(Regardless, didn’t George Washington say to beware of foreign entanglements?)

Sent by Charlotte several days ago to her list of activists:

I have very good research which I received in eighties from the late Mary Larkin, Arizona. She kept all of the late Edith Kermit Roosevelt’s excellent columns published by the The Shreveport (LA) Journal. Edith got most of her unbelievable information from her two brothers, Kermit and Archie Roosevelt, covert CIA agents (Arabists), who had spent many years in the Middle East. She wrote one column where she said the State Dept. fellow in charge of disarmament, in the sixties/seventies , said USA would get world government once an international situation gets so hot both or all sides (who, according to Charlotte, have been in on the making of the hot situation) will sit down together at some fancy resort, closed to public, and put nail in coffin of freedom: world government. It will be sold to dumbed down sheep as the only solution. Media will get word out and dumbed down population (my term) will say “Wonderful, wonderful”…sigh, and go back to Facebook or tweeting. I suspect that is what we are looking at today with Iran. Remember when US sold weapons to the Iranians and transferred money to Nicaragua freedom fighters? We didn’t hate Iran then, even though it was under the Ayatollah whatever (Khomeini). There are so many Khomeinis.

WELL, WELL, WELL… THREE DAYS AFTER I SENT THAT EMAIL OUT TO MY LIST I FOUND EDITH KERMIT ROOSEVELT’S ARTICLE IN WHICH SHE QUOTES STATE DEPT. DISARMAMENT SPECIALIST!! Here it is. While reading her article think Iran or for that matter any other major nations which USA is attempting to influence/change/take over.

The Shreveport Journal, Shreveport-Bossier City, LA, January 5, 1963, Between the Lines–Research Program

“The theme of unilateral disarmament is to be made respectable. In “A Proposal for a Ban on the Use of Nuclear Weapons,” October 6, 1961, Dr. Morton H. Halperin suggests that even if the Russians don’t disarm we should do so anyway.”

“Some of these steps,” says Dr. Halperin, “might be taken unilaterally either with the aim of inducing reciprocation or because they are valuable in themselves independent of the Russian response.”

In his ID Study Memorandum “Arms Control and Inadvertent War,” March 10, 1962, Dr. Halperin says that in arms control agreements “It might be stressed that inspection was not absolutely necessary and that “the United States might, in fact, want to invite the Soviets to design the inspection procedures if they seem to be interested in them.”

A man to watch for clues to policy is Dr. Lincoln P. Bloomfield, formerly with the State Department’s disarmament staff and now director of the Arms Control Project of the Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In IDA Research Memorandum No. 3 “The Politics of Arms Control: Troika, Veto and International Institutions,” October 6, 1961, Dr. Bloomfield points out that “short of a major catastrophe the difficulties in obtaining widespread public approval and explicit Senate ratification of a genuine world Government are obvious”.

How then can federal government planners bypass the will of the American people and their elected representatives? Through disarmament negotiations. According to Dr. Bloomfied:

“In ‘A WORLD EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED NATIONS‘, MARCH 10, 1962, Dr. Bloomfield explains that “without disarmament such a system (of world government) is probably unobtainable.”

And how can the American people be conditioned to accept the State Department plan to eliminate international armies and replace them with a U.N. police force?.

“If it (world government) came about as a series of unnerving trips to or over the brink, it would come about at any time,” according to Dr. Bloomfield.

World Government is to be presented to the American people as the only answer to a war in which they would suffer unacceptable destruction or could not win.

This may explain the President’s pledge to Khrushchev not to liberate Cuba; the sending of American strategic materials behind the Iron curtain and the other “no win” policies. As Dr. Bloomfield says: “If the Communist dynamics were greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government.”