Archive for the ‘United Nations’ Category

Why Are We Training Russian Troops In The US?

The UN wants rich countries to eat less meat so poor countries can eat more

United NationsA new United Nations report says that people living in rich countries should eat half as much meat as they usually do in order for people in poor countries to eat more without harming the environment.

UN scientists said that billions of people in poor countries should be allowed to eat more animal protein, reports the Guardian. But in order to protect the environment, the increased consumption of meat products poor countries must come at the expense of meat consumption in rich countries.

“Eat meat, but less often — make it special,” Professor Mark Sutton, the author of a UN Environment Program study, told the Guardian. “Portion size is key. Many portions are too big, more than you want to eat. Think about a change of culture that says, ‘I like the taste, but I don’t need so much of it.’”

The growth in meat consumption in rich countries has diverted large amounts of grain to raising livestock and required the extensive use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides which has helped cause “a web of water and air pollution that is damaging human health,” according to the UN report.

The Guardian reports that “[t]he run-off from these chemicals is creating dead zones in the seas, causing toxic algal blooms and killing fish, while some are threatening bees, amphibians and sensitive ecosystems.”

“The attention this meat scare has drawn [highlights] poor quality meat. It shows society must think about livestock and food choices much more, for the environment and health,” Sutton said.

Sutton told the Guardian that he wants Europe to pioneer the change in diet because it will be harder to change people’s minds in the US.

“Unless action is taken, increases in pollution and per capita consumption of energy and animal products will exacerbate nutrient losses, pollution levels and land degradation, further threatening the quality of our water, air and soils, affecting climate and biodiversity,” warns the report.

Follow Michael on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Read more:


UN troupsA little-discussed executive order from President Obama giving foreign cops new police powers in the United States by exempting them from such drudgery as compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is raising alarm among commentators who say INTERPOL already had most of the same privileges as diplomats.

At David Horowitz’s Newsreal, Michael van der Galien said the issue is Obama’s expansion of President Ronald Reagan’s order from 1983 that originally granted those diplomatic privileges.

Reagan’s order carried certain exemptions requiring that INTERPOL operations be subject to several U.S. laws such as the Freedom of Information Act. Obama, however, removed those restrictions in his Dec. 16 amendment to Executive Order 12425.

That means, van der Galien wrote today, “this foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse.”

“‘Property and assets,’ including the organization’s records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities,” he wrote.

Obama’s order said he was removing the Reagan limitations on INTERPOL:


“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them,” he wrote.

At the website, authors Steve Schippert and Clyde Middleton gave their interpretation of the result.

“In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans’ 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves,” they wrote.

“When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement,” they said.

“For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with ‘inviolable archives’ from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds,” they said.

“Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.”

Records show that the original order designated INTERPOL as a public international organization. Reagan had extended “appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities,” but kept it subject to searches and seizures under appropriate legal circumstances.

Obama’s decision, analysts have concluded, exempted Interpol from all restrictions.

“This international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests,” ThreatsWatch reported.

At the Patriot Room, it was explained there is a reason for a certain level of immunity.

“Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn’t matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here.”

But with Obama’s change, “It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure.”

Anthony Martin at the Examiner noted the international agency now can operate in the U.S. will “full immunity” from U.S. laws and “with complete independence from oversight from the FBI.”

At National Review Andy McCarthy asked, “Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?”

At UNDispatch, which is a blog on the United Nations, Mark Leon Goldberg, who explained he worked at Interpol’s headquarters in France in 2002, said there isn’t much danger of INTERPOL agents whisking Americans off to jail. But he confirmed, “As to the specific reason why the Obama administration would decide, last week, to extend to INTERPOL the same suite of diplomatic privileges that are typically accorded to international organizations? I don’t have a good answer for that. My sense is that it probably has something to with the accessibility of INTERPOL’s secure criminal databases (on things like stolen passports and the like).”

But the Obama critics at the Obamafile weren’t convinced.

“By this EO, Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, exemption from U.S. taxes, and immunity from FOIA requests, etc. … Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama – or his associations?”

U.S. Taxpayers Will Continue to Pay More Than One-Fifth of U.N. Budget

Joseph Torsella, deputy ambassador for U.N. management and reform, speaks at U.N. headquarters in New York City in this September 2011 file photo. (UN Photo by Evan Schneider)

( – In one of its last actions of the year, the United Nations General Assembly on Christmas Eve agreed to extend for another three years the formula that has U.S. taxpayers contributing more than one-fifth of the world body’s regular budget.

