Freedom First Society

Gun Grab Cover-up

“Gun control advocates and Democratic lawmakers are keeping the pressure on President Trump and Republicans to act on gun reform even as other controversies threaten to consume the spotlight nearly three weeks after a school shooting that left 17 people dead in South Florida.” — The Hill, 3-4-18

Much of the media and numerous politicians would have us believe that the easy availability of guns is responsible for the recent mass murder of 17 Florida high school students, i.e., the weapon caused the crime. The media would also have us believe that the survivors of the mass shooting are now unanimous advocates of more gun control as the solution. At the same time, the media covers up the revolutionary organization and totalitarian objectives driving the gun-control agenda, while retailing the fiction that the gun-control movement is only interested in promoting “gun safety.”

In her February 28th column, Ann Coulter gave us good reason to question the media-created impression that all the school’s shooting survivors are now passionate gun control advocates. Coulter pointed out how the perpetrator, Nicolas Cruz, had repeatedly and openly threatened to kill students, but that school and law enforcement officials had refused to act. The reason: an official Broward County policy on school discipline ostensibly intended to end the “school-to-prison pipeline”:

“If Cruz had taken out full-page ads in the local newspapers, he could not have demonstrated more clearly that he was a dangerous psychotic. He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other ‘red flags.’…

“At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., ‘I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,’ ‘I’m going to watch you bleed,’ ‘I am going to shoot you dead’ — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

“Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.”
Coulter concludes: “When it comes to spectacular crimes, it’s usually hard to say how it could have been prevented. But in this case, we have a paper trail.”

The Cover-up

Yet there is much more to this story and its fallout than intolerable law enforcement “failure.” Ann attributes the refusal of Broward County officials “to report, arrest or prosecute dangerous students” to their “pursuit of a demented ideology.” With this focus, Coulter insulates her readers from a much more sinister, decades-long agenda — the drive for civilian disarmament as a precursor to totalitarian control.

Establishment Insiders have pursued this agenda, domestically and through the United Nations for decades, but a corrupted media ensures that the public has zero awareness of the supporting organization and its real objectives. It’s not “demented ideology” driving the disarmament agenda; it’s a deceptive, unscrupulous power grab.

And so Ann, along with most of her controlled-media colleagues, ignores the critical reason why the horrible Florida crime has been so extensively adopted as a new convenient emotional pretext to drive the civilian disarmament agenda.

Americans who listen only to the major channels of Establishment opinion regularly hear about the monsters that have targeted defenseless school children and civilians. But they are not told about another monster in the wings — uncontrolled government, which so animated our founding fathers long before Professor R. J. Rummel documented the totalitarian record of the 20th Century in his Death By Government. Nor are they reminded of the Rwanda genocide resulting from UN-supported civilian disarmament.

And naturally, Americans are not told of the organized forces behind the deadly gun-control deception. For example, in the their 1958 classic, World Peace Through World Law, Grenville Clark, head of the United World Federalists, and Louis P. Sohn, later a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations, spelled out an agenda for a “world police force” and called for rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition possessed by police and private citizens.

A clever propaganda piece, “Jefferson’s ‘tree of liberty’ and the blood of schoolchildren,” published by a Senior Editor for Yahoo News (2-15-18) illustrates the media-created ignorance of the gun-control threat:

“The idea that Americans should arm themselves to fight ‘state overreach’ is a staple of gun-rights groups and politicians occupying the political terrain that runs rightward roughly from the NRA to the edge of the earth. It goes back at least to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that ‘the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood of patriots and tyrants.’

“And — call me naïve — but I would much sooner entrust my freedom to America’s justice system, which is also part of the Constitution, than to a bunch of middle-aged guys running around the woods in camo pants, no matter what kinds of guns they have.”

Of course, the preferred value of an armed citizenry is as one deterrent against a blatant assault on our liberties or form of government. Nobody should imagine that a minority of unsupported civilians could prevail in battle with the state. If the deterrent failed, universal support for action by an informed public, including even members of the military, would be necessary to reestablish “the tree of liberty.”

But many defenders of the Second Amendment make the mistake of relying solely on gun ownership for safety against tyranny. Would-be totalitarians do not depend on a single campaign such as gun-control to secure their aims — they seek to manipulate public opinion through control of the mass media, to create dependence on government for basic necessities, such as health care, and to create a submissive culture, among many other initiatives.

Other Ignored Factors

On October 11, 1798, President John Adams, while addressing the officers of the Militia of Massachusetts, explained: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We often find that Insider-controlled government is concocting a dangerous antidote to the poison it has itself created. In light of Adams’ admonition, consider the Federal government’s role in the culture war: the attack on the traditional family, the disrespect for religion, and the denigration of traditional moral standards.

Almost a century ago, Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, a prime strategist in the culture war, argued that in the developed Western democracies, the quick seizure of state power was doomed to failure. Instead, he insisted that for a revolution to be successful the supporting culture first had to be changed. The altered culture would then prepare the people, intellectually and morally, to accept the revolution.

In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, concluded:

“Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.”

And the home has been the target of the Insiders and the liberal agenda for decades.

Revolutionary Parliamentarianism

An internal Czechoslovak Communist Party strategy paper, discovered following the post-World War II takeover of Czechoslovakia, documented the deceptive practice known as “revolutionary parliamentarianism.” The tactic seeks to create the appearance of widespread popular pressure for revolutionary action.

Sympathizers in parliament (Congress) can then advance the revolutionary measure as though they were just responding to overwhelming public demand. Others congressmen, finding it difficult to stand up to the illusion, are pulled along.

Let’s look at several current examples of how the media, sympathetic politicians, and revolutionary organization create the illusion of genuine mass support for the gun-control agenda:

“Congress is under intense pressure to take action following the shooting, which reopened a national debate on guns.” [Emphasis added] — The Hill (2-27-18)

What debate? What the media calls a national debate is merely a media-orchestrated propaganda assault, masquerading as a debate. The voices put forth in the “debate” are carefully selected to keep the message within “acceptable” bounds and with an “acceptable” impact.

And how is the pressure organized, by whom, and for what purpose?

“Teenaged survivors of the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting have amassed huge followings on social media in the weeks since a gunman attacked their school, assembling powerful social media tools in the national debate over guns and mass shootings….

“The survivors’ emergence as pro-gun control voices on social media is a new development in the response to mass shootings.” — The Hill (3-3-18)

No one should doubt the initiative of teenagers to make use of social media and the new tools of technology. But somewhere the activists among them were mentored or encouraged by unmentioned adult forces. Nor should we accept that several hundred teenagers all have the same mind or speak with one voice.

