Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Other
Walker
Articles:

How Communism and The U.N. Set Out to Destroy America

 

More
Walker
Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

HOW COMMUNISM AND THE U.N. SET OUT TO DESTROY AMERICA
Part 5

 

 

 

By Jill Cohen Walker, J.D.

May 1, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

 

The Commanders of America's Military Forces

I’ve heard politicians debate “winning the war” vs. “winning the peace.” Conservatives prefer a combination while liberals want to dialogue us into “peaceful” concessions with everyone. (Maybe they should start dialoguing with unborn babies—their most ardent enemies, considered good only for spare body parts.) Sorry . . . truthful digression . . .

Winning the war first is not exactly rocket science, but something bugged me about both positions. A little research proved that dialoguing and the “win the war, then the peace” methods are used by the UN to secure world domination through alleged “wars of liberation.” First they allegedly liberated everyone from Communism, even though they’re all Communists, and now they’re on a campaign to liberate humanity from Judeo-Christianity and God. Thanks, but no thanks. Check this out . . .

According to Maj. Roberts, the Hon. John T. Wood of Idaho spoke before the US Flag Committee in New York (October 10, 1951). Regarding the UN Charter, he said, “. . . a perusal of articles 43 to 51, inclusive, will reveal the fact that it was designed as an instrument of force.” He was right. The UN is not a playground for peaceniks. It’s a not-so-new-age world body that destroys individual liberty and vanquishes national sovereignty by force.

Perhaps that’s why it’s been so hard to fight back. Late in the UN’s gestation period, Maj. Roberts saw most Americans “gripped by a paralysis of indecision,” which stopped them from taking action. He said “the surrender program of the Planners” had to be defeated. Obviously, “we the people” were supposed to surrender, not them. Maj. Roberts also studied the office of UN Undersecretary for Political and Security Affairs (hereinafter undersecretary). That person was also the Executive Officer of the UN Security Council and the head of UN military forces in Korea and Vietnam. Through at least 1987, he was a (Soviet) Communist . . . and he commanded our military.

Of course, most Americans believed the President of the United States acted as Commander in Chief during those wars. Not true. And if the UN is still in command, then an interesting conundrum exists for liberals who want to lay the blame for every war on the US government. It’s a game for them—like blaming the current administration for the alleged prison abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Dare they blame the UN and admit who’s really in charge?

Americans should have protested Communist rule over our military long ago. After all, the media made it no secret. An article in the May 22, 1963, edition of the New York Times, “Russian Named to High U.N. Post,” confirmed Maj. Roberts’ research. “The post for political and security council affairs traditionally has been held by a Soviet national. The undersecretary is a senior advisor to the Secretary General.” As Maj. Roberts wrote, “The U.N. Undersecretary certainly is a “Senior Advisor:”— He is also Commander-in-Chief of the U.N. Army.” UN records confirm this information:

1946-1949 Arkady Alexandrovich Sobolev, USSR
1949-1953 Constantine E. Zinchenko, USSR
1953-1954 Ilya S. Tchernychev, USSR
1955-1957 Dragoslav Protich, Yugoslavia
1958-1959 Anatoly Dobrynin, USSR
1960-1962 Georgy Petrovich Arkadev, USSR
1962-1963 Eugeney D. Kiselev, USSR
1963-1965 Vladimir Pavlovich Suslov, USSR
1965-1968 Alexei E. Nesterenko, USSR
1968-1973 Leonid N. Kutakov, USSR
1973-1978 Arkady N. Shevchenko, USSR
1978-1981 Mikhail D. Styenko, USSR
1981-1986 Viacheslav A. Ustinov, USSR
1987-          Vasiliy S. Safronchuk, USSR

Most Americans were caught up in the prosperity that permeated the two decades following World War II and had no idea their government sold them out. However, some voiced serious concerns about the power of the UN undersecretary over US military forces. For example, on January 17, 1957, Congressman Usher L. Burdick (R-ND) spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives. His speech was titled, “The Russians are and will continue to be on the Inside of any Military Action taken by the Security Council of the United Nations.” He said, “This means that since the Security Council was organized, the Russians, through the Secretary, have had close touch with all military plans. The directives to MacArthur and the reports coming from him passed through the hands of this secretary. Now can you realize what MacArthur was up against in trying to win the Korean War?” (Must be why the Vietnam War was such a fiasco for the US military. They were like sitting ducks for the enemy. Remember that when you visit the war memorial in Washington, DC.)

