Source: The New American, Vol. 10, No. 19, September 19, 1994
Gun Grabbers’ Global Gestapo
by 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 rounded.
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 fighter 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 multi-billion-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.
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.
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 quantifies 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.
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 résumé, 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, anticommunist Republicans at that.
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.