Global Gun Grab 3v1a6q

The United Nations Campaign to Disarm Americans

bV William Norman Grigg

~ THE JOHN BIRCHSOCIETY Appleton, Wisconsin

Copyright ©2001 by The John Birch Society All Rights Reserved

Published by The John Birch Society Post Office Box 8040 Appleton, Wisconsin 54912 www.jbs.org

Printed in the United States of America LC Control Number 2001 135634 ISBN: 1-881919-05-6

To Jeremy Glick and the other heroes of United Flight 93.

"Let's Roll."

Contents Introduction 1. Citizens or Subjects?

1 7

2. Disarmament and Democide

23

3. Blueprint for Global Dictatorship

36

4. Psychological Disarmament

49

5. The Rwandan Genocide

63

6. "Peace" Through Terror

80

7. Militarizing Mayberry

91

8. Stop the Gun Grab: Get US Out!

110

Endnotes

125

Index

141

Acknowledgments

149

About the Author.

151

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ." - The Second Amendment

Introduction t seems almost absurd to have to say it, but no person is made safer if his right to defend himself is taken away. Yet our nation is awash in propaganda claiming that civilian disarmament (better known as "gun control") is the key to personal safety and civic order. Tragically, many Americans have accepted this incredibly dangerous fallacy. One reason why so many have succumbed to the illogic of "gun control" is the fact that personal ownership of firearm s has been relentlessly demonized by our mass media. The move to ban gun ownership is well organized and well financed. Prominent voices in the attack on the right to keep and bear arms include high-powered Establishment figures, prestigious tax-exempt foundations, and a sizeable number of of Congress. Of course, the gun ban they seek wouldn' t be total. If the gun-grabbers succeed, police and milit ary personnel will be permitted to have weapons, and criminal s will continue to find ways to procure firearms . Only law-abiding citizens will be denied the right to be armed . On many occasions I have had the opportunity to ask "gun control" advocate s a simple question : "Would you put a sign on your home announcing that no guns are inside?" Invariably, the response was dead silence, followed by a cautious reconsideration of the wisdom of "gun control." Only someone who is foolish or dishone st would answer "yes" to such a question. The responses I' ve received to this question illustrate that even those who readily recite antigun propaganda under stand that the ability of armed citizens to protect themselves and their property - whether that ability is exercised or not - serves as a major deterrent to violent crime .

I

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - The Second Amendment

Introduction

5

al Gun Grab is its discussion of the folly of believing that our rights can be protected by working within the UN via non-governmental organizations, or NGGs. Groups that seek NGO status from the UN, Mr. Grigg demonstrates, have to pledge for the work of the UN and accept the UN's claim to act as a global legislature. If conservative NGGs attempt to offer effective opposition, the UN can - and will- banish them immediately. In addition, as Mr. Grigg points out, the NGG approach, which is favored by the National Rifle Association, offers a "purely defensive strategy" that is ultimately doomed to defeat. In this valuable book, the reader will find a wealth of information illustrating that the United Nations is the chief threat to both individual gun ownership and national independence. The UN is much closer to accomplishing its despicable designs than most Americans realize, in large measure because the American people have not been educated about the true nature of the threat, including the role of the American Establishment in empowering the UN. Nor do they understand the necessary response to this threat. "For Americans who understand the paramount importance of the right to keep and bear arms - and the threat to that right represented by the UN - the proper course is clear," writes Mr. Grigg. That course is to get our nation out of the United Nations, and to evict the organization from our land. It can be done, and this book brilliantly illustrates why it must be done. John F. McManus President, The John Birch Society September 25,2001

2

Global Gun Grab

While many Americans understand the value of individual gun ownership, and the dangers inherent in restricting or denying the exercise of that right , they fail to appreciate the critical fact at the heart of this book: The chief impe tus for worldwide civilian disarmament is the United Nation s. In this book, William Norman Grigg has provided Americans with an abundance of sorely needed inform ation about the ongoing "Global Gun Grab." Someone had to step forward to combat the anti-gun propaganda with uncompromising thoroughness, not ju st sound bites. Mr. Grigg has capably accomplished that task in the pages that follow. Full of fundamental truths that have been suppressed in our age of sophomoric slogans, Mr. Grigg 's counteroffensive to the dizzying anti-gun campaign begin s by warning that civilian disarmament does more than just leave citizens vulnerable to street criminals: It open s the door for gov ernments to ama ss police state powers. Citing some of history's grimmest chapters, he points out that totalitarian government is more deadly than war, and that the disarmament of civilian s is a necessary prelude to both tyrann y and mass bloodshed. To buttress this fundamentally important - and, sadly, little-understood - point , Mr. Grigg cites the authoritative work of Professor R.J. Rummel, whose powerful book Death by Government shows that in the 20th century alone, governments have killed four times the number of people who perished in that century's wars. Rummel refers to this phenomenon as "democide" - the mass murder of people by criminal governments. And those governments, Mr. Grigg demonstrates, were able to carry out such incomprehensible slaughter because their subject peoples had been disarmed and were unable to defend themselves. In Global Gun Grab, Mr. Grigg explains in detail how "gun control" made possible the genocidal campaigns carried out by governments in Nazi , Soviet Russia,

4

Globa l Gun Grab

in a Peaceful World. This incredibly subversive document, which rema ins official U.S. policy, outlines a multi-stage program that concludes with the surrender of our armed forces to the UN. But it also mandates a total ban on the "manufacture of armaments" except for those approved by the UN. Under the Freedom From War design, "all other armaments" would then be "destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes" - meaning that they would be turned over for use by the UN's "global peace force" and its national s . Mr. Grigg shows how the same treacherous program is outlined by another State Department document, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, which was issued in 1962. Originally classified, that report very candidly proposes the creation of a UN-dominated world government. The document's author, Lincoln P. Bloomfield, lamented that the American people's "constitutional right to keep and bear arms" stands in the way of creating the "government monopoly" on firearms that is necessary for the creation of world government under the UN. The plans set forth in these diabolical documents are being carried out today. Global Gun Grab sheds light on the ongoing consolidation of the military and police . In the aftermath of Waco and similar tragedies, many have come to appreciate the dangers of mixing the military with law enforcement. Mr. Grigg highlights the little-understood fact that these outrages are a direct outgrowth of the UN's disarmament campaign. With abundant, frightening evidence to back up his assertion, the author claims : "What we are witnessing is the slow but persistent abolition of our independent, local police forces, and their amalgamation into a centralized, militarized internal security force - just as the State Department's 1961 Freedom From War blueprint dictates ." Perha ps the most important contribution made in Glob-

CHAPTER ONE

Citizens or Subjects? Disperse yo u rebels, throw down your arm s and disperse!' - Ultimatum given by British Major John Pitcairn to the Minutemen on Lexington Green, April 19, 1775 The UN declared martial law and .. . [Communist Party official] Michel Tombelaine of , deputy UN civilian commander, announ ced over the UN controlled radio that any civilians f ound in illegal possession of arm s will be summarily executed.2 - Contemporary newspaper of the UN 's "peacekeeping" mission in the Congo, 1961

t the point of the trian gle- shaped Lexington Green battlefield can be found one of the most celebrated American symbols : Sculptor Henry Hudson Kitson's statue of Captain John Parker, who commanded the Minutemen militia on April 19, 1775 (see photo opposite page 91). On that day, and at that place , the opening salvo was fired in the American War for Independence. The Minutemen, acting upon Paul Revere 's warning , thrust themsel ves into the path of a well-armed, well-trained British contingent under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith. The Minutemen were determined to prevent the planned British seizure of firearm s and gunpowder from the militia depot at Concord. In taking this desperate action the Minutemen were driven by an unders tanding of the principle that a disarmed population is a subject population. Indeed,

A

7

8

Global Gun Grab

since 1763 the purpose of quartering British troops within the American colonies, under the pretense of pacifying Indian tribes, was to "restrain the colonies at present as well as formerl y" and to "exact a due obedience" to the whim s of Parliament.3 Thus the citizen-soldiers had no choice but to con front the Empire's crimson-clad "peacekeeping" troops on that April morning. The initial skirmish at Lexington ended badl y for the Minutemen: Eight were killed and nine were wounded, while only a single British soldier was wounded in the exchan ge. Lt. Col. Smith was able to continue his march to Concord. But as news of the Lexington engagement spread across the countryside, thousands of armed militiamen mustered at Concord, where they mounted an attack upon the British forces at the North Bridge. By noon , Smith realized that his position was indefensible and ordered a retreat. But the Americans, taking shelter behind rocks and trees , subjected the Redcoats to a withering barrage all the way back to Boston. Only the arrival of 800 British reinforcements prevented the engagement from turning into an undisguised rout. Nevertheless, the Minutemen gave far better than they got: American casualties were 49 killed, 39 wounded, and five missing; the British lost 65 killed, 183 wounded, and 28 taken prisoner, " One of every five British troops who took the field that day against the American citizen-soldiers was a casualty. The Minuteman statue captures the essence of an armed , free citizenry. But it also symbolizes the inescapable connection between the right of Americans to bear arms and our national independence. The statue is therefore an affront to the sensibilities of those who believe that "peace" and "security" are best preserved through "general and complete disarmament," not only of Americans, but of civilians worldwide.

Citizens or Subjects?

9

Icons of Evil There is another statue that expresses the strikingly different ideal of "ge neral and complete disarmament." That statue is found in a courtyard in front of the entrance to the United Nations Headquarters building in New York City. A gift presented to the UN by Luxembourg in 1986, the statue, entitled Disarmam ent, is a large-scale replica of a Colt Python revolver with its barrel twisted into a knot (see photo opposite page 90). That particular model of handgun is a civilian weapon, rather than military issue. In short, this statue , which is situated in such a way as to be literally the first thing visitors to the UN will see as they enter the courtyard, symbolizes the drive to disarm civilians, not governm ents. An even more compelling symbolic illustration of the UN 's lust for universal civilian disarmament was unveiled at the July 2001 "Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects." During the two weeks of the conference, the lobby of UN Headquarters played host to The Gun Sculpture: The Art of Disarmament - a mammoth, cube-shaped artifact formed from firearms, knives, and ammunition (see photo opposite page 91). According to the Canadian pacifist organization "I human 2000," which commissioned the sculpture and displays it around the world, the work of "art" was created from more than 7,000 "deactivated crime and war weapons, donated by police, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and security forces world wide."s I human 2000 describes The Gun Sculpture as "a metaphor for the most violent century in the history of mankind ." What the group's propaganda fails to mention is that the single largest source of that lethal violence was the unrestrained, lawless state in all of its manifestations, which according to political scientist R.J. Rummel killed nearly 170,000,000 human beings during that period.? This

10

Global Gun Grab

hideous accomplishment easily dwarfs the combined achievements of all private sector criminal syndicates throughout recorded history. Mass murder is the only field of endeavor in which the state outperforms its private sector competition - and it does so in classic monopolistic fashion . In this case, the state seeks to monopolize the use of force by disarming its subjects. The Gun Sculpture , , was fashioned from weapons collected by police and security forces, the elements of society that, when corrupted and freed from the restraints of law, are responsible for genocide and other forms of political mass murder. Seen in this light, that work of "art" is not a tribute to peace, but rather a shrine to tyranny and lethal oppression. Like the knotted-barrel Disarmament monument, The Gun Sculpture is an entirely appropriate expression of the evil intentions of the Power Elite that controls the UN. Another symbol of a disarmed, UN-dominated world is the Flamme de la Paix, the so-called "Flame of Peace," which has been visible on many occasions as UN "peacekeepers" have ignited huge bonfires of confiscated weapons." In fact, the UN proclaimed June 9,2001, the first day of the Small Arms Conference, to be "Small Arms Destruction Day." The event was celebrated at the UN with a ceremonial destruction of firearms , and governments around the world were urged to make similar public displays by destroying guns with "bulldozers, hammers, bonfires lit by victims , by whatever means participating countries would prefer." Zlata Filipovic, a Bosnian Muslim girl who was designated a "World Ambassador of Peace" by the UN, was also on hand during a press conference at UN Headquarters to be photographed throwing disabled guns into a container labeled "UN Small Arms Destruction Unit."g Why such a heavy emphasis on symbolic gestures? Ac-

Citizens or Subjects ?

11

cording to Sami Faltas , a disarmament activist deeply involved in the UN gun grab, "people act on the basis of their perceptions. It is not reality, but their perception of it, that influences their behavior. Bearing this in mind, it is not difficult to appreciate the influence of symbols and images .... I would like to suggest that in a weapons collection pro gram , like in all fields of human interaction, symbolic actions may have a powerful effect,"? This process could be called Psychological Disarmament - an expre ssion that will figure very prominently in this book.

Preparing the Way The purpose of such a heavy investment in symbolism by the UN is to prepare the minds of the masses for worldwide civilian disarmament. In fact, the UN's Small Arms Conference itself, which produced a "Program of Action" designating "illicit" small arms to be a global menace, was little better than a symbolic gesture, a "first step." "Faced with the global scourge of small arms,' intoned Secretary-General Kofi Annan following the conference, "the international community has now begun an important process of constructive global action .v'" "Global action ," that is, with the ultimate objective of universal civilian disarmament - with a particular focus upon American gun owners. During the conference, the draft "Program of Action" was amended to include language calling upon governments "to seriously consider legal restrictions on unrestricted trade in and ownership of small arms and light weapons" - in other words, to begin the process of disarming civilians . When the U.S. delegation to the conference, led by Under Secretary of State John Bolton, objected to this amendment, the language was dropped , and the original draft was approved by "consensus" (without a vote, but with no objections or abstentions by the delegates).

12

Global Gun Grab

This was hailed as a victory by many American pro-gun activists, who breathed a huge sigh of relief that the UN gungrabbers had been repulsed by the Bush istration. But these celebrations were premature. The purpose of this last-minute revision was to create a controversy that could be resolved after agonizing negotiations - much to everybody's supposed relief. Similar melodramas were carried out at the 1994 UN population control summit in Cairo, Egypt, and the 1995 UN social development summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. Why would the powers behind the UN engage in little charades of this sort? Once again, it is important to recall the emphasis they place upon symbolism as a way of influencing human behavior. By staging a pointless controversy of this sort, the UN can offer its critics an empty tactical victory, which will provide a useful distraction from the strategic gains made by the UN . In this case, the UN didn't get everything it wanted namely, a plan of action that would require "small arms to be transferred only to governments, or governmentapproved entities." II It did, however, get a program that represents a "first step" in that direction. Furthermore, the subject of a UN-enforced ban on civilian firearms ownership had, for the first time, been seriously discussed. The conference president, Camilo Reyes of Colombia, made clear that the outcome represented a temporary setback, rather than a decisive defeat: "What I regret - what most of us regret - is [that] no decision [was reached] on two or three issues that were important for us. One related to ownership of arms and the other one related to the transfer of arms the selling of arms." 12 In other words, when it comes to its desire to disarm civilians, the UN does not regard "No!" to mean "no," but rather "not yet." Former Congressman Charles Pas hayan, who atte nded the conference as a delegate, clearly understood the sinis-


13

ter significance of the "consensus" reached at that meeting . "This is not the end," he warned. "Thi s is the opening skirmish of a war.... All of this has to be understood as part of a proce ss leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws."l 3 The Bush istration, nevertheless, decided to keep the U.S. involved in that process by agreeing to a followup UN conference in five years to review "progress" toward elimination of small arms . The purpose of the follow -up event, as Under Secretary Bolton correctly observed at the Small Arms Conference , is to "institutionalize" the UN 's anti-gun campaign.14

Demonizing Guns and Gun Owners Even with the of the U.S . government, the UN 's gun grab would have little impact unless it could enlist public , or at least neutralize public opposition. The 2000 UN video production Armed to the Teeth: The WorldWide Plague ofSmall A rms presents a good summary of the propaganda themes employed by the world body in its effort to demonize both privately owned firearms and the people who own them . The UN film depic ts firearms as somehow possessing the capacity for independent malice: "Small arms are not fussy about the company they keep . They can murder indiscriminately. The gun that killed in Africa can do it again in Latin America, or in Asia .... Humankind is beginning a new millennium under the sign of the gun . Small arms are like uninvited guests who won 't leave. Once they take over a country, they are virtually impossible to get rid of."15 According to the UN, "small arms and light weapons," a category that includes all firearms, including revolvers, 16 are subject to global arms controls, just like nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. "For its first fifty years, the United Nations focused its disarmament efforts on ad-

14

Global Gun Grab

dressing the proliferation of nuclear weapons," observes the narrator of Armed to the Teeth. The world body claims that its authority to deal with the global "small arms crisis" derives from its self-appointed mandate to pursue "general and complete disarmament.'"? It is important to recognize that while the disarmament pursued by the UN would be general, it would not be complete - since the world body would be exempt. What the organization seeks is the disarmament of its subjects, not its agents. This is illustrated by the definition of "legal " firearms offered in Armed to the Teeth. The agitprop film describes "legal" weapons as those "used by armies and police forces to protect us." Civilian-owned weapons, by way of contrast, are supposedly "illegitimate" and "bring insecurity, pain, suffering and devastation." Accordingly, the UN's disarmament agenda requires that firearms be brought under the control of national military and police establishments. Ultimately, each nation's internal security establishment would be made subordinate to a globe-spanning UN "peace force." • The UN is also being artfully deceptive regarding the subject of "illicit" firearms. Prior to and during the 2001 UN Small Arms Conference, spokesmen for the organization repeatedly sought to placate gun owners by emphasizing that any agreement would apply only to "illicit" guns. What law-abiding gun owners were not told was that the UN considers all privately owned firearms to be illicit by definition . Furthermore, the "consensus" at the Small Arms Conference was that legally owned firearms are potentially illicit, meaning that at some point they could be sold, stolen, or otherwise transferred to "non-state actors" in other countries, thereby becoming illicit. Lloyd Axworthy, a former Canadian Minister of Justice and one of North America's leading advocates of a UN-


15

enforced global gun ban, made this point explicitly: "It is not sufficient to limit the examination purely to the question of illegal transfers . There must be a connection, and a serious way of looking at the legal transfers, because it is those legal transfers which end up being illegal, and ending up in the wrong hands.?" The same point was made during the Small Arms Conference by Jovias van Aartsen, Foreign Affairs Minister of The Netherlands: "It 's my firm conviction that the illicit trade cannot be tackled without involving the legal arms trade. We must further regulate the legal trade in arms, small weapons included, in order to prevent spillover into the illegal arms trade." 19 Leaders of anti-gun non-governmental organizations (or NGOs) took up the same chorus . "The American public is learning that guns that are purchased in legal markets here can and do flow into the illicit market," asserted Mary Leigh Blek of the so-called Million Mom March at the conference. "We know that guns know no borders .,,2o Jo-Marie Griesgraber of the UN-connected Oxfam America assailed the U.S. delegation for "opposing an agreement with force of law" that would regulate the international arms trade, and for insisting on a distinction between "civilian" and "military" weapons . "It doesn't matter to 12-year-olds in Uganda whether they are abducted by guerillas with 'civilian' weapons or military weapons," she insisted." During the conference, a collection of radical NGOs convened a "Guns Know No Borders" rally at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza across from UN Headquarters. One of the demands made at that event was for the federal government "to resist the globalization of gun violence by enacting commonsense gun laws in the U.S." - that is, incremental measures that will eventually lead to outright confiscation.F The logic (such as it is) of gun prohibition dictates that

16

Global Gun Grab

the best way to fight crimes committed with firearms is to focus on the weapon, rather than the criminal. This, in tum, leads to restrictions on the liberties of the law-abiding, which supposedly will help prevent the crimes committed by the lawless . Many Americans are wearily familiar with these fallacies, which play such a prominent role in our domestic debate over what is misleadingly called "gun control." These fallacies are being pressed into the service of the UN's global gun grab, with this ominous twist: Ameri cans are being told that their right to keep and bear arms must be abolished in order to prevent crimes committed by foreign regimes, terrorists, and crime syndicates. So American gun owners are being blamed for crimes committed by gun-wielding thugs in other nations . Thus the UN, acting with and through our federal government,must crack down on the possession and sale of weapons by Americans. All of this, as Charles Pashayan correctly warned, is part of a UN "war" on American gun owners .

Disarmament on the Installment Plan "Controlling the proliferation of illicit [e.g. civilian-owned] weapons is a necessary first step towards the non-proliferation of small arms," declared Secretary-General Annan in his official 2000 report, 'We the Peoples.' "These weapons must be brought under the control of states, and states must be held responsible for their transfer."23 How are "surplus" firearms to be brought under state control? Sami Faltas of the Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC), which assists the UN in "weapons collection" programs, points out that it is best for arms confiscation to proceed step-by-step . "Experience suggests that before and during the period of collection, strong emphasis should be placed on voluntary compliance, positive incentives and freedom from prosecution," observes Faltas. "However, it seems equally important to make it clear that


17

after this period of amnesty, the laws governing the possession of arms by civilians will be fully and actively enforced . In other words, use the carrot first, and the stick later.,,24 "A subtle mix of rewards and penalties is needed for a weapons program to succeed," continues Faltas. "Ultimately, the ownership ofarms should not be left to the personal choice of individuals. The state needs to preserve its monopoly ofthe legitimate use offorce. So sanctions against the illegal possession and use of arms are necessary and should be imposed. However, during a weapons collection program, an amnesty is needed , and the emphasis should be on voluntary compliance and positive incentivea'P (Emphasis added .) The meaning of the sterile phrase "monopoly on the legitimate use of force" is best conveyed in a single word: Totalitarianism. In America's constitutional order, governments both state and federal "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." Since government's powers are limited and revocable, it cannot posses s a "monopoly" on force . Indeed , the entire premise of the American War for Independence was that a sovereign people could use force to take back powers that had been usurped by a corrupt government. The right to armed self-defense, from the Founding Fathers' perspective, was conferred by God as the means of protecting all other God-given rights. The premise of the UN gun grab, by way of contrast, is totalitarian: Government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and "rights" are merely temporary, revocable privileges granted by government. In the UN design for "general and complete disarmament," each nation-state would have a limited franchise within the UN's global monopoly on force. Most of the individuals promoting this vision are sober and apparently civilized people. For the most part, they

18

Global Gun Grab

wear expensive suits rather than fatigues or similar militaris tic garb. The y are comfortable speaking the drab langua ge of bure aucrats, rather than engaging in the histrionics of revolutionary radic als. But while they may not look like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or similar bloody-handed despots, the UN's gun-grabbers - and their allies within the U.S. government - are diligently pursuing the same totalitarian vision . For that vision to prevail, the population must be intellectually, psychologically, and morally disarmed. Falta s advises his fellow gun-grabbers that "we apons collection programmes onl y suc ceed when they enj oy strong acro ss the political spectrum" - or, to use the famil iar American phras e, strong "biparti san" backing. Henc e the importance of enli sting the , however qualified, of the "conservative" Republican i stration of George W. Bush for the UN 's crusade against "small arm s." Confiscation measures "stand a much better chance of success if voluntary organizations are intimately involved in the process ," advised Faltas . Thi s would mean , in the American context, the involvement of civic groups, medical associations, educational organizations, and other "mainstream" voices in generating public acceptance of the "need" for citizens to disarm. Clearly, this is happening in the United State s even now. Faltas also makes the following very significant point: "This process will be greatly enhanced if women playa leading role in it." While he didn 't explicitly refer to the socalled "Million Mom March," or the UN-created lobby called the "Billion Mom March," such fabricated pressure groups certainly fill the role Faltas describes. And of course, no effort to manipulate public "perceptions " can succeed without the active involvement of the mass media: "Media also have a key role to play, providing information, reporting on the progress achieved, providing


19

a forum for debate and replacing the images of insecurity and violence by images of developm ent and disarmament.,,26 (Emphasis added .) Consumers of American television news programs have little difficulty recognizing this media strategy at work in our nation.

The "Buy-Back" Gambit While Sami Faltas's template for UN-conducted arms confiscation programs fits much of what is happening in the United States, some skeptics might protest that we' re dealing with mere coincidence. The argument for "coincidence," however, is much more difficult to make when it is understood that UN policymakers have cited domestic disarmament programs underway in this nation as a model for global civilian disarmament campaigns. Since the early 1990s, "gun buy-backs," often conducted by police departments with the help of volunteer organizations or businesses, have become a common spectacle in many large U.S. cities. The UN Centre for Disarmament Affairs (UNCDA) refers to such "buy-backs" as a "practical method of micro-disarmament" ("micro-disarmament" being a UN term used to describe the disarming of civilians) . Dr. Edward J. Laurance, a consultant to the UN of Conventional Arms, points out that the UNCDA has studied both "buy-back programs as practiced in many American cities" and those "conducted by the U.S. Army in Haiti" - the latter being part of a peacekeeping mission carried out on orders from the UN Security Council. Faltas also cites "Buy-back programmes" conducted in "the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom , Haiti, and Eastern Slovenia" as models for UN gun confiscation efforts worldwide.F Dr. Laurance insists that government "buy-backs" of small arms "must be conducted in parallel with other efforts," such as "seizure programs." Laurance, reflecting

20

Global Gun Grab

once again the emphasis upon changing public "perceptions," also points out that "buy-backs" have the effect of focusing "attention on the link between weapons availability and crime," thereby preparing the public for more aggressive civilian disarmament measures . To illustrate a successful UN-supervised civilian "microdisarmament" pro gram, he refers to EI Salvador's "new laws outlawing possession of military weapon s and requiring all citizens to hand guns and personal weapons . A new police force was created [and] trained under UN supervision ... [which] recei ved specialized training in searching for, confiscating and destroying .. . military- style weapons ...." 28

A Clear and Present Danger The opening phase of the UN 's Global Gun Grab is underway. The world body, either through "peacekeeping" troops or acting through nat ional governments, is confi scating firearms from civilians. Its polic ymakers are even now working on plan s to police the international trade in firearm s. American gun owners have been repeatedly and explicitly targeted as the source of the global small arms "scourge." If the UN and its master s have their way, the world body will become a global state with a monop oly on force - a circumstance that has historically led to bloodshed on an inconceivable scale . Can we trust those who would disarm us to rule us benevolently? To ask this question in seriousness is to betray our heritage as free Americans. From the earliest days of our struggle for national independence, Americans understood themselves as citizens to be governed , but never as subjects to be ruled . The right to bear arms in defense of one's person , property, family, and freedom is what distinguishes the citizen from the subject, or the freeman from the slave.