No member-state called for a recorded vote, and the resolution confirming the contributions that each country will make for the 2013-2015 period was summarily adopted. The assembly also approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 billion.

The U.S. has accounted for 22 percent of the total regular budget every year since 2000, and will now continue to do so for the next three years.

The U.S. representative for U.N. management and reform, Joseph Torsella, expressed satisfaction that the U.S. contribution had not been raised above that level.

“The United States is very pleased to have maintained the critical 22 percent ceiling for U.S. contributions to the U.N. regular budget, protecting U.S. taxpayers from the additional bills – estimated to be at least $300 million annually in both the regular and peacekeeping budgets – that would have resulted from an increase in the U.S. ceiling level,” he said.

Two months ago, when the General Assembly’s budget committee was meeting on the issue, Torsella noted that since the last time the budget contribution formula was reviewed, “developing countries have continued their impressive economic growth.”

“Countries whose economies have grown should welcome the opportunity to become a larger stakeholder in the work of the organization,” he said.
Torsella also reminded that meeting that since the creation of the U.N., a fundamental principle that has governed the budget contribution process has been “the avoidance of overreliance upon any one contributor.”

What constitutes “overreliance” is not defined, however. Between them the U.S. and Japan contribute one-third of the total budget – and roughly the same as the next seven countries combined.

The 193 U.N. member-states’ contributions are assessed according to their relative “capacity to pay,” based on population size and gross national income (converted to U.S. dollars at market exchange rates). The ceiling is 22 percent while the bottom level is 0.001 percent, which over the next three years will apply to more than 30 of the world’s poorest countries.

Whether a country contributes less than $25,000 a year towards the budget or more than $500 million – as the U.S. does – it has the same voting privileges in the General Assembly.

Moreover, as Heritage Foundation scholar Brett Schaefer has pointed out, countries that together pay less than 1.3 percent of the total are able, under U.N. voting rules, to pass the budget over the objections of countries that contribute a combined 98 percent.

According to the resolution adopted on Monday, the biggest contributors after the U.S. for the 2013-2015 period are Japan (10.83 percent), Germany (7.14 percent), France (5.59 percent), Britain (5.18 percent) and China (5.15 percent).

The next tier includes Italy (4.45 percent), Canada (2.98 percent), Spain (2.97 percent), Brazil (2.93 percent), Russia (2.44 percent) and Australia (2.07 percent). No other country pays as much as two percent, and most pay below one percent.

Some developing countries have seen relatively significant increases in their assessments: China, the world’s second-largest economy, will pay 5.15 percent, up from 3.12 last time; the Russian contribution has risen to 2.44 percent from 1.60 percent; Brazil’s 2.93 percent is an increase from 1.61.

China’s year-on-year GDP growth rate last year was 9.2 percent, Russia’s was 4.3 percent and Brazil’s 2.7 percent, according to CIA World Factbook data.

India’s increase in U.N. contributions is more modest – from 0.53 to 0.66 percent – while Japan, Canada and European countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will contribute a smaller percentage over the next three years than they have over the past three.

Before 2000, the U.S. contributed 25 percent of the U.N. regular budget, but it was reduced to 22 percent in line with legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in 1999. The U.S. still pays 25 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget.

U.N. seeks 'complete transformation' of the world

by Cathie Adams
The United Nations is meeting in Qatar to negotiate a “complete transformation of the economic structure of the world,” explained Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at a Monday press conference.

“What is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is the complete transformation of the economic structure of the world. It should happen much quicker, but it cannot happen overnight,” she added.

Figueres concluded, “This Conference of the Parties will produce a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding agreement. It will have the necessary amendments to go into a second commitment period as of January 1, 2013. … We are also moving toward a universal legally based agreement by 2015 to go into effect in 2020.”

Read more:


Exclusive: Rick Santorum exposes shocking details of U.N. power play

by Rick Santorium

Amid all the media frenzy concerning the fiscal cliff and the drumbeat to increase taxes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a vote on another objective of progressives – ceding our sovereignty to the United Nations. This treaty adopted by the U.N. in 2006 called the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or CRPD, will ostensibly promote and protect the rights of the disabled around the world.