Earlier, AP (2-20-18) reported:

“Students who survived the Florida school shooting began a journey Tuesday to the state Capitol to urge lawmakers to prevent another massacre….”

“Three buses carried 100 students who, in the aftermath of the attack that killed 17 people, want to revive the gun-control movement.”

Are we really supposed to believe that the teens organized this all by themselves? Consider this report in The Hill (2-20-18):

“Lawmakers say they are feeling more pressure than ever to act on gun control after the latest deadly mass shooting at a public high school.

“A large reason, aides and lawmakers alike say, is the emotional pleas from students who survived the shooting — and who have expressed horror at the idea that nothing will be done in response to the killings of their schoolmates.

“The grass-roots movement, dubbed ‘Never Again,’ has kept an extra layer of pressure on members to enact stricter gun laws and take other steps to prevent future massacres….

“Still, the public outcry that followed last week’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., has fueled some hope among gun reformers that the political winds are shifting in their favor.

“Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said the protests in recent days constitute ‘a new type of organic outcry,’ one even more prominent than the demonstrations that followed a similar shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

“But after the latest deadly shooting rampage in Florida, high school students are taking the fight into their own hands — a powerful shift that appears to be having an impact on the national conversation surrounding the emotional and heated gun control debate….

“Young activists have been making impassioned pleas on national television, demanding action from their elected officials and organizing rallies, walkouts and marches — including one planned for Washington, D.C., on March 24.” [Emphasis added.]

The Hill and Democratic Representative Mike Thompson would have us believe that the teens planned this all by themselves. AFP (2-18-18) reveals more of the extensive planning:

“The ‘March for our Lives’ will take place on March 24, with sister marches planned across the country, a group of students told ABC News, vowing to make Wednesday’s shooting a turning point in America’s deadlocked debate on gun control.”

And Fox News (3-5-18) also reported the advertised planning, while cooperating with the revolutionaries to hide the “rest of the story” and keep the public in the dark:

“So along with 16-year-old Madeline Paterna, Giancola began to arrange for her school to participate in the National School Walkout, a protest led by students demanding action against gun violence, on March 14 – one month after the Parkland school shooting….

“For 17 minutes at 10 a.m. across each time zone on March 14, students, school faculty and supporters around the world will walk out of their schools to honor those killed in the massacre at the Parkland high school earlier this year and to protest gun violence.

“More than 185,000 students are expected to participate in the walkout, according to the latest numbers provided by a Women’s March spokesperson. And a map of participating schools on the event’s website shows the walkout has gone international – with schools in Ireland, Israel and Mexico participating.”

Fox News did point to a https://www.womensmarch.com/empower/coalition group calling itself Women’s March Youth EMPOWER, sporting a clenched fist in its website logo, as the organizers of the March 14 demonstration. But the Fox story supported the protest by pointing students to another website where students could find out if their school is participating and the story recited the group’s objective to “protest Congress’ inaction” at face value.

Good Morning America (2-27-18) reported on a Rhode Island executive order to “establish a new ‘red flag’ policy” to “help keep guns away from people who ‘could pose significant threats to public safety.’”

“‘The executive order I signed today is an immediate step we can take to make residents safer. It sets the table for a complementary legislative effort,” Gov. Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, said in a statement Monday. ‘We cannot wait a minute longer for Washington to take action to prevent gun violence.’” [Emphasis added.]

And for “authoritative” input to the public “debate,” Good Morning America gave us this:

“‘Today is a major victory for Rhode Islanders and an encouraging sign for people throughout the country as they demand lawmakers take concrete action to prevent gun violence,’ Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said in a statement.” [Emphasis added.]

Leadership Betrayal

As usual, we see political leaders in both parties eagerly supporting the orchestrated Insider media spin that what the Florida mass shootings demonstrate is the need for government to give us more “gun safety.” Here are a few examples:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

“Propose something, Mr. President. And I think Republicans have an obligation to work with Democrats to make it law if we can,” Graham said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” — The Hill (3-4-18)

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R):

“Ohio Gov. John Kasich commended young Americans for demanding that their elected officials take decisive actions to reduce gun violence in the aftermath of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla…..

“According to Kasich, their idealism may actually succeed in ushering in new gun measures to protect Americans.

“‘And the more they push, the better chance we have of getting something done — to have greater gun safety and better protection for everybody in our country,’ he said.” — Yahoo (3-4-18)

House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):

“‘Yesterday, we were encouraged by what President Trump had to say, our members who attended the meeting,’ Pelosi said.

“The minority leader was also encouraged by Trump pushing for legislation that would institute background checks for firearms purchased online or at gun shows. A bipartisan measure from Reps. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., and Mike Thompson, D-Calif., that would do just that has reached 200 co-sponsors in the House.

“‘We’ve never had anything like 200 names on a gun safety bill. This is remarkable,’ Pelosi said. The King-Thompson bill is something Democrats have long pushed for in the wake of mass shootings like the one February 14 at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 dead….

“‘I know if the comprehensive bill on background checks came to the floor, it would win,’ Pelosi said.” — Roll Call (3-1-18)

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas):

“Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is leading the GOP response to gun violence in the upper chamber, told reporters after the meeting with Trump at the White House that he still favors a limited approach….

“‘For me the most obvious place to start is the Fix NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] bill that has 46 cosponsors,’ Cornyn said of the bill he’s co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.).” [Emphasis added.] — The Hill (3-1-18)

A Final Word: The Wisdom of James Madison

From his deep study of history, James Madison warned of the dangers of ignorance, deception, and betrayal:

“Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant — they have been cheated; asleep — they have been surprised; divided — the yoke has been forced upon them.

“But what is the lesson? That because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up, blindfolded, to those who have an interest in betraying them? Rather conclude that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it.”

Please share this perspective widely!

North Korea — Internationalist Creation

“What is the central concern driving North Korea’s quest for nuclear weapons? Pyongyang claims it is a well-founded fear that the United States and South Korea plan aggression to overthrow the Kim regime.” Alton Frye, Foreign Policy Magazine, 11-28-17

An incredible piece of subversive nonsense recently appeared in the Establishment’s Foreign Policy magazine. The above referenced article suggested that the way to persuade Kim Jong Un to halt the North Korean nuclear weapon’s program was to convince him that China was an adequate deterrent to a U.S. invasion. To do so, the article recommended the deployment of Chinese forces on North Korean territory:

“A symmetrical policy of reassurance could involve possibly 30,000 Chinese military personnel stationed there, a total comparable to U.S. forces south of the 38th parallel.

“Yes, it seems counterintuitive to encourage China to strengthen military capabilities in the north. Some may find the notion antithetical to American interests. Shoring up a state with such vicious human rights abuses is a high price to pay for security. Yet the net effect should be to reduce the actual likelihood of war.”