21

The clash of arms at Lexington's Green and Concord's North Bridge on April 19, 1775 was triggered by the world's mightiest power attempting to seize weapons from "non-state actors" and bring their weapons under the government's control. Captain John Parker's Min utemen and Lt. Col. Francis Smith's Redcoats fought a battle over the issue of "micro-disarmament." Following the battles of Lexing ton and Concord, British General Thomas Gage extended an "amnesty" during which citizens were invited to surrender their weapons and then be allowed to leave Boston - an agreement that General Gage violated with impunity once he had disarmed the community.V These episodes in April 1775, which revealed the intention of the British imperial power to disarm the Americans, provided the impetus for America's War for Independence. Early American historian David Ramsay summarizes: Previous to this period . .. the dispute had been carried on by the pen ... but from this time forward it was conducted by the sword. The crisis had arrived when the colonies had no alternative, but either to submit to the mercy, or to resist the power of Great Britain. An unconquerable love of liberty could not brook the idea of submission.... [The Americans] were fully apprised of the power of Britain - they knew that her fleets covered the ocean, and that her flag had waved in triumph through the four quarters of the globe; but the animated lang uage of the time was, "It is better to die freemen, than to live as slaves.,,30 The choice is just as stark today: independence and fre edom, or subm ission and slavery. While the UN, unlike the 18th century Bri tish Empire, does not yet have the power to enforce its will, it is steadily and stealthily acquiring that power. If we are to preserve our freedom, we must do so

22

Global Gun Grab

while the means are still available to us - before the sickly pale blue UN banner can wave "in triumph through the four quarters of the globe," and our only recourse is a contest of arms against a global ruler. Although the British Empire was powerful , and its punishments could be severe, it was a model of benevolence compared to the modem totalitarian state. The UN has long played host to the world 's most vicious, bloody-handed totalitarian powers. Soviet Russia, Red China , Castro's Cuba, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, IdiAmin's Uganda, Rwanda under the "Hutu Power" regime -:- the roster is as lengthy as it is frightening . If we remain in the UN and allow its global gun grab to proceed, we will entrust our future to the tender mercies ofregimes like this. Civilian disarmament, it bears repeating, is a necessary prelude to tyranny and mass murder. What might happen if the UN obtains its desired global monopoly on force? To answer that question, we must review the sad and bloody history of 20th century disarmament and democide.

CHAPTER

Two

Disarmament and Democide Democide: The systematic murder, by a government, of its subject population. The most fo olish mis take we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allow ed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. 1 - Adolf Hitler There is not a moment to lose; you must act resolutely, with massive reprisals [again st peasants resisting Communist rule}. Imm ediate exec ution f or anyone caught with a firearm. 2 - Vladimir Lenin , telegram to Communist Party officials in Nizhni Novgorod, Augu st 9, 1918. "L et 's Go Out Into the World and Gath er Up the Small Arms ,,3 - Title of an essay byMark Malloch Brown of the UN Development Program and Jayantha Dhanapala, UN Undersecretary-General for Disarmament Affairs. nApri11975, "peace" dawned in Cambodia after decades of instability and war. With the capitulation of Lon Nol's government, the capital city Phnom Penh was no longer under siege. Gone were the rocket attacks that had been staged by the Khmer Rouge Communist insurrection - attacks that had been merciless and iridiscriminate, staged for the

I

23

24

Global Gun Grab

purpo se of terro rizing the population into seeking an end to the war on any term s. Thus when the Khmer Rouge marched in to claim the prostrate city on April 17th of that year, the war-weary popula tion was eager to display its enthusiasm for peace. "M en, women and children by the tens of thou sands broke the government curfew and ventured into the suddenly safe streets or climbed on roofs to await and welcome the com munists," recall John Barron and Anthony Paul in their book Murder of a Gentle Land. "R umors told them they should signify their acceptance of peace by displaying white flags, and quickly the city blossomed with emblems of surrender." As the black pajama-clad Khmer Roug e troop s stoically marched through the streets, they were greeted with ecstatic cries of "long live peace!" "We were happy to see them," recalled a banker who had witnessed the Communist victory parade. "It meant the war was over."s But millions of Cambodians were to discover what other captive populations had learned: Totalitarian "peace" is more deadly than war.

"Sensible" Gun Policies at Work Cambodia, like Rwanda and other countries ruled by massmurdering dictatorships, had the benefit of a "sensible" national firearms policy it had inherited from a less gruesome government. Under Cambodia's 1956 penal code, which was promulgated by the French colonial authority, citizens were forbidden to own or carry weapons without a special permit. They were also forbidden to own "more than one weapon at a time except in exceptional cases ." Among those granted this special status were "princes, sons, and grandsons of the King" as well as "Ministers and their deputies" and "officials, employees, or agents of the government'" When the Khmer Rouge seized control of Cambodia,

Disarmament and Democide

25

"relatively few Cambodians owned firearms," note s a study by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. That the Khmer Rouge troops were ordered to conduct searches for firearms illustrates that "they we re concerned about armed oppo sition. It is because mo st Cambodians were not armed that relatively few armed Khmer Rouge could control so large a population. There was precedent for [the] rule of a tiny, armed minority over a huge, unarmed majority: Cambodian bandits in the 1930s , with only a few firearms, had terrorized large parts of the country."? Northwestern University law professor Daniel D. Polsby points out that "had the Cambodian civilians of the 1970s been as well-armed as American civilians are, it is far from obvious that the Khmer Rouge, whose army numbered less than one hundred thousand troops, could have murdered as man y of them as they did . Indeed, the Khmer Rouge behaved as though they agreed with this assessment. Th e Cambodian people were already largely disarmed because guns had been prohibited from the time of the French occupation. Even so, the Khmer Rouge leadership wanted to make sure and took the extraordinary precaution of a nationwide house-to -house, hut-to-hut search to confirm the country was indeed defenseless. " Once the population was disarmed, the Khmer Rouge could prey upon it with impunity. Although the Communist occupation authority announced that civilian looters would be summarily executed, "they did nothing to deter wholesale looting by their own troops," observe Barron and Paul. "Soon communist soldiers rampaged through commercial districts, shooting open the bolted doors of shops or ripping them off with ropes attached to jeeps." Troops simply seized anything and everything they wanted - food, liquor, jewelry. Soon armed troops were confiscating automobiles, motorcycles, and bicycles at gunpoint, always in the name of Angka Loeu ("Organization on High," the Communist

26

Global Gun Grab

ruling elite)," The eruption of gun-related violent crime, committed by agents of a criminal regime, soon expanded to include in stances of apparently random homicide. But there was nothing random -about the systematic "cleansing" of Phnom Penh and other cities, in which politically " unsuitable" people were driven into the wilderness in a forced march to oblivion. Men, women, children, even hospitalized invalids were forced to march out of the cities. Se verely wounded or ill patients were seized from hospitals and tossed like garbage into the streets. !" Civilians who displayed even an instant's hesitation to abandon their homes were sprayed with machine-gun fire, or attacked with rockets and bazookas. 11 Those who survived the marc h were con signed to forced labor and "re-education" under lethal conditions. Because of the gun registration law, it was relatively easy for Khmer Rouge soldiers to conduct "micro-disarm ament" in the cities. In the countryside, however, the Communists had to conduct gun "turn-in" programs. Shortly after the fall of Cambodia, Communist soldiers were dispatched to the countryside to disarm the pop ulace. "We are here now to protect you , and no one has a need for a weapon any more," the soldiers announced. A Cambodian exile later described how "everyone who had a weapon ... handed over [their] rifles and pistols and ammunition, which the sold iers tossed on a pile " and disposed of. 12 In short order, the Khmer Rouge would be erecting piles of human skulls as they methodically killed one-third of the nation 's population. Meanwhile, as hundreds of thousands of innocent Cambodians were being systematically slaughtered, the regime responsible for this holocaust was being feted at the United Nat ions. Barron and Paul relate:


27

After the desolation of the cities, the early massacres and in the midst of the first famine , one of the Angka Loeu [Khmer Rouge] leaders, Ieng Sary, in his incarnation as foreign minister, flew to a special session of the United Nations General Assembly. Upon landing in New York, he boasted, "We have cleansed the cities," and when he appeared at the United Nations, delegates from around the world warmly applauded. 13

German "Micro-Disarmament" Cambodia is not the only nation that has experienced the dreadful consequences of "micro-disarmament." The country in which Hans Phillipps was born was blessed with "enlightened" welfare polices and "common sense" gun laws . The basic necessities of life were provided to the citizens, and firearms possession was strictly limited to the army and police, along with a few others whose reliability was beyond question. Street crime was not a significant problem, and "anti-government extremism" was an unpleasant memory. This haven of social order was National Socialist (Nazi) . Phillipps, who was six years old when Hitler came to power in , saw how the Nazi regime used its welfare system to pacify, disarm, and enslave its subjects. As a child in Berlin, Hans and his family "were given what were called lebensmittlecarte, or 'means of living cards,' " recalled Phillipps. "They were color-coded sheets of paperone color for adults, another for children, and so on - that were picked up at any government authority, such as a post office . The sheets were divided into squares that corresponded to a particular weight or amount of various food items - dairy, meat, and the like. The total number of squares represented a monthly allotment, and we had similar cards for clothing and other necessities." This arrangement gave the Nazi state very useful lever-

28

Global Gun Grab

age in controlling welfare recipients . "There were instances in which these ration cards would be withheld from people until they would cooperate with the government in some way," continued Phillipps. Although his family was never subjected to blackmail of this sort, Phillipps became aware of instances in which "means of living cards" were withheld from Germans who resisted the government's civilian disarmament policies. "In the Nazi era, ordinary people were not allowed to own guns, but selected individuals were permitted to own them , so that they could develop a 'so ldierly' attitude necessary for military service," recounted Phillipps. "My father, for instance, was an avid hunter during peacetime, but was forbidden to hunt or own a gun after the Hitler regime consolidated power. However, once I was enrolled in the Hitler Youth, I was permitted to train on a governmentowned gun, under government supervision." Phillipps also points out that "my father may have kept his person al guns somewhere, but he was very careful not to tell me anything about it - he was understandably afraid, because of my Hitler Youth hip, that anything he told me might end up reaching the authorities." 14 (Later, after it became clear that Phillipps hadn 't succumbed to the Hitler Youth indoctrination, he was assigned to a military unit that was given suicide missions .) Nazi offers another splendid example of a state that achie ved what the UN-approved Hagu e Agenda for Peace (which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter) call s "norms of non-possession" by civilians of firearms . And, as happened in Cambodia, the gun laws that helped facilitate the rise of a genocidal ruling elite were inherited from a non-totalitarian regime . This is an important fact that is often lost upon advocates . of civilian disarmament: Once a population has been disarmed by a relatively humane government, it is deprived of


29

the most valuable means of resisting the rise of a more corrupt ruling elite. The gun laws that proved so useful to the Nazi regime were enacted by its predecessor, the liberal Weimar Republic. The Weimar government enacted on August 7, 1920 a "Law on the Disarm ament of the People." This measure created the position of Reichkommissar for Disarmament of the Civil Population. The Disarmament Commissar was given the authority to define "military-style weapons" what would now be called "small arms and light weapons" - and confiscate them at whim. The 1920 law, which incorporated even earlier anti -gun measures, was ed after the suppression of an attempted putsch by Communists in Berlin and other cities .15 Although the German government succeeded in preventing the seizure of power by Communist totalitarians, it apparently absorbed from the Communists some of the key premises of totalitarianism. Witness a Jan uary 1919 government decree: "All firearms, as well as all kinds of ... ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately." Another order provided for the summary execution of any civilian found to possess arms or ammunition. 16 These were the premises upon which was built the 1920 "Law on the Disarmament of the People," which was enacted after the crisis of insurrection had subsided. The law preserved, for use during peacetime, the powers that had been claimed by the central government during the period of crisis. The 1920 law was followed in 1928 by a comprehensive firearms law that centralized and made uniform firearms policies throughout the German Hinder, or states. 17 According to the Weimar government's disarmament commissar: "The purpose[s] and goal[s] of the law at hand are to get firearms that have done so much damage from the hands of unauthorized persons and to do away with the instability and ambiguity of the law that previously existed.,,18

30

Global Gun Grab

The 1928 German national firearms law exemplified what contemporary anti-gun liberals call "common-sense gun safety laws." Constitutional scholar Stephen Halbro ok, in a paper publi shed in the A rizona Journa l ofInternational and Compa rative Law , note s that the 1928 Germ an firearms law "ensured that police had records of all firearms acquisitions (or at least all lawful ones) and that the keeping and bearing of arms were subjec t to polic e approval. This firearms contro l law was quite useful to the new government that came to power a half decade later. " ? The Natio nal Socia lists came to power in in January 1933. For more than five years, the Nazis used the Weimar-era gun laws to disarm their domestic oppos ition. It was not until March of 1938 that the Nazis found it necessary to create their own firearms law, which was simply a refinement of the one they had inherited . In short, the Nazi consolidation of power took place under a national gun registration law that was created by a liberal regime . Halbrook summarizes: " .. . a well-meaning liberal republic [enacted] a gun control act that [was] later highly useful to a dictato rship. That dictatorship . .. then consolidate[d] its power by massive search and seizure operations against political opponents.... [The dictator ship then enac ted] its own new firearm s law, disarming anyone the police deemed 'dangerous' and exempting of the party that controlled the state.,,20 Following the National Social ist government-instigated anti-Jewish riot of November 9, 1938 - an event known as Kristallnacht, or "Night of Broken Glass" - German Jews were disarmed and taken into "protective" custody, and we know the tragic end of that story. Even as late as 1939, the London Times took notice of the fact that there was visible anti-Nazi sentiment among German s. But, the Times lamented , "Civilians are disarmed , and so powerless...." The Nazis exported their enlightened


31

civilian disarmament policies to the nations they occupied. In its description of the fate of occupied , the New York Times lamented: " . .. the Nazi decrees reduce the French people to as Iowa condition as that occupied by the German people. Military orders now forbid the French to do things which the German people have not been allowed to do since Hitler came to power. To own radio[s] ... to organize public meetings ... to retain possession of firearms - all these things are prohibited for the subjugated people of ....,,21

Soviet "Micro-Disarmament" The Russian Communists - or Bolsheviks - also recognized the importance of disarming the subject population. Following an August 1918 assassination attempt upon Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin , the Bolshevik regime issued a decree that "all citizens in possession of machineguns, rifles, revolvers of all kinds, cartridges, and all models of sabers, are obliged, within a period of a week, to surrender them" for use by the Red Army.22 This process was facilitated by the April 1918 Soviet gun law, which issued certificates authorizing "the carrying and keeping of firearms" under certain conditions.P And, predictably, the military commissars in charge of the Soviet "micro-disarmament" campaign were ordered "not to take rifles and revolvers in the possession of of the Russian Communist Party" who retained a valid gun permit.P' Lenin's civilian disarmament decree heralded the beginning of the Red Terror. A directive issued by the dictator to a local commissar in Nizhni Novgorod illustrates how terror and firearms confiscation were linked: "Your first response [to local protests] must be to establish a dictatorial troika ... and to introduce mass terror.... There is not a moment to lose; you must act resolutely, with massive reprisals. Immediate execution for anyone caught in

32

Global Gun Grab

possession of a firearm/'P At roughly the same time, Feliks Dzherzhinsky, founder of the Cheka secret police (which would later be known as the KGB), was issuing similar orders to his subordinates: "The working classes must crush the hydra of counterrevolution with massive terror! We must let the enemies of the working classes know that anyone caught in illegal possession of a firearm will be immediately executed...."26 The disarmament of the Russians and other subject peoples by the Bolsheviks had predictable consequences. "Our morality has no precedent, and our humanity is absolute, because it rests on a new ideal," proclaimed a 1920 editorial in Krasni Mech (The Red Sword), a Cheka newspaper. "Our aim is to destroy all forms of oppression and violence. To us, everything is permitted, for we are the first to raise the sword not to oppress races and reduce them to slavery, but to liberate humanity from its shackles .... Blood? Let blood flow like water . .. for only through the death of the old world can we liberate ourselves forever....-at The Cheka secret police, which was in charge of maintaining "internal order," was "filled with social elements anxious for revenge, recruited as they often were , as the Bolshevik leaders themselves acknowledged and even recommended, from the ranks of 'the criminals and the socially degenerate,' " notes leftist historian Nicholas Werth. "No longer answerable for their actions to any higher authority, they became bloodthirsty and tyrannical .. . uncontrolled and uncontrollable." A March 22, 1920 letter to Lenin by a Cheka official described how the organization "is filled with common criminals and the dregs of society, men armed to the teeth who simply execute anyone they don 't like.,,28 They enjoyed such impunity, of course, precisely because their victims had been disarmed. The Bolshevik regime 's treatment of the Cossack population eerily prefigured the approach that would later be


33

used by the German National Socialists in their camp aign to exterminate the Jews. "For the first time ," writes Werth, "on the principle of collective respon sibility, a new regime took a series of measures specially designed to eliminate, exterminate, and deport the popul ation of a whole territory....,, 29 The Cossacks , who had been designated "class enemies" in 1917, had their land s confi scated and their indigenous assemblies suppressed. But this was merely a prologue to the "fin al solution " devised by Lenin and his associates to the "Cossack problem." On January 24, 1919, the Bolshevik Part y's Central Committee issued the following secret decree: In view of the experiences of the civil war against the Cossacks, we must recognize as the only politically correct measure massive terror and a merciles s fight against the rich Cossacks, who must be exterminated and physically disposed oj, down to the last man. 30 [Emphasis added.] Dis armament is a nece ssary prelude to liquidation. Accordingly, a few weeks after this secret decree was issued , a Red Army detachment was sent to the Don and Kuban River Cossack territories to conduct micro-disarmament operations . The Cossacks "were ordered, on pain of death, to surrender all their arms (historically, as the traditional frontier soldiers of the Russian empire, all Cossacks had a right to bear arms)," records Werth. Once the disarmament was complete, the summary executions began. But the Cossacks would not cooperate peacefully in their own destruction. Within a year a full scale revolt against the Communists was underway. Alas, by February 1920, the Red Army had put down the rebel lion - and an even more murderous campaign was undertaken to "de -Cossack" the region.

34

Global Gun Grab

Under the direction of Latvian Chekist Karl Linder, the Soviets created the world 's first death camps in Cossack territory. Ukrainian Cheki st Martin Latsis recorded the spectacle: Gathered toge ther in a camp near Maikop, the hostages, men, women, children, and old men survive in the most appalling cond itions, in the cold and the mud of October.... They are dying like flies. The women will do anything to escape death. The soldiers guarding the camp take advantage of this and treat them as prostitutes.l! The campaign again st the disarmed Cossacks set the pattern for similar Soviet campaigns again st others who rebelled against Moscow. In April 1921, the Politburo dispatched General Mikhail Tukhachevsky with orders to suppress an anti-Soviet uprising in Tambov province. With an army of 100,000 , including special Cheka detachments, Tukhachevsky comme nced a war of terror upon the region. The Communist killing squads seized hostages on a massive scale, deported entire villages (as the Khmer Rouge would later do in Cambodia), and - prefiguring the Third Reich - set up "death camps in which prisoners were gassed ....,,32 The regime created by Lenin, and perfected by Stalin, would eventually kill more than 60 million of its own subjects 33 - a feat made possible, in large measure , because of civilian disarmament. Tens of millions who weren't killed by the regime wasted their lives, or some significant portion of them, as zeks (inmates) in the Gulag Archipelago, Soviet Russia's immen se prison camp system. The most famous former zek, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, elo quently expressed the frustration of a disarmed people at the mercy of an armed criminal state :


35

[Hjow we burned in the prison camps .. . thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during the periods of mass arrests, as for exam ple in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hamm ers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand ? If the subjects of Soviet terror had offered armed resistance of some kind, Solzhenitsyn concl uded, "The Orga ns [of state terror] would very quick ly have suffered a shortage of officers and ... notwithsta nding all of Stalin's thirst , the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"34 Lenin and his architects understood this principle. Thi s was why they, like other tyrant s throughout history, made civilian disarmament an immediate priorit y. The UN's unambiguous desire to "Go Out Into the World and Gather Up the Small Arms" offers a compelling illustration of the tyranni cal intention s of its masters.

CHAPTER THRE E

Blueprint for Global Dictatorship The scientific concept of dictato rship means nothing else but this: Power without limit , restin g directly upon force, restrain ed by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules. I - Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin Lenin was a man with a mind ofgreat clarity and incisiveness and his ideas have had a p rofound influence on the course of contemporary histo ry.... His ideals ofpeace and peaceful coexistence among states ... are in line with the aims ofthe UN Charter.... 2 - UN Secretary-General U Thant he high prai se conferred upon Vladimir Lenin by U Thant tells us everything we need to know about the UN's purpose and intentions. Lenin, the inventor of the modem totalitarian state, defined "peace" as the elimination of all opposition to Communism. This must include as we saw in the last chapter - disarmament of the subject population. The UN's application of Lenin's design requires the disarmament of all individuals and organizations that are not under UN control. It's important to recognize that proposals for "disarmament" are selective, not universal. Although calls to "get rid of the guns" abound in propaganda on behalf of civilian disarmament, nobody is talking about getting rid of all of the guns. All "gun control" proposals allow for firearms to re-

T

36

Blueprintfor Global Dictatorship

37

main in the hands of agents of the State , who will then be able to exercise - in Lenin 's eminently quotable phrase"power without limit, resting directly upon force." Many of the UN 's critics condemn the organization for its waste, fraud, abuse, and other "excesses." But relatively few critics have pointed out that the real evil of the UN is not its wastefulness or corruption, but the totalitarian objectives of those who created it and those who control it today. The purpose of the UN is to pursue Lenin's diseased ambitions on a global scale : to acquire and exercise total power over humanity in the name of "peace." That evil ambition is made plain in official proposals presented by the United States government to provide the UN with a global monopoly on weapons.

"Weapons, Weapons, Weapons" Cora Weiss, one of the most outspoken proponents of a UN monopoly on firearms, is an American by birth and a radical Marxist by conviction. As head of the UN-connected "Hague Appeal for Peace," Weiss was one of the key organizers of the June 2000 UN "Millennium Forum" at the world body's New York headquarters. During her address to that conference, Weiss declared: "There are only three documents that you need ... to be an informed, effective member of organized civil society: The Charter of the United Nations, the International [sic] Declaration of Human Rights , and The Hague Agenda for Peace and Justice for the 21st Centu ryl't Neither the U.S. Con stitution nor the Declaration of Independence made Weiss' cut. This is to be expected, since the U.S. Constitution explicitly protects the individual's right to own firearms, and it was the widespread ownership of firearms by "non-state actors" that made American independence possible. To her UN audience, Weiss made it absolutely clear that individual firearms ownership must be abolished.

38

Global Gun Grab

"Violent conflicts are fueled . .. by the presence of weapons, weapons, weapons, weapons of all kinds, all over the world," declared Weiss. In this case, insisted Weiss, the pre-eminent threat to peace and security comes from the global market in "small arms and light weapons" - specifically those types of firearms that can be obtained and used by civilians. "Small arms [and] light weapons .. . pose a big threat to human security; their use results in the majority of civilian deaths and has made it easier to exploit young children as soldiers," declares The Hague Agenda (which Weiss cowrote). "Full fledged demobilization programs must reclaim and destroy weaponry .... Steps toward stopping the flow of weapons include: controlling legal transfers between states ; monitoring the use and storage of small arms within states; preventing illicit transfers .. . collecting, removing and destroying surplus weapons from regions of conflict ... [and] creating norms of non-possession...."4 (Emphasis added.) While "non-possession" for civilians would be the "norm," there would obviously be an armed entity of some sort responsible for the enforcement of that standard, and to collect "surplus" weapons. Weiss knows just who that entity should be: "I propose the activation of Chapter VII, article 47 of the UN Charter, which provides for a Military Staff Committee to assist the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace," stated Weiss in her UN address ." Chapter Six deals with "peace enforcement" (a Soviet-style euphemism for aggressive war) through a standing UN military with sufficient power to "take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security." To put it bluntly: Cora Weiss was calling for the UN literally to declare war on individual gun owners. Why should we care? Who is Cora Weiss, anyhow -

Blueprint for Global Dictatorship

39

apart from being a Marxist eccentric? Whil e she is hardl y a household name , Mrs . Weiss wields considerable influence within both the UN itself and in the world body 's allied community of "non-governmental organizations," or NGOs . She is also a very good representative of the partially submerged international network seeking to create a UN-dominated new world order. The most important element of that power network is the New York-bas ed Coun cil on Foreign Relations (CFR), which has controlled our foreign policy establishment for the better part of a century. The Unite d Nations was essen tially a t product of the international politi cal and financial elite - embodied in the CFR - and the international Communist movement.P The basis for this seemingly implau sible alliance was a shared desire for "power without limit" on a global basis. Alger Hiss, the notorious Soviet spy who served as secretary-general of the UN 's founding conference, was both a Communist and a member of the CFR. Cora Weiss can present similar disreputable credentials. The daughter of Communist Party, U.S.A. activi st Samuel Rubin, Weiss is also a member of the CFR and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). The IPS is a subversive group with links to the Soviet KGB and Cuban DGI. In Covert Cadre, a scholarly study of the IPS, Dr. S. Steven Powell point s out that Cora Weiss and her husband, IPS chairman Peter Weiss, "carry on the international socialist tradition through the Rubin Foundation, which is located in New York City across from the United Nations building in an unmarked office at 777 UN Plaza."? In the 1960s, Weiss was prominent in Hanoi's American "fifth column " during the Vietnam War. Weiss is on record as approving of the use of small arms - when they are in the hands of Communists in a war of aggression. In fact, Weiss was among the American leftists who made a pil-

40

Global Gun Grab

grimage to Hanoi at a time when American Prisoners of War were being tortured by the North Vietnamese Communists.! She sees no inconsistency in urging the UN to create a military force capable of disarming the world's civilians. Nor should we - if we understand the true intentions behind the' world body's appeals to "world peace."

