In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Subversion
Waco Waltz
Member Posts: 10,836 ✭✭
Part 1
By Jill Cohen Walker, J.D.
February 25, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
I remember the protests that took place near the lawns of the White House. From the late 1960s into the 1980s, shrill voices filled Washington, DC with anti-American rhetoric wrapped in blame-America-first rampages. It made me wonder why those speaking and those attending didn't just pack up and move to different pastures-places where they could build something instead of trying to tear down the nation that gave them so much freedom.
It was not a pretty time in the history of America, but it wasn't just the young people who were to blame. Many had only a marginal knowledge of the real issues and some didn't even know why they were there. Those protestors didn't know that the hate-America diatribes were well orchestrated, their roots deeply buried in a series of masterfully crafted plans concocted by those against whom they protested.
It took years for me to realize that what preceded the "hippie revolution" was almost a century old and was far more insidious and dangerous to our sovereignty than youths protesting. Behind our backs, and with the usual media assistance, Americans were sold a passel of lies that only the best charlatans in the political world could have conjured up-with or without evil incantations.
I knew the plan from both the humanist viewpoint and eventually studied Biblical prophecies. Those plans are now coming to fruition as God said they would, which makes living at this point in history (or His Story) rather incredible. Still, I was intrigued by a little book I stumbled upon at a local thrift store-a book that documented some rather evil, behind-the-scenes plotting on the part of our government. It's the stuff that often warms the hearts and minds of those who subscribe to one conspiracy theory or another; and it was a bit ironic that the book was amidst a collection of Christian literature and Bible studies-a most appropriate place for truth to reside. What did I have to lose other than the meager purchase price?
As the face of the author stared back at me, the title and table of contents convinced me that answers to lingering questions about ongoing plans to destroy the United States would be found within. I bought and read the book, then became determined to revive the author's story four decades after it was published. I don't know if he's still alive, and I don't care how right wing he was. His story should be told if, for no other reason, to prove that our government has had a long-standing desire to sacrifice our national sovereignty on the altar of a one-world government ruled by those with money and power.
Maj. Arch E. Roberts AUS (Ret), an 18-year veteran, didn't mince words in his efforts to stop the caustic, anti-American agenda of the `liberal establishment' in the 1950s and `60s. In his book, Victory Denied . . . Why Your Son Faces Death in "NO-WIN WARS,"(Chas. Hallberg & Company, 1966). Maj. Roberts did more to expose the real goals of the United Nations and those in the Pentagon and State Department who were driven to destroy the United States. There are some things we already know are true and some we suspected were true. What's astonishing was the ordeal Maj. Roberts went through for telling his fellow citizens the truth and how little the American people really knew about his plight then or know about it now.
After reading a few intro pages, I came to an editorial from The September 4, 1965, edition of the Chicago Tribune. Written by J. Howard Wood, Publisher, and W. D. Maxwell, Editor, titled "One Man's Battle," it told the story of the government's removal of Maj. Roberts from active duty status. Maj. Roberts made a speech before the Daughters of the American Revolution that "offended army censorship and government officials." He was in danger of losing his position in the army as well as his military pension for speaking the truth about the socialist/United Nation's takeover of our government.
Maj. Roberts didn't take it lying down. A court decision in his favor returned him to full duty with all the attending benefits to which he had previously been entitled. He demonstrated incredible courage against those who wanted to keep him and others like him silent-a sinister enemy that sought to silence American military men. His was a "war" against the real enemies of free speech.
The "rule" that silenced Maj. Roberts and others was instituted during the administration of John F. Kennedy. It emerged from the noted "Fulbright memorandum" that Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR) sent to the president in 1961. At the time, the senator was chairman of the foreign relations committee and was concerned that members of the military were discussing the dangers of communism with such intensity and frequency that they could only be viewed as suffering from right-wing radicalism. The danger was far greater if men, such as Maj. Roberts, told the public what he knew.
Fulbright also claimed that right-wingers believed that social legislation was the by-product of socialism, which was another name for communism. If members of the military were allowed to speak openly against communism, voters wouldn't support the new administration's social programs and foreign policies, all of which were socialistic in nature.