We would not give much attention to such immoral sophistry were it not for the status of the article’s author — Alton Frye. Frye is not only a member of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), since 1993 he has been a CFR director. He also served as a CFR vice president from 1987 to 1993 and then as a Senior VP until 1998.

UN Intervention

If one knows the history of how and why the UN was founded, it is a short step to realize that the Internationalist architects of a new world order run by them need crises to overcome normal public resistance to their intended radical realignment of power.

Recall the 1962 analysis, “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations,” by State Department veteran and CFR member Lincoln P. Bloomfield. Bloomfield argued that accelerated world government “may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks…. The transforming experience, whether evolutionary or revolutionary, must, to achieve the foundation of consensus requisite for community, be enough to reach and move great masses of people….”

Many of the problems around the world have been created or fomented by Internationalists for the primary purpose of gaining public acceptance for Internationalist institutions to address the problems.

So we find the following item buried in a December 7th (Pearl Harbor Day) Reuters news report re the North Korean missile tests significant:

“The rising tensions coincide with a rare visit to North Korea by United Nations political affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman, the highest-level U.N. official to visit North Korea since 2012.

“Some analysts and diplomats hope his visit could spark a U.N.-led effort to defuse tensions.”

Feltman heads up the UN’s Department of Political Affairs (DPA). Established under a 1992 restructuring of the UN Secretariat, the DPA absorbed the earlier Department of Political and Security Council Affairs.

In 1954, a year after the Korean armistice was signed, our Defense Department let it be known that that high-ranking Soviet officers had been in North Korea directing that side of the war. At the same time, the UN’s Military Staff Committee overseeing our side of the war worked under the UN undersecretary-general for political and security council affairs. This post had always been held by a communist by secret agreement at the UN’s founding. In short, Communists were working both sides of the war. And Internationalist Insiders ensured that General MacArthur was prevented from winning it.

Excerpt from Masters of Deception:

[F]ollowing MacArthur’s brilliant Inchon landing, U.S. and South Korean forces held the upper hand. Faced with the threat of massive Red Chinese intervention, MacArthur ordered the destruction of the bridges across the Yalu River. Within hours, General Marshall countermanded MacArthur’s order. MacArthur would later state:

“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.”¹⁸

Foreshadowing the “rules of engagement” that strangled U.S. forces in the Viet Nam War, MacArthur was forbidden to attack Chinese supplies being amassed across the river or to follow Chinese MIGs retreating across the border into China. Although the reason given for such restrictions was ostensibly to avoid a wider war with China, the effect was just the opposite. General Lin Piao, commander of the Chinese forces, later said:

“I never would have made the attack and risked my men and my 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.”¹⁹

General Mark Clark, who signed the Korean armistice agreement in July 1953, would echo MacArthur’s criticism. In his memoirs, Clark declared it was: “beyond my comprehension that we would countenance a situation in which Chinese soldiers killed American youth in organized, formal warfare and yet we would fail to use all the power at our command to protect those Americans.”²⁰

While men were still dying in the UN “police action,” Adlai Stevenson (the soon-to-be Democratic nominee for president and the future U.S. ambassador to the UN under Kennedy) authored an article for the April 1952 Foreign Affairs, entitled “Korea in Perspective.” In summarizing, Stevenson stated:

“The burden of my argument, then, based on the meaning of our experience in Korea as I see it, is that we have made historic progress toward the establishment of a viable system of collective security.”²¹

The cost of that “progress” was enormous in South Korean and American dead.

UNESCO “Withdrawal” — Mere Posturing!

“The State Department announced Oct. 12 that the U.S. plans to withdraw from UNESCO, alleging a ‘need for fundamental reform’ and ‘anti-Israel bias.’” — The Washington Post, 10-12-17

In a follow-up Post report later that day, the State Department’s initially tough-sounding anti-UNESCO announcement quickly mellowed:

“In notifying UNESCO of the decision Thursday morning, the State Department said it would like to remain involved as a nonmember observer state. That will allow the United States to engage in debates and activities, though it will lose its right to vote on issues.

“The withdrawal follows long-standing issues the U.S. has had with UNESCO and does not necessarily foreshadow a further retrenchment of U.S. engagement with the United Nations, where the Trump administration has been pushing to bring about structural and financial reforms.”

This is not the first time that the U.S. has bowed out of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization, a specialized UN agency based in Paris. In 1984, the Reagan Administration temporarily withdrew the U.S.

Then, as now, the justifications for withdrawing from UNESCO should have applied to its parent organization, the United Nations, as well. But just to assure everyone that the move didn’t seriously threaten globalist plans, Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Gregory Newell, stated:

“When UNESCO returns to its original purposes and principles, the United States would be in a position to return to UNESCO.” [Emphasis added.]

In 2002, President George W. Bush decided that the U.S. should rejoin UNESCO.

UNESCO’s “Original Purposes”

UNESCO’s first general conference was held at the end of 1946, a year after the UN began operations. The conference elected humanist leader Dr. Julian Huxley as UNESCO’s first Director-General. As one example of the revolutionary mindset permeating the UN and its agencies, in 1947 Dr. Huxley wrote in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy:

“Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic [controlled human breeding] policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” [Emphasis added]

Here is how the Washington Post report summarized UNESCO’s public purposes:

“UNESCO was established to help promote global cooperation around the flow of ideas, culture and information. UNESCO’s mission includes programs to improve access to education, preserve cultural heritage, improve gender equality and promote scientific advances and freedom of expression.” [Emphasis added.]

However, let’s look at UNESCO’s real purposes, beginning with the parent body, the United Nations.

In 1945, a war-weary world acquiesced to the Internationalists’ propaganda campaign that their proposed UN was mankind’s “last best hope for peace.”

In normal times, that claim would have rung on deaf ears. For the UN would be comprised to a great extent of corrupt and tyrannical regimes, unrepresentative of their peoples. How could these regimes be expected to satisfactorily police the world? The participation of the Soviet Union as a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council (followed decades later by Communist China) should have confirmed the subversive nonsense. In fact, within a few decades, knowledgeable observers would refer to the UN as “Terrorists ‘R US.”

In reality, the Internationalists conceived these institutions as a means of gaining unaccountable world authority over previously sovereign nations. But more strategy and pretexts would be needed to provide the UN or its offspring with the authority (e.g., taxation and a UN army) necessary to compel the full submission of independent nations.