A UN Arms Monopoly In her June 2000 speech, Cora Weiss was reiterating longstanding designs to empower the UN with a global firearms monopoly. One of the most important expressions of that design is found in State Department Document 7277, Freedom From War: The United States'Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. Unveiled by President John F. Kennedy in a September 1961 speech before the UN General Assembly, Freedom from War, and its 1962 follow-up, Blueprintfor the Peace Race, outline a three -stage program for the disarmament of all nations , associations, and individuals who are not under the authority of a UN "peace force." In the third stage of the Freedom from War plan, "States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also and provide agreed manpower for a UN Peace Force.,,9 In stage III, according to Freedom From War, "The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All oth\ er armaments would be \destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes." "All other armaments" would obviously include all civilian-owned firearms . The Freedom From War and Blueprintfor the Peace Race documents provided the platform upon which was built the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and they remain the official framework

Blueprint f or Global Dictatorship

41

for U.S. arms control policy more than 40 years after they were conceived. Freedom From War and Blueprintfor the Peace Race are two of the canonical texts of the UN's gospel of global disarmament. A World Effectively Contro lled by the United Nations, a 1962 study written by MIT professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield under a contract with the U.S. State Department, is also a part of that canon . In fact, Bloomfield 's report - which was all but impossible to obtain , until its text was posted on the internet by The John Birch Society 10 may be the most revealing of the three documents. Bloomfield noted : "The notion of a 'UN-controlled world' . . . grows, curiously enough, out of contemporary doctrines on arms control." Wri ting on behalf of the top-echelon planning elite of our own military and political leadership, Bloomfield described how the United Nations could be transformed into a full-fledged world government with "powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disannament... ." That force would consist of fighting men, wearing UN insignia, recruited individually from UN member-states, and would also include a nuclear component (so much for the "abolition" of nuclear weapons ). Through the "Peace Force" envisioned in the Bloomfield study, the UN would have the capaci ty to conduct "unrestricted international inspection of all states against violation of the disarmament agreement.. ..» Ll The basis of that UN-enforced agreement would be the Freedom From War blueprint, which Bloomfield described as a product ofD.S.Soviet collaboration. "On September 19, 1959, [Soviet] Chairman Khrushchev announced to the UN General Assembly his plan for 'general and complete disarmament' within four years," recalled Bloomfield. "The Americ an response was given by Secretary of State [Christian] Herter [CFR] on February 18,

42

.Global Gun Grab

1960, in a speech to the National Press Club." The first stage of the Herter proposal was "the creation of a 'stable military environment' " through curbs on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. "The second stage of Mr. Herter's counterproposal was that of general disarmament... . The second stage would include progressive establishment of an international peace force within the United Nations sufficient to preserve world peace under disarmament. The September 1961 U.S. proposals [e.g. Freedom From War] follow the same pattern."? Behind all of the bluster and bloodshed of the Cold War, noted Bloomfield, the political elites of both East and West shared a common objective: "[I]f the communists would agree, the West would favor 'a world effectively controlled by the United Nations.' "13 This covert collaboration required a careful balancing act on the part of the Western elite, according to Bloomfield. Obviously, if the Communist powers continued their aggressive ways, "the subordination of states to a true world government" would be impossible. But , on the other hand, "if the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the West might well lose whatever incentive it has for world government." The trick was to make the Communists appear just menacing enough to scare the West into international cooperation through the UN and its regional s (such as NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Eventually it would be possible "to transform and tame the forces of communism .. . to the point where the present international system might be radically reshaped,"!" Following the "mellowing" of Communism, according to Bloomfield, the UN would be in a position to emerge as an undisguised world government - and this is exactly what the American ruling elite desires. Noted Bloomfield: "It was not made explicit, but the United States position [on disarmament] carried the unmistakable meaning, by what-


43

ever name, of world government, sufficiently powerful in any event to keep the peace and enforce its judgments." 15 The UN "Peace Force" would necessarily include a "disarmament policing agency,"!" through which "a significant 'UN presence' [would exist] in all countries/"? "National governments [would] continue to exist in these units, to make, execute and enforce domestic laws" under the UN-dominated world order. But they would not continue to control their respective military establishments, since in the new system they would be "limited . . . to the right to maintain sufficient police forces to ensure domestic security." 18 Although the UN would have both "a nuclear capability" and "a significant conventional capability" for the purpose of enforcing world order, the national istrative units of the world government would be compelled to undergo "total disarmam ent down to police and internal security levels."? Of necessity, total disarmament would mean not only the abolition of independent national military establishments, but the disarmament of civilians as well. Although he is relentlessly candid elsewhere in his study, Bloomfield becomes somewhat evasive regarding the implications for individual firearms ownership in a world "effectively controlled" by the UN. He does make clear, however, that each of the elements in that world order must have a "monopoly of political power, accompanied by preponderant military force, at the center of the system .,,20 Just as the UN enjoys an international monopoly on force, each national subdivision must exercise similar powers within its own borders . And Bloomfield does not flinch from the fact that this arrangement is incompatible with the constitutional protections enjoyed by Americans: "In the United States, the people have the constitutional right to 'keep and bear arms '; the government monopoly is legally abridged to this extent."

44

Global Gun Grab

Interpreting the Texts Bloomfield's paper also cited the study World Peace Through World Law, a 1958 book co-authored by Wall Street lawyer Grenville Clark and Professor Louis B. Sohn .j ! For devout globalists, the Clark -Sohn study is the sacred text from which subsequent UN disa rmament proposals sprang. Both Clark and Sohn were deeply involved in the movement to create a world government: Clark in his capacity as vice president of the World Federalist Association ; and Sohn through his hip in the R. World Peace Through World Law is breathtakingly explicit about the UN 's disarmament objectives, and the means to be employed to achieve them . The Clark-Sohn book was a proposal for revising and expanding the UN Charter to make the world body a fullfunctioning global government, equipped with "A World Police Force" that would possess "a coercive force of overw helming power.,,22 The Globo-Cops would "be regularly provided with the most modem weapons and equip ment," including nuclear weapons, which could be used to deal with especially stubborn opponents of global "peace.,,23 The happy illusion that the UN seeks to abolish weapons, rather than monopolize them, perishes rudely when it collides with the reality described by Clark and Sohn: The initial weapons and equipment of the Peace Force would come from the transfer of weapons and equip ment discarded by national military forces during the process of complete disarmament. Subsequent supplies would be produced by the United Nations in its own production facilities through a separate agency to be established by the General Assembly and called the United Nations Military Supply and Research Agency. This Agency would engage in research rela-


45

tive to the development of new weapons and relative to methods of defense against the possible use by any nation of prohibited weapons clandestinely hidden or produced .?" So the UN's "World Police Force" would have first pick of the best confiscated firearms, until it was supplied with even better cutting-edge weaponry. It would justify the accumulation of global police-state powers by the need "to deter or suppress any attempted international violence," which will require "complete disarmament by each and every nation .,,25 And this would, in tum, require the liquidation of independent police forces and confiscation of civilianowned firearms: [I]t must be recognized that even with the complete elimination of all military forces there would necessarily remain substantial, although strictly limited and lightly armed, internal police forces and that these police forces, supplemented by civilians armed with sporting rifles and fowling pieces, might conceivably constitute a serious threat to a neighboring country in the absence of a well-disciplined and heavily armed world police.i" "Even in a world in which all national military forces were abolished," continues the study, " ... it is conceivable that ... an aroused nation with a strong grievance could marshal quite a formidable armed force even if no one in it possessed any weapon stronger than a rifle." Thus the UN 's need for "a genuine fighting force, well equipped and highly disciplined.... We submit, in short, that a strong and wellarmed [global] police force is part of the indispensable price of peace and the sooner the world faces up to this conclusion the better it will be for all peoplea??

46

Global Gun Grab

"Trust Us - We're Benevolent" In the UN's escalating campaign against "small arms," and its ever-incre asing dem ands for independent military "peacekeeping" power, we can see the vision described by Clark and Sohn being realized before our eyes. Clark and Sohn allow for the possibility that the "Peace Force" they describ e "might be perverted into a tool of world domination," as if what they are describing is something other than world domin ation, albeit of what they consider a "benevolent" variety. "It is with this danger clearly in mind that meticulous care has been taken to surround the proposed Peace Force with . .. careful limitations and safeguards, so as to make its subversion virtually impossible." Sign ificantly, they do not specify those checks and balances; indeed, by consolidating political power at the globallevel and disarming everybody but UN-approved officials, the Clark -Sohn proposal would liquidate all checks and balances entirely. Clark and Sohn it that "the danger of the possible misuse of the Peace Force cannot be wholly eliminated.... However, in order to achieve complete national disarmament and genuine peace, some risks must be taken."28Thus we are asked to believe that it is less risky to create an allpowerful, unable world government, with a monopoly of weapons (including nuclear weapons) , than to allow law-abiding individuals to bear arms in their own defense . We are to entrust our fate to those who would enjoy unlimited power over us. This is a proposal that has been made often in modern history, with uniformly tragic results. Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii , at the very beginning of his 1994 book Death by Government, offers this resonant warning: "Power kills; absolute Power

kills absolutely.... The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily accord ing to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others

Blueprintfor Global Dictatorship

47

and murder its foreign and domestic subjects .,,29 During the first nine decades of the 20th century, Rummel documents, "almost 170 million men, women, and children" were killed by governments, and the body count "could conceivably be nearly 360 million people . It is as though our species has been devastated by a modem Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs .,,30 Advocates of UN-enforced "world law" and global civilian disarmament often present their case in of stark alternatives: Global government or worldwide chaos and bloodshed. Rummel's study of what he calls "democide" - the mass murder of individuals by government - has led him to reject these false choices . "[T]here is the common and fundamental justification of government that it exists to protect citizens against the anarchic jungle that would otherwise threaten their lives and property," notes Rummel. "Such archaic or sterile views show no appreciation of democide's existence and all its related horrors and suffering .... A preeminent fact about government is that some of them murder millions in cold blood. This is where absolute Power reigns."31

Freedom or Power? America's Founding Fathers, in their efforts to design a constitutional republic, took care to establish checks and balances in order to prevent the consolidation of "power without limit" over the people. Rather than centralizing power and disarming the citizenry, the Founders institutionally divided and limited power - and incorporated into the Constitution an explicit prohibition against central government infringement of the right of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms. The Framers, like nearly all of their contemporaries, were unalterably opposed to the creation of standing armies, or what would today be called "peacekeepers." In his ex-

48

Global Gun Grab

amination of the potential for the corruption of a national military into such an engine of oppression, Alexander Hamilton wrote: " .. . if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellowcitizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.,,32 "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe," observed educator and statesman Noah Webster. "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.'>33 Where the people are armed, the state can govern, but it cannot rule. Thus it is to be expected that proponents of world government make universal disarmament a priority, and treat our Founding Fathers and their handiwork, the Constitution, with utter disdain. Advocates of UN-imposed disarmament insist that the world body must be given "power without limit " in order to bring "peace" to the globe. The soothing assurances offered by such people regarding their benevolent intentions are drowned out by the voices of 170 million victims of total power - who had been disarmed, and then annihilated, in the name of "peace."

CHAPTER FOUR

Psychological Disarmament Obviou sly the United Nation s must first have machinery which can disarm and keep disarm ed those parts of the world that would break the peace.... The United Nations must back up military disarmament with psychological disarmament.... I - Vice President Henry Wallace (an avid socialist, globalist, and occultist), 1942 The demand side ofthe problem [of "micro-disarmament"} involves tactics and strategies f or lowering the needfor weapons on the part ofcitizens.... [Measures} have been utilized in U.S. cities in this regard, including educating citizens about the dangers ofpossessing a gun ... and employing volun tary weapon collection programs as a device to change attitudes toward gun posse ssion and use....2 . - Dr. Edw ard J. Laurance of the UN of Conventional Arms t has been said that walls cannot imprison a man whose mind is free. While this comforting propos ition is debatable, the reverse is indisputably true : No walls are needed to imprison a man whose mind has been enslaved. This is why every successful despotism depends upon the psychological enslavement of its subjects. And in like fashion, tyrants who seek to disarm their would -be subjects physi cally must first disarm them psychologically. As the statement by Henry Wallace quoted above illustrates, "psychological disarmament" was a priority for Unit-

I

49

50

Globa l Gun Grab

ed Nations planners even before the formal organization came into being. It is not widely understood that, beginning with a declaration signed in January 1942, the Allied side in World War II referred to itself as the "United Nations," and that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his associates spoke often of the fact that the war was intended to bring abou t a permanent world government bod y with sufficient power to enforce its decrees.' Of course, the American serv icemen who fought and sacrificed in that war effort were not told that they were bein g asked to kill and die on behalf of a socialist world order, one that would ulti mately pur sue the disarmament, first psychological and the n physical, of Americans. Few were more eager to promote this utop ian vision than Henry Wallace. In the 1942 address quoted above , Wallace referred to the "world-wide democracy we of the United Nations hope to build ." This global system would be constructed around the principles of "home rule and centralized authority"; the central world authority "would not give so many rights to member nations as to jeopardize the rights of a11.,,4 As we have seen, the ultimate objective of the architects of the UN-dominated world order is a political system in which only UN-authorized officials would have the privilege of bearing arms. In his speech Wallace spoke of the need to "demilitarize" the minds of the young in both and Japan' But such re-education efforts would not be confined solely to children who had been born in former Axis nations. Shortly after the UN Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) came into being, it produced a 10volume series of pamphlets entitled Toward World Understanding as a framework for efforts to indoctrinate children worldwide (including in the United States) in the UN's culture of "peace." This would include a willingness "to accept the obligations an interdependent world imposes."? Of

Psychological Disarmament

51

course, this would eventuall y include not only national but civilian disarmament. In recent years, since "micro-disarmament" became an overt priority for the United Nations, efforts to "demilitarize" the minds of people worldwide have proliferated. As we have previously seen, UN-connected bodies such as the Commission on Global Governance and The Hague Appeal have open ly referred to the disarmament of civilians and creating "norms of non-possession" of weapons as necessary steps toward the creation of a "culture of peace ." In a very real sense, this work has been proceeding very rapidly in what might be regarded as the homeland of the gun culture - the United States. As we discus sed earlier, one of the chief psycho logical tactics used by the gun grabbers is to demonize guns as intrinsically evil. Gun "buy-backs" or "tum-ins" can reinforce that message and, in some situations, serve as an overture to more aggressive confiscation progra ms. Obviously, offering financia l or other incentives to citizens to tum in their firearms does nothing to solve the problem of firearms violence by the crimina l element. Sami Faltas of the UN-connected Bonn International Centre for Conversion (BICC), one of the most energetic proponents of "buy-backs," has even itted that such initiatives reward those who obtain weapons illegally, and have the effect of "Disarming potential victims and creating an illusion of security."? UN-connected disarmament specialist William Godnick offers a similar assessment of gun tum-in programs: "It depends on what your goals are.... If your goal is getting the worst of the bad guys to tum their guns in come on, get real."s If weapons turn-in and buy-back programs yield such unde sirable practical results , why are they promoted so heavily in UN disarmament literature? Faltas ' comrade at the BICC, Dr. Laurance, offers a revealing answer: "Vol-

52

Global Gun 'Grab

untary weapons collection program s have been conducted extensi vely in American cities for the past five years [19911996], and continue to be a popu lar approach to both collecting guns and addres sing gun violence by emphasizing the negative consequences of gun possession and use." (Emphasis added. )? Laurance emphasizes that such collection programs focu s on "getting weapons off the street and out of home s" in order "to publicize the connection between weapons and violence...."10 So in spite of its utter uselessness in practical , the "tum -in"l" buy-back" approach is highl y useful for propaganda purposes, as a means of advancing psychologi cal disarmament. Furthermore, since such programs create a perverse incentive for criminals to stea l arms, or otherwise obtain them illegally, they actually help to create even more firearms-related violence - which certainly suits the purpose of "publiciz[ing] the connection between weapons and violence." Anybody who doubts that the UN is cynical enough to create such problems in order to capitalize upon them simply hasn't been paying attention. The 1996 paper in which Dr. Laurance emphasized the psychological usefulness of "tum-in"l"buy-back" programs was intended as a framework "for the deliberations of the UN Disarmament Commission in 1996, the UN group on small arms , and Member States addressing this issue individually or as part of either of these forums," !' He concluded that voluntary weapons collection "appears to be a tool that fits the UN mode of operation when it comes to micro-disarmament programs." 12

Mass Indoctrination In the drive for psychological disarmament, the official connections between various propaganda campaigns and the UN are sometimes tenuous. Often, as was the case with gun


53

"buy-backs" and the "Million Mom March," the campaign began domestically in the United States before being appropriated by the UN. Here is an important principle to : In matters of disarmament, all roads lead to the UN. As we saw in the previous chapter, the official U.S. policy on national disarmament explicitly envisions a world "effectively controlled" by a United Nations with a monopoly on force, and this would mean both national and individual disarmament. In pursuing that design, the UN has proven to be as adept at adopting disarmament propaganda campaigns that began independently as it has been at creating its own. Furthermore, since most high-impact propaganda campaigns are funded by left-leaning, globalist tax-exempt foundations, the UN will be the eventual beneficiary. In 1992, then-UN Secretary-General Boutros BoutrosGhali published his Supplement to An Agenda for Peace, in which he called for accelerated national disarmament and "parallel progress in conventional arms, particularly with respect to light weapons.t'P Within a short time, "independent" groups began to materialize to work on behalf of the goals outlined by Boutros-Ghali. The world of UN front groups is a tangle of inter-connected think-tanks, non-governmental organizations, quasi-official s, and ad hoc committees, and following these links can be tedious . But it is useful nonetheless to examine a few significant groups to illustrate how the world body creates the illusion of "consensus." • The British-American Security Information Council (BASIC) is a foundation-funded group that "commenced a Project on Light Weapons, developing a network for such efforts" shortly after Boutros-Ghali published his small arms report. By 1996, scores of organizations and "independent" researchers were working to create a "consensus" on behalf of UN efforts to beat back the supposed scourge

54

Global Gun Grab

of small arms. 14 • The Program on Security and Development (SAND) offers another useful example of a foundation-created UN front group. SAND began in 1993 as the Conventional Arms Proliferation (CAP) project at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. The chief financial benefactors of CAP/SAND were the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflicts, with supplemental funds coming from other foundations and the Canadian government. 15 SAND lists a staff of exactly one: Dr. Edward J. Laurance, the UN's ubiquitous expert on "voluntary" gun turn-in programs. 16 • Between 1992 and 1996, Dr. Laurance worked as a consultant to the UN 's " of Experts" to develop a of Conventional Arms. His key task was to conduct research "on weapons buy-back programs in U.S. cities, Haiti, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua." I? In 1996, Laurance presented a paper on micro-disarmament issues "to the Council on Foreign Relations' [CFR] Center for Preventive Action." 18 This is not the proper place to offer a lengthy description of the CFR's role as the apex organization of our political Establishment; there are several thoroughly documented studies that deal with this subject. 19 There are two key points to : First, the United Nations is essentially a t creation of the world Communist movement and the Council on Foreign Relations; second, the CFR is, in the words of Washington Post ombudsman Richard Harwood, "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States," with an effective stranglehold on the mainstream press.i" It is noteworthy, and hardly a coincidence, that Dr. Laurance's address to the CFR took place just before gun "buy-back" programs became a "spontaneous" global phenomenon. "From Mozambique to El Salvador, from the Republic

Psychologica l Disarmament

55

of Georgia to Newark, N.J:, gun owners - legal or illegal - are being encouraged to tum in their weapons in return for money, food , footwear, or farm tools," reported the May 4, 2000 Christian Sci ence Monitor. The report described the $2.6 billion "Buyback America" campaign inaugurated by Bill Clinton through the Department of Housing and Urban Developme nt, through which more than 100 U.S. cities queued up for federa l fun ds to cond uct gun tum -in programs . Commenting upon the carefully orchestra ted "spontaneo us" trend he had done so much to arrange, Laurance told the Monitor : "The whole idea of weapo ns collecti on is now huge - it's something you can do.... This is now a global trend ."21 Laurance has played a prominent role in assembling the worldwide coalition of UN -linked non -governmental organizations that work to create the illusion of "consensus" for weapons turn-ins - and that will, in the UN 's long-term strategy, help enforce weapons confisc ation programs. According to Laurance, his objective is "to get NGOs to work together on a campaign, so when governments come along , they will have someone to work with ." As one interviewer summarized SAND 's perspective, "The real work on controlling the spread and use of light weapons will take place at the local level, through such projects as voluntary turnin or buy-back weapons centers - an international treaty can only coordinate these local efforts.,,22 (Emphasis added.) In other words, the efforts ofNGOs here in the U.S. and abroad is to prepare the ground for future UN gun confi scation initiatives. In 1998, the UN , with funding from various radical taxexempt foundations and several socialist governments, created the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), an umbrella group to coordinate agitation on behalf of UN global gun control. IANSA quickly became a clearinghouse for anti-gun propaganda campaigns, and was

56

Global Gun Grab

identified by the UN as the chief organizer of the July 2001 UN Small Anus Conference.P Of course, by giving IANSA cred it for "organizing" that event, the UN was acting like a ventriloquist who insists that his hand-puppet writes his own comedy material.

Retailing Anti -gun Propaganda Groups like BICC, BASIC, SAND, and IANSA could be regarded as wholesale propaganda outlets: They create the UN-ordained party line for the benefit of academics, agitators, and policymakers, both national and global. But for the psychological disarmament program to proceed, the propaganda must be peddled at the retail level, to the public at large . This method of mass mobilization is a familiar revolutionary approach called the "scissors strategy," which describes how pressure on behalf of collectivist measures is brought simultaneously "from above" by radical elites and "from below" by street-level agitators .i" This is where groups like the so-called "Million Mom March" and "Billion Mom March" playa significant role. The artfully misnamed "Million Mom March" (MMM) is a minuscule organization that grew out of a media event staged to coincide with Mother's Day 2000. The MMM rally brought tens of thousands (by no means anywhere near one million) people to Washington to agitate on behalf of "common sense" gun laws, beginning with the demand for a national system of gun registration. As is always the case with collectivist political agitation, the MMM organizers swaddled themselves in warm, fuzzy rhetoric about "protecting our children," who are purportedly menaced by widespread civilian gun ownership. Donna Dees- Thomases, the chief organizer of the event, insisted that she was simply a typical suburban housewife with no political experience who had been shaken out of her apathy by neo-Nazi Buford Furrow's 1999 armed assault upon


57

a Jewish day-care center in Los Angeles . This image was useful in persuading the public that the event was a spontaneous expression of middle-class suburban outrage over guns . Dees- Thomases, though, was hard ly the political novice she pretended to be: She was a longtime Democrat Party activist with ties to the Clinton White House, and a former publicist for CBS News.25 Curiously, none of the organizers of, or speakers at, the rally saw fit to mention a child who had been menaced in his own home just weeks earlier by a machine gun-wielding thug: Six-year-old Cuban refugee Elian Gonzalez, who had been kidnapped at gunpoint from the home of his Miami relatives in an illegal federal raid . The April 22nd assault was staged by the Clinton istration in order to return young Elian to slavery under a government that described him as a "possession" of the state .26 The pre-dawn federal "raid, which was staged at the orders of Attorney General Janet Reno even as Elian 's Miami relatives and their legal counsel were concluding good-faith negotiations with Reno to reunite the refugee with his father, produced a Pulitzer-winning candid photo graph. The unforgettable still captures a federal stormtroop er, his face contorted in a menacing grimace, waving a machine gun at Elian and Donato Dalrymple, the fisherman who had helped rescue the child from the sea. Understandably, the helpless child is screaming in terror at this apparition, which embodied the proverbial "Three A.M. Knock" that is the calling card of a totalitarian police state. More than 150 armed troops were sent to the Miami home of Lazaro Gonzalez, where they met no resistance of any kind. In the course of the abduction, federal troops abused an NBC cameraman and defiled religious icons in the home.i? At the "Million Mom March," not a syllable was spoken in condemnation of this particular act of firearms-related violence. This was a curious oversight, if the purpose of that

58

Global Gun Grab

event was to condemn the danger to children that firearms supposedly represent. But this omission is entirely predictable once it is understood that the "Million Mom March" and other anti-gun campaigns do not seek to abolish firearms , but to help create a state monopoly on firearms - just as the UN plans for "general and complete disarmament" dictate . Once again: In matters of disarmament, all roads lead to the UN. Thus it was inevitable that the UN would beget its own version of the campaign. On May 10,2001 , the UN grandly announced the formation of the "Billion Mom March," which, appropriating the MMM's catch-phrase , announced its intention "to work for common sense gun laws to protect our children and loved ones all over the world .,,28 The UN front group did not see fit to instruct us as to what we could do to protect "our children and loved ones" once the UN and its allies have aglobal monopol y on force.

