Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘United Nations’ Category

UN Makes Its Move… Issues “Concrete Measures” Order to US Authorities

 A United Nations Committee responsible for combating racism globally issued an “early warning” for the United States, citing a growth in “alarming racism” trends.

Anastasia Crickley, chairwoman of U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), issued a statement Tuesday in response to the violence that erupted in Charlottesville, Virginia, Aug. 12 during a white nationalist rally.

“We are alarmed by the racist demonstrations, with overtly racist slogans, chants and salutes by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, promoting white supremacy and inciting racial discrimination and hatred,” Crickley said.

 According to Stock Board Asset, the early warning from the UN is rare and has been issued in the past prior to civil conflicts.

The warning has only been issued a few time in the past 10 years, where it came for places like Burundi, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan and Nigeria.

“In a decision issued under its ‘early warning and urgent action’ procedure, the Committee, which monitors implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, stated ‘there should be no place in the world for racist white supremacist ideas or any similar ideologies that reject the core human rights principles of human dignity and equality,’” Crickley said

The early warning from the UN is not only rare, but it echoes talking points from Democrats that President Donald Trump has not adequately disavowed white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

Trump has been criticized in the mainstream media for not sufficiently condemning white nationalists and racists even though he has issued a slew statements since the tragic events, starting with the day they took place.

Trump also denounced hate groups Aug. 14 during an announcement from the White House, specifically calling out the hate groups.

 “Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,” Trump said.

As Trump made extremely clear after the tragic event, Americans must come first. If the mainstream media and Democrats would stop trying to divide people, we could come together as one nation.

For an organization as corrupt as the United Nations to start attacking the United States, which has done more to root out racism than virtually any country on earth, is beyond an insult.

It could well be the first step toward an actual attack on liberties Americans hold dear — like the freedom of speech.

State Department, Iran Conspire to Hand U.S. Sovereignty to U.N.

UN-Convention-on-the-Rights-of-the-ChildThere’s no nice way to say this, but the Obama Administration is seriously considering backstabbing America in a big, big way.

The plan is revealed in a statement by Iran’s foreign minister and lead negotiator Javad Zarif urging the United States to bypass Congress and take an expected nuclear deal with Tehran to the United Nations for approval.
It’s an idea that John “I Served in Vietnam” Kerry and crew at the State Department are said to be optimistic about.
No doubt it’s somewhere in the “Living Constitution” that Progressives are always talking about, but the actual Constitution (not to mention the Declaration of Independence) seems to be missing the section about how the president can not only create, pass and enforce laws all by himself, but is also authorized to obtain a rubber stamp from the United Nations when the Congress is not obliging.
I have no doubt that Kerry, Emperor Obama and Rasputin, er, Valerie Jarrett believe that such a maneuver would be “legal” (at least in the Palpatinean sense of “I will make it legal”).
I also have no doubt that Media Matters, the Huffing-and-Puffington Post and all the other George Soros-funded “news” media will have ready excuses for why such a maneuver is not only legal but necessary for the good of America because of those damned Republicans.
Further, there can be no doubt that Iran thinks it’s in charge here. “A resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter is an international and binding treaty for all the member states,” Zarif said. “… Any deal is binding for the current U.S. government and for the future U.S. governments.”

But I have some questions about who is outmaneuvering whom, and whether taking a treaty to the United Nations would represent the abandonment of U.S. sovereignty to foreign control that it seems to be on the surface.
The alternative is that this could also be the stirrings of a power play to take over the United Nations by Obama. He’s been fighting to take over the Middle East for years, with little clear success.
If he’s as ambitious as I think he is, he will have to deal with the U.N. sooner or later.
Could a flagrantly unconstitutional appeal to foreign authority actually be an in to power?
Or is Obama simply heeding the call of his masters in the Muslim Brotherhood and continuing his work to dismantle U.S. authority?

