Jasper-Global-Tyranny-Step-By-Step-The-United-Nations-and-the ...

countries."16
That same morning, Los Angeles Times reporter Norman Kempster enthused: "Creating a standing army
under the control of the United Nations Security Council would give the world organization a military
punch it has never had before and could convert it into a full-time international police department." That
should be a truly bone-chilling thought for anyone who values freedom. But Kempster didn't stop there,
adding: "If adopted ... the plan would mark the transformation of the Security Council from a Cold Warhobbled
debating society to an organization with the power to enforce its decisions...."17 Even more
chilling! But not, apparently, to the apostles of one-worldism who have been lustily cheering such
proposals.
In the months following the summit, as the Bush Administration moved brazenly forward with neverannounced
plans to supplant the U.S. Constitution with the UN Charter, the Establishment news media,
dominated by members of the Council on Foreign Relations and led by the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the CFR's own Foreign Affairs, provided both cover and
support. So began the audacious propaganda campaign to resurrect a decades-old, one-world scheme to
transfer U.S. military might to the United Nations.
In its March 6, 1992 lead editorial entitled "The New World Army," the New York Times came close to
dropping all pretenses and subtlety:
For years the United Nations has been notable mostly for its vocal cords. That's changed.
Nowadays the U.N.'s muscle - its blue-helmeted soldiers - seems to be everywhere. And
costs have soared. The bill for 11 peacekeeping missions could approach $3.7 billion this
year. Never before have so many U.N. troops been committed to so many costly and diverse
missions.
But don't get the idea that anyone at the Times is about to let fiscal worries stand in the way of its
commitment to "world order" politics. The editorial ticked off the current count of blue-helmeted troops
deployed worldwide: In Lebanon 5,900; Cyprus 2,200; Golan Heights 1,300; El Salvador 1,000;
Iraq/Kuwait 540; Angola 440; Arab-Israel conflict 300; India/Pakistan 40; Cambodia 22,000;
Yugoslavia 14,300; Western Sahara 2,700. This grand total of 50,720 UN troops is just the start of what
these internationalists are planning. Any of these hot spots could, of course, develop into a major
conflagration at any moment, requiring thousands - or tens of thousands - of UN reinforcements.
There are also numerous other trouble spots around the globe offering virtually unlimited opportunities
for UN intervention: South Africa, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Korea, and
Myanmar. Myanmar Yes, although you probably remember it by its former name, Burma. The Los
Angeles Times lead editorial for March 16, 1992 carried the title, "Next Target for World's Conscience:
Myanmar - An apocalyptic 'killing field' for the former Burma" It signaled that we may soon be seeing
UN troops, possibly including American men and women, in that tragic land.
In the face of all of this support for a UN military arm, the only protests in Congress about the
developing "New World Army" questioned merely the financial costs of the peacekeeping operations,
including the disproportionate share (an automatic 30 percent) the U.S. is expected to shoulder. When
Secretary of State James Baker appeared before a Senate subcommittee on March 5, 1992 to present the
Bush Administration's request for an additional $810 million (above the $107 million already
appropriated) for peacekeeping in 1992-93, he ran into resistance even from traditionally strong UN
supporters. Senator Jim Sasser (D-TN) told Baker that although he believed the UN peacekeeping
efforts were important, in this recessionary economy, constituent opposition to foreign aid had become