Turn in Your Neighbors! Another key role to be played by NGOs, according to the UN Development Programme (UNDP) , an agency that has supervised gun collection programs in scores of nations, is to provide informants . After all, explains the UNDP, "The first step" in any successful confiscation program "is [to] gain information on their numbers and whereabouts." Accordingly, the UNDP's guide to weapons collection programs prominently lists "informants" among the "human intelligence" sources needed to carry out civilian disarmament" Just as every totalitarian state has enforced a strict regime of civilian disarmament, each of them has also depended heavily upon citizen -informants - called stukachi in Soviet Russia, chivatos in Communist Cuba , and spitzel in Communist East . The East German Stasi secret police, staffed with former agents of the Nazi Gestapo, was able to recruit one informer for every 6.5 inhabitants of that


59

unfortunate country. 3D Castro's Cuba, Red China, and National Socialist were all notorious for their use of "block committees," which were used to enforce political conformity and to ferret out enemies of the ruling Party.'! In the build-up to the UN's July 2001 Small Arms Conference, Americans suddenly found themselves urged on every side to become anti-gun informants. The "A.S.K." ("Asking Saves Kids") campaign, organized by a foundation-funded group called Pax, entreated Americans to question their friends -and neighbors about gun ownership. "Zero Tolerance" policies in government-run schools across the nation relentlessly indoctrinated schoolchildren about the supposed objective evil of weapons of any sort, to the point that children were expelled or otherwise punished for drawing or speaking of weapons, or possessing any object that could (in the wildest excursion of a paranoid official's imagination) be used as a weapon. In the State of Connecticut a law was enacted allowing police to seize firearms - on the basis of anonymous tips - from any individual deemed "dangerous," without a trial or legal proceeding of any kind. The "A.S.K." campaign, which grew out of the founda tion-funded Gun Violence Project.F seeks to induce Americans to become "human intelligence" assets in the war on guns by playing upon the fear that their children might stumble across an unsecured gun at a friend's home. "The idea is simple," summarized Maine 's Portland Press Herald. "Before sending your kid over to a playmate's house, take the time to ask if there are firearms in the home. If there are . .. organizers of the campaign say parents should make sure the guns are stored away, unloaded and locked, preferably in a gun safe. Hiding a gun is never a safe option.'>33 Within a few weeks of its inception, the A.S.K. campaign was given quasi-official federal status by Andrew Cuomo, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for the

60

Global Gun Grab

Clinton istration, who referred to the campaign as an official istration initiative. "Our A.S.K. campaign is such a simple yet powerful idea," intoned Cuomo at an August 23,2000 press conference. "'Is there a gun where my children play?' If there is, has the owner taken steps to make sure that gun is safely stored and won't fall into the hands of the children? Every parent needs to know the answer to these questions. It doesn 't-matter where you live."34 Obviously, firearms owners should take suitable pre cautions to protect young children who might find their weapons. But to keep them unloaded, inaccessible, and locked in a safe is to nullify any value they might have as tools of home protection. It is not difficult to imagine how criminals could make use of the "Just Ask!" approach when they are "casing" prospective targets for home burglary. Furthermore, it is just as easy to see how this campaign will make the task of gun confiscation relatively easy, should the day ever arrive that federal (or global) authorities decide that they're coming for the guns. The most effective precaution is to teach children the proper respect for fire arms. Providing such instruction is the moral duty of every firearms owner with children. Acting through the government-controlled school system , however, the campaign for psychological disarmament is seeking to indoctrinate children in the belief that guns and other weapons are such evil objects that they can't be touched, seen, spoken of, alluded to, or even thought ofby students, upon penalty of expulsion and incarceration. This is the logic, such as it is, of the "zero tolerance" policies that have been enacted in government-run schools across the nation . In the wake of the 1999 Columbine massacre and several other high-profile school shootings, school systems have begun a comprehensive, inflexible crackdown on any speech or behavior that can be construed as a "threat." This has included the possession of toy guns, drawings of guns, spoken

Psychological Disa rmament

61

references to guns, playing "cops and robbers," possession of tiny replicas of guns, carrying a straight-e dge rule r that could be used as a weapon, or having a kitchen knife on the floor of an automobile. "Welcome to the brave new world of 'zero-tolerance' schooling, where young minds are molded to abhor aggression," commented Yale University Law School senior research scholar John R. Lott Jr. "Schools are banning dodge ball and tag because the games encourage 'violent behavior.' Some schools are removing any references to the military from their libraries .... Elementary students in Texas and Louisiana have been suspended for pointing pencils and saying 'pow' and drawing pictures of soldiers. Students in Mississippi were held in jail for trivial infractions, such as throwing peanuts at one another. A fifth-grader in St. Petersburg, Florida, was arrested for drawing pictures of 'weapons.' " Among the culprits caught in the "zero toler ance" dragnet was Lindsay Brown, "an exemplary high school student [and] National Merit Scholar, jailed in Ft. Myers, Florida, because school authorities found a kitchen knife under her car seat. The knife had accidentally fallen there during a move between apartments . 'Terrorist threat' criminal charges were filed against two 8-year-olds in Irvington, New Jersey, for 'playing cops and robbers with a paper gun.' " Lott points out that between 1997 and 200 1, 32 students and three teachers were shot to death in U.S. schools. "By contrast, during that same period, 53 students died playing high school football,,35 - which, come to think of it, is a com bat sport and thus could be seen as contributing to violent, aggressive attit udes. When a fifth -grader was arrested at Tampa, Florida's Oldsmar Elementary School for draw ing a picture of weapons, a school district spokesman explained: ''That's the normal procedure in a situation like this.',36 Contemplate the meaning of those words. In 2001 Amer-

62

Global Gun Grab

ica, "normal procedure" for dealing with a young boy who displays a typical interest in firearms is to treat him as a criminal, a potential terrorist; it is to slap the cuffs on his tiny wrists, read him his rights, humiliate him in front of his friends , and teach him that the state has no sympathy for those who think incorrect thoughts. This is a literal real ization of the totalitarian future described in George Orwell's 1984, in which the protagonist Winston Smith was punished for being a "thought criminal" on the basis of what he had scribbled covertly in his private notebook. "Bad" thinking is to be punished without mercy; "good" thinking is to be rewarded. In the UN propaganda video Armed to the Teeth, some American schoolchildren who have been through the process of psychological disarmament are shown eagerly reciting the UN's disarmament doxology. "Stop selling guns," one young boy declares. "Only policemen should have guns." "I would just stop making guns all of a sudden and then just have the government prohibit guns from everybody," adds a young girl. These American youngsters are shown at a school assembly reciting a pledge "never to touch a weapon.'>37 On November 6, 1933, one of history's most devoted exponents of civilian disarmament explained this strategy: "When an opponent declares; 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say: 'Your child belongs to us already.... What are you? You will on. Your descendants, howev er, now stand in this new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.' "38 Thus spoke Adolf Hitler as he undertook the psychological disarmament - and reconstruction - of 's youth. While American gun owners are occupied with the task of protecting their rights in the present, advocates of UN-imposed civilian disarmament are seeking to steal the future by con trolling the minds of the young.

CHAPTER FIVE

The Rwandan Genocide For when they shall say "peace and safety," then sudden destruction cometh upon them .. . and they shall not escape. - I Thessalonians 5:3 They take them from this building, this church . They have guns and knives and machetes, the people from the Government party, so we can't fight back. We don't have arm s. 1 - Jeanne Niwemutesi, a Tutsi survivor of the 1994 Rwandan genocide . Really, it was UNAMIR [the UN "peacekeeping" mission to Rwanda] that tricked us into staying. We saw all these blue helmets, and we ... thought even if Hutus start to attack us the three thousand men of UNAMIR should be enough.t - Odette Nyiramilimo, Rwandan genocide survivor Did the ineffectiveness ofthe UN mission [in Rwanda] ... abet the genocide? ... I believe it did .3. - Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, Canadian commander of the UN 's "peacekeeping" mission to Rwanda "What does it tell us about the UN," asked human rights activist Alex de Waal, "that not a single official thought fit to resign over the first indisputable genocide since the UN Charter was signedj?" This fact tells us a great deal about the corruption and hypocrisy of the world 63

64

Global Gun Grab

body. It also demo nstrates the utter emptiness of the organizat ion 's clai m to represent the conscience of mankind, as if that claim had any credibility after the tumultuous welcomes that have greeted nearly every thug or tyrant who has journeyed to New York to address the General Assemb ly. But even more importantly, the UN 's role in the Rwandan genocide, and its refusal to censure, in any way, the high-ranking UN official s complicit in that tragedy, illustrate the lethal fooli shne ss of submitting to the organization's formula for "peace and safety " through civilian disarmament. The Rwandan Tutsis followed that formula with remarkable fidelity, and the result was one of history 's most concentrated campaigns of political mass slaughter.

The Last Victim In mid-June 2000 , a disheveled, drunken middle-aged man was found curled under a park bench in Hull, Quebec. The pathetic figure was retired Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, who had once been one of Canada's most distinguished military officers.l "When I finally discovered it was him , I was really sad," recalled Stephane Beaudoin , a television news reporter who had come upon Dallaire. Beaudoin declined to shoot footage of the forl orn scene "because I was depressed to imagine a man like that could be there and didn 't have help. He was so important to Canada when he was in good shape.?" Dallaire had retired from the service two months earlier, describing him self as "a casualty of Rwanda, an injured officer of the Rwandan war."? He had served as commander of the UN military force s deployed in Rwan da in 1993 to i nister a cease-fire between the Hum-domi nated government and the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front. On his watch as UN commander, Dallaire had witnessed Rwanda descend into a carefully orchestrated orgy of mass murder

The Rwandan Genocide

65

following the .assassination of the nation 's pre sident on April 6, 1994. During a period of 103 days, at least 800,000 - by some estimates over one million - human beings were murdered by the Hutu-dominated government and its killing squads.f The indelible images of the Rwandan massacre are those of unarmed, defenseless people being hacked to death by hate-crazed assailants wielding machetes, knives, and sharpened farm implements. Dallaire described incidents in which troops under his command came upon "choppedup - but living - men and women," who were often left to bleed to death because almost one-third of the local population had AIDS, and no surgical gloves were available to protect medical workers." Dallaire often found himself "standing knee deep in mutilated bodies, surrounded by the guttural moans of dying people, looking into the eyes of children bleeding to death with their wounds burning in the sun and being invaded by maggots and flies. I found myself walking through villages where the only sign of life was a goat, or a chicken, or a songbird, as all the people were dead , their bodies being eaten by voracious packs of wild dogs ,"!" For years after he returned to Canada, Dallaire was tormented by dreams in which he waded "waist deep in bodies, covered in blood.... I am holding up my arms trying to get out. Each time it comes back, the scene is worse . I can hear the rustle of bodies, and I am afraid to move for fear of hurting someone." Even when he was awake, the images of the relentless killing frenzy - "are digitally clear and come one at a time. They do not disappear over time, and your normal state becomes acute depression." I I Before being discovered in Hull, Dallaire had twice tried to kill himself. "There are many days in the past, and less so now, where I wish I had died there," Dallaire told CBC-TV. 12

66

Global Gun Grab

Dallaire's traumatic memories of the genocide were compounded with a sense of guilt and frustration over the fact that he had offered detailed advance warning to his UN superiors that the massacre was imminent, and he had been forbidden to do anything to prevent it.

The "Genocide Fax" On January II, 1994, amid accumulating signs of an impending slaughter of Tutsis and moderate Hutus by the "Hutu Power" regime in Rwanda, Dallaire sent an urgent fax to UN Headquarters. The message explained that Dallaire had been warned by a defector from the regime that it was planning "to all Tutsi in Kigali [the capital] . He suspects it is for their extermination. [The] example he gave is that in twenty minutes his personnel could kill up to a thousand Tutsis .,,13 The informant offered to lead Dallaire and his men to a local government weapons cache, and requested that he and his family be taken into protective custody. Dallaire asked for permission to raid the government arms cache within 36 hours. Within a short time, Dallaire had his reply. His superi ors forbade him to disarm the government killing squads . Instead, he was ordered to share his information with the Hutu government and sternly inform it that the killing squads ' activities "represent a clear threat to the peace process." "Never mind that Dallaire's informant had explicitly described the plans to exterminate the Tutsis .. . as emanating from [the Rwandan president's] court : the [UN] mandate said that peace-treaty violations should be reported to the President," wrote reporter Philip Gourevitch in his awardwinning of the tragedy." In other words , Dallaire was ordered to expose his informant and surrender his intelligence about the planned genocide to the government that was planning the crime.


67

Printed at the top of the fax to Dallaire was the name of Kofi Annan, who was then the chief of peacekeeping operations . Notes Gourevitch, this "suggests that [Annan] was its author , or at least the one ultimately responsible for its contents." 15 A UN inquiry headed by former Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson (a co-chair of the UN-funded Commi ssion on Global Governance) concluded in 1999 that Annan was, in fact, the author of the notorious reply to Dallaire .!" Copies of Dallaire's warnings of the impending slaughter were made available not only to Annan but also to then-Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali .!? It says a great deal about the UN 's institutional priorities that while Dallaire - who had tried , as best he could, to prevent the genocide - was left to descend into alco holism and suicidal depression, Kofi Annan - the man who in effect gave the green light for the genocide - was later chosen to be secretary-general. Another illustration of the UN 's deeply entrenched corrupti on was on display after the government of Belgium , which lost 10 soldiers at the hand s of Rwandan killing squads, created a commission to investigate the tragedy. Kofi Annan "refused to testify or allow General Dallaire to testify," reports Gourevitch . "The UN Charter, Annan explained in a letter to the Belgian government, grant ed UN official s ' immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts,' " and Annan did not see how waiving that immunit y "was in the interest of the Organization. ? " Belgian Senator Alain Destexhe believes that the UN actually facilitated the Rwandan genocide by ordering Dallaire to share his intelligence with the regime. "They were the ones preparing the massacres .... It 's like informing a terrorist that you know he 's preparing his terrorism and assuring him you're not going to do anyt hing about it.,,19

The UN 's own inquiry concluded that "the instructions

68

Global Gun Grab

from New York certainly gave the signal to the Interahamwe [the Rwandan killing squads] and other extremists that UNAMIR was not going to take assertive action" to prevent the killing.P

Proliferating Danger Signs The UN 's foreknowledge of the impending Rwandan slaughter was not limited to Dallaire's detailed fax of January 11, 1994 . UN officials were aware that systematic massacres of Tutsis had begun as early as the fall of 1993.21 Nor were such massacres a novelty in Rwanda. Tutsis had been murdered in large numbers by Hutu s on several occasions since 1959. A UN-employed schoolteacher in Rwanda described the anti-Tutsi pogrom of December 1963-January 1964 as "a veritable genocide." At the time, left-wing academic Bertrand Russell described the bloodletting as "the most horrible and systematic massacre we have had occasion to witness since the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis .,,22 Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali would later dismiss Dallaire's warnings as typical of "alarming" reports received by field commanders in UN "peacekeeping" missions .P But he knew better. In December 1993, BoutrosGhali, according to the UN's own inquiry, had sent an emissary to meet with the Rwandan president. At that meeting the UN official warned that "he had information that killings of the opposition were being planned, and that the United Nations would not stand for this.,,24 Just a few weeks later, Dallaire sent his fax to New York. Nothing in that fax came as news to the UN officials who ordered Dallaire to stand out of the way and let the Rwandan regime murder hundreds of thousands of people. By staying in Rwanda and cooperating with a government bent on genocide, the UN "peacekeepers" perpetrated a murderous fraud : They beguiled many thousands of victims into


69

staying, when they might otherwise have fled . By January 1994, both Hutus and Tutsis sensed that the massacres were coming. One Tutsi nurse testified : "Really, it was UNAMIR that tricked us into staying. We saw all these blue helmets, and we talked with Dallaire.... We thought even if Hutus start to attack us the three thousand men of UNAMIR should be enough. Dallaire gave us his phone numb er and his radio number, and said, 'If anything happens you call me immediately.' So we trusted them.,,25 After the nurse and her family returned from a visit to Burundi in January 1994, they were set upon by a Hutu mob. After two grenades thrown by the mob blew out the windows of the family car, "I called Dallaire ... but nobody came from UNAMIR. I realized then that these people would never protect us.,,26 Shortly after the April massacres began , the nurse and her family tried to flee, only to be surrounded by the killin g squad s. The nurse 's sister was shot and killed , and of the mob "put grenades to our necks ." They might all have suffered the same fate that claimed hundreds of thousands of Tutsis had her husband not procured "illegal" firearms, in this case, two Chinese-made hand grenades, which he used to create an armed stand-off with his family' s would -be killers. "So they didn 't kill us. Instead, they took us to the village for interrogation," after which they were taken under the protection of the local mayor.F This famil y survived despite, not because of, the UN 's intervention in Rwanda. The key to their survival was the fact that the husband, unlike hundreds of thousands of victims, was armed , and thus able to deter the killing squads at a critical moment. This experience illustrates , in microcosm, the fatal futility of the UN 's approach to "collective human security," in which the world body, along with UNapproved national "internal security" establishments, would "keep the peace."

70

Global Gun Grab

"Human Security" Despite Annan's best efforts at damage control, political pressure from several nations (notably Belgium) led to the creation of a of inquiry. That 's official report documented, in damning detail, the UN's complicity in the Rwandan genocide, but insisted that the tragedy supposedly illustrated the need to give the UN even greater military power. "The overriding failure in the response of the United Nations before and during the genocide in Rwanda can be summarized as a lack of resources and a lack of will to take on the commitment which would have been necessary to prevent or stop the genocide," concluded the report" Annan's response to the report was a masterpiece of rhetorical misdirection. "Of all my aims as a Secretary General," intoned Annan , "there is none to which I feel more deeply committed than that of enabling the United Nations never again to fail in protecting a civilian population from genocide or mass slaughter'F" It's a very typical collectivist reaction to failure: Focus on "intentions," rather than results, and on "commitment," rather than culpability. Annan was saying, in effect, "We failed - so give us more power, more money, and more military strength." Rwanda was, in a tragic sense, a test case for the UN's doctrine of "Human Security." Although the term is referred to as "recently a new concept" in Our Global Neighborhood,3° the 1995 report of the Commission on Global Governance (CGG), the concept is at least as old as the UN itself. The CGG report insisted that the UN and its subsidiary bodies must bear the primary responsibility for providing "human security" on a global basis. This would mean the disarmament of civilians and other impositions intended to bring about "a culture of non-violence." "Militarization today not only involves governments spending more than necessary to build up their military arsenals," declared the CGG. "It has increasingly become a


71

global societal phenomenon, as witnessed by the rampant acquisition and use of increasingly lethal weapons by civilians - whether individuals seeking a means of self-defense, street gangs, criminals, political opposition groups, or terrorist organizations.v" The UN's "h uman security" doctrine, as expressed by the CGG, defines the legal civilian ownership of firearms to be morally indistinguishable from terrorism or crime. The UN believes legal civilian gun ownership to be another manifestation of "militarization," which must be suppressed by government measures intended "to encourage the disarming of civilians ...."32 Once civilians are disarmed, claims the UN, their physical safety will depend on each nation's "internal security" apparatus - that is, police and military establishments. But to whom or to what will disarmed civilians appeal if the chief threat to their security comes from that same "internal security " establishment? The CGG explain s that when civilians are threatened by their own governments, the UN has an "o bligation .. . to act in a purely internal context" within the affected nations, and that the body has the authority to represent the "interests of the international community in situations within individual states in which the security of people is violated extensively/'P To help carry out that task , the CGG recommends that the UN devise "an NGO Early Warning Service" to antic ipate and interdict large-scale human rights

abuses.l" The UN followed this program in Rwanda. The civilian population was disarmed, except for militia units under central government control. The nation's "internal security" force actively collaborated with the UN "peacekeepers" in istering the peace accord, which called for efforts to confiscate "all weapons distributed to or illegally acquired by civilians ...."35 And there was certainly ample "early

72

Global Gun Grab

warning " about the government's intention to murder the Tutsis . Yet somehow, these efforts to propagate a "culture of peace " in Rwanda precipitated a genocidal rampage producing a huge numbe r of casualtie s, virtually all of whom were disarmed civilians. The death toll "accumulated at nearly three times the rate of Jewish dead during the Holo caust. It was the most efficient mass killing since the atomic bombings of Hiro shima and Nagasaki," Gourevitch concluded.l"

Civilian Disarmament in Rwanda A rmed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague ofSmall Arms, the UN 's propaganda film produced in anticip ation of the 2001 Small Arms Conference, insists that only through a global crackdown on civilian arms possession "can genocide as happened in Rwanda be prevented ." The film imputes to firearms a capac ity for independent malice and the ability to "murder indiscriminately." Curiously, however, the UN seems to believ e that firearms are miraculously purged of their demonic qualities when they are wielded by repre sent atives of the State. Armed to the Teeth defines "legal" arIll:s as those "used by armies and police forces to protect us," while denouncing civilian-owned arms as "illegitimate" weapons that "bring insecurity, suffering and devasration /'F In fact, the Rwandan tragedy vividly illustrates how mass political murder is carried out by standing armies and nationalized police, the very people to whom the UN wishes to give excl usive national franchises on firearms ownership (under UN supervision, of course). The hundreds of thousands of Rwandan victims were not slaughtered by weapons acting independentl y of human will, as Armed to the Teeth might lead some viewers to conclude. Nor were the massacres spontaneous outbreaks root-


73

ed in "ancient tribal hatreds"; in fact, there are no recorded instances of inter-ethnic violence between Hutu and Tutsi prior to 1959.38 The genocide was a carefully planned, rigorously executed conspiracy by the central government. "This genocide, like all genocide, was planned," notes a study of the Rwandan massacres compiled by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). "It did not just 'happen.' The primary inten ded targets were easily identified in advance by community leaders , by appearance, and by their 'national identity' cards.,,39 During the 103-day rampage, "an average of 8,000 persons was murdered every day. The Nazis' industrialized murder process may have sured this daily toll exceptionally, but did not do so on a sustained basis. Such a sustained murder campaign obviously was carefully planned and skillfully led. It was in no way a spontaneous event, a 'happening.' "40 Philip Gourevitch, the most acclaimed chronicler of the Rwandan holocaust, confirms JPFO's , pointing out that "mass violence .. . must be organized; it does not occur aimlessly. Even mobs and riots have a design, and great and sustained destruction requires great ambition. It must be conceived as the means toward achieving a new order, and althoug h the idea behind the new order may be criminal and objectively very stupid, it must also be compellingly simple and at the same time absol ute.?"! "Genocide, after all, is an exercise in community building," continues Gourevitch. "A vigorous totalitarian order requires that the people be invested in the leaders' scheme, and while genocide may be the most perverse and ambi tious means to this end, it is also the most comprehensive . In 1994, Rwanda was regarded . .. as the exemplary instance of the chaos and anarchy associated with collapsed states . In fact, the genoc ide was the product of order, authoritarianis m, decades of modem political theorizing and indoc-

74

Global Gun Grab

trination, and one of the most meticulously istered states in history.,,42 The Rwandan State was lavishly subsidized by the UN's International Monetary Fund, which by the late 1980s was underwriting about 60 percent of the regime's national budget. 43 It also enjoyed the monopoly on firearms ownership that the UN insists is the foundation of "human security." While most of the State murders committed in 1994 were carried out with machetes, knives, and farm tools, the victims - having first been disarmed - were rounded up and kept in line by armed government troops and governmentorganized militia, the only group permitted to have guns. "To outsiders," wrote UN-aligned arms control specialists Jeffrey Boutwell and Michael T. Klare, "it appeared as if the people of Rwanda had been caught up in a violent frenzy, with common farm implements as their favored instruments of extermination. But this isn't the whole story. Before the killing began, the Hutu-dominated government had distributed automatic rifles and hand grenades to official militias and paramilitary gangs. It was this firepower that made the genocide possible. Militia terrorized their victims with guns and grenades as they rounded them up for systematic slaughter with machetes and knives. The murderous use of farm tools may have seemed a medieval aberration, but the weapons and paramilitary gangs that facilitated the genocide were all too modern.v'" (Emphasis added.) Boutwell and Klare correctly identified one half of the killing equation - the use of government-controlled firearm s in the genocide . But they ignored the other necessary factor : The disarmament of the intended civilian victims. JPFO 's analysi s takes into both of these necessary preconditions for the slaughter. "The genocide regime's police and troops had government-issued firearms," observes the JPFO study. "The geno-


75

cide regime also gave firearms and training to trusted civilians. In other cases, the regime issued to its ers permits to buy firearms." The victims were not armed, "even though they knew they were at risk. They had previously been subject to smaller-scale attacks. However, 'gun control' laws enacted on 21 November 1964 . .. and 7 May 1979 ... kept them from legally buying firearms for self-defense. Many had the money to do so, despite Rwanda's general poverty. Many of the target group were of the former political or current business elite.... Almost all the intended victims of Rwanda's genocide regime tried to resist. They did not submit quietly to their murderers. The intended victims used stones, clubs, and improvised weapons. In literally a handful of cases, they used firearms, taken from their would-be murderers.t'P

Power Without ability "I look back with a sense of pride and fulfillment at the honorable end of the UN mission in Rwanda," boasted UN special envoy Shaharyar Khan as the world body's pale blue banner was lowered over Kigali. A crowd of protesters who had gathered outside the UN's Rwandan headquarters expressed a different point of view. One of them raised a banner reading: "Boutros. The blood of our husbands, children and relatives will always be with you.,,46 Who was to be held responsible for the UN 's performance in Rwanda? Nobody. Under the UN 's "human security" regime, the organization enjoys power without ability - and it was not at all hesitant to invoke its immunity even as it sought greater power and resources to enforce its will upon the world. In 2000, an American law firm representing the survivors of two Tutsi officials killed in the genocide filed a lawsuit against the UN. Australian attorney Michael Hourigan, who

76

Global Gun Grab

had worked as an investigator for the UN, offered his services as an adviser to the plaintiffs "because he was dismayed by what his investigation revealed about UN actions," according to a news . Among the documents discovered by Hourigan during his work as a UN investigator was an official memorandum showing that the UN was aware of the impending genocide. UN officials were thus aware that the victims whose relatives filed the suit "faced a 'serious threat' of being killed," but they did not share that information with them . Had the victims known that "UN protection was just an illusion ," they, like many others, would have fled.47 Even more shocking was the discovery that some "peacekeepers sent to protect [potential victims] .. . either handed them over to the rampaging militants or ran away when fighting broke OUt.,,48

The UN responded to the lawsuit by asserting a comprehensive claim of immunity. According to UN spokesman Farhan Hag, "as a gener al rule, the United Nations cannot be sued for its official actions.T'? Fred Eckhard, Kofi Annan 's personal spokesman, insisted that this plenary grant of immunity was necessary to protect the vital work of peacekeeping: "I can say that if we allowed our peacekeepers to be brought to courts and tried over matters like this, that would be the end of peacekeeping. We do not feel responsible for what happened, and we do not believe we should have to answer for anything in court."so Power without ability is a time-tested recipe for tyranny. Undeterred by the UN 's role in the Rwandan genocide , one of the architects of that tragedy - Kofi Annan has urged the world to pursue the same course that was followed there: Civilian disarmament; nationalization of law

enfo rcement; and deference to the United Nations as the world 's ultimate custodian of "human security." "For the United Nations," declared Annan during a 1998


77

visit to Rice University, "there is no higher goal, no deeper commitment and no greater ambition than preventing armed conflict."Sl Armed conflict is indeed terr ible and tragic, especially when it takes the form of modem total warfare . But there are circumstances in which armed conflict is unavoidable for those who seek to protect them selves, their families, their communities, and their nations . Had the Rwandan Tutsis been in a position to mount an armed defense in 1994, the genocide could have been prevented. The UN's premises, it bears repeating, are totalitarian. In the UN's vision , the State (in this case, a world state istered by itself) is the custodian of every individual's physical security, with a monopoly on force and the power to "prevent" violence through coercive intervention. And in totalitarian fashion, Annan, who has spent his professional lifetime as a UN bureaucrat, insists that the UN's failures clinch the case for giving the body total power : "Have we not seen enough coffins, from Rwanda to Bosnia to Cambodia , to pay for the price of prevention?"s2 This is a more honest question: Have we not seen enough coffins, from Soviet Russia to National Socialist to Communist Cambodia to UN-istered Rwanda, to understand the lethal consequences of civilian disarmament? Each of those nations fell prey to a totalitarian government that stripped its opposition of weapons - often using laws ed by non-totalitarian predecessor regimes - and then murdered hundreds of thousands, millions, or even tens ofmillions of its disarmed subjects. The only "human security" afforded such hapless peop le is the securi ty of the grave, where at least they can suffer no more.

