundations upon which our beloved nation was
founded.

A major problem for the American people in recognizing the terrible
danger and treachery involved in our disarmament is the fact that
it has been occurring as a gradual process rather than a single,
discreet act. Domestic disarmament ("gun control") and national
disarmament ("international arms control") have been proceeding
simultaneously over the past 30 years, promoted by the same
subversive forces. The gun control "movement," if allowed to
succeed, will result in an unarmed American citizenry cowering
before street criminals and completely subject to a totalitarian
dictatorship run by even more dangerous criminals in Washington.
The arms control "movement," meanwhile, is pushing us ever closer,
and at an accelerating pace, toward a global tyranny in which
control over our military has been relinquished to an all-powerful
United Nations.

The central problem for the American people, however, in
recognizing the danger before us, is our collective blindness due
to the intellectual, moral, and spiritual disarmament we have
already permitted. The popular notions that guns cause crime and
that armies and military weapons cause war -- and that the
solution, therefore, is to disarm completely individuals and
nations and transfer all weapons to a single governing authority --
are frightening manifestations of the extent of that disarmament.
It is a sad reflection of the abandonment of the Christian
worldview, which holds that war and crime are caused by men
yielding to the sinful impulses of their fallen nature and
violating the laws of God and society. The solution then, is
two-fold: to work for the increase of virtue through the conversion
of sinners, and to establish and maintain a just social order that
recognizes the right, and allows the means, of both the individual
and the nation-state to self-defense.

Jesus Christ himself taught: "When a strong man armed keepeth his
court, those things are in peace which he possesseth. But if a
stronger than he come upon him and overcome him, he will take away
all his armour wherein he trusted, and will distribute his spoils"
(Luke 11:21-22). Obviously, it is important to be armed physically,
but trust in material arms is foolish if we do not also "put on the
whole armour of God" (Ephesians 6:13).

If we are to remain a free people, it is essential for Americans to
be both spiritually and physically armed -- as individuals and as
a nation. Unfortunately, we have allowed evil men to sow the seeds
of individual and national disarmament -- both spiritually and
materially -- for decades.

Global Gun Control

Many Americans undoubtedly were alarmed to read in their newspapers
on May 24, 1994 a story by Associated Press reporter Charles J.
Hanley on a new United Nations 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.

That same day, the Washington Times, in an article entitled "U.S.
OKs study of U.N. gun control," reported on the same development:

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....

Naturally, in the United Nations, where the vast majority of member
states are authoritarian regimes, "harmonization" means that
American citizens must yield their rights for the common "global
good." The UN Charter, of course, like most of the national
constitutions of UN member states, recognizes no God-given
individual rights and certainly no individual right to keep and
bear arms.

Bureaucratic Runaround

Considering the brazen assault this represents on a fundamental
human right and on American national sovereignty, 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 The New
American 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 State, 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. 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, 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 [on disarmament]" on the group's proposed agenda "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 encourage the establishment
of policy that will have "binding effect"? No, no, he laughed. Its
purpose is simply to encourage "debate and discussion."

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.

High-Level Treason

The attitudes of American officials, who have taken an oath of
office to defend and protect the Constitution, are far more
troubling. Unfortunately, it will come as a shock to most Americans
to learn that the proposal and "discussion" of UN gun controls
applicable to U.S. citizens is not new. It is the culmination of a
program of national disarmament launched by U.S. officials over 30
years ago. The program was unveiled at the UN on September 25, 1961
by President Kennedy. Entitled Freedom From War: The United States
Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World,
this document is one of the most revolutionary and subversive
proposals ever put forward by any government official. Incredibly,
the program originally introduced in this document became -- and
remains -- official U.S. government policy.

In short, Freedom From War is a proposal for the complete surrender
of the United States armed forces to the United Nations. It calls
for a three-stage disarmament process leading to the transfer of
all national military forces -- including those of the U.S. and the
USSR -- to the United Nations, and the establishment of a UN Peace
Force as the unchallengeable global military power.

In its own words, Freedom From War (pages 18-19) 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....

Pages 3 and 4 of Freedom From War list these "specific objectives
toward which nations should direct their efforts":

* The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition
of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those
required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a
United Nations Peace Force;

* The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments,
including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their
delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace
Force and for maintaining internal order...."

On the last page (page 19) of this treasonous document we read:

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.

Please note that this puts the U.S. government on record in support
of a plan to make all nations subservient to the UN; and that "all
armaments" not controlled by the UN would be destroyed, leaving the
UN as the virtual global dictator. And since no provision is made
for an exemption of arms owned by private citizens (and since the
UN itself is hardly sympathetic to private gun ownership), it is
reasonable to assume that private arms are intended for destruction
under the term "all armaments."

To initiate this 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
defined 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..." (emphasis added).

