textfiles-politics/src-xml/inthenam.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<div class="article">
   <p>Global Tyranny...Step By Step
by William F. Jasper</p>
   <p>
In the Name of Peace</p>
   <p> The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the
city. Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post office
and the radio station, severing Katanga's communications with the
outside world... One came to the conclusion that the U.N.'s action was
intended to make it more difficult for correspondents to let the world
know what was going on in Katanga...(1)
-- Smith Hempstone
Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends, 1962</p>
   <p>Early in 1987, millions of American television viewers tuned in to
watch the dramatic ABC mini-series, AMERIKA. What they saw was a grim,
menacing portrayal of life in our nation after it had been taken over
by a Soviet-controlled United Nations force. Their TV sets showed a
foreboding picture of America as an occupied police-state, complete
with concentration camps, brainwashing, neighborhood spies, and
Soviet-UN troops, tanks and helicopter gunships enforcing "the rule of
law."</p>
   <p>Liberals angrily denounced the mini-series, claiming it demonized both
the Soviets and the UN and insisting that it would rekindle
anti-communist hysteria at a time when Soviet-American relations were
at their best point since the end of World War II. The fact that
Soviet troops were at that very time committing real atrocities
against the peoples of Afghanistan didn't matter. UN officials,
furious about the way their organization was being portrayed, even
tried to have the program cancelled.(2)</p>
   <p>Why all the furor? Is the UN's image so sacrosanct or the goal of
US-Soviet rapprochement so sacred that even fictional tarnishing is
akin to blasphemy? After all, it was just a television program.
Haven't there been scores of highly acclaimed Hollywood productions
depicting the U.S. military and American patriots in similarly bad or
even far worse light? Besides, the totalitarianism depicted in AMERIKA
could never happen here. Could it?</p>
   <p>Dress Rehearsal?</p>
   <p>You may be surprised to learn that it HAS ALREADY HAPPENED HERE. NO,
not in the same manner and on the same scale as viewers saw in the
television series, but in an alarming real-life parallel of that
dramatic production What follows is the true, but little-known story
of the "invasion" of about a dozen American cities by "UN forces," as
told by economist/author Dr. V. Orval Watts in his 1955 book, THE
UNITED NATIONS: PLANNED TYRANNY.</p>
   <p>At Fort MacArthur, California, and in other centers,
considerable numbers of American military forces went
into training in 1951 as "Military Government Reserve
Units." What they were for may appear from their practice
maneuvers during the two years, 1951-1952.</p>
   <p>Their first sally took place on July 31, 1951, when they
simulated an invasion and seizure of nine California cities:
Compton, Culver City, Inglewood, Hawthorne, Huntington
Park, Long Beach, Redondo Beach, South Gate and
Torrance. The invading forces, however, did not fly the
American flag. They came in under the flag of the United
Nations, and their officers stated that they represented the
United Nations.</p>
   <p>These forces arrested the mayors and police chiefs, and
pictures later appeared in the newspapers showing these
men in jail. The officers issued manifestoes reading "by
virtue of the authority vested in me by the United Nations
Security Council." At Huntington Park they held a flag-raising ceremony, taking down the American flag and
running up in its place the United Nations banner.</p>
   <p>On April 31952, other units did the same thing at
Lampasas, Texas. They took over the town, closed
churches, strutted their authority over the teachers and
posted guards in classrooms, set up concentration camps,
and interned businessmen after holding brief one-sided
trials without HABEAS CORPUS.</p>
   <p>Said a newspaper report of that Texas invasion: "But the
staged action almost became actual drama when one
student and two troopers forgot it was only make-believe.