Three decades later, Foreign Affairs (the magazine of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations — CFR) advocated a strategy of gradual international entanglements as a workable means for bringing nations to submit to a world authority. “The Hard Road to World Order,” authored by Columbia University professor and State Department veteran Richard N. Gardner, spelled out a multi-point strategy of deceptive encroachment. In that April 1974 article, Gardner blatantly insisted:

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

The above Post story quotes Irina Bokova, UNESCO’s current and tenth director-general, a Bulgarian politician, in defense of UNESCO: “The American poet, diplomat and Librarian of Congress, Archibald MacLeish, penned the lines that open UNESCO’s 1945 Constitution: ‘Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.’ This vision has never been more relevant.”

Not mentioned by the Post: Archibald MacLeish was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (from 1946–1949).

Now what role would UNESCO actually play in the UN scheme? From the beginning UNESCO sought to become the world’s school board, promoting world government. Its revolutionary activism soon became apparent. In 1948, UNESCO published a ten-volume series of pamphlets entitled Toward World Understanding. The pamphlets were designed to prepare schoolchildren for world citizenship.

In 1952 The Saturday Review candidly conceded this purpose in a pro-UNESCO editorial:

“If UNESCO is attacked on the grounds that it is helping to prepare the world’s peoples for world government, then it is an error to burst forth with apologetic statements and denials. Let us face it: the job of UNESCO is to help create and promote the elements of world citizenship. When faced with such a ‘charge,’ let us by all means affirm it from the housetops.”

The editor-in-chief for Saturday Review was Norman Cousins, an open advocate for world government, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the United World Federalists.

The UN — Freedom’s Enemy

“This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity….

“[W]e helped build institutions such as this one to defend the sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all….”
— President Donald Trump, addressing the UN General Assembly, 9-19-17

Correction, Please! No, the UN is not about protecting national sovereignty. It is the very enemy of sovereignty.

The UN was created under false pretexts as a tool of Internationalist Insiders to build a totalitarian world government run by them. That evolutionary agenda is alive and well today.

In the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), future Trilateralist Richard N. Gardner (CFR) openly admitted that world government was the objective of his fellow internationalists. But he endorsed the deception of the salami approach for destroying national sovereignty:

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing, confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

Part of the Internationalists’ long-term goal is to disarm the nations of the world, while arming the UN as a new superpower.

A document boldly describing the long-range program was issued by the Dean Rusk (CFR) State Department as Department of State Publication 7277. It carried the title Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. President Kennedy presented it personally before the UN General Assembly on September 25th of that year (1961).

According to Freedom from War, the transfer of arms to the UN is to occur in three stages:

“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.” [Emphasis added.]

When Stage III was fully implemented, the United States would be forced to comply with UN decisions, (i.e., decisions of the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] oligarchy that designed the UN).

During that same period, the Kennedy State Department also contracted with the private Institute for Defense Analysis to prepare a classified study. In support of the study, a memorandum entitled A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations candidly discussed the best strategy for establishing world government. The complete text of that shocking memorandum, authored by MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR), appears as a “reference” on our website. (See “References” in our main menu)

The memorandum’s author was MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR). The opening paragraph of the Bloomfield contribution reads:

“A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which ‘world government’ would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization…. [T]he present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.”

Perhaps the most shocking is the claim in the memorandum is that the UN would need nuclear weapons to ensure world “peace”:

“The appropriate degree of relative force would, we conclude, involve total disarmament down to police and internal security levels for the constituent units, as against a significant conventional capability at the center backed by a marginally significant nuclear capability.” [Emphasis added.]

UN Architects Not Humanitarians

The argument of the UN founders that the UN would prevent wars and promote world peace is undermined by the fact that these Internationalists made sure that a cabal of criminal regimes, controlled by them, would dominate the UN Security Council and other UN institutions. So we have the “acceptable” criminals who are supposed to police the “rogue” criminals.

In addition, over many decades these Internationalist conspirators have persistently perverted U.S. power to undermine and betray regimes friendly to the U.S. and help totalitarians take over their nations. China is a prime example, and we could list many others.

The Betrayal of China

At the end of July 1946, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, clamped an embargo on the sale of arms and ammunition to our World War II ally Chiang Kai-shek. Marshall would boast: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions, now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them.” Stockpiles of arms on their way to Chiang were actually destroyed in India. Meanwhile, the Soviets equipped Communist Mao Tse-tung with vast stores of U.S. military supplies Truman had provided Stalin for the assault on Japan.

On January 25, 1949, John F. Kennedy, a young second-term congressman from Massachusetts, rose on the floor of the House of Representatives to protest the actions of his party’s president:

“Mr. Speaker, over this weekend we have learned the extent of the disaster that has befallen China and the United States. The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming, unless a coalition government with the Communists were formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government.”

A few days later, he would summarize his protest in words that could be applied to the future handling of Vietnam: “What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away.”

What Representative Kennedy may not have understood at the time was that the betrayal of China was orchestrated by the Establishment he would later serve as president.

Professor R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii estimated the death toll from the resulting Chinese genocide conservatively at more than 35 million deaths — approximately one of every 20 Chinese.

The “unfortunate publicity” of Chinese troops mowing down student protestors in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre caused nary a blip in U.S.-Chinese relations. Within a few weeks of that massacre, U.S. officials Lawrence Eagleburger (CFR, formerly of Kissinger Associates) and Brent Scowcroft (former chairman of the CFR’s membership committee) would travel to China to reassure the Chinese leaders of continued U.S.-Chinese relations.

Some More Inconvenient History

Following General MacArthur’s brilliant Inchon Landing during the Korean War, U.S. led forces momentarily held the upper hand. Then the Red Chinese invaded Korea to protect the North Korean regime. They dared do so only because the Truman administration had prevented General MacArthur from taking out the Yalu river bridges.

So U.S. soldiers fought (and died against) the Communist Chinese, while carrying out a “police action” ordered by the UN. And later these Red Chinese invaders would be rewarded with a seat on the UN Security Council, whose mission ostensibly is to police the world.

And the Trump administration would ask the Communist Chinese dictators for help in restraining North Korea. Yet, in his September 19, 2017 UN speech, President Trump protested a socialist dictatorship in Venezuela. Something smells!

UN Treaty Deception

For America to survive and prosper as a free and independent republic, she must have help to overcome massive deception. UN Treaties have always been the subject of such deception. In this report, we look at the deceptions visited on Americans by supporters as well as by soft “opponents” of the Law of the Sea Treaty.

A few months ago, the Obama administration launched a new push for Senate ratification of the long-stalled treaty. The Obama push has been aided by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and an obviously Insider-orchestrated campaign.

Early on, Senator Kerry announced he would defer consideration of the unpopular LOST by the full Senate until a lame duck session following the November elections — a devious tactic. Lame ducks have often been used to stampede unpopular internationalist schemes through Congress when retired, retiring, and returning congressmen are less sensitive to the voters.

