Posts Tagged ‘United Nations’

UN Calls For Eco-Fascist World Government At Durban Summit

Sunday, December 11th, 2011


UN Calls For Eco-Fascist World Government At Durban Summit
By Paul Joseph Watson

UPDATE: World Government Climate Deal Fails In Durban

Bureaucrats at the UN Climate Summit in Durban have outlined plans for the most draconian, harebrained and madcap climate change treaty ever produced, under which the west would be mandated to respect “the rights of Mother Earth” by paying a “climate debt” which would act as a slush fund for bankrolling an all-powerful world government.

“Here – and, as always, you heard it here first, for the mainstream media have conspired to keep secret the Madness of King Rajendra and his entire coterie of governmental and bureaucratic lunatics worldwide – is what the dribbling, twitching thrones and dominions, principalities and powers of the world will be asked to agree to,” he writes, adding that actual climate science has not been a topic of debate at the summit.

- The treaty calls for the west to achieve a 50% CO2 emissions reduction within the next eight years, a feat that would completely bankrupt the global economy and spark a new great depression, as well as a “more than 100%” reduction by 2050, which presumably could only be accomplished by killing billions of humans to prevent them from exhaling carbon dioxide.

“So, no motor cars, no coal-fired or gas-fired power stations, no aircraft, no trains. Back to the Stone Age, but without even the right to light a carbon-emitting fire in your caves,” writes Monckton.

- The text calls for a 2 degree Celsius drop in global temperatures, which as Monckton points out “would kill hundreds of millions” and herald a new ice age.

- The reduction in CO2 concentration the text calls for would actually begin to kill all plant life and trees on the planet because they need levels of carbon dioxide above 210 ppmv to survive.

- All military forces would be abolished because they contribute to climate change. Presumably the United Nations would then take on the role of world army to police the globe.

- The process will be enforced by an “International Climate Court of Justice” under a bureaucracy of world government that will force western nations to pay “climate debt,” as well as reparations to third world nations to pay for carbon cuts that wouldn’t be as drastic. The burden of “historical responsibility” has been applied to industrialized nations, implying they are guilty for whatever the weather decides to do and must be punished for it.

- All the money will be collected by the UN and whatever is left after they have taken their considerable cut will be doled out according to the wishes of UN bureaucrats. “As a senior UN diplomat told me last year, “The UN exists for only one purpose: to get more money. That, and that alone, is the reason why it takes such an interest in climate change,” writes Monckton.

- Environmental enforcement arms of the UN will be given the power of a global government in the name of fighting climate change. “The draft “agrees that common principles, modalities and procedures as well as the coordinating and oversight functions of the UNFCCC are needed” – in short, global centralization of political, economic and environmental power in the manicured hands of the Convention’s near-invisible but all-powerful secretariat. No provision is made for the democratic election of key members of the all-powerful secretariat – in effect, a world government – by the peoples of our planet,” writes Monckton.

- This world government will mandate that western nations submit reports every two years on their progress and then implement the measures demanded by the world government.

- The UN will create several new slush funds from which to enrich its coffers, including a tax on shipping and aviation fuel, a new “green climate fund” and a worldwide cap and trade. Most of the costs will be handed down to taxpayers.

This merely scratches the surface of what the UN is trying to include in its “legally-binding treaty,” which represents eco-fascism on steroids. Despite press reports that the text is once again likely to be rejected, Monckton points out that UN bureaucrats are confident they can get some form of deal rammed through on this occasion.

If you are not worried about a weak Obama, this should terrify you!!!!

Saturday, October 22nd, 2011

UN Control of the Internet?

    NOT OUR Internet!!!!

Cybercommand chief opposes U.N. net control
The commander of the U.S. Cyber Command said Thursday that he does not favor giving the United Nations the power to regulate the Internet.

Some regulations are needed to protect critical networks that control electrical power, banking, transportation and other key elements of society, Army Gen. Keith Alexander, who is also director of the National Security Agency, said after a speech to a security conference.

But asked whether the U.N. should have a regulation role, Gen. Alexander said: “No. I’m not for regulating, per se. I’m concerned about it, and this is a tough question. I would say, generally speaking, I’m not into that portion of regulating as you would espouse.”

Read the entire article.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/20/cybercommand-chief-opposes-un-net-control

Obama administration takes lead on criminalizing speech against Islam

Thursday, September 8th, 2011

Hope you read this article.

Obama admin takes lead on criminalizing speech against Islam
via The Administration Takes on ‘Islamophobia’ By Nina Shea

An unprecedented collaboration between the Obama administration and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC, formerly called the Organization of the Islamic Conference) to combat “Islamophobia” may soon result in the delegitimization of freedom of expression as a human right.

The administration is taking the lead in an international effort to “implement” a U.N. resolution against religious “stereotyping,” specifically as applied to Islam. To be sure, it argues that the effort should not result in free-speech curbs. However, its partners in the collaboration, the 56 member states of the OIC, have no such qualms. Many of them police private speech through Islamic blasphemy laws and the OIC has long worked to see such codes applied universally. Under Muslim pressure, Western Europe now has laws against religious hate speech that serve as proxies for Islamic blasphemy codes.

Last March, U.S. diplomats maneuvered the adoption of Resolution 16/18 within the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC). Non-binding, this resolution, inter alia, expresses concern about religious “stereotyping” and “negative profiling” but does not limit free speech. It was intended to — and did — replace the OIC’s decidedly dangerous resolution against “defamation of religions,” which protected religious institutions instead of individual freedoms.

But thanks to a puzzling U.S. diplomatic initiative that was unveiled in July, Resolution 16/18 is poised to become a springboard for a greatly reinvigorated international effort to criminalize speech against Islam, the very thing it was designed to quash.