'Ain't nobody going to make me get up,' cried John Snell,
17, his face beet-red. One of the paratroopers shoved the
butt of his rifle within inches of Snell's face and snarled,
'You want this butt placed in your teeth? Get up.'"</p>
   <p>The invaders put up posters listing many offenses for which
citizens would be punished. One of them read:"25. Publishing
or circulating or having in his possession with intent to publish
or circulate, any printed or written matter ... hostile,
detrimental, or disrespectful ... to the Government of any other
of the United Nations."</p>
   <p>Think back to the freedom-of-speech clause of the United
States Constitution which every American officer and
official is sworn to support and defend. What was in the
minds of those who prepared, approved and posted these
UN proclamations?</p>
   <p>The third practice seizure under the United Nations flag
occurred at Watertown, New York, August 20, 1952, more
than a year later than the first ones. It followed the same
pattern set in the earlier seizures in California and Texas.</p>
   <p>Is this a foretaste of World Government, which so many
Americans seem to want?(3)</p>
   <p>Who ordered these "mock" UN invasions? And to what purpose were they
carried out? Do answers to these questions really matter? Or are these
merely idle concerns about curious but irrelevant events that happened
decades ago and have no bearing on our lives today? Events,
developments, and official policies in the succeeding years, under
both Republican and Democratic administrations, indicate that the mock
invasions of the early 1950s do matter and that they do have a bearing
on our lives today. The dress-rehearsal takeovers of American cities
described above occurred just six years after the founding of the
United Nations, while the organization was still enjoying widespread
public support. American military personnel were at that very time
fighting and dying under the UN flag in Korea. But as recounted in our
previous chapter, a decade later in September of 1961, the President
of the United States would propose a phased transfer of America's
military forces to the UN. Under such a plan, our Army, Navy, Air
Force, Marine Corps, even our nuclear arsenal, would be given over to
UN command, making it possible for our nation's military forces to be
used in a REAL U.N. invasion at some future date anywhere in the
world.</p>
   <p>Interestingly, the Kennedy FREEDOM FROM WAR plan differed little from
one proposed earlier that same month by the Soviet-dominated
"nonaligned" nations at a conference held in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.(4)
And it was merely an expansion of the policy enunciated by Secretary
of State Christian Herter (CFR) during the latter days of the
Eisenhower Administration. But few Americans even saw, and fewer still
ever read and understood the incredible disarmament document. For
those who did see, read and understand it, however, there could be no
doubt that it created a path leading to global dictatorship.</p>
   <p>If the American public had been aware of FREEDOM FROM WAR
and a number of then-classified government studies being prepared at
that time -- each of which spelled out even more explicitly the intent
of government and Establishment elitists to surrender America to an
all-powerful United Nations -- there may well have been a popular
uprising that would have swept all of the internationalist schemers
from public office and public trust.</p>
   <p>In February 1961, seven months before the President released the
FREEDOM FROM WAR plan to the public, his State Department, led by
Secretary of State Dean Rusk (CFR), hired the private Institute for
Defense Analyses (contract No. SCC 28270) to prepare a study showing
how disarmament could be employed to lead to world government. On
March 10, 1962, the Institute delivered Study Memorandum No. 7, A
WORLD EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED NATIONS,
written by Lincoln P. Bloomfield (CFR).(5) Dr. Bloomfield had himself
recently served with the State Department's disarmament staff, and
while writing his important work was serving as an associate professor
of political science and director of the Arms Control Project at the
Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.</p>
   <p>This Bloomfield/IDA report is especially significant because the
author is uncharacteristically candid, eschewing the usual euphemisms,
code words, and double-talk found in typical "world order"
pronouncements meant for public consumption. The author believed he
was addressing fellow internationalists in a classified memorandum
that would never be made available for public scrutiny. So he felt he
could speak plainly.</p>
   <p>Here is the document's opening passage, labeled SUMMARY:</p>
   <p>A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one
in which "world government" would come about through
the establishment of supranational institutions,
characterized by mandatory universal membership and
some ability to employ physical force. Effective control
would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the
hands of a supranational organization... [T]he present UN
Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such
an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby
codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.</p>
   <p>Dr. Bloomfield was still fudging a little as he began. The phrase
"some ability to employ physical force" was more than a slight
understatement, as the bulk of the report makes abundantly clear. He
continued:</p>
   <p>The principal features of a model system would include the
following: (1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce
disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace --
including taxing powers -- with all other powers reserved to
the nations; (2) an international force, balanced
appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements,
consisting of 500000 men, recruited individually, wearing
a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of
60-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based
missiles, averaging one megaton per weapon; (3)
governmental powers distributed among three branches...;
(4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court...(6)</p>
   <p>"The notion of a 'UN-controlled world' is today a fantastic one," the
professor wrote. "... Political scientists have generally come to
despair of quantum jumps to world order as utopian and unmindful of
political realities. But fresh minds from military, scientific, and
industrial life ... have sometimes found the logic of world government
-- and it is world government we are discussing here --
inescapable."(7)</p>
   <p>Dr. Bloomfield then cited Christian Herter's speech of February 18,
1960, in which the Secretary of State called for disarmament "to the
point where no single nation or group of nations could effectively
oppose this enforcement of international law by international
machinery."(8) To this CFR-affiliated academic, who had recently
worked for the disarmament agency where Herter's speech had most
likely been written, there was no question about the meaning of the
Secretary of State's words.</p>
   <p>"Here, then," said Bloomfield, "is the basis in recent American policy
for the notion of a world 'effectively controlled by the United
Nations.' It was not made explicit, but the United States position
carried the unmistakable meaning, by whatever name, of world
government, sufficiently powerful in any event to keep the peace and
enforce its judgments."9</p>
   <p>Then, to be absolutely certain that there would be no confusion or
misunderstanding about his meaning, he carefully defined his terms:</p>
   <p>"World" means that the system is global, with no
exceptions to its fiat: universal membership. "Effectively
controlled" connotes ... a relative monopoly of physical
force at the center of the system, and thus a preponderance
of political power in the hands of a supranational
organization..."
"The United Nations" is not necessarily precisely the
organization as it now exists... FINALLY, TO AVOID
ENDLESS EUPHEMISM AND EVASIVE VERBAGE, THE
CONTEMPLATED REGIME WILL OCCASIONALLY BE
REFERRED TO UNBLUSHINGLY AS A "WORLD
GOVERNMENT." (10) [Emphasis added]</p>
   <p>If government is "force" -- as George Washington so simply and
accurately defined it -- then world government is "world force." Which
means that Bloomfield and those who commissioned his report and agreed
with its overall recommendations wanted to create a global entity with
a monopoly of force -- a political, even military power undisputedly
superior to any single nation-state or any possible alliance of
national or regional forces. It is as simple as that.</p>
   <p>"The appropriate degree of relative force," the Bloomfield/IDA study
concluded, "would ... involve total disarmament down to police and
internal security levels for the constituent units, as against a
significant conventional capability at the center backed by a
marginally significant nuclear capability."(11) Again and again as the
following excerpts demonstrate, the study drives its essential points
home:</p>
   <p>* "National disarmament is a condition SINE QUA NON
for effective UN control... [W]ithout it, effective UN control
is not possible."(12)</p>
   <p>* "The essential point is the transfer of the most vital
element of sovereign power from the states to a
supranational government."(13)</p>
   <p>* "The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of
control of their military power by individual nations."(14)</p>
   <p>Putting Theory Into Practice</p>
   <p>While Dr. Bloomfield was still writing his treatise for global rule,
the hapless residents of a small corner of Africa were experiencing
the terrible reality of "a world effectively controlled by the United
Nations." The site chosen for the debut of the UN's version of "
peacekeeping" was Katanga, a province in what was then known as the
Belgian Congo. The center of world attention 30 years ago, the name
Katanga draws a complete blank from most people today.</p>
   <p>Katanga and its tragic experience have been expunged from history,
consigned to the memory hole. The region appears on today's maps as
the Province of Shaba in Zaire. But for one brief, shining moment, the
courageous people in this infant nation stood as the singular
testament to the capability of the newly independent Africans to
govern themselves as free people with a sense of peace, order, and
justice.</p>
   <p>While all around them swirled a maelstrom of violent, communist
inspired revolution and bloody tribal warfare, the Katangese
distinguished themselves as a paradigm of racial, tribal, and class
harmony.(15) What they stood for could not be tolerated by the forces
of "anti-colonialism" in the Kremlin, the U.S. State Department, the
Western news media, and especially the United Nations.(16)</p>
   <p>The stage was already set for the horrible drama that would soon
unfold when Belgium's King Baudouin announced independence for the
Belgian Congo on June 301960. The Soviets, who had been agitating and
organizing in the Congo for years, were ready. Patrice Lumumba was
their man, bought and paid for with cash, arms, luxuries, and all the
women, gin, and hashish he wanted. With his Soviet and Czech
"diplomats" and "technicians" who swarmed all over the Congo, Lumumba
was able to control the Congo elections.(17)</p>
   <p>With Lumumba as premier and Joseph Kasavubu as president, peaceful
independence lasted one week. Then Lumumba unleashed a communist reign
of terror against the populace, murdering and torturing men, women,
and children. Amidst this sea of carnage and terror, the province of
Katanga remained, by comparison, an island of peace, order, and
stability. Under the able leadership of the courageous Moise Kapenda
Tshombe, Katanga declared its independence from the central Congolese
regime. "I am seceding from chaos," declared President Tshombe, a
devout Christian and an ardent anti-communist.(18)</p>
   <p>These were the days when the whole world witnessed the cry and the
reality of "self determination" as it swept through the African
continent. Anyone should have expected that Katanga's declaration of
independence would have been greeted with the same huzzahs at the UN
and elsewhere that similar declarations from dozens of communist
revolutionary movements and pip-squeak dictatorships had evoked.</p>
   <p>But it was Tshombe's misfortune to be pro-Western, pro-free
enterprise, and pro-constitutionally limited government at a time when
the governments of both the U.S. and the USSR were supporting Marxist
"liberators" throughout the world. Nikita Khrushchev declared Tshombe
to be "a turncoat, a traitor to the interests of the Congolese
people."(19) American liberals and the rabble at the UN dutifully
echoed the hue and cry.</p>
   <p>To our nation's everlasting shame, on July 14, 1960, the U.S. joined
with the USSR in support of a UN resolution authorizing the world body
to send troops to the Congo.(20) These troops were used, NOT to stop
the bloody reign of terror being visited on the rest of the Congo, but
to assist Lumumba, the chief terrorist, in his efforts to subjugate
Katanga. Within four days of the passage of that resolution, thousands
of UN troops were flown on U.S. transports into the Congo, where they
joined in the campaign against the only island of sanity in all of
black Africa.</p>
   <p>Smith Hempstone, African correspondent for the Chicago Daily News,
gave this firsthand account of the December 1961 UN attack on
Elisabethville, the capital of Katanga:</p>
   <p>The U.N. jets next turned their attention to the center of the
city. Screaming in at treetop level ... they blasted the post
office and the radio station, severing Katanga's
communications with the outside world... One came to the
conclusion that the U.N.'s action was intended to make it
more difficult for correspondents to let the world know
what was going on in Katanga...</p>
   <p>A car pulled up in front of the Grand Hotel Leopold II
where all of us were staying. "Look at the work of the
American criminals," sobbed the Belgian driver. "Take a
picture and send it to Kennedy!" In the backseat, his eyes
glazed with shock, sat a wounded African man cradling in
his arms the body of his ten-year-old son. The child's face
and belly had been smashed to jelly by mortar
fragments.(21)</p>
   <p>The 46 doctors of Elisabethville -- Belgian, Swiss, Hungarian,
Brazilian, and Spanish -- unanimously issued a joint report indicting
the United Nations atrocities against innocent civilians. This is part
of their account of a UN attack on a hospital:</p>
   <p>The Shinkolobwe hospital is visibly marked with an
enormous red cross on the roof... In the maternity, roof,
ceilings, walls, beds, tables and chairs are riddled with
bullets... 4 Katangan women who had just been delivered
and one new-born child are wounded, a visiting child of 4
years old is killed; two men and one child are killed...(22)</p>
   <p>The UN atrocities escalated. Unfortunately, we do not have space here
to devote to relating more of the details of this incredibly vicious
chapter of UN history -- even though the progress toward establishing
a permanent UN army makes full knowledge of every part of it more
vital than ever. Among the considerable body of additional testimony
about the atrocities, we highly recommend THE FEARFUL MASTER by G.