However, since Kerry began a series of Senate hearings allowing a variety of seemingly uncoordinated voices to urge support for the treaty, 34 GOP senators have joined Senator Jim DeMint (R – S.C.) in announcing their opposition to the UN treaty (via an open letter to Senator Harry Reid). If these 34 hold firmthen the Senate could not muster the two-thirds vote required to approve the treaty.

When the GOP opposition reached the 34-vote threshold, Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth responded:

“No letter or whip count changes the fact that rock-ribbed Republican businesses and the military and every living Republican Secretary of State say that this needs to happen, and that’s why it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea.”

Unfortunately, unless opposition to this internationalist scheme becomes more than defense, Seth is right. Following Napoleon’s maxim that the purely defensive is doomed to defeat, the opposition will ultimately succumb to determined Insider pressure and deception.

Short History of the Treaty

“Negotiations” for the United Nation’s Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) were completed in 1982. By 1993, a sufficient number of nations had accepted the treaty for it to go into effect a year later. As one result, the International Seabed Authority was established in 1994. (Also in 1994, prompted by U.S. objections, some changes to the treaty were approved by some of the signatories.) To date, 162 countries plus the European Community have bought into the Convention.

Despite the Convention’s acceptance by so many countries, U.S. proponents have never mustered sufficient support in the Senate.

Stepped-up Orchestration of Support

A new wave of Insider orchestration has been evident in the latest drive to convince senators to ratify the treaty. Favorable testimony by administration officials as well as politicized military chiefs was to be expected.

However, the Democratic push was aided by a May 31st op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. All five living GOP former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker III, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice, declared that it was “Time to Join the Law of the Sea Treaty.”

More significant than their common GOP affiliation is the fact that each in turn had headed up the pre-eminent CFR-controlled department of the federal government, and all except CFR veteran Henry Kissinger are current members of the CFR. Their endorsement of this internationalist power grab is reminiscent of the prominent public advocacy of NAFTA by CFR-heavyweight Kissinger and former CFR chairman David Rockefeller during the months leading up to congressional approval.

But a new twist to the renewed LOST drive was added — a push to convince the public and Congress that “business interests” were anxious to see the U.S. ratify the treaty and that substantial American jobs were at stake.

An age-old tactic of revolutionaries is to create the illusion of mass support to pressure legislators, making it difficult for them to oppose these “popular” demands. And that is what we are likely dealing with here — “illusion.” The Insiders have long worked to organize top echelons of the corporate world to represent the “business community.”

In a preface to the 1987 Patterns of Corporate Philanthropy: Public Affairs Giving and the Forbes 100, future Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld refuted the myth that big-business is conservative: “Seven out of ten public affairs dollars from the top 25 corporate contributors support establishment liberal — and some support even outright radical — causes.”

Two of the more vocal supporters of the treaty at the hearings were Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam and U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas J. Donohue. Note, however, that both Verizon and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are corporate members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Moreover, the Establishment media united in suggesting that the American “business community” was desperately calling for the treaty as a means to protect American investment in tapping ocean resources.

However, in a 2006 paper exposing the flaws in the treaty, law professor Jeremy Rabkin opined: “It remains a fair question whether a complex U.N. regulatory bureaucracy—especially one that counts international wealth redistribution as one of its functions—is a reassuring presence for investors.”

Any UN treaty is bad!

Perhaps the greatest deception of all with respect to LOST is the United Nations itself. The UN is not a democracy of free nations, but a steppingstone to a world government power grab by internationalists who effectively control the UN. Rejecting this internationalist milestone is an essential step toward preserving our Republic.

Accordingly, no treaty that enhances the authority of the UN is acceptable. And politicians who merely claim to be “uneasy” about a UN treaty, see reasons for “caution,” or are continuing to “study” it cannot lead us to safety.

The internationalist power grab with this particular treaty, and several specific reasons why it should be opposed have been amply identified in the past, which is why the treaty has never made it through the senate. For example, in 2004, J. William Middendorf, former secretary of the Navy during the Nixon-Ford administrations, testified that ratification of the treaty would constitute “a potential turning point for the U.S. in the history of international relations.”

Middendorf further warned that the treaty would be “a step in the direction of international taxing authority” and posed “unnecessary risks to national security.” The step toward “international taxing authority” should alarm Americans. One of the huge steps internationalists envision for expanding the authority of the UN is to provide it with its own independent revenue stream, so it will not be dependent on the good will of member nations.

Beware of False Friends

In June, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in opposition to the treaty. He also penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Why the UN Shouldn’t Own the Seas” (WSJ 6-12-12). Although Rumsfeld identified several good reasons why the treaty should be rejected, conservatives should be wary of embracing Rumsfeld as their champion.

In 1969, President Nixon selected Donald Rumsfeld to head up the scandal-ridden Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) — the federal “poverty” agency. During his campaign, Nixon had typically promised to abolish the OEO. But, according to the Washington Post (6-13-69): “Donald Rumsfeld, far from presiding over the liquidation of the Office of Economic Opportunity, has moved in his first 18 days on the job to revive it as the dominant innovative force on most aspects of domestic policy.”

Three decades later, when President George W. Bush selected Donald Rumsfeld as his secretary of defense, former Reagan-aide Jude Wanniski expressed his delight over the choice in a World Net Daily article (1-3-2001):

“The young Rumsfeld became one of the Young Turks of 1965, determined to reform the party. The group included Jerry Ford, Melvin Laird and other ‘moderates.’… They only would be a little more conservative than the liberal Democrats of the LBJ era, who were committed to Big Government to solve all economic and social ills…. They would give the people what the people seemed to want, i.e., a well-managed Big Government.”

Although Rumsfeld’s tenure as an explicit CFR member would be limited (1974-1980), during his second stint as secretary of defense (under President George W. Bush) he would have as his deputy secretary CFR-veteran Paul Wolfowitz. In 2005, Wolfowitz left his defense post to head up the UN-affiliated World Bank.

Perhaps Dick Cheney provides an even better warning regarding the Rumsfeld influence. Cheney tied his early career to Rumsfeld during the Nixon administration. Cheney subsequently posed as a “conservative” congressman from Wyoming, while accepting CFR membership and, in 1988, would serve on the CFR’s Board of Directors.

Conservatives need to become more sophisticated at recognizing Establishment-boosted conservative leaders (like a William F. Buckley, Jr.). They also need to understand the deceptive Insider tactic of controlling the opposition, when opposition to revolutionary plans is to be expected.

The Establishment did not let the Rumsfeld opposition to LOST go unanswered. In a subsequent Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Conservatives and the Law of the Sea Time Warp,”op-ed, John Norton Moore took polite exception:

“The former defense secretary seemed to be in a time warp, harking back to his mission of 30 years ago during the Reagan presidency, completely dismissing the treaty’s 1994 renegotiation….

