Toward a global police state: under both republican and democratic administrations, the U.S. government has been implementing a decades-old strategy to make the UN the most powerful force on earth. (World Government).

If a group of would-be megalomaniacs intended to create a global police state, the path to success would be far easier if countries would establish their own national police forces first. Once established, and once political betrayals had placed nation after nation under global control, a mere signature on a piece of paper, or a verbal command, would suffice to convert these state-run law enforcement agencies into enforcers for the world government.

The plans to build a national police force in America are being realized, even as our nation is being steadily delivered to world government under the UN.

More than 40 years ago, America's leaders announced their intention to subject our nation to formal UN control. Two documents issued during the Kennedy administration outlined nearly identical plans. Though the young president nominally headed the U.S. government, matters such as disarmament and U.S. relationship with the UN were handled by men he had put in place at the State and Defense departments. At the time, Dean Rusk and Robert S. McNamara, veteran members of the council on Foreign Relations, led these fundamentally important divisions of government. America was being led then, and has continued to be led ever since then, by like-minded individuals working to achieve the CFR's world-government goal.

Monopoly of Power

Less than a year after taking office, Mr. Kennedy journeyed to UN headquarters in New York city on September 25, 1961 to unveil an official U.S. policy entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program For General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, also known as Department of State Publication 7277. (For the full text of Freedom From War, see www.jbs.org/resources/dos_7277.htm.) In a major speech, he asked the assembled representatives of the world's governments to commit "not to an arms race, but to a peace race -- to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved." It is important to understand, however, that "disarmament" under the UN does not mean eliminating all weapons but giving the UN a monopoly of power.

The three stages contained in Freedom From War call for a variety of arms control agreements (many of which have already been created) and a steady buildup of UN military capabilities to create a "U.N. Peace Force." Stage III proclaims that "progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a point where no state would have the power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force." Consequently, nationhood would become meaningless and the UN would rule mankind.

Walt Rostow (CFR) was one of the Kennedy administration's planners who produced Freedom From War. Employed as a deputy special assistant for national security affairs when the Kennedy administration took office, his book The United States in the World Arena had just appeared. Among hundreds of pages of his clearly subversive views, he wrote:

It is a legitimate American national objective to see removed from all nations -- including the United States -- the right to use substantial military force to pursue their own objectives. Since this residual right is the root of national sovereignty ... it is, therefore, an American interest to see an end to nationhood as it has been historically defined.

The disarmament envisioned by those who produced Freedom From War is directed not only at every nation's military forces but at any force standing in the way of total UN control. The only weapons permitted outside of those possessed by the UN's Peace Force would be those "required for the purpose of maintaining internal order." In addition, the document states that "the manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. ... to maintain internal order."

What about privately owned weapons? The document does not mention small arms explicitly, but it does make clear: "All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes." There should be no doubt as to the intent of the internationalists to eventually eliminate private firearms. The statue of the handgun with the twisted barrel in front of UN headquarters offers a powerful clue (see the photo on page 25). That anti-gun image is consistent with Un Secretary-General Kofi Annan's official 2000 report entitled We the Peoples. He stated: "Controlling the proliferation of illicit [e.g., civilian-owned] weapons is a necessary first step towards the non-proliferation of small arms.... These weapons must be brought under the control of states, and states must be held responsible for their transfer."

A year after Kennedy completed his scripted performance before the UN, Senator Joseph Clark (D-Penn.) assured his colleagues on September 1, 1962 that Freedom From War was "the fixed, determined and approved policy of the government of the United States." The document was superseded in 1962 by Blueprint for the Peace Race: Outline of Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. But the Blueprint candidly admits that it "elaborates and extends the proposals of September 25," the date of Kennedy's UN speech. I[t is essentially the same suicidal proposal.

Questioned about the U.S. commitment to the Blueprint, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) official A. Richard Richstein confirmed in a May 11, 1982 letter that "the United States has never formally withdrawn this proposal." Congressman Ted Weiss (D-N.Y) thought so highly of it that he entered the entire document in the Congressional Record on May 25, 1982. In January 1991, William Nary, the official historian of the ACDA, confirmed that "the proposal has not been withdrawn [and] certain features of it have been incorporated into subsequent disarmament agreements." He repeated his assessment in November 1993.

In 1998, the ACDA was dissolved and its functions transferred to the State Department's Non-Proliferation division. Questioned about the current status of Freedom From War and Blueprint, division spokesmen could not or would not comment.

The other important Kennedy-era document detailing the plan to convert America into a mere province of a UN-led world government is A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, which emerged from the shadows in the early 1960s. It was prepared in 1962 under a contract issued by the State Department led by the same Dean Rusk. Its author, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, also held CFR membership.

Fifty-eight pages in length, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations wastes no time establishing its subversive goal. Terms such as "universal membership [in the UN]," "monopoly of force [possessed by the UN]," and "[a UN] world government" appear when the author defined his terms. Bloomfield's plan concluded: "The essential point is the transfer of the most vital element of sovereign power from the states to the supranational government ... the loss of control of their military power." This is essentially the goal sought in Freedom From War.

How would the future "world government" deal with isolated uprisings, unruly citizenry, or guerrilla warfare? In one of two answers to this question, Bloomfield offered: "No international system except a total tyranny complete with the apparatus of a police state would be capable of dealing with certainty with this type of disorder."

Bloomfield suggested reliance on "a total tyranny complete with the apparatus of a police state" only if "international peace and security were jeopardized." And this total tyranny should be employed only "in appropriate circumstances." To summarize: No one but UN-authorized police or military would be permitted to threaten the world.

Step by Step

Efforts to transfer America's military to the UN haven't always been obvious. Logic, however, dictates that one seeks authorization from a superior, not an inferior. That our nation has repeatedly played the role of inferior to the UN cannot be denied. Our sovereignty is indeed being eroded through loss of control of our armed forces, as indicated in the following summary.

* The Korean War (1950-1953) was fought under obvious UN authorization and Congress allowed it. Never fully concluded, the war cost 55,000 American lives.

* American forces fought the Vietnam War under SEATO's authorization. State Department Bulletin #8062 of March 28, 1966 stated: "The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization was designed as a collective defense arrangement under Article 51 of the UN Charter...."

* President George H.W. Bush went to the UN for authorization to invade Iraq in the 1991 "war" known as Desert Storm. More than a year after the fighting ended, Mr. Bush stated during a campaign speech, "I didn't have to get permission from some old goat in Congress to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait."

* In 1993, as he was preparing to send U.S. troops into Haiti to enforce another UN resolution, President Bill Clinton asserted, "I would welcome the support of Congress, and I hope that I will have that. [But] like my predecessors of both parties, I have not agreed that I was constitutionally mandated to get it."

* One day after 9-11, George W. Bush obtained UN authorization to attack Afghanistan. On September 29,2001, the UN adopted Security Council Resolution 1373, a U.S.-sponsored measure obliging all UN member nations to cooperate in the fight against terrorism.

* On September 12, 2002, President Bush went to UN headquarters seeking authorization to use U.S. might to enforce a series of UN Security Council resolutions.

Once a nation loses control of its military, its ability to function independently disappears. Whoever possesses the force of arms that previously guaranteed independence will have become the dictator of future conduct. If resistance develops, military force or military-directed police will be employed, as Freedom From War indicated, "to maintain internal order."

The result will be "peace," but it will be the peace of submission more commonly known as the peace of the grave. That this is what U.S. leaders are bringing about cannot be denied. To stop this treachery, Americans must insist that Congress withdraw this nation from the UN.