A mentor to Bill Clinton, Fulbright was an anti-anti-Communist; and anyone who knows the rules of positive and negative integers understands that an anti-anti-communist is a communist. He strongly believed in peace through education, although the content of his educational programs might prove to be more in keeping with socialist indoctrination. The September 4, 1965, Chicago Tribune editorial didn't let the senator off the hook. It claimed his goal was to "embark the [Kennedy] administration on a campaign to suppress any statements by military men which might be offensive to the Kremlin" because they were starting to "`mellow'" and were "moving toward `convergence' with the United States and the west."
This led to the total cessation of all "seminars and troop indoctrination programs relating to the real nature of communism." Whether such indoctrination was in the form of military propaganda or honest education may only be relevant in relation to the Domino Theory expounded upon by government officials-the belief that if one nation fell to communism, other surrounding nations would fall as well.
Most Americans were told that our government was trying to find a peaceful solution to the Cold War, but convergence means to have a union with, something they would have rejected from the outset. Americans would have demanded to know why the United States government would want to converge with a communist dictatorship. Silencing our military and keeping them in the dark regarding the dangers of communism to any free nation was only part of the solution to prevent a disgruntled electorate. Further, this was right before the Cuban Missile Crisis when American's saw how evil the Soviet Union really was.
At the time, Maj. Roberts was an information officer at the time. He was stationed with the American 24th division in West Germany where he was creating a program to train the troops about the goals and dangers of communism. That assignment ended shortly after the highly decorated commander of his division, Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, was warned by his superiors because of his vocal belief that some politicians were sympathetic to communism and that required the election of pro-American conservatives. Walker had already been reassigned in November 1961 for putting John Birch Society literature in the hands of US troops stationed in West Germany. He was relieved of his command by Elvis J. Stahr, Secretary of the Army, because of his outspoken anti-Communist activities. According to the web site of the society named for Walker, "in the John F. Kennedy administration, anti-Communism was an unpardonable `crime'" (www.eoffshore.com, Par. 1).
Walker's affiliation with the infamous John Birch Society did not bode well for him. Such membership made him a right-wing radical in the eyes of more moderate Americans. The fact that Maj. Arch E. Roberts served under Walker's command and his willingness to speak before organizations steeped in American patriotism made him another target in Kennedy administration's efforts to silence hard-line-anti-Communists.
As the September 4, 1965, Chicago Tribune editorial stated: "The Roberts case is unlikely even to provide a footnote in the history books, but it nevertheless provides an interesting reflection of the fantasies cherished in Washington these last few years. Chief of these is that the way to deal with communism is to give it assurance that the United States entertains only the kindest thoughts about it and in no circumstances will speak ill of it." (This was certainly a long held policy until President Reagan decided it was time for diplomacy and tact to take a back seat and for true leadership to take control of the situation.)
But in the early 1960s, the left was bent on pacifying America's enemies. Unfortunately, pacification and appeasement are often bought with a price-in this case the sovereignty of the United States. Further, any assumption that the left viewed communism as a threat was probably untrue. More than likely, they viewed it as way a to become the powerful SuperParent of the masses and the great provider of social services (also called goodies) from the national treasury. Who could defeat them down the road if they were willing to care for each citizen the way Sen. Huey P. Long (D-LA) suggested-"from cradle to grave?"
According to Roberts, however, those concepts were not new. Washington had decided long before the election of John F. Kennedy that America's sovereignty was temporary at best and a world government, ruled by elites, would become the "caretaker" of the world.
In the preface to his book, Maj. Roberts stated that his work was "motivated by the Korean betrayal and the war in Vietnam constitutes the urgent reason for its publication." Also revealed was that elected and non-elected officials in government allowed the United States to become nothing more than a puppet of the United Nations.
Maj. Roberts relied on public speeches he presented from 1962 through 1965, along with intelligence gathered by private investigators he employed while trying to expose the civilian newspaper, Overseas Weekly, which American troops received through the US Army. He also relied on public records from various Senate and House of Representatives committees, and Pentagon and State Department documents. His findings paint a startling picture of our government's betrayal of the citizens it swore to protect and the Constitution it swore to uphold.
