Tag Archives: UN
Madeleine Albright and Ibrahim Gambari are two of the people who say that the UN needs to be “renovated” and “modernized” in order to remain strong and relevant.
The United Nations is a globalist organization born out of the geopolitical debris left after World War II as well as as a result of the global elite’s desire to exercise complete control over the population.
Its predecesor, the League of Nations, was the start of what later became a network of influential globalist supranational organizations whose legitimacy is more than questionable given the poor results they’ve produced in favor of the people of the world.
These organizations include the UN itself, a body dominated by the winners of WW II who saw in the end of the war an opportunity to shape the future to their liking. Each of those members was charged with taking on an issue that the globalists understood as a challenge, while at the same time collaborating with each other on regional and global matters. One of those issues, perhaps the most important, is Eugenics.
Globalists intend to reduce and keep the world’s population at less than 1 billion people. Recently, a representative of the Vatican and the governor of Caliornia expressed their desire to depopulate the planet and implement a global court that would enforce an “Earth Constitution” and that would be part of their Global Government.
Despite being seen as an organization that represents the interests of the masses, the UN is actually a politically castrated body, whose decisions are for the most part non-binding. Only that which is decided by the members of the Security Council, formed by the strongest political and military forces of the planet, is adopted as official UN policy, although it does not always ends up being respected or followed.
The insignificance of the UN is not a coincidence. The UN was never intended to be a global body where all of its members had equal representation, or where countries could deal with their national or regional affairs. Up until today, the UN is a sterile forum where national representatives go to give speeches that are almost immediately forgotten.
Do not let the UN’s sterility and political castration deceive you, though. Right now, the UN is a shell whose interior is just about to be stuffed with the power and force that its creators always intended it to have.
Recently, the United Nations served as a forum for globalist politicians and their representatives to propose the massive confiscation of firearms in the United States, a plan that has been in the works for decades. If approved and adopted, this proposal would forcibly take the American people’s constitutional right to own guns.
More detailed versions of plans such as the UN Arms Treaty, intend to make the United Nations the sole military power on the planet, which would require countries to surrender their weapons, or to transfer their use to the hands of a group of unelected politicians at the UN.
A similar proposal was presented in political circles regarding internet management. People at the UN and national representatives at G7 countries are working side by side to give the UN complete control over internet communications in the same way that others proposed surrendering military equipment.
A third and perhaps the most important attempt by globalists to complete their plan of total control over humanity is the environmental agenda of the United Nations. Two documents referring to the imposition of limits to development and individual liberty have been issued by the UN in the last few decades. The 1992 United Nations Biodiversity Assessment which was later complemented with the Agenda 21 plan are clear examples of how those behind the UN seek complete control over people and resources.
Now, a panel of experts that includes former United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright and Ibrahim Gambari, former Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs, is advancing a proposal to finally “renovate” and “modernize” the United Nations, which in practice would mean giving the UN total power over communications, environmental issues and military affairs, among others.
As the United Nations’ 70th anniversary approaches, a so-called independent committee of 14 experts has prepared a report with what they call ambitious recommendations to “reform the world’s most famous intergovernmental body”.
Gathered around the Commission on Global Security, Justice and Governance sponsored by the Hague Institute for Global Justice and the American study center Stimson the proposed change covers three main areas: climate, cybercrime and international conflicts, the very same issues where the UN has attempted to force itself on sovereign nations.
“The UN is not prepared to face the current threats, which are changing. If you do not want to risk prolonging global crises, it should be renewed,” says the study.
The report isued by this group was titled “Facing the crisis of global governance”, and it was presented Tuesday at the Peace Palace, the home of the International Court of the UN.
Directed by Madeleine Albright and Ibrahim Gambari, the organization warns about the need to make decisions that go “beyond national borders and that aim to reach the world of business and civil society, as well as other institutions of global governance, to better address the challenges of state conflicts, climate change and the hyper-connected economy. “
The proposed changes involve, among other things, modernizing international peacekeeping and mediation.
According to the authors, it is necessary to create a new generation of mediators, with a higher proportion of women, to prevent conflicts and maintain peace.
The report makes use of a popular technique of mass manipulation, which makes it appear as if the proposed changes are politically correct, by impling that including more women and more members of minority groups is the key to making the plan succeed.
“Also, it is vital to have enough civil, military and police personnel to meet the tasks of peace missions themselves, involve women to back reconstruction process, and coordinate all UN agencies to prevent atrocities is considered indispensable.”
On the fake issue of climate doomsday, the report argues that “The climate is another pillar of the suggested reforms, and collaboration with the private sector, creating green technology licensing and review of experiments conducted on “atmospheric changes” is requested.”
The so-called experts use the same type of language as the UN’s IPCC, the political body in charge of making up and implementing scientific polic. “You also need to set a target for climate adaptation. Something like the barrier of two degrees Celsius warming, recommended to contain the greenhouse effect.”
The study presented by former political figures also took a shot at economics and financial issues. “Given the inevitable consequences of the vagaries of the world economy, the study aims to “create an additional G20 (G20 +) for true cooperation avoid financial crisis.”
The globalists also want to centralize control of the internet by officializing the existence of internet police. “On cybercrime, another widespread phenomenon, it appears to be necessary the creation of a global network of centers to combat it, with the help of Interpol.
A report of this nature would not be complete without making reference to the Security Council in its current composition.
As we said before, this body is composed y five permanent members -Russia, Britain, China, France and the United States- with veto power who make their own decisions on all sorts of global affairs. According to the report, it is preferable to “provide opportunities to other countries, regional organizations and NGOs, as well as local authorities, to contribute to the forging and maintenance of peace.” This same type of speech has presented at the beginning of negoatiations on climate, but in truth participants were and still are only allowed to talk about a pre-established agenda set by the UN.
“At the same time, we should strengthen the Council’s legitimacy and restrict the right of veto,” concludes the report.
The proposals contained in the study will be presented next September at the UN during the 70th anniversary commemorative summit in New York.
Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.
UN Blue Helmets are supposed to restore order, maintain peace and security and help troubled nations transition to stability.
Instead, they operate as imperial enforcers creating more conflict than resolution – including committing horrific human rights abuses against vulnerable people they’re mandated to protect.
Wherever they’re deployed it’s the same ugly story. After the Bush administration ousted democratically elected Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a ruthless, illegal MINUSTAH mission enforced coup d’etat authority.
Abuses against vulnerable Haitians from then to now include sexual exploitation, trafficking and rape. On June 9, AP News headlined “UN: Sex exploitation by peacekeepers strongly underreported.”
AP obtained a draft UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report (expected to be released later in June) on sexual crimes committed by Blue Helmets.
It comes a decade after a similar earlier one discovered a disturbing pattern of peacekeeper misconduct wherever they’re deployed – including sexual criminality.
Evidence showed so-called peacekeepers regularly had sex with young girls. Blue Helmets in Bosnia and Kosovo forced around 2,000 women into sex slavery.
Liberian girls young as 12 were exploited. Pedophilia was discovered in other countries. At the time, a UN statement said:
“The reality of prostitution and other sexual exploitation in a peacekeeping context is profoundly disturbing because the United Nations has been mandated to enter into a broken society to help it, not to breach the trust placed in it by the local population.”
UN authorities claim they operate on the principle of not “in any way increas(ing) the suffering of vulnerable sectors of (a) population.”
Yet wherever they’re deployed, they’re alleged mandate is egregiously violated – most often unaccountably.
AP reported Blue Helmets engaging in “transactional sex” with more than 225 Haitian women – in exchange for food, medicines and other inducements.
It said sexual exploitation “remains significantly underreported” wherever Blue Helmets are deployed.
“(M)ajor challenges remain a decade after a groundbreaking UN report first tackled this issue.”
It remains unchecked, out-of-control with little done to curb abusive practices.
The reported indicated about one-third of sexual abuses committed against minor under age 18. Aiding victims is “severely deficient.”
Investigations when conducted drag on interminably – usually without resolution. Victimization continues unchecked.
UN investigators interviewed 231 Haitian women and girls saying they had “transactional sexual relationships” with Blue Helmets.
Haiti is the hemisphere’s poorest country – still devastated from the 2010 earthquake, UN-caused cholera epidemic killing thousands, and US-installed repressive governance.
“For rural (Haitian) women, hunger, lack of shelter, baby care items, medication and household items were frequently cited as the ‘triggering need,’ ” for transactional sex, according to the UN report.
Urban and suburban women got “church shoes, cell phones, laptops and perfume, as well as money,” it explained.
“In cases of non-payment, some women withheld the badges of peacekeepers and threatened to reveal their infidelity via social media.”
“Only seven interviewees knew about the United Nations policy prohibiting sexual exploitation and abuse.” None knew about a UN hotline to report it.
Peacekeeper sexual transactions are prohibited conduct. Yet the practice continues widespread perhaps since Blue Helmets were first deployed – for sure going back many years.