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/21022/state-department-iran-conspire-to-hand-u-s-sovereignty-to-u-n/#bTAol5jPEM0lCjRM.99

U.N. CLIMATE CHIEF ADMITS GOAL IS WORLD WIDE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

christiana_figueres
A high UN official has admitted the real reason for the climate hysteria: to transform the world economy, redistributing income between from rich nations to poorer ones. Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), warned that the fight against climate change is a process and that the sought-after transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.
At a press conference in Brussels, Figueres stated:
This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 — you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.
In 2011 speech in Madrid Figueres claimed that the recent unrest in Egypt was caused by rising food-prices which were in turn caused by global warming.
On a global level, increasingly unpredictable weather patterns will lead to falling agricultural production and higher food prices, leading to food insecurity. In Africa, crop yields could decline by as much as 50% by 2020. Recent experiences around the world clearly show how such situations can cause political instability and undermine the performance of already fragile states.
She added that if we took part of our defense spending and invested it in reducing carbon we could avoid the “horrors” associated with global warming.
Decisions on future defense spending are intricately linked to decisions on immediate climate investment through the different future risk assessments. What will be better?
Even under current trends, the rate of defence spending growth could account for a major part of the money needed to cut global emissions and to help the vulnerable, often in the most unstable areas of the world, to protect their societies from crumbling under climate
pressures.
In other words, we should cut defense spending and give that money to other countries so they can solve their carbon problems. A similar point was made in 2010 by United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) official Ottmar Edenhofer:
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore,with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
It is a rare occurrence when the supporters of the climate change hypothesis tell the truth about why they are pushing their plan.

Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/03/03/u-n-climate-chief-admits-goal-of-calls-for-regulation-is-worldwide-redistribution-of-income/#XBywkpi0PeVwPjPm.99

U.N. to dump flood of Muslim refugees on U.S.

by Pamela Geller,
Most Americans are unaware that under the “Refugee Resettlement Program,” whole Muslim communites from hostile nations are imported into the United States, circumventing whatever immigration laws that are still intact.This is made even more dangerous by what organization determines who is are refugees and who aren’t. It’s the UN, driven largely by the world’s largest international body, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC is a modern day caliphate made up of 56 countries and the Palestinian terrorists.For years, a handful of my colleagues and I have warned of the reckless immigration polices here in America and in the West — refusing immigration status to persecuted religious minorities under Islam (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, etc.), while allowing whole Muslim communities from jihad nations to immigrate.I have documented this dangerous practice and warned of the eventual consequence of importing jihad. We have seen its deleterious consequences with many members of the Somali community.With millions of Christians expelled, ethnically cleansed or worse from the Middle East you might think these were the refugees the US would welcome to our shores. You’d be wrong.
Obama has opened the gates to a flood of terror-linked Muslim immigrants, the size of which will ensure poor vetting of backgrounds.The effect of mass Muslim immigration.In August 2013, Obama made a major policy shift by agreeing for the first time to allow new “Syrian” refugees into the US. Back in February, I reported on hundreds of Muslim immigrants from Syria who were to be slated to be resettled in New Jersey. These hostile “refugees” are resettled in gateway cities across the country, and the effects are devastating.What are the numbers of Muslims coming into the US from jihad nations under the Obama administration? And why aren’t the victims being given the opportunity to escape the vicious and bloody jihad by Islamic supremacists?Obama’s immigration rules given favor Muslims over Christians.“U.N. to dump flood of Muslim refugees on U.S.,” By Leo Hohmann, WND, September 15, 2014
‘Several thousand in the pipeline, and that number will go up’Displaced Syrians will likely make up the next big wave of Muslim refugees coming to America.

Syrian-refugees-protest
“U.N. to dump flood of Muslim refugees on U.S.,” By Leo Hohmann, WND, September 15, 2014
‘Several thousand in the pipeline, and that number will go up’

Displaced Syrians will likely make up the next big wave of Muslim refugees coming to America.

Syrian-refugees-protest

Since the early 1990s, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees has selected more than 200,000 refugees from Islamic countries to be resettled in the United States. Most of them have come from Somalia and Iraq.

Syria could soon be added to the mix in the midst of that country’s brutal civil war. The Obama administration has been greasing the skids for the Syrian refugees for months, WND has learned, and the refugees will soon be dumped on American cities throughout the U.S.

In February, the State Department moved to ease the rules that protect the U.S. from accepting refugees with potential ties to terrorist organizations. The rules were seen as “too strict” by the refugee-resettlement groups that lobby Congress and the administration to continuously let in more Muslims from the war-torn Middle East.

