Tag Archive: United Nation


TheJohnBirchSociety TheJohnBirchSociety

Published on Apr 30, 2013

A clean environment is important to us all. We have an obligation to maintain our resources and sustain our environment for future generations. Sustaining our environment has led us down the road to environmentalism. Then a strange thing happened. Environmentalism came to a fork in the road. While the rhetoric took one route, the agenda took another. Explore this topic and discover how Agenda 21 will affect you.

***************************************************************************************

AGENDA 21 – UN Earth Summit (1992 Rio)

ZeroSixtyFive ZeroSixtyFive

Uploaded on Feb 20, 2012

This classic video produced by George W. Hunt exposes how the progenitors of the hijacked environmental movement, people like Maurice Strong, the Rothschild family and David Rockefeller, always intended the scam to achieve global population reduction along with a global carbon tax based on a cap and trade system controlled by them.

*****************************************************************************************

Agenda 21 talked about on the house floor [10-2-1992]

rhawk301 rhawk301

Published on Feb 29, 2012

Pelosi introduces a bill to follow the 1992 RIO Earth Summit and conform to Agenda 21 and local agenda 21 sustainable community practices and follow international law.

Taken from C-SPAN archives, filmed on Oct. 2, 1992

*****************************************************************************************

How your community is implementing AGENDA 21

Steve Kemp Steve Kemp·

Uploaded on Jun 10, 2011

How your community is implementing AGENDA 21

*****************************************************************************************

Agenda 21 Creeps Into California Land Use Policy

AFPCalifornia AFPCalifornia

Uploaded on Sep 9, 2011

Private property rights in California are being subjected to Agenda 21, a United Nation’s declaration on the collective society’s right to control private property.

*****************************************************************************************
 photo andcorridorsystemtoprotectbiodiversityAgenda21_zpsf5718d35.jpg
*****************************************************************************************

Environmentalists rejoice as Agenda 21 is implemented across North America!

Lloyd Alter
Design / Urban Design
April 1, 2013


Agenda 21/Screen capture

Environmentalists and TreeHuggers rejoiced today with the joint announcement from Barack Obama of the USA, Stephen Harper of Canada and Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico announce the agreement to fully implement Agenda 21 throughout the three countries. The multi-trillion Amero project will ensure a greener, healthier, fairer and more equally distributed future for the 99%.


Glenn Beck/Screen capture

Readers may remember that Agenda 21 started in Rio in 1992 and has been spreading ’round the globe ever since, as Treehugger types push the idea of living a low impact life with a small carbon footprint, eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and saving the planet for all species. As one agender put it,

The objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity.


protecting biodiversity means giving the land back to the animals./Screen capture

In order to preserve that biodiversity and habitat, President Obama has announced the implementation of the wildlife reserve and corridor system across the USA, that will return most of the nation to its natural habitat.


Library of Congress/Public Domain

The Hoover Dam and others on major rivers will be deconstructed so that they can be returned to their natural state. This will cause some problems for cities like Phoenix and others in California that depend on the river’s water; the people will have to be relocated as there won’t be any water for drinking or lawns.


© Detroit News

Fortunately, there are thousands of empty houses in Detroit and Buffalo and other northern cities that will be made available for occupation by the transplanted Phoenicians, who will be welcomed back, and given jobs on urban farms.


Marxists.org/Public Domain

Since production of fertilizer requires fossil fuels and these contribute to climate change, all farming will be organic and done mainly by hand. This will provide a huge number of jobs for millenials now looking for work; a hundred and fifty years ago 80% of the population of North America worked in agriculture; now it is 3%. This is a great opportunity to put people back to work in productive jobs with lots of fresh air, exercise and sunshine.


marxists.org/Public Domain

To keep the land clear for farming and renaturalization, most people will get to live in dense, exciting cities, in wonderful new prefabricated homes.


© Gizmodo

Apartments produced in the LifeEdited Industries factories will accommodate families of all sizes and incomes; to keep consumption of materials and energy down, space will be rationed to 200 square feet per person, with a maximum unit size of 600 square feet. This will help control population growth, a major source of environmental problems. After all, Agenda 21 style living has been described as:

a future in which people would be forced to live with five others in 20-by-20 living spaces with push-button furniture in high-rises across major cities. The complexes would serve three vegetarian meals a day, feature mosques and have a 24-7 on-call doctor to discuss taking one’s own life.

Read Full Article Here

*****************************************************************************************

US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan @ Sustainability Education Summit

Plan4HigherEd Plan4HigherEd

Uploaded on Sep 24, 2010

If you’re serious about campus sustainability, be sure to participate in Campus Sustainability Day 8.0: http://www.scup.org/socmed/youtube-CSD8. And if you are near Albuquerque, check out our one-day symposium there on October 8: http://www.scup.org/socmed/pa-symp.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan addressing higher education sustainability leaders at the September 20-21Sustainability Education Summit: “Citizenship and Pathways for a Green Economy.” He says his department is late to sustainability and education, but it’s getting underway.

*****************************************************************************************

Indoctrinating Our Youth in Earth Worship

MasterpieceConCen3

Published on Nov 2, 2012

William F. Jasper, investigative reporter for The New American magazine, uncovers the real objective behind the Earth Charter. Many U.S. city and educational officials have already been persuaded to endorse this pro-UN manifesto. Learn why this campaign, masquerading as a plan to protect the environment, is potentially lethal to family, faith, and freedom. A must-see video presentation!

JBS

*****************************************************************************************

REWILDING

th-8Step by step, piece by piece, the Wildlands Project is coming to fruition. The Project, foundational to the U.N.Biodiversity Treaty which was never ratified by the U.S. Senate, calls for approximately 50 percent of the United States to be set aside as “wildlands”, where no human can enter. Much has been accomplished over the past 10 years toward that goal, and the pace is stepping up, with the help of the federal agencies first under Clinton/Gore and now under Obama/Biden.

What, you may ask, is the Wildlands Project? It is a grandiose plan to transform at least half of the continental United States into an area free of modern industry and human habitation.

The father of this radical vision for a new green America is none other than Dave Foreman , principal founder of the eco-terrorist group EarthFirst!, and until 1997, a director of the Sierra Club . Carl Pope took the reign in 2002.

A vast network of powerful and influential environmental groups are taking great strides toward reaching the Wildlands’ goals. They are working toward the resurrection of a pre-industrial North America — the continent once known to Native Americans as “Turtle Island.” Foreman, in his own words, summarizes the Wildlands Project as a “bold attempt to grope our way back to 1492.” What kind of progressive notion is that, you might ask.

The deep ecology movement operates behind a sham of new age language and pseudoscience. Idealistic neo-pagans were courted and seduced by a pseudo spiritual rhetoric that masquerades the hidden agenda for power, money and control. They fell in love with the idea of this socially engineered, new earth religion “Gia”. This relationship came with weighty strings attached and they, lost in their beautiful delusions, danced at the puppet masters’ command.

Even so, these people consider themselves to be enlightened and always right, while they consider those with differing views to be ignorant and unenlightened. These eco-centrics have created their own vocabulary and terminology and this green “newspeak” has grown deep and extensive roots within our popular and political culture.

Wildlife Corridor Conservation Act Introduced

Politicians and other agents of Agenda 21 are inundating us with overlapping schemes that quietly and deliberately drown our property rights and freedom. For surefire evidence, take a look at U.S. Congress – H.R. 5101 Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act of 2010. This bill includes transboundary tax-payer funded projects for wild animal bridges and tunnels, increasing roadless areas and other means to capture more natural resources and private property for government and its partners.

H.R. 5101 states that “The Secretary, in cooperation with the States and Indian tribes, shall develop a Habitat and Corridors Information System, that shall include maps and descriptions of projected shifts in habitats and corridors of fish and wildlife species in response to climate change; and to assess the impacts of existing development on habitats and corridors.” The System is charged with identifying, prioritizing and describing “key parcels of non-Federal land (i.e. state lands and private property) located within the boundaries of units of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Forest System, or National Grassland System that are critical to maintenance of wildlife habitat and migration corridors.” This is way over and above what the federal government has already swallowed up under other guises.

Congress and other elites are desperately clinging to the fraud of man-made global warming in an attempt to illegitimately wrest control of private property. Many people still nominally own and pay taxes on their private property but if their property is even slightly proximate to the imagined wildlife corridors, then animals rule as “new habitat” is created for them in response to “climate change” and other “threats” (meaning people). It doesn’t matter that grandma’s house has been there for 100 years and she and the animals get along fine. Not anymore, with this bill government will determine what if any use might be made of land that falls in or near corridors invented ostensibly to protect animals (in truth this is done to take private property and to control the human population).

The difference between this bill and previous wildland’s programs is that this one doesn’t just have teeth, it has fangs. Not only does it have “strong language calling on agencies to actually take steps to protect corridors” but it also calls for a funding mechanism (more taxes) to support “such protective action.” In short, we will be footing the bill for the global elite to further control our property and diminish our freedom under the guise of habitat protection. And “the Secretary of the Interior may transfer funds to the Foundation under this subsection in advance, without regard to when expenses are incurred.” How many of us can get paid whenever we want, even if we haven’t yet done the work?

Here are a few examples of Wildlife Corridor Program across the United States. Once again they are bad programs hiding behind pretty pictures and phony words. Rim of the Valley Los Angeles Basin, California, Buffalo Commons Plains States, USA and Yellowstone to Yukon or “Y to Y” plus there are many more.

Norman MacLeod of Washington explains that HR 5101 incorporates the legislative provisions of Section 481 of HR 2454 (the House version of the climate bill) and Section 6009 of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill draft. These sections authorize a wildlife corridors information system. HR 5101 builds on this with implementation programs, mostly to be housed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Funding mechanisms and public-private structures are included. The bill has been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee.

This bill is intended to lead to the formal creation of several continental-scale wildlife corridor systems that include core habitat, connectivity, and buffer systems that will impact livelihoods, homes, ranches, farms, access to resources, outdoor recreation and more.

Buzzwords for a New Millennium
Biological diversity is a broad term which crops up in many environmental documents. It is used to define any kind of life form and its interrelation(s) to all the other life forms within any particular ecosystem a/k/a biome.

Bioregions, also known as biosphere reserves, are geo-political regions formed from land areas constituting similar ecosystems. The United Nations prefers the term “eco-regions,” and the Department of the Interior refers to them as Ecosystem Management Areas.

Under such a plan, areas that are now defined by state boundaries in the U.S., would be reorganized to follow similar landscape features. For example, the mountainous regions of Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Kentucky and West Virginia would constitute the Southern Appalachian Bioregion.

According to the enviro¬gurus, all human activity is damaging to a biosphere. Following that reasoning, they believe that people must be heavily regulated or removed in order to protect the balance of biodiversity within eco-regions.

First, a core area is established where no human activity is allowed. Core areas are the central component of the Wildlands Reserve program. Core areas are large and are taken mostly from National Forest and Park lands and adjacent private lands. Around the core is a buffer zone, consisting primarily of private land. Buffer zones may contain some housing development and human activity. According to the “grand plan,” however, no new development must be permitted. A transition area will surround the buffer zone. Human activity, such as tourism, or even some human settlement will be allowed. The transition area boundaries can be flexible. A corridor is an area of land that connects core areas with other core areas. Corridors generally follow rivers, streams and wildlife migration routes. Corridors consist of both public and private lands.

According to the Wildlands Project, no commercial development, housing or communities would be allowed within such a corridor. Imagine a national park that was 2,500 miles long, two counties wide and which passed through ten states from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico. This is the Mississippi River Corridor, as designated by Congress. Numerous and costly studies will be made in this region in order to develop a unified federal program to control this ten-state area. Are you beginning to see how this plan will work?

There are sixty-eight other designated Heritage Areas and Corridors across our country in nearly every state of the Union. (this was true in 1999 – there may be more at this time)

THE ROAD RIP: Road Removal and Implementation Project

A common characteristic of core wilderness areas and interconnecting corridors is the absence of roads. Road RIP is an NGO dedicated to removing existing roads and preventing the construction of new roads. Since this paper was first written, many “road removal” projects have been implemented.

The original Road RIP radicals prepared handbooks for local activists that describe step-by-step procedures for challenging road construction and “Six Steps to Close a Road.” Sample letters, a comprehensive flow chart of the procedure and sample forms are provided to the organization’s chapters. The author of the work, Keith Hammer, is credited with forcing the Forest Service to remove or commit to remove more than 1,000 miles of roads in the Flathead National Forest.

The group is not content to close only roads in the national forests. Their ambitions run much higher. According to their literature:
“The best road density goal for maintaining and restoring ecological and evolutionary processes is ZERO—NO ROADS AT ALL. And what we call a road includes everything from interstate highways to two-track logging roads, off-road vehicle trails, and snowmobile routes. They are all swaths of ecological destruction.” And back to 1492 we go.

PRIVATE PROPERTY
In order for the Wildlands Project to be successful, thousands upon thousands of acres of private property need to be incorporated into biosphere reserves. Landowners were once free to use their land as they saw fit, as long as their actions did not harm other people. That changed with a 1972 decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. In Just v. Marinette County, the Court ruled that:
“An owner of land has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its natural state. ”

Simply put, the Wisconsin ruling set a legal precedence that a property owner could not “harm” the land itself. Fortunately, following cases favored landowners although the legal definition of “harm” was expanded and modified.

The Wildlands Project and other environmental organizations now campaign to “educate” the courts and public what they consider to be inappropriate land uses that “harms” others. The arguments which the eco-activists have dreamed up are convoluted and complex. They claim that when wetlands are filled, others are harmed by excessive run off and by the loss of the run off to the aquifer. When private property is clear cut others are harmed by the loss of biodiversity and so on, ad nauseum. They know the legal game and play it well. If they don’t want you to have it (property), they will find a way to take (legally steal) it from you.

The Sweet Home decision is an excellent example of how the Supreme Court is expanding the definition of harm. It was based on the notion that landowners can harm the land itself, which in turn, would affect and harm people.

“Others” that are affected are often unidentified souls that may be indirectly impacted by the loss of some imagined benefit. This case has left the door wide open for government restrictions upon private property owners. A favorite scheme used to implement the Wildlands Project, is for the federal government to offer a variety of flexible conservation easements to property owners. The owner retains title to the property and continues to pay taxes on it even though specific uses of the property are relinquished to the easement holder. Further, they often receive a pittance for the rights they gave up and future generations are robbed of the property uses which were forfeited.

The Nature Conservancy and other land trusts have led the way in exploiting this technique of separating resource utilization from the bundle of rights which traditionally have been considered private property rights and other non-profits have learned those techniques.

From the Global to the National to the Local
It is no coincidence that an article about the Wildlands Project first appeared in the 1992 special issue of Wild Earth, * an EarthFirst! publication. After all, the United Nation’s Convention on Biological Diversity also took place that very same year, and come to think about it, so did the release of Al Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance.

Not surprisingly, one of Al Gore’s first acts as Vice President was to establish an Ecosystem Management Policy. This directive was implemented via various resource management agencies within our federal government. (It should be noted that the Sierra Club published a map of the new America, broken down into 18 bioregions. )

Read Full Article Here

*****************************************************************************************

Codex Alimentarius Lecture by Ian R. Crane – 1 thru 9

Uploaded on Jun 20, 2008

1 of 9

Taken from ConCen:

Never heard of Codex Alimentarius? That’s exactly what they want!

The UN plan to eradicate organic farming & to destroy the Natural Health Industry.

With biting political analysis, Ian R. Crane probes the track record of those who openly crave the introduction of a One World hierarchical Government. He exposes the agenda of those who have presided over events leading directly to the launching of the illegal wars in Afghanistan & Iraq and who continually demonstrate their desire to perpetuate a state of permanent global conflict; whilst systematically eroding personal freedom, through the process of gradualism.

*****************************************************************************************

So much  for the  doomsday  prophesies  of   the  population  explosion alarmists….Not  to  mention the justification for the  Eugenics  Agenda.

***********************************************************************************************************************

A model predicts that the world’s populations will stop growing in 2050

Published: Thursday, April 4, 2013 – 10:37 in Earth & Climate

Related images
(click to enlarge)

This is an estimated and projected world population according to different variants, 1950-2100 (billions). The model matches with the low fertility variant.

UN
This is a map of the world.

NASA Earth Observatory/NOAA NGDC

The results, obtained with a model used by physicists, coincide with the UN’s downward forecasts. According to United Nations’ estimates, the world population in 2100 will be within a range between 15.8 billion people according to the highest estimates -high fertility variant- and 6.2 billion according to the lowest — low fertility variant-, a figure that stands below the current 7 billion.

A mathematical model developed by a team from the Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM) and the CEU-San Pablo University, both from Spain, seems to confirm the lower estimate, in addition to a standstill and even a slight drop in the number of people on Earth by the mid-21st century.

The population prospects between 1950 and 2100 provided by the UN were used to conduct the study, published in the journal ‘Simulation’. Mathematical equations which are used in scientific fields, such as condensed matter physics, were then applied to this data.

“This is a model that describes the evolution of a two-level system in which there is a probability of passing from one level to another,” as explained by Félix F. Muñoz, UAM researcher and co-author of the project.

The team considered Earth as a closed and finite system where the migration of people within the system has no impact and where the fundamental principle of the conservation of mass -biomass in this case- and energy is fulfilled.

“Within this general principle, the variables that limit the upper and lower zone of the system’s two levels are the birth and mortality rates,” Muñoz pointed out and recalled the change that occurred in the ratio between the two variables throughout the last century.

 

Read Full Report  Here

Video Obama Backup Gun Grab UN Treaty Confiscation Vote Soon          

Image Source                                                                                                                                              Image  Source

Wednesday, 28 November 2012 22:22 posted by JamesR Smiley

PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE, listen up Americans! The United States Supreme Court has already answered this issue in 1957 LANDMARK PRECEDENT case, “Reid v Covert”. In a 6-2 decision with Justices Hugo Black, John Harlan, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, William J. Brennan Jr. and William O. Douglas all voted AFFIRMATIVE and stated in majority opinion: “The United States IS ENTIRELY A CREATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION. It’s POWER AND AUTHORITY HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE. It can ONLY act in accordance with all the LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE CONSTITUTION…NO agreement with a FOREIGN nation CAN CONFER POWER ON THE CONGRESS OR ON ANY OTHER BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS FREE FROM THE RESTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.” The Court went on to add: “an international agreement that is INCONSISTENT WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS VOID UNDER U.S. DOMESTIC LAW, the same as ANY OTHER FEDERAL LAW IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION.”—- ALL AMERICANS SHOULD UNDERSTAND—Presidents, Congress and federal officials ARE EMPLOYEES OF WE THE PEOPLE–their EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT IS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. NO ACT OF CONGRESS OR TREATY SIGNED BY SAME CAN OVERRIDE BILL OF RIGHTS IN OUR CONSTITUTION!! IT’S TIME TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE THE PEOPLE KNOW!!

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Arms Trade Treaty

TheNewAmericanVideoTheNewAmericanVideo

Published on Mar 27, 2013

Joe Wolverton, a writer for The New American, is at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, covering the Arms Trade Treaty that has been worked on this week by various parties.

More news at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/

****************************************************************************************

This  war  on the  2nd  amendment has been going on  for over a decade. So don’t let the BS   fool you  , it isnt  just  Obama  who has been conspiring  to  destroy the  2ndamendment.   Just  remember what  happened in   New  Orleans after Katrina. That  was not   Obama.  So  open  your  eyes  and step lively.  You  need  to  be able to  look beyond the  Right/Left  Paradigm or you  will be lost  in the shuffle.

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

MILLER: U.N. threatens to override Second Amendment

Arms Trade Treaty puts American gun owners in peril

By Emily Miller

The Washington Times

Thursday, March 21, 2013

  • President Obama addresses the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 25, 2012. (Associated Press)Enlarge PhotoPresident Obama addresses the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly … more >
Around the Web

While President Obama lost a round this week on his gun-control agenda in Congress, he’s making up for lost ground by pursuing a broader gun grab at the United Nations.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said there was not enough support to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein the stand-alone vote she demands on the “assault weapon” ban, but the upper chamber may soon be the deciding factor in whether the United States ratifies an international treaty that could strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights.


SPECIAL COVERAGE: Second Amendment and Gun Control


On Monday, the United States joined in the nine day conference in New York to finalize negotiations of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The treaty is intended to regulate the global trade of conventional weapons, but depending how the final document is worded, it could put at risk Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

The countries were negotiating the draft last July, but stopped when the U.S. asked for a delay. Many believe Mr. Obama pushed the issue past Election Day in order not to further alienate gun owners. Now that he has more “flexibility” in his second term, the U.S. is back at the table.

Secretary of State John Kerry has encouraged reaching consensus by March 28. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” he wrote in a statement Friday.

Mr. Kerry only modified his enthusiasm with a nod to public disapproval by stating that, “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) strongly opposes the treaty because the draft includes civilian firearms under what is called the “scope” provision of the draft. NRA representatives in New York are finding strong resistance from non-government organizations and leftist states to removing the civilian firearm provision.

Read Full Article Here

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

MILLER: Second Amendment attack backfires

Gun owners shine a spotlight on hypocritical attacks on their rights

By Emily Miller

The Washington Times

Thursday, December 27, 2012

  • David Gregory holding a 30-round magazine at NBC's Washington bureau (NBC/Meet the Press)Enlarge PhotoDavid Gregory holding a 30-round magazine at NBC’s Washington bureau (NBC/Meet the … more >

Gun grabbers have been exploiting the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., to pursue their long-standing agenda of disarming America. Law-abiding and responsible gun owners are fighting back against the onslaught.

NBC anchor David Gregory acted on Sunday as if D.C. firearms laws didn’t apply to him. He brandished a 30-round rifle magazine on “Meet the Press” during an interview with National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “Isn’t it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?” Mr. Gregory asked while waving the prohibited object.

A ruthlessly enforced city ordinance makes it unlawful to possess magazines with greater than a 10-round capacity. NBC staff had contacted the Metropolitan Police Department in advance seeking permission to violate the city’s rules for the stunt. According to a spokesman for Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, the request was denied. Mr. Gregory went ahead anyway.

So far, Chief Lanier’s office will only say it has “launched an investigation” into the matter. Several law enforcement sources say that if anyone other than a network news anchor had done this, a warrant already would have been drafted for the perpetrator’s arrest for a crime that carries a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and one year in jail.

“This is the problem when you have anti-law-enforcement liberals running the city,” said Kristopher Baumann, head of the D.C. police union. “The laws they create are for the little people, and they don’t ever expect those laws to apply to them.”

Thousands of Americans have grown so tired of the hypocrisy that they’ve started a petition on the White House website seeking the deportation of Piers Morgan, the British host of CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” who has lectured the nation about how only the police and military can be trusted to possess scary-looking rifles and “high-capacity magazines.”

Guests on the program who stand up for the Second Amendment are lambasted. For instance, Mr. Morgan recently asked Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt, “You are an unbelievably stupid man, aren’t you?” It’s not surprising the petition to send the anchor back to his homeland has received more than 84,000 signatures.

 Read Full Article  Here

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Monday, 26 November 2012 17:21

UN Global Gun Ban Flimflam

Written by 

The New American

On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0 (with 18 abstentions) in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.

China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage.

As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.

Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.

Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.

As soon as news of the U.S. policy 180 was confirmed, a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.

That was immediately followed by a press release sent out early the next morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference.

Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made toward the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.

Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the conference’s president on July 26 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text.

The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.

In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”

The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.

Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:

After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.

The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.

Read Full Article Here

 

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************

It’s about  damn time !!

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

Sunday, 24 March 2013 07:00

Senate Votes to Keep U.S. Out of UN Arms Trade Treaty

Written by 

In the pre-dawn hours Saturday, the Senate approved a measure “to uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”

By a vote of 53-46, the Senate passed the amendment to the budget bill sponsored by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.).

This reporter is in New York covering the negotiations at the UN aimed at drafting a treaty calling for the eradication of small arms trade, sale, and transfer by anyone other than UN-approved governments.

“We’re negotiating a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms,” Inhofe before the vote on his amendment. “This is probably the last time this year that you’ll be able to vote for your Second Amendment rights.”

According to a story in The Hill, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) proposed his own amendment “that clarified that under current U.S. law, treaties don’t trump the Constitution and that the United States should not agree to any arms treaty that violates the Second Amendment rights.” Leahy’s amendment also passed.

A resolution of similar intent sponsored by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) is currently pending before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Moran’s measure declares that it is the sense of Congress that:

the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty; and

until the Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been the subject of implementing legislation by Congress, no Federal funds should be appropriated or authorized to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement, or to conduct activities relevant to the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement.

Representative Mike Kelly (R-Penn.) has offered a companion measure in the House.

Both the Moran and Kelly resolutions declare that the Arms Trade Treaty “poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty.”

The measures also points out that UN gun grab “fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment.”

 

Read Full Article Here

 

Below is the list of Democrats that voted against the amendment and in favor of the UN being given the power to overturn the U.S. Constitution.

Baldwin (D WI)

Baucus (D MT)

Bennet (D CO)

Blumenthal (D CT)

Boxer (D CA)

Brown (D OH)

Cantwell (D WA)

Cardin (D MD)

Carper (D DE)

Casey (D PA)

Coons (D DE)

Cowan (D MA)

Durbin (D IL)

Feinstein (D CA)

Franken (D MN)

Gillibrand (D NY)

Harkin (D IA)

Hirono (D HI)

Johnson (D SD)

Kaine (D VA)

King (I ME)

Klobuchar (D MN)

Landrieu (D LA)

Leahy (D VT)

Levin (D MI)

McCaskill (D MO)

Menendez (D NJ)

Merkley (D OR)

Mikulski (D MD)

Murphy (D CT)

Murray (D WA)

Nelson (D FL)

Reed (D RI)

Reid (D NV)

Rockefeller (D WA)

Sanders (I VT)

Schatz (D HI)

Shaheen (D NH)

Stabenow (D MI)

Udall (D CO)

Udall (D NM)

Warner (D VA)

Warren (D MA)

Whitehouse (D RI)

Wyden (D OR)

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Don’t get  to comfortable , you  see  Obama is not taking  NO for an answer!!

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

US demands vote on United Nations arms trade treaty next week

By Julian Pecquet – 03/29/13 06:00 AM ET
The Hill

The Obama administration is demanding that the U.N. General Assembly vote on an arms trade treaty opposed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) next week, abandoning its earlier insistence on consensus.

The conference drafting the text broke up Thursday afternoon without reaching a deal after North Korea (DPRK), Syria and Iran objected. The United States immediately joined 11 other countries demanding a vote in the General Assembly after the president of the conference delivers his report on Tuesday.

“The U.S. regrets that it was not possible today to reach consensus at this conference on an arms trade treaty,” said Tom Countryman, the assistant secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation and head of the U.S. delegation to the Arms Trade Treaty Conference. “Such a treaty would promote global security, would advance important humanitarian objectives, and it would affirm the legitimacy of the international trade in conventional arms.”

He said the text that failed to reach consensus Thursday was “meaningful,” “implementable,” and “did not touch in any way upon the constitutional rights of American citizens.”

“We look forward to this text being adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in the very near future,” Countryman told reporters in a conference call Thursday night. “It’s important to the United States and the defense of our interests to insist on consensus. But every state in this process has always been conscious of the fact that, if consensus is not reached in this process, that there are other ways to adopt this treaty, including via a vote of the General Assembly.”

Countryman said a vote is expected as early as next week. That could be delayed if states reopen the treaty for further changes, however.

“The United States will vote in favor,” Countryman said. “We think an overwhelming majority of states will vote in favor. I’m happy to vote the opposite direction of such states as Iran, North Korea and Syria on this text.”

The treaty would require that states institute internal mechanisms for ensuring that their exports of conventional weapons aren’t likely to be used to violate humanitarian law. The treaty is opposed by the National Rifle Association and a majority of U.S. senators, but the administration says it would have no impact on domestic Second Amendment rights.

Read Full Article Here

 

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

UN’s arms trade treaty blocked

AlJazeeraEnglishAlJazeeraEnglish

Published on Mar 28, 2013

Attempts by the United Nations to negotiate the world’s first global arms treaty have been blocked by Iran, North Korea, and Syria. The treaty has been in the works for nearly a decade, but negotiators could not convince the three countries to approve the draft. Al Jazeera’s diplomatic editor James Bays reports from United Nations headquarters in New York.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Millions will not comply to UN disarming the militia

NoLinkNewsChannelNoLinkNewsChannel

Published on Mar 3, 2013

A Republican lawmaker in Idaho has proposed an amendment to the state Constitution that would require all adults to be militia members.

A proposed disaster emergency ordinance in Guntersville, Ala., would give police overreaching power to disarm individuals in the event of an Emergency. Shotguns could be banned under Colorado Bill. Opponents of New York’s new gun control law plan to lobby lawmakers and rally at the Capitol.

Gun rights supporters want the public to become more aware of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

They gathered on Friday at Duke’s Sport Shop in New Castle to learn about the issue, which some believe could alter the country’s Second Amendment.

U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pennsylvania, explained that ATT is a set of global rules to help government regulate arms transfers.

He believes it could harm the country’s gun policy and some gun shop owners agree.

Kelly said people opposed to the ATT can sign an online petition.

“I think a lot of people don’t really know that’s actually going on right now,” said Duke’s Sports Shop Manager Mike Fotia. “It could impact everyone in the U.S. who owns a gun. It could impact the Second Amendment.”

Gun rights supporters want the public to become more aware of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.

UNITED NATIONS (TRNS) — A proposed U.N. treaty to regulate international arms sales would likely have no impact on U.S. domestic gun laws, according to a white paper released by the American Bar Association earlier this week.

The report by the ABA’s Center for Human Rights, which comes less than three weeks before U.N. members states are set to resume negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), seemingly weakens claims by the National Rifle Association and other groups that the treaty poses a great risk to Second Amendment rights.

The Obama administration backed away from the ATT negotiation conference last summer after the American gun lobby and members of the US Senate and Congress alleged the deal threatened private ownership of firearms for American citizens.

But the American Bar Association’s latest analysis of the ATT concludes that while the treaty would impose obligations on the U.S. government to block international arm transfers to suspected human rights abusers, war criminals, and terrorists, it “would not require new domestic regulations of firearms.”

“If the United States signs and ratifies the ATT, in its most recent iteration in the President’s text of 26 July 2012, the United States retains the discretion to regulate the flow of weapons into and out of the United States in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment,” reads the white paper.

The ABA report also found that the majority of weapons covered by the Arms Trade Treaty do not enjoy Second Amendment protections, citing the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, that “the Second Amendment applies only to firearms that are ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,’ but not to ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.”

It says the current version of the agreement would cover the international transfers of all conventional weapons, including tanks, armored vehicles, attack helicopters, combat aircrafts, artillery systems, and missile launchers, as well as small arms and light weapons.

The National Riffle Association has energetically lobbied against the inclusion of small arms and light weapons in the ATT, blasting treaty negotiators for targeting “civilians weapons” it says are protected by the U.S. constitution.

However, the ABA white paper notes that District of Columbia v. Heller does not extend Second Amendment protections to “small arms and light weapons” such as short barreled shotguns, machine-guns, and automatic M-16 rifles.

It says that even though constitutional protections apply to some weapons classified as “small arms and light weapons,” the Second Amendment does not cover activities like importing and exporting arms.

“The Second Amendment is generally inapplicable to arms exports. Though the amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” it does not protect the right to supply arms to persons who are not themselves among “the people” of the United States,” says the ABA report.

But conservative groups and gun rights activists remain unconvinced, and maintain that possible future amendments to the ATT might eventually infringe on American gun laws.

The Arms Trade Treaty negotiations conference is set to resume at the U.N. headquarters in New York March 18-28th.
http://tinyurl.com/d3b2tsh

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

March 15, 2013

 

womenEgyptian women protest in Tahrir Square in Cairo in 2011 against violence against women. (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)

(CNSNews.com) – As the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women tries to finalize a document on violence against women by the end of its two-week session Friday, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is leading a pushback by governments that accuse it of trying to undermine religious or cultural values.

Egypt’s ruling Islamist party called on all Muslim countries to “reject and condemn” the draft document under discussion at the CSW session in New York, warning that it would undermine the family, subvert society, and “drag it to pre-Islamic ignorance.”

“This declaration, if ratified, would lead to complete disintegration of society, and would certainly be the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries, eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies,” it said in a statement.

The declaration would in fact be non-binding, although U.N. documents are typically cited in future negotiations as having set norms to be built upon.

Earlier, Libya’s grand mufti issued a fatwa (religious ruling) against the draft document.

Among elements in the CSW draft opposed by the Brotherhood are some that would resonate with many Western conservatives – including a reference to “safe abortion” where permitted by law and an allusion to same-sex relationships (couched as the right to decide without coercion on “matters related to their sexuality.”)

Others, however, touch on norms Westerners would generally not dispute but which the Brotherhood says are contrary to shari’a, such as those relating to early marriage, polygamy, and inheritance equality.

Where the CSW document calls for women to enjoy equality in “participation and decision-making in all spheres of life,” for instance, the Brotherhood sees a threat against the right of Muslim men to give or withhold consent for wives to travel or work.

Full equality in marriage, it said in the statement, would allow Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, abolish polygamy, and remove the authority of divorce from husbands.

 

womenEgyptian women take part in demonstrations against the Mubarak regime in Cairo on Jan. 30, 2011. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

The Brotherhood was also unhappy that the document sought to promote “full sharing of roles within the family between men and women such as: spending, child care and home chores.”

Egypt wants the draft amended to allow countries to sidestep those recommendations they view as clashing with religious or cultural values.

The document itself urges against such a provision, calling on states “to refrain from invoking any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligations” with respect to eliminating violence against women and girls.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

********************************************************************************

 

NCW responds to Muslim Brotherhood statement

  /   March 14, 2013

National Council for Women denies the UN declaration on violence against women breaches Islamic Shari’a

 Egyptian women demand their rights on the occasion of the International Women's Day, (Photo by Mohamed Omar/DNE)

Egyptian women demand their rights on the occasion of the International Women’s Day, (Photo by Mohamed Omar/DNE)

The National Council for Women (NCW) denied in a statement released on Thursday that a declaration regarding violence against women currently being drafted in the 57th United Nations’ Commission on the Status of Women breaches Islamic Shari’a.

The Muslim Brotherhood released a statement on Wednesday denouncing the declaration for “contradicting principles of Islam and destroying family life and the entire society”.

“The Brotherhood’s statement is completely unfounded,” the NCW said in its statement. The council added that the final draft of the declaration is yet to be released and voted on.

The council denied that the declaration goes against the principles of Islam, eliminates Islamic manner or destroys families. “This misleading allegation abuses religion to taint the UN and stall women’s rights,” the statement read. It added that the “accusations” referred to in the Brotherhood’s statement are all non-existent in the draft declaration.

“The points mentioned in the Brotherhood’s statement cannot be found in the declaration; neither literally nor metaphorically,” said Abeer Abul Ella, head of the NCW’s media office.

In its statement, the Muslim Brotherhood listed ten points allegedly present within the declaration which represent “the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries”.

The points include: granting girls sexual freedom as well as the freedom to decide their gender, providing contraceptives for adolescent girls and legalising abortion “in the name of reproductive rights”, granting adulterous wives and illegitimate children equal rights, granting equal rights to homosexuals and protecting and respecting prostitutes, allowing wives to legally accuse their husbands of rape or sexual harassment, allowing equal inheritance rights among men and women, replacing husbands’ guardianship with partnership, full equality in marriage legislation (which would allow Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men), removing the divorce authority from husbands and giving it to legal courts, and abolishing the need for husbands’ consent on matters such as their wives’ work, travel or going out.

Read Full Article Here

Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome

Published on Feb 3, 2013

Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome, Sustainable Development, at the Lord Monckton Launch 2 Feb 2013 at the Adelaide Convention Centre.

….

Agenda 21 EXPLAINED, full version

John Anthony

Uploaded on Dec 23, 2011

Here is a detailed presentation on what is really in Agenda 21 and the sustainable development movement as defined by the UN. How it will ultimately compromise your property rights..

Regarding Ms. Bruntdland: Some have suggested she is merely a Democrat and I am way off base. First off, Norway does not have a Democratic Party, but rather Socialist democrats. Hopefully there is a difference. Internet research can be a challenge, so I respect those who engage in it! However, check out the XX Congress of the Socialist International in NY. Gro was the first VP of the Socialist International whose goal is to interact with labour, social democrats and socialists worldwide to spread the socialist concept of democracy. It is quite possible to be member of the Democratic Party and a Socialist at the same time. It is members like Gro whose desire it is to move the Democratic party more toward the Social Democratic Party.

I also want to thank “6or8pack” for pointing out my error in mentioning that Betty Perry’s nose was injured by handcuffs. In fact, she slipped during her interaction with officers and hit her nose on the steps. Betty was aware of local ordinances, but chose to ignore them. This landed her in the holding pen. This error is mine.

Some have suggested they have “read Agenda 21 ” and there is nothing dangerous in the book and besides, the document has no power to override their Constitutional right to own and control private property.

To read the book alone, without reading the preceeding and following documentation and activites would be somewhat like looking at a map of Brazil and feeling you now know how Brazilians think and feel.

The name A21 refers not only to the actual book, but to the entire sustainable development movement as defined by the United Nations dating back to the 1970’s through today. That is why it is important to not only listen to the entire video, but research on your own to gain more information. Since this presentation was completed vast new volumes of information have been compiled. Check the sources in the back of the presentation and the United Nation’s own websites to draw your own conclusions.

Thanks for viewing the video and for your observations. John

Presented 11/28/2011 Copyright 2011 John Anthony

Alex Details The Draconian Agenda 21 Plan for America

TheAlexJonesChannel

How your community is implementing AGENDA 21

By Michael,
The Economic Collapse

United Nations Flag

It is essentially a blueprint for a “sustainable world” that was introduced at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.  Since then, it has been adopted by more than 200 counties and it has been modified and updated at other UN environmental summits.  The philosophy behind Agenda 21 is that our environmental problems are the number one problem that we are facing, and that those problems are being caused by human activity.  Therefore, according to Agenda 21 human activity needs to be tightly monitored, regulated and controlled for the greater good.  Individual liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the planet.  If you are thinking that this sounds like it is exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers intended when they established this nation, you would be on the right track.  Those that promote the philosophy underlying Agenda 21 believe that human activity must be “managed” and that letting people make their own decisions is “destructive” and “dangerous”.  Sadly, the principles behind Agenda 21 are being rammed down the throats of local communities all over America, and most of the people living in those communities don’t even realize it.

So how is this being done?  Well, after Agenda 21 was adopted, an international organization known as the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI) was established to help implement the goals of Agenda 21 in local communities.  One thing that they learned very quickly was that the “Agenda 21” label was a red flag for a lot of people.  It tended to create quite a bit of opposition on the local level.

As they try to implement their goals, they very rarely use the term “Agenda 21” anymore.  Instead, they use much more harmless sounding labels such as “smart growth”, “comprehensive land use planning” and especially “sustainable development”.

So just because something does not carry the Agenda 21 label does not mean that it is not promoting the goals of Agenda 21.

The goals of Agenda 21 are not only being implemented in the United States.  This is a massive worldwide effort that is being coordinated by the United Nations.  An article that was posted on RedState.com discussed some of the history of Agenda 21…

In simplified terms, Agenda 21 is a master blueprint, or guidelines, for constructing “sustainable” communities. Agenda 21 was put forth by the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development, and was adopted by over 200 countries (signed into “soft law” by George Bush Sr.) at the United Nations Rio Conference in 1992. In 1994 the President’s Council for Sustainable Development was created via Executive Order by Bill Clinton to begin coordinating efforts at the Federal level to make the US Agenda 21 compliant.

The same year that Bill Clinton established the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, the International Code Council was also created.

The International Code Council has developed a large number of “international codes” which are intended to replace existing building codes all over the United States.  The following is a list of these codes from Wikipedia

  • International Building Code
  • International Residential Code
  • International Fire Code
  • International Plumbing Code
  • International Mechanical Code
  • International Fuel Gas Code
  • International Energy Conservation Code
  • ICC Performance 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

These codes are very long and exceedingly boring, and those that write them know that hardly anyone will ever read them.

And for the most part, they contain a lot of things that are contained in existing building codes or that are common sense.

But a lot of poison has also been inserted into these codes.  If you read them carefully, the influence of Agenda 21 is painfully obvious.

Unfortunately, even most of the local politicians that are adopting these codes don’t take the time to read them.  Most of them just assume that they are “updating” their existing building codes.

So what often happens is that there will be fights in local communities between citizens that are concerned about the encroachment of Agenda 21 and local politicians who regard such talk as nonsense.  The following is an example of what is happening all over the nation

Summit Hill Borough Council last night unanimously adopted the “2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code,” but not before some audience members expressed vehement opposition to it.

An overflow crowd of 34 people attended the meeting, with some there to specifically voice their displeasure.

Sandy Dellicker, a borough resident, said she was against using an “international” maintenance code, arguing that it falls under the plan of Agenda 21 of the United Nations; an agenda for the 21st Century.

She said, “UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world.”

“This is not a conspiracy theory,” she told the council. “This is for real.”

She said the International Property Maintenance Code had been adopted in Montgomery County, but the county “has already gotten rid of it” because of its dictatorial direction.

“This is not what Summit Hill and the United States is about,” she said.

Council members pooh-poohed her assessment. “In my opinion, the International Property Maintenance Code is to protect citizens,” said Council President Michael Kokinda.

It would be great if these codes were just about public safety.  But that is simply not the case.  Sadly, these codes are often used to fine or even imprison homeowners that haven’t done anything wrong.

 

Read Full Article Here

 

United Nations

JEFFERSON CITY, MO (KMOX) – A resolution approved 20 years ago by the United Nations is raising concern among some that governments will begin taking property from private citizens in the name of sustainable development and one legislator is trying to make sure it doesn’t happen in Missouri.

State Representative Lyle Rowland (R-Cedar Creek) said he’s hearing from constituents concerned about Agenda 21, a non-binding resolution signed in 1992 by more than 170 world leaders, including President George H.W. Bush.

“What I’ve heard is, they think it’s a hidden agenda that being adhered to by some areas,” Rowland said.

Supporters say Agenda 21 contains nothing but voluntary suggestions but Rowland is introducing a bill that would block any government – local, state, federal or otherwise – from enacting Agenda 21.

“What we’re saying is, in this particular bill, that we don’t want any of it coming in to the state of Missouri,” Rowland said.

According to Rowland, the bill is modeled after a similar law passed in Alabama. The bill has been pre-filed in the Missouri House.

 

 Crossroads News : Changes In The World Around Us And Our Place In It –  IT & Internet News

 

Global government now seeks total control over the internet

 

by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) What is arguably the very last bastion of totally free speech is once again under assault by the world’s tyrants, as the United Nations is now eying regulation of the Internet – as though it was in need of being regulated.

Why? It’s an age-old story.

Leaders of authoritarian regimes the world over hate the free flow of information that is disseminated via the Internet. They hate the fact that they no longer have a monopoly on ideas and opinion within their own country. They see notions of freedom and liberty as a threat. They despise any medium that undermines their grip on power. And their regimes are heavily represented in the U.N., of which the United States (once considered the bastion of liberty and freedom) is the largest contributor.

“Who runs the Internet? For now, the answer remains no one, or at least no government, which explains the Web’s success as a new technology. But as of next week, unless the U.S. gets serious, the answer could be the United Nations,” reports The Wall Street Journal.

Authoritarians seek ways to control free expression, free speech, and individual liberty

A sizable number of the world body’s 193 members simply oppose the open and very uncontrolled nature of the Internet, the paper said, noting the World Wide Web’s interconnected global networks that defy international boundaries and, as such, make it extremely difficult for governments to tax or censor.

For over a year, these authoritarian regimes have lobbied a UN agency known as the International Telecommunications Union to grab the reins of the Internet and take over its management. The organization, which was originally created in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, last wrote a treaty on communications in 1988, years before the commercial Internet developed into a popular communications and commerce medium, and back when telecommunications referred to voice telephone calls routed through national telephone monopolies.

In the coming days, the ITU plans to hold a “negotiating conference” in the emirate of Dubai, say reports. In the past months, rumors have surfaced that a new treaty could be in the offing – one that will no doubt prove disastrous to a free and open Internet.

Most U.S. resolutions, as well as free-market commentary in publications such as the Journal, “have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet,” the paper reported. “Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations.”

What would be the effect of having the Internet “reviewed” and “regulated” by global bureaucrats, most of whom are sympathetic to, or beholden to, authoritarian regimes bent on stifling free speech, free expression and individual liberty.

The Internet consists of 40,000 networks, interconnected among 425,000 global routes that cheaply and inefficiently deliver messages and digital content to about two billion people around the world every day – with a half-million signing on each day.

Up to now, the Internet has been self-regulating, which has obviously been working just fine (hence the growth figures in the previous paragraph). As it stands, no one has to ask for permission to put up their own blog or website. No government has the ability or right to tell network operators how they should do their jobs.

‘Technology moves faster than any treaty process’

What has transpired is an extremely rare, if virtual, place for innovation that requires no prior permission from a regulatory or government agency or bureaucrat or governing body.

Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard pointed out that 90 percent of cooperative “peering” agreements among co-existing networks are “made on a handshake,” adjusting as needs change.

“The Internet is highly complex and highly technical, yet governments are the only ones making decisions at the ITU, putting the Internet at their mercy,” Sally Wentworth of the Internet Society told the Journal recently. She went on to say that Web developers and engineers who make the Internet work have said it’s “mind boggling” that any government – even a so-called world government – would ever claim the universal right to regulate or manage the Internet.

“Technology moves faster than any treaty process ever can,” Internet Society warned.

Even if the Obama administration hasn’t yet publicly stated its position, liberty-minded officials and lawmakers in Europe (believe it or not) have stepped up to the plate.

The European Parliament has passed a resolution that protests plans by the ITU to seize control of the Internet.

“[The European Parliament] believes that the ITU, or any other single, centralized international institution, is not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over either Internet governance of Internet traffic flows,” says the resolution, which was passed by a majority of EP representatives, reports said.

Biggest backers of regulation include Russia, China

According to Britain’s The Guardian newspaper:

What’s worrying the EP, along with an unlikely coalition of Google, the U.S. Republican party, organized labor, and Greenpeace, is that the meeting might try and take over regulatory oversight for Internet communications in a closed-door coup. The U.S. government has said it will oppose serious moves to change the current regulatory order, but how effective that will be remains to be seen.

“The resolution of the Parliament is a big success for internet users. This sends a clear and positive signal to the European Commission and the Member States”, said Amelia Andersdotter, MEP for the Pirate Party and co-submitter of the resolution, The Register reported.

Some of the biggest backers of unmitigated Internet regulation include, not surprisingly, the authoritarian regimes of Russia and China.

As we’ve said, the Internet is truly the last bastion of genuinely free speech and expression, not to mention a tremendous creator of commerce and wealth. Regulating the Internet will have exactly the same effect as regulations on industry have had – it will stifle creativity, curb freedoms, kill jobs and destroy economic growth.

We’ll be keeping an eye on this very important issue.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com

http://www.weeklystandard.com

http://www.forbes.com

http://www.theregister.co.uk

The U.N.’s Internet Sneak Attack

Letting the Internet be rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla.

  • By L. GORDON CROVITZ

Who runs the Internet? For now, the answer remains no one, or at least no government, which explains the Web’s success as a new technology. But as of next week, unless the U.S. gets serious, the answer could be the United Nations.

Many of the U.N.’s 193 member states oppose the open, uncontrolled nature of the Internet. Its interconnected global networks ignore national boundaries, making it hard for governments to censor or tax. And so, to send the freewheeling digital world back to the state control of the analog era, China, Russia, Iran and Arab countries are trying to hijack a U.N. agency that has nothing to do with the Internet.

For more than a year, these countries have lobbied an agency called the International Telecommunications Union to take over the rules and workings of the Internet. Created in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, the ITU last drafted a treaty on communications in 1988, before the commercial Internet, when telecommunications meant voice telephone calls via national telephone monopolies.

Next week the ITU holds a negotiating conference in Dubai, and past months have brought many leaks of proposals for a new treaty. U.S. congressional resolutions and much of the commentary, including in this column, have focused on proposals by authoritarian governments to censor the Internet. Just as objectionable are proposals that ignore how the Internet works, threatening its smooth and open operations.

Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla. The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day.

Many of the engineers and developers who built and operate these networks belong to virtual committees and task forces coordinated by an international nonprofit called the Internet Society. The society is home to the Internet Engineering Task Force (the main provider of global technical standards) and other volunteer groups such as the Internet Architecture Board and the Internet Research Task Force. Another key nongovernmental group is Icann, which assigns Internet addresses and domain names.

The self-regulating Internet means no one has to ask for permission to launch a website, and no government can tell network operators how to do their jobs. The arrangement has made the Internet a rare place of permissionless innovation. As former Federal Communications Commission Chairman William Kennard recently pointed out, 90% of cooperative “peering” agreements among networks are “made on a handshake,” adjusting informally as needs change.

Proposals for the new ITU treaty run to more than 200 pages. One idea is to apply the ITU’s long-distance telephone rules to the Internet by creating a “sender-party-pays” rule. International phone calls include a fee from the originating country to the local phone company at the receiving end. Under a sender-pays approach, U.S.-based websites would pay a local network for each visitor from overseas, effectively taxing firms such as Google GOOG +1.13% and Facebook FB +0.36% . The idea is technically impractical because unlike phone networks, the Internet doesn’t recognize national borders. But authoritarians are pushing the tax, hoping their citizens will be cut off from U.S. websites that decide foreign visitors are too expensive to serve.

Regimes such as Russia and Iran also want an ITU rule letting them monitor Internet traffic routed through or to their countries, allowing them to eavesdrop or block access.

“The Internet is highly complex and highly technical,” Sally Wentworth of the Internet Society told me recently, “yet governments are the only ones making decisions at the ITU, putting the Internet at their mercy.” She says the developers and engineers who actually run the Internet find it “mind boggling” that governments would claim control. As the Internet Society warns, “Technology moves faster than any treaty process ever can.”

Google has started an online petition for a “free and open Internet” saying: “Governments alone, working behind closed doors, should not direct its future.” The State Department’s top delegate to the Dubai conference, Terry Kramer, has pledged that the U.S. won’t let the ITU expand its authority to the Internet. But he hedged his warning in a recent presentation in Washington: “We don’t want to come across like we’re preaching to others.”

To the contrary, the top job for the U.S. delegation at the ITU conference is to preach the virtues of the open Internet as forcefully as possible. Billions of online users are counting on America to make sure that their Internet is never handed over to authoritarian governments or to the U.N.

Politics, Legislation and Economy News – Blow back

U.N. Human Rights Council Calls for Boycott of U.S. Companies

U.N.’s war on Israel puts American economy in crosshairs

HRC

HRC

BY:
October 25, 2012 12:56 pm

The Washington Free Beacon has obtained a report soon to be released by the United Nations that calls for an international campaign of legal attacks and economic warfare on a group of American companies that do business in Israel, including Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar Inc., and Motorola Solutions Inc.

The Human Rights Council (HRC), a body dominated by Islamic countries and known for its hostility to, and heavy focus on, the Jewish State, issued the report. The George W. Bush administration refused to participate in the HRC, but President Barack Obama joined it soon after taking office. Members of the HRC include infamous human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Libya, China, and Cuba.

The Obama-approved body maintains a “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories [sic].” The current rapporteur is American college professor Richard Falk, a 9/11 “truther” who once posted an anti-Semitic cartoon on his personal blog.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, the Anti-Defamation League’s Abraham Foxman blasted the report and the HRC’s special rapporteur: “We believe you should have prevented the Secretariat from being a party to Mr. Falk’s anti-Israel agenda. Mr. Falk’s entire tenure as Special Rapporteur has served to undermine the credibility of the institution of the United Nations.”

The report attempts to instigate a campaign of boycott, divestment, sanctions, and legal action against a litany of international companies doing business in Israel. In addition to American companies, the U.N. targets include major European firms such as Veolia Environment, Group 4 Security, the Dexia Group, the Volvo Group.

“The costs to companies and businesses of failing to respect international humanitarian law are considerable,” the report warns, “including damage to a company’s public image, impact on shareholder decisions and share price and could result in employees being criminally responsible for rights abuses.”

The report warns American employees of targeted companies that they face legal risks.

“Employees of companies can face investigation and prosecution for human rights violations committed irrespective of where the violation was committed.”

In addition to legal action against American employees of targeted companies, the Special Rapporteur “concludes that all companies that operate in or otherwise have dealings with Israeli settlements should be boycotted.” The companies should ”be prepared to accept any consequences—reputation, financial, or legal—of continuing operations.”

Should the companies continue doing business in Israel, the Human Rights Council “calls on civil society to actively pursue legal and political redress against non-complying business” and “to vigorously pursue initiatives to boycott, divest and sanction the businesses highlighted in this report” and “calls on the international community to consider requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice” to punish the businesses.

When the Obama administration joined the Human Rights Council in 2009, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pledged, “Working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.”

Published on Jul 12, 2012 by

United Nations and Congolese troops have shelled rebels closing in on the city of Goma, in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

They say the M-23 rebels are fighting on behalf of the Rwandan government.

The rebels have captured strategic towns in the mineral rich North Kivu province over the past few weeks.

Al Jazeera’s Peter Greste reports from Goma.

Susan Reverby [1/4]: US Doctors Secretly Infected Hundreds of Guatemalans with Syphilis

Uploaded by on Oct 5, 2010

Exposed: US Doctors Secretly Infected Hundreds of Guatemalans with Syphilis in the 1940s http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/5/exposed_us_doctors_secretly_infected_hu…

Recently unearthed documents show around 700 Guatemalan soldiers, prisoners, prostitutes and mental patients were infected as part of a study into the effects of penicillin. It’s unclear if the patients were ever cured of the diseases or even given treatment. Hours after the findings were revealed, President Obama apologized to Guatemalan President Álvaro Colom, who called the experiments a “crime against humanity.” We speak to Susan Reverby, the medical historian who discovered the Guatemala study.

Susan Reverby [2/4]: Medical Research Regulation, Three Major Studies

Susan Reverby [3/4]: Tuskegee Experiments, Nazis & Guatemala

Susan Reverby [4/4]: Puerto Rican Birth Control & Plutonium

Lethal Injection: The Story Of Vaccination

Uploaded by on Sep 30, 2011

Part 1 The definitive look into the history of vaccination. From cancer, to autism, to the purposeful sterilization of innocent people around the globe, find out why all of these things are perfectly legal according to U.S. CODE – why the government considers you no different than cattle in their own law.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to please download and re-post this video to every website possible. Make DVDs and place your activist group name on the menu. Edit pieces and Rickroll YouTube with vaccine truth! This is public domain, and no permission is needed to copy, reproduce, and give away this video and information.

Clint Richardson-

Codex Alimentarius Lecture by Ian R. Crane – 1 of 9

Uploaded by on Jun 20, 2008

1 of 9

Taken from ConCen:

Never heard of Codex Alimentarius? That’s exactly what they want!

The UN plan to eradicate organic farming & to destroy the Natural Health Industry.

With biting political analysis, Ian R. Crane probes the track record of those who openly crave the introduction of a One World hierarchical Government. He exposes the agenda of those who have presided over events leading directly to the launching of the illegal wars in Afghanistan & Iraq and who continually demonstrate their desire to perpetuate a state of permanent global conflict; whilst systematically eroding personal freedom, through the process of gradualism.

Playlist

Governments poisoning our food and water with toxics, chemicals and other such substances

Published on Mar 28, 2012 by

Look at a tube of cheap no name tooth paste and read the warning label – “Warning this product contains fluoride, Not to be used on children under 6, Not to be swallowed. If swallowed seek immediate medial attention”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SMKemanUQ8 : Australia’s Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace

Sustainable development; Government made aids and other such illnesses while withholding the cures , Governments poisoning our food and water with toxics, chemicals and other such substances. Governments education curriculum designed to corrupt children minds to push political agendas.. Governments written planetary agenda adds up to genocide.

Agenda 21 under the UN http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml
A Worldwide Movement of Local Governments
Through its international programs, and projects, ICLEI works with local governments to generate political awareness of key themes by:establishing plans of action to meet defined, concrete, measurable targets * working toward meeting these targets through the implementation of projects * evaluating local and cumulative progress toward sustainable development

International Goals
Our programs, and projects promote participatory, long-term, strategic planning process that address local sustainability while protecting global common goods. This approach links local action to internationally agreed-upon goals and targets such as: * Agenda 21, * the Rio Conventions: o The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, o The UN Convention on Biological Diversity, o The UN Convention to Combat Desertification * the Habitat Agenda, * the Millennium Development Goals, * the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=798

World-wide regional networks and University’s – Training One World Government citizens and leaders for “Sustainable Development
http://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=886

PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring “death, injury and destruction” to the world unless they take action.
: http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-kids-are-living-in-climate-of-fear

Carbon credits in exchange for dumping pollution! and credits are worth big $$$$$. ETS doesn’t work and it’s full of scams: London School of Economics, economist!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pelT-3uZqTY&feature=player_embedded
Ocean geo-engineering produces toxic blooms of plankton Ever since scientists were able to demonstrate in the early 1990s that supplementing regions of the world ocean with minute quantities of iron could quickly generate massive booms of phytoplankton, there is controversy surrounding proposals to commercialise this strategy as a potential means to regulate climate by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. http://www.physorg.com/news187896509.html
The age of pharmaceutical microchipping is now upon us. Novartis AG, one of the largest drug companies in the world, has announced a plan to begin embedding microchips in medications to create “smart pill” technology.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030341_microchips_drugs.html#ixzz1RcbQF9E5
Large US biotech wanting to establish proof of concept for an inhalation product before finalising product formulation
Limited availability of manufacture
Special patient population
http://www.nucleusnetwork.com.au/page.aspx?71

http://consciouslifenews.com/nasa-plans-to-release-lithium-into-the-ionosphere/116778/
NASA Plans To Release Lithium Into the Ionosphere

Geoengineering refers to the intentional, large-scale manipulation of the environment to bring about environmental change. for example by fertilising the ocean to produce huge algal blooms that supposedly will absorb carbon dioxide, or by polluting the upper atmosphere with nanoparticles in an attempt to deflect UV radiation and stop global warming. 191 countries recently rejected geo-engineering as environmentally reckless. But this week an announcement for the Australian Government’s “Climate Ready Program” suggested that geo-engineering projects using genetic engineering or nanotechnology may even be eligible for federal funding.
http://nano.foe.org.au/node/254

Australian Rain Corporation Qld went a lot further than that and added a very substantial long-term operational trial as well, which would have cost a great deal more than $10 million.” A$599m to climate change. And climate change they did. Inland tsunami’s, killing grandparents and kids, record breaking cyclones that made everyone’s hearts skip a beat, Ocean life washed ashore, birds dead in the street. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBKm_rPoKIA

Drug Contaminants, Chemicals in Tap Water Among Possible Causes of Autism

Mike Barrett
NaturalSociety
June 11, 2012

watergloomyscenery 235x147 Drug Contaminants, Chemicals in Tap Water Among Possible Causes of AutismAutism has been and will continue to be a controversial issue, with the possible causes of autism being at the center of the discussion. While there are a number of possible causes of autism, some research has shown that anti-depressants and other chemicals found in the water supply could be helping to surge autism rates, specifically ‘idiopathic’ autism spectrum disorders.

Drugs in Water Leading to Autism

After exposing fish to two different anti-depressant drugs, Prozac and venlafaxine, and a seizure-controlling drug called carbamazepine, experts from the University of Idaho were ‘astonished’ after observing changes in the genetic pathways of the fish. They found that just traces of common medications and other chemicals in the water were enough to bring about autism. What’s more, the drug concentrations were comparable with the highest estimated environmental levels.

“While others have envisioned a causal role for psychotropic drugs in idiopathic autism, we were astonished to find evidence that this might occur at very low dosages, such as those found in aquatic systems,” said lead scientist Dr Michael Thomas.

This research lends even more concern for pregnant mothers who drink water with trace concentrations, who run the risk of passing along these drugs and other chemicals in the water to their unborn children.

Other Likely, and Possible Causes of Autism

In addition to research pinpointing anti-depressants and other chemicals in the water as possible causes of autism, there are a number of other likely and possible causes. Among the most controversial and the most researched causes of autism are vaccines. As children receive more and more vaccines at extremely young ages, mercury and other heavy metals are also being injected into these underdeveloped bodies. The mercury and other heavy metals cause extreme amounts of toxicity, shown to contribute to neurological disorders and the development of autism. In one survey involving 7,600 people, only four children reported having severe autism – the mother’s tested very high in mercury in all four cases.

In other research, scientists found that overweight pregnant women have a startling 67% increased chance of having an autistic child than mother’s who are a healthy weight.

Additional Sources:

Plosone.org

National Vaccine Information Center

Explore More:

  1. Scientists Uncover Truth About Fluoride and Other Water Contaminants
  2. Autism May be Linked to Antidepressant Use
  3. Autism Epidemic: Research Uncovers Raised Rates of Autism
  4. Obese Mothers 67% More Likely to Have a Child with Autism
  5. Carcinogenic Chemicals Contaminating Water Supply Through Fracking
  6. More Autism Diagnoses in High-Tech Areas, Study Finds

Fluoride: they’ve known the dangers all along