Tag Archives: UN

In September, The UN Launches A Major Sustainable Development Agenda For The Entire Planet

vatican, pope francis, united nations, agenda 21

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.

How The UN Is Confiscating American Homes And Controlling All Food And Energy

United-Nations

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.

IpmcSperonis 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 bariumFukushima radiationCorexit 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.

Conclusion

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.

World Bank And UN Carbon Offset Scheme ‘Complicit’ In Genocidal Land Grabs – NGOs

land_grab_hand_taking_field

 

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.’

land_grab_tragedy

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.”

Sengwer_huts_torched_guards
Armed guards arrive

Sengwer_huts_torched
 Kenya Forest Service guards are burning Sengwer homes

Sengwer_huts_torched_burning

Sengwer_huts_torched_children_flee
Sengwer children flee

Sengwer_huts_torched_people_flee
People leaving their homes with donkeys

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.

no-redd-10-300x200A 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.

Simon Peres Wants A United Religions Organization Led By Pope Francis

Former Israeli President, Simon Peres.

Former Israeli President, Simon Peres.

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.

 

Scientists Warn Geo-Engineering Can Kill Billions Of People

Geo-engineering is an umbrella term for deliberate climate intervention that includes spraying the sky with aerosols to reflect solar radiation away from Earth in order to cool the planet and to save the environment and humanity from the effects of supposedly man-made global warming. There is evidence that this program has already been implemented for many years using unidentified chemical aerosols, known as chemtrails.

A geo-engineering/chemtrails experiment using a balloon to spray sulfur particles into the sky to reflect solar radiation back into space is planned for New Mexico within a year by scientist David Keith. Keith manages a multimillion dollar research fund for Bill Gates. Gates has also gathered a team of scientist lobbyists that have been asking governments for hand-outs to for their climate manipulation experiments with taxpayer money.

Geo-engineering is touted as a last-ditch effort to save people and the planet from global warming. But the truth is that geo-engineering can alter rain cycles leading to droughts and famine that could result in billions of deaths!

Therefore, Bill Gates appears to be using his concern over global warming to cloak his real intent of controlling weather and/or depopulation.

Mount Pinatubo Model for Geo-Engineering Drought, Famine & Death

The Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines erupted in 1991, spewing 22 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. A 2008 study from Rutgers Universitybased a model on Mount Pinatubo sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and applied it to geo-engineering; the scientists said that they expected overall global cooling, but some regions would experience an increase in greenhouse gases and warming, as was recorded after Pinatubo erupted.
Based on the SO2 volcanic model, the scientists reported that geo-engineering aerosols sprayed in tropical or Arctic regions are likely to disrupt African and Asian/Indian summer monsoons, threatening the food and water supply for billions of people!
Additional negative consequences include ozone depletion, reduced strength of hydrological cycles resulting in decreased river flow and soil moisture.While the scientists, led by Alan Robock, who performed the experiments appear to believe in man-made global warming, they do have stern warnings against the dangers of geo-engineering.2012 Geo-Engineering StudyThe Max Planck Institute conducted a study of geo-engineering models based on volcanoes, but the study was unrealistic because it used climate models with 400% more carbon dioxide than the pre-industrial era. However, their results showed that geo-engineering will cause a strong decrease in rainfall (a 15% loss in North America and Eurasia and a 20% decrease in South America). Overall, global rainfall would be reduced by 5%. (Source)Unless one considers the financial benefits (government and private grants), it is bewildering why the academia would support geo-engineering.
Geo-Engineering Can Cause Warming
Geo-engineering can actually cause global warming when tampering with clouds in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere. The Gates-funded scientist lobbyists propose spraying sulfur dioxide 30 miles above Earth and the New Mexico experiment proposes spraying 15 miles above surface- both of these fall within the parameters of the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.The troposphere is the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere, extending an average of 4 to 12 miles above surface. Clouds that are in the lower troposphere are generally thick white clouds with a high rate of albedo or reflectivity of the sun’s rays away from Earth that produce a cooling effect. However, the experiments are to be conducted above this level in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.The upper atmosphere is called the stratosphere and extends as high as 31 miles above the Earth’s surface. The clouds in the higher stratosphere are generally thin, have a lower albedo reflective rate and act like a blanket that traps heat. Both experiments propose dumping SO2 in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere, creating a heat-trapping blanket that would theoretically increase warming. This is the opposite of Gates’ stated goal to cool the planet.(Note: most long-distance planes fly at 6 miles above surface, in the lower atmosphere/troposhere)What About the EPA?