Number of reported abuses way undercount the problem’s severity. The UN’s draft report doesn’t say over what time period “transactional sex” occurred in Haiti.
Blue Helmets were first deployed there in 2004. Straightaway horrendous abuses were committed – including persecution, violence, sex crimes and murder.
On the one hand, peacekeepers are allegedly deployed to protect vulnerable people. Instead they abuse them.
Haiti is Exhibit A – its people brutally exploited for 11 years with no end of unwanted occupation in sight.
At times clashes erupt. Haitians want real democracy and justice they’re denied – including respect for their fundamental civil and human rights. Not as long as America enforces colonial rule.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.
By: John Vibes | The Free Thought Project –
This week, a report from the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), indicated that “peacekeepers” working in Haiti were guilty of raping Haitian women at an alarming rate. The report also indicated that a large number of the victims were underage.
According to the report, there were 231 people in Haiti who claimed they were sexually violated by UN peacekeepers, and were forced to perform sexual acts in exchange for food and supplies that were intended as relief packages.
“For rural women, hunger, lack of shelter, baby care items, medication and household items were frequently cited as the ‘triggering need,’”the report said, adding that UN workers coaxed women and girls into sexual activities with “church shoes, cell phones, laptops and perfume, as well as money.”
“In cases of non-payment, some women withheld the badges of peacekeepers and threatened to reveal their infidelity via social media,”the report said
This is not the first time that UN workers have been accused of these types of crimes. After the UN has entered areas like Cambodia, Mozambique, Bosnia, Sudan and Kosovo, there was an explosion of sex trafficking and numerous reports of abuse. Just this year, the UN was caught attempting to cover-up the fact that their workers had raped starving and homeless boys in the Central African Republic.
There are almost too many cases to list in which high-profile public figures or organizations were accused in pedophilia or human trafficking cases. However, they almost always dodge any prosecution or public scrutiny due to their control of the legal system and media.
There have been many cases in recent history where establishment figures have been caught up in child prostitution rings but quickly had the story swept under the rug.
One such case was on June 29 1989, when the Washington Times’ Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald reported on a Washington D.C. prostitution ring that had intimate connections with the White House and President George H.W. Bush. It was suspected that this was connected with the Franklin prostitution ring that was being exposed at the same time, in a different part of the country.
That story involved the manager of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union in Nebraska. His name was Lawrence “Larry” King and he was also a prominent politician. Various unconnected victims accused him of transporting them around the country to be used as sex slaves for politicians. When the accusations finally came to light, the victims were railroaded out of court and threatened into recanting their statements, thus making themselves guilty of perjury in the process.
The perjury was unfortunately enough to drop the case and actually send some of the victims to jail. The truth of the matter didn’t come out until former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp went back to reexamine the case and discovered that the accusations were indeed true.
Human trafficking is an industry of the ruling class, it always has been. Your average blue-collar, white-collar people aren’t buying slaves, and they certainly aren’t selling them either! This is still very much a part of western culture, even companies with major government contracts have been accused of organizing full-scale slave rings. These companies have not only been protected by their governments, but they were also able to keep the contracts and subsidies that they had prior to the accusations.
Some of the world’s largest multinational corporations such as DynCorp and Halliburton were exposed as major players in the global human trafficking market. These companies did not work alone, but cooperated with each other through various subsidiaries and had the luxury of government protection.
When suspicion was brought upon these companies it was swept under the rug by government officials. Even high-ranking members of the establishment such as Donald Rumsfeld were implicit in covering up this scandal. On March 11th 2005, he was questioned by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and he admitted on the record that the allegations did have credibility, but he pushed the blame off onto a few “rogue” employees. He used the “few bad apples” line that the government always dishes out when they are caught up in a scandal.
Although Rumsfeld and other high-ranking officials claimed that they would look into the situation, they actually prevented any serious investigations from taking place. This happens every day, even organizations like the UN and NATO have come under fire for running slave rings out of third world countries when they are on “peacekeeping missions.”
John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work he organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/peacekeepers-sexually-assaulted-women-children-haiti-relief-missions/#c3JguLtXeqgspfW4.99
By: Alex Newman | The New American –
Elderly people in the United Kingdom and potentially worldwide are likely to be treated as “second-class citizens” and even denied life-saving medical treatment under proposed “highly unethical” United Nations “death targets,” healthcare and aging experts declared in an open letter last week. The radical UN “Sustainable Development Goals,” which would put virtually every realm of human activity in the crosshairs, include, among other controversial provisions, proposed global “targets” for reducing premature deaths from various causes. To meet those targets, the experts said, government-run healthcare systems such as the U.K. “National Health Service” (NHS) are likely to focus more resources on easier-to-save younger people — at the expense of the elderly whose deaths would not be counted as “premature.” Some critics are even saying the plan heralds the advent of “death panels.”
Officially dubbed the UN “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals,” the plot being pushed by the UN and its member regimes represents a brazen attack on liberty, self-government, markets, national sovereignty, and more — all under the guise of “solving” all of the world’s real and imagined problems. The death targets are merely one tiny component that includes everything from “education” and values to food and health. The specific “Sustainable Development Goals,” set to replace the “Millennium Development Goals” established in 2000, are still being hammered out by UN bureaucrats and UN member regimes. Everything from “ending poverty” and “ending hunger” to “achieving gender equality” and “reducing income equality within and between countries” over 15 years is on the agenda. Imagine the coercive powers and the massive amount of resources required to even attempt such scheming.
Now, at least one component of the agenda — the age discrimination in healthcare — is coming under heavy criticism in the United Kingdom. In the open letter published by the prominent medical journal The Lancet and widely reported in the British press, the international coalition of experts lambasted the sought-after UN goal and demanded that it be scrapped or revised. Blasting the ideas as “agist” — discrimination against individuals based on their age — the signatories argued that the concept of “premature mortality” has the potential to “undermine the cherished, fundamental principle of health as a universal right for all.” The letter specifically criticizes a previous article on the subject that it says is based on “ethical principles” that “are deeply troubling” — namely, “that people aged 70 years and above do not matter.”
The signatories also argue that agist discrimination is already strong in areas such as cancer treatment even in high-income countries, and the situation is worse still in poorer nations. In the U.K., as The New American and many other sources have been documenting for years, the government-run healthcare monopoly known as NHS is already infamous for killing off the elderly and denying necessary care to patients. Last year, the U.K. Royal College of Surgeons, stating what was already well known, declared that elderly patients were being denied crucial treatment and operations due to such discrimination, according to British media reports. A few years before that, a British doctor warned that the socialist-style NHS was euthanizing as many as 130,000 patients each year through a controversial end-of-life “care” method called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP).
According to the letter in The Lancet, even if it is not the intent of those promoting the premature death targets, the inclusion of such goals in the UN “Sustainable Development Goals,” set to be adopted in September, “will inevitably reinforce the ageist bias that pervades many aspects of health-care decision making.” “A chronologically exclusive premature mortality target sends out a strong signal that years lived beyond a given age, such as 60 years or 70 years, are intrinsically less valuable than those of a younger person,” the letter states. “This misconception builds on a flawed tradition in health-care priority setting, which includes an explicit bias against older people (as opposed to people of so-called economically and socially productive ages).”
The experts on aging who signed the letter — associated with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Institute for Ageing and Health at Newcastle University, the Alzheimer’s Society, Age UK, and HelpAge — were led by Peter Lloyd-Sherlock. Speaking to the U.K. Telegraph, the professor of social policy and international development at the University of East Anglia said: “This premature mortality target is highly unethical, since it unjustifiably discriminates against older people.” He also noted that there is already age discrimination in cancer care and surgery, but that the UN targets would give the agism the “stamp of approval.” However, the targets are “not quite set in stone yet, so we have a final opportunity to impress upon the UN the need to alter this explicitly ageist health target.” If that does not happen, he warned ominously, “people aged 70 and over will become second-class citizens as far as health policy is concerned.”
Lost amid the whole debate over the UN death targets and agism in healthcare, though, are several crucial overarching questions that must be addressed and are more important even than the discrimination debate. First of all, why is the UN — widely and properly ridiculed as the “dictators club” for its autocratic membership roster — setting “targets” and making 15-year “agendas” that will influence or even dictate national policy to begin with? Are the British and their elected representatives incapable of governing themselves without UN “targets” to guide their decisions? As the British struggle to free themselves from the European Union super-state, why is it accepted as inevitable that the UN’s “Sustainable Development Goals” will guide U.K. policy on healthcare or anything else? Allowing Third World dictators to tell the once proud British people how to run their affairs should be seen as a disgrace — and it should be firmly rejected.
Second of all, why is the government involved in healthcare to begin with? Are citizens incapable of making their own medical decisions and looking after their own health without the nanny state? Considering the atrocious track record of the socialist-style NHS regime, it is way past time for the United Kingdom to abolish socialized medicine and allow the free market to work its magic. Allowing government to ration and control medical care — whether based on UN death targets or the whims of homegrown politicians and bureaucrats — has been shown conclusively to be a disaster, not to mention immoral. From euthanizing the elderly and urging them to sign “do not resuscitate” directives, to being consistently unable to meet the needs of patients, it is time for the NHS and similar socialized medicine regimes to be tossed on the ash heap of failed ideas with devastating and deadly consequences.
Finally, with the ongoing disaster that is the deeply unpopular “ObamaCare,” are Americans traveling down the same dark road as the British? Absolutely. As the outlandish and impossibly expensive “Affordable Care” system implodes in on itself, and costs continue to spiral out of control thanks to government intervention, calls are growing for a full-blown socialized system to take its place. Even without a so-called “single payer system,” though, ObamaCare represents a de facto nationalization of healthcare in America. And with the tacit support from the GOP majority in Congress, which continues to fund ObamaCare despite deceitful promises to voters and harsh rhetoric, Americans can look forward to a nightmarish healthcare future of rationing, discrimination against the elderly, no more privacy, and more — at least if nothing changes.
To solve many of the most urgent healthcare problems would be relatively simple — dismantle socialized medical systems, withdraw from the UN, and return to the eternal principles of liberty, responsibility, and national independence. However, for that to happen, the British and American publics must get educated, organized, and active, all in the face of a massive propaganda campaign by the UN. The alternative to stopping it — UN death targets, death panels, government rationing, “sustainable” tyranny, and more — must be crushed for the benefit of all.
The UN plans to launch a brand new plan for managing the entire globe at the Sustainable Development Summit that it will be hosting from September 25th to September 27th. Some of the biggest names on the planet, including Pope Francis, will be speaking at this summit. This new sustainable agenda focuses on climate change of course, but it also specifically addresses topics such as economics, agriculture, education and gender equality. For those wishing to expand the scope of “global governance”, sustainable development is the perfect umbrella because just about all human activity affects the environment in some way. The phrase “for the good of the planet” can be used as an excuse to micromanage virtually every aspect of our lives. So for those who are concerned about the growing power of the United Nations, this summit in September is something to keep an eye on. Never before have I seen such an effort to promote a UN summit on the environment, and this new sustainable development agenda is literally a framework for managing the entire globe.
If you are not familiar with this new sustainable development agenda, the following is what the official United Nations website says about it…
The United Nations is now in the process of defining Sustainable Development Goals as part a new sustainable development agenda that must finish the job and leave no one behind. This agenda, to be launched at the Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015, is currently being discussed at the UN General Assembly, where Member States and civil society are making contributions to the agenda.
The process of arriving at the post 2015 development agenda is Member State-led with broad participation from Major Groups and other civil society stakeholders. There have been numerous inputs to the agenda, notably a set of Sustainable Development Goals proposed by an open working group of the General Assembly, the report of an intergovernmental committee of experts on sustainable development financing, General Assembly dialogues on technology facilitation and many others.
Posted below are the 17 sustainable development goals that are being proposed so far. Some of them seem quite reasonable. After all, who wouldn’t want to “end poverty”. But as you go down this list, you soon come to realize that just about everything is involved in some way. In other words, this truly is a template for radically expanded “global governance”. Once again, this was taken directly from the official UN website…
1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
3. Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages
4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all
9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation
10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (taking note of agreements made by the UNFCCC forum)
14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss
16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development
As you can see, this list goes far beyond “saving the environment” or “fighting climate change”.
It truly covers just about every realm of human activity.
Another thing that makes this new sustainable development agenda different is the unprecedented support that it is getting from the Vatican and from Pope Francis himself.
In fact, Pope Francis is actually going to travel to the UN and give an address to kick off the Sustainable Development Summit on September 25th…
His Holiness Pope Francis will visit the UN on 25 September 2015, and give an address to the UN General Assembly immediately ahead of the official opening of the UN Summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda.
This Pope has been very open about his belief that climate change is one of the greatest dangers currently facing our world. Just a couple of weeks ago, he actually brought UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to the Vatican to speak about climate change and sustainable development. Here is a summary of what happened…
On 28 April, the Secretary-General met with His Holiness Pope Francis at the Vatican and later addressed senior religious leaders, along with the Presidents of Italy and Ecuador, Nobel laureates and leading scientists on climate change and sustainable development.
Amidst an unusually heavy rainstorm in Rome, participants at the historic meeting gathered within the ancient Vatican compound to discuss what the Secretary-General has called the “defining challenge of our time.”
The mere fact that a meeting took place between the religious and scientific communities on climate change was itself newsworthy. That it took place at the Vatican, was hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and featured the Secretary-General as the keynote speaker was all the more striking.
In addition, Pope Francis is scheduled to release a major encyclical this summer which will be primarily focused on the environment and climate change. The following comes from the New York Times…
The much-anticipated environmental encyclical that Pope Francis plans to issue this summer is already being translated into the world’s major languages from the Latin final draft, so there’s no more tweaking to be done, several people close to the process have told me in recent weeks.
I think that we can get a good idea of the kind of language that we will see in this encyclical from another Vatican document which was recently released. It is entitled “Climate Change and The Common Good”, and it was produced by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. The following is a brief excerpt…
Unsustainable consumption coupled with a record human population and the uses of inappropriate technologies are causally linked with the destruction of the world’s sustainability and resilience. Widening inequalities of wealth and income, the world-wide disruption of the physical climate system and the loss of millions of species that sustain life are the grossest manifestations of unsustainability. The continued extraction of coal, oil and gas following the “business-as-usual mode” will soon create grave existential risks for the poorest three billion, and for generations yet unborn. Climate change resulting largely from unsustainable consumption by about 15% of the world’s population has become a dominant moral and ethical issue for society. There is still time to mitigate unmanageable climate changes and repair ecosystem damages, provided we reorient our attitude toward nature and, thereby, toward ourselves. Climate change is a global problem whose solution will depend on our stepping beyond national affiliations and coming together for the common good. Such transformational changes in attitudes would help foster the necessary institutional reforms and technological innovations for providing the energy sources that have negligible effects on global climate, atmospheric pollution and eco-systems, thus protecting generations yet to be born. Religious institutions can and should take the lead in bringing about that change in attitude towards Creation.
The Catholic Church, working with the leadership of other religions, can now take a decisive role by mobilizing public opinion and public funds to meet the energy needs of the poorest 3 billion people, thus allowing them to prepare for the challenges of unavoidable climate and eco-system changes. Such a bold and humanitarian action by the world’s religions acting in unison is certain to catalyze a public debate over how we can integrate societal choices, as prioritized under UN’s sustainable development goals, into sustainable economic development pathways for the 21st century, with projected population of 10 billion or more.
Under this Pope, the Vatican has become much more political than it was before, and sustainable development has become the Vatican’s number one political issue.
And did you notice the language about “the world’s religions acting in unison”? Clearly, the Vatican believes that it has the power to mobilize religious leaders all over the planet and have them work together to achieve the “UN’s sustainable development goals”.
I can never remember a time when the United Nations and the largest religious institution on the planet, the Catholic Church, have worked together so closely.
So what will the end result of all this be?
Should we be concerned about this new sustainable development agenda?
Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…
Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.
In times of crises, the government has proven, time and time again, that it cannot be counted on to adequately protect the American people. As the American people have not prepared for the coming dark days, they will be vulnerable to starvation, dehydration, cholera, pandemics and attacks from resource-deficient looters. Will the government be there to save them? History has already answered this question in the negative. Events such as Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy, L.A. riots and the Ferguson riots have repeatedly demonstrated that when trouble comes, the American people will be on their own.
When disaster strikes, it will take less than 24 hours until grocery stores are empty, the utilities are down and neighbors begin to prey upon neighbors.
Obama Criminalizes Independence
Certainly, no government can be all things to all people. Subsequently, the government should be in the business of encouraging its citizens to be independent. However, the Obama administration has taken the opposite approach. Instead of the government empowering the people to be self-sufficient, this administration is punishing independence and self sufficiency.
DHS actually published a “Right Wing Extremism Manual which demonizes and targets normal citizens with labels such as “preppers” and have further defined the act of becoming self-sufficient as being the actions of a domestic terrorist. It is ironic that DHS is the one who has ordered millions of FEMA caskets, 2700 armored personnel carriers and 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition. Yet, it is only the wholly independent people, only desiring to be left alone by their government, are labeled as domestic terrorists.
America Is Witnessing the Manifestation of Agenda 21
Any aware person knows that Agenda 21 is predicated on eliminating private property ownership and keeping all people within the “system”. Drinking raw milk, engaging in off the grid living and heating your home with a wood stove is forbidden. All of these prohibitions and more are presently encircling America as the Agenda 21 noose is tightening around collective necks.
Many unaware Americans still mistakenly believe that they have dominion over their lives and personal choices. These same people mistakenly believe that the government does not care if you want to live independently of their corporate cronies who own the utilities. They want you in their system so they can continue to exploit your resources for their benefit. Take the case of Robin Speronis who tried opting for renewable non-grid tied power and utilize environmentally friendly composting toilets and his own self-sufficient water supply. If one commits these acts in Florida, that person could go to jail.
Speronis lived off the grid, independent of Cape Coral’s (Florida) water and electric utilities. Not to be denied the revenue to them owed the subjects of Florida, the utilities took Speronis to court and the judge ruled this off-the-grid living was illegal last week. The judge labeled the Speronis home as being “unsanitary” and cited the International Property Maintenance Code in the ruling. Wikipedia further exposes the fact that the International Property Maintenance Code derives its authority from Agenda 21 and ICLEI and that this “regulation” bootstraps its authority into the following domains.
- International Building Code
- International Residential Code
- International Fire Code
- International Plumbing Code
- International Mechanical Code
- International Wildland Urban Interface Code
- International Existing Building Code
- International Property Maintenance Code
- International Private Sewage Disposal Code
- International Zoning Code
- International Green Construction Code…
Subsequently, we have an American judge, in Florida, citing UN mandates to forcibly evict an American citizen of their property and nullify their Fifth Amendment Rights. Speronis also faces jail time for noncompliance with international law.
If you read nothing else in this article, I strongly suggest you heed this warning. In two years, local and state governments will have the ability to begin to seize individual property for the failure to meet code, usually in the area of energy efficiency and international code compliance. In the near future if one cannot meet the burden of upgrading their older homes into meeting the standards related energy compliance, by United Nations standards, one could have their home confiscated without any compensation.
More Agenda 21 Insanity
The latest round of Agenda 21 insanity is coming from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has recently imposed new heating rules as of last year and the date of enforcement has long last arrived.
The insane application of Agenda 21 policies knows no bounds when it comes to the EPA. Also under the auspices of the International Property Maintenance Code, the EPA has introduced new standards for wood stoves which dramatically reduces the amount of fine particle emissions for any wood stove sold in 2015. The emissions must be reduced by 33% with more reductions scheduled for 2019.
At issue is the unsubstantiated claim that the EPA is making that if the use of wood stoves are reduced, the health of the residents will increase. Yet, the EPA does not offer any peer-reviewed research, which has been replicated, as proof of this bogus claim. Are we just supposed to take their word for it? We might as well face the fact that the EPA is controlled by ICLEI and their United Nations puppet masters.
Who Are the Real Terrorists?
We are under attack from the skies and through the poisoning of our air, via massive chemical spraying complete with Alzheimer’s and dementia causing aluminum sulfate and cancer causing barium. Fukushima radiation, Corexit spraying and the resulting toxic rain from the Gulf oil spill is running rampant over our country and not one ounce of mainstream media coverage is afforded to these dangers. Prevention and remediation from these dangers, caused by governmental indifference or complicity, are not put into place by our present government.
Our water is being systematically removed from the country by Nestle, and our water tables are being systematically compromised by environmental toxins and of course many Americans are consuming water permeated with IQ-lowering rocket fuel (i.e. fluoride).
Americans are now in the midst of being subjected to the death panels of Obama care in which citizens over the age of 70 are officially referred to as “units” and are targeted for comfort care but not given life saving measures. Under these conditions is it really in our best interest to remain “in the system”?
This is an undeniable, unmitigated and naked version of Eugenics cast in the same flavor as that practiced by Margaret Sanger, Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler and when Americans try to extricate themselves from these assaults upon their liberties and their health, they are increasingly marginalized, and prosecuted.
Who’s the real terrorist here? Why is the Obama administration embracing international mandates which criminalizes independent behavior and choices in violation of our Fifth Amendment rights?
If you have the courage to really answer these questions, I would suggest you dig into world history and read about the Holodomor and discover the real motivation behind forced compliance which results in total dependence on the government for life-sustaining services should become readily apparent.
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at http://batr.org.
By: Nafeez Ahmed | Permaculture News –
Plight of Kenya’s indigenous Sengwer shows carbon offsets are empowering corporate recolonisation of the South.
Editor’s Note: On Monday The Independent published an article titled “Britain has only 100 harvests left in its farm soil as scientists warn of growing ‘agricultural crisis’“. We are all too aware of why Britain’s (and other nations’) soils are becoming so depleted (if not, please see here and here, for example), and with the Western world standing on the precipice in regards to its food supply, it is insane for us to repeat the same mistakes on healthy soils elsewhere. And yet, that is exactly what we’re doing — financed by ‘investments’ and ‘offset mechanisms’ that empower the rich to extract and destroy ever more efficiently, behind the veil of distance. The color-by-numbers kind of agriculture that has depleted soils and health in the North, is being aggressively, forcefully and rapidly applied to precious living soils in Africa, and elsewhere — and in too many cases also turning the poor residents of those lands into serfs at the same time. The sensible — and humane — thing to do, is to make a rapid transition to the kind of agriculture we continually write about…. Grow your own food people, and support your local growers, and you will not be contributing to this inhumane, biologically impossible madness.
Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 500 million acres of land in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean was acquired or negotiated under deals brokered on behalf of foreign governments or transnational corporations.
Many such deals are geared toward growing crops or biofuels for export to richer, developed countries – with the consequence that small-holder farmers are displaced from their land and lose their livelihood while local communities go hungry.
The concentration of ownership of the world’s farmland in the hands of powerful investors and corporations is rapidly accelerating, driven by resource scarcity and, thus, rising prices. According to a new report by the US land rights organisation Grain:
The powerful demands of food and energy industries are shifting farmland and water away from direct local food production to the production of commodities for industrial processing.
Less known factors, however, include ‘conservation’ and ‘carbon offsetting.’
In west Kenya, as the UK NGO Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) reported, over a thousand homes had been torched by the government’s Kenya Forest Service (KFS) to forcibly evict the 15,000 strong Sengwer indigenous people from their ancestral homes in the Embobut forest and the Cherangany Hills.
Since 2007, successive Kenyan governments have threatened Sengwer communities in the Embobut forest with eviction. A deadline for residents to leave the forest expired in early January, prompting the most recent spate of violence. The pretext for the eviction is that the indigenous Sengwer – labelled wrongly as ‘squatters‘ – are responsible for the accelerating degradation of the forest.
Elsewhere in Kenya’s Mount Elgon forest, however, the KFS’ track record reveals a more complicated story. In 2010, the indigenous Ogiek were issued a deadline to relocate in the name of forest conservation and reforestation. In February this year, Survival International reported that, like the Sengwer, the Ogiek continued to be violently evicted from their homes in violation of court orders, with reports of government officials and their supporters seizing their land.
While deforestation is undoubtedly linked to the activities of poor communities, the Kenyan government’s approach illustrates favouritism toward parochial vested interests. In addition to the indigenous communities, the forests are also inhabited by many thousands of tea-planters, loggers, and squatters.
According to an internal report by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 2000, reviewing the Kenyan government’s internationally-funded conservation programme, “the forests of Mt Elgon are not being sustainably managed.” The report highlighted “unsustainable harvesting of both indigenous and plantation forest on Mt Elgon,” routine flouting of “regulations and procedures for sound management”, “the rate of forest plantation harvesting” far exceeding “the rate of replanting”, lack of supervision of controls on “forest harvesting operations authorised by the Forest Department,” and consequently “extensive loss of forest resources.”
The IUCN review also alluded to the role of the Kenyan government’s relationship with RaiPly Ltd, a Kenyan company involved in manufacture of wood products:
It is not known why or how RaiPly presumably received a license to harvest indigenous species, thus circumventing the ban on harvesting in indigenous forests.
Official Kenyan parliamentary records from May 1999 show that Kenyan political representatives have been concerned about these issues for some time. One question put to Kenya’s then assistant minister for natural resources, Peter Lengees, by a Kenyan MP pointed out that “trees are being cut in Mt. Elgon forest,” threatening the region’s rivers “from both sides.” Local government officials, the MP accused, “have shared up the area between these two rivers” which are now “drying up.”
Lengees denied any knowledge of this, prompting a further question from late politician George Kapten, who said that “lorries from Raiply” had been ferrying high-value teak timber from Mount Elgon forest. “And I wish to add that the highest authority in this country has shares in RaiPly”, he added. Lengees repeated his denial but admitted that RaiPly was “licensed to cut trees from some forests in Kenya.”
Currently, RaiPly is among several major companies that are exempt from a partial government ban on logging. Effectively, the government is permitting powerful logging companies to accelerate deforestation to buoy the Kenyan economy while systematically persecuting indigenous communities whose environmental impact is comparatively negligible.
The devastating plight of Kenya’s indigenous peoples is symptomatic of the flawed approach to conservation on the part of international agencies.
The World Bank’s Natural Resource Management Programme (NRMP) with the Kenyan government, launched in 2007, has involved funding for projects in the Cherangany Hills under the UN’s Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) programme, including “financing REDD+ readiness activities” some of which began in May 2013.
Under the REDD scheme companies in the developed world purchase carbon credits to invest in reducing emissions from forested lands. Those credits turn up on the companies’ balance sheets as carbon reductions. In practice, however, REDD schemes largely allow those companies to accelerate pollution while purchasing land and resources in the developing world at bargain prices.
A FPP background brief on the role of the World Bank claims that the implementation of NRMP – overseen by the very same KFS forces conducting a scorched earth campaign in Cherangany – violates the Bank’s own operational safeguard policies. A formal Sengwer complaint to the Bank lodged in January last year alleged that human rights abuses by Kenyan forces were “a direct result” of the World Bank-funded programme:
“One example of the harm caused by the project was that it changed the border of the Cherangany forest reserves,” according to the FPP brief, “such that Sengwer families, without any consultation or notice, found themselves on the inside of the forest reserve and therefore automatically subject to eviction by the KFS, evictions effectively funded by the World Bank. These evictions were customarily executed by burning homes and food stores in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013.”
In a statement in February, the World Bank disavowed any link between its programme and the forced evictions, but also offered to the Kenyan government:
… to share best practices in resettlement in line with its safeguard policies. These seek to improve or restore the living standards of people affected by involuntary resettlement.
A letter to the Bank in March by No REDD in Africa network (Nran) — a group of African civil society organisations — signed by over 60 international NGOs accused the Bank with the above words of “both admitting its complicity in the forced relocation of the Sengwer People as well as offering to collude with the Kenyan government to cover-up cultural genocide.”
As “carbon credit financier and broker”, the World Bank is “aiding and abetting the forced relocation of an entire Indigenous People through its Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) which includes REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), in the Cherangany Hills”, said the letter.
The Sengwer’s complaint is currently under investigation by the World Bank Inspection Panel. Although the report is now complete, a Bank spokesperson, Phil Hay, said that it would not be reviewed by the Board until August or September.
“The World Bank is not associated with the evictions and has not supported or financed resettlement in forest areas under the now closed Natural Resource Management Project (NMRP)”, said Hay. “Nonetheless we are not bystanders either. We have been concerned about how the evictions have been handled and have been in frequent touch with the Kenyan government.”
Notably, the Bank’s professed concern here is with “how the evictions have been handled”, not with evictions being carried out in the first place.
A damning new report from the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) based in Washington DC thus warns that the UN and World Bank approach to REDD is paving the way for large-scale “carbon grabs” by foreign governments and investors, putting at risk the land rights, livelihoods and lives of indigenous communities.
The report surveyed 23 low and middle income countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, covering 66 percent of the developing world’s forests, concluding that REDD had not established laws or mechanisms by which indigenous peoples and local communities could profit from the carbon in the forests they inhabited.
“Their rights to their forests may be few and far between, but their rights to the carbon in the forests are non-existent”, said Arvind Khare, RRI executive director.
At the United Nations climate negotiations in Warsaw in November 2013, delegates reached an agreement that would allow REDD to move forward which, however, excluded questions around who should control and benefit from the new carbon value found in standing forests.
Instead, the World Bank Carbon Fund’s approach to defining carbon rights has been widely criticised by civil society groups for creating conflict between new property rights to carbon, and existing statutory and customarily held rights of local communities. The lack of clear safeguards and measures opens up an unprecedented opportunity for corporate and government land grabbing.
Tony La Viña, Dean of the Ateneo School of Government and chair of the intergovernmental REDD negotiations at the climate conferences in Copenhagen and Durban, said: “The carbon markets, when up and running, need to support the forest stewardship of the people who live there, and not provide national governments with yet another tool to dispossess their citizens from the natural resources they have cared for and depended on for generations.”
According to the No REDD in Africa network, it is precisely because indigenous people and their rights are not factored into REDD principles that their implementation could lead to outright genocide.
Chris Lang, a British forestry expert who runs the REDD Monitor blog, agrees that under REDD schemes involving forested or agricultural land, “the rights to the use of that land could be taken away from indigenous peoples who depend on their forests for their livelihoods. Destroying livelihoods on this scale could conform to the parts (a), (b), and (c) of the [UN Convention] definition of genocide.”
Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author, and international security scholar. He is a regular contributor to The Ecologist and The Guardian where he writes about the geopolitics of interconnected environmental, energy and economic crises. He has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, among many others. His new novel of the near future is Zero Point.
Most of us are familiar with the United Nations, an organization that concentrates power in the hands of the perverse, destructive and dangerous mass murderers who have been in power for the last century or so. The UN is the codification of the Elite’s plan to have a handful of people, the 1 percent of the 1 percent, control every resource on planet Earth while leaving most of humanity in despair.
The UN is controlled by a group of sociopaths and psychopaths who took over the destiny of humanity a long time ago, and who through bureaucracy, have imposed their will on the rest of us. They have shaped societies, depopulated areas of the planet they wish to conquer, caused war and famine through global policies carried out by their proxy government collaborators and in doing so, they have limited the potential that humanity has to evolve into a state that they deem threatening to their plans.
Most world leaders, even the ones from small countries are controlled and directed by the Elite of the Elites, who managed to create a political body that effectively controlled nation-states by way of membership. Under the management of the UN, sovereignty and nationalism have been almost completely destroyed and are now painted as extremism.
Despite efforts from some nations to remain national and to salvage the heritage of their people, the UN along with the World Trade Organization and the global banking system, have continued to push for open borders, deindustrialization and the globalization of poverty.
Now, politicians who work around the clock as concubines of this system of global domination, are beginning to use world affairs to call for the unification of religion as a supposed solution to religious conflict. In reality, religious balkanization is nothing less than another globalist-made problem to bring about a hollow solution. The war against Islam, which is promoted by Western imperialistic powers is a tool to bring about a One World Religion.
There are individuals out there who are working hard to unify all the religious definitions within scientific insight and history as a way to “bring peace” through religious doctrine.
The latest episode of this attempt to co-opt humanity into one single religious movement came from former Israeli President, Simon Peres.
Mr. Peres proposed that Pope Francis becomes the leader of a new body, the United Religions Organization. Peres made this proposal during his meeting with the Pope at the Casa de Santa Marta, where the Pope resides.
The Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said after the meeting that Francis “listened with attention and interest to Peres‘s proposal, but did not express a personal commitment.”
Francis met Peres for about 45 minutes, and explained that there are Departments in the Government of the Church dealing with these activities such as the Interfaith Dialogue and Peace and Justice and its leaders, Cardinals Kurt Koch and Peter Turkson, respectively, will “carefully consider this proposal.”
“The Holy Father is respected by many people, also by various religions because of his positions. Well, I think that is the only truly respected leader. Hence came to me this idea that I have proposed to Francisco,” said Peres in the interview to “Famiglia Cristiana”.
According to the former Israeli president, “the United Nations has lived his time and what is needed now is a UN of religions a United Religions.”
“It would be the best way to end these terrorists who kill in the name of faith, because most people practice their religions without killing anyone and without even thinking about doing something like that,” he added.
Peres, 91, explained that the current UN is “a political body but lacks the conviction that religions have and produce” and that any statement from its secretary-general “has no force or effectiveness that any homily issued by the pope has.
Also during the meeting Peres informed the Argentine priest of the current situation in the Middle East, after the cease-fire issued between Palestinians and Israelis.
The press office of Peres had also explained that the two men talked about possible ways to achieve peace in the Middle East and “the necessary response to the wave of terrorism in the region that uses religion as a justification for violence and extremism.”
Peres and the President of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) Mahmoud Abbas, had participated last June 8, in the day of prayer for peace in the Middle East organized by the Pope in the Vatican.
On that day, during the journey from South Korea, the pope said that it “was not quite a failure” and that “the door was open to peace.”
But as history shows, religious leaders are accomplices in some of the most egregious crimes committed against humanity – depopulation being one of them – and religions themselves have been used by their leaders to bring about separation and hatred among humans.
Can we trust the Vatican or any other religious organization working for the Elite to faithfully direct the spiritual or political destiny of humanity?
Luis R. Miranda is the Founder and Editor of The Real Agenda. His 16 years of experience in Journalism include television, radio, print and Internet news. Luis obtained his Journalism degree from Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, where he graduated in Mass Media Communication in 1998. He also holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Broadcasting from Montclair State University in New Jersey. Among his most distinguished interviews are: Costa Rican President Jose Maria Figueres and James Hansen from NASA Space Goddard Institute. Read more about Luis.
It’s no secret that the United Nations, with assistance from members of the Executive and Legislative branches in the United States, has been actively working to reduce Americans’ accessibility to firearms. In 2012 President Obama, along with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, spearheaded a backdoor move that would have imposed gun control on the United States through foreign means by signing a global disarmament initiative known as the Small Arms Treaty. Though that attempt failed, mass shooting incidents at Sandy Hook and elsewhere have kept the pressure on gun owners with the President having made repeated suggestions that he would mandate gun restrictions through Executive Order should state and federal legislatures fail to act.
Given the rocky history between America’s gun owners and the United Nations, chances are that the push for disarmament will continue with more ferver than ever before. In fact, a recent job posting at the United Nations website suggests that the organization is not only working to get guns out of the hands of American citizens, they are actively preparing personnel to assist in what they call “disarmament, demobilization and reintegration” activities. And if that’s not bad enough, the duty station for this key U.N. Peacekeeping Operations department is New York city, suggesting that the organization believes such operations may be commencing in the United States at some point in the future.
If you’d like to join them in their efforts to confiscate firearms then you can apply directly at the United Nations Career Opportunities page:
Posting Title: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Officer, P4
Job Code Title: DISARMAMENT, DEMOBILIZATION AND REINTEGRATION OFFICER
Department/ Office: Department of Peacekeeping Operations
Duty Station: NEW YORK
Work Experience: A minimum of seven years of progressively responsible experience in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration or related area. Experience working within peacekeeping, peace-building or development programmes operations is desirable. Experience with small arms control, conflict/post-conflict crisis management, economic recovery is desirable. Experience coordinating multiple partner agencies, funds or programmes is desirable.
Languages: English and French are the working languages of the United Nations Secretariat. For the post advertised, fluency in English is required.
According to the United Nations information page on ‘DDR’ operations, the New York post will involve various aspects related to the process by which a governing organization would confiscate firearms, all of which target what the U.N. calls “small arms.”
Disarmament is the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population.
Demobilization is the formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces and groups, including a phase of “reinsertion” which provides short-term assistance to ex-combatants.
Reintegration is the process by which ex-combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income. It is a political, social and economic process with an open time-frame, primarily taking place in communities at the local level.
The objective of the DDR process is to contribute to security and stability in post-conflict environments so that recovery and development can begin. DDR helps create an enabling environment for political and peace processes by dealing with security problem that arises when ex-combatants are trying to adjust to normal life, during the vital transition period from conflict to peace and development.
Ambassador Faith Whittlesey, a U.S. delegate to the UN Small Arms Conference, warned in 2012 that the organization’s intention is to eventually disarm all Americans in the name of peace.
“In New York, right here on our own shores, we’ve got a Trojan horse. They won’t accept U.S. firearms policy. They want to take the decision away from the U.S. electorate and undermine our Constitution.”
It would seem that the heavy militarization of domestic law enforcement agencies coupled with ‘Doomsday’ legislative actions and Executive Orders designed to seize Americans’ resources and firearms in the event of a declared emergency may be synchronized with the involvement of foreign troops and officials. In fact, a press release from The Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies confirmed in 2013 that America’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be coordinate with foreign militaries and security teams during disaster operations on U.S.-soil:
Several documents signed during joint work of Russian Emergency Ministry and FEMA
The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters.
The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices.
In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events.
It’s no secret that the US government has been preparing riot gear, guns, ammunition, and detention centers for a major calamity that will likely involve violence and widespread civil unrest. Should such an event ever take place the first order of business will include a declaration of martial law. And just as we saw during Hurricane Katrina, when the U.S. Constitution has been suspended gun confiscation is soon to follow.
“No one will be able to be armed. We’re going to take all the weapons.”
-New Orleans Police Chief
The majority of our service members who will be called upon in times of emergency may realize what is happening and refuse to negate their oaths to the U.S. Constitution when push comes to shove.
But foreign “peace keepers” deployed under the U.N banner will have no such convictions. They’re already here and they are getting ready… for you.
By: Mac Slavo
Original article: shtfplan.com
It appears the United Nations anticipates economic collapse and armed revolt in the United States and they are looking for a few good Peacekeepers with “experience with small arms control, conflict/post-conflict crisis management, and economic recovery”.
The U.N. is hiring a “Disarmament, Demobilization, and Re-integration (DDR) officer” for the apparent purpose of disarming American citizens as the “duty station” is New York City, USA.
The U.N. defines “disarmament” as “the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition, explosives and light and heavy weapons from combatants and often from the civilian population.”
The U.N.’s help wanted ad reads:
These positions are located in field missions of Peace Operations. The DDR Officer typically reports to the head of a work unit or to a senior official responsible for DDR operations in a field location, though this may vary depending on the mission structure. The focus of these jobs is to lead the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of DDR programmes, operations and other related activities in the country or region concerned.
Demobilization is the formal and controlled discharge of active combatants from armed forces and groups, including a phase of “reinsertion” which provides short-term assistance to ex-combatants.
Reintegration is the process by which ex-combatants acquire civilian status and gain sustainable employment and income. It is a political, social and economic process with an open time-frame, primarily taking place in communities at the local level.
The want ad makes no other reference to a “country or region concerned” other than the “duty station” in New York which is also the location of U.N. headquarters.
But if this position is indeed for field work in the U.S., it raises a whole series of sovereignty issues especially as it pertains to “the collection, documentation, control and disposal of small arms, ammunition” from the civilian population.
Also, if this Peacekeeper’s jurisdiction is in fact in the U.S., then it certainly seems like the U.N. anticipates mass civil unrest to occur.
Then again, maybe they’re just coming here to force Detroit to give away free water?
By: Activist Post
At the conclusion of the U.S.-EU Summit held this week in Brussels, President Obama and his European colleagues released a joint statement reaffirming their common commitment to civilian disarmament as mandated in the United Nation’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
While globalist and establishment media reports focus on the summit’s attention to the events in Crimea, there is a provision at the end of the statement that is of much greater concern to Americans aware of the crescendo of calls for restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
Paragraph 33 of the declaration released on March 26 states: “We reaffirm our joint commitments on non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control.”
Among other agreements, President Obama, in the name of the United States, joined with the gathered heads of state in promising: “We will also work together to promote the entry into force of the Arms Trade Treaty in 2014.”
Despite significant congressional opposition to the United Nation’s attempt to confiscate privately owned weapons and ammunition, President Obama quietly signed his name to a document that if carried out, would amount to nothing less than the de facto repeal of the Second Amendment.
In order to appreciate the seriousness of the Arms Trade Treaty’s threat to the God-given right to keep and bear arms and to the constitutional protection of that right, details of the plan should be understood.
This author attended the negotiations at UN headquarters in Manhattan where the ATT was hammered out, and I found that the ATT is so offensive to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms, it is an understatement to call it unconstitutional. As The New American has reported, several provisions of this treaty significantly diminish the scope of this basic right.
First, the Arms Trade Treaty grants a monopoly over all weaponry in the hands of the very entity (government) responsible for over 300 million murders in the 20th century.
Furthermore, the treaty leaves private citizens powerless to oppose future slaughters.
One uncomfortable fact of armed violence ignored by the UN in its pro-disarmament propaganda is that all the murders committed by all the serial killers in history don’t amount to a fraction of the brutal killings committed by “authorized state parties” using the very weapons over which they will exercise absolute control under the terms of the Arms Trade Treaty.
Article 2 of the treaty defines the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions. The right to own, buy, sell, trade, or transfer all means of armed resistance, including handguns, is denied to civilians by this section of the Arms Trade Treaty.
Article 3 places the “ammunition/munitions fired, launched or delivered by the conventional arms covered under Article 2” within the scope of the treaty’s prohibitions, as well.
Article 4 rounds out the regulations, also placing all “parts and components” of weapons within the scheme.
Perhaps the most immediate threat to the rights of gun owners in the Arms Trade Treaty is found in Article 5. Under the title of “General Implementation,” Article 5 mandates that all countries participating in the treaty “shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list.”
This list should “apply the provisions of this Treaty to the broadest range of conventional arms.”
Article 12 adds to the record-keeping requirement, mandating that the list include “the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms,” as well as the identity of the “end users” of these items.
In very clear terms, ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty by the United States would require that the U.S. government force gun owners to add their names to the national registry. Citizens would be required to report the amount and type of all firearms and ammunition they possess.
Section 4 of Article 12 of the treaty requires that the list be kept for at least 10 years.
Finally, the agreement demands that national governments take “appropriate measures” to enforce the terms of the treaty, including civilian disarmament. If these countries can’t get this done on their own, however, Article 16 provides for UN assistance, specifically including help with the enforcement of “stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes.”
In fact, a “voluntary trust fund” will be established to assist those countries that need help from UN peacekeepers or other regional forces to disarm their citizens.
While President Obama has kept mostly mum lately on the ATT, especially in the face of such strident congressional opposition, the European Union has come right out and called for the enactment of the globalist gun grab.
On February 5, the European Parliament voted to authorize EU countries to ratify the ATT.
In a less-than-enthusiastic press release, the European Parliament declared that the Arms Trade Treaty “wouldn’t necessarily result in the reduction of arms production, but it should stop arms getting into the hands of terrorists and should stop arms flooding into areas that are unstable.”
That’s sounds troubling. Given the proclivity of regimes to label dissenters as “terrorists” and to nominate the United States as a battlefield in the global “War on Terror,” however, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are most certainly under attack in the form of this globalist gun grab masquerading as a peace treaty.
David Martin, a British member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats who helped draft the recommendation for EU member ratification of the ATT, admitted that the aim of the treaty is the control of firearms. “There are weaknesses in the treaty, but it’s nevertheless a major step forward. This is the first time that conventional weapons have been put under any sort of control at all,” Martin said in an interview with the EU press.
Statements such as this are an admission against the interest of the perpetuation of the right to keep and bear arms, particularly in light of the president’s co-signing of the U.S.-EU summit joint statement that specifically calls for gun control.
Perhaps President Obama, the self-professed former constitutional law professor, has forgotten the text of the Second Amendment, particularly the phrase “shall not infringe.”
Fortunately, as reported above, a slim majority of senators remain rock-ribbed in their refusal to ratify the ATT.
For now, 50 senators are standing together to protect the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and have taken pen in hand to let the president know how they feel about his plan to rob their constituents of one of their most basic rights.
In a letter addressed to President Obama, the senators enumerated six reasons the president should refuse to present the ATT to the Senate for ratification. Among the objections raised by the senatorial signatories is the ambiguity of the treaty, as well as the grant to “foreign sources of authority” the power to “impose judgment or control on the U.S.”
On the House side, a coalition of 180 members of Congress sent a letter to the president reaffirming their opposition to the implementation of the provisions of the Arms Trade Treaty.
While it is not remarkable that Barack Obama supports the seizure of guns and ammunition from law-abiding Americans, the fact that only half of the U.S. Senate has come out in defense of the Second Amendment is noteworthy and should be remembered by citizens who understand that a disarmed population is a slave population.
In light of the joint statement sanctioning government control of gun ownership, it seems that the “strong partnership” between the European Union and the United States might be the wedge President Obama uses to separate Americans from their firearms and their freedom.
This article was written by Joe A. Wolverton II and originally published at The New American
The genocidal maniacs are at it again. The usual suspects (WHO, UN, IMF, World Bank, US, Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, etc.) have concocted a new scheme which is, quite literally, nothing short of Agenda 21 at the end of a gun, for your own good, of course. It has lovely, soothing and safe-sounding name: the Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI).
Reading about this monstrous intrusion on our life and health, I channeled the new verse that I am sure they are singing soulfully when they give throat to the Kill The Useless Eaters Rag hit(man) tune (perhaps at Bohemian Grove?). This may be the most ingenious genocidal ploy so far – it certainly had the potential to become easily the deadliest!
Here’s the chorus (which, oddly enough, seems to work equally well in just about every language):
Don’t want ‘em fed
Useless eaters’ human forces
Consume OUR non-renewable natural resources!
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!And the newest verse:
Vectors of disease in every direction.
Making sure that they are dead
Mean’s there’s nothing they can spread
They cannot reproduce:
So diseases are reduced.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!
The Global Health Security Initiative (GHSI) is an audacious new plan to “control” infectious disease and antibiotic resistance  which, in 9 dryly worded, reasonable sounding points, neatly wipes out your freedom, your movement, your health choice including your right to refuse vaccines or other “treatment” and, in fact, your very right to be alive. In other words, Agenda 21 arrives in a white coat with an army of enforcers enabled, transnationally, to do whatever it takes to protect you, including relocation, deportation, and termination.
The UN Secretary General has a couple of red-hot protégés, who have come up with this devastatingly crazy solution to the problem: Reducing population means fewer people to get infections and to spread it. It also means they cannot reproduce so their children will not be born, meaning THEY cannot get or spread infection., VOILA! Abracadabra! Shazam! The world just became safer because there are now fewer infected people and their progeny!
But that’s not enough! The GHSI has set its site on eliminating antibiotic resistance, too. Never mind that captive, corporatist regulators created the problem of antibiotic resistance, which, according to the CDC sickens and kills huge numbers of people per year, created the problem by allowing inhumane and unwholesome factory farm practices using antibiotics to keep stressed and sick animals alive, and permitting genetic markers of antibiotic resistant genes to be used, and spread in a totally uncontrolled fashion, in patented GMO life and “food” forms.,, These genes create antibiotic resistance in the environment, the food chain and – in us.
Such industry-friendly, consumer-dangerous practices were long predicted to create the antibiotic resistance problem which we have now, but regulators have their salaries paid by the government but their futures assured by the industries that they supposedly regulate. The lure to deep corruption and betrayal of the public trust is irresistible for most. The cost is life and health for all, to say nothing of the total loss of regulatory authority and responsibility.
By the way, about 90% of the world’s antibiotic trade is in factory farms. The highly profitable business model is to make sick animals sicker, get us to eat them and then make us even sicker so we use drugs (or, better yet, use drugs and then die).
Of course, if the initiators of GHSI actually wanted to solve these problems, they would abandon the ineffective and dangerous vaccine route, give up on antibiotics which are expensive, toxic and not particularly good for long-term solutions, as we have seen, and concentrate on safe, inexpensive, deployable and available natural solutions to the global health problems.
Unless, of course, the global health problems are the solution to another problem! Such as alleged over-population, perhaps?
If the agenda were really to eliminate and control infectious disease, not population and freedom, GSHI would be vigorously developing and recommending the deployment of Nano silver, which is effective against every known disease-causing organism and which has zero toxicity for any person in any condition. They would be building up stocks of IV Vitamin C, Zinc, selenium and other powerful immune boosting nutrients.
They would also be using their immense resources for the deployment of the technologies which have been shown over and over to eliminate infectious disease: clean and abundant food and water, clean air, improved hygiene. These are the strategies that reduced diseases in the 20th century, not dangerous vaccines or even antibiotics.
Of course, there is another way to halt the global infectious disease threat: stop creating it.
Laboratories of private companies like Monsanto create monstrosities and then skip free of any consequences. For example, it appears that MSRA was created in a laboratory in France and flushed down the drain by lab personnel. MSRA kills hundreds of thousands of people or more each year.
New genetic monstrosities like the avian flu (H1N1) apparently intentionally re-crafted with the genetic sequence that made the 1918 flu so deadly woven into it and, evidence suggests, SARS,, and Swine Flu (H5N1), may well all be lab creations: all gifts that keep on giving, via the vaccines that are so strongly correlated with their spread,,.
The hybrid Avian Flu came out of a Mount Sinai School of Medicine 6 year project sponsored not by Osama Bin Laden, but by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Swine Flu appears to have originated in a WHO lab.,
To stop the spread of infection, the globalist “health” community could stop producing deadly organisms. That would help a lot, it seems to me.
But GHSI has another idea. Instead, they propose to centralize the dangerous organisms for both research and storage. Hmmmm. Good idea. Make the facilities, which are inherently vulnerable, fewer in number so they can be penetrated, seized, used by the already demonstrably insane genocidalists or other terrorists.
“Mistakes” like the one that Baxter made (when it had an exclusive contract with 18 European countries to supply vaccines in the event of a flu pandemic) when it sent vast amounts of vaccine contaminated with live, infective H1N1 virus to those 18 countries won’t happen again, right?
The vial of similarly infective H1N1 viruses which “mysteriously” exploded in a passenger compartment on a crowded train in Switzerland would never happen again, right? What a great plan.
Clearly, the lunatic and lethal Global Health Security Initiative must be halted. You can help make that happen. Visit http://TinyURL.com/EndGHSI NOW to tell your legislators and decision makers not to fund or support GHSI immediately. Then send the link to everyone you can reach.
Don’t forget to LIKE, Share and Tweet the Action Item, http://TinyURL.com/EndGHSI .
Friend us at FB: /NaturalSolutionsFoundation. Friend us in Spanish at FB: /NaturalSolutionsChile
Act as if your life depends upon it. It does.
Sources and Notes:
 Bonds, M.H. & Rohani, P., Reducing Fertility More Effective than Vaccinating for Global Health and Economic Development; A Simple Ecological Framework. J.Roy. Soc.Interface 7:541-547.
 Bonds, M.H. 2006. “Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with
Implications for Human Ecology,” Ph.D. Dissertation (Ecology), University of Georgia, Athens, GA
 At least sickening hundreds of thousands and killing at least 23,000 annually in the US alone. http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/
 Levy, Stuart B. (March 1998). “The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance”. Scientific American: 46–53.
 Wegener, H. C. (2003). “Antibiotics in animal feed and their role in resistance development”. Current Opinion in Microbiology 6 (5): 439–445.doi:10.1016/j.mib.2003.09.009
 There is a significant difference between colloidal silver, which I do not recommend unless there is no other option, and nano silver which I do recommend. To enhance its effectiveness further, nano silver should be frequency enhanced like Silver Sol, www.DrRimaKnows.com, but whatever nano silver is accessed, it should be stored in reasonable quantity since it has a long shelf life and may become unavailable.
 Alexander Batalin (29 April 2003). “SARS Pneumonia Virus, Synthetic Manmade, according to Russian Scientist”. Centre for Research on Globalisation. Retrieved 2007-08-16. (reporting on a news conference in Irkutsk (Siberia) on 10 April 2003)
 “SARS could be biological weapon: experts”. ABC News. April 12, 2003.
 “Sars biological weapon?”. www.news24.com. 11 April 2003
 Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine; Clinical Infectious Diseases; Benjamin J. Cowling, Vicky J. Fang, Hiroshi Nishiura,
Kwok-Hung Chan, Sophia Ng, Dennis K. M.lp, Susan S. Chiu, Gabriel M. Leung} and J. S. Malik Peir; DOI: 10.1093/cid/cis307
Rima E. Laibow, MD, who is licensed to practice medicine in 3 states, has practiced drug free medicine and psychiatry for nearly 45 years. She is the Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation, www.DrRimaTruthReports.com, the world’s largest Health Freedom organization. Her email is [email protected]
The United Nations, not satisfied with its Agenda 21 policies and eugenics programs, has come up with another way to deprive us of food.
On the back of ‘research’ conducted by their International Seabed Authority, they have invited companies to apply for deep sea mining licenses.
The idea of exploiting the gold, copper, manganese, cobalt and other metals of the ocean floor has been considered for decades, but only recently became feasible with high commodity prices and new technology.
The study by the United Nations that the mining operations will cause “inevitable environmental damage” according to the ISA study.
There have already been 19 licenses granted, and another seven are due to be granted over the coming weeks and months.
According to the UN website:
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the ISA was set up to encourage and manage seabed mining for the wider benefit of humanity – with a share of any profits going to developing countries.
The lure is obvious. An assessment of the eastern Pacific – a five million sq. km area known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone – concluded that more than 27 billion tonnes of nodules could be lying on the sand.
Those rocks would contain a staggering seven billion tonnes of manganese, 340 million tonnes of nickel, 290 million tonnes of copper and 78 million tonnes of cobalt – although it’s not known how much of this is accessible.
The rape of the sea floor has been discussed for decades:
In 1970 after years of intensive efforts, the UN Assembly unanimously declared the seabed and ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction to be the common heritage of mankind and convened a conference in 1973 which would lead to establishing the International Seabed Authority to organize and control all activities in the Area with a view to administering resources. (source)
So for almost half a century, the UN has been scheming and plotting to work out how to pull this off. They have waited for the technology to become available, and now it has its all systems go.
Several things come into play here. Firstly, they may have declared the sea bed as belonging to no nation but what about the water on top of it? It will be very interesting as this expands across the oceans of the world, to find out what country A will do if country B is sending mining ships into its territorial waters without invitation.
That though, is a minor issue compared to the effect on the food chain. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) said in 2005:
Over 852 million people on this planet don’t have enough to eat. That certainly doesn’t promote sustainable development. Millions of medium- and small-scale fishers and fish farmers, often very poor, depend on fishing and aquaculture. For FAO, fishing and aquaculture are first and foremost about people earning a living and putting food on their tables, and we do think it can be done sustainably.
Fishing and fish farming contribute to food security in three main ways. They directly increase people’s food supplies, providing highly nutritious animal protein and important micronutrients while doing so. Fish food also “fill in the gaps” during times when other food is scarce. Finally, fishing and aquaculture provide jobs and income that people use to buy other foods
Just over 100 million tonnes of fish are eaten world-wide each year, providing two and a half billion people with at least 20 percent of their average per capita animal protein intake.
This contribution is even more important in developing countries, especially small island states and in coastal regions, where frequently over 50% of people’s animal protein comes from fish. In some of the most food-insecure places — many parts of Asia and Africa, for instance — fish protein is absolutely essential, accounting for a large share of an already-low level of animal protein consumption. (emphasis added)
That was nine years ago. The population has increased in those nine years so the numbers will, if anything, be higher. Ichiro Nomura, Assistant-Director General of the FAO made these comments in an interview in Rome on June 7, 2005.
The United Nations has openly admitted that mining of the sea bed will cause damage to the environment, and that environment is the ocean. The extent of the disruption to the ecosystem is unknown, but you can bet that if the United Nations is admitting it is going to happen, then it’s going to happen big time.
As this is not something that has been done on a commercial scale before. Companies will be learning as they go along. This is hardly a sound strategy when a sizeable proportion of the global population gets more than half of their animal protein from fish.
Scientists have pleaded with the UN to stop and think before allowing companies to start their operations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is calling for responsible stewardship of the ocean floor.
All the licenses issued so far are to governments and large contractors such as Lockheed Martin, and an area the size of Mexico is covered by these ‘prospecting’ licences. (source)
Feeding the world is going to be enough of a problem with the natural and/or man made weather anomalies that are sweeping the planet.
Weather experimentation looks like it will continue unabated now that the military has decided that it’s theirs to do whatever they want with. It’s becoming blatant that what they want is to be able to use the weather to manipulate agriculture, because by controlling agriculture they control the food supply, and as we are all aware, controlling the food allows you to control the people.
History proves that rebellious and starving populations can be subdued by the giving of food supplies. The threat of withholding those supplies will make the majority of the population behave for fear of starving.
Reducing the population by starvation, regardless of the cause of that starvation, is the only way they can pass the mass deaths off as ‘natural’ events.
“The weather did it”
“Global warming did it”
Those that acquiesce, who swear allegiance to the new global leaders, will be given food. The rest will die. Those who live will be the workers who live only as long as they serve those in power.
The United Nations and their partners in crime, the governments of the First World will settle for nothing less than a One World Government. A New World Order where they wear the crown, and their puppets, the presidents and prime ministers who have already bought into the plan, rule over those that are left when the genocide is over.
The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
‘a campaign of genocide’
I would say that 95% of the human population definitely constitutes a large group.
Contributed by Chris Carrington of The Daily Sheeple.
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
I recently learned of a United Nations study on environmental funding for projects around the world. The UN wanted to know what programs are working.
One of the researchers shared an example of ‘what’s working’ with me.An oil exploration/services company wanted to operate off of the coast of Panama. In order to obtain permission from the Panamanian government, this corporation agreed to work with an indigenous group of Indians who have been living in and cutting down their forest habitat. The corporation offered to provide 15 years worth of compensation to the Indians in exchange for their commitment to stop cutting the trees. Payment would be on an annual basis. In order to monitor the project the oil exploration corporation required that the Indians give up their ownership title to their land for the 15 year period. If they didn’t cut the trees they would get their land titles back in 15 years. An independent third party non-governmental organization would monitor the land for the 15 year term.
The oil exploration corporation would then own the land for 15 years and be able to sell carbon credits for that land on the international market.
When I was told about this plan I asked the following questions:
Why did the Indians need the oil exploration corporation to make this agreement for carbon credits?
Couldn’t an NGO arrange this for them without a middle man and without them having to give up ownership of their land?
Are the carbon credits projected to fully compensate the oil exploration corporation for their 15 years of payments to the Indians?
Will there be a profit for the oil exploration corporation besides the profit on oil drilling?What will the Indians do for 15 years?
Will they have to change their lives and traditional way of living? What happens at the end of the 15 years?
What other impacts might result from loss of land ownership over a generation?
How would the NGO monitoring the land use change the relationship of the Indians to their land?
What is the nexus between oil drilling and Indians besides exploitation?
The researcher was angry and disgusted with me for asking these questions, and said that I was biased against seeing that it was a benefit for the people. I said that these questions should be explored and answered fully before any agreements were made. The researcher said that the questions had not occurred to him and that as far as he was concerned it’s a ‘win-win.’
Is it? We’ll know in 15 years, if anyone cares to look.
Rosa Koire, ASA, is the executive director of the Post Sustainability Institute and the author of BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: UN Agenda 21. She is a retired forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation. As a District Branch Chief at the California Department of Transportation her nearly 30 years analyzing land use and property value enabled her to recognize the planning revolution sweeping the country. While fighting to stop a huge redevelopment project in her city she researched the corporate, political, and financial interests behind it and found UN Agenda 21. Impacting every aspect of our lives, UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a corporate manipulation using the Green Mask of environmental concern to forward a globalist plan. Rosa speaks across the world and is a regular blogger on her website Democrats Against UN Agenda 21. Her book, BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: UN Agenda 21 is available on Amazon.com, Kindle, and Nook, at her websites: www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org and www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com