Congressman Burdick’s words didn’t stop the UN. As Maj. Roberts noted, they sped up their “usurpation of military power for subversive purposes. Today the [UN] Security Council is a prime instrumentality for global conquest.” He wrote those words during the 1960s. So, ask yourself again if the global gymnastics that took place at the UN before the invasion of Iraq were a charade. Note also that the war-making power of the UN is exactly what those who authored the Charter had in mind. If a nation wouldn’t join peacefully, it would be dragged in using force. The UN created the right political reasons and media propaganda convinced the world it was the right thing to do. It’s almost a form of brainwashing.

The real question is: How did the UN co-opt our military power and put a Soviet in charge without opposition from the US government? Maj. Roberts followed the power trail. A quote from In the Cause of Peace by Trygve Lie, the first Secretary General of the UN, reveals: “Mr. Vyshinsky did not delay in this approach. He was the first to inform me of an understanding which the Big Five had reached in London on the appointment of a Soviet national as Assistant Secretary-General for Political and Security Affairs.” As Maj. Roberts said, it was “international collusion that placed a Communist in supreme command of the UN military.”

Additional proof was found in a letter from Mr. Wallace Irwin, Jr., the UN’s Director of Public Services, in response to an inquiry from Admiral de la Houssaye, Sons of the American Revolution. He wanted to know if the Soviets controlled the US military. In his reply (April 7, 1961) Irwin wrote, “. . . both Mr. Stettinius and the French stressed their agreement to the Soviet Post was a limited one, designed to get the Secretariat off to a good start.” (Now there’s an oxymoron: “get off to a good start” with Communism in charge?)

Irwin also said the Secretary General had the authority to choose his staff based on “the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity.” Color me foolish and call me naïve, but if the Communists possessed such sterling qualities, why did our media make us fear them during the Cold War? Maj. Roberts wrote, “Well—it may be that by U.N. standards only Soviet nations have the efficiency, competence, and integrity to take charge of the military of all nations, including ours. But their standards are not our standards and I denounce the men and the system which has forced our whole military establishment into this intolerable position.”

The selling out of the US was cleverly disguised under the banner of world peace; and who was going to tell us the truth? The media? The politicians? Not a chance. The sooner the UN took over America, the sooner their global government would become a reality. Remember, they had that little surrender plan that designated “we the people” as the surrendered (or surrenderees).

Now go a step further: If the UN was really created to promote world peace, why does Chapter VII deal directly with military action and the use of military force? Maj. Roberts said “the legalistic language simply means . . . that the Security Council of the United Nations has the authority to declare “peace”—and to go on shooting—as was the case in Katanga” where hospitals and civilians were murdered by UN forces. (So, if things go well, the UN gets the credit; if not, the US gets the blame, i.e., Korea, Vietnam . . . and now Iraq. It’s another “win-win” for the UN and a black eye for us.)

For the record, there’s no Military Staff Committee, just a Chairman who rotates out of the five original signers. The “committee” language was inserted to “fool the American people.” Even Trygve Lie called the committee “stillborn,” which means the undersecretary had (still has?) all the control. As Maj. Roberts wrote, this includes “the American defeat in Korea, the rape of Katanga, and our military and economic hemorrhage in Viet Nam.” The UN didn’t have to join us in Iraq because their “man” was already in charge. (Once again, the hired “peaceniks” have been protesting the wrong leaders.)

This also explains why the US Congress stopped declaring war as proscribed by Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution—the UN usurped that power as well. This was admitted during the MacArthur hearings before a joint Senate Committee made up of members of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. “The United States should never again become involved in a war without the consent of Congress . . . For the first time in the history of our nation the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war was bypassed.” (It may have been the first time, but it won’t be the last time our Constitution is bypassed or recreated. It’s been happening for more than a century. Let’s all take a moment to pay homage to Cecil John Rhodes.)