It cannot be stressed too strongly that just as domestic gun
control does not mean the total elimination of all firearms,
neither does international disarmament mean the total elimination
of all armies, armaments, and nuclear weapons. It is no more
possible to eliminate all guns than it is to put the nuclear genie
back in the lamp. In both cases, what really is being proposed is
the transfer of control over all weapons to a central government,
resulting in the concentration of force and the creation of a
monopoly of power. In the case of domestic gun control, that means
an all-powerful police state. In the case of international
disarmament, it means an all-powerful global police state.

In its Second Annual Report to Congress (February 1963), the ACDA
presented a simple graphic depiction (see above) demonstrating its
proposed three-stage disarmament process. Observe that in Stage
III, as explained in Freedom From War, 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.

CFR Connection

How is it possible that such a patently treasonous and suicidal
proposal could become official U.S. policy, embedded in U.S. laws
and U.S.-ratified treaties? As with so many other treacherous acts,
policies, and programs of the past several decades, the trail leads
to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a group Harvard
historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (who was himself a CFR member and
a special assistant to President Kennedy) has called the "front
organization" for "the heart of the American Establishment." Former
CFR member Admiral Chester Ward charged the organization with
"promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and
national independence into an all-powerful one-world government."

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), all three 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.

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 the Council on Foreign Relations. He was an adviser to nine
Presidents and sat on the board of directors of many corporations.
Few would dispute journalist Richard Rovere's characterization of
McCloy as "chairman of the American Establishment."

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. He
defended identified communist John Carter Vincent and supported
pro-communist atomic scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer. 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.
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. Dean
was also chairman of the U.S. delegation for two years to the UN
disarmament conferences in Geneva. Following the death of John
Foster Dulles (CFR), Dean became the senior partner in the Insider
law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. He was vice chairman of the
Institute for Pacific Relations (IPR), the communist-run outfit
most responsible -- together with our State Department -- for
turning China over to the communists in 1949. When IPR member
Alfred Kohlberg tried heroically to expose the treason within IPR,
it was Dean who scuttled the investigation. 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." 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.

Yet Dean and McCloy, with the help of their CFR associates in the
Establishment media, passed themselves off as Republicans, and
conservative, anti-communist Republicans at that.

"Shock Treatment"

Another important influence on the Kennedy-CFR disarmament plan was
Establishment Wall Street lawyer Grenville Clark. McCloy had worked
closely with Clark in the Military Training Camps Association.
Clark was vice president of the globalist United World Federalists
and co-author with Professor Louis B. Sohn (CFR) of World Peace
Through World Law (1958). "It has been well said," averred 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."

He spelled out that "shock treatment" in World Peace Through World
Law, a detailed plan for socialist world government through a
revised UN Charter. This text, venerated by all "world order"
advocates, 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." "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."

But, say the authors, "it must be recognized that even with the
complete elimination of all 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."
Accordingly, "the United Nations Peace Force shall be regularly
provided with the most modern weapons and equipment," and with
special provision being made "for the use of nuclear weapons in
extreme circumstances."

Moreover, Chapter 3, Article 14 of the Clark/Sohn UN scheme 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.

The 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 in so far as the
General Assembly may authorize...." Moreover, "every nation shall
obtain a special license from the [UN] Inspector-General for: ...
The 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."

And what if you fail to turn in or register, say, your .22 rifle,
your .38 pistol, or your gun powder and reloading equipment, and
you are charged with unlawful possession of "military equipment"
under the UN General Assembly's ever-changing regulations? A UN
tribunal will be your judge and jury. Clark and Sohn say:

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.

The Hour Is Late

The diabolical plan for total national and individual disarmament
spelled out by Clark and Sohn in 1958 was initiated by the CFR
coterie in the Kennedy Administration and has been carried forward
by CFR one-worlders in each successive Administration. This
conspiracy for empowering the United Nations with unprecedented and
unparalleled force, if allowed to succeed, would establish a global
tyranny so monstrous that the murderous regimes of Hitler, Stalin,
and Mao would pale by comparison.

Our Founding Fathers provided us with the tools to fight this
Godless drive. But for too long good Americans have allowed a state
of slumber to overtake them, until now "the night is far spent."
Though the hour is late, with diligent effort we can yet reclaim
our heritage of freedom.

This article (under a different title) and the infamous Freedom
From War document have been added to our new Fall/Winter 1994
edition of "Toward a Police State." See the ad on page 40 for
ordering information.

END OF ARTICLE

==================================================================

THE NEW AMERICAN -- September 19, 1994
Copyright 1994 -- American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI  54913

SUBSCRIPTIONS: $39.00/year (26 issues)

ATTENTION SYSOPS: Permission to repost articles from The New
American may be obtained from the above address.

==================================================================