Who would be opposed to a treaty that is conceptually designed to help the disabled? Certainly not my wife, Karen, and I, who are the parents of a very special child. Let me be clear: If I thought the U.S. Senate’s approval of this treaty would help our Bella or any disabled child here or in any other country, I would be vocally supporting it. But contrary to what the proponents of this treaty have successfully argued to many disability groups, it simply does not.

CRPD does call for numerous protections for people with disabilities, and many of these protections are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other state and federal laws. The fact is, the United States leads the world in our respect and treatment for people with disabilities – something of which we as a society should be proud. But this treaty will do nothing to enhance the status of people with disabilities in the United States. In fact, the proponents of this treaty are very adamant that it will do nothing to force the U.S. to change our laws. More on this later.

So why pass it? According to the proponents, it must be passed to improve the treatment of people with disabilities in other countries. In fact, they make the case that Americans traveling abroad will greatly benefit if the United States adopts this treaty. Let me be crystal clear on this point: This is utter nonsense!

Our adoption of this treaty will not legally oblige any other country to do anything. It will no more encourage other countries to change their disabilities laws or spend their resources on increasing access for the disabled than the laws – and the money spent – that the U.S. has already passed to lead the world in this area.

However, we would not be opposing this treaty if it caused no harm and merely did not live up to the supporters’ hype.

But digging a bit deeper, the treaty has much darker and more troubling implications.

The most offensive provision is found in Section 7 of the treaty dealing specifically with children with disabilities. That section reads:

“In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

“The best interest of the child” standard is lifted out of a controversial provision contained in the 1989 treaty called the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. That treaty was never ratified in large part because of this provision.

“The best interest of the child” standard may sound like it protects children, but what it does is put the government, acting under U.N. authority, in the position to determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. That is counter to the current state of the law in this country which puts parents – not the government – in that position of determining what is in their child’s best interest. Under the laws of our country, parents lose that right only if the state, through the judicial process, determines that the parents are unfit to make that decision.

In the case of our 4-year-old daughter, Bella, who has Trisomy 18, a condition that the medical literature says is “incompatible with life,” would her “best interest” be that she be allowed to die? Some would undoubtedly say so.

So if the state, and not Karen and I, would have the final word on what is in the best interest of a child like Bella, what chance would a parent have to get appropriate care in the days of increasingly government-funded medical care?

Proponents have said that Section 7 would not affect a parent’s right under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but the education standards of CRPD do not repeat the parental rights rules of past U.N. human-rights treaties. Omission of these rules combined with Section 7 could lead to the elimination of parental rights for the education of children with disabilities.

These issues become real for parents because, despite what the proponents insist, ratifying the treaty will require changes to U.S. laws to comply with the U.N. provisions. Section 4 requires any country that adopts this treaty “to adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention.”

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on ratification of this treaty. If two-thirds of the Senate passes CRPD, it will become law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, would trump state laws and could be used as precedent by state and federal judges.

I stand by a simple principle that the laws we live by should be imbued with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. CRPD falls short of this standard, and it must be defeated.

In short, there is no reason for our country to give up our sovereignty to the United Nations when it comes to providing benefits and protections for the disabled in America. Furthermore, it would be an egregious move to deny parents of children with disabilities the right to do what they think is in their child’s best interest in exchange for some illegitimate claim that disabled Americans will have better treatment abroad. CRPD must be defeated.


Weird Details of the United Nation’s Creepy, Cult-Like George Soros Financed Environmental Religion

by Kelly OConnell

If the United Nations stands for anything, it is the supposed triumph of mankind’s rational, humanistic mind over the dull biases of the past, especially religious fanaticism—correct? And so who would guess the UN’s most hallowed mission—that of saving the planet—was underwritten by an exposed con artist claiming inspiration from a “burning bush” spurring him to action? In fact, the person most associated with the early green movement is Maurice Strong, chief architect of Agenda 21—a Marxist opportunist scoundrel of the first order.

It is a simple fact that successful political ideologies all have a structure borrowed from traditional religion. In fact, Carl Schmitt said, “all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts.” So as the UN propagandizes the globe to support its mission, it uses the same logic as the USSR and communist China when banning religion, then presenting Lenin, Stalin and Mao as gods. For as traditional religion is eliminated, the idea of devils, sin and scapegoats cannot be so easily dismissed. An example is the far leftist Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution”—which states,

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

Maurice Strong: Archbishop of Environmentalism—Or, Pope of Satan’s Church?

A. History of Mo Strong
The New York Times called Maurice Strong “Custodian of the Planet;” others—the “indispensable man” of the UN ecological movement. In fact, Strong is arguably the brains behind modern environmentalism—aka global warming, sustainable development, and the conviction mankind/ capitalism must be amputated before the earth dies. But who is Maurice Strong?

Canadian-born, multi-billionaire Maurice Strong grew up impoverished in Manitoba, Canada—his mother’s death related to her insanity. After 11th grade, dropout Strong apprenticed to the fur trade, proving a remarkable success. At 19, he became an investment analyst. By 25, he was VP of Dome Petroleum,; at 31, President of Power Corporation of Canada. He then headed both Petro Canada and Hydro Canada. Strong also worked in government, leaving at 18 for a job at the UN. He was later rewarded with a number of posts and became a special friend of the UN, and a top adviser to several secretary generals. One site notes:

His role leading the UN’s famine relief program in Africa was the first in a series of UN advisory assignments, including reform and appointment as Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Environment and Development—the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.

B. Mo Strong—Envoy of the Antichrist
Maurice Strong’s dark side is eminently obvious from his evil ideas behind the modern environmental movement. His character was revealed by his involvement in the Iraqi oil-for-food scam. Obviously, an aged multi-billionaire doesn’t need the money—but it does illuminate one’s ethics when such activities come to light.

Some folks question how a high school dropout could evolve into one of the world’s wealthiest and most influential persons in the world—without some very spectacular help? They insinuate Strong sold his soul to the dark side long ago. In support, we observe evil in Strong’s hypocritical use of capitalism to amass a fortune while claiming he’d like to destroy the world’s free markets—enslaving the globe’s population to the state.

Strong hates capitalism, saying: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Then again, what can one expect from a man who counts among his closest friends Mikhail Gorbachev and George Soros? Gorbachev boasted the two shared Stalin’s favorite brandy, as well. Strong opposes freedom, in general, saying,

It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

Religious Elements of the UN’s Environmental Mission—Agenda 21

A. Ark of Hope—Secular Ark of the Covenant
Let’s not forget that the UN’s religious pretensions are a mask for socialism, as both are revealed in Agenda 21, the environmental platform meant to force the world to accept “sustainable development.” It is with this background that the importance of dispensing of biblical religions becomes paramount—since the Bible is the source book which released freedom into the modern world. The Ark of Hope is embraced by the UN:

Recognizing that the United Nations is central to global efforts to solve problems which challenge humanity, the Ark of Hope carrying the Earth Charter and the Temenos Books was exhibited at the United Nations during the World Summit PrepComII in January-February 2002.

The Ark of Hope is a cheesy and presumptuous copy of the original Israeli Ark of the Covenant which housed the Ten Commandments that Moses received from God and carried down from Mt Sinai. This is meant to disrespect the original and also wipe out biblical religion.

The Ark of Hope, a 49” x 32” wooden chest, was created as a place of refuge for the Earth Charter document, an international peoples treaty for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century. The Ark of Hope also provides refuge for the Temenos Books, Images and Words for Global Healing, Peace, and Gratitude. The Earth Charter’s 16 principles are the guiding vision behind the creation of these books. The Ark of Hope was created for a celebration of the Earth Charter held at Shelburne Farms, Vermont on September 9, 2001.

Compare this with the Old Testament’s description of the original Ark of the Covenant, from Exodus 25:10-16

“Have them make an ark of acacia wood—wo and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. Then put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law, which I will give you.

B. Earth Charter—Humanist Ten Commandments
According to one site the Earth Charter started this way:

In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development issued a call for the creation of a charter that would set forth fundamental principles for sustainable development. An attempt to draft such a charter failed at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Beginning in 1994 and working outside the United Nations, several of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful men crafted their own document, which they named the Earth Charter. This initiative was directed by Maurice Strong, oil/gas/hydro energy billionaire, president of the Earth Council Alliance, avowed socialist, and former member of the Commission on Global Governance; Mikhail Gorbachev, former communist dictator, president of Green Cross International, and outspoken advocate for a new world government; and Steven Rockefeller, heir to the Rockefeller oil fortune, head of the Earth Charter Commission, USA, and another outspoken advocate for new global governance.

The Earth Charter history begins with this:

Preamble: We stand at a critical moment in Earth’s history, a time when humanity must choose its future. As the world becomes increasingly interdependent and fragile, the future at once holds great peril and great promise. To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny. We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace. Towards this end, it is imperative that we, the peoples of Earth, declare our responsibility to one another, to the greater community of life, and to future generations.

The Earth Charter contains these chapters:


The subheadings are quite revealing as to the tenor of the entire Charter. The text reveals a poisonous bias against capitalism and humanity itself. In other words, it’s pure Marxism. For example, here are a few excerpts…

5. Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.

a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations that make environmental conservation and rehabilitation integral to all development initiatives.

6. Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach….

a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

9. Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

14. Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.

16. Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.

C. GAIA & Temple of Understanding, NYC
Gaia is the pagan idea that the earth is itself a living organism. The Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City is actually a shrine of many non-Christian religions. One author states:

One of most influential NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) allied closely with the U.N. and intimately involved in their creation of agenda is the Temple of Understanding (TOU), located in The Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. This organization’s objectives are, according to its website, “developing an appreciation of religious and cultural diversity, educating for global citizenship and sustainability, expanding public discourse on faith and ecology, and creating just and peaceful communities”. Most importantly, although not explicitly stated by the TOU, the cathedral is the center of cosmology, or the worship of Gaia. The Cathedral of St. John the Divine is not only home to the TOU, but has also previously housed the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, the Lindesfarne Association and the Gaia Institute, which are all proponents of the gaia hypothesis.

A Catholic priest, the late Father Thomas Berry, was a board member of this church and called for a post-Christian earth religion. Berry said:

We must rethink our ideas about God; we should place less emphasis on Christ as a person and redeemer. We should put the Bible away for 20 years while we radically rethink our religious ideas. What is needed is the change from an exploitative anthropocentrism to a participative biocentrism. This change requires something more than environmentalism.

D. New Burning Bush of Maurice Strong
Maurice Strong is the most important person in the history of modern global environmentalism. Therefore, his religious experiences regarding his non-Christian beliefs are highly intriguing.
According to Strong, while walking with TV presenter Bill Moyers, a bush spontaneously burst into flames in front of them:

Strong had experienced his own epiphany. When TV commentator Bill Moyers came to speak to the Aspen board, they had gone hiking in the Sangre de Cristos. Suddenly, in front of them, a bush had mysteriously burst into flame. “Bill Moyers still talks about it,” (Strong’s wife) Hanne notes. “He says it’s the only mystical experience he’s ever had.”

As the original story says in Exodus 3:1-6:

Now Moses led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight‚Äîwhy the bush does not burn up.”

When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”

And Moses said, “Here I am.”

“Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.”

Broadcast The Truth - Wake Up America - Stop The George Soros Takeover of Our Country

Barak Obama is the puppet of George Soros. He makes no decisions, he writes no speeches and he doesn’t meet with anyone because he does not run anything.

He is in place to deliver the speeches written for him by John Podesta and George Soro’s Center for American Progress, to put in place George Soro’s one world government and to destroy America

John Podesta is Chair and Counselor of the George Soros Center for American Progress and the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Under his leadership, American Progress has become a notable leader running the Obama Government and advocacy for progressive communistic one world policy.

It should come as no surprise that President Obama,hasn’t lifted a finger to work with the Congress on jobs or to resolve these big issues. The president “doesn’t even have time to meet with his own jobs council. He’s just out there campaigning every day and looking for somebody else to blame.”

Does anybody else find it ironic that President Obama is touring the country campaigning, and the biggest platform of said campaign seems to be that we need to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 dollars? This is what George Soros and John Podesta tell him to do. The Obama Government is run with Blackberry transmissions to the cabinet heads and Czars from the Center For American progress.

George Soros is holding the fiscal cliff for the trigger of collapse. Nothing will happen until Soros gives the word.

Obama continues to be the Clown President and Chief puppet. Wake up America it is in plain site. The Clown continues – A new report released by the Government Accountability Institute on Wednesday reveals that Barack Obama spent 412 hours in economic meetings so far during his almost four years in the White House.

Wynton Hall of notes that on average, Obama has spent “just eight minutes more a week on economic meetings than the average dog owner spends walking their dog.”

By the President’s own estimates, he has spent more time on the golf course than in economic meetings.

In June, we reported that Obama marked his 100th round of golf. The President said that it was “the only time that for six hours, I’m outside.”

Obama: I will not rest until everyone has a job. (Complete B. S.)

Do the math, and that calculates to 600 hours playing golf, versus 412 in economic meetings.