His story starts with a quote from the September 12, 1954, New York Sunday News. "The U.S. (upon admission of Red China to the United Nations) will push for approval of a joint U.S.-Philippine plan to weld the military forces of all sixty member nations into a workable international army." That the newspaper blatantly wrote a piece that announced the creation of an international army had to frighten Americans who had experienced the ravages of World War II, the Korean War, and were soon to be knee-deep in the Vietnam War.
According to Maj. Roberts, millions of Americans knew that such political pressures under the guise of International Peace and Security would undermine the US Constitution. Those who studied the United Nations and its Charter knew full well that the greatest threat to the sovereignty of the United States could be found in the push to give the Security Council of the United Nations total control over world military power.
Lest you think it was only Democrats who backed the plan, guess again. Maj. Roberts noted the headline of a story from the June 20, 1965, edition of the Denver Post, which read, "Six House GOP's Seek Backing on U.S. Force for U.N." He called the public relations campaign "astounding" because it glorified the achievement of world security through the creation of an International Peace Force, manned and financed by Americans.
Again, millions of Americans knew better and were convinced that such a military build-up under the control of a world body would create a totalitarian, one-world government. They weren't wrong to believe as they did. The conditions under which our military fought in the Korean and Vietnam Wars were largely hidden from appropriate scrutiny, although the press stirred up a phony controversy to gin up anti-war sentiment. However, the conditions under which American soldiers now fight in Iraq, where the slightest "slip" produces a court-martial, should alert all Americans that our military is answering to someone or something other than the President of the United States-the supposed Commander in Chief of the American military.
Maj. Roberts' claim that the United Nations has power over American military personnel was validated in the UN Charter. Article 24 states, "In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." Some say the extent of that responsibility was open to interpretation. However, Article 42 stated that the organization could engage in military action "by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security . . ." That fiat included the power to authorize the use of force for purposes of self-defense and other purposes. It's the "other purposes" that confers upon the UN far more power than any sovereign nation should allow it to have.
That the left regularly insists on UN intervention as a means to settle disputes without war is almost laughable in light of the military power and authority that was handed over to the organization almost six decades ago. Clearly, the left isn't looking for an alternative; it just wants to keep the power where the UN Charter says it should be kept.
Even more astounding is the source of weaponry and manpower when the Security Council votes to engage in a military action. Maj. Roberts was all too aware that the United States had no debate or veto power regarding who would serve, where the military equipment would come from because most would come largely from this nation. National sovereignty wasn't subject to debate or veto, either. If the Security Council voted to go into a particular nation with military force, it could do so without hesitation.
This put the UN in a power position above the United States government, its Constitution, and its laws. To soften the idea that the UN would intervene in the domestic tranquility of any nation, Article 2, paragraph 7 prevented intervention in matters normally handled by a member state within its own borders.??
However, any limit on UN jurisdiction was deliberately camouflaged by another public relations campaign that painted the organization as a world body of great benevolence that must secure the approval of its members. It is unclear if our World Heritage Sites, which put American land in the hands of and under the control of the United Nations, are example of such benevolence. As far as Maj. Roberts was concerned, whether the goals of the UN were good or evil, carefully constructed public relations campaigns obscured the dangers and power inherent in a world body having such extensive powers. It was this belief that led him on a campaign to alert the American people. By delving into the internationalist agenda and identifying who controlled the UN military forces, Maj. Roberts unearthed the most vile and deadly plan to destroy the United States from within, thereby destroying what little remained of its sovereignty.
Part 2 of this series will examine what Maj. Roberts called "The Strange Case of General Vasiliev." The imminent rise of world government may still seem astounding, even when the word globalism is bandied about like confetti to test the will of the American people. Even more alarming is the extent to which Soviet and other foreign nationals controlled the United States military and how American soldiers have been serving under the UN banner for decades.
c 2005 - Jill Cohen Walker - All Rights Reserved
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
By Jill Cohen Walker, J.D.