Then on Sept. 4, a U.S. State Department spokeswoman hinted at her daily press briefing that a new wave of refugees will soon be coming from another predominantly Muslim nation – Syria.

“The United Nations high commissioner for refugees just this year started referring Syrian refugees to the United States for processing,” said Marie Harf. “Obviously, we have several thousand in the pipeline, and that number will continue to go up.”

Obama’s State Department is expected to present Congress with a list within the next two weeks that shows the total number of foreign refugees it wants to accept into the country over the next year and the countries from which they will come. The new fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

A few local newspaper reports have already surfaced, providing clues as to where some of the Syrian refugees will be delivered. The Winston-Salem Journal carried a report last week that the Triad area of North Carolina could receive some of the refugees. The first Syrian family has already arrived in Greensboro, North Carolina, and is living in a hotel there, according to the Journal.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported Sept. 10 that the city’s social services were preparing for “a flood of refugees” from Syria and Iraq later this year. Cleveland, Akron and Columbus, Ohio, have been hotspots in the past for Muslim refugees coming from the Middle East.

Once the refugees are relocated to an American city, they are quickly connected to an array of taxpayer-funded social services, including Medicaid, food stamps and subsidized housing. Interpreters and tutors are often provided to help bridge the language gap that refugee children will find in local public schools.

Groups like Human Rights First, World Relief Corp., the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Catholic and Lutheran churches all have strong presences in Washington and often do the bidding of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, World Relief, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Church World Services and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society push for more foreign refugees to be resettled in America, which results in more federal grants flowing into their coffers.

WND has documented in previous stories that more than 90 percent of the money used by these religious charities for resettling refugees comes from federal grants. They operate like government contractors in the lucrative resettlement business under the guise of providing “charity.”

Most of the Syrian refugees will likely be coming from Turkey, where thousands have fled across the border from Syria, but others are huddled in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt.

Melanie Nezer, head of policy and advocacy at Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, one of the organizations that resettles refugees in the U.S. using federal grants, wrote an op-ed March 28 in the New York Daily News in which she called for the U.S. to accept 75,000 Syrian refugees over the next five years. That would be 15,000 a year coming to the U.S. under permanent refugee status.

“That’s a huge number,” said Ann Corcoran, a writer and researcher for Refugee Resettlement Watch, a group that monitors the U.N.’s distribution of foreign refugees throughout the United States. She said 15,000 a year would be on a par with the Iraqi refugee program, which has produced the largest, fastest-growing refugee community in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001.

“Most of the Syrian refugees in these refugee camps are Sunni Muslims; they’re not Christians,” said Corcoran. “The camps in places like Turkey and Jordan, you’re not going to find a ton of Christians.”

The United Nations, working with the U.S. State Department, has already shipped approximately 115,000 Iraqis to American cities since Sept. 11. Another 100,000 Somalis have been resettled in the United States since that country devolved into civil war in 1993. The Somali refugees have been described as 99.9 percent Muslim by Somali-American leaders. The Iraqi refugees have also been majority Muslim and, while the exact percentages are more difficult to track, the Iraqis coming to the States have been estimated at 62 percent Muslim.

Culture clash in American cities

Once here, Muslim families have vastly more children than the typical American family. The average Somali couple in Minnesota, for example, has six children.

These refugee families have changed the demographics of their host cities, such as Shelbyville, Tennessee; Lewiston, Maine; and Minneapolis, Minnesota, all of which have reported culture clashes between Muslims expecting everything from foot baths at public colleges to dietary concessions at public schools. A Tyson Foods meat-packing plant in Shelbyville decided in 2009 to acquiesce to a local union’s demands to drop the paid holiday of Labor Day in favor of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr, a decision that Tyson later reversed in the wake of a public backlash.

And in Minneapolis, Mayor Betsy Hodges sparked controversy in April when she showed up to a meeting with the city’s increasingly powerful Muslim community wearing a hijab.

Problems have also arisen with Islamic radicals recruiting young Muslim refugees in America. WND has reported in recent weeks about FBI investigations into 25 to 30 Somali refugees leaving their homes in Minnesota to become fighters for ISIS in Syria and the al-Qaida-linked Al-Shabab in Somalia.

Pamela Geller, author of “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance,” said it should come as no surprise that the U.N. would do everything in its power to flood the United States with as many Muslim refugees as possible.

