Additional Titles









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








Part 3




By Jill Cohen Walker, J.D.

March 18, 2005

“Planning for Peace” and the United Nations Takeover of the United States

After five or so decades of foreign plunder of the America I knew and loved as a child, I now believe it’s possible for this nation to be destroyed without a single shot being fired. I also know that too many were caught up in complacent living to take a stand against the political and legal evils that befell us. Yes, I’ve said the word that makes folks cringe—evil. But it’s not just a word; it’s a condition of the heart that allows men and women to kill, lie, manipulate, destroy, and steal to gain power. It’s what pushes them to betray others, even those close to them.

Of course, I know it’s difficult to confront those who believe that rule by elites is better than representative republican rule, but I’d like to believe we have the power to stop the destruction of the government the Founders gave us and prevent the imposition of one that’s akin to the twin cities destroyed by God’s hand. Untangling the most daunting knot doesn’t have to be rocket science, so perhaps there are some who would be willing to sacrifice everything, as did those who fought for liberty from Great Britain. Does it all sound farfetched? Just look at the facts . . .

“Planning for Peace” is a 1965 public document that contains the senate hearings on world socialist legislation. Why our senate was even discussing the topic is ample evidence that something deceptive was afoot. According to Maj. Roberts, hearings were held on Resolution 32 before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, May 11-12, 1965. Testimony contained in the document “represents largely the views held by one-worlders, collectivists, and socialists who are government financed and/or supported by tax-exempt foundations.”

Any opposition found in the document was “sprinkled in from citizen backed organizations.” Maj. Roberts said the “opposition” was a smokescreen to create the illusion of national consensus,” something the enemies of the US are very good at manufacturing out of whole cloth. The “Planning for Peace” records provide a smorgasbord of anti-American comments from those present at the Senate hearings. Maj. Roberts cited several examples, which he “deliberately organized in the order of the five principles presented in Resolution 32.”

Adrian Fisher, Deputy Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (a telling title), wanted the creation of the right type of organization to “‘monitor a comprehensive test ban treaty, a freeze on the numbers and characteristics of strategic bombers and missiles, major arms reduction measures and comprehensive disarmament.’” Fisher also said: “‘these steps would clearly require considerable change in the existing practices and attitudes of nations.’” He was right. Remember, a citizenry that can bear arms can also protect itself from his kind of tyranny. That’s a hard practice and attitude to change . . . may their efforts bear no fruit for them.

Professor Emile Benoit, from Americans for Democratic Action, said the issues “‘underlying disarmament’” involve substitution. Okay, let’s try it. Let’s get rid of national defense establishments and replace them with a “‘supra-national inspection and defense establishment.’” Then we can get rid of national defense forces and replace them with “‘supra-national security guarantees.’” Benoit’s substitution plan was solid proof that all nations, including the US, were to be denied the right to defend themselves. Instead, national defense, if there was still a reason to have it, would be placed in the arbitrary and all-too-capricious hands of a global military that could be summoned to discipline or destroy any nation (or region) at the whim of the UN.

Shelby Southard, assistant director, Cooperative League of the USA, offered comments such as, “‘A peacekeeping force is needed that will be responsive to the collective moral conscience of freedom-loving people everywhere—one that will act for all of them.’” Southard’s remarks were based on pure socialism. That he believed a collective moral conscience existed or could ever exist was and still is absurd. The liberals believe morals are relative which means they don’t have a collective conscience, and conservatives can’t decide which Judeo-Christian doctrines should be obeyed or tossed out the window.

Still, the 2004 election, dubbed an election of morals and values, showed that US citizens are far more steeped in some form of Judeo-Christian morality. Perhaps the left’s rhetoric over the past six decades has done them more harm than good—like planting a garden of brambles and briars. Even a hard-core socialist/communist like Hillary Clinton is pretending to move toward the center while courting conservatives. (Evidently, Mrs. Clinton has always been a praying person, though to whom or what she prays remains a vast left-wing conspiracy. Maybe she has a Bible like the one her husband toted around during the Monica Lewinsky “affair.” Maybe the spirit of Jezebel has found a permanent home in her heart.) But I digress.

Harlan Cleveland, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs wanted to “‘extend the reach of the international Court.’” C. Maxwell Stanley, United World Federalists (a front group for global government) stated, “‘Peace demands a world-wide system of justice, law, and order.’”