February 25, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
I remember the protests that took place near the lawns of the White House. From the late 1960s into the 1980s, shrill voices filled Washington, DC with anti-American rhetoric wrapped in blame-America-first rampages. It made me wonder why those speaking and those attending didn't just pack up and move to different pastures-places where they could build something instead of trying to tear down the nation that gave them so much freedom.
It was not a pretty time in the history of America, but it wasn't just the young people who were to blame. Many had only a marginal knowledge of the real issues and some didn't even know why they were there. Those protestors didn't know that the hate-America diatribes were well orchestrated, their roots deeply buried in a series of masterfully crafted plans concocted by those against whom they protested.
It took years for me to realize that what preceded the "hippie revolution" was almost a century old and was far more insidious and dangerous to our sovereignty than youths protesting. Behind our backs, and with the usual media assistance, Americans were sold a passel of lies that only the best charlatans in the political world could have conjured up-with or without evil incantations.
I knew the plan from both the humanist viewpoint and eventually studied Biblical prophecies. Those plans are now coming to fruition as God said they would, which makes living at this point in history (or His Story) rather incredible. Still, I was intrigued by a little book I stumbled upon at a local thrift store-a book that documented some rather evil, behind-the-scenes plotting on the part of our government. It's the stuff that often warms the hearts and minds of those who subscribe to one conspiracy theory or another; and it was a bit ironic that the book was amidst a collection of Christian literature and Bible studies-a most appropriate place for truth to reside. What did I have to lose other than the meager purchase price?
As the face of the author stared back at me, the title and table of contents convinced me that answers to lingering questions about ongoing plans to destroy the United States would be found within. I bought and read the book, then became determined to revive the author's story four decades after it was published. I don't know if he's still alive, and I don't care how right wing he was. His story should be told if, for no other reason, to prove that our government has had a long-standing desire to sacrifice our national sovereignty on the altar of a one-world government ruled by those with money and power.
Maj. Arch E. Roberts AUS (Ret), an 18-year veteran, didn't mince words in his efforts to stop the caustic, anti-American agenda of the `liberal establishment' in the 1950s and `60s. In his book, Victory Denied . . . Why Your Son Faces Death in "NO-WIN WARS,"(Chas. Hallberg & Company, 1966). Maj. Roberts did more to expose the real goals of the United Nations and those in the Pentagon and State Department who were driven to destroy the United States. There are some things we already know are true and some we suspected were true. What's astonishing was the ordeal Maj. Roberts went through for telling his fellow citizens the truth and how little the American people really knew about his plight then or know about it now.
After reading a few intro pages, I came to an editorial from The September 4, 1965, edition of the Chicago Tribune. Written by J. Howard Wood, Publisher, and W. D. Maxwell, Editor, titled "One Man's Battle," it told the story of the government's removal of Maj. Roberts from active duty status. Maj. Roberts made a speech before the Daughters of the American Revolution that "offended army censorship and government officials." He was in danger of losing his position in the army as well as his military pension for speaking the truth about the socialist/United Nation's takeover of our government.
Maj. Roberts didn't take it lying down. A court decision in his favor returned him to full duty with all the attending benefits to which he had previously been entitled. He demonstrated incredible courage against those who wanted to keep him and others like him silent-a sinister enemy that sought to silence American military men. His was a "war" against the real enemies of free speech.
The "rule" that silenced Maj. Roberts and others was instituted during the administration of John F. Kennedy. It emerged from the noted "Fulbright memorandum" that Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR) sent to the president in 1961. At the time, the senator was chairman of the foreign relations committee and was concerned that members of the military were discussing the dangers of communism with such intensity and frequency that they could only be viewed as suffering from right-wing radicalism. The danger was far greater if men, such as Maj. Roberts, told the public what he knew.
Fulbright also claimed that right-wingers believed that social legislation was the by-product of socialism, which was another name for communism. If members of the military were allowed to speak openly against communism, voters wouldn't support the new administration's social programs and foreign policies, all of which were socialistic in nature.