The Drive for Total Power Among the most influential works of 18th-century Engl ish political science was Cato 's Letters, a series of anonymous

78

Global Gun Grab

libertarian tracts. The authors of those essays - which were eagerly read by the Founders of our republic and the Framers of our Constitution - defined despotism as "the unrelenting War of an armed Tyrant upon his unarmed Subjects." In a similar vein, English essayist James Burgh , writing at the time of the American Revolution, reminded British parliamentarians that "the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.,,53Entrusting the UN - or, for that matter, our own central government with the protection of our "human security" would be an abdication of individual liberty in favor of self-imposed slavery. Following its performance in Rwanda, the UN sought to shift blame from itself by indicting a "lack of will" on the part of its member-states to provide the organization with manpower, money, and resources. "I can assure you that no government would have said, 'Yes, here are our boys for an offensive operation in Rwanda,' " declared Iqbal Riza, Kofi Annan 's deputy chief of UN peacekeeping.54 But there is a reason why national governments have been unable to attract volunteers willing to die on behalf of the UN's vision of "human security": The natural human inclination is to protect himself and his family, as well as his immediate community - not to die on behalf of collectivist abstractions. The best defense against criminal assaults aimed at the innocent is self-defense. While people do create governments for the collective exercise of the individual right to self-defense, no free society can have a government so allencoming that it can come to the aid of all individuals facing imminent danger. Attempts to create such governments always result in immediate peril from that government itself A presentation made during the UN's July 2001 Small Arms Conference underscored this reality. During his address to the conference, Isaac Lappia of Amnesty Interna-


79

tional in Sierra Leone acknowledged that "small arms and light weapons are now the principal weapons used by government and opposition armed forces in violent conflicts.... In addition, our factual data shows incontrovertibly that small arms are also used in many more countries to facilitate serious crimes by law enforcement personnel - including police, prison authorities, paramilitaries, and the army - where they commit persistent human rights violations including torture , rape, 'disappearances,' and arbitrary killing s." According to Lappia, however, the real problem is that these crimes committed under the color of State authority "have a powerful demonstration effect on civil society, encouraging civilians to take up illicit arms.,,55 In other words : Even when governments are committing hideou s crimes against their subjects, it is still "illicit" for civilians to own firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This is the digested essence of the UN 's doctrine of "human security."

CHAPTER SIX

'.'Peace" Through Terror Nervous [UN peacekeepe rs} positioned in elevated, sandbagged bunkers opened fire on the crowd with auto matic weapons, killing at least 14, including women and children, and wounding 20. Some of the demon strators were appa rently shot as they tried to flee the gunfi re, and victims lay in their own blood as UN armored vehicles drove by making no effort to help the wounded. "There was a man whose arm was almost severed," reported Paul Watson, a correspon dent with the Toronto Star. "He was basically mush from the hips down. The guy was still alive when the UN trucks ed by, but they just kept on going:"! - An of the UN's "peace enforcement" mission in Somalia, 1993 As an Army we are fortunate to have ... a rich web of historical tradition . But our experience is oflittle use if it cannot be interpreted in light offuture operations .... [T}he future will be dom inated by a single overwhelming presence - the United Nations. 2 - James J. Schneider, professor of military theory at U.S. Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth

would the UN go about enforcing a global gun ban? The most effective means of enforcing civilian disarmament, as we have seen, is psychological disarmament - inducing people to tum in their weapons voluntarily. After all, even the most efficient and comprehensive

H

OW

80

"Peace" Through Terror

81

police state ultimately depends upon the cooperation of its subjects. Why use overt force when indoctrination works much better? But the UN has shown that it has ways of being more , shall we say, persuasive when indoctrination and other means of inducing voluntary disarmament prove ineffective. Consider the case of the UN 's "peacekeeping" mission to Croatia, a mission known as "UNTAES ."

Disarmament Through Intimidation Derek Boothby, who was one of the highest-ranking civilian officials for UNTAES from 1996-1997, described how the UN mission was given the task of maintaining "law and order" in the affected areas within the former Yugoslav province of Croatia. To carry out that mandate, blue-helmeted troops from several nations conducted weapons turnin programs for the specific purpose of disarming the Serb minority, many of whom had been driven from their homes or otherwise victimized by Croatian authorities during the Yugoslav civil war. . "Although the mandate of UNTAES contained no specific reference to removing weapons from civilian hands, it was clear that a determined effort of this nature was consistent with the need to ensure civilian law and order," explains Boothby. "[T[he philosophy of the UNTAES leadership was to regard the [Security Council] mandate as a floor on which the fabric of implementation was to be constructed, rather than a ceiling that placed restraints and limits on the operation.l" There is an important fact to about the "mandates" the UN gives to itself: They are open-ended and subject to expansion without prior notice. In this case, the UNTAES commanders invoked an August 1997 report of the UN of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, which recommended "the prompt collection and destruc-

82

Global Gun Grab

tion of all weapons not under legal civilian possession and not required for national defense or interna l security/" (Emphasis added.) From the UN 's perspective, no civilian firearms ownership is ever justified. Thus the UNTAES "peacekeepers," following standard UN guidelines, organized a two-phase " weapons collection" program. In Phase I, ex-combatants - soldiers and paramilitaries - were "de-mobilized" and disarmed. Phase II of the UNTAES operation consisted of "longer-term efforts aimed at disarming an armed civilian population....,,5 In Croatia, once the Serb military unit s were de-mobilized, "the next logical step was an organized effort to control the weapons that remained and, as far as po ssib le, get them out of civilian hands,"? Thi s was complicated by the fact that the Croatian government, which was und er the control of a faction see king to re-create the World War Il -era Ustash e Fas cist regime," was contemplating a military offen sive "tha t would eradicate the Serb problem once and for all." g Not surp risingly, many Serb s res isted the dem and that they relinquish the means of defending themselves. Th e UN, though, insisted upon providing an arms monopoly to the centra l government - and it made clear the fact that it was willing to use lethal for ce to disarm tho se who resisted : As the [UN] troops and their military assets arri ved and were deployed, with heavy equipment taking up its positions and helicopter gun ships exercising over the region, an un spoken but clear message was being deliberately sent to the Serb and Croatian authorities, and to the people of the region, that UNTAES was more robustly equipped than other UN missions and would be prepared to impose security if challenged. This attitude .. . undoubtedly helped to create an atmo sph ere that was conducive to the civilian popula-


83

tion subsequently taking part in the weapons buyback program." Very rarely has a UN official spoken so candidly of the basic premise of the organization: Peace through terror. The entire purpose of the UN's display of might in Croatia was to intimidate Serb civilians into surrendering their weapons, which were in tum handed over to the neo-Fascist central government. At the end of the UNTAES operation in January 1998, Boothby proudly recalls, damaged weapons were destroyed, and "the UN [arms] containers were removed from their positions in front of the storage doors and the UN keys were formally handed over to the Croatian authorities, thereby transferring the entire control of the remaining weapons over to the Croatian government." 10 This left the Serb minority at the mercy of a government that had once openly contemplated liquidating them once and for all.

From "Restoring Hope" to Killing Civilians The UN's "peacekeeping" mission in Croatia was not the first time that a UN "humanitarian" invasion was given a gun-grabbing mandate. The world body had tried the same trick in Somalia - with tragic and bloody consequences. The UN Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) did not begin as a "peace enforcement" mission, much less a civilian disarmament operation. But by the time it ended, the operation offered a useful i11ustration of how the world body will cloak its ambitions in the language of "humanitarianism" - and then, at whim, engage in all-out warfare against those who resist the world body's wi11. The UN's attempt to bring Somalia under its heel cost the lives of dozens of American servicemen, and hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of Somalis. Most of the deaths resulted from the UN's decision to disarm and "pacify" a Somali clan that had over-

84

Global Gun Grab

thrown a pro-Soviet dictator and would not put up with any further foreign domination. When 30,000 American troops, acting under UN Security Council Resolution 794, hit Somalia's beaches in December 1992, their stated goal was to provide "humanitarian relief" to famine victims. "Our mission has a limited objective - to open the supply routes, to get the food moving, and to prepare the way for a UN peacekeeping force to keep it moving," explained then-President George Bush (the elder) in an address to the nation . II Speaking two years after the UN-ordered invasion, William J. van den Heuvel, chairman of the United Nations Association of the USA and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, exulted : "There was never a prouder moment than when U.S. forces under the UN flag landed on the shores of Somalia."12 The "humanitarian" focus of the Somalia invasion made the deployment - which was christened "Operation Restore Hope" - a relatively easy sell for both Americans and Somalis, as did assurances from Bush that American troops would be out two months later - January 20, 1993, the day a new U.S. President would be inaugurated. But, as is almost always the case with UN initiatives, "Operation Restore Hope" was a bait-and -switch. In March 1993 the UN Security Council, acting on an initiative from Washington, issued Resolution 814, which transformed the "humanitarian" mission into an exercise in "nation-build ing ." U.S. and other troops were now charged with the task of "rebuilding" civic institutions (actually, creating Western-style institutions where they hadn't previously existed), aiding the "political reconciliation" of the country's six major clan factions, and creating local and national police forces. 13 Shortly thereafter, the mission mutated again into what was called UNOSOM II - which would eventually become a military campaign to disarm militiamen who were


85

loyal to clan leader Mohammed Farah Aideed. In Somalia, American troops became tragically acquainted with the term "mission creep ." The lethal meaning of that expression was made clear on October 3, 1993, when 18 American troops were killed and 75 were wounded during a battle in Mogadishu with forces loyal to Aideed. Unbearable video footage captured after that battle depicted the lifeless body of an American pilot being dragged through Mogadishu's sandy streets as Aideed loyalists cheered themselves hoarse. There was also plenty of Somali blood being shed before the October 1993 "Battle of Mogadishu" - and most of the bloodshed was precipitated by UN efforts to seize Somali firearms.

"Bodies All Over the Place" When UNOSOM II was inaugurated on May 5, 1993, Lieutenant General Robert B. Johnston, the Marine general commanding U.S. forces in Somalia, ordered that the U.S. flag be taken down from the mission 's command headquarters. Turkish General CevikBir, who took the reins of command from Gen. Johnston, ordered the UN flag to fly in its place. 14 Immediately thereafter, relations between the UN and Aideed degenerated, largely as a result of the "warlord's" insistence that Somalis should work out their own peace settlement, on their own , following their own customs, without outside interference. When Aideed called a peace conference, the UN organized a competing peace conference - and pointedly refused to invite Aideed.P One important source of friction between Aideed's clan and the UN was found in the fact that Boutros BoutrosGhali, the Egyptian socialist who was UN secretary-general at the time, had been a er of pro-Soviet Somali dictator Barre. As a diplomat in the service of the Egyptian government, Boutros-Ghali had actively opposed Aideed

86

Global Gun Grab

and his clan during their effort to unseat Barre. 16 Although Aideed's followers suspected that the UN's policies in Somalia reflected Boutros-Ghali's personal bias, it is much more likely that the world body was seeking to punish and eradicate an effective anti-Communist movement. The task of neutralizing - and eventually liquidating - anti-Com munist opposition will always involve civilian disarmament. Shortly after the UN "peace conference" snubbed Aideed, Pakistani "peacekeepers" made an unannoun ced visit to an ammunition storehouse near Radio Mogadishu, a station run by Aideed loyalists, and at one point forced their way into the station. This was done after announcements had been made over a station loyal to Aideed 's chief rival, Ali Mahdi - who had emerged as the UN's preferred "warlord" - that the UN was going to seize radio stations and other "institutions which are the causes of present instability." That night - June 5, 1993 - militiamen loyal to Aideed engaged the Pakistani "peacekeepers," killing 24. 17 Two days later, the Security Council issued Resolution 837, calling for the arrest, trial, and punishment of Aideed and others responsible for "premeditated attacks" on UN troops. Aideed insisted that the incident was provoked by the UN's attempt to seize the radio station and called for an independent international investigation of the incident. 18 The UN 's own internal review, which was later conducted by Tom Farer, a professor at American University and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations , provided confirmation that the June 5th battle was provoked by UN troops conducting a "weapons inspection" that may in fact have been "a cover-up for reconnaissance and subsequent seizure of Radio Mogadishu."? The death of 24 "peacekeepers," and the spuriou s arrest warrant issued for Aideed, gave the UN command a pretext for commencing an all-out war on his clansmen - both armed and civilian. Beginning on June 12th, U.S. warplanes


87

bombed positions held by Aideed including Radio Mogadishu, which was subsequently seized by American infantrymen . On the next day a crowd of outraged Somalis assembled to protest the attacks. Pakistani troops opened fire on the crowd, killing and wounding scores of civilians. One of the victims was a two-year-old boy who was standing a half-mile away; he was killed when a high-velocity round struck him in the abdomen .P One American officer involved in the campaign against Aideed itted that the purpose of the UN 's apparently irrational campaign was to provoke the "warlord": "The idea was to draw out his weapons so we can destroy them." The body count began to rise: A six-hour battle on June 17th resulted in the death of scores of Somalis, five UN soldiers, and one French relief worker. r! Within a month , guerilla strikes by Aideed 's forces had killed more than 70 UN personnel. On July 12th, U.S. helicopter gunships opened fire on a residential villa identified as a "command center" for Aideed, firing more than 2,000 rounds of 20-millimeter cannon fire and 16 missiles. Following the assault, U.S. infantrymen swarmed the premises and seized radios , documents, and - of course - small arms .P This attack could be considered the critical turning point in the Somalia tragedy. A UN spokesman insisted that the assault upon the residence had inflicted "no collateral damage whatsoever" and that "no innocent civilians were injured in the attack." Somali casualties , insisted the UN spokesman, totaled 13 dead and 11 wounded, all of whom were armed adult males. Impartial observers on the scene, however, told a different story. Gary T. Dempsey and Roger W. Fontaine of the Cato Institute offer this : Despite the claim that the attack was carried out with pinpoint accuracy and that all of the death and de-

88

Global Gun Grab

struction was limited to the villa compound, an American reporter on the scene, Scott Peterson, said that the raid was far bloodier than UN and U.S. officials acknowledged. "It was devastating," said Peterson. "There were bodies all over the place - they were mincemeat." On the basis of a survey of two of Mogadishu's large hospitals, the International Committee of the Red Cross said at least 54 Somalis were killed in the attack and 174 wounded. But the actual casualty toll was likely higher because other medical facilities in the city were not surveyed, and the Somali tradition is to bury their dead without first taking them to hospitals.P Shortly before that assault took place, U.S. troops under UN command "began conducting house to house weapons searches ...."24 In late August, Washington deployed a group of 400 elite U.S. Army Rangers to help capture Aideed. Shortly thereafter, the U.S.-led UN mission made those areas of Mogadishu controlled by Aideed's forces a freefire zone. After an incident in which an American helicopter opened fire on a crowd, killing 200 civilians , U.S. Army Major David Stockwell, chief spokesman for UNOSOM II, explained: "There are no sidelines or spectator seats. The people on the ground are considered combatants/'P In Black Hawk Down, a mesmerizing of street combat in the capital city of Mogadishu, reporter Mark Bowden points out that after the July 12th attack upon the suspected "command center," Aideed's clan declared war on America. The spectacle of a prolonged artillery and missile barrage conducted by 17 U.S. attack helicopters upon a private residence made it clear to the of Aideed's clan that they were dealing with a merciless foe. Thus when American Rangers and of the elite Army Delta Force were sent to "arrest" Aideed and his top associates


89

on October 3rd , clan · were motivated and wellprepared. One survivor of the July 12th attack was a witness to the attempt to "arrest" Aideed. As he saw an armada of American helicop ters assemble near Aideed's suspected redoubt in downtown Mogadis hu, he and his friends were filled with rage: " It was one thing for the world to intervene to feed the starving, and even for the UN to help Somalia form a peaceful government. But this business of sending U.S. Rangers swooping down into their city and kidnapping their leaders , this was too much .,,26 By collaborating in the UN 's campaign to disarm its Somalia opposition, the U.S . gov. ernment set the stage for one of the bloodiest military defeats in recent American history .

Up the "Escalation Ladder" From the UN's actions in Croatia and Somalia, we can piece together the UN's civilian disarmament "escalation ladder": First comes the psychological disarmament campaign to persuade civilians to turn in their guns; then comes a show of force to intimidate them into giving up their weapons. Typically, it is only after these efforts fail that what Shakespeare called "bloody constraint" - lethal military force - would be used. But the UN does reserve to itself that option, and it has shed innocent blood in an effort to disarm civilians. The UN will also cloak its intentions in "humanitarian" garb or other disguises. In both Croatia and Somal ia, and in many other nations , the UN has used Blue Helmets to carry out gun confiscation - and American troops were directly involved in the Somalia gun grab. But the Croatia mission also highlights an important and little-appreciated fact about the UN's long-term designs for global civilian disarmament: The useable weapons confiscated from civilians were turned over to the central government, which was eventually given responsibility for

90

Global Gun Grab

enforcing "internal security" under UN supervision. The UN's preferred arrangement is to provide a national monopoly on force to each central government, acting through its centralized, militarized "internal security" establishment. As we will see in the next chapter, the creation of a UN-approved police state apparatus is well underway in the United States .

Anyone who questions whether or not the UN is anti-gun should ponder the significance of this statue in front of the General Assembly building of the UN's New York City headquarters,

If the photo on the previous page provides one clue as to the UN's anti-gun bias, this ' work of art' provides 7,000 . At least, that's the number of 'deactivated crime and war weapons ' it supposedly contains . Known as TheGunSculpture: TheArt Of Disarmament, it was unveiled at the UN's July 2001 Small Arms Conference.

E

"

'6

G3

ci

'" ~

o >s:

The statue of Captain John Parker, who commanded the Minutemen on the Lexington Green, is a powerful reminder of our heritage of freedom. That heritage, of course, is intertwined with the right to bear arms.

CHAPTER SEVEN

Militarizing Mayberry [T]he mindset of the soldier is simply not appropriate for the civilian police officer. Police officers confront not an "enemy" but individuals who are protected by the bill ofrights. Confusing the policefunction with the military function can lead to dangerous and unintended consequences - such as unnecessary shootings and killings. 1 - Cato Institute Police Analyst Diane Cecilia Weber The U.S. government declares a ban on the posses sion, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end ofthis period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government. 2 - "Question 46" of the "Combat Arms Survey," as istered to 300 Marines at Twentynine Palms Marine Base, May 10, 1994

A

t least two generations of Americans are familiar with The Andy Griffith Show, which depicted life in the idyllic North Carolina town of Mayberry. The star of the program portrayed easy-going, small -town Sheriff Andy Taylor. "SheriffAndy" was the fictional embodiment of the police motto "To Protect and Serve": He wore his author ity lightly and was able to defuse most situations without 91

92

Global Gun Grab

violence. His most pressing challenges were to provide Otis, the town drunk , with a suitable cell in which to sleep off his habitual indulgences, and to keep high-strung Deputy Sheriff Barney Fife in line. One of the things Sheriff Andy did to rein in his overzealous deputy was to give him only a single bullet, which was never used. Granted, The Andy Griffith Show was a television program, and a rather whimsical one at that. But it was in some waysan accurate reflection of small -town American life in the early 1960s. In that era, SheriffAndy Taylor typified the face of law enforcement for millions of Americans. Chosen by and able to the citizens of the community in which he lived, Sheriff Taylor would never allow the office he held to become a menace to Mayberry 's liberties.

A "Thought Experiment" Let 's consider how radically different things would be for SheriffAndy Taylor if we were to update The Andy Griffith Show for the early 21st century. The following scenario illustrates how real-life developments in the field of federal control of our local police would affect the fictional town of Mayberry. Sheriff Taylor 's police force might be augmented with a federally subsidized SWATteam, which would be equipped with cutting-edge firepower provided by the Defense Department. Operating as part of a multi-jurisdictional task force, the Mayberry SWAT team would be called upon to carry out "no-knock" raids on the home s of suspected drug dealers, whose property could be summarily confiscated without a trial; all that is necessary is an allegation that the property had somehow been used in the course of criminal activity.' While the feds are militarizing Mayberry, they are making life miserable for Sheriff Taylor and his associates. In the late 1990s, the Ju stice Department targeted the May-

M ilitarizing May berry

93

berry Sheriff's Department for investigation after a local "civil rights" group accused it of "racial profiling." Accordingly, Mayberry was forced to sign a "consent decree" under which a federal "monitor" was appointed to oversee every aspect of the department's work. This monitor is a federa l political officer - what the Soviets called a Zampolit - whose role is to bring the department firmly under federal control. Sheriff Taylor, preoccupied with his own worries, is only vaguely aware that through similar "con sent decrees," local police forces across the nation are being federalized." Not surprisi ngly, Sheriff Taylor is dealing with a morale crisis . Hamstru ng by invasive federal scrutiny and wary of becoming a cause celebre for the media, Taylor's deputies are simply refusing to enforce the law when doing so would leave them vulnerable to charges of "racism." Many are just marking time until retirement. Taylor himse lf would like to retire, but he can't find a replacement. Talking with other sheriffs and police chiefs across the nation, Taylor learn s that the same thing is happening across the country. In fact, there's a name for it: "De-policing."s Looking around him, Sheriff Andy recognizes, to his sorrow, that the "thin blue line" is being erased, and he wonders what will replace it: Will it be the anarchy of unchecked street crime, or the tyranny of consolidated federal police power?

Too Close for Comfort This scenario is fictional only in its application to the mythical town of Mayberry. Every significant development incorporated into this thought experiment reflects actual federal policies and their impact upon state and local police forces. In recent years , parti cularly since the tragic 1993 slaughter of the Branch Davidians in their Waco Mt. Carmel church, millions of Americans have become disturbed by

94

Global Gun Grab

the proliferation of feder al paramilitary force s, and the expanded federal control over state and local polic e agencies. This impression is fortified by the obvious hostility toward the public often displayed by federal paramilitary officers. Tony Cooper, a law enforcement consultant who has taught courses on negotiation tactic s at the University of Texas at Dalla s, warns that many federal law enforcement personnel have succumbed to "a curious crusading mentality" in which the American public is to be feared as a potential enem y, rather than served and protected as law-abiding citizens. Certain federal agencies, observes Cooper, lust to "stamp out what they see as a threat to'government generally. It's an exagger ated concern that they are facing a nationwide conspiracy and that somehow this will get out of control unless it is stamped out at a very early stage,"? This militaristic mind-set is being transmitted by the feds to local and state police departments - along with substantial amounts of military hardware. Notes Diane Cecilia Weber, a law enforcement affairs analyst at the Cato Institute: "Congress has encouraged the U.S. military to supply intelligence, equipment, and training to civilian police . That encouragement has spawned a culture of pararnilitarism in American law enforcement." By the end of the 1990s, "nearly 90 percent of the police departments surveyed in cities with populations over 50,000 had param ilitary units, as did 70 percent of the departments surveyed in communities with populations under 50,000. The Pentagon has been equipping those units with M-16s, armored personnel carriers, and grenade launchers . The polic e paramilitary units also conduct training exercises with active duty Army Rangers and Navy SEALs ."? As we saw in the previous chapter, U.S. soldiers under UN command were ordered to act as police and carry out "arrests" in Somalia. In the streets of America, militarized police officers increasingly under federal control are often

Militarizing Mayb erry

95

ordered to behave like soldiers. One member of a metropolitan police tactical team expressed the mindset of militarized police: We're into saturation patrols in hot spots. We do a lot of our work with the SWAT unit because we have bigger guns. We send out two, two -to-four-men cars, we look for minor violations and do j ump-outs, either on people or on the street or automobiles. After we jumpout the second car provides periphery cover with an ostentatious display of weaponry. We're sending a clear message: if the shootings don't stop , we 'll shoot someone.f Weber (who coined the expression "Militarizing Mayberry") describes another small Midwestern town who se police department "sends out patrols dres sed in tactical uniform in a military personnel carrier. The armored vehicle, according to the SWAT commander, stops 'suspicious vehi cle s and people. We'll stop anything that mo ves. We'll sometimes even surround suspicious homes and bring out the MP5s [machine gun pistols],"? Because of the co-mingling of military and law enforc ement, state and local police agencies "are increasingly accepting the mil itary as a model for their beh avior and outlook," continued Weber. "The sharing of training and technology is producing a shared mind set. The problem is that the mindset of the soldier is simply not appropriate for the civ ilian police offic er. Police officer s co nfront not an 'enemy' but ind ividu als who are protected by the bill of rights. Confusing the police function with the military function can lead to dangero us and unintended consequences such as unnecessary shootings and killings."10 What we are witnessi ng is the slow but persistent abolition of our independent, local police forces, and their amal-

96

Global Gun Grab

gamation into a centralized, militarized "internal security" force - just as the 1961 Freedom From War blueprint dictates. Under the U.S. Constitution, the job of making and enforcing criminal laws is reserved almost entirely to the states. As James Madison explained in The Federalist, No. 46: The powers delegated by the ... Constitution to the federal government are few and well defined . Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state. The Freedom From War proposal dictates, however, that in the final stage of the disarmament program, "States [that is, national governments] would retain only those forces, nonnuclear armaments, and establishments requiredfor the purpose ofmaintaining internal order....»u (Emphasis added.) One of the highest priorities for such "internal security" forces would be to carry out the confiscation and destruc tion of illicit arms : "The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those agreed types and quantities to be used by the UN Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes. v'? (Emphasis added.) It is through the "militarization of Mayberry" that the Power Elite behind the UN seeks to bring about the disarmament of American civilians. Those who expect an apocalyptic invasion by blue-helmeted UN troops are fixating upon the wrong threat. A much more plausible scenario is

Militarizing Mayberry

97

that UN civilian disarmament policies would be enforced by Americans against Americans.

Disarmament Through Subversion It is vitally important to understand that the main threat represented by the UN is not invasion, but subversion. For the foreseeable future, the chief impact that the UN will have upon American institutions and policies will come in the form of "harmonization" - meaning that our laws and governmental policies will be adjusted to conform with our nation's supposed "international obligations" as defined in UN treaties and conventions. Michael Scardaville, an international affairs analyst for the Heritage Foundation, correctly identified one aspect of this threat as it applies to the right to keep and bear arms. In an essay published during the UN's July 2001 Small Arms Conference, Scardaville surmised: "The United Nations ' agenda may not be to overturn the Second Amendment per se, but it has cleared a path for making enforcement of this constitutional protection illegal under international law'v'' "Very well," skeptics might persist, "the UN wants to ban civilian gun possession under 'international law.' It still doesn't have the means to enforce such a decree, so why should we be alarmed?" First of all, we should not assume that the United States will always be as powerful as at present, or that the UN will continue to be so (apparently) helpless. But again, in the immediate term, the threat comes not from the UN itself, but from American institutions that are being corrupted and placed at the service of the UN's agenda - particularly the U.S. military and our law enforcement agencies. Since our nation became entangled in the UN, we have incrementally ceded to the UN and its s operational control over our military. Since Congress approved the

98

Global Gun Grab

United Nations Participation Act in December 1945, our nation has fought two major wars (Korea and Vietnam), two minor wars (the Gulf War and the 1999 bombing ofYugo slavia), and carried out scores of "peacekeeping" missions under the UN or its regional s - such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the South-East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO, which is now designated the Association of South-East Asian Nation s, or ASEAN) . Such deployments are now called "Operations Other Than War" (OOTW), a category that include s nontraditional role s for the military in both foreign and domestic affairs. American military personnel continue to serve under UN comm and in Korea, Macedoni a, Kosovo, and elsewhere. Literally tens of thousands of American soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen have been trained to carry out UN orders, and in many cases have done so using lethal force. These deployments are, in effect, training exercises being used to indoctrinate the future leaders of our military and police forces. This is the most dangerous form of "harmonization" conducted by our political elite through the UN. Since the earliest days of our republic, servicemen were required to swear an oath to protect our Constitution from all enemies "foreign and domestic" - an oath that many servicemen are now required to violate by serving the UN. In fact, as is illustrated by the case of Army Specialist Michael New, American military personnel who remain true to their oath by refusing to serve under UN command will be court-martialed and cashiered from the service. 14 Does this mean that all American military veterans of UN missions become helpless drones, ready and able to crush all domestic resistance to world government? Of course not. But it does mean that there is a large and growing pool of such personnel who have demonstrated a will-


99

ingness to carry out UN commands - and that those who are not willing to do so, for reason s of patriotic principle, are being slowly purged from the ranks or leaving of their own accord. And it is from the ranks of the military that many future law enforcement officers will be drawn ; this will increasingly be the case as the barriers between the military and police are broken down.

