Are We Reaching the End of Stage Three?

What is stage three, you ask? You obviously haven't read State Department Publication 7727.
Upon the release of this booklet, the Los Angeles Times March 31, 1962 issue had the following graphic on the front page to describe this policy:

(This graphic was found at the Second Amendment Committee.)
What does this bring to my mind? The massive wave of military base closures in the early '90s. It actually began in 1988, before the Soviet Union collapsed, and was known as Base Realignment and Closure (or BRAC). 
If you're a dinosaur and believe the purpose of a standing army is to protect the nation it serves, you might wonder why we don't have forts and installations all around our borders as we used to. You might also wonder why we have over 900 military installations around the world, yet can't secure our own southern border. When you consider who makes up the bulk of these UN "peacekeeping missions", it makes you wonder who is really calling the shots.

From Publication 7277:

States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.

Abraham Lincoln once said:

"Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! -- All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

I realize that military realities have changed over the years, and some of the base closures represent that fact. However, it would seem that our borders are truly unprotected and neither a Republican or Democrat president for over 50 years seems to have "given a rip about it" to quote one famous Alabaman. But are our military forces being groomed to be UN peacekeepers and not defenders of the Republic? If all the members of the UN were to reduce their armies and contribute to UN military forces, what would that mean for us? As you know, Communist China is a member of the UN; will they lend the UN their 200 million men army to squash opposition to our peaceful overlords when we cry out over the abolishment of sovereignty? The UN says they want a peaceful world, but heed the words of Brother Paul:

While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape.

-I Thess. 5:3

 Here is the first in a Youtube series of a lecture given by G. Edward Griffin back in 1968 entitled "The Grand Design". It gives insight into the thinking process behind State Department Publication 7277: Freedom from War.






John Christian Rhys has more information on the Freedom from War publication:

The federal government's war on the 2nd Amendment, blamed on Bill Clinton by most diehard right-of-center conservatives, actually began during the presidency of John F. Kennedy, shortly after the abortive Bay of Pigs fiasco. The game plan, known as State Department Publication 7277, was entitled Freedom from War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

While most Americans today are aware of the fact that Publication 7277 called for the gradual transfer of all American military assets—men and machines—to the United Nations (which is forbidden by its charter from fielding an army), most people don't know that 7277 also detailed plans for the global disarming of private citizens as well. It would not bode well for the utopians to disarm the governments of the world and leave their people armed to the teeth.

The authors of the Kennedy plan—or rather, the Council on Foreign Relations plan since that is where the disarmament agenda was born—were CFR members Dean Rusk, Kennedy's Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and presidential advisors John McCloy and Robert Lovett. McCloy would be appointed to head the newly created US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency the following year. Lovett was offered his choice of cabinet positions in the Kennedy Administration and reportedly turned all of them down. He preferred the role of invisible advisor. In that capacity, Lovett handpicked most of those who became the inner circle of both the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. Banning the private ownership of guns in America became the unspoken agenda of Congress even though since 1968 legislators on both sides of the aisle insisted that their intent was never to ban the private ownership of guns but simply to regulate them to make sure that guns didn't get in the hands of criminals