The UN used the Korean War to justify placing American military forces around the world. Now, ponder the recent news stories about reinstating the draft and you’ll see who really wants your sons and daughters in the “US” military. It’s not specific high-paid American politicians who want another draft; it’s the UN that wants it. Politicians who support the impending Tower of Babel are the UN’s lackeys in Congress. If this were not true, we’d have been out of there decades ago . . . or we wouldn’t have been there in the first place. It was the Congress of the United States that ratified the UN Charter (probably before it was even written), and it’s the US Congress that still bows a knee to this anti-American organization.

Maj. Roberts said: “Its objective is to overthrow the government of the United States and of the several states, by peaceful means if possible; by force and violence if necessary.” The enemy “circumvented our Constitution” and designed a program that would “redirect the allegiance” of our military. This would leave “we the people” without a defensive fighting force against the UN, which is now stealing our land. Using “managed news,” Americans were never told about the “re-molding of the role and mission of our armed forces”—to “debase and destroy the concept of ‘Honor-Duty-Country’ as outmoded and outdated, and replace it with a new military attitude that embraces “international responsibilities.” That leaves our troops “brainwashed to accept mercenary service in the UN army led by Communists.” (Gives new meaning to the tours of duty of Al Gore and John Kerry.)

The good Major also wrote about the creation of the “Military Government Reserve Units,” which trained thousands of American soldiers as “specialized elements in so-called ‘Logistical Commands’.” The training they received was first exposed in 1951 by Dr. V. Orval Watts in his book, The United Nations—Planned Tyranny. Their first “sally” occurred in July 1951 with “simulated invasions and seizures of nine California cities, i.e., Compton, Culver City, Inglewood, Hawthorne, Huntington Park, Long Beach, Redondo Beach, South Gale, and Torrence.”

They didn’t fly the American flag when they arrived; they flew the flag of the UN. According to the July 16, 1951, edition of the Culver City Evening Star News, they arrested “the mayors and police chiefs of the liberated cities” because they refused to “collaborate with the occupying forces.” (Do you see the big picture? American soldiers arrested Americans for not complying with the UN and the UN military.)

The article also referred to the soldiers as a “Military Government, United States Army,” and held it was the first time that “the combined Military Government reserve units of an army area embracing six western states [was ever] deployed in a single field exercise.” It must have been horrifying to see the American flag lowered and “the enemy flag flying over the city with American Military Government officials directing the ceremony.” By 10:30 that morning, the M.G. was already investigating . . . [municipal] operations, had taken control of the newspapers, public utility companies, and produced a “detailed study of the industrial capacity of [each] community.” (Perhaps the de-industrialization of the US had more to do with the UN’s eventual takeover. Industrial facilities can be used to produce weapons and oil refineries produce the fuel to make them run. It’s odd that the President now wants to build refineries on defunct military bases.)

Lt. Col. Thomas M. Mullen told the Los Angeles Times that “Military Government troops remove civil and business leaders from their positions, keep them incarcerated, and eventually try them on charges of collaborating with the enemy which has been in power.” Local papers documented the manifesto issued by the Lt. Col. which included: “by virtue of the authority vested in me by the United Nations Security Council.” Maj. Roberts said the exercises were “arrogant notice to the American people that the U.S. Military establishment is no longer an extension of their will.” He added: “With brutal force the Security Council revealed that the U.S. Army is now a coercive weapon of the United Nations, and is to be employed in consonance with the concealed objectives of the . . . Charter.”

How many US states, cities, towns, and even corporations have caved to this plan to destroy America? Are most corporate CEOs and political leaders in power through UN appointment? It’s an abominable understatement to say we’ve been duped. Truth is we’ve been totally asleep while they did their little “simulations” in Lampasa, Texas, (April 3, 1952) and Watertown, New York (August 20, 1952) “in case there was another civil war in America”—a war they planned to create or foment at the right time. During civil rights struggles, they invaded Little Rock, Arkansas, and Oxford, Mississippi. And remember, they told “we the people” that they were there “by the authority vested in them by the United Nations.”