The Perils of Police Militarization The 1993 federal massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco's Mt. Carmel church illustrates the perils of militarized law enforcement, particularly in the context of civilian disarmament operations. During the notorious final siege on April 19th, scores of American citizens - including 23 small children - were gassed for several hours by FBI tanks, eventually dying of suffocation, immolation, or from automatic weapons fire. The 51-day standoff between the Davidians and federal authorities began when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) mounted a paramilitary assault on the church for the supposed purpose of serving an "arrest" warrant on firearms charges. (The charges against Davidian leader David Koresh essentially boiled down to an insignificant irregularity regarding taxes and fees .) This is not the place to examine in detail the criminal actions of the ATF and FBI in the Waco tragedy. It is worth noting, however, that the Army's secretive Delta Force , which would later playa key role in the October 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, reportedly played an active, "triggerpulling" role in the bloody final siege against Waco's Branch Davidians in April of the same year. IS The FBI's "Hostage Rescue Team" (HRT), which conducted the fatal final siege at Waco, was essentially a "civilian" spin -off from the Army's Delta Force; this was done to circumvent the "Posse Comitatus" statute, which forbids the use of the

100

Global Gun Grab

u.s. military for domestic law enforcement. 16 Waco was not the first time that the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team had been mobilized against American citizens accused of technical violations of firearms laws. The 1992 Ruby Ridge tragedy in Idaho, like the Waco holocaust, was a result of federal efforts to enforce "gun control" laws . Investigative author James Bovard explains:

In 1989, a BATF undercover agent approached [Randy] Weaver and sought to get him to sell the agent sawed off shotguns. Weaver refused, but the agent was persistent and even showed Weaver exactly where to saw off a shotgun barrel. Weaver eventually relented to the undercover agent's pressure and sold him two sawed off shotguns for $300 . Because the guns' barrels were a quarter-inch less than sixteen inches, Weaver was guilty of violating federal firearms laws .' ? In August 1992, after Weaver failed to appear at a hearing, FBI agents were sent to his mountain redoubt to arrest him. In the gunfight that erupted when a federal agent shot the family dog, Randy's son Samuel and Federal Marshal William Degan were killed. IS After an l l-day standoff, Weaver surrendered to the authorities. He was later acquitted of all charges except for his failure to appear in court and violating the of his bail agreernent.l? Like Somalian clan leader Mohammed Farah Aideed, Randy Weaver - a former Green Beret who had dabbled at the fringe s of the "Christian Identity" movement, a neoNazi sect - was a tainted figure whose arrest could be used to score easy propaganda points for the Establishment. But where the "arrest" of Aideed was to be carried out by U .S. military personnel acting as UN "globo-cops ," the arrest of Weaver was to be conducted by militarized federal officers acting as an "internal security" force.


101

The mind-set displayed by the FBI troops at Ruby Ridge was remarkably similar to that of U.S. Army personnel in Somalia. After one particularly bloody assault upon a civilian residence in Mogadishu, UN spokesman David Stockwell defended the indiscriminate killing: "The people on the ground are considered combatants." Those words were reminiscent of the illegal "rules of engagement" composed to govern the federal standoff at Ruby Ridge. The Ruby Ridge rules of engagement specified that any adult with a weapon observed in the vicinity of the Weaver cabin during the standoff "could and should be the subject of deadly force,,2o - guidelines that were later described as unconstitutional "shoot-to-kill" orders. According to a June 1995 Justice Department report (which was leaked via the internet after being initially suppressed), the rules of engagement illegally made the civilians at Ruby Ridge "'fair game' for deadly force" even when they posed no immediate threat to law enforcement agents." As a result of those orders, Kevin Harris, a friend of the Weaver family, was shot and seriously wounded, and Vicki Weaver was shot in the head and killed while holding a l O-monrh-old baby girl. The Weaver family, which lived on a mountainside they shared with wild animals, including predators, had a small collection of weapons - 14 in all. During Randy Weaver's trial, federal prosecutor Kim Lindquist claimed that this minuscule arsenal constituted "a quantity of weapons and ammunition that reflected a resolve to defy government, to defy laws, and be prepared to resist [the government] in a significant way." The lawful possession of a handful of firearms, coupled with the Weaver family's "anti-government" beliefs, translated into a criminal "conspiracy" against the government, according to Lindquist.F The federal assault at Ruby Ridge displayed the same lust for overkill that was later evident at Mogadishu - and

102

Global Gun Grab

some of that blood lust was inspired by the desire for revenge. One of the UN-commanded U.S . soldiers in Mogadishu , reports Mark Bowde n, described how he resorted to "mowing down whole crowds" of civilians.P shouting the names of American soldiers who had been killed every time he shot a Somal i. The tragic death of Marshal Degan at Ruby Ridge apparently provoked a similarly vengeful attitude on the part of his comrades . Red Cross volunteer Ed Farr, who delivered food to law enforcement officers during the standoff, heard several federal agents - clad in black and carrying automatic weapons - speaking openly about their desire to "waste them all." The base camp established by the FBI at Ruby Ridge was called "Base Camp Vicki" - a mocking reference to the woman who had been killed while cradling her youngest child .24 As with the Ruby Ridge standoff, a desire for revenge apparently characterized the FBI's HRT paramilitaries at Waco. During the 51-day siege, of the FBI's leadership ranks expressed the view that "these people were criminals, and you must punish criminals'F' - a statement which ignores the fact that in our system, police arrest suspects, and court s try defendants, but the penal system punishes criminals only after they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers. About a half-hour after the Davidian church/residence eru pted into flames , Jeff Jamar, the on-scene FBI commander, had a radio conversation with Dick Rogers, who comm anded the FBI's HRT troops. At the time, Rogers was apparently under the impression that fire trucks were on the way to the scene, but he didn't know that Jamar had made a decision to hold them back . Jamar asked about efforts by HRT personnel to resc ue Davidians who survived the inferno: "Our pe ople [are] foc used on the bus area for the kids, is that what we 're doing?" To which Rogers replied:

Milita rizing Mayb erry

103

"That' s what we're trying to do." Then comes this chilling aside from Jamar: "No one else, I hope."26 Investigative author David T. Hardy, a former federal agency attorney, points out that this radio exchange, a record of which was pried from the FBI through a Freedom of Information Act request, "clearly indicates that some FBI officials did envision leaving the adult Davidians to burn alive." According to Hardy, "April 19 was not a law enforc eme nt opera tion. It was blood vengeance. Indeed, if simil ar events were acted out between two groups in another nation, we might not be hesitant to apply the label of 'ethnic cleansing.' Some Davidians had killed of a rival group, and now all must pay the price in blood."27 Following the final holocaust at Waco, the ATF - which had been repulsed in its initial attack by armed of the Branch Davidian sect - was allowed to run up its flag over the smoking ruins of the Davidian church. Memb ers of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team posed for "trophy" photos over the charred ruins, in which human remains were plainly visible." In all of this, we can see federal agents acting not as peace officers seeking to enforce the law, but as soldiers prosecuting a war upon a domestic enemy.

"I Would Fire Upon Americans...." In recent years, especially since the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, the Establishment media has never wasted an opportunity to stir up public anxiety about the supposed menace of self-proclaimed militias and other armed anti-government "conspiracy theorists." (Interestingly, the man executed for the OKC bombing, Timothy McVeigh , was a disgruntled former federal employee - a veteran of the Gulf War, during which he served as part of a UN-created alliance under a mandate from the UN Security Counci l.) But no comparable media scrutiny has been given to the growing army of fede ral law en-

104

Global Gun Grab

forcement officers who - as law enforcement consultant Tony Cooper pointed out - are in many cases motivated by anti-citizen conspiracy theories . This potentially deadly amalgamation of military and law enforcement has been particularly visible in federal istrative agencies - not just the FBI, but in many other executive branch agencies as well. David Hardy points out that the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team "was superbly trained for war, not for 'law enforcement.' " The HRT, furthermore, is part of "an elite military force ... of growing size: nearly 10 percent of the FBI is presently enrolled in its HRT Teams or the many other SWAT-likeunits created by other agencies. As we see at Waco, these units can draw upon formidable military - tanks, aircraft, supplies, manpower, high-tech equipment. While we were watching out for the danger of military involvement in civilian affairs, the civilian agencies generated their own military." "The damage from this force is probably far greate r than any true military involvement could have been," continues Hardy. "These paramilitary units are not, like the military, bound by a sense of honor and a long tradition of noninvolvement in civilian affairs; after all, involvement in civilian affairs is their reaso n for existence. S" At presen t, the military is forbidden to part icipate directly in dome stic law enforcement. Nevertheless , as the Freedom From War strategy unfolds, military strategists and planners are openly discussing the possibility that this may soon change. In his book An Empire Wilde rnes s, liberal journalist Robert D. Kaplan described a visit to Fort Leavenworth 's elite Battle Command Training Program, where the military's top future leaders are trained. "Many times in the course of my visit to Leavenworth I heard discussion of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the National Guard to


105

act as a local police force once it has been federalized by the army in a civil emergency," recalled Kaplan. "The implication was that turbulence within the United States might one day require the act to be repealed.v'? Kaplan later overheard a round-table discussion during which a group of majors discussed potential domestic use of the military against dissident elements. One Marine major, referring to the Oklahoma City bombing, declared: "The minute I heard about Oklahoma City, I knew who did it rednecks, the kind of guys from southern Idaho." (Your author, incidentally, was born and raised in southeastern Idaho.) This officer and another major present at the meeting "suggested that 'a time may come when the military will have to go domestic,' " Kaplan reported." The potential use of the military to "lower the hammer" on American dissidents is the most ominous of the potential "Operations Other Than War" envisioned by current military planners. What must be understood is that this perversion of the military is almost entirely a product of our nation's entanglement in the UN. James J. Schneider, a professor of military theory at Leavenworth's U.S . Command and General Staff College, is among the leading experts on OOTW doctrine. Schneider puts the matter bluntly: "As an Army we are fortunate to have . .. a rich web of historical tradition . But our experience is of little use if it cannot be interpreted in light offuture operations.... [T]he future will be dominated by a single overwhelming presence - the United Nations.,,32 Could U.S. military personnel actually be expected to fire upon Americans who resisted UN-ordered gun confiscation? This question, which would be dismissed by many as sheer paranoid lunacy, figured very prominently in a notorious survey given to a group of Marines in 1994. Significantly, the Marines chosen for this exercise were all veterans of UN-commanded military ventures in the Persian

106

Global Gun Grab

Gulf and Somalia. On May 19,1994, this author received a letter from a young Marine stationed at Twentynine Palms, California. Attached to the letter was a document entitled "Combat Arms Survey," a 46-point questionnaire about unconventional missions - "Operations Other Than War" - under UN command. I called the Marine (who asked not to be identified) to discuss the content of the survey, which was carried out on May 10th of that year. After satisfying our concerns regarding the authenticity of the survey, The New American broke the story of the survey in its July 11, 1994 issue. The most provocative element of the survey was the final question: The U.S . government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms . A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to tum over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government. Lt. Commander Ernest G. Cunningham, the Navy officer who conducted the survey as part of a Master's thesis project, observed: "Though Question 46 was only one question in the survey, the question caused national consternation when an unauthorized copy was released by one of the survey participants to his elected representative and a news me-

dia organization.... This is a testimony of the sensitivity and concerns of the general public surrounding the issues contained in question 46.'>33 The overwhelming majority of the Marines surveyed


107

(61.66 percent) responded that they would not carry out an order to shoot Americans.I" Many of them supplemented this response with such comments as : • "What about the damn second amendment?" • "I am fighting for and maintaining the peace that thes e U.S . citizens have. Why would I want to harm them in any way? !?" • "I feel this is a first [step] in communism!" • "I would not even consider it. The reasons we have gun s is [sic] so that the people can over throw the govt when or if the people think the govt is too powerful.l'P Still, mo re than one-quarter of the respondents (26 .34 percent ) replied in the affirmative: They would shoot Americans in the course of firearms confiscation. Furthermore, approximately one-third (33.1 percent) favored involvement in at least four of the seven proposed missions under UN command. And 63.8 percent would participate in various "Operations Other Than War" under U.S. command.F' The se last two findin gs are, in a way, even more significant than the response to "Quest ion 46 ," as they indicate the existence of a personnel pool within the military that can be shaped into a UN-approved "internal security" force , or seconded to UN command as part of a global peacekeeping apparatus. According to Cunningham, the responses provoked by "Question 46" illustrate the problems with "unit cohesion" that would take place "in a unit tasked to execute this mission" - that is, seizin g guns from American civilians upon pain of death." That is to say, this is a practical problem to be dealt with through more efficient indoctrination of military personnel, and perhaps through the use of better screening techniques to find the critical 26.34 percent who would be willing to carry out such orders. Cunningham told the Navy Times that the 79 Marines who replied "yes" when asked if they would gun down re-

108

Global Gun Grab

calcitrant firearms owners "showed an alarming ignorance _ of the Posse Comitatus Act . .. and of how to treat an unlawful order.,,38 But under some circumstances those orders , altho ugh manifestly unconstitutional, morally insu pportable, and repugnant to our traditions of liberty, would not be considered "illegal" by the civilian authorities that control our military. As we saw earlier, elite military planners have already referred to the supposed necessity of doing away with the Posse Comitatus Act in order to deal with the prospect of civic unrest and domestic terrorism. At present, the Act can be suspended by a presidential waiver.l? Because of the "war on drugs," the Posse Comitatus Act has been amendedto allow for military aid to law enforcement in counterdrug operations; it was through the establishment of a spurious "drug nexus " that the ATF was able to receive equipment, training, and tactical for its assault upon the Branch David ians.i"

Ominous Evolution Over the past five decades, our nation's law enforcement apparatus has been undergoing an ominous evolution. Under the original constitutional scheme it was the states and their subsidiary units that were to make and enforce nearly all laws . Police agencies were to be free of central government control and locally able. Now we see that even the smallest local police agencies are becoming is- . trative units of the central government, equipped with SWAT teams and other paramilitary organs. Many critics of our increasingly militarized law enforcement culture insist that this is an outgrowth of the socalled "War on Drugs" and similar federal initiatives. But very few observers have pointed out that the trend toward federalizing the police and outfitting them as a domestic army of occupation began shortly after the introduction of


109

the Freedom From War document in 1961. It's really quite simple. In order for the UN to exercise global dominion, it must have an army (that is, a global "Peace Force"); it must have some means of regimenting the inhabitants of each nation (through a domestic "internal security" force); and, above all, it must disarm everybody who might interfere with its plans. The symptoms of police state tyranny that we see emerging in our country simply reflect the steps we've taken down the path toward a UN-dominated world.

CHAPTER EIGHT

Stop the Gun Grab: Get US Out! So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn't noticed, the United Nations is beginnin g to set its sights on global gun control. The UN Disarmament Commission has adopted a working paper, a basis for future debate, that proposes tighter controls on the gun trade in the United States and other member nations as a way of combating international arms trafficking. 1 - Associated Press story, May 24, 1994 At this moment the NRA and its attorneys have found no substantial evidence that "one world" groups pose a direct threat to our Second Am endment rights .... [T]h ese conspiracy theories have no legal significance and really amount to a distraction from the serious legislative attacks that have been laun ched against fi rearms owners. 2 - Form letter from the Na tional Rifle Associ ation 's Institute for Legislat ive Acti on, June 23, 1994 The NRA ... has won the right to lobby the United Nations as one of an estimated 1,700 non-governmental organi zations (NGOs) that advise the international . body on policy issues. 3 - CNN, November 24, 1996 There's a new threat to your gun rights looming on the horizon. It doesn 't come from Washington , but 110

Stop the Gun Grab: Get US Out!

111

from countries around the world who are now working through the United Nations.... Without receiving the UN's "non-governmental organization" (NGO) status - you'll never know what they 're up to. For that reason, the National Rifle Associa tion obtained NGO status....4 - NRA President Charlton Heston The aims and purposes of[UN-accredited NGOs ] ... shall be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles ofthe Charter of the United Nations.... 5 - UN Guidelines governing NGO participation

"M

r. President," pleaded NRA representative Thomas Mason during the July 16th session of the UN's Small Arms Conference, "we would ask the conference to acknowledge our concerns as legltimate:'" Mason's plea, which was one of several presented by pro-gun NGO s during the conference, culminated an interesting journey on behalf of the NRA, an immensely wealthy and politically poten t organization representing more than four and a half million American gun owners. As the quotations above illustrate, within a stretch of seven years the NRA had gone from denying that the UN posed a threat to the rights of gun owner s to colla borating in the creation of global gun policy through the UN , presumably because the world body is too powerful to resist outright. Some might protest that this characterization of the NRA is untrue and defam atory. After all, hasn't the NRA loudl y denounced the UN 's lust to confiscate private firearms? Indeed, it has. Doesn ' t the NRA do a splendid job publicizing abuses of innocent firearms owners by federal officials? It certainly does . Hasn't the NRA produced chilling documentaries about gun confiscation in both the United States and abroad? Yes, it has . So why critic ize the NRA for its

112

Global Gun Grab

decision to represent gun owners' rights and interests as an NOG at the UN? The chief problem with the NRA's decision to obtain NOG status is that by doing so, it - like scores of other "conservative" organizations - has helped to advance the UN's claim to be a global legislature acting on behalf of the peoples of the world . When UN critics are lured into such involvement, they are saying, in effect, that "globalization with representation" is entirely satisfactory, when in fact globalization through the UN, however "democratic," will ultimately lead to the end of our national sovereignty and the rights protected by our Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms . A brief examination of the NOG approach would be useful in illustrating why it is impossible to protect the rights of gun owners through the UN, and why the only effective course would be to get our nation out of the UN.

Engineering Consensus Mark DeYoung, an activist with the American Life League (ALL) who has worked as an NOG representative at numerous UN conferences, offers a telling glimpse of how the UN manipulates the NOG community. "The NOGs are supposed to act as the 'will of the people .. . [but] the UN is definitely using many of these non-governmental organi zations as their way of saying, 'Look we've got the will of the people on our side.' In fact, it is not the people at all who are pushing any of these things. It is a small elite group of people."? Reporter Susan Martinuk of Canada's National Post described how the UN manipulated the "Beijing + 5" confer- . ence, a follow-up to its 1995 global summit on women : "The UN gave official NOG status to more than 2,000 feminist and left-wing groups - but conservative groups numbered between 15 and 20." The UN isolated conservatives


113

even further "by reducing the number of official participants to three per NGO." And those traditionalists who weren't winnowed out by the UN often found themselves vulnerable to extortion: "A pro-life, pro-family delegate from Poland was told to the push for sexual and reproductive rights [that is, abortion] or risk Poland's acceptance into the European Union," reported Martinuk. A Nicaraguan delegate who opposed the UN's homosexual agenda "was fired when the UN threatened to withhold funding to Nicaragua if this position was not reversed. Humanitarian aid packages were frequently used as political tools to enforce compliance with coercive population methods and the western agenda on sexual rights." It must also be understood that UN-approved NGOs, as a condition of their access to UN forums , are required essentially to pledge allegiance to the UN. In the 1996 resolution that esta blished guidelines for NGO participation, the UN's Economic and Soc ial Council (ECOSOC) specified: "The aims and purposes of [approved NGOs] .. . shall be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations ,"? The resolution emphasized that only NGOs that can make "substantive and sustained contributions .. . to the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations ... may be accorded consultative status [that is, official recognition and accreditationl ."? All UN-accredited NGOs are required to "submit to the Council Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations through the Secretary-General every fourth year a brief report of their activities, specifically as regards the they have given to the work of the United Nations." A decision to revoke or modify the NGO 's privileges will be made by the Committee based on such reports "and other relevant information...." 11 The accreditation of any NGO - and its access to UN functions - can be suspended or revoked if the Commit-

114

Global Gun Grab

tee decides that it "did not make any positive or effective contribution to the work of the United Nations.,,12 To summarize: Althou gh the UN will make use of "conservative" NGOs in order to maintain the illusion of "consensus," it will limit both the number and effectiveness of such NGOs within the UN system - and all NGOs, conservative or radical, must pledge to advance the UN's agenda, upon pain of expulsion should their performance be deemed less than satisfactory. Another important role played by UN-favored radical NGOs is to create "pressure from below" on behalf of the world body's agenda. Speaking at the UN's 1999 World Civil Society Forum in Montre al, Secretary-General Kofi Annan told assembled NGO leaders that they were "strategic partners in policy - in areas where you can persuade your Governments to work through the United Nations. You can tell them that our goals are your goals, and that you want them to give us the means to achieve those goals."13 Such NGOs act as a UN "fifth column" within various countries. But the UN is also beginning to use NGO s to carry out intelligence-gathering and even enforcement roles. Dr. Richard Wilkins, a professor at Brigham Young University's J. Reuben Clark Law School, is a co-founder of the World Family Policy Forum, a UN-accredited NGO. 14 Dr. Wilkins is among the most outspoken "conservative" proponents of working through the United Nations, rather than seeking to liberate our nation from the UN's incipient world government. According to Wilkins, "The United Nations sets not only international, but domes tic law and policy.... The UN now plays an important role in defining 'issues,' establishing 'solutions,' and allocating responsibilities with respect to the international 'answers.' The net result is that formerly local policies may now be governed by decisions made at an international confere nce.t'P The process described by Wilkins has been referred to


115

as "engineering consensus." Once a UN-appro ved "c onsensu s" has been achieved, it must be carried out - and here, according to Wilkins, is where the "interdependent relationship" between the UN and the "NGO community" has tangible results: The most important functions of the NGOs are lobbying, and as the eventual grantees who often dispense UN largesse to participating nations, ultimately enforcement.... [NGOs] play an increasingly important role in policing non-compl iance with substantive UN demands. The net result is a symbiotic relationship between the UN bureaucracy and the NGO community: NGO s inform and UN functionaries who in tum rely upon the NGOs to ensure the ultimate enforcement of their decrees.... 16 Once again, it should be emphasized that Dr. Wilkins is one of the most prominent "co nservative" ers of the NGO approach . Yet, by his own ission, the UN's NGObased so-called "civil society" exists to empower the UN and to bring communities worldwide under the UN's dominion.

The UN's Anti-gun "Consensus" Given the way in which the UN has manipulated its NGOcentered "civil society" - which was, after all, the UN' s own creation - it should come as no surprise that the world body has achieved an international "consensus" that there is no individual right to own a firearm. In 1998, Philip Alpers, an anti-gun activist from New Zealand who works as a researcher for the UN's International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), produced a report on four regional workshops convened by the UN to discuss "Firearm Regulation for the Purposes of Crime

116

Global Gun Grab

Prevention and Public Safety." "At all workshops," reported Alpers , "discussion focused on: 'Civilian firearms and civilian firearm regulation, with an international perspective.''' While most of "the official language surrounding this initiative refers to the UN and Interpol's traditional cross border concerns of illicit arms trafficking," continued Alpers, the real focus of the workshops was "domestic gun control laws and their role in promoting public safety." Accordingly, the intention was "for each of the four workshops to assist in drafting a declaration of principles on domestic gun controls/"? "Each workshop reached its own consensus," continued Alpers, "and these were not always made public" - a curious course of affairs indeed, if the UN's "civil society" is a legitimate reflection of "public opinion." At the final, closed workshop in New Delhi, Alpers reported, the following statements were adopted , through "consensus," by the NGO representatives: • "It is not a right to possess a firearm . This was the

consensus." • "There should be no free availability of firearms ." • "It is legal firearms which . .. result in many deaths ." • "The opportunity to commit offenses (gun availability) must be reduced." • "More forceful and stringent regulation of firearms is required.?" Here's an important fact about UN procedural rules: A single objection by any participant in a conference or summit. can prevent "consensus." Given that the NRA had, by 1998, been granted NOO status, and that NRA representative Tom Mason during this period was visiting Europe nearly every month to attend the UN workshops, how did the New Dehli workshop achieve such a resounding anti-gun "consensus"?


117

Alpers supplies an answer when he notes that Mason was "ejected from two closed meetings, one at the UN in Vienna and another at the Organization of American States [OAS] in Caracas ." In his own of the OAS meeting, Mason wrote: "When the attendees found out who I was, they went absolutely nuclear! The chairman went completely crazy and said I could not be in there. The [Clinton-era] U.S. delegation was distraught, as they said this was an embarrassment as they couldn't have other nations thinking that the NRA is running things. It was quite an experience and it's amazing how the NRA has been demonized throughout the world ." 19 Obviously, while the UN was willing to grant the NRA the NGO status it sought, and allow the group to participate in the "civil society" charade, it would not permit the group to play any role that would have a substantive impact upon the gun grab agenda.