She said the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC, which is comprised of 56 Muslim countries and the Palestinian Authority, makes up the largest voting bloc at the U.N. General Assembly.

“They’re very powerful, they’re very dangerous,” Geller said. “You can’t make this stuff up.”

Geller, Corcoran and others such as Islam scholar Bat Ye’or have long warned that there are two methods of creating Islamic supremacy in the world. One is through violent jihad. The other is through al-hijra, or the Islamic doctrine of immigration.

“Basically you have those who want to take over (countries) through immigration saying to the jihadists “you guys need to stop cutting people’s heads off and be patient,’” Corcoran said. Al-hijra will accomplish the same goal over the long term in countries open to immigration, which includes the United States and most of Europe.

The U.S. takes in about 70,000 foreign refugees per year, more than any other country in the world. Besides the U.S., Germany and Sweden have also agreed to take in Syrian refugees through the U.N. program. Germany has agreed to accept another 10,000 Syrian refugees after already absorbing 6,000, while Sweden has agreed to accept up to 17,000 over the next year.

Creeping toward Sharia?

In 2011, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hosted a two-day conference with the OIC in Washington to discuss how to implement U.N. Resolution 1618 to combat “religious intolerance” and “negative stereotyping” against Muslims in the U.S., which Geller said amounted to a version of the Muslim anti-blasphemy laws.

“It was to implement the Shariah is what it was,” she said. “It was really an anti-free speech measure.”

Then in 2013 a U.S. attorney in Tennessee, William Killian, said it is possible that some inflammatory comments about Muslims posted on social media could violate civil-rights laws. He later backed off his plan to criminalize an entire segment of speech deemed offensive to Muslims, a decision Geller notes came only after an intense public outcry.

“You know, we have real problems, they’ve disarmed the American people, misinforming them or not informing them at all,” Geller said. “There are no human rights under the Shariah for non-Muslims, and so the U.N. is deeply problematic. And we do their bidding.”

State Department documents show that Iraq has produced the single largest number of refugees resettled in the United States. In fiscal year 2013 alone, 19,488 Iraqis were resettled in America, followed by Burma with 16,299, Bhutan with 9,134 and Somalia with 7,608. Only 36 Syrians were allowed into the U.S. in 2013, followed by just 63 so far in 2014.

“But again, part of this is because the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees only began this year in mid-2014 referring refugees in large numbers to the United States,” Harf said in the Sept. 4 briefing.

The Syrian civil war now has the potential to surpass even the Iraq War in its ability to create refugees. The war has caused more than 3 million Syrians to be uprooted since 2011.

Steve Emerson, a counter-terrorism expert and author of six books on radical Islam, said the screening process for refugees isn’t tight enough.

“They’re doing very little vetting. Several years ago, it was discovered that Iraqi militants were being resettled in California,” Emerson said. “So the resettlement program that’s going on around the U.S., the vast majority of refugees are not involved in terrorism, but certainly the vetting process is lacking. It’s not that easy to acquire the intelligence needed to deny someone refugee status if in fact the conditions that apply for asylum are met.”

Then there is the problem of the powerful refugee lobby in Washington.

“You have a pro-refugee lobby in the United States that is very strong, and the Obama administration has been particularly receptive to it,” Emerson said.

The U.N. has been trying to relocate 30,000 Syrians it considers most vulnerable, and the U.S. would normally accept half of those, according to witnesses who testified at a Senate hearing in January.

A State Department official, who asked not to be identified, told WND that refugees assigned to the U.S. by the United Nations are thoroughly screened by the Department of Homeland Security before they are allowed into the country.

“I would refer you to DHS on that, but I can assure you it’s a very rigorous process,” the official said.

The United States admits more refugees per year than all of the other countries in the world combined, Harf said.

“I think we should make the point about refugees here, that the United States resettles more refugees than the rest of the world combined, period,” Harf said. “And I think our commitment to helping with resettlement of refugees is an important one that we take very

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/09/u-n-to-dump-flood-of-muslim-refugees-on-u-s.html/#sthash.R6VxcgRQ.dpuf

We Pay For This Crap: UN Climate Chief Recommends Communism As The Best Way Fight Global Warming

by Heather Ginsberg – Town HallChristina

Climate change has been a popular topic of conversation lately and it appears the United Nations is taking a stand on the environmental changes. The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, also apparently knows about how government systems affect the climate. Oh wait, no she doesn’t.