Edward Griffin; WHO KILLED THE CONGO? by Philippa Schuyler; REBELS,
MERCENARIES, AND DIVIDENDS by Smith Hempstone; and 46 Angry Men by the
46 doctors of Elisabethville.</p>
   <p>In 1962, a private group of Americans, outraged at our government's
actions against the freedom-seeking Katangese, attempted to capture on
film the truth about what was happening in the Congo. They produced
KATANGA: THE UNTOLD STORY, an hour-long documentary narrated by
Congressman Donald L. Jackson. With newsreel footage and testimony
from eyewitnesses, including a compelling interview with Tshombe
himself, the program exposed the criminal activities and brutal
betrayal perpetrated on a peaceful people by the Kennedy
Administration, other Western leaders, and top UN officials. It
documents the fact that UN (including U.S.) planes deliberately bombed
Katanga's schools, hospitals, and churches, while UN troops
machine-gunned and bayoneted civilians, school children, and Red Cross
workers who tried to help the wounded. This film is now available on
videotape,(23) and is "must-viewing" for Americans who are determined
that this land or any other land shall never experience similar UN
atrocities.</p>
   <p>After waging three major offensive campaigns against the fledgling
state, the UN "peace" forces overwhelmed Katanga and forced it back
under communist rule. Even though numerous international observers
witnessed and publicly protested the many atrocities committed by the
UN'S forces, the world body has never apologized for or admitted to
its wrongdoing. In fact, the UN and its internationalist cheering
section continue to refer to this shameful episode as a resounding
success.(24) Which indeed it was, if one keeps in mind the true goal
of the organization.</p>
   <p>Following the Policy Line</p>
   <p>Why did the government of the United States side with the Soviet Union
and the United Nations in their support of communists Lumumba and
Kasavubu and their denunciation of Tshombe? Why did our nation supply
military assistance to and an official endorsement of the UN's
military action against Katanga? The answer to both questions is that
our government was guided by the same "world order" policy line laid
out by the New York Times in its hard-to-believe editorial of August
16, 1961:</p>
   <p>[W]e must seek to discourage anti-Communist revolts in
order to avert bloodshed and war. We must, under our own
principles, live with evil even if by doing so we help to
stabilize tottering Communist regimes, as in East Germany,
and perhaps even expose citadel of freedom, like West
Berlin, to slow death by strangulation.(25)</p>
   <p>Further elaboration on this theme is revealed in a 1963 study
conducted for the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency by
the Peace Research Institute. Published in April of that year, here's
what our tax dollars produced:</p>
   <p>Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we benefit
enormously from the capability of the Soviet police system
to keep law and order over the 200 million odd Russians
and the many additional millions in the satellite states. The
break-up of the Russian Communist empire today would
doubtless be conducive to freedom, but would be a good
deal more catastrophic for world order...(26)</p>
   <p>"We benefit enormously?" Who is this "we"? Certainly not the American
taxpayer, who carried the tax burden for the enormous military
expenditures needed to "contain" Soviet expansionism.</p>
   <p>And who determined that freedom must be sacrificed in the name of
"world order"?</p>
   <p>Dr. Bloomfield, in the same classified IDA study cited earlier, again
let the world-government cat out of the bag. If the communists
remained too militant and threatening, he observed, "the subordination
of states to a true world government appears impossible; BUT IF THE
COMMUNIST DYNAMIC WERE GREATLY ABATED, THE WEST MIGHT WELL LOSE
WHATEVER INCENTIVE IT HAS FOR WORLD GOVERNMENT." (27) ( Emphasis
added)</p>
   <p>In other words, the world order Insiders were faced with the following
conundrum: How do we make the Soviets menacing enough to convince
Americans that world government is the only answer because
confrontation is untenable; but, at the same time, not make the
Soviets so menacing that Americans would decide to fight rather than
become subject to communist tyrants?</p>
   <p>Are we unfairly stretching these admissions? Not at all. Keep in mind
that from the end of World War II, up to the very time these
statements were being written, the communists had brutally added
Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, North
Korea, Hungary, East Germany, China, Tibet, North Vietnam, and Cuba to
their satellite empire and were aggressively instigating revolutions
throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.</p>
   <p>And, as was later demonstrated by the historical research of Dr.