What Are We Protecting? "But things have changed since the Clinton istration left office," some might protest. "Look at the way that the Bush istration used the UN's Small Arms Conference to defend the right to keep and bear arms. The istration's position was so sound that the NRA did little more than say 'ditto' to Under Secretary John Bolton's official statement - and the anti-gun mob went haywire, denouncing the 'gun lobby ' for undermining the conference!" First of all, by simply participating in the conference the NRA advanced, rather than undermined, the UN's agenda. A UN press release proudly noted that the conference would involve 177 NGOs, many of which "are from gunaffected countries" - thereby obliquely treating firearms as a plague. (For "gun-affected" one might substitute "AIDS-infected" to achieve a similar effect .) On the other hand, continued the UN, the NRA , "a recognized NGO at

118

Global Gun Grab

the United Nations, will be ed by several other organizations particularly concerned about the rights of gun owners in the United States . All NGOs accredited to the Conference have the same rights and privileges.r-" Of course , as we saw above, the "rights and privileges" of NGOs are defined entirely by their usefulness in carrying out the UN's "purposes and principles." Furthermore, only 15 of the 177 NGOs allowed to participate in the conference represented pro-gun organizations - meaning that the pro-gun faction was large enough to present an illusion of "diversity," but much too small to have any substantive impact. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the presence of the NRA and several other pro -gun groups served the valuable purpose of defining the "extreme" progun position: In the interests of the developing "international consensus" on firearms , defenders of gun ownership could go only as far as the pro-gun NGOs, and no further. In his presentation at the UN small arms conference, the NRA's Mason declared: We view efforts to curtail the illicit trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons as defined by the U.S. [delegation] as legitimate but would be totally remiss not to express the extreme concern of our hip over potential outcomes of this conference. During the conference and the preparatory meeting s that preceded it, complained Mason, "we have rece ived conflicting signals from significant participants" regarding "the legitimate domestic rights of U.S. citizens to own and use firearms .... Some assure us that the end result will have no impact on lawful civilia n ownership, others propose that it could, should, must and will. We cannot ignore aspects of the Program of Action that could affect civilian firearms ownership in the U.S. and in fact, worldwide. Mr. President,


119

we would ask the conference to acknowledge our concerns as legit imate.v- ' The official U.S. statement by Under Secretary Bolton, which was obliquely endorsed by the NRA , drew a distinction between "strictly military arms," such as fully automatic weapons, and "firearm s such as hunting rifles and pistols, which are commonly owned and used by citizens in many countries.... The United States believes that the responsible use of firearm s is a legitimate aspect of national life. Like many countries, the United State s has a cultural tradition of hunt ing and sport shooting. We, therefore, do not begin with the presumption that all small arms and light weapons are the same or that they are all problernatic.v'? Note this well : Neither the NRA nor the Bush istration objected in principle to the propo sal that the UN become the world 's firearm s poli ce - as long as its role was limited to enforcing inte rnational regulations on "illicit" firearms. Note furth er that from the Bush istration' s posi tion, the only "legitimate" uses of firearms are "hunting and sport shooting" - which are worthy pastimes, to be sure, but they are by no mean s the reason why the Second Amendment was incorp orated into the Bill of Rights. In his statement, Bolton went on to boast about the Bush istration's for the UN of Conventional Arms and its work in assisting various countries "to secure or destroy excess and illicit stocks of small arms and light weapons"; he protes ted that small arms are some times used to "endanger the work of peacekeeping forces"; and he expressed the Bush istration's approval of the 1999 report for the UN of Governmental Exp erts on Small Arms, which like earlier reports listed civi lian ownership of firearms as part of the UN's agenda for "general and complete disarmament/'P This, , was the "righ t-wing extremist" position at the UN Small Arms Conferenc e. Other pro-gun groups

120

Global Gun Grab

represented at the event were even more accommodating toward the gun-grabbers. Gerald Baker of the Single Action Shooting Society pointedly told the conference that his organization is "concerned about the issues this conference is addressing" and defended sport shooting - in this case , "cowboy action shooting" - as a valid representation of American culture. . "We are part of living history," observed Baker. "[Please] respect this and [do] not demonize nor negatively categorize us.... We are not part of the problem. r' " Carlo Peroni of the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, an international alliance of hunting, sport shooting, and firearms industry organizations, told the UN conference that his organization was there "not to oppose, but to assist" the UN's efforts "to stop the proliferation of illegal small arms...." Peroni proudly pointed out that his organization has "held three workshops to assist the UN in its efforts" and concluded by offering his "best wishes and in your efforts for a successful Conference/'P The substantive outco me of the July 2001 UN Small Arms Conference was this: The UN, with the consent of the Bush istration and the tacit approval of pro-firearms NGOs, gave itself a global "mandate" to crack down on "illicit" firearms. The "extreme" pro-gun side embraced the notion that "legitimate" firearms ownership is defined by sports shooting, "Wild West" re-enactmen ts, firearms collecting , or other hobbies - rather than the responsible preparation for self- and family-d efense against predatory criminals, be they petty criminals or aspiring tyrants. And the definition of "illicit" firearm s was left vague, because the Program of Action produced at the Small Arms Conference repres ent s a f oundation for further UN action against guns, rather than a ceiling on its ambitions. In fact, within a month of the Small Arm s Conference, Kofi Annan was already pushing to expand the UN's anti-


121

gun campaign. In an August 2nd address to the Security Co unci l, Annan extolled the "p rogress" made at the conference but demanded that "binding norms" on firearms be created at both the national and international level, and that further steps be taken by governments to de-glamorize gun possession in the eyes of the young. The Program of Action offers "significant first steps in alleviating a grave threat to international peace and secu rity," asserted Annan. "We must now consolidate these gains. A program of action is a beginning, not an end in itself." The NRA "had no comment on Annan's remarks.Y?

Seize the Offensive! It is an axiom of military strategy that "the purely defensive is doomed to defeat." The "NGG approach" favored by the NRA is a purely defensive strategy, focusing on beat ing back the UN's incremental efforts at universal civilian disarmament: It gives the UN the initiative and the luxury of framing the issues as it sees fit. Furthermore, the NRA's approach concedes to the UN the privilege of choosing the battleground - and even gives the UN the power to decide when and for how long the NRA will be allowed to fight. Clearly, what is needed is not a rear-guard defense against the global gun-grabbers, but a vigorous offensive to take back the enemy's gains . We must find and exploit the UN's greatest vulnerability - its source of funds. Herein lies one of the best-kept secrets about the United Nations: The UN is entirely dependent upon American sufferance and subsidy. Cut off its access to the U.S . taxpayers, and . the UN will quickly collapse. Shortly after the Small Arms Conference had ended, a wire service story noted that the UN was panicking over the tardiness of $582 million in "dues" supposedly owed to the world body by the United States. A deal was reached in December 2000 to reduce - by an insignificant sum - the

122

Global Gun Grab

"back dues" that the UN insisted were due . Kofi Annan 's spokesman, Fred Eckhard, speaking on behalf of his boss, said that UN member states "find it difficult to understand why, seven months after agreement was reached .. . no check has been put in the mail.,,27 No doubt the dictators, potentates, and assorted thugs and tyrants who compose the UN were mystified by the workings of our (ittedly corrupted) constitutional system, in which all appropriations have to begin in the House of Representatives ---:... that part of the legislative branch that is most immedi ately able to the people. From where Annan and his comrades sit, America simply "owes" the UN the money, and Congress's job is to carry out its duties to the "international community," rather than to protect the wealth and liberties of the American people. And herein lies a very under-appreciated bit of good news. Why, after all, has it been difficult for the UN to extort its "dues" from Congress? It is because there is no significant constituency for the UN among the American people. Moreover, there is an active and growing constituency for American withdrawal from the world body. The growing resistance to the UN is largely a reflection of the tireless work of one organization: The John Birch Society. Since its founding in December 1958, the JBS has diligently worked to educate and mobilize the American people at the grass-roots level, focusing its efforts in congressional districts nationwide. The JBS is not a Washing ton-based lobby or a part of the Beltway-based "service industry" of letterhead groups. It does not mount viscerally satisfying but strategically impotent protest rallies . And it rejects entirely the notion that the efforts of patriots should be channeled through UN-accredited NGOs so that the American people can enjoy the supposed blessings of "globalization with representation." Instead, the JBS devotes its efforts to the strategy em-


123

ployed by the Founding Fathers in the decades leading up to American independence: educating the citizenry in sound principles of government; warning the public about the existence of an organized, covert threat to our liberties and free institutions; and mobilizing patriots in an organized, principle-centered effort to defeat the enemies of freedom. In order to defeat the UN's global gun grab, we must bring about U.S . withdrawal from the body, and evict it from our shores. Once the parasite is deprived of access to its host, it will quickly die. In order for this to happen, how ever, Americans must be mobilized within their congressional districts to bring relentless pressure to bear upon the House of Representatives todefund the UN and all of its s and satellite organizations. There is a measure before the House that would end U.S . hip in the UN, H.R. 1146 (the "American Sovereignty Restoration Act"), sponsored by Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas). We cannot beat the United Nations on its own turf, nor can we out-bid the denizens of "Gucci Gulch" by concentrating our efforts on Beltway-based lobbying. But the Power Elite - formidable as it is - could not control the House of Representatives if it were reclaimed by constitutionalists.

Get US Out! On December 9, 1958, during the founding meeting of the John Birch Society, JBS Founder Robert Welch warned that the long-term objective of both international Communism and its allies within the American political elite was "to induce the gradual surrender of American sovereignty, piece by piece and step by step, to various international organizations - of which the United Nations is the outstanding but far from the only example...." It was not until 16 years after Robert Welch uttered this "extremist" statement that the chief organ of the American political establishment confirmed Welch's description of the incremental, conspirato-

124

Global Gun Grab

rial approach to the creation of world government. In his notorious April 1974 Foreign Affairs essay "The Hard Road to World Order," Richard N. Gardner, using nearly identical to those used by Welch, wrote that a "case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of ' sovereignty' that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis." Rather than pursuing "instant world government;' Gardner explained in the policy journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, "the 'house of world order ' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down" - by means of "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece...." Whether the subject is environmental regulation, "human rights ," managed trade, control of our military, or civilian disarmament, the Power Elite has patiently pursued the strategy described by Gardner. That cabal will continue to accumulate power through the UN until it has created the world despotism it so clearly seeks - or until they are stopped by timely, organized action carried out by freedomloving Americans. For Americans who under stand the paramount importance of the right to keep and bear arms, and the threat to that right represented by the UN, the proper course is clear. Get US out! - cut off the UN's funds - and the threat will recede and die. Then we can focus on restoring our own institutions at home . Keep us in the UN, and we'll be consigned to an endless series of rear-guard battles, suffering the persistent - and, eventually, total-loss of our freedoms and sovereignty.

Endnotes CHAPTER ONE - Citizens or Subjects? I . David Ramsay, The History ofthe Am erican Revolution , Vol. I (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1990), p. 175. 2. Newspaper article entered in the Sept. 16, 1961 Congressional Record by Sen. Thomas Dodd. Quoted in G. Edward Griffin , The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nat ions (Boston: Western Islands, 1964), p. 49. 3. Murray N. Rothbard , Conceived in Liberty, Vol. 3 of Advance to Revolution, 1760-1775 (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1976), p. 31. 4. Donzella Cross Boyle, Quest of a Hemisphere (Boston: Western Islands, 1970), p. 114. 5. For an on-site report from that conference, see William Norman Grigg, "Disarmament by 'Consensus,' " The New Am erican, Aug. 27, 2001, pp. 21-24. 6. RJ . Rummel, Death by Government (New Brunsw ick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994), p. 9. 7. A rmed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague of Small Arms (UN video, 2000). 8. Robert McMahon, "U.N.: US Critical of Small Arms Control," Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, July 10, 2001. Posted at www.referl.org/ncalfeatures/2001/07/l007200 1120404 .asp ; accessed on Sept. 23, 2001. 9. Sami Faltas, "Weapons Collection Programmes: Question s to Answer and Challenge s to Face." Posted at www.iansa.org/ documents/researchlres_archiv e/ng03.htm; accessed on June 21,2001. 10. "The Secretary-General, Statement to Open Debate of the Security Council on the Question of Small Arms," Aug. 2, 200 I ; Posted at www.un.org/News/dhllatest/sg_sma llarms.htm; accessed on Aug. 6, 200 I . 11. "UN Arms Conference Reaches Consensu s," Associated Press, July 21, 2001. 12. Ibid. 13. Dave Kopel, "UN Out of North America," Natio nal Review On125

Endnotes

127

2. Stephane Courtois, et aI., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 72. 3. Mark Malloch Brown and Jayantha Dhanapala, "Let's Go Out Into the World and Gather Up the Small Arms," International Herald Tribune, Jan. 26, 2000. Posted on the IANSA website at www.iansa.org/news/2000/jan_00 /dhanapala.htm; accessed on Jan. 27,2000. 4. John Barron and Anthony Paul, Murder ofa Gentle Land : The Untold Story ofCommunist Genocide in Cambodia (New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1977), pp. 2-3. 5. Ibid., p. 9. 6. Code et Lois Penales . Photocopied excerpts with translation from the French in Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice, Lethal Laws (Milwaukee: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership), 1994, pp. 319-321. 7. Simkin, et aI., Lethal Laws, p. 306. 8. Daniel Polsby, "Of Holocausts and Gun Control," Washington University Law Quarterly, Fall 1997. Posted at Is.wustI.ed uIWULQ I75-31753-4.html; accessed on Nov. 27, 2000 . 9. Barron and Paul, pp. 11-12. 10. Ibid., p. 19. 11. Ibid., pp. 26-27 . 12. Alec Wilkinson, "A Changed View of God ," The New Yorker, Jan. 24, 1994,p. 54. 13. Barron and Paul, p. 209. 14. Hans Phillipps, interview with author, June 5,2001. 15. Halbrook, p. 487. 16. Ibid., p. 485 . 17. Ibid., pp. 489-490. 18. Ibid., p. 490 . 19. Ibid., p. 494 . 20. Ibid., p. 536 . 21. Ibid., p. 533 . 22. Decrees of Soviet Power, Volume IV - November 1918-March 1919, photocopied with translation from Russian in Simkin , et aI., Lethal Laws, p. 119. 23. Ibid., p. 107. 24. Ibid., p. 125.

Endnotes

129

1962; prepared under a contract [No. SCC 28270] with the U.S. State Deptartment}. The JBS has posted the entire document on its website at www.jbs.org/un/bloomfiel d_7.htm. 11. Bloomfield, pp. iv-v. 12. Ibid., p. 2. 13. Ibid., p. 12. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid., pp. 2-3. 16. Ibid., p. 4. 17. Ibid., p. 6. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid., p. 19. 20. Ibid., p. 15. 21. Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn, World Peace Through World Law, second edition, revised (Cambridge, Mass., 1962). Bloomfield cites Clark and Sohn on page 9 of A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations. 22. Clark and Sohn, p. xxix. 23. Ibid., p. xxxi. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid., p. xxix. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid. p. xxxiii. 28. Ibid., P xxxii. 29. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994), pp. 1-2. 30. Ibid., p. 9. 31. Ibid., p. 27. 32. Alexander Hamilton , The Federalist, No. 29. 33. Stephen Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed (Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute, 1994), p. 68. CHAPTER FOUR -


1. Henry Wallace, "The Post War World," address on Woodrow Wilson's birthday, Dec. 28, 1942. Posted at www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/421228a.html; accessed on June 22, 2001. 2. Brief Z, The New Field ofMicro-Disarmament: Addressing the Proliferation and Buildup of Small Arms and Light Weapons, Bonn International Centre for Conversion, Sept. 1996, p. 26.

Endnotes

131

16. "Staff of SAND ." Posted on the group 's website at sand .miis.edu/about/staff.htm; accessed on June 22, 2001. 17. "SAND History and Accomplishments,': op. cit. 18. Ibid . 19. For the definitive brief history of the R, drawn from the published writings of the group, see James Perfloff, The Shadows ofPower: The Council on Foreign Relations andAmerican Decline (Boston: Western Islands, 1988). 20. Richard Harwood, "Ruling Class Journalists," Washington Post, Oct. 30, 1993, p. A21. 21. Ron Scherer and Howard LaFranchi, "New Gun Trade: Turning them In," Christian Science Monit or, May 4, 2000, p. 1. Posted on the SAND webs ite at sand .miis.edu/abo ut/news / newguntrad e.htm; accessed on June 22, 2001. 22. Sue Fishkoff, "Fewer Gun s, Fewe r Death s," Coast Weekly , April 23, 1998. Posted on the SAND website at sand .miis.edu/about/news/coastweekly.htm; accessed on June 22,2001. 23. Thomas R. Eddlem, "Global Gun Grab," The New Am erican , Nov. 22, 1999, p. 16. 24. See Jan Kozak, And Not A Shot Is Fired (Appleton, Wis.: Robert Welch University Press, 1999 ed.) for the definitive discussion of the "scissors strategy." Jan Kozak, a Communist member of the Czechoslovak National Asse mbly and Czech Communist Party official historian, described how this strategy was used to consolida te Communist control over Czechoslovakia. 25. Bill Sammon, "Democrats get producing credit for march of moms," Washingto n Times, May 12, 2000. 26. Tom Carter, "Elian 'a possession ' of state, Cuba says," Washington Times , April 5, 2000. 27. For an in-depth discuss ion of the Elian Gonzalez abduction, with appropriate contextual citations, see the May 22, 2000 issue of The New American, entitled "Fidel Castro's Amer ika." 28. Statement of Mary Leigh Blek, president, Million Mom March, May 10, 2001. Posted at www.billionmommarc h.org/m lblek.htm ; accesse d on June 22, 200 1. 29. John-Hughes Wilson and Adrian Wilkinson, "Safe and Efficient Small Arms Collection and Destruct ion Progra mmes: A Proposal for Practical Technical Measures," United Nations Development Programme, Emergency Response Division, May

Endnotes

133

4. Alex de Waal, "The Quality of Merc y," Los Angeles Times, March 19, 2000 , p. BRI. 5. David Johnston, "Rwanda horror revisited in court," Montreal Gazette, April 8, 2001. 6. "Another Victim of UN 'Peacekeeping,'" The New American, July 3 1, 2000, page 9. 7. "Senior Canadian Gunner Retires," press release from the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, und ated . Posted at www. artillery.net/Dallaire.htm; accessed at on May 4, 2001. 8. Journ alist Philip Goure vitch , in his award-wining study, describes the body count as "at least eight hundred thousand people" and notes, "Rwandans often speak of a million deaths , and they may be right." See Gourevitch, we wish .. ., p. iii. 9. Jenny Manzer, "Since Rwanda, 'I will never be what I used to be,' " Medical Post, Nov. 7, 2000. 10. Shawcro ss, p. 140. 11. Tina Rosenberg, "The Unbearable Memories of a UN Peace keeper," New York Times, Oct. 8,2000, p. AI4. 12. "Another Victim of UN 'Peacekeeping," op. cit. 13. Gourevitch, we wish..., p. 104. 14. Ibid ., p. 105. 15. Gourevitch, "The Genocide Fax ," The New Yorker, May 11, 1998, p. 44. 16. "Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nation s during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda" (hereafter "Carlsson Report"), Dec. 18, 1999. Posted on the Am sterdam Post website at www.xs4all.nl-adampost/arcOOOOI5b.html; accessed on May 7, 2001. 17. Gourevitch, we wish ... , p. 106. 18. Ibid., p. 107. 19. Charles Trueheart, "UN Inaction Cited in Rwanda Slaughter," Washingto n Post, Sept. 25, 1997, p. A I. 20. Carlsson Report, op. cit. 21. Ibid. 22. Gourevitch, we wish ... , pp. 64-65. 23 . Ibid., p. 106. 24. Carlsso n Report, op. cit. 25. Gourevitch, we wish... , p. 102. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid ., p. 120.

126

Global Gun Grab

line at www.nationalreview.comlkopel/kopelprint080901 .html. Posted and accessed on Aug. 9, 2001. 14. John R. Bolton, "U.S. Statement at Plenary Session, UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects," July 9, 2001. Posted at www.un.org/ Depts/ddaiCAB/smalianns/statements/usE.html; accessed on July 9, 2001. 15. Armed to the Teeth, op. cit. 16. UN General Assembly document N54/258, Item 76 (f) of the provisional agenda, "General and Complete Disarmament: Small Arms," Aug. 19, 1999, p. 24. 17. Ibid., p. 1. 18. "NRA Spreads Surreal View of Conference," Disarmament Times Daily (quasi-official UN daily newspaper published at the UN Small Arms Conference), July 12,2001, p. 3. 19. Ibid. 20. Mary Leigh Blek, statement at the NGO session, July 16,2001 . 21. "OneWorid U.S. Special Report: U.S . NGOs Blast Govern ment Stance on Small Arms," July 20, 2001. Posted at www.benton.org/OneWoridUS/guns.html; accessed on Sept. 23,2001. 22. "Gun Control Movement Goes International: Victims Shoes and Big, Angry Puppets Protest Bush's Pro NRA Stance at UN," press release, July 17,2001. 23. Kofi A. Annan, ' We The Peoples' : The Role of the United Nations in the 21st Century (New York: The United Nations Department of Information, 2000), pp. 52-53. 24. Faltas, p. 5. 25. Ibid., p. 7. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid., p. 5. 28. Thomas R. Eddlem , "Global Gun Grab," The New American, Nov. 22,1999, pp. 16-17. 29. Ramsay, pp. 176-177. 30. Ibid., p. 181.

Two - Disarmament and Democide 1. Stephen P. Halbrook, "Nazi Firearms Law and the Disarming of the German Jews," Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law , Vol. 17 No.3 (2000), p. 483.

CHAPTER

Endnotes

135

the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch," July 16,2001. CHAPTER SIX -


1. Gary T. Dempsey with Roger W. Fontaine, Fool's Errands : Ame rica's Recent Encounters with Nation Building (Washington: Cato Institute, 2001), pp. 35-36. 2. James J. Schneider, "Ambushing the Future," Special Waifare, April 1995, p. 4. 3. Derek Boothby, "Brief 12 - The UNTAES Experience: Weapons Buy-Back in Eastern Siavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (Croatia)," Bonn International Center for Conversion, Oct. 1998; pp. 5, 16. 4. Ibid., p. 6. 5. Ibid., p. 7. 6. Ibid., p. 14. 7. Srdja Trifkovic, USTASA: Croation Separat ism and European Politics 1929-1945 (London: The Lord Byron Foundat ion for Balkan Studies, 1998), pp. 10, 273. 8. Boothby, p. 11. 9. Ibid., p. 13. 10. Ibid., p. 21. 11. Dempsey and Fontaine, p. 30. 12. William Norman Grigg, "UN Boosters Plenty Worried," The New American, Oct. 2,1995 , p. 13.Vanden Heuvel's comments were transcribed by the author from audiotape. 13. Dempsey and Fontaine , p. 25. 14. Ibid., p. 33. 15. Ibid., p. 34. 16. Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down: A Sto ry of Modern War (New York: Penguin Books, 1999), p. 72. 17. Dempsey and Fontaine, pp. 34-35 . 18. Ibid., p. 96. 19. Ibid. See also William F. Jasper, "Behind Our Defeat in Somalia," The New Ameri can, Sept. 5, 1994, p. 8. Jasper 's story summarizes the Farer Report , which was immediately suppressed by the Clinton istration and the UN. 20. Dempsey and Fontaine, pp. 35-36. 21. Ibid., p. 36.

128

Global Gun Grab

25. Courto is, et aI., p. 72. 26. Ibid., p. 74. 27 . Ibid ., p. 102. 28. Ibid ., p. 103. 29. Ibid., p. 98. 30. Ibid ., p. 99. 31. Ibid., p. 100. 32. Ibid., p. 116. 33. R.J . Rummel, Death by Governm ent (New Brunswick, N.J. : Transaction Publi shers , 1994), p. 79. 34. Aleksandr 1. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956: An Experim ent in Literary Investigation, 1-11 (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 13, fn. 5. CHAPTER THREE -


1. R.J . Rummel, Deat h by Government (New Brunswick, N.J. : Transaction Publishers, 1994), p. 86. 2. "Lenin's Aim s like UN 's, Thant Says," Los Angeles Times, April 7, 1970. 3. Transcribed by author from audiotape. For an on-scene report, see William Norman Grig g, "B uilding World Order," The New Ame rican, Jul y 3, 2000 , pp. 4-8. 4. Hague Appeal for Peace, The Hague Agenda f or Peace and Justice in the 21st Century, UN Ref A/54/98, p. 44 . 5. Transcribed by autho r from audiotape, op cit. 6. For more information about the role played by the Council on Foreign Relations in the crea tion of the UN " see William F. Jasper, The United Nations Exposed (Appleton, Wis.: The John Birch Soci ety, 200 1), especially Chapter 3, "The Secret Net work of Power." For more information about the Communist influence, see Chapter 4, " The Communist Dim ension." 7. S. Steven Powell, Covert Cadre: Inside the Institut e f or Policy Studies (Ottawa , Ill.: Gree n Hill Publi shers, Inc., 1987) , p. 16. 8. William F. Jas per, "Partnering with Terrorists," The New American, Nov. 25, 1996, p. 5. 9. Freedom From War: The United States Program/or Genera l and Complete Disarmam ent in a Peacef ul World, Department of State Publication 7277 , 1961 , p. 9. 10. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations (Washington: Institute for Defense Analyses,

Endnotes

137

Aug . 1995. See William Norman Grigg, "I am not a UN Soldier," The New American, Oct. 2, 1995, pp. 5-8. 15. See the on-camera testimonies of military and intelligence personnel in the video documentary Waco: A New Revelation. See also William Norman Grigg, "Waco Deception Up In Smoke," The New American, Sept. 27, 1999, pp. 12-15. 16. Danny O. Coulson and Elaine Shannon, No Heroes: Inside the FBI's Secret Counter-Terror Force (New York: Pocket Books, 1999), pp . 135-142. 17. James Bovard, Lost Rights: The Destruction ofAmerican Liberty (New York : St. Martin's Griffin, 1994), p. 224 . 18. The best single of the Randy Weaver tragedy is Allan Bock, Ambush at Ruby Ridge: How Government Agents Set Randy Weaver Up and Took His Family Down (Irvine, Calif.: Dickens-Press, 1995). 19. Bock, p. 203. 20. Bock, p. 13. 21. James Bovard, "feeling your pain": The Explosion andAbuse ofGovernment Power in the Clinton-Gore Years (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000), pp. 295-296. 22. Bock, p. 189. 23 . Mark Bowden, Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War (New York: Penguin Books, 1999), p. 78. 24. Bock, p. 81 . 25. David T. Hardy (with Rex Kimball), This Is Not An Assault:

Penetrating the Web of Official Lies Regarding the Waco Incident (Xlibris Corporation, 2001), p. 264. 26 . Ibid ., p. 294. 27. Ibid ., pp. 294, 296 . 28. See the final frames of the recent video documentary The FUR Project (COPS Productions L.C.C., 2001) 29. Hardy, pp. 304 -305 . 30 . Robert D. Kaplan, An Empire Wilderness: Travels into America's Future (New York: Random House, 1998), p. 7. 31. Ibid., p. 13. 32 . James J . Schneider, "Ambushing the Future," Special Waifare, April 1995, p. 4 . 33. Ernest G. Cunningham, "Peacekeeping and UN Operational Control: A Study of their Effect on Unit Cohesion" (Thesis), Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif., March 1995, p.