She stated earlier this week that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. She also said that communist China is instead the best model.

Even though China is the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggles with major pollution issues of their own, apparently Ms. Figueres thinks that means they are “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming.

“Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.”

I guess the UN chief forgot that communism was responsible for 94 million deaths in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan and Eastern Europe in the 20th century. China alone caused 65 million of those. But clearly that means that communism is a great political system that we should all try to emulate.

But maybe one could say that has nothing to do with their energy resources. Well in 2012 China got 9 percent of its power from renewable sources, whereas the U.S. got 11 percent.

Oh and don’t forget that the Wall Street Journal noted that China’s air quality was so bad that it had roughly 1.2 million people die prematurely in 2010 as a result of air pollution. And Chinese government figures say “lung cancer is now the leading cause of death from malignant tumors. Many of those dying are nonsmokers.”

So who really is the better country when it comes to protecting the environment? Maybe Ms. Figueres needs to do a bit more research before she starts claiming one type of government is better than the other, when it comes to the environment or whatever.

Kerry says US will sign UN treaty on arms regulation despite lawmaker opposition

UN Guns
Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the Obama administration would sign a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, despite bipartisan resistance in Congress from members concerned it could lead to new gun control measures in the U.S.
Kerry, releasing a written statement as the U.N. treaty opened for signature Monday, said the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2.
“We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” he said. Kerry called the treaty “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”
The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.
Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.
Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.
“As your review of the treaty continues, we strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty,” the lawmakers wrote.
The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim, even if Obama goes ahead and signs it — as early as Monday, or possibly months down the road. A majority of Senate members have come out against the treaty. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify.
What impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don’t, and how stringently it is implemented.
The United Nations has organized a high-level signing ceremony at U.N. headquarters on Monday — a sign of the treaty’s global importance — and several dozen countries are expected to sign, the first step to ratification.
The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, said it expects many of the world’s top arms exporters — including Britain, Germany and France — to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year.
The coalition noted that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that “history will be made” when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed “to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death.”
Many violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature — and ratification — will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders.
The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons.
It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.
In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/03/lawmakers-urge-obama-to-reject-un-arms-treaty-as-it-opens-for-signature/#ixzz2bfxtDZbc

Rand Paul: UN has secret plot to ‘CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL’ of America’s guns

Rand-Paul-at-CPAC-615x345

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday warned President Barack Obama was working on behalf of “anti-American globalists” in the United Nations who were plotting against the U.S. Constitution.

In a fundraising email sent on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights, Paul alleged the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a secret plot to completely
American civilians.

“Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU,” Paul wrote. “So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps. But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.”
8447

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Saturday warned President Barack Obama was working on behalf of “anti-American globalists” in the United Nations who were plotting against the U.S. Constitution.

In a fundraising email sent on behalf of the National Association on Gun Rights, Paul alleged the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty was a secret plot to completely disarm American civilians.

“Ultimately, UN bureaucrats will stop at nothing to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU,” Paul wrote. “So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept many of their schemes under wraps. But looking at previous attempts by the UN to pass global gun control, you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.”

Paul said the United Nations would “CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL” of civilian firearms in the United States and ban the sale of all semi-automatic weapons. He also alleged the United Nations was controlled by “petty dictators and one-world socialists” who were plotting to usurp American sovereignty.

“These anti-gun globalists know that as long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave,” Paul wrote.

The United States voted with 153 other nations to approve the treaty in April, but it still needs to be ratified by the U.S. Senate. Republicans have vowed to block the treaty.

UN Troops Spotted Loading Supplies Into Woods Thurston County Out Of Omaha, Nebraska

by Steve Quayleun troups
Hi Steve,

My husband called me a little while ago to let me know that he saw something strange. He is a trucker and was driving outside Omaha, Nebraska, in Thurston County on some back roads. Along the road he spotted about 16 soldiers in uniforms he had not seen before, which were blue, black and gray. The troops did not look like Americans, and glared at him as he passed. There were five jeeps with no markings, and the troops were moving quickly to unload trailers and get it into the timbers. He didn’t know what they were unloading, but he said it gave him chills. He called a friend who keeps up on these things, and he said they were UN troops.