Antony Sutton and other scholars, all of these Soviet conquests had
been immeasurably helped by massive and continuous transfusions from
the West to the Kremlin of money, credit, technology, and scientific
knowledge(28) It was arranged for and provided by the same
CFR-affiliated policy elitists who recognized in the "communist
dynamic" they created an "incentive" for the people in the West to
accept "world government."</p>
   <p>Project Phoenix</p>
   <p>The U.S. Departments of State and Defense funded numerous other
studies about US-USSR convergence and world order under UN control. In
1964, the surfacing of the Project Phoenix reports generated
sufficient constituent concern to prompt several members of Congress
to protest the funding of such studies.(29) But there was not enough
pressure to force Congress to launch full investigations that could
have led to putting an end to taxpayer funding of these serious
attacks on American security and our constitutional system of
government.</p>
   <p>Produced by the Institute for Defense Analyses for the U.S. Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency, the Phoenix studies openly advocated
"unification" of the U.S. and USSR.(30) The following passages taken
from Study Phoenix Paper dated June 4, 1963 leaves no doubt about this
goal:</p>
   <p>Unification -- ... At present the approach ... may appear so
radical that it will be dismissed out of hand; nevertheless,
its logical simplicity... is so compelling that it seems to
warrant more systematic investigation...</p>
   <p>Today, the United States and the Soviet Union combined
have for all practical purposes a near monopoly of force in
the world. If the use and direction of this power could
somehow be synchronized, stability and, indeed even unity
might be within reach.(31)</p>
   <p>The Phoenix studies, like many other government reports before and
after, urged increased U.S. economic, scientific, and agricultural
assistance to the Soviet Union. These recommendations are totally
consistent with the long-range "merger" plans admitted to a decade
before by Ford Foundation President Rowan Gaither. And both Republican
and Democratic administrations have followed the same overall policy
ever since. But world order think-tank specialists like Bloomfield
realized that the incremental progress made through these programs was
too slow. He even lamented that reaching the final goal "could take up
to two hundred years."(32)</p>
   <p>Bloomfield then noted that there was "an alternate road" to merger and
eventual world government, one that "relies on a grave crisis or war
to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes
sufficient for the purpose."(33) The taxpayer-funded academic
explained that "the order we examine may be brought into existence as
a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks."(34)</p>
   <p>Incredible? Impossible? Couldn't happen here? Many Americans thought
so 30 years ago -- before "perestroika," the Persian Gulf War,
propaganda about global warming, and other highly publicized
developments. But by the fall of 1990, Newsweek magazine would be
reporting on the emerging reality of "Superpowers as Superpartners"
and "a new order... the United States and the Soviet Union, united for
crisis management around the globe."(35) [Emphasis added]</p>
   <p>In a seeming tipping of his hat to Bloomfield, President Bush would
state in his official August 1991 report, NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY
OF THE UNITED STATES: "I hope history will record that the Gulf crisis
was the crucible of the new world order."(36)</p>
   <p>The CFR's house academics were already beating the convergence drums.
Writing in the Winter 1990 issue of Foreign Policy ( published by the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Thomas G. Weiss (CFR) and
Meryl A. Kessler exhorted: "If Washington is to seize the full
potential of this opportunity, it will have to ... begin to treat the
Soviet Union as a real partner."</p>
   <p>The long-planned partnership began to take form officially with the
signing of "A Charter for American-Russian Partnership and Friendship"
by Presidents Bush and Yeltsin on June 17, 1992.</p>
   <p>Among the many commitments for joint action in this agreement, we find
the following:</p>
   <p>* "... Summit meetings will be held on a regular basis";</p>
   <p>* "The United States of America and the Russian
Federation recognize the importance of the United
Nations Security Council" and support "the strengthening
of UN peace-keeping";</p>
   <p>* The parties are determined "to cooperate in the
development of ballistic missile defense capabilities and
technologies," and work toward creation of a joint "Ballistic
Missile Early Warning Center";</p>
   <p>* "In view of the potential for building a strategic
partnership between the United States of America and the
Russian Federation the parties intend to accelerate defense
cooperation between their military establishments ..."; and</p>
   <p>* "The parties will also pursue cooperation in
peacekeeping counter-terrorism, and counter-narcotics
missions."(37)</p>
   <p>Before this charter had even been signed, however, our new " partners"
were already landing their bombers on American soil. AIRMAN, a
magazine for the U.S. Air Force, reported in large headlines for the
cover story of its July 1992 issue: "The Russians Have Landed." The
cover also featured a photo of the two Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers and
an An-124 transport which had landed on May 9th at Barksdale Air Force
Base in Louisiana. An accompanying article noted that the Russians
were given "a rousing salute from a brass band and a thrilled
gathering of Air Force people and civilians who waved U.S. and
Commonwealth of Independent States flags."</p>
   <p>The long-standing plan of the Insiders calls for a merger of the U.S.
and the USSR (or Commonwealth of Independent States as it has become)
and then world government under the United Nations (see Chapter 5).
Details leading to completion of the plan are unfolding week after
week, month after month, before an almost totally unaware America.

</p>
</div>