From Qmaster@aol.com Thu Jul  7 20:36:13 1994
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 94 14:16:41 EDT
From: Qmaster@aol.com
Reply to: fap@world.std.com
To: FAP@world.std.com
Subject: Publication 7277-Disarmament (4-4)

---Begin 4---

THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY BULLETIN

     Less Government, More Responsibility, And - With God's Help -
                             A Better World

No. 383                                                    April 1991


                        WHOSE SIDE ARE THEY ON?
                                   by
                            John F. McManus


In the interest of peace, many Americans have been persuaded to support 
disarmament programs and to create as a substitute for each nation's 
military a United Nations Peace Force. Most feel certain that their own 
rights and the independence of their nation would in no way be placed in 
jeopardy. But there is a vital question few seem willing or able to ask: 
Who would be left to restrain the all-powerful United Nations?

For his Secretaries of State and Defense, President John F. Kennedy 
selected Dean Rusk and Robert S. McNamara. Each was a member of the New 
York-based Council on Foreign Relations, a private organization formed 
in 1921 for the purpose of bringing about a one-world government.

Only nine months into his administration - on September 25, 1961, to be 
precise - Mr. Kennedy travelled to UN headquarters in New York to 
present a proposal entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program 
For General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. The work of 
the Rusk-led State Department, with the willing acquiescence of the 
McNamara-led Defense Department, the proposal was published as 
"Department of State Publication 7277."

In his remarks before the UN, President Kennedy asked for a commitment 
from all nations "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." He did not get any such commitment, yet 
the United States embarked on the Kennedy-launched program.

Freedom From War (or "7277," as it is frequently called) proposes three 
stages of disarmament ending with the transfer of the armed forces of 
our nation to the United Nations. As Senator Joseph Clark of 
Pennsylvania approvingly reminded his colleagues in a Senate speech on 
March 1, 1962, this program is "the fixed, determined and approved 
policy of the government of the United States."

A reading of the document itself confirms that disarmament "would 
proceed to a point  where no state would have the military power to 
challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force...." In other 
words, the only significant military power left in the world would be 
the United Nations.


The provisions of the treacherous proposal would actually leave our 
nation defenseless before the UN, and before any other nation that 
didn't similarly disarm. And it would place the UN's superior military 
power in the hands of the UN's Undersecretary for Political and Security 
Council Affairs, the overseer of all UN military activity. This post, by 
virtue of a secret agreement concluded at the founding of the UN (an 
arrangement later confirmed by an astonished former UN Secretary General 
named Trygve Lie), has always been held by a communist. The man who 
holds it today, is Vasiliy S. Safronchuk of the Soviet Union. Unless our 
leaders are stopped, they will succeed in turning over our military 
forces to the United Nations where they will be controlled by a 
communist.

              ********************************************
                                                 
Since the UN was created, there have been 14 Undersecretaries for 
Political and Security Council Affairs. All have been communists, and 
all but one have come from the Soviet Union.

              
1946-1949 Arkady Sobolev             1963-1965 V.P. Suslov
         (USSR)                               (USSR)
1949-1953 Konstantin Zinchenko       1965-1968 Alexei E. Nesterenko
         (USSR)                               (USSR)
1953-1954 Ilya Tchernychev           1968-1973 Leonid N. Kutakov
         (USSR)                               (USSR)
1954-1957 Dragoslav Protitch         1973-1978 Arkady N. Shevchenko
         (Yugoslavia)                         (USSR)
1958-1960 Anatoly Dobrynin           1978-1981 Mikhail D. Styenko
         (USSR)                               (USSR)
1960-1962 Georgy Arkadev             1981-1986 Viacheslav A. Ustinov
         (USSR)                               (USSR)
1962-1963 E.D. Kiselev               1987-     Vasiliy S. Safronchuk
         (USSR)                               (USSR)

              ********************************************

Subverting Our Sovereignty
            
Are our leaders really implementing this plan?  Yes, they are! The 
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is part of it; the treaty banning the use of 
outer space for nuclear weapons is part of it; the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty is part of it; and so is the Intermediate 
Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, signed by President Reagan and Soviet 
leader Gorbachev and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1988.