During the “Military Muzzling” investigations, Dr. Robert E. Beerstecher, a professional witness, said, “The Communist theory of revolution holds that the power of the state rests upon the military, so that in order to achieve the Communist take-over they feel it is essential to destroy the military establishment and replace it by one of their own manufacture” (See: “Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies, pg. 109). Well, they didn’t destroy or replace our military . . . they stole it out from under us. As Maj. Roberts noted, there’s a “shocking parallel between the Communist theory of ‘Revolutionary Anti-Militarism” and the Internationalizing of our military establishment.”

Now read the words of Mrs. Mary Davidson from a Council for Statehood release: “Secrecy and duplicity are keystones of the United Nations. They could not exist otherwise.” She also said that during the Korean War, the UN was fearful that field commanders would find out that everything filtered back to the undersecretary at UN headquarters. To cover their tracks, they formed a committee (Executive Military Authority) that would answer to the Soviet undersecretary and had the power to fire and replace the UN Commander-in-Chief, the title assigned to General MacArthur. (See Senate Document Number 87, January 7, 1954, “Review of the United Nations Charter” pp. 569-653) Page 646 reveals the “Military Measure” that would be taken under UN Security Council Authority and proves the UN runs our military. It was the non-existent Committee that maintained security and peace were “guided by the principals set forth in the preamble to the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution.”

It all came back to Article 43 of the Charter, which gave the UN the right to use our military as it pleased. The UN military is organized and controlled by the Security Council with “advice and assistance of the Military Staff Committee.” Since there was no committee, the power stayed in the hands of the Communist undersecretary. All military decisions in “limited wars of liberation” are based on the goals and objectives of the UN, not those of any one nation.

By the way, it was not President Truman who fired General MacArthur. He had no authority to fire him. Only Constantine E. Zinchenko, the Communist undersecretary from 1949-1953, had that authority. Our politicians in Washington and “we the people” had no control over the Korean or Vietnam Wars. During Vietnam, Vladimir Pavlovich Suslov, another Soviet Communist, had the power. He knew the number of troops that were deployed, their locations, and every move they made. He then relayed that information to the Communists. (Pity the deluded protestors . . .)

Maj. Roberts was bitter about the “unconstitutional and illegal acts” that transformed “our military forces into agencies of aggression for a UN take-over. He said, “. . . there can be no small coincidence in military and political leadership which would surrender American soldiers to exploitation by a United Nations authority—the same authority which cost us 157,350 casualties and a ‘no-win’ stalemate in Korea.” And how many died in Vietnam?

Well, I’m the real kind of patriot—the kind that believes we are a constitutional republic and that “we the people” must never surrender. I support our troops who are truly loyal to this nation. However, I will not support the US military or any military action that is overtly or covertly under the control of the UN. If our military is no longer operating to defend this nation, I want to know. If they’re not . . . we better start forming a real American army that will defend us when these “perilous times” become even more perilous. I hope you’re still polishing that uniform . . .

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4,

Part 6 of this series will, at last, focus on planned UN conflicts around the world. It was my hope to delve into the UN-controlled Vietnam fiasco. If time and space permit, I will do so to honor those who believed they were serving the US with nobility and patriotism. They deserve better than a Hanoi Jane or a battalion of scraggly, professional protestors hired by the UN and/or its underlings. Meanwhile, keep the faith and, as Sean Hannity always reminds us from Scripture, “Let not your hearts be troubled.”

© 2005 - Jill Cohen Walker - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale



Jill Cohen Walker earned a BA from Goddard College in 1977, a JD from Franklin Pierce Law Center in 1980, and an MS in journalism at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in 1999. A freelance writer for fifteen years, she has written numerous articles for tech magazines and newspapers, and co-authored a book on hiring practices in the printing industry.

She taught Social Studies for one year in a northern middle school, and medical-legal and bio-medical courses in the Allied Health division of a local community college for four years. A student of legal history and the US Constitution, she began to study current events and Bible prophecies in March 1985. Her deep interest in and awareness of American politics started during the 2000 elections when she realized the prophetic time clock was ticking fast. She is the co-author of the novel "The Call to Prayer". (www.thecalltoprayer.net).

E-Mail: jillwalker@mail.bellsouth.net



 

Home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


I’m the real kind of patriot—the kind that believes we are a constitutional republic and that “we the people” must never surrender. I support our troops who are truly loyal to this nation. However, I will not support the US military or any military action that is overtly or covertly under the control of the UN.