Given that the EPA claims that sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions cause health problems and early death and that they are shuttering coal plants over emissions, you may be wondering why the EPA isn’t screaming bloody murder over Gates’ SO2 aerosol-spraying experiments.
The answer can be found on the EPA’s own website where they promote giving regulatory power over geo-engineering/chemtrails to the UN and/or developed countries that fund the programs. The EPA is abdicating power to international interests.Bill Gates’ failure to address the EPA’s dire warnings of the dangers of SO2 is proof that he is aware that the EPA’s claims are grossly overstated or that he doesn’t really care about the environment and has ulterior motives.Global Warming and UN Control
Global warming is a ruse that claims that life on planet Earth is in grave danger- this alarmism is used for political gain. Global warming is a hoax based on manipulated science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UN currently is assuming control over geo-engineering through its Convention on Biological Diversity treaty that declared a moratorium on experiments, except in some cases.
Conclusion
Geo-engineering is either a risky adventure to test ignorant theories or a scheme to control weather, water and food supplies.

Bill Gates’ record as a depopulation enthusiast supports the argument that geo-engineering is a weather domination scheme that may be used as a weapon threatening the lives of billions of people.

This article first appeared at Morphcity, a great resource for information about Agenda 21, the environment, and the globalist agenda. Read other articles by Cassandra Anderson HERE.

United Nations Seeks US-Based Disarmament, Demobilization And Reintegration Specialists

UN peacekeepers

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.

Full Listing / Video Commentary

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

UN Hiring Peacekeepers To “Disarm” American Citizens?

UN job listing

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.

 The definitions given by the U.N. for the other activities appear to be nefarious in their own right:

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

Dictators Worldwide Demand Aid, Empowered UN, Global Socialism

global slaves

Communist, socialist, and Islamist tyrants, as well as some elected governments from around the world, came together in Bolivia mid June to sign a massive declaration outlining their autocratic demands. Among them: Global government, planetary wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to their governments, the United Nations “sustainable development” scheme known as Agenda 21, an “international climate regime,” and economy-crippling energy-rationing policies in the West, as well as much more power for their oftentimes brutal regimes in “global governance” institutions such as the UN and the IMF. UN boss Ban Ki-moon was there to cheer them along.

As The New American reported on June 20, the governments called for what they termed a “New World Order to Live Well.” This article will focus on their specific demands. The final declaration was signed by the so-called “Group of 77 plus China,” which despite the name now includes more than 130 governments and autocracies ruling over nations constituting some 60 percent of humanity — from North Korea and Cuba to Zimbabwe, China, and everywhere in between. The text of the agreement offers a great deal of insight into what their sought-after “New World Order” would look like: It bears striking resemblance to the new order outlined by Western globalists.

Much attention was focused on the UN’s so-called “post-2015 development agenda.” The G77 plus China regimes, echoing the UN, said it must be “global in nature and universally applicable to all.” As The New American reported in February, the UN already has big plans for its post-2015 “agenda,” much of it outlined in a radical report produced with the key assistance of Obama policy architect and extreme Big Government-monger John Podesta. Among other points, the official UN document calls for to planetary authorities to “profoundly and dramatically” alter the “worldview” and “behavior” of every person on Earth. All of it must be done under the guise of shackling humanity to the UN-managed “universal sustainable development agenda.”

 

Multiple attacks on fundamental human rights were also on the Bolivian “New World Oder” summit agenda. Unsurprisingly considering the membership list — dozens of the G77 regimes censor or outright control the media — even freedom of the press came under fire in the final declaration. “We call for an end to the use of media in any way that might disseminate distorted information against States members of the Group of 77 in complete disregard of the principle of international law,” they claimed. It was not immediately clear which “international law” purportedly prohibits reporting on the crimes and brutality of the world’s dictators.

As usual, “sustainable development” — a nebulous term that can essentially be summarized as world government, central planning, and the complete transformation of human civilization under UN guidance — was also a key talking point for the regimes. “We stress the need to further mainstream sustainable development at all levels,” they said. “We recall the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development … and decide to accelerate the implementation of our respective commitments in this regard as contained in [the UN global sustainability plot known as] Agenda 21.” The New American magazine reported extensively on the UN “Conference on Sustainable Development” and its extreme agenda for humanity from Rio de Janeiro.

Global governance, the euphemism employed by globalists worldwide to describe their vision of a planetary government, probably received more attention than any other single subject aside from sustainability. The despot-controlled UN General Assembly must also have more power, they said. “We reaffirm the central position of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations, as well as the role of the Assembly in global matters of concern to the international community, as set out in the Charter of the United Nations,” the regimes claimed, calling for a stronger UN.

“We stress the importance of the central role of the United Nations in global economic governance,” the declaration continues, demanding a bigger say in the emerging world government for the G77 plus China regimes. “New attempts must now be made to establish proper global economic governance, with the full voice, representation and participation of developing countries in discussions and decision-making.” The despot-dominated UN General Assembly, where the G77 bloc controls almost two thirds of the votes, should become an “emblem of global sovereignty,” they added in the final agreement.

The regimes also called for “a properly regulated international financial sector” and for “capital markets to be mobilized to achieve sustainable development.” Indeed, the focus on globalizing the regulatory regime — especially when it comes to matters of “global economic governance” — received special attention all throughout the final agreement. Even youth unemployment and worker-training programs, though, should be conducted by the UN under a “global strategy,” the declaration said.

A long-running globalist theme among the establishment in the West and in the Third World involves empowering the International Monetary Fund to become a sort of global central bank in charge of a planetary currency. First, however, the Obama administration, Putin, the Communist Chinese regime, European governments, and Third World dictators are demanding that rulers of poorer countries — primarily autocrats — be given a much larger voice in how the emerging global monetary authority should operate. With only the U.S. Congress now standing in the way, the regimes reiterated their demands in the G77-China declaration.

Calling for the “reform process” over governance of Bretton Woods institutions to be finalized as soon as possible, the final agreement also demanded a “more ambitious” and “accelerated plan” to give dictators more power. They should be allowed to participate and vote in all discussions on “international monetary reform and in the operation of the new arrangements for special drawing rights in the International Monetary Fund (IMF),” the declaration said. “In this regard, we call on the General Assembly to launch a process to reform the international financial and monetary system.”

Currently, the global monetary system is dominated by the U.S. Federal Reserve and its U.S. dollar, which serves as the global reserve currency. If the G77 and their allies in the West get their way, however, that will soon change. “We affirm that the current world financial and economic crisis and its consequences for development have exposed the gaps and failures in global economic governance, including within the international financial institutions, and the urgent need for a global, universal and integrated response by the international community,” the declaration continued.

Demands for global currency printing followed. “Also the reform should encompass liquidity creation, including improvement in the special drawing rights for developing countries,” the declaration said. By “liquidity creation,” they mean printing fiat currency out of thin air like central banks. Special Drawing Rights, meanwhile, are the proto-global currency already issued by the IMF, with their value based on a basket of currencies. Of course, if the Fund is allowed to emit its own “liquidity,” or fiat currency, the world will officially have the planetary central bank that has long been sought by globalists everywhere. The implications are historic and monumental, as self-styled global authorities would be able to fund their machinations without the need for taxpayer funding now provided by national governments.

Dictators and Third World governments, though will not be enough, so Western nations with a semblance of freedom and self-government remaining must also get on board. “We urge developed countries to show real political will, so that in the process of reform of the United Nations, including the strengthening and revitalization of the General Assembly as an emblem of global sovereignty, it can improve its capabilities and capacities to fully implement its mandates and ensure the effective delivery of its programme in the social, environmental and economic development fields,” the declaration continued, claiming the UN has “unquestioned legitimacy.” It was not clear where populations were demanding a UN better able to enforce its “mandates,” but dictators and the Obama administration are fully on board.

Like the European and American establishment, the tyrants focused a great deal of attention on inequality — much of it caused by their own plundering and enslavement of their subjects. “We call for global actions to reduce inequalities at all levels,” the regimes said in their declaration, acknowledging the poverty under their rule but attributing it to everything and anything other than their tyranny. “We therefore urge countries, including through the support of international cooperation, to scale up efforts to provide equal access to opportunities and outcomes to all levels of society in accordance with national policies…. We affirm that any benefit from economic growth has to be equitably shared.”

The regimes also touted “universal health coverage,” demanding that “developed countries and relevant international organizations” provide the “financial resources and technology” to make it happen. In other words, Western taxpayers must finance a sort of global ObamaCare for the world. “We urge the international health authorities and organizations, especially the World Health Organization (WHO), to take urgent action,” they continued. International and regional “authorities” also have a duty to feed people living under the G77 regimes, according to the declaration. “Affordable” and “acceptable” modern methods of “family planning” are also needed, they added.

More taxpayer funding from the West to Third World governments for a broad array of other causes — no strings attached — is also required, they claimed. “We stress that developed countries must meet and scale up their existing official development assistance,” the declaration said, demanding that taxpayers in the West fork over at least one percent of their economic production to Third World regimes. “The global financial and economic crisis cannot be an excuse to avoid fulfilling existing aid commitments by developed countries and to make further commitments.” All of that “financial assistance” must be handed over to those regimes “without conditionalities,” they added, saying previous debts should also be written off.

Despite demanding much more wealth from Western taxpayers, the G77 plus China regimes reiterated their demands for governments ruling over wealthier and freer populations to destroy their economies under the guise of fighting non-existent man-made global warming. “We recall that climate change is one of the most serious global challenges of our times,” they said without pointing out the failure of every UN climate model. “We emphasize that developed countries must take robust and ambitious mitigation commitments, with ambitious quantitative targets for limiting and reducing emissions, as required by science and mandated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” It was not clear how “science” could “require” something, but the UN Climate czar previously said Communist China was doing it right.

The G77 regimes also demanded at least $100 billion per year from Western taxpayers to deal with the discredited notion of human-caused “global warming,” which has been on “pause” for 18 years and counting. They also said their willingness to act on “global warming” was contingent on Western politicians cooperating with the extortion demands — something governments in the West appear likely to do as part of their own efforts to create a UN climate regime complete with taxes on the essential-to-life gas carbon dioxide. While some Western governments have distanced themselves from the hysteria, the Obama administration has been charging full-speed ahead.

From the G77 Declaration, it is clear that the ambitions for a “New World Order” represent a very insidious plot. If implemented, liberty, national sovereignty, free markets, God-given rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, and values held dear by Americans would all have to give way to a new system. Despite Western and Eastern globalists’ open and very public support for the “New World Order” envisioned by Third World despots, the American people still have the ability to crush it. Getting the U.S. government out of the UN, for example, would break the back of the plot, setting it back decades or more. However, that will happen only if American voters and their representatives demand it as vociferously as the world’s dictators are pushing their nightmarish vision for humanity.