A mentor to Bill Clinton, Fulbright was an anti-anti-Communist; and anyone who knows the rules of positive and negative integers understands that an anti-anti-communist is a communist. He strongly believed in peace through education, although the content of his educational programs might prove to be more in keeping with socialist indoctrination. The September 4, 1965, Chicago Tribune editorial didn't let the senator off the hook. It claimed his goal was to "embark the [Kennedy] administration on a campaign to suppress any statements by military men which might be offensive to the Kremlin" because they were starting to "`mellow'" and were "moving toward `convergence' with the United States and the west."
This led to the total cessation of all "seminars and troop indoctrination programs relating to the real nature of communism." Whether such indoctrination was in the form of military propaganda or honest education may only be relevant in relation to the Domino Theory expounded upon by government officials-the belief that if one nation fell to communism, other surrounding nations would fall as well.
Most Americans were told that our government was trying to find a peaceful solution to the Cold War, but convergence means to have a union with, something they would have rejected from the outset. Americans would have demanded to know why the United States government would want to converge with a communist dictatorship. Silencing our military and keeping them in the dark regarding the dangers of communism to any free nation was only part of the solution to prevent a disgruntled electorate. Further, this was right before the Cuban Missile Crisis when American's saw how evil the Soviet Union really was.
At the time, Maj. Roberts was an information officer at the time. He was stationed with the American 24th division in West Germany where he was creating a program to train the troops about the goals and dangers of communism. That assignment ended shortly after the highly decorated commander of his division, Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, was warned by his superiors because of his vocal belief that some politicians were sympathetic to communism and that required the election of pro-American conservatives. Walker had already been reassigned in November 1961 for putting John Birch Society literature in the hands of US troops stationed in West Germany. He was relieved of his command by Elvis J. Stahr, Secretary of the Army, because of his outspoken anti-Communist activities. According to the web site of the society named for Walker, "in the John F. Kennedy administration, anti-Communism was an unpardonable `crime'" (www.eoffshore.com, Par. 1).
Walker's affiliation with the infamous John Birch Society did not bode well for him. Such membership made him a right-wing radical in the eyes of more moderate Americans. The fact that Maj. Arch E. Roberts served under Walker's command and his willingness to speak before organizations steeped in American patriotism made him another target in Kennedy administration's efforts to silence hard-line-anti-Communists.
As the September 4, 1965, Chicago Tribune editorial stated: "The Roberts case is unlikely even to provide a footnote in the history books, but it nevertheless provides an interesting reflection of the fantasies cherished in Washington these last few years. Chief of these is that the way to deal with communism is to give it assurance that the United States entertains only the kindest thoughts about it and in no circumstances will speak ill of it." (This was certainly a long held policy until President Reagan decided it was time for diplomacy and tact to take a back seat and for true leadership to take control of the situation.)
But in the early 1960s, the left was bent on pacifying America's enemies. Unfortunately, pacification and appeasement are often bought with a price-in this case the sovereignty of the United States. Further, any assumption that the left viewed communism as a threat was probably untrue. More than likely, they viewed it as way a to become the powerful SuperParent of the masses and the great provider of social services (also called goodies) from the national treasury. Who could defeat them down the road if they were willing to care for each citizen the way Sen. Huey P. Long (D-LA) suggested-"from cradle to grave?"
According to Roberts, however, those concepts were not new. Washington had decided long before the election of John F. Kennedy that America's sovereignty was temporary at best and a world government, ruled by elites, would become the "caretaker" of the world.
In the preface to his book, Maj. Roberts stated that his work was "motivated by the Korean betrayal and the war in Vietnam constitutes the urgent reason for its publication." Also revealed was that elected and non-elected officials in government allowed the United States to become nothing more than a puppet of the United Nations.
Maj. Roberts relied on public speeches he presented from 1962 through 1965, along with intelligence gathered by private investigators he employed while trying to expose the civilian newspaper, Overseas Weekly, which American troops received through the US Army. He also relied on public records from various Senate and House of Representatives committees, and Pentagon and State Department documents. His findings paint a startling picture of our government's betrayal of the citizens it swore to protect and the Constitution it swore to uphold.