“All of the Reagan conditions for Part XI were met in a 1994 renegotiation. President Clinton submitted the treaty to the Senate, acknowledging that it met all U.S. objectives….

“The treaty, favorably reported out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2004 and 2007, was on President Bush’s priority list but has never been put to a vote. It is now once again before the Senate, with overwhelming support from military and business leaders, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Financial Services Roundtable….

“Mr. Rumsfeld’s mission for President Reagan was a service to the nation. His time-warp testimony, however, does a disservice to a remarkable treaty that expands U.S. sovereign rights, powerfully serves U.S. needs for the Navy and the Coast Guard, and provides American industry with the security necessary to generate jobs and growth.

“Mr. Moore … served in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations, including serving as U.S. ambassador for the Law of the Sea.”

What readers of the Journal’s op-ed were not told, however, was that John Norton Moore was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Recommended action:

• Read and share Masters of Deception: The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations by G. Vance Smith and Tom Gow.

• Write your two U.S. senators in opposition to the UN’s “Law of the Sea” power grab. See our website News posting for a list of senators who have announced their opposition to LOST.

Don’t Let Down Your Guard

“UPDATED: 34 Senators Oppose Law of the Sea Treaty,” — Jim’s (Senator Jim DeMint) Blog, July 11, 2012

FFS: With the total number of senators who have publicly announced their opposition to the Law of the Sea Treaty hitting the threshold necessary to block ratification, news stories are widely announcing that LOST is dead for this session. But don’t be too sure.

Proponents have massive political clout at their disposal, including major corporate pressures, and the possibility of senators changing their position in December exists.

(Moreover, the internationalist architects and supporters of this UN power grab will certainly bring it up again, so more work is necessary to build informed public opposition.)

Recommended Action: Keep the pressure on your two U.S. Senators to oppose the treaty. Use the above link to discern which senators have announced opposition to the treaty. Also, read and share Masters of Deception to build informed opposition to the internationalist agenda.

Beware of Lame Duck!

“Despite Push, Sea Treaty Likely for Lame Duck” — CQ Today Online News, 5-22-12

FFS: A priority of the Obama administration (and internationalists in both parties) is to have the United States agree to the extremely dangerous “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” (UNCLOS). Opposition in the Senate has for decades prevented the subversive1982 treaty from coming up for a vote (a two-thirds vote is needed for ratification).

However, the latest strategy of the treaty’s supporters, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), is to wait until after the November elections and bring the matter up in a lame duck session, when lame duck and surviving senators are more susceptible to internationalist pressure.

As one indication of the renewed Insider push to entangle the U.S. in this further step toward UN-administered world government, we point to a recent op-ed (“Time to Join the Law of the Sea Treaty”) in the Wall Street Journal by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker III, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice. All of these CFR authors served in the CFR-dominated post of secretary of state during Republican administrations.)

The opposition has cranked up as well. 27 GOP Senators have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promising to oppose the treaty if it comes to the senate floor for ratification. A May 25th article “Opposition to Law of the Sea Treaty heats up” by the Hill contains the full text of the letter and the 27 signers. 34 votes (7 more senators) are needed to block ratification.

Internationalist supporters of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which went into effect in 1994, are advancing clever arguments for ratification, replete with deceptions. The treaty would give the United Nations unprecedented control over more that 70 percent of the earth’s surface. Seldom mentioned is the fact that the treaty is one internationalist strategy for providing the United Nations with its own independent source of revenue — royalties from mining the ocean’s seabeds.

While converting the U.S. to a “green economy” is not the answer to “sustained growth,” as the CFR’s Joseph Stiglitz and Fareed Zakaria would have us believe, there is great opportunity for U.S. technology, ingenuity, and capital to tap the enormous wealth of the seas.

Recommended action: Building sufficient pressure to overcome Insider support for this dangerous treaty requires time, so please get started now. Check the above article to see which senators have already come out in opposition to the treaty. Write your two senators, urging those who have announced their opposition to hang tough and urging the others to oppose the treaty publicly. Likewise inform and mobilize other Americans to register their opposition.

Subordination of Parental Rights

Parents in Nashville, Tennessee were concerned about their minor son’s health condition, including the possibility that the doctor was over-medicating him. The doctor recommended administration of drug tests to see if there were other factors contributing to his discomfort. The doctor made it clear, however, that he would not be able to release the drug test results to the parents, but only to the child. After all, as the doctor erroneously explained, the child had a right to privacy based on federal law that trumped the parental rights to care for, nurture, and protect their child.

Parents of a kindergarten age child in Massachusetts were shocked to find some of the books and materials being sent home with their 5-year-old were sex education materials and books that normalize and promote homosexual activity. After visiting with the teacher and getting nowhere on an “opt out” agreement for their child, the parents met with the principal, who in turn sent the parents to a “diversity” workshop to increase their acceptance of the indoctrination of their child.

After their disturbing experience at the workshop, the parents met again with the principal, begging for prior notification of sexual content instruction and for an opt out for their child. The principal responded to their request by having a police officer handcuff and forcibly remove the concerned parents for trespassing. Parental rights to protect, teach, nurture, and inculcate fundamental values were trampled by the education establishment intently motivated by an ideological agenda.

A child in Washington state complained to a school counselor about his parents making him go to church too much. Without notifying the parents, the counselor contacted a state social worker who took the 13-year-old boy directly from school and placed him in a foster home until a judicial hearing could be set for the parents to argue their case before a judge.

These are not isolated cases. Through legislative and judicial overreach, an increasing amount of power is given to the state over our children. As with the examples provided, all parents who fail to comply with a certain ideology are assumed to be bad parents, and the state’s intentions pristine. These efforts are methodically replacing parental discretion in all areas of child rearing and development with governmental and bureaucratic dominion over our minor children.

Karl Marx, in chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto, said that in order to establish a perfect social state you have to destroy the family. You have to substitute the government for parental authority in the rearing of children. Whether intentional or not, the current trend of erosion of parental rights and refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act are perfectly facilitating the socialist agenda.

In 1989 the United Nations adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a human rights treaty that delineates the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children. Nearly all UN member nations have adopted the protocol, and are subject to review, sanction, and enforcement by the UN. The U.S. is one of two that have not.

While ostensibly appealing in its protection of children, the document codifies the supremacy of government over parental rights in the rearing of children. This grants government bureaucrats the ability to prosecute parents or remove children from homes where parents are suspected of being out of compliance with the UN’s objectives. In short, rather than being a proactive protection for the rights of children, it is an instrument to strip the rights of parents in child rearing.