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at [email protected] This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Original Article: thenewamerican.com

U.S.-EU Statement Calls For Enforcement Of UN Arms Treaty

obama united nations

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

Agenda 21 For Your Own Good: Global Health Security Initiative

agenda 21

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).[1]

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):

We need ‘em dead
Don’t want ‘em fed
Useless eaters’ human forces
Consume OUR non-renewable natural resources!
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah!And the newest verse:

People are sources of infection,
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 [2] 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[3]. 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.

They are confronting a serious security problem, though: If you are alive, after all, you are a potential site of, and source for, infection. But their pet scientists-on-a-leash solved that one rather neatly:Make sure you are dead. Then, you can’t provide the protectors with the problems of infection, transmission, and you have no descendants who can become infected and transmit disease. Knowing that, don’t you feel safer already?

The UN Secretary General has a couple of red-hot protégés[4], 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.[5],[6] 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[7]. 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[8], created the problem by allowing inhumane and unwholesome factory farm practices using antibiotics to keep stressed and sick animals alive[9],[10] 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.[11],[12],[13] 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[14],[15] 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.[16] 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.[17] MSRA kills hundreds of thousands of people or more each year.[18]

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[19],[20],[21] and Swine Flu (H5N1)[22],[23] may well all be lab creations: all gifts that keep on giving, via the vaccines that are so strongly correlated with their spread[24],[25],[26].

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)[27]. Swine Flu appears to have originated in a WHO lab.[28],[29]

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?[30]

The vial of similarly infective H1N1 viruses which “mysteriously” exploded in a passenger compartment on a crowded train in Switzerland[31] 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:

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/security/
[2] http://unchronicle.un.org/article/national-security-and-pandemics/
[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/02/13/making-world-safer-pandemic-threats-new-agenda-global-health-security
[4] http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~rohani/paperpdfs/Bonds_etal2009.pdf
[5] 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.
[6] 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
[7] http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/
[8] 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/
[9] Levy, Stuart B. (March 1998). “The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance”. Scientific American: 46–53.
[10] 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
[11] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/264119.stm
[12] http://grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-the-superbugs/
[13] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/opinion_gmo_05_en1.pdf
[14] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_03
[15] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19001196
[16] 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.
[17] http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1062773
[18] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/opinion_gmo_05_en1.pdf
[19] 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)
[20] “SARS could be biological weapon: experts”. ABC News. April 12, 2003.
[21] “Sars biological weapon?”. www.news24.com. 11 April 2003
[22] http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-253790
[23] http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/cdc-admits-the-a-h1n1-flu-was-created-in-a-government-lab/blog-67587/
[24] http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/did-you-know-that-nasal-flu-vax-recipients-can-pass-the-flu-to-everyone-around-them-for-up-to-21-days-01032014
[25] http://andrewmaniotis.wordpress.com/vaccines-how-to-predict-epidemics-3/
[26] 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
[27] http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23462/title/Flu-genome-sequenced/
[28] http://dalje.com/en-world/swine-flu-created-in-lab-as-bio-weapon/254118
[29] http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/06/27/proof-that-the-swine-flu-epidemic-was-man-made-and-intentional/
[30] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=aTo3LbhcA75I&pid=newsarchive
[31] http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/virus-alarm-in-switzerland-swine-flu-container-explodes-on-train-a-621598.html

——————

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 Finds Another Way To Reduce The Worlds Food Supply

deep sea mining

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.

Genocide

noun

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!

UN Exploitation Or Assistance? You Decide

panama

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.

panama indigenous people

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

U.N. Authorizes Military Intervention In Central African Republic

central africa genocide

Latest move by internationalists as Muslims and Christians battle it out.

BREAKING: U.N. authorizes military action by African and French troops in the Central African Republic.


— The Associated Press (@AP) December 5, 2013

The Fourth Pillar Of UN Agenda 21: Culture

 agenda 21 Often you’ll hear UN Agenda 21’s primary elements referred to as a “three-legged stool”:  Economy, Ecology, and Social Equity.  You’ll see this image:

culture

Where the elements come together in the middle is the ‘sustainable’ balance that is the supposed goal of the restructuring of every aspect of your life.

In 2004 a ‘world congress of cities’ was formed to comment on the part that ‘culture’ plays in re-crafting identity.  Out of that congress the fourth pillar emerged: Culture.

The Agenda 21 for culture is the first document with worldwide mission that advocates establishing the groundwork of an undertaking by cities and local governments for cultural development. The Agenda 21 for culture was agreed by cities and local governments from all over the world to enshrine their commitment to human rights, cultural diversity, sustainability, participatory democracy and creating conditions for peace.

It was approved by the 4th Forum of Local Authorities for Social Inclusion of Porto Alegre, held in Barcelona on 8 May 2004 as part of the first Universal Forum of Cultures.

United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) adopted the Agenda 21 for culture…UCLG’s Working Group on Culture, constituted in Beijing on 9 June 2005, is the meeting point for cities, local governments and networks that place culture at the heart of their development processes.”

This group, United Cities and Local Governments, says it represents half the population of the world but you’ve never heard of it.

So what could this mean?  The fourth pillar of UN Agenda 21 is CULTURE.  Think about some of what we’re, seeing around the world:

Across the United States, the indigenous people, Indians, are opening casinos.  Indians are considered a sovereign nation within US borders, but receive federal funds and assistance.  Tribal heads who were not elected by tribe members are running the tribes like dictatorships and dis-enrolling members of their tribes who dare to challenge the ruling establishment of tribal councils. By the stroke of a pen an Indian becomes a non-Indian.

Cultural events often take place in rural areas, but less and less people are able to survive in their traditional rural towns. Regulations, restrictions, and outright prohibitions on timbering, fishing, ranching, and other rural pursuits has left an indelible mark on ‘cultural’ America.  If you’re not indigenous you lose your right to work your land.

The emphasis on tourism has relegated culture in many places around the world to folk dances and ethnic meals provided for the consumption of outsiders.  Economies in some areas are dependent on the entertainment of these consumers of culture, and town centers are turned into pseudo-museums for their pleasure.  Often authentic members of these areas are unable to afford their own ‘culture’ or find it to be commercialized into a caricature of the past.  The preservation of these living museums may mean that anything that isn’t scenic has to go away, even it means economic collapse.

Culture may be defined as modern dance and art learned and produced in a university setting with all of the requirements that academia demands. Analyzing the creation becomes the culture itself.

New rights are being granted: positive rights.  Positive rights can be taken away or granted, unlike the rights we have guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  Our constitutional rights are those we are born with, they can’t be taken away or granted by a government — just protected by it. UN Agenda 21 ‘rights’ are really privileges designed as rewards and punishments.

Discrimination will extend to anything which acknowledges difference, but only when it is being done by others.  You’ll be a ‘hater’ if you note unfair advantage, manipulation, or discrimination against the traditional mainstream.  Culture is something to be used as a tool in the manipulation of demographics. The emphasis on diversity, on empowering women and youth, and the poor, and others formerly less attended to by society means that culture is defined by the ‘other’ rather than by those who live it.  It is externalized, commercialized, romanticized, and politicized for the benefit of the elitist consumer while the exploitation of the social group is carpeted over in green. 

When you contemplate what culture is, you’ll find yourself reflecting on agricultural, rural values; you’ll think about nature and the seasons and crops; you’ll think about longtime communities of friends and family; you’ll think about religion and ritual; you’ll contemplate courtship and marriage, and childbirth, and death.  Culture is the human being’s journey through life and beyond.

United Nations’ Agenda 21 is a sham imitation of this.  It is the green mask of concern for the continuation of life covering a goal of pushing humans into urban islands of human habitation.  This densely urban life of stress and economic deprivation is ‘the new poverty’ or the new austerity that redefines the individual’s relationship to his/her government.  UN Agenda 21 empowers the regional unit, whether it’s in the Americas (example: Cascadia) or Europe (Danube Region: Centrope) over the nation and its manageable, responsive units.  We are becoming hapless targets of the Mega-Corporations in their rush to exploit a moveable workforce taught whatever corporations need us to know in order to produce their widgets.  Huge corporations sell you what they tell you you want, and you buy it.  Smart Phone? Tracking device with built-in GPS.  Video Games?  Sociopathic training designed to develop action without introspection.  ATT or Comcast Home Security?  In home video surveillance.

This is your culture now.

CULTURE IS THE FOURTH PILLAR OF UN AGENDA 21.

Refuse to cooperate.
Expose collaborators.
RESIST.

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

Planned Future: UN Mercenaries (VIDEO)

un peacekeepers

CSPAN aired a program on American defense strategy hosted by the Aspen Institute’s Strategy Group.  This panel discussion included former undersecretary of Defense for Policy (President Obama) Michele Flournoy, and former National Security Council member (President George HW Bush) Philip Zelikow.  Both are members of the Aspen Strategy Group as are Condelezza Rice, John Podesta, Madeleine Albright, and Dianne Feinstein, to name a few.  The Aspen Institute is notorious for being the think tank behind national policy. The discussion centered on how to manage a military that is expensive and getting more so.

John Negroponte, former ambassador to the UN and the first director of the National Intelligence Agency (George W. Bush) made a suggestion about an hour and 14 minutes into the discussion.

“Why,” he said, “doesn’t the United States do some ‘capacitating’ with the UN Peacekeeping Forces?  It would be much cheaper.  In fact, in a word, outsourcing our military requirements to the UN would be an order of magnitude cheaper.”

Both former undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy and former National Security Council Member Philip Zelikow agreed that this would be a good idea.

So efficient!  So cheap!
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AmericanDefe

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

Economics Of Non-Governmental Organizations

ngos

What is the first thing that comes to mind when the term NGO appears? Well, many will respond, the United Nations. Directly from a UN site is their definition for Non-governmental organizations. How uplifting and benign the altruistic effort, the deep-seated purpose and intention of such associations, frequently projects that noble endeavors need to enhance the governance process. The term governance essentially is a loaded political concept that benefits a model of economic activity that requires a managed society as opposed to a free, independent and individualistic economy.

“A non-governmental organization (NGO, also often referred to as “civil society organization” or CSO) is a not-for-profit group, principally independent from government, which is organized on a local, national or international level to address issues in support of the public good. Task-oriented and made up of people with a common interest, NGOs perform a variety of services and humanitarian functions, bring public concerns to governments, monitor policy and programme implementation, and encourage participation of civil society stakeholders at the community level.

Some conduct research and analysis in the legal and other fields (e.g. sociology, economics) relevant to the rule of law. In many cases, they produce reports with policy recommendations, for use in their advocacy.”

Of course, not all NGO’s fall into an identical pattern. Some can and do provide valuable services. However, exponents of coordinated liaison with civil authority that develops legal eminence for a social vision that defies the basic human nature of inherent autonomy, is dangerous. NGO’s seldomly practice real charity, although they excel in social engineering.

Looking at the money trail provides evidence of actual intents. Investopedia explains How do NGOs get funding?

“The annual budget of an NGO can be in the hundreds of millions (or even billions) of dollars, fundraising efforts are important for the NGO’s existence and success. Funding sources include membership dues, the sale of goods and services, private sector for-profit companies, philanthropic foundations, grants from local, state and federal agencies, and private donations.”

That sounds all well and good. Nevertheless, when you get into the weeds on how funding actually works, the touchy feely aspects of raising money have a very different look. One example is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), funding programs.

“Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are critical change agents in promoting economic growth, human rights and social progress. USAID partners with NGOs to deliver assistance across all regions and sectors in which we work and to promote inclusive economic growth, strengthen health and education at the community level, support civil society in democratic reforms and assist countries recovering from disasters.”

Among the types of NGOs that the Agency partners with are:

1. Cooperative Organizations

2. Foundations

3. Local and Regional Organizations

4. Private Voluntary Organizations

5. U.S. and International Organizations

Government grants presumably for promoting or enacting democratic reforms, discloses an ulterior motive behind the funding. That is natural and understandable in an era of competing political and economic systems. However, with the emergence of a unified New World Order agenda, the practice of doling out government money that undercuts the very existence of national sovereignty has taken a nefarious turn.

The always perceptive, Pat Buchanan weighs in and provides the evidence. US Funding NGOs to Advance New World Order?

“Cairo contends that $65 million in “pro-democracy” funding that IRI, NDI, and Freedom House received for use in Egypt constitutes “illegal foreign funding” to influence their elections. Yet this is not the first time U.S. “pro-democracy” groups have been charged with subverting regimes that fail to toe the Washington line.”

The motive to change political, social and economic relationships goes beyond countries influencing foreign policy objectives. When the likes of Ted TurnerGeorge SorosWarren Buffet and Bill & Melinda Gates use their foundation funds to back NGO’s that carry out the globalist agenda, private sector multi billionaires become an existential threat to humanity.

Add to this band of bandit brothers, who all have transformational goals, fostered with the wealth they accumulated by practicing crony corporatism, that diminishes our domestic standard of living, with their internationalization sentiments – Jeffrey Walker, Vice Chairman, United Nation’s Secretary General’s Envoy for Health Finance and Malaria, who proposes Building Generosity Networks.

“It’s time for us to turn our attention to building and growing Generosity Networks that link the philanthropic passions of major donors with others who share those passions and are willing to work, collaboratively, to address the major causes of our day.”

Oh, that United Nations record of peaceful philanthropy for universal serfdom has worked so well. The pandemic resolutions for eugenic terminations are often the real intent behind many NGO front organizations.

The economics of world population dictate that market based businesses have no place in a world dominated by transnational monopolies and corporatist cartels. Non-governmental organizations are liberated to advance the “philanthropic passions” of the donors that would normally be suspect if implemented by mega corporations.

Those “so called” generosity networks are used as subsiding endowments for the integration of third world communities into the NWO feudal system of minimal expectations.

That old Peace Corp attitude that was based upon helping others to help themselves is now a mission for global vassal induction. So much for the myth of self-determination, in the land of the rationed and expendable economy, where only the conglomerate matters.

As affluence disparity widens from the mega rich, the former middle class recedes into subsistence level, on a path resembling those that international NGO’s are supposed to help. A true merchant based economy, with broad based business ownership, is the only solution to the controlled slave state.

Actual non-governmental organizations, that provide useful functions, must shed their tax-exempt preferences and government subsidies. Helping individuals with volunteer charity under a viable free enterprise economic model is preferable and necessary.

Breaking up monopoly trusts, eliminates the need for generosity networks, because individuals would be able to earn a livable way of life, independent of government and globalist welfare. Most NGO’s schemes are fronts for NWO causes.

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.

U.S. Wants U.N Resolution That Includes Attack On Syria

sergei llavrov

The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, denounced on Sunday the “blackmail” from the United States to Russia to approve a resolution in the Security Council of the UN to authorize the use of force in Syria in exchange for Syria becoming part of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Sounds strange?

Syria can join the organization, but Russia and the government of Syria need to allow the U.S. to bomb the African country.

“Our American partners are beginning to blackmail us”, said Lavrov. Later he responded to the American suggestion that “If Russia does not support a resolution under Chapter VII, we will withdraw our support for the Syrian entry to the OPCW”.

To Lavrov, this position “is a complete abandonment of what was agreed with the U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry” in reference to the agreement reached on 14 September in Geneva between Lavrov and Kerry for the removal of chemical arsenal from Assad regime Bashar al-Assad.

So, Russia has accused the United States and its allies of being “blinded” by the premise that “Assad must go”.

Chapter VII of the UN Charter would authorize the use of force against another country, provided with the authorization of the Security Council of the UN, where Russia and China, allies of the Assad regime, has veto power.

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.