His story starts with a quote from the September 12, 1954, New York Sunday News. "The U.S. (upon admission of Red China to the United Nations) will push for approval of a joint U.S.-Philippine plan to weld the military forces of all sixty member nations into a workable international army." That the newspaper blatantly wrote a piece that announced the creation of an international army had to frighten Americans who had experienced the ravages of World War II, the Korean War, and were soon to be knee-deep in the Vietnam War.
According to Maj. Roberts, millions of Americans knew that such political pressures under the guise of International Peace and Security would undermine the US Constitution. Those who studied the United Nations and its Charter knew full well that the greatest threat to the sovereignty of the United States could be found in the push to give the Security Council of the United Nations total control over world military power.
Lest you think it was only Democrats who backed the plan, guess again. Maj. Roberts noted the headline of a story from the June 20, 1965, edition of the Denver Post, which read, "Six House GOP's Seek Backing on U.S. Force for U.N." He called the public relations campaign "astounding" because it glorified the achievement of world security through the creation of an International Peace Force, manned and financed by Americans.
Again, millions of Americans knew better and were convinced that such a military build-up under the control of a world body would create a totalitarian, one-world government. They weren't wrong to believe as they did. The conditions under which our military fought in the Korean and Vietnam Wars were largely hidden from appropriate scrutiny, although the press stirred up a phony controversy to gin up anti-war sentiment. However, the conditions under which American soldiers now fight in Iraq, where the slightest "slip" produces a court-martial, should alert all Americans that our military is answering to someone or something other than the President of the United States-the supposed Commander in Chief of the American military.
Maj. Roberts' claim that the United Nations has power over American military personnel was validated in the UN Charter. Article 24 states, "In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." Some say the extent of that responsibility was open to interpretation. However, Article 42 stated that the organization could engage in military action "by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security . . ." That fiat included the power to authorize the use of force for purposes of self-defense and other purposes. It's the "other purposes" that confers upon the UN far more power than any sovereign nation should allow it to have.
That the left regularly insists on UN intervention as a means to settle disputes without war is almost laughable in light of the military power and authority that was handed over to the organization almost six decades ago. Clearly, the left isn't looking for an alternative; it just wants to keep the power where the UN Charter says it should be kept.
Even more astounding is the source of weaponry and manpower when the Security Council votes to engage in a military action. Maj. Roberts was all too aware that the United States had no debate or veto power regarding who would serve, where the military equipment would come from because most would come largely from this nation. National sovereignty wasn't subject to debate or veto, either. If the Security Council voted to go into a particular nation with military force, it could do so without hesitation.
This put the UN in a power position above the United States government, its Constitution, and its laws. To soften the idea that the UN would intervene in the domestic tranquility of any nation, Article 2, paragraph 7 prevented intervention in matters normally handled by a member state within its own borders.??
However, any limit on UN jurisdiction was deliberately camouflaged by another public relations campaign that painted the organization as a world body of great benevolence that must secure the approval of its members. It is unclear if our World Heritage Sites, which put American land in the hands of and under the control of the United Nations, are example of such benevolence. As far as Maj. Roberts was concerned, whether the goals of the UN were good or evil, carefully constructed public relations campaigns obscured the dangers and power inherent in a world body having such extensive powers. It was this belief that led him on a campaign to alert the American people. By delving into the internationalist agenda and identifying who controlled the UN military forces, Maj. Roberts unearthed the most vile and deadly plan to destroy the United States from within, thereby destroying what little remained of its sovereignty.
Part 2 of this series will examine what Maj. Roberts called "The Strange Case of General Vasiliev." The imminent rise of world government may still seem astounding, even when the word globalism is bandied about like confetti to test the will of the American people. Even more alarming is the extent to which Soviet and other foreign nationals controlled the United States military and how American soldiers have been serving under the UN banner for decades.
c 2005 - Jill Cohen Walker - All Rights Reserved
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
Comments
Fixed it. I don't understand the complaints on long articles. Does anyone ever read a book and say it was too much to read? NO pain no gain.
Her credentials are exemplary, she was a Social Studies Teacher.