A website dedicated to this issue, ParentalRights.org says of the UNCRC, “Despite the claims of its supporters, the Convention on the Rights of the Child is more than an international ‘wish list’ – it is an instrument of societal action. The evidence is clear in the nations that have ratified it, like France, Canada, Brazil and the United Kingdom. Member-states are expected to incorporate its provisions into their own laws, and failure to do so is met with intense international censure and pressure to conform. The United Nations, and its Committee on the Rights of the Child, tolerate nothing less.”

Even without adopting the UNCRC, the threat is real for American parents. Federal judges, who take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and our laws, increasingly rule on cases relying on customary international law. International precedence and code often align more closely with those judges ideology, and drawing from international rather than U.S. law grants them the justification necessary for “legislating from the bench.” This is facilitating a judicial creep of the tenets of the UNCRC and laws from other nations that have adopted it en toto.

All parents need to be aware of this insidious process that is slowly yet methodically subverting the rights of parents, and granting increasing authority to government to control and govern the rearing of our children. All parents should be prepared and knowledgeable about this stealthy trend, and ParentalRights.org is a superb starting point.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is a regular contributor to the Idaho State Journal. He is also President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at [email protected].

Internationalist Support for the UN Is NOT Change

The December 9th Voice of America news clip announcing Susan Rice’s appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the UN promotes numerous myths about the president’s agenda and the UN. Those myths and misrepresentations threaten our liberties. We examine several here:

• Myth: Obama’s election was “a signal to the world that America is on the path to change.”

If one looks at President Obama’s appointments, he is clearly pursuing the same internationalist policies as his predecessors. The appointment of Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the UN and the elevation of her post to Cabinet level rank is just one example.

U.S. executive branch support for the UN is not change. Indeed, U.S. Insiders have supported the UN from its very beginning. Indeed, internationalists from the Council on Foreign Relations (of which Susan Rice is a member) were instrumental in designing and creating the UN. If there is any change, it will be in the level of audacity in promoting U.S. entanglement with the world body.

Susan Rice got her big break in government service during the Clinton administration, moving from the National Security Council staff to Special Assistant to the President and then to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

Professor Carroll Quigley, the mentor of former President Bill Clinton at Georgetown University, confirms that the internationalists do not want any real change in the White House. In his monumental 1966 treatise Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, Professor Quigley wrote:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.

When the electorate grows weary of one of the Establishment parties, wrote Professor Quigley, “it should be able to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which … will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

Professor Quigley also claimed first-hand knowledge of a secret international Anglophile network that had founded the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a public “front for J.P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.” This network, Quigley points out, was founded by the South African diamond and gold magnate Cecil Rhodes. Note: the will of Cecil Rhodes established the Rhodes Scholarships, and both Bill Clinton and Susan Rice are Rhodes Scholars.

According to Quigley, this international network (we would call it a Conspiracy) had a far-reaching aim:

[N]othing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in feudal fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret meetings and conferences…. Each central bank … sought to dominate its government by its ability to control treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

This is a very different goal from what the internationalists proclaim publicly they are trying to accomplish through the public institutions they privately control, such as the UN.

Through the secret “War and Peace Studies Project,” launched in 1939 prior to America’s entry into the war, the Council on Foreign Relations actually became an adjunct of the U.S. government for a time. The project was financed by the Rockefeller foundation and succeeded in giving American foreign policy an internationalist bent.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Theodore White wrote in his The Making of the President, 1964 that the Council’s “roster of members has for a generation, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting ground for cabinet-level officials in Washington.” That pattern hasn’t changed in the ensuing decades. Ever since World War II, the Council on Foreign Relations has been the chief supplier of executives for top posts in each administration — Republican or Democratic. Indeed, the 2008 Annual Report of the CFR boasted that 458 of its members held positions in government.

Following this all-too-familiar pattern President Obama also tapped CFR members for many of the top posts in his administration. We list here a few. In addition to Susan Rice, there is Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geitner. Obama chose CFR-member Lawrence H. Summers as his director of the National Economic Council. Summers served for two years as President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. And despite Obama’s pledge to bring change to Washington, he retained CFR-member Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates had been a trusted CFR member in government going back to the Reagan years. In the Bush senior administration, Gates was the deputy national security advisor under Brent Scowcroft. And he succeeded William Webster as Director of the CIA. Gates is clearly not going to rock the Establishment’s boat.

• Myth: The world needs the UN and U.S. leadership in negotiating international cooperation to prevent more Rwandas.

It is widely acknowledged that the UN failed to act to stop the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. In an orgy of mass murder lasting 103 days, more than 800,000 unarmed human beings were slaughtered by killing squads supported by the Hutu-dominated government. As the massacre was unfolding, the UN leadership refused to heed the warnings of the commander of its 3,000 man UNAMIR “peacekeeping” force on the ground, and its commander, Canadian Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, was ordered not to intervene.

In fact, Dallaire argued that the ineffectiveness of the UN mission in Rwanda abetted the genocide.

But the part of the story rarely told is the earlier role of the UN in disarming the civilian population, which set the stage for the genocide. UNAMIR [the UN peacekeeping mission to Rwanda] was deployed in 1993 to administer a cease-fire between the Hutu-dominated government and the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front. In accordance with the peace accord administered by the UN and with UN doctrine, the population was to be disarmed. But militia units, under government control, were allowed to keep their arms, and they, along with paramilitary gangs, perpetrated the genocide.

In addition, the Rwandan government had been heavily subsidized by the UN-affiliated International Monetary Fund.

The UN insists that only governments should be permitted to own arms and that civilian populations must trust their governments and the UN to protect them. But civilian disarmament (so-called gun control) carried out by “liberal” regimes in the name of public safety has too often served the murderous tyrants who came after them.

Nor, according to American principles, is it a matter for governments to decide what the people should be allowed. Instead the people decide what authority their government is granted. It is a fundamental right of the people to defend themselves, and, in the American tradition, governments are merely agents of the people not their masters.

• Old Myth reinforced: “The UN is mankind’s last, best hope for peace.”

In addition, the UN is not designed to promote the virtues that Americans honor. Nor was that ever the intention of the internationalists who designed the United Nations and then insisted that the world’s most criminal regimes be represented in an evolving world government.

U.S. policies under Republican and Democratic administrations built up the Soviet Union as a threat, then with the terrifying image thus created, our “leaders” insisted that the Soviets be represented at the UN and that we negotiate with the Soviets to achieve a peaceful world. (Since the “break-up” of the Soviet Union, Russia is now ostensibly our ally in that quest.) And U.S. Insiders have also succeeded in forging U.S. policies that have built up China as an international force. (No longer widely known, following World War II “internationalists” in our State Department actually helped the Reds to gain total control of mainland China — see, for example, May God Forgive Us by Robert Welch.)