More shocking were the comments of the (not-so) Honorable Jacob K. Javits, United States Senator from the state of New York. Javits spoke first about the inevitability of a peacekeeping organization that would be supra national in nature, but he also had the audacity to state that such an organization should be “‘built upon the new concept of regionalism in the affairs of mankind, which is very quickly developing right under our eyes.’” Then he added, “‘. . . we are undoubtedly going through a stage of transition from nationalism, perhaps the first really historic transition since medieval times which saw the birth of nations . . . into regionalism.’” And it was probably because of people like him that those creating the world government were like a hive of worker bees racing against their evil, global clock.

Well, let’s be practical for a moment. Four decades later, his words underscore the reasons for all those pricey global conferences, each with a number akin to the ten regions mentioned in Daniel and Revelation. Those are the conferences that come complete with a flock of professional protestors—bought and paid for by the UN. One look at that sorry bunch and all their violence and most folks automatically support the other side. Now that’s a clever propaganda campaign. Well, I’d sure like to be a fly on the wall at some of those G-pick-a- number meetings the “powerful people” hold around the world. But I digress again.

With the other functions of the United Nations addressed, the only remaining one was money. Clark M. Eichelberger, chairman, Commission to Study the Organization of Peace (how does one do that?), had one goal in mind. “‘My theory has been that the United Nations must have sovereignty of its own and it must have its own taxing power. It must have the power of the purse.’” Clever plan: the UN gets the sovereignty and the money while we lose ours and foot the bill. Not exactly a worthy bargain for American citizens, is it?

To say, as Maj. Roberts did, that this was “utter contempt for the Constitution and for the American people” is an understatement. He warned that state legislatures would have to protect the sovereignty of the US or “the people will be committed to support and obey the one-world government plans of the internationalists in Washington.” How many UN-sponsored, communist politicians have been planted in our state and local governments to ensure compliance? Check out their responses to UN Agenda 21 (Sustainable Improvements). If they’re for it, they’re against US sovereignty and part of the UN takeover plan.

Maj. Roberts also noted the anti-American position of Sen. John P. Sparkman (D-Ala.), who was totally in favor of “dismantling the United States military establishment.” His sell-us-down-the river agenda was revealed on July 21, 1958, when he almost arranged for the passage of a Senate resolution that “called for a permanent United Nations police force.” Think they’re not here? Visit some of the World Heritage Sites or “National” Parks and find out who works for whom. Having UN goons running around the United States to allegedly protect our history is almost laughable, but it was a great way for them to steal our land without paying a penny. And the American taxpayers are still footing the bill. The UN does everything well, especially when it spends your money.

This brings us closer to the liberal/socialist beliefs espoused by Mr. Eichelberger. His notion that the United Nations should have control of “the purse” was the foundation for the UN’s global tax. They’re still demanding a global tax. A March 2002, article by Cliff Kincaid, “Left Denounces U.S., Urges Global Taxes,” documents the left’s near-hatred of the opposition. The “denouncing” took place at the United Nations Conference on Financing for Development funded by the Ford Foundation. Liberals of all stripes sang peace songs, railed against the conservatives, and shouted praises for Cuba, a sewer of despots and tyranny, as the role model for the rest of the world.

How deluded are those folks and how long will we remain in a state of disbelief? When will Americans realize that we’re not a democracy, we’re a constitutional republic, and our freedoms and rights do not come from the government? Those rights are inalienable, which means the government has no authority to take them away because they come from God. By the same token, when judges invent rights that would never come from God, they set the nation on a slippery slope toward destruction . . . and they know it.

One man who saw the big picture early on was Sen. William Jenner (R-IN). He strongly condemned the passage of Resolution 32 because he knew it was part of a plan to incrementally build up UN military power while slowly diminishing the military power of the United States. Jenner was right, in part. The US military had to be depleted to weaken us as a nation, but such a plan also depleted UN forces. Just a little Catch-22, huh? Ex-Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton understood, years later, how to do the depleting in both manpower and equipment. Ronald Regan, on the other hand, knew how to rebuild, but for what purpose?

It’s not surprising that Sen. Jenner spoke out against the evils of the UN a decade before the introduction of Resolution 32. He lamented that this nation was “on the path to total dictatorship,” that only “outwardly [do we] have a Constitutional government.” He also said, “Operating within our government and political system, [was] another body representing another form of government . . . [a] bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded.” All communist activity, he said, led to a “political action group” that had “its own local political support organizations . . . pressure groups . . . vested interests, its foothold within our government, and its propaganda apparatus.”

Sen. Jenner’s words were validated repeatedly over the past several decades and in particular by the March 1, 2005 decision of the US Supreme Court—the death penalty can’t be applied to juveniles under the age of 18 for heinous crimes committed on US soil. The UN Charter and Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, another treaty which went into effect Sept. 2, 1990 without ratification by the US, were allowed to trump our Constitution and the real consensus of the American people. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in opposition, “Though the views of our own citizens are essentially irrelevant to the Court's decision today, the views of other countries and the so-called international community take center stage . . .. More fundamentally, however, the basic premise of the Court's argument—that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world—ought to be rejected out of hand.”