When Freedom From War was first made public, many startled Americans 
tried to obtain a copy. It was quickly declared "out of print" by 
federal authorities. Then, it was superseded in April 1962 by a "more 
precise" statement of the U.S. disarmament policy in a document entitled 
Blueprint For the Peace Race: Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on 
General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.


Presented formally to an 18-nation UN Committee on Disarmament meeting 
in Geneva, the foreword to the Blueprint states that it doesn't cancel 
the plans given in Freedom From War. It merely "elaborates and extends 
the proposals of September 25," the date that Freedom From War was 
unveiled at UN headquarters by President Kennedy. In complete accord 
with Freedom From War, the Blueprint spells out its overall goal in the 
third of its three stages: "The Parties to the Treaty would 
progressively strengthen the United Nations Peace Force established in 
Stage II until it had sufficient armed forces and armaments so that no 
state could challenge it."

When questioned about the commitment of the United States to the 
Blueprint, A. Richard Richstein, General Council of the U.S. Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency, stated in a May 11, 1982 letter that 
"the United States has never formally withdrawn this proposal." In 
January 1991, William Nary, the official; historian of the Arms Control 
and Disarmament Agency, confirmed again that "the proposal has not been 
withdrawn." Mr. Nary also confirmed that "certain features of it have 
been incorporated into subsequent disarmament agreements."

In summary, the plan to disarm the United States in favor of an 
all-powerful United Nations Peace Force is unfolding. It calls for 
relinquishing virtually all of our nation's military forces to a UN 
command whose leader, by agreement between the U.S. and the USSR during 
the founding sessions leading to the creation of the UN, will always be 
a communist. In the end, "no state could challenge" the communist-led 
military power of the United Nations.

This supposed "disarmament" program, therefore, is not as much about 
weapons elimination as it is about weapons distribution and control. If 
the program succeeds, only the UN and those nations skirting UN weapons 
prohibitions will be armed. It is remarkably similar to the drive that 
would outlaw private ownership of firearms. (emphasis added) If that 
drive should ever succeed, only the government and those who are outlaws 
would possess guns. Law-abiding citizens would be at their mercy in the 
latter case; law-abiding nations would be at the mercy of the UN and 
outlaw nations in the other.

Background To This Situation

How did we get into such a situation? Who are the individuals promoting 
such a suicidal proposal? Why is Congress going along instead of 
repudiating this dangerous program? How do we get out of it before it's 
too late?

At the founding of the United Nations in 1945, the delegation from the 
United States included a young State Department official named Alger 
Hiss. Widely acclaimed for both his ability and his enthusiasm for the 
world organization, he rose to become the acting secretary general of 
the founding UN conference. As a member of the steering and executive 
committees of the conference, he played a major role in drafting the UN 
Charter. He also helped to staff the U.S. delegation and was chosen by 
his peers for the prestigious task of personally transporting the 
Charter to the President and to the Senate for ratification.


Alger Hiss, however, was later found to have been a secret communist, 
more loyal to a foreign power than to the nation of his birth. A 1950 
State department document named 15 other key U.S. government officials 
who were responsible for planning the creation of the UN. They, too, 
were subsequently named as secret communists by official agencies.

            ************************************************

Five years after the 1945 founding of the United nations, official 
records released by the State Department# identified the individuals 
listed below as key U.S. contributors to the planning for the world 
organization. Each of the 16 was subsequently identified in sworn 
testimony before U.S. government agencies as a secret communist.