Yet our State Department covers for the principal state sponsors of terrorism: the former Soviet Union and Communist China, while ostensibly seeking their cooperation in the fight against terrorism to reign in their surrogate state sponsors, such as Syria. Syria, on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, was invited to become a rotating member of the UN Security Council within weeks following the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.

And the Bush administration did not even protest the arrangement, while insisting that the fight against terrorism must be waged through the United Nations. Yet among knowledgeable observers, the UN has earned the reputation of “Terrorists ‘R Us.”

Not advertised to the American public by the Establishment media, the world’s premier terrorist leaders are regularly honored at the UN. Between 1975 and 1979, the Chinese-backed Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot liquidated an estimated three million Cambodians, in what became known as the “Killing Fields.” Incredibly, in 1991 the UN brokered a “peace” agreement in Cambodia, which brought back the Khmer Rouge into a coalition government.

Even worse, the internationalists have planned for the United Nations to evolve into a world government from its very beginning (actually the Council on Foreign Relations was launched to change public attitudes toward international entanglements following the U.S. refusal to join the League of Nations after the first world war).

That means that U.S. leaders in the internationalist Insider pocket would actually like the U.S. to scrap its independence and accept total UN authority. Incredibly, the disarmament goal you have heard about for years really means to disarm the U.S. and other nations, but arm the UN, even with nuclear weapons, as an all-powerful force in the world that no nation, including the U.S. could resist. An excellent presentation of this subversive plan is contained in the confidential study prepared for the Kennedy State Department entitled “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations.”

How often have we heard the internationalist chant in recent years: “Global problems require global solutions”?

Myth: Rice brings her own independent positive agenda to the position of UN ambassador.

According to a U.S. State Department web page: “Ambassador Rice believes that the United Nations has a vital role in advancing international peace and security and is committed to make the United Nations a more perfect forum to address the most pressing global challenges: to promote peace, to support development and democracy, and to strengthen respect for human rights. She has outlined four primary areas of focus: strengthening the capacity of the UN to undertake complex peace operations effectively; addressing climate change; preventing the spread or use of nuclear weapons and working to meet the goals of the Nonproliferation Treaty; and combating poverty, disease, violence, and genocide.”

Some of those goals sound appealing — unless you look a little deeper. For example, our founding fathers never envisioned that the federal government they were forming would combat poverty in foreign lands. Nor is any such authority included in the Constitution.

Other goals are phrased to obscure their real meaning. The words “strengthening the capacity of the UN to undertake complex peace operations effectively” are reminiscent of recurring proposals to give the UN immediate access to a standing army and military capability.

One of these drives, overlapping Susan Rice’s service in the Clinton administration, began in 1992. The drive was kicked off publicly with the release of An Agenda for Peace, a report by then-UN Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali. Ghali’s proposals were applauded in Establishment publications such as the New York Times and in Foreign Affairs — the journal of the CFR. And President Bill Clinton tried to implement the proposals through his classified Presidential Decision Directives (such as PDD-13), portions of which became public and generated great controversy.

We do not claim to know Ambassador Rice’s heart. But we can glean much of her likely agenda from her career, her alliances, and those who have placed their confidence in her.

Her Rhodes Scholarship to attend Oxford is one red flag, as suggested above. At Oxford, Rice’s classmates and professors “included advocates of the role of the United Nations and international law (Sir Adam Roberts, Benedict Kingsbury), of global economic governance and international economic cooperation (Ngaire Woods, Donald Markwell)….” Source: Wikipedia.

During her subsequent career she joined the “liberal” Brookings Institution as a Senior Fellow, became a member of the Aspen Strategy Group and the Council on Foreign Relations, a director with the Atlantic Council, and a member of the Trilateral Commission. All of these organizations promote the internationalist goal of world government, euphemistically referred to as global governance. To say she has been endorsed by the internationalist Establishment would be an understatement.

Most of Ambassador Rice’s public biographies on the Internet fail to mention her relatively recent membership in the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller in 1973. This is a very select group, as membership is limited to 120 for the North American group consisting of 20 Canadian members, 13 Mexican members and 87 U.S. members.

Accordingly, it is indicative of President Obama’s submission to the internationalists that he has appointed at least nine members of the Commission to key positions in his administration. (Note: Trilaterals resign their membership when they go into government service.) Obama’s Trilateralist appointees include: Susan Rice; Deputy National Security Advisor Thomas E. Donilon; and Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg.

Indicative of the narrow circle among which the Obama transition team searched for candidates, we note that James Steinberg was also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (along with Susan Rice) and a member of the Aspen Strategy Group (along with Rice), Assistant Secretary of State Kurt M. Campbell was Director of the Aspen Strategy Group (of which Susan Rice was a member) and that is just a sampling. Moreover, each of the above — Rice, Donilon, Steinberg, and Campbell — was also listed on the CFR’s 2008 membership roster.

• Myth: “Someone with an aggressive personality who is willing to really forcefully defend U.S. positions at the United Nations is necessary and vital.”

Necessary, vital? For what? As we have suggested, the debates at the UN amount to little more than professional wrestling matches. The real agendas of the players are not debated publicly at the UN. Moreover, the UN is, in reality, a trap designed to destroy American independence, overcome America’s constitutional constraints on government power, and ensnare her is an emerging world government ruled by elites.

Unfortunately, support for dangerous myths about the UN is not confined to those institutions with a “liberal” image, as we can see from the remarks of Brett Schaefer of the “conservative” Heritage Foundation think-tank.

Another “expert” presented in the Voice of America news clip was Princeton Lyman, identified merely as a former U.S. Ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria (during the Clinton Administration). Would you be surprised to learn that Lyman has been a long-time member of the CFR? Lyman also was a director of the Global Interdependence Initiative at the Aspen Institute. He graduated with a BA from UC Berkeley and a Ph.D. in political science from Harvard.

What is Lyman’s “expert” advice for bringing peace to the Darfur region of the Sudan? Answer: Negotiate with Russia and China to limit their arms shipments to the Sudan — two nations whose regimes owe their ascendance and much of their capability for creating turmoil worldwide to policies of U.S. internationalists. If one realizes that revolutionaries determined to change the political order without public consent require conflict and deception to advance their goals, then what we see unfolding begins to make sense.

• • •

If you would like to learn more and assess the credibility of these claims, we urge you to obtain a copy of Organize for Victory! Organize for Victory! provides a comprehensive well-documented overview of the forces and agendas targeting America and, most importantly, a plan of action for putting America truly on the right course to greater freedom and prosperity.

Posts navigation

Newer posts

Default title

Receive Alerts