“You should know that keeping the economy growing and making sure jobs are available is the first thing I think about when I wake up every morning,” he told UPS workers in 2011. “It’s the last thing I think about when I go to bed each night.”

He may think about it a lot, but apparently, it doesn’t keep him off the golf course. This is complete B.S.

Throughout the first 1,257 days of his presidency, Mr. Obama has spent just 412 hours in economic meetings or briefings of any kind.

In 2012, so far Obama has spent just 24 total hours in economic meetings of any kind.
Assuming a six day, 10-hour workweek, Obama has spent less than 4 percent of his total time in economic meetings or briefings of any kind.

There were 773 days (72 percent), excluding Sundays, in which he had no economic meetings.

Mr. Obama has spent an average of 138 minutes a week in economic meetings. According to a study published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, new dog owners spent an average of 130 minutes a week walking their dogs.

Earlier this week, Americans learned that Obama has not met with his highly touted “Jobs Council” for six months. When pressed, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the President has “got a lot on his plate.”

“But he continues to solicit and receive advice from numerous folks outside the administration about the economy, about ideas that he can act on with Congress or administratively to help the economy grow and help it create jobs,” Carney said.

Speaking to a crowd in Ohio, Mitt Romney said that in that same period of time, Obama has held 100 fundraisers.

“His priority is not creating jobs for you,” Romney said. “His priority is trying to keep his own job. And that’s why he’s going to lose it.”

Global gun control? Critics warn U.N. treaty would undermine U.S. gun rights

by Joe Newby


Thanks to the United Nations, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would be severely limited if a new treaty is ratified by the United States, gun advocates say.

According to the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, the Arms Trade Treaty being hammered out in the global body would “mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment gun-ownership rights,” Fox News reported Wednesday.

LaPierre told Fox that Americans “just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not.”

“It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty,” he added.

On Tuesday, Dick Morris wrote:

The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT’s true intent: to force gun control on the United States.

“Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right to bear arms,” he wrote. “But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty.”

Katie Pavlich wrote at Townhall that the treaty goes far beyond controlling “heavy weaponry used by our military.”

According to Pavlich, it “reaches right into the homes of gun owning Americans by controlling pistols, rifles and ammunition with the full backing of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a readied signature from President Obama.”

Forbes notes that if the treaty is passed by the United Nations and ratified by the Senate it would “force” the United States to:

Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.
Not only would the treaty impact law-abiding gun owners in the United States, rogue regimes like Iran would be placed in charge of its implementation.

Morris wrote that the treaty would be overseen by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will ensure that “parties [to the treaty] take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within [their] territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users.”

The Jewish Press reported Monday that “Iran was elected to a top post on the UN Arms Trade Treaty conference” after being found guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to Syria.

“This is like choosing Bernie Madoff to police fraud on the stock market. And the U.N.’s scandalous choice of Iran is exactly why we fear that Syria’s declared bid for a U.N. Human Rights Council seat is not impossible,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch.

Fox News observed that the treaty could also “straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel.”

LaPierre told Fox that the United Nations’ refusal to remove civilian arms and ammunition from the treaty would mean that only governments could own guns.

According to LaPierre, fifty-eight U.S. senators have “signed a letter saying that they would refuse to ratify any treaty that includes controls over civilian guns or ammunition,” Fox reported.

But Forbes warned that “[w]hile a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly ‘pro-gun’, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.”

Still, the treaty would require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate.

In May 2011, President Obama told gun control advocate Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control “under the radar.”

Morris adds that the President has kept gun control off his legislative agenda “so far.”

“Now his strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it,” he wrote.

“Now, more than ever,” Forbes wrote, “it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.”


If you like this article, you can follow Joe on Twitter @jnewby1956, visit his Facebook page, or subscribe to receive email updates when a new article is published.

Be sure to check out some of Joe’s other columns:

Spokane Conservative Examiner

National Crime and Courts Examiner

For hard-hitting conservative commentary, please visit Joe’s blog, the Conservative Firing Line. You can also find Joe’s articles at Right News Now.

Suggested by the author:
Obama Administration working on gun control ‘under the radar’
Gun company ad compares Obama to Stalin and Hitler, warns of tyranny
The case against re-electing Barack Hussein Obama, part 2
Oklahoma mother shoots, kills intruder to protect baby
Gingrich: UN should adopt treaty giving everyone on earth the right to own guns

SEO Powered By SEOPressor