130

Global Gun Grab

3. Establishment historian Arthur J. Schlesinger writes: "For Roosevelt, the critical task in 1943-45, beyond winning the war, was to commit the United States to postwar internation al structures before peace could return the nation to its old habits... Above all, FDR saw the United Nations ... as 'the only device that could keep the United States from slipping back into isolationism.' '' Churchill spoke of a UN with the military power necessary to impose " 'its will against the evil-doer or evilplaner in good time and by force of arms.' " See "Back to the Womb? Isolationism's Renewed Threat," Foreign Affairs, JulyAug. 1995, p. 4. For a useful example of the term "United Nations" to describe the World War II alliance, particularly as applied to the critical U.S.-Soviet relationship, see George Racey Jordan, From Major Jordan 's Diaries (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1952), p. 31. For a more extensive treatment of these issues, see Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers ' War (New York: Free Press, 2001). 4. Wallace, p. 2. 5. Ibid., p. 3. 6. Some Suggestions on Teaching about the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies, Vol. 1 of Toward World Understanding (Paris, , 1948), p. 3. 7. Nasby Slott (Sweden), "The Appea l and Limitations of Practical Disarmament: Notes for the Presentation by Sami Faltas (BICC) at the Semin ar on the Removal of Small Arms and Light Weapons in the Context of Peace Missions," March 1112,1999, p. 5. 8. Kevin Howe, "Gun Buy-Back s Questioned : Programs not proven effective in keeping weapons off street ," Mont erey Herald, April 8, 2000 . Posted on the SAND website at sand.miis.edu/about/news/gunbuyback.htm; accessed on June 22,200 1. 9. Brief 7, op cit., p. 26. 10. Ibid. 11. Ibid., p. 6. 12. Ibid., p. 26. 13. Ibid., p. 7. 14. Ibid., p. 6. 15. "SAND History and Accompli shments." Posted on the group 's website at sand.miis.edu/about/; accessed on June 22,2001.

Endnotes

139

treal, Dec. 8, 1999. Posted at www.un.org/MoreIn fo/ngolinkJ sgmontre.htm; accessed on March 29, 200 I. 14. "B YU's Kennedy Center gains recognition by United Nations," press release, May 27, 1999. 15. Richard Wilkins, "The Fight for Famili es at the United Nations," address to Australian Regional Conference for the World Congre ss of Familie s, Aug. 7, 1999. Abridgement posted on northernli fe.senet.com. au/9 sept99 .htm; accessed on July 27, 2000. 16. Ibid. 17. Philip Alper s, "Rapid Progress in UN's Worldwide Effort to Harmonize Gun Control Laws - Full Report," Feb. 1998. Posted at www.chambana.com/-eCG/unfeb98.htm; acces sed on Aug. 3, 2001. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. "Setting the Record Straight: UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arm s and Light Weapons in All Its Aspect s, New York, 9-20 July, 2001 ," pres s release . Posted at www.un.orglDepts/dda/CAB/smallarms/facts.htm; accessed on Aug. 3, 2001. 21. "United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects," NRA statement, op cit. 22. John R. Bolton, "U.S. Statement at Plenary Session, UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspect s," July 9, 2001. Posted at www.un.org/ Depts/dda/C AB/smallarmslstatements/usE.htm1; accessed on July 9, 2001. 23. Ibid., pp. 1-4. 24. "Statement of the Single Action Shooting Society," July 16, 2001. 25. "The World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities - NGO Statement for the UN Conference on Small Arms, July 16, 2001." 26. Jim Burns, "UN Secretary-General Believes Gun Glorification Is Bad for Children," CNSNews .com, Aug. 3, 2001; Posted at www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.a...s\archive\200 108\For200 108 03a.html; accessed on Aug. 3, 2001. 27. "UN waiting anxiously for U.S. dues," AP story published in App leton [Wis.] Post-Crescent, August 2, 2001.

132

Global Gun Grab

2001, p. 3 and Annex B. 30. John O. Kohler, Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1999), p. 9. 31. For Cuba's use of "Committee for Defense of the Revolution," see Stephane Courtois, et a!., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror; Repression, pp. 661-662. Communist China's use of Red Guards as "block committees" during the Cultural Revolution is described by former Red Guard Zhai Zhenhua in her memoir Red Flower ofChina (New York: Soho, 1992), particularly pp. 92-93. For National Socialist 's use of similar enforcement mechanisms, see Blair R. Holmes and Alan F. Keele, eds., When Truth Was Treason: German Youth Against Hitler (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1995), p. 335, n. 6. 32. Posted at www.snipersparadise.com/gungrabbers/pax.htm; accessed on June 22,2001. 33. "Asking about weapons could save a child's life: Many Maine homes have guns, and the risk is real," Portland [Maine} PressHerald, June 4, 2000, p. 4C. 34. HUD press release No. 00-226, "Secretary Cuomo Voices for t Campaign to Save Children ," Aug. 23, 2000. 35. John R. Lott Jr., "Zero Tolerance Equals Zero Thinking," Los Angeles Times, June 13,2001, p. B13. 36 . Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant, and Dr. Joanne Eisen, "Zero Good Sense," National Review Online, June 6, 2001. Posted at 01.html; accessed on June 25, 2001. 37. Armed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague ofSmall Arms (UN video, 2000). 38. William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall ofthe Third Reich: A History ofNazi (New York: Crest Books, 1961), p. 249. CHAPTER FIVE -


1. Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice, Rwanda's Genocide 1994: Supplement to Lethal Laws (Milwaukee, Wis.: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, 1997), p. I. 2. Philip Gourevitch , we wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families (New York: Picador, 1998), p. 102. 3. William Shawcross, Deliver Usfrom Evil: Peacekeepers, Warlords and a World of Endless Conflict (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), p. 145.

Index Africa, 13 Aideed, Mohammed Farah, 8589,100 Alper s, Philip, 115-117 America , see United States American(s), 25, 37, 39,43,52, 62, 87-88, 94, 107, 122- 124 America n Life League, 112 America n Sovere ignty Restoration Act, 123 American University, 86 American War for Independence , 7-8, 17,21 ,78 Amin, Idi, 22 Andy Griffith Show , 9 1-92 Angka Loeu , 25, 27 Annan, Kofi, 3, 11, 16, 67,70, 76-78, 114, 120-122 Arizona Journal of International and Comparati ve Law, 30 AIm ed to the Teeth, 13-14,62,72 Army Delta Force, 88, 99 Army Ranger s, 88-89, 94 ASEAN (Association of SouthEast Asian Natio ns), 98 Asia, 13 A.S.K. (Asking Saves Kids), 59, 60 Associated Press, 110 ATF, 99, 103, 108 Australia, 19 Axworthy, Lloyd, 14 Baker, Gerald, 120 Barre , Moham med Siad, 85-86 Barron, John, 24-26

Bea udoin, Stephane, 64 Beijing+5, 112 Belgium , 67, 70 Berlin, 27 Bill of Rights, 119 Billion Mom March , 56, 58 Bir, Cevik, 85 Black Hawk Down , 88 Blek, Mary Leigh, 15 Bloomfie ld, Lincoln P., 4, 41-44 Blueprint for the Peace Race, 40-41 Bolshevism, 31-35 Bolton , John, 11, 13, 117, 119 Bonn International Centre for Conversio n (BICC) , 16, 5 1 Boothby, Derek, 81, 83 Bosnia, 77 Boston, 2 1 Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, 53, 6768,85-86 Boutwell , Jeffrey, 74 Bowden, Mark, 88,102 Branch Davidians, 93, 99, 102103,108 Brigham Young University, 114 British, 7-8, 21-22 , 78 British-American Security Information Council, 53 Brown, Lindsay, 6 1 Brown, Mark Malloch, 23 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco , and Firearm s, 99, 103, 108 Burgh, James, 78 Bush is tration, 13, 1l7 , 119- 120

141

134

Global Gun Grab

28. Carlsson Report, op. cit. 29. "UN Chief Apologizes for Rwanda ," Deseret News, Dec. 17, 1999. 30. See Our Global Neighborhood: The Report ofthe Commis sion on Global Governance (London: Oxford University Pres s, 1995), p. 80, for a discussion of "human security." 31. Ibid., p. 131. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid., p. 88. 34. Ibid., p. 98. 35. Carlsson Report, op cit. 36. Gourevitch , we wish . .. , p. iii. 37. Arm ed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague of Small Arms (UN video, 2000). 38. Gourevitch, we wish ..., p. 59. 39. Simkin, et aI., p. 1. 40. Ibid., p. 9. 4 1. Gourevitch, we wish . . ., p. 17. 42. Ibid., p. 95. 43. Ibid., p. 81. 44. Jeffrey Boutwell and Michael T. Klare, "A Scourge of Small Arms," Scientific American, June 2000. 45. Simkin, et al. 46. Ibid., p. 22. 47. Don Melvi n, "Suit targets UN inaction that allowed two deaths," Washington Times, March 2,2000, p. A 13. 48. Mark Riley, "UN to Seek Immunit y on Rwanda, Sydney Mo rning Hera ld, Jan. 12,2000. 49. Melvin, op. cit. 50. Riley, op. cit. 51. Dana Durbin, "Annan Delivers Strong Message: Speech Outlines World Conflict Changes, Rice News , Vol. 7 No. 7, April 30,1998. 52. "Kofi Annan Says U.S. debts to UN hurting peacekeeping." Posted at www.cnn.com/US/9804124/annan; accessed on May 9,200l. 53. Daniel Lazare, "Your Constitution is Killing You," Harper's, Oct. 1999, p. 62. 54. Shawcross , p. 133. 55. Isaac Lappia, "Address to the United Nations Conferenc e on

Index NATO, 42, 98 Navy, 94,106 Navy Times, 107 Nazi (National Socialist), 2, 27-31, 33, 59, 77 NBC, 57 Netherlands, 15 New Delhi , 116 New, Michael, 98 New York City, 39 New York Times, 31 New Zealand, 115 Newark, N.J., 55 Nicaragua, 54, 113 Night of Broken Glass, 30 Nineteen Eighty-Four, 62 Niwemutesi, Jeanne, 63 Nizhni Novgorod, 23, 31 Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 5, 15,39,53,55, 71,111 -118,120-122 North Atlantic Treaty Organization , 42,98 North Vietnamese Communists, 40 Northwestern University, 25 Nyiramilimo, Odette, 63 Oklahoma City bombing, 103104 Oldsmar Elementary School, 61 Operation Restore Hope, 84 Operations Other Than War (OOTW), 98, 105-107 Organization of American States, 117 Orwell, George, 62 Our Global Neighborhood, 70 Pakistani "peacekeepers," 86-87 Parker, John, 7, 21

145

Pashayan, Charles, 16 Paul, Anthony, 24-26 Paul, Ron, 123 Pentagon, 94 Peroni, Carlo, 120 Persian Gulf, 98, 103, 105-106 Peterson, Scott, 88 Phillips, Hans, 27, 28 Phnom Penh, 23, 26 Pitcairn, John, 7 Poland, 113 Politboro, 34 Polsby, Daniel D., 25 Posse Comitatus Act, 99, 104, 108 Powell, S. Steven, 39 Program on Security and Development (SAND), 54-55 Pulitzer Prize, 57 Ramsay, David, 21 Red Cross, 88, 102 of Conventional Arms , 19,54,119 Reno, Janet, 57 Revere , Paul, 7 Revolutionary War, see American War for Independence Reyes, Camilo, 12 Rice University, 77 Riza, Iqbal, 78 Rogers, Dick, 102 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 50 Rubin, Samuel, 39 Ruby Ridge, Idaho, 100-102 Rummel, R.J., 2, 9-10, 46-47 Russia, 2, 22, 31-35, 77 Rwanda, 3, 22, 63-78 Rwandan Patriotic Front, 64 81. Petersburg, Fla., 61

136

Global Gun Grab

22. Ibid., p. 38. 23. Ibid., pp. 38-39. 24. Ibid., p. 37. 25. Ibid., p. 40. 26. Bowden, p. 74. CHAPTER SEVEN -


I. Diane Cecelia Weber, "Warrior Cops: The Ominous Growth of Paramilitarism in American Police Departments," Cato Briefing Papers, No. 50, Aug. 26, 1999, p. 1. 2. The "Combat Arms Survey," composed by Navy Lt. Commander Ernest G. Cunningham as part of a Master's Thesis project, was leaked to The New American by one of the Marine partic ipants in a letter dated May IS, 1994. The New American broke the story of the survey in its July II , 1994 issue, page 10. The handwritten letter and the sole original copy of the muchreprod uced survey are in the possession of the Robert Welch University Research Department. 3. For a discussion of the practice of "civil forfeitur e," see John Perna, "Forfeiting Freedom," The New American, May 17, 1993, p. 71, and Perna, "Government on the Take," The New American, May 31, 1993, pp. 23-27. 4. William F. Jasper, "Signposts to a Police State," The New American, Sept. 11, 2000, p. 16. 5. William Norman Grigg, "Erasing the Thin Blue Line," The New American, Sept. 24, 2001, pp. 10-12. 6. Allan Bock, Ambush at Ruby Ridge: How Government Agents Set Randy Weaver Up and Took His Family Down (Irvine, Calif.: Dickens Press, 1995), p. 205 . 7. Weber, op. cit. 8. Ibid., p. 8. 9. Ibid . 10. Ibid. 11. Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, State Departme nt Publication 7222 (1961), p. 9. 12. Ibid., p. 10. 13. Michael Scardaville, "Anti-gun lobby now turns to the UN for help," syndicated column, July 16,2001. 14. The author was the first jo urnalist to interview Michael New in

138

Global Gun Grab

79. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid., pp. 192-193; spelling in the original. 36. Ibid., p. 38. 37. Ibid., p. 79. 38. Margaret Roth, "Some Marines would shoot first, ask questions later," Navy Times, Aug . 28, 1995, p. 16. 39. See Coulson and Shannon , p. 357, for a discussion of a Posse Comitatus waiver issued in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan. 40. Hardy, pp. 247-248. CHAPTER EIGHT -


I. "For 1st Time, UN Turns Focus to Gun Control," Manchest er {N.H.] Union-Leader, May 24, 1994, p. 3. 2. Letter from Thomas Hodgkins , NRA-ILA Grassroots Division, June 23, 1994. 3. "National Rifle Association goes global," CNN news report. Posted on Nov. 24, 1996 at asia.cnn.comlUS/9611124/nra.125/; accessed on Aug . 3,2001. 4. Charlton Heston , "Can the UN Disarm the U.S.?" Posted at the Guns and Ammo Website at www.gunsandammomag.com/ dynamic .asp?intSectionID=21 O&intArticleID= 1423; accessed on Aug. 3, 2001. 5. The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 : "Arrangements for Consultation with Non-Governmental Organizations," I:I; Posted at www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngolResolution_1996_3I/Part_1 .htm; accessed on Aug . 3,2001. 6. "United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects," New York, July 16, 200 I : Statement of the National Rifle Association of America . 7. Thomas R. Eddlem, "Conservatives Deceived by NGOs," The New American, July 16,2001, p. 28. 8. Susan Martinuk, "Radical Feminists Only Need Apply," National Post, June 12,2000. 9. UN /ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, op. cit. 10. Ibid., III:22,26. II. Ibid., IX:61 (c). 12. Ibid., VIII:57 (c). 13. KofiAnnan, address to World Conference on Civil Society, Mon-

Index of Action, 11, 120-121; Small Arms Destruction Day, 10 UN social development summit, 12 United States (or America), 15, 18-19,43,48,50-51 ,53-55, 61-62 ,90,94,97, 105, 110111,118-119,121 -122 U.S. Arms Control and Disannament Agency, 40 U.S. Command and Staff College (Fort Leavenworth), 80, 105 U.S. Constitution, 37, 47, 96, 112; Bill of Rights, 119; Second Amendment, 107, 110, 119 U.S. government (or policy), 3-4, 18,37,40-42,53,89,91 ,106, 119; Bush i stration , 13, 117,119-120 ; Clinton istration, 57, 60, 117 U.S. government agencies, see agency name U.S. military, 19,84-89, 94, 97, 99-10 2, 105-107 University of Hawaii, 46 University of Texas at Dallas, 94 UNOSOM 83-84, 88 UNTAES,8 1-83 Ustashe Fascist regime, 82 van Aartsen, lovias, 15 van den Heuvel, William l ., 84 Vienna, 117 Vietnam War, 39, 98 VVaco,93, 99-100 ,102-103 Wallace, Henry, 49, 50 Washington, D.C., 56, 84, 88 Washington Post, 54 Watson, Paul, 80

147

'We the Peoples ,' 16 Weaver, Randy & family , 100-102 Weber, Diane Cecilia, 91, 94-95 Webster, Noah, 48 Weimar government, 29-30 Weiss, Cora, 37- 40 Weiss, Peter, 39 Welch, Robert , 123-124 Werth, Nicholas, 32-33 Wilkins, Richard , 114-115 World Civil Society Forum , 114 World Effectively Controlled by the United Nation s, 4, 41 World Family Policy Forum , 114 World Federalist Association , 44 World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities, 120 World Peace Through World Law, 44 World War II, 50, 82

Ya le University Law School, 6 1 Yugoslav(ia), 81, 98 Z ampolit, 93

142

Global Gun Grab

Bush, George, 84 Bush, George w., 18 Cambodia, 3, 22-28, 34, 77 Canada, 65 CAP, 54 Carlsson, Ingvar, 67 Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflicts,54 Cas tro , Fidel, 22 Cato Institute, 87, 91, 94 Cato's Letters, 77 CBC-TV,65 CBS, 57 Center for Preventative Action, 54 Cheka, 32, 34 Ch ina, 22 , 59 Christian Scie nce Monitor, 55 Cl ark , Grenville, 44 , 46 Clinton istration, 57 , 60, 117 CNN, 11O Colombia, 12 Columbine High School, 60 Co mba t Arms Survey, 9 1, 106108 Commission on Global Governance, 51 , 67, 70-71 Communism, 36,42, 123; Cambodian, 23 -27; Soviet, 31 -35 Communist(s), 23-24, 29, 39-40, 42 Communist Part y, U.S.A., 39 Concord, Ma ss., 7-8, 21 Conference on the lllicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weap ons In All Its Aspects, see UN Small Arms Conference Congo, 7

Co ngress, 1, 97; Ho use of Rep resentatives, 122-123 Co nnecticut, 59 Co nsti tution, see U.S. Co nstitution Conve ntional Arms Pro liferat ion, 54 Coo per, Tony, 94, 104 Co ssac ks , 32-3 4 Co uncil on Foreig n Relations, 39 ,4 1,54,86, 124 Covert Cadre, 39 Croatia, 8 1-82, 89 Cuba, 22, 59 Cu nning ham, Ernest G., 106- 107 Cuomo, Andrew, 59 -60 Dag Hammerskjold Plaza , 15 Da llaire, Romeo, 63-69 Da lrymple, Don ato, 57 de Waa l, Alex, 63 Death by Government, 2, 46 Declaration ofIndepende nce, 37 Dee s-Thomases, Donna, 56 -57 Degan, William, 100 Democrat Party, 57 Dempsey, Gary T., 87 Destexhe, Alain, 67 DeYo ung, Mark, 112 DGI,39 Dhanapala, Jayantha, 23 Disarmament (statue), 9, 10; photo, opposite 90 Dominican Republic, 54 Don River , 33 Dzherzhinsky, Fel iks, 32 Eastern Slovenia, 19 Eckhard, Fred, 76, 122 El Salvador, 20, 54 Emp ire Wilderness, 104

144

Global Gun Grab

Irvington, N.J ., 61 Jamar, Jeff, 102-103 Japa n, 50 Jews, 30, 72 Jews for the Preserva tion of Firea rms Ownership, 25, 7374 John Birch Society, 5, 4 1, 122123 John ston, Robert B., 85 Justice Department, 92, 101 Kaplan, Robert D., 104- 105 Kennedy, John F., 40 KGB, 32, 39 Khan, Shaharyar, 75 Khmer Rouge , 22-27, 34 Khrushchev, Nik ita, 4 1 Kiga li, Rwa nda, 66, 75 Kitson, Henry Hudson, 7 Klare, Michael T., 74 Korea, 98 Koresh, David, 99 Kosovo,98 Krasni Mech (The Red Sword), 32 Kristallnacht, 30 Kuban River, 33 Lappia, Isaac, 78-79 Latin America, 13 Latsis, Martin, 34 Laurance, Edward J., 19,49,51 52,54-55 Lenin , Vladimir, 23, 31, 34-37 Leningrad, 35 Lexington, Mass ., 7-8, 21 Linder, Karl, 34 Lindq uist, Kim, 101 Lon Nol, 23

London Times, 30 Lott , John R, Jr., 6 1 Louisiana, 61 Luxembourg, 9 Macedonia, 98 Maikop,34 Mao Tse-tung, 18 Marines, 105- 107 Mart inuk, Susan, 112-1 13 Maso n, Thomas, 111, 116-118 May berry, 9 1-93, 95 McMa nus, John F., 5 McVeigh, Timothy, 103 Miami, 57 Million Mom Marc h, 15,53,5658 Minuteman statue, 7-8; photo, oppos ite 9 1 Minutemen, 7-8, 2 1 Mississ ippi, 61 MIT, 41 Moga dishu Radio, 86-87 Moga dish u, Soma lia, 85, 88-89, 101- 102 Monterey Institute of International Studies, 54 Montreal, 114 Moscow, 34 Mt. Carmel church, 93, 99 Moza mbique, 54 Murder ofa Gent le Land, 24 Murra h Building, 103 Nagasaki, 72 National Guard, 104 National Merit Scholar, 61 National Post, 112 National Press Club, 42 National Rifle Association, 5, 110- 112, 116- 119,1 2 1

146

Global Gun Grab

SAND,54-55 Scardaville, Michael , 97 Schneider, Jam es J., 80, 105 SEATO ,98 Second Amendment, 107, 110, 119 Serb,82-83 Shakespeare, 89 Sierra Leone , 79 Single Action Shooting Society, 120 Small Arm s Conference, see UN Small Arms Conference Smith, Franc is, 7-8, 21 Smit h, Winston, 62 Sohn, Loui s B., 44, 46 Solzhenit syn, Alek sandr, 34-35 Som alia, 80, 83-89 , 94,100-102 , 106 South- Ea st Asian Treat y Organization,98 Soviet Russia 2,22,3 1-35, 77; Soviet(s), 36, 93 Stalin, 18,34-35 Stasi,58 State Department, 3-4 State Depart ment Publication 7277, see Freedom From War Stockwell, David,'88 Supp lement to An Age nda for Peace, 53 SWAT, 92, 95, 108 Tambov,34 Tampa, Fla ., 61 Taylor, Andy, 91-93 Texas, 6 1 Thant , U, 36 Thessalonians, 63 Third Reich, 34 Tomb elaine, Mic hel, 7

Toward World Understanding, 50 Tukhachevsky, Mikhail, 34 Tutsi(s), 63-66, 68-69, 72-73 , 77 Twentynine Palms Marine Base, 91, 106 Uganda, 15,22 UNAMIR, 63, 68-69 United Kingdom, 19 United Nations Association of the USA, 84 UN Centre for Disarmament Affair s (UNCDA), 19 UN Chart er, 36-38, 44, 63 UN Deve lopment Program, 23, 58 UN Disarmament Commission, 52,110 UN Economic and Social Coun cil, 113 UN Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organizat ion (UNESCO), 50 UN General Assembl y, 40-4 1, 44,64 UN Military Staff Commi ttee, 38 UN Military Supply and Research Age ncy, 44 UN Mille nnium Forum , 3 UN of Gove rnmental Experts on Small Arm s, 8 1, 119 UN Participation Act, 98 UN pop ulation contro l summit, 12 UN of Co nventional Arms, 19,54, 119 UN Security Cou nc il, 19,38,8 1, 84,86, 103, 121 UN Small Arms Conference, 3, 9- 11,13- 14,56,59,78,97, 111,1 17,119-121; Program

Recommended Reading and Action Having read Global Gun Grab by William Norman Grigg, you know that gun owners in America and elsewhere are prime targets for the UN 's drive to disarm the world. But how many of your friends , co-workers, neighbors, and relatives understand the seriousness of this threat? How many are familiar with the information contained in this book ? In order to make it more affordable to share this book with others , we have made it available at the following quantity-discount prices: ·1-9 copies, $4.95 each* • 50-99 copies, $2.95 each* • 10-49 copies, $3.95 each* • 100+ copies, $2.45 each* Global Gun Grab examines just one thrust of the UN 's agenda . Put simply: The UN has placed not just the right to bear arms but other basic freedom s in its cross hairs . The real objective behind the empowerment of the UN is not universal "peace" or "security" but total power. We encourage you to broaden your understanding of the UN threat by reading The United Nat ions Exposed by William F. Jasper. Mr. Jasper, like Mr. Grigg, is a senior editor at The New American magazine. His book - which includes such topics as the UN 's war against private property and the family - is available for $14.95.* Finally, we encourage you

* Please add shipping and handling charges (see next page).

to become involved in our campaign to Get US out! of the United Natio ns. We hope you will order the "Get US out! Starter Kit" ($9.95 plus shipping) and participate in an organized effort to convince Congress to end U.S. hip in the UN . Only by getting out will we be able to retain the means to protect our great country from the growing threat of global tyranny and terrorism.

To order books from The John Birch Society:

(800) JBS-USA1 P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912

For a comprehensive look at the "Get US out! of the UN" campaign, go to: www.getusout .org

Order Subtotal

Standard Shipping

RuSh Shipping

$0-19.99 $20.00-49.99 $50.00-99.99 $100.00+

$3.00 $7.50 $10.00 $12.50

$8.00 $12.50 $15.00 $17.50

Standard: 4-14 business days. Rush: 3-1business days, no P.O. Boxes, AlasllalHawaiiadd $10.00. Wisconsin residents add 5% sales tax to all orders.

ISB N 1-881919-06-4

50495>

9 781881919063

II

Global Gun Grab 3v1a6q

Overview 5o1f4z

More details 6z3438

Related Documents c2h70

Global Gun Grab 3v1a6q

Grab rj2f

Cactus Grab (rock Grab).docx 4pc1h

Grab Smag 4b6k2h

Grab Knife 2r6v1o

Smag Grab 1x92h

More Documents from "Kevin McCashion" 24b1x

Kings Landing Architectural Drawings 5a235

Stabilization Troy Seawall.pdf fr1w

Global Gun Grab 3v1a6q

Pavel Tsatsouline - Ironman Magazine Interview June 2005 45m6t

Limitador De Corriente Para Fuente Dc 4i371z

Laboratorio_03 Final _cinematica (3) f186t