Alger Hiss                         Nathan Gregory Silvermaster
Harry Dexter White                 Harold Glasser
Virginius Frank Coe                Victor Perlo
Noel Field                         Irving Kaplan
Laurence Duggan                    Solomon Adler
Henry Julian Wadleigh              Abraham George Silverman
John Carter Vincent                William K. Ullman
David Weintraub                    William H. Taylor


# Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-1945, U.S. State Department

            ************************************************

Not only was the U.S. represented by a sizable number of communists, our 
nation's delegation also contained 43 individuals who were then or soon 
would be members of America's leading Establishment organization, the 
privately-run Council on Foreign Relations. Alger Hiss himself was both 
a communist and a CFR member as was another U.S. member of the UN 
planning team, Lauchlin Currie. As communists, and as CFR members, they 
worked diligently to bring the world government into existence, and they 
labored just as hard to have the United States a part of it.

There were, of course, delegations from the USSR and the other founding 
nations. These were made up of communists, socialists, one-worlders, and 
easily manipulated starry-eyed dreamers. All were committed to world 
government at the expense of national sovereignty. All wanted the United 
Nations to be supreme. There was to be no more war as soon as the United 
Nations was given sufficient power, especially unchallenged military 
power, to keep the peace.

For the past 45 years, intense pro-UN propaganda has convinced many 
Americans (and many others as well) that the words "peace" and "United 
Nations" are virtually interchangeable. Anyone who opposes the UN risks 
being labelled a warmonger. Those who support the UN customarily find 
themselves showered with accolades.

Peace is so universally desired that almost anything seems reasonable to 
achieve it. Proposals to empower the UN with the world's dominant 
military capability have received widespread support. At first glance, 
the idea may seem to have some merit. A world police force formed to 
keep the peace. Wouldn't it be wonderful!

Suppose, however, that the unchallengeable power of the United Nations 
fill into the wrong hands? Suppose it ended up at the disposal of Alger 
Hiss and his comrades? Couldn't it be used to impose a tyranny on the 
rest of mankind? Wouldn't any would-be tyrant gravitate to the 
organization?

Even if the UN wire not run by communists, socialists, and one-worlders 
who despise nationhood, wouldn't the awesome power we are talking about 
be sufficient to corrupt anyone? Who would be able to bridle any UN 
leaders who had been given greater power than anyone else on earth?

Don't Discard Americanism

It can't be said too often that America is unique. Our nation began with 
the thunderous assertion in the Declaration of Independence that 
"men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." 
According to the founding premise of this nation, rights come from God, 
not from government. And the declaration then declared that governments 
are formed solely "to secure those rights." That's all! Secure God-given 
rights, not provide for wants, redistribute the wealth, or make 
dependent serfs out of the people.

With the marvelous foundation laid in the Declaration, the men who 
formed this unique and wonderful nation the wrote a Constitution whose 
sole purpose was to govern the government, not the people. America was 
expected to be a nation where the government was limited by law and the 
people were limited by freely accepted moral codes such as those found 
in the Ten Commandments.

Nothing like America had ever existed in all history. And did this 
nation prosper! Millions left the old world to come here penniless - not 
to be cared for but to enjoy freedom and opportunity. America became the 
hope of the world - even for these who were not fortunate enough to live 
within our borders.

The United Nations, on the other hand, has no place for God. If rights 
don't come from God, the presumption is that they are granted by 
government. The UN actually fosters such a presumption, as can be 
discovered in its International Covenants on Human Rights.

What must be understood is that a government that presumes to grant 
fundamental rights - which is what the UN does - is a government that 
can suspend them at will. If the "self evident " truths in the 
Declaration of Independence are canceled or forgotten in favor of the 
UN's ways, all rights given us by our Creator will exist only at the 
extremely dubious pleasure of the United Nations.

The reality here is that the UN turns the entire American system on its 
head. To consider submitting our nation to the dictates of the 
anti-American, pro-communist and Godless United Nations is suicidal. 
Yet, this is exactly what our leaders have been working towards for 
several decades. Sad to say, it is perfectly obvious that this is 
precisely what President Bush is talking about when he repeatedly 
expresses his desire to create a "new world order."


Unfortunately, the desire for peace has clouded the vision of many 
otherwise clear-thinking Americans. Many have been persuaded to think 
only of the concept of "peace," but not what kind of peace. No one 
should ever forget that there is the peace of the grave, the peace of 
submission, and the communist peace that consists of no opposition to 
communism. Peace with justice, the goal of anyone possessing good will, 
is as likely under United Nations domination as is the chance that water 
will flow uphill.