Obama Will Sign United Nations Anti-Gun Treaty June 3rd

UN-flag-GunThe Obama administration has long made it clear that it was intrigued by United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (“ATT”) which, if enacted, will control or prohibit ever civilian arms shipment anywhere in the world. Republicans and a handful of Second Amendment Democrat Senators have been so worried about the Obama administration’s flirtation with the UN ATT that the Senate passed an amendment to stop the Obama administration from entering into the ATT.

Nothing was going to stop Obama, though. Despite Senate objections, on March 28, the Obama administration engaged in an underhanded maneuver that ensures the ATT will pass despite America’s non-participation. Now, although Obama sat out the vote (after ensuring that the treaty would pass) Obama has announced that he will sign the treaty on June 3, on behalf of the United States of America.

The ATT will negatively affect American firearms. It will allow the UN to exert control over (and block) all civilian firearm imports into the United States (such as Glock, which Obama’s media wants to destroy), lessening the overall availability of guns. This, combined with the DHS’s massive weapons and ammunition buying spree, will leave even fewer guns for the civilian and law enforcement markets. In addition, the treaty imposes costly, and often prohibitive, restrictions on firearms imports, which will cover everything from shipping containers to sportsman traveling abroad.

The Senate still has to ratify the treaty by a two-thirds majority. Although the Democrats control the Senate, they cannot automatically call upon the 67 votes necessary to ratify the treaty. Nevertheless, by signing on to the ATT, Obama has signaled to the world that his administration will cooperate willingly with those nations that have enacted and intend to enforce the treaty – even if that means severely limiting Americans’ constitutional access to guns.

Crooked Ways the UN Rules

unflagYou remember Richard Falk — the UN Human Rights Council special rapporteur who last month wrote an article blaming America for the terrorist bombings of the Boston Marathon. Falk suggested these horrific attacks were part of the post-colonial world’s natural “resistance” to “the American global domination project.” In response, more than two dozen members of Congress called for Falk — an American academic — to be fired from his UN post.

Now, according to a dispatch by Fox News editor-at large George Russell, the U.S. State Department is saying that Falk cannot be fired — because the rules of the Human Rights Council contain no provision for firing any of the Council’s dozens of special rapporteurs. That’s quite plausible; the UN also lacks any provision for removing a secretary-general (as became evident during the Oil-for-Food scandal, on Kofi Annan’s watch). It is also absurd, and in practice not quite credible. When UN senior officials want to, they can be quite creative about sidelining or ousting inconvenient personnel — though such maneuvers seem more often reserved for whistleblowers than for those peddling the anti-American or anti-Israel vitriol in which the UN specializes.

But in the case of Falk, it looks like both the State Department and the UN Human Rights Council will defer politely to the UN’s lack of rules for firing a special rapporteur. His earliest departure date will be May of 2014, when his six-year term expires. At which stage, as Russell notes, Falk could run for another post as a special rapporteur for the Human Rights Council, which is packed with countries sympathetic to his style.

It gets worse. Russell has also unearthed the information — buried in a 183-page report from the UN’s External Board of Auditors — that Human Rights Council special rapporteurs, such as Falk, are not required to disclose any support they might get from institutions or individual governments. The basic arrangement is that these rapporteurs usually work for a token $1 per year, but the UN Human Rights Council covers their expenses which, according to documents obtained by Fox, can range from about $240,000 to almost $600,000 per year.

In other words, while UN special rapporteurs appear to be doing altruistic work for a token fee, the Human Rights Council has effectively issued them a license to operate under the UN logo, expenses paid by the UN — and at the same time, allows them to accept funding from who-knows-whom with who-knows-what-agenda, and no requirement to disclose any of it. Oh, and P.S., there is no provision for firing them (see above, and read Russell’s piece in full). It may happen that some of these special rapporteurs try to operate with integrity. But this is yet another instance in which, if the UN had set out to design a crooked setup, it’s hard to think how they could have done a better job of it. It’s time to think bigger than firing Richard Falk. How about finding a way to fire the entire Human Rights Council?

by Claudia Rosett

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN