-Caveat Lector- >X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Sep 22 16:52:57 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@fixme >Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:46:44 -0600 >From: Lance Struthers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Accept-Language: en >To: Cliff Hume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1994/vo10no19.htm#Gun I have permission to allow >Vol. 10, No. 19 >September 19, 1994 > > More on Gun Control > > > > Gun Grabbers' Global Gestapo > by William F. Jasper > >That the citizens of the United States of America are being disarmed -- >both as >individuals and as a nation -- can hardly be questioned. Succumbing to >the siren >promises of peace and safety, we are giving up our weapons to Godless >global >planners, who in turn are delivering us over to enemies -- both foreign >and >domestic -- who despise the foundations upon which our beloved nation >was >rounded. > >A major problem for the American people in recognizing the terrible >danger and >treachery involved in our disarmament is the fact that it has been >occurring as a >gradual process rather than a single, discreet act. Domestic disarmament >("gun >control") and national disarmament ("international arms control") have >been >proceeding simultaneously over the past 30 years, promoted by the same >subversive forces. The gun control "movement," if allowed to succeed, >will result >in an unarmed American citizenry cowering before street criminals and >completely subject to a totalitarian dictatorship run by even more >dangerous >criminals in Washington. The arms control "movement," meanwhile, is >pushing us >ever closer, and at an accelerating pace, toward a global tyranny in >which control >over our military has been relinquished to an all-powerful United >Nations. > >The central problem for the American people, however, in recognizing the >danger >before us, is our collective blindness due to the intellectual, moral >and spiritual >disarmament we have already permitted. The popular notions that guns >cause >crime and that armies and military weapons cause war -- and that the >solution, >therefore, is to disarm completely individuals and nations and transfer >all >weapons to a single governing authority -- are frightening >manifestations of the >extent of that disarmament. It is a sad reflection of the abandonment of >the >Christian worldview, which holds that war and crime are caused by men >yielding >to the sinful impulses of their fallen nature and violating the laws of >God and >society. The solution then, is two-fold: to work for the increase of >virtue through >the conversion of sinners, and to establish and maintain a just social >order that >recognizes the right, and allows the means, of both the individual and >the >nation-state to self-defense. > >Jesus Christ himself taught: "When a strong man armed keepeth his court, >those >things are in peace which he possesseth. But if a stronger than he come >upon >him and overcome him, he will take away all his armour wherein he >trusted, and >will distribute his spoils" (Luke 11:21-22). Obviously, it is important >to be armed >physically, but trust in material arms is foolish if we do not also "put >on the whole >armour of God" (Ephesians 6:13). > >If we are to remain a free people, it is essential for Americans to be >both >spiritually and physically armed -- as individuals and as a nation. >Unfortunately, >we have allowed evil men to sow the seeds of individual and national >disarmament -- both spiritually and materially -- for decades. > >Global Gun Control > >Many Americans undoubtedly were alarmed to read in their newspapers on >May >24, 1994 a story by Associated Press reporter Charles J. Hanley on a new > >United Nations stealth gun control initiative for the whole world. The >AP article >reported: > >So quietly that even the gun lobby hasn't noticed, the United Nations >is beginning to set its sights on global gun control. > >The U.N. Disarmament Commission has adopted a working paper, a >basis for future debate, that proposes fighter controls on the gun >trade in the United States and other member nations as a way of >combating international arms trafficking. > >That same day, the Washington Times, in an article entitled "U.S. OKs >study of >U.N. gun control," reported on the same development: > >The Clinton administration has agreed to participate in a discussion >of ways for the United Nations to control the manufacture of guns and >their sales to civilians. > >This represents the first U.N. effort to foster regulation of the >multi-billion-dollar trade in small arms .... > >The U.N. working paper declares that governments individually are >"impotent" to deal with global arms trafficking and proposes >"harmonization" of gun control standards around the world to make >trafficking easier to spot and prevent. > >"The arms permitted for civilian use ... should be subject to controls >at >all points in the chain, from production and/or acquisition up to the >time they are sold to an individual. From then on they should remain >subject to monitoring and control," the paper says. > >Any "harmonization" would inevitably mean tightening controls on the >loosely regulated U.S. gun business .... > >Naturally, in the United Nations, where the vast majority of member >states are >authoritarian regimes, "harmonization" means that American citizens must >yield >their rights for the common "global good." The UN Charter, of course, >like most of >the national constitutions of UN member states, recognizes no God-given >individual rights and certainly no individual right to keep and bear >arms. > >Bureaucratic Runaround > >Considering the brazen assault this represents on a fundamental human >right and >on American national sovereignty, it is understandable that both the UN >and the >Clinton Administration would want to keep this subversive initiative as >quiet as >possible and would be reluctant to discuss it. Officials at the U.S. >State >Department and the UN rebuffed repeated attempts by THE NEW AMERICAN to >obtain a copy of the working paper or to discuss it in detail. First we >were told >that the AP and Washington Times reports were erroneous and exaggerated, > >and that concern was overblown. Unconvinced, we insisted we would like >to >judge for ourselves by examining the document. > >At State, after several office transfers, we were informed that >Ambassador >Stephen Ledogar, the U.S. representative on the Disarmament Commission, >was out of the country and no one else knew how to obtain a copy of the >document. At the UN, after six departmental transfers, we reached the >director of >the UN Disarmament Commission, a Mr. Sohrab Kheradi, who informed us >that >he report would not be released until mid-July. However, under our >persistent >entreaties, Mr. Kheradi agreed that he would arrange for THE NEW >AMERICAN >to receive a pre-release copy forthwith. > >Days passed, still no working paper. More calls to the UN and more >promises to >send the report. Weeks passed. Finally, we reached the secretary of the >Disarmament Commission himself, Mr. Kuo-chung Lin, who had been away on >vacation. Mr. Lin assured us that the concerns stirred by initial news >coverage of >the working paper were "based on a misunderstanding" of the nature and >significance of the report. "This is only the report of the chairman of >the Working >Group [on disarmament]" on the group's proposed agenda "for discussion >over >the next two years," he explained. "It doesn't establish any policy or >have any >binding effect." But is it not true, we asked, that its purpose is to >encourage the >establishment of policy that will have "binding effect"? No, no, he >laughed. Its >purpose is simply to encourage "debate and discussion." > >Of course, as a UN official from Communist China, where debate and >discussion >can land you in prison, and where unarmed dissenters are unceremoniously > >squashed beneath the tracks of army tanks, Mr. Lin's cavalier attitude >toward >attacks on the Second Amendment is understandable, even expected. > >High-Level Treason > >The attitudes of American officials, who have taken an oath of office to >defend >and protect the Constitution, are far more troubling. Unfortunately, it >will come as >a shock to most Americans to learn that the proposal and "discussion" of >UN gun >controls applicable to U.S. citizens is not new. It is the culmination >of a program >of national disarmament launched by U.S. officials over 30 years ago. >The >program was unveiled at the UN on September 25, 1961 by President >Kennedy. >Entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and >Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, this document is one of the >most >revolutionary and subversive proposals ever put forward by any >government >official. Incredibly, the program originally introduced in this document >became >-and remains -- official U.S. government policy. > >In short, Freedom From War is a proposal for the complete surrender of >the >three-stage disarmament process leading to the transfer of all national >military forces -- including those of the U.S. and the USSR -- to the >United Nations, and the >establishment of a UN Peace Force as the unchallengeable global military > >power. > >In its own words, Freedom From War (pages 18-19) states: > >In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament ... would proceed to a >point where no state would have the military power to challenge the >progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force .... > >Pages 3 and 4 of Freedom From War list these "specific objectives toward > >which nations should direct their efforts": > > • The disbanding of all national armed forces >and the prohibition of > their reestablishment in any form whatsoever >other than those > required to preserve internal order and for >contributions to a United > Nations Peace Force; > > • The elimination from national arsenals of all >armaments, including > all weapons of mass destruction and the means >for their delivery, > other than those required for a United Nations >Peace Force and for > maintaining internal order...." > >On the last page (page 19) of this treasonous document we read: > > The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those > agreed types and quantifies to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and > those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would > > be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes. > >Please note that this puts the U.S. government on record in support of a >plan to >make all nations subservient to the UN; and that "all armaments" not >controlled by >the UN would be destroyed, leaving the UN as the virtual global >dictator. And >since no provision is made for an exemption of arms owned by private >citizens >(and since the UN itself is hardly sympathetic to private gun >ownership), it is >reasonable to assume that private arms are intended for destruction >under the >term "all armaments." > >To initiate this program, President Kennedy signed Public Law 87-297 >(H.R. >9118), creating the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency >(ACDA). According to that legislation, "as defined in this Act, the >terms 'arms >control' and 'disarmament' mean 'the identification, verification, >inspection, >limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and >armaments of >all kinds under international agreement to establish an effective system >of >international control..." (emphasis added). > >It cannot be stressed too strongly that just as domestic gun control >does not; >mean the total elimination of all firearms, neither does international >disarmament >mean the total elimination of all armies, armaments, and nuclear >weapons. It is >no more possible to eliminate all guns than it is to put the nuclear >genie back in >the lamp. In both cases, what really is being proposed is the transfer >of control >over all weapons to a central government, resulting in the concentration >of force >and the creation of a monopoly of power. In the case of domestic gun >control, that >means an all-powerful police state. In the case of international >disarmament, it >means an all-powerful global police state. > >In its Second Annual Report to Congress (February 1963), the ACDA >presented a simple graphic depiction (see above) demonstrating its >proposed >three-stage disarmament process. Observe that in Stage III, as explained >in >Freedom From War, the U.S. armed forces cease to exist and only >"internal >security forces" -- i.e. those to be used against American citizens -- >are >permitted. Of course, under this scheme, the UN "peacekeeping machinery" >will >be superior to the "internal security forces" and will be able to >dictate the "laws" >that will be enforced. > >CFR Connection > >How is it possible that such a patently treasonous and suicidal proposal >could >become official U.S. policy, embedded in U.S. laws and U.S.-ratified >treaties? >As with so many other treacherous acts, policies, and programs of the >past >several decades, the trail leads to the Council on Foreign Relations >(CFR), a >group Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (who was himself a CFR >member >and a special assistant to President Kennedy) has called the "front >organization" >for "the heart of the American Establishment." Former CFR member Admiral > >Chester Ward charged the organization with "promoting disarmament and >submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an >all-powerful >one-world government." > >Official responsibility for developing and initiating the disarmament >program >outlined in Freedom From War goes to President Kennedy and his >Secretaries >of State (Dean Rusk) and Defense (Robert S. McNamara), all three of whom > >were members of the CFR. The real authors of Freedom >From War and >Public >Law 87-297, however, were John J. McCloy, the chairman of the CFR, and >Arthur >H. Dean, a CFR director. > >McCloy, Kennedy's chief disarmament adviser and negotiator with the >Soviets, >entered the Establishment through the Wall Street law firm of Cravath, >Swaine >and Moore, and later became a senior partner at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley, >and >McCloy, a firm closely tied to the Rockefeller family. He served as an >Assistant >Secretary of War under FDR and as U.S. High Commissioner to occupied >Germany. He headed the World Bank, Chase Manhattan Bank, the Ford >Foundation, and the Council on Foreign Relations. He was an adviser to >nine >Presidents and sat on the board of directors of many corporations. Few >would >dispute journalist Richard Rovere's characterization of McCloy as >"chairman of >the American Establishment." > >McCloy's blue-chip résumé, however, included a few red flags. While >serving in >the War Department, McCloy approved an order permitting Communist Party >members to become officers in the U.S. Army. He defended identified >communist John Carter Vincent and supported pro-communist atomic >scientist J. >Robert Oppenheimer. In 1946, FBI head J. Edgar Hoover warned President >Truman of an "enormous Soviet espionage ring in Washington," and >expressed >concern over the "pro-Soviet leanings" of McCloy, Dean Acheson, and >Alger >Hiss. Hiss, of course, was later exposed as a Soviet agent. He was also >a >member of the CFR and one of the main architects of the United Nations. > >Assisting McCloy in drafting Freedom From War and the statute for the >Arms >Control and Disarmament Agency was Arthur H. Dean. Dean was also >chairman >of the U.S. delegation for two years to the UN disarmament conferences >in >Geneva. Following the death of John Foster Dulles (CFR), Dean became the > >senior partner in the Insider law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. He was >vice >chairman of the Institute for Pacific Relations (IPR), the communist-run >outfit most >responsible -- together with our State Department -- for turning China >over to the >communists in 1949. When IPR member Alfred Kohlberg tried heroically to >expose the treason within IPR, it was Dean who scuttled the >investigation. In >1952 the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee issued a scathing report on the >IPR, >citing it as "an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military > >intelligence." The Senate report also concluded: > >Members of the small core of officials and staff members who >controlled IPR were either Communist or pro-Communist .... > >The effective leadership of the IPR used IPR prestige to promote the >interests of the Soviet Union in the United States .... > >The IPR was a vehicle used by the Communists to orientate >American far eastern policy toward Communist objectives. > >Yet Dean and McCloy, with the help of their CFR associates in the >Establishment >media, passed themselves off as Republicans, and conservative, >anticommunist Republicans at that. > >"Shock Treatment" > >Another important influence on the Kennedy-CFR disarmament plan was >Establishment Wall Street lawyer Grenville Clark. McCloy had worked >closely >with Clark in the Military Training Camps Association. Clark was vice >president >of the globalist United World Federalists and co-author with Professor >Louis B. >Sohn (CFR) of World Peace Through World Law (1958). "It has been well >said," averred Clark, "that in our modern age the obdurate adherence to >national >sovereignty and national armed forces represents a form of insanity >which may, >however, be cured by a species of shock treatment." > >He spelled out that "shock treatment" in World Peace Through World Law, >a >detailed plan for socialist world government through a revised UN >Charter. This >text, venerated by all "world order" advocates, proposes a global >superstate in >which a "world police force" known as the United Nations Peace Force >would be >invested with "a coercive force of overwhelming power." "This world >police >force," wrote Clark and Sohn, "would be the only military force >permitted >anywhere in the world after the process of national disarmament has been > >completed." > >But, say the authors, "it 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." >Accordingly, >"the United Nations Peace Force shall be regularly provided with the >most >modern weapons and equipment," and with special provision being made >"for >the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances." > >Moreover, Chapter 3, Article 14 of the Clark/Sohn UN scheme orders >strict >controls on the possession of arms and ammunition by police and private >citizens: > > No nation shall allow the possession by its >internal police forces of > any arms or equipment except of the types >permitted by the > regulations adopted by the General Assembly ... >and in no case shall > the number of revolvers and rifles combined >exceed one for each > member of the internal police forces, the >number of automatic rifles > one for each hundred members of such forces, >and the ammunition > supplies 100 rounds per rifle or revolver and >1,000 rounds per > automatic rifle. No nation shall allow the >possession by any public or > private organization or individual of any >military equipment whatever > or of any arms except such small arms as are >reasonably needed by > duly licensed hunters or by duly licensed >individuals for personal > protection. > >The plan also would eliminate the "problem" of private citizens' access >to >ammunition by providing that "No nation shall produce or allow the >production of >any explosives except in so far as the General Assembly may >authorize...." >Moreover, "every nation shall obtain a special license from the [UN] >Inspector-General for: ... The operation by it or by any public or >private >organization or individual ... engaged in the production of any light >arms, >ammunition ... or of tools for any such production." > >And what if you fail to turn in or register, say, your .22 rifle, your >.38 pistol, or your >gun powder and reloading equipment, and you are charged with unlawful >possession of "military equipment" under the UN General Assembly's >ever-changing regulations? A UN tribunal will be your judge and jury. >Clark and >Sohn say: > > In order to provide means for the trial of individuals accused of > violating the disarmament provisions of the revised Charter or of > other offenses against the Charter or laws enacted by the General > Assembly ... provision is also made for regional United Nations > courts, inferior to the International Court of Justice, and for >thereview by the > International Court of decisions of these regional courts. > >The Hour Is Late > >The diabolical plan for total national and individual disarmament >spelled out by >Clark and Sohn in 1958 was initiated by the CFR coterie in the Kennedy >Administration and has been carried forward by CFR one-worlders in each >successive Administration. This conspiracy for empowering the United >Nations >with unprecedented and unparalleled force, if allowed to succeed, would >establish a global tyranny so monstrous that the murderous regimes of >Hitler, >Stalin, and Mao would pale by comparison. > >Our Founding Fathers provided us with the tools to fight this Godless >drive. But >for too long good Americans have allowed a state of slumber to overtake >them, >until now "the night is far spent." Though the hour is late, with >diligent effort we >can yet reclaim our heritage of freedom. > > > ADL Campaign Against Tolerance > by William Norman Grigg > >Since its release earlier this year, The Religious Right: The Assault on > >Tolerance and Pluralism in America, the 193-page report produced by the >Anti-Defamation League, has achieved nearly canonical status. Countless >"news" reports and op-ed articles have uncritically cited the report as >the >definitive critique of the "Christian Right." Conservative Christians >have >protested that the report was little more than an act of politically >motivated >defamation. The latter assessment has now been endorsed by a group of >prominent American Jews. > >On August 2nd, 75 notable Jewish Americans signed a full-page paid >advertisement in the New York Times which condemned the ADL for >"engaging >in defamation of its own" in its attack on the religious right. The >advertisement, >which bore the headline, "Should Jews Fear the 'Christian Right'?," >chastised the >ADL for its disreputable tactics: "We are a group of Jews who wish to >make it >known that we reject the implications of [the ADL] report and deplore >its >publication .... [T]he so-called 'evidence' of a conservative Christian >threat to >Jewish security is derived from such discreditable techniques as >insinuation and >guilt by association." Noting that too many Jews have personally >experienced the >results of religious bigotry, the signers stated that "we have a special >obligation >to guard against it, and all the more so, when in the case of the ADL >attack on >our Christian fellow citizens, it emanates from our own community." > >The ad also rebuked the religious left for its proprietary claims upon >Judaism: >"Judaism is not, as the ADL seems to suggest, coextensive with >liberalism. Nor, >we wish to emphasize, does the Jewish community speak with one voice on >the >religious and moral -- and political -- issues of our time." >Furthermore, "Judaism >teaches the principle of Hakarat Hatov, that we have the duty to >acknowledge the >good done to us. In issuing The Religious Right study, the ADL has among > >other things seriously violated that principle." > >On August 4th, the ADL reacted to the advertisement by distributing an >internal >memo written by ADL leaders David H. Strassler and Abraham H. Foxman >which >denounced the ad as "scurrilous at best" and declared that "nowhere >[does] the >report accuse the religious right of being anti-Semitic, either overtly >or by >implication." The memo also reiterated the report's contention that >"Nothing more >aptly characterizes the religious right than its hostility to >difference, both within its >own faith and outside of it." But even as the ink was drying on the ADL >memo, the >organization displayed a remarkable intolerance toward dissent within >its own >ranks. > >Principled Dissent > >Among those who signed the August 2nd New York Times ad were Gary >Polland, Phillip Aronoff, and Fred Zeidman, who at the time were all >members of >the ADL; Polland, a Houston attorney and longtime Republican activist, >was the >southwest regional director for the ADL. On August 10th, under pressure >from the >ADL's national office, Polland resigned his position with the group. The >ADL >insisted that Polland had violated organization policy by signing the >Times ad >rather than expressing his misgivings through private channels. However, >as >Polland explained in a letter to ADL members, his concerns were not >confined to >matters covered by the organization's internal policies: "After much >agonizing I >signed the ad because the message needed to be sent. The ad informs the >Christian community that there are prominent Jewish Americans who reject >the >[ADL] report ... and regret the publication of such an inaccurate and >poorly-researched report." > >On August 9th, Polland and Aronoff compiled an analysis of the ADL >report and >circulated it among the organization's membership. Among other things, >the >critique demonstrates that Strassler and Foxman lied when they asserted >that the >report did not "accuse the religious right of being anti-Semitic, either >overtly or by >implication." Page two of the report accuses the Christian Coalition of >"anti-Jewish and extremist sentiments." Page 23 of the report imputes >"anti-Jewish pronouncements" to Pat Robertson, without specifying a >single >offending statement. Furthermore, the report accuses the Christian >Coalition of >making "a number of pronouncements antagonistic toward Jews," displaying > >"anti-Jewish and extremist sentiments," spiking its literature with >"anti-Jewish >nuggets," peddling "evangelical anti-Judaism," and conspiring with "the >nation's >leading anti-semitic propaganda organization." > >Nor were the ADL's misrepresentations limited to the question of >anti-Semitism. >The report charges that Steve Hotze, a Republican party official in >Texas, "favors >the death penalty for homosexuals." In making this accusation the report >cited an >article which had appeared in the New York Times Magazine. However, >despite the fact that Hotze has never expressed the opinion attributed >to him, the >ADL's accusation was repeated by New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis >and in a New Yorker magazine article written by Sidney Blumenthal. > >According to Polland and Aronoff, the matter of Steve Hotze is typical >of >numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations contained in the report and >an >indictment of the ADL's approach to documentation. David Cantor, the ADL > >researcher who wrote the report, admitted to the New York Times that he >was >"guided by ADL policy to stick to the published record rather than >conduct direct >interviews .... He did not contact any groups of the religious right for >their >reactions." But as the case of Steve Hotze illustrates, the "printed >record" in the >prestige press often consists of inbred falsehoods which circulate among > >antagonists of the religious right; they have no more factual standing >than do >long-standing anti-Semitic calumnies. > >Private Admissions > >In the August 4th internal memo, the ADL's national leadership declared: >"... like >other such critiques of the ADL's report, the [August 2nd New York >Times] ad >fails to single out any instance of defamation, or even inaccuracy." The > >unmistakable implication of this claim was that the report was innocent >of any >significant inaccuracies. However, in a personal letter sent to >evangelical leader >Pat Robertson on August 3rd, Foxman admitted that the report had >inaccurately >stated that Robertson "never denounced [David] Duke" during Duke's >gubernatorial bid in 1991. Foxman's letter also retracted the accusation >that in a >1980 staff meeting Robertson had referred to Jews as "spiritually deaf" >and >"spiritually blind." > >The source of this accusation, according to Foxman, consisted of >"remarks that >had been widely quoted" -- that is, undocumented rumors. > >Exactly one week after the ADL privately admitted some of the flaws >contained >in its anti-religious right report, the organization expelled Polland >for publicly >criticizing the flawed monograph. The irony of this development was not >lost on >ex-Senator Rudy Boschwitz, a liberal Republican from Minnesota who is a >Jewish immigrant and an honorary vice-chairman of the ADL. In a >handwritten >note to Polland, Boschwitz wryly remarked: "I always believed that the >ADL >considered diverse opinions permissible .... Indeed, they have just >[produced] a >scathing report about a group they maintain doesn't allow such >diversity. Could it >be that our own ADL ... is assaulting pluralism and tolerance in >America?" > >Another ironic aspect of the ADL's assault upon conservative evangelical > >Christians is the fact that anti-Semitism is not a serious concern in >contemporary >America. Leonard Dinnerstein, author of the new book Anti-semitism in >America, told the July 15th Jerusalem Post that "anti-semitism in the US >has >clearly declined to an unimagined degree. It has not disappeared. But >it's >become so minuscule as to be virtually irrelevant. And that's the trend. >Jews are >incredibly secure in the United States, and I see no reason whatsoever >why that >should change." Dinnerstein maintains: "The fact is, a lot of American >Jews just >aren't ready to accept just how well-accepted they are in America." >Citing the >ADL's own annual audits of anti-Semitic acts, Dinnerstein concludes that > >"anti-semitism is just a tiny blip on the American consciousness." For >publicly >expressing such heterodox notions, Dinnerstein has been condemned by >Abraham Foxman for "minimizing anti-Semitism." > >While Polland and his associates embrace what they describe as "the >Anti-Defamation League's mandate ... to fight discrimination and >anti-semitism," >they do not subscribe to the group's implicit endorsement of "the >radical >homosexual political agenda ... or the pro-choice agenda." This position >is >broadly compatible with public sentiments: While anti-Semitism is >rejected by the >American populace, public opinion has not yet turned decisively against >newly >minted sins against political correctness, such as "homophobia." In >order to >poison the public mind against the religious right, the ADL sought to >portray >"homophobia" and rejection of feminist demands as morally equivalent to >anti-Semitism -- and to establish the supposed anti-Jewish sentiments of > >Evangelicals through insinuation and misrepresentation. > >Spy Scandal > >Just before the ADL launched its attack on the religious right, a San >Francisco >court quietly disposed of what should have been a major ADL scandal. On >May >27th, Tom Gerard, a former inspector with the San Francisco police >department, >was sentenced to 45 days in jail and three years' probation for leaking >confidential police files to the ADL. Gerard had pleaded no contest to >charges >that he had illegally abused his access to a police computer system in >order to >obtain information about the activities of pro-Palestinian and white >supremacist >organizations and various "extremist" groups; that material was leaked >to Roy >Bullock, an investigator in the employ of the ADL. > >Following the discovery of the ADL's information pipeline, police raided >the >homes of Gerard and Bullock and seized files containing the names of >thousands >of individuals and organizations. Gerard fled to the Philippines one >step ahead of >prosecution; however, no charges were ever filed against Bullock. Last >November, the San Francisco District Attorney's office announced that it >would >not file criminal charges against the ADL in exchange for a $75,000 >"donation" >from the ADL into a "hate crimes reward and education fund." >Essentially, the >ADL bribed the District Attorney's office with money that will be used >to advance >the prosecution of the organization's political enemies. > >Significant charges against Gerard were dropped in April when the FBI -- >which >had entered the case in 1993 -- refused to release documents which >Gerard's >attorney claimed would establish the ex-policeman's innocence. At the >time, >Municipal Court Judge J. Dominique Olcomendy stated, "We know the >federal >government is still investigating this case because they tell me that's >why they >won't release documents [acquired on behalf of the ADL]." However, ADL >defense counsel Jerrold Ladar believes that Gerard's sentencing brought >an end >to any criminal investigation of the scandal. "It is nice to see the >last remnant of >the criminal case wrapped up and closed. It is time it was completely >put to bed," >Ladar told the May 28th San Francisco Chronicle. > >Although several civil suits are pending against the ADL, Janet Reno's >Justice >Department has shown little inclination to pursue an investigation of >the spy >scandal. Given the Clinton Administration's high-profile campaign >against "hate >groups" and "right-wing extremists," it is possible that the materials >acquired >from the ADL's spy network may be put to some use other than prosecuting > >those who illegally collected the information. > > > © Copyright 1999 American Opinion Publishing >Incorporated ><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> ><html> > ><p><b>Vol. 10, No. 19</b> ><br><b>September 19, 1994</b> ><center> ><p><b>More on Gun Control</b> ><br> ><br> ><p><b>Gun Grabbers' Global Gestapo</b> ><br><b>by William F. Jasper</b></center> > ><p><br> ><p><b>That the citizens of the United States of America are being disarmed >-- both as</b> ><br><b>individuals and as a nation -- can hardly be questioned. Succumbing >to the siren</b> ><br><b>promises of peace and safety, we are giving up our weapons to Godless >global</b> ><br><b>planners, who in turn are delivering us over to enemies -- both >foreign and</b> ><br><b>domestic -- who despise the foundations upon which our beloved nation >was</b> ><br><b>rounded.</b> ><p><b>A major problem for the American people in recognizing the terrible >danger and</b> ><br><b>treachery involved in our disarmament is the fact that it has been >occurring as a</b> ><br><b>gradual process rather than a single, discreet act. Domestic disarmament >("gun</b> ><br><b>control") and national disarmament ("international arms control") >have been</b> ><br><b>proceeding simultaneously over the past 30 years, promoted by the >same</b> ><br><b>subversive forces. The gun control "movement," if allowed to succeed, >will result</b> ><br><b>in an unarmed American citizenry cowering before street criminals >and</b> ><br><b>completely subject to a totalitarian dictatorship run by even more >dangerous</b> ><br><b>criminals in Washington. The arms control "movement," meanwhile, >is pushing us</b> ><br><b>ever closer, and at an accelerating pace, toward a global tyranny >in which control</b> ><br><b>over our military has been relinquished to an all-powerful United >Nations.</b> ><p><b>The central problem for the American people, however, in recognizing >the danger</b> ><br><b>before us, is our collective blindness due to the intellectual, >moral and spiritual</b> ><br><b>disarmament we have already permitted. The popular notions that >guns cause</b> ><br><b>crime and that armies and military weapons cause war -- and that >the solution,</b> ><br><b>therefore, is to disarm completely individuals and nations and transfer >all</b> ><br><b>weapons to a single governing authority -- are frightening manifestations >of the</b> ><br><b>extent of that disarmament. It is a sad reflection of the abandonment >of the</b> ><br><b>Christian worldview, which holds that war and crime are caused by >men yielding</b> ><br><b>to the sinful impulses of their fallen nature and violating the >laws of God and</b> ><br><b>society. The solution then, is two-fold: to work for the increase >of virtue through</b> ><br><b>the conversion of sinners, and to establish and maintain a just >social order that</b> ><br><b>recognizes the right, and allows the means, of both the individual >and the</b> ><br><b>nation-state to self-defense.</b> ><p><b>Jesus Christ himself taught: "When a strong man armed keepeth his >court, those</b> ><br><b>things are in peace which he possesseth. But if a stronger than >he come upon</b> ><br><b>him and overcome him, he will take away all his armour wherein he >trusted, and</b> ><br><b>will distribute his spoils" (Luke 11:21-22). Obviously, it is important >to be armed</b> ><br><b>physically, but trust in material arms is foolish if we do not also >"put on the whole</b> ><br><b>armour of God" (Ephesians 6:13).</b> ><p><b>If we are to remain a free people, it is essential for Americans >to be both</b> ><br><b>spiritually and physically armed -- as individuals and as a nation. >Unfortunately,</b> ><br><b>we have allowed evil men to sow the seeds of individual and national</b> ><br><b>disarmament -- both spiritually and materially -- for decades.</b> ><p><b><u>Global Gun Control</u></b> ><p><b>Many Americans undoubtedly were alarmed to read in their newspapers > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