Whenever thoughts such as these are brought to the attention of sensible 
Americans, enthusiasm for UN-style peace diminishes rapidly. "Let's keep 
our independence!" is a common response. "Why should we trust others to 
look after our well-being?" is another. But too few are aware of the 
dangers inherent in an all-powerful world government. And too few, 
therefore, have been guarding against transferring U.S. military forces 
and U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

The "New World Order"

In an exclusive interview published in the December 31, 1990/January 7, 
1991 issue of U.S. News and World Report, President Bush called for "a 
reinvigorated United Nations" that he hoped would bring about the "new 
world order." What should be reinvigorated instead are the U.S. 
Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

During a January 9, 1991 press conference, Mr. Bush said that the crisis 
in the Middle East "has to do with a new world order [that] is only 
going to be enhanced if this newly activated peacekeeping function of 
the United Nations proves to be effective." Obviously, he considers our 
forces in the Middle East to have been under the UN's peacekeeping 
jurisdiction. And isn't it curious that this supposed "peace" 
organization's authority was used in starting the war in the Middle East?

Then, in his January 19, 1991 speech to the nation, the President again 
touted the "new world order," describing it as "an order in which a 
credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the 
promise and vision of the UN's founders." He didn't remind anyone that 
the UN's founders were communists, socialists, one-worlders, and 
starry-eyed dreamers who would happily tear down the unique foundations 
of the United States and replace them with the UN Charter.

What To Do To Save America

Answers to some of the questions we have already raised, and to others 
that anyone reading this pamphlet must have, begin with an understanding 
of the grip on America held by the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. 
Bush, a member of the CFR's Board of Directors as recently as 1979, can 
point to more than 350 CFR members currently serving as U.S. Government 
officials. A similar CFR dominance prevailed during the Reagan years and 
in several previous administrations.

Current U.S. Officials holding membership in the CFR include Secretary 
of Defense Cheney, National Security Advisor Scowcroft, Joint Chiefs 
Chairman Powell, CIA Director Webster, and Deputy Secretary of State 
Eagleburger. Don't expect any to block further entanglement of the 
United States in the UN.

There are also 16 U.S. senators and a like number of U.S. 
representatives who hold membership in this organization. Don't expect 
them to protect our nation from UN domination.

Realize too, that practically nationally important organ of the news 
media is led by a CFR member. Any senator or representative who wishes 
to receive favor from the media goes along with subverting America to 
internationalist goals. Any senator or representative who tries to keep 
our nation independent runs the risk of having the media make him seem 
like a lunatic.

The great majority of the American people who value their freedom and 
their nation's independence have to become informed and alarmed about 
the path down which we are being taken. There will be no change without 
a rising tide of indignation. And there will be no rising tide of 
indignation until the frightening details about the ongoing subversion 
of this nation have been placed in the hands of many more Americans.

Happily, there are reliable sources of information both about President 
George Bush's commitment to his "new world order" and about the Council 
on Foreign Relations itself. We highly recommend two books:

1. The Establishment's Man, by James J. Drummey, a tastefully written 
yet devastating expose' of the political career of George Bush;

2. The Shadows of Power, by James Perloff, a history of the Council on 
Foreign Relations taken from its own papers and publications.

The enemy is within the gates of our great land. Those who would deliver 
out nation to a UN-controlled "new world order" have achieved great 
power and influence. Whether they are stopped in time is up to 
individuals who will read a pamphlet like this one, books like those 
recommended above, and a great deal more information that is available 
to anyone. Once informed, an American worthy of the name will work with 
others to throw the rascals out of office, and, in the words of George 
Washington, "put none but Americans" in charge of guarding this nation.

---End 4---

---End All---

QMaster@aol.com

***Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction?  Shall we acquire
the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging
the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and
foot? 
                                 GOD FORBID!
                                   Patrick Henry, St. Johns Church, Richmond
VA., 3/23/1775***