Bravo to the man who should be our next Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

The Truth about NATO, SEATO and CENTO

The actions of the UN during the Vietnam War were directly related to the “Planning for Peace” testimony and to SEATO. According to Maj. Roberts, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, signed on September 1, 1954 at Manila, has a binding effect on all nations that signed it, including the United States. What kind of binding effect? Well, it binds all signers to the UN and the UN Charter. Article I of SEATO states that the signers “undertake to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” Does that mean inconsistent with the “purposes” of world government?

The same wording is contained in the NATO and CENTO treaties. That makes them all subject to UN control. Maj. Roberts called them “front organization[s] or regional arrangement[s] for [central] UN military command in New York City and Articles 53 and 54 of the UN Charter apply as they did in Korea. (Was it sheer chutzpah for President Bush to go to NATO to get permission to invade Iraq . . . as if it were totally separate from the UN? There’s a very malodorous rat hiding under our noses.)

Not only did the Security Council have to be kept fully informed at all times during the Vietnam War, the Undersecretary for Political and Security Council Affairs was the “custodian of all United States plans for self-defense” and controlled all military forces placed at the disposal of the United Nations.” (Check out Articles 44 through 46 of the UN Charter.) Maj. Roberts said, “That executive is the most powerful man in the United Nations.” At the time, his name was Vladimir P. Suslov, a Soviet Communist and “the third member of the U.N. Marxist ‘troika,’ consisting of U Thant, Ralph Bunche and Suslov.”

President Johnson, that maven of the Great Society/Welfare State, confirmed the “authority exercised by the UN Security Council in Vietnam. Called a ‘war for liberation’” (sound familiar?), Johnson finally stated (July 13, 1965) that American soldiers were dying in Vietnam because of SEATO, but he refused to remove this nation from an agreement that permitted the wholesale slaughter of American soldiers. Instead he stated, “. . . we expect to keep that commitment . . . our national honor is at stake.”

Honor? In reality, Johnson was merely acting in compliance with Article 25 of the UN Charter, which stated that member nations had to abide by the decisions of the Security Council. That left American soldiers dying by the thousands in another UN-staged war of attrition where a lack of victory would stigmatize our troops, and anger and demoralize the citizens of this nation. The seeds of rebellion sown for three decades produced a socialist/communist garden of brambles and briars—one that’s watered with rebellion against God. And I didn’t digress this time.

We should have been outraged by the words of John Foster Dulles (R-NY) more than a decade earlier. On April 12, 1952, while Secretary of State under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, he said those treaties “make international law as well as domestic law” and the US Constitution made it clear that “treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws,” because the laws enacted by Congress must “conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty law can over-ride the Constitution” (emphasis added). American politicians supported, passed, and signed treaties that Dulles said could “take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President.” Audaciously he added that treaties could “take powers from the state and give them to the federal government or some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.”

Well, he was wrong. Read Article VI, section 2 several times. Take it apart and diagram it and tell me how a treaty can possibly trump our laws. Co-equal in the sense that our laws must consider those treaties, maybe, but that’s where the power grab should end. We were duped again by a professional politician whose biography attaches him to almost every international organization involved in world government.

When July 4th rolls around this year, remember that the Revolutionary War wasn’t fought so the UN and an entourage of internationalists could steal our land two centuries later. It was fought to shake off royal and elitist tyranny and we may have to fight that war again. In the meantime, while we’re polishing our uniforms, we’d best tell our “elected representatives” that we refuse to be bound by unconstitutional treaties designed to destroy our sovereignty, our freedoms, and our uniqueness as a nation . . . and that deny us those inalienable rights given us by our Creator. One only has to look at the nasty conglomeration of government (Democrat, Republican, etc., and the puppet masters behind them), the media (mainstream or otherwise), military (ours or theirs), and corporations (from Enron to that bastion of American manufacturing, China-Mart) to see who benefits, and to understand how much has been lost and at whose expense. Perhaps we should pray that what remains of a properly educated citizenry can do much to overcome evil and stop those who seek to destroy us.

Part 1, Part 2,

Part 4 of this series will cover the founders of the UN’s world government, who was behind our destruction as a sovereign nation. Part 5 will cover the planned conflicts imposed by the UN.

© 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". (











When will Americans realize that we’re not a democracy, we’re a constitutional republic, and our freedoms and rights do not come from the government?