Citing a need to “move to implementation” of Resolution 16/18, the Obama administration has inexplicably decided to launch a major international effort against Islamophobia in partnership with the Saudi-based OIC. This is being voluntarily assumed at American expense, outside the U.N. framework, and is not required by the resolution itself.

The OIC’s understanding of the upcoming meetings is that they will “aim at developing a legal basis for the U.N. Human Rights Council’s resolution which [will] help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”

In an August 17 op-ed on the initiative, OIC secretary general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu was enthusiastic. He expressed concern that “anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes and activities, known as Islamophobia, are increasingly finding place in the agenda of ultra-right wing political parties and civil societies in the West in their anti-immigrant and anti-multiculturalism policies,” and that “their views are being promoted under the banner of freedom of expression.” This parallels the old Soviet-bloc attack on the First Amendment as an official sanctioning of racism.

This initiative is shaping up to be one-sided. As Akram said, “The Resolution 16/18 was driven more by the kind of discrimination in Europe and the West in general against Muslims.” He added: “I don’t think any country in the Muslim world is deliberately discriminating against minorities.” Ihsanoglu took a similar tack, writing that “the Islamic faith is based on tolerance and acceptance of other religions. It does not condone discrimination of human beings on the basis of caste, creed, color, or faith.” (In his op-ed, Ihsanoglu also declared that “the OIC has never sought to limit freedom of expression.”)

Having won the latest round in the ideological contest for individual rights and freedoms at the United Nations this past March, the administration is now gratuitously establishing a new “transnational” forum to essentially re-litigate the matter with a body that is openly hostile to such freedoms. This forum’s agenda is to be structured so that freedom of expression will be put on trial and inevitably condemned by most forum participants as, itself, a human-rights violation. In raising OIC expectations that “anti-Islam and anti-Muslim attitudes” will be dealt with under soon-to-be-drafted “implementation” procedures, the administration is riding a tiger.

In his 2009 Cairo speech, President Obama said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam whenever they appear.” There are a number of problems with this statement: One is that it encourages the diplomatic folly that is this conference.

The U.S. pays 22 percent of the UN’s regular operations budget and is assessed 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget. Why are we not spending this money on Americans?

Obama says NO to checks for seniors but yes to United Nations check.

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

President Donates $100 Billion to the United Nations Posted
By Paul L. Williams

The U. S. State Department yesterday announced that the Obama Administration
has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations
Global Fund to fight
AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013.
The $4 billion represents a 38% increase over the previous U.S. commitment to
the fund.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that a total of $11.7
billion has been raised from 40 countries, the European Commission, faith-based
organizations, private foundations, and various corporations.

This means that over one-third of the money will come from the pockets of US
taxpayers.

Oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and the United Arab Emirates
contribute next to nothing, and China, which holds most of the US $14 trillion
debt, agreed to provide a measly $14 million.

In addition to the annual gift of $1.33 billion to the Global Fund, President
Obama has agreed to provide billions more for UN projects.

These allocations are set forth in a 28 page document as follows:

Funnel $63 billion to the Global Health Initiative during the next six years

Make $1 billion annually to education programs
Give $475 million to the Global Agricultural and Food Security Program’
Provide $800 million from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to
Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa. An additional
$3.2 billion will be provided by private equity capital sources to these Muslim
nations
Shell out millions more available through USAID for developing tech hubs in
Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, South Africa, and Senegal.
Dole out $80 million through the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for
small to medium enterprises in the Middle East and North Africa.
Cough up $2.5 billion annually to 90 countries to “strengthen governance and
democratic institutions.”
Make available $30 billion through the Obama’s Climate Change Initiative to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, $100 billion a year will be
provided through taxpayer and private resources to deal with the alleged threat
of global climate change [1].
The United States is assessed at 22% of the U.N. regular
budget [2] and more than 27% for U.N. the peacekeeping budget.
Mr. Obama has requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than
$2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget for 2011.

The United States is also assessed for numerous other United Nations
organizations as well. More than $6.347 billion went to U.N. organizations in FY
2009.

The United States also provides money to the U.N. through the State
Department, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of
Health and Human Services, and other agencies.

Andrea Lafferty of The Traditional Values Coalition writes: “The U.S.
taxpayer is forced to pay billions to an inefficient organization run by world
leaders who hate America and the free market system. This doesn’t make any sense
– nor does our paying 22% of the cost to keep this bureaucracy alive when we
have only one vote in the General Assembly.”

Several candidates have called for the U.S. to sever its relationship with
the United Nations. The list includes Dennis Ross, a Republican candidate for
Congress from the 12th Congressional District of Florida.

In a statement to The New American, Mr. Ross said:

An organization that allows nations like Iran and Libya to chair committees
dedicated to human and women’s rights makes a mockery of both. The UN, like any
bureaucracy, must constantly be evaluated and put to the test, and if found
lacking, be dismantled. I believe the US government is perfectly capable of
conducting bilateral and multilateral relations with other nations on our own.
Despots, human rights violators, and tyrants should be confronted, not
congratulated.

Senator Barry Goldwater was quoted in 1971 by the Congressional
Record as saying:

The time has come to recognize the U.N. for the anti-American, anti-freedom
organization that it has become. The time has come for us to cut off all
financial help, withdraw as a member, and ask the U.N. to find a headquarters
location outside the United States that is more in keeping with the philosophy
of the majority of voting members, someplace like Moscow or Peking.

Isn’t it time the US cuts back on the United Nations and lets others pay their fair share?

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

How they vote in the United Nations:

Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United
Nations records:

Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time

Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time

Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time

United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.

Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.

Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.

Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.

Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.

Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.

Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.

Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.

India votes against the United States 81% of the time.

Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.

Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.

U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:

Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States
And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States
Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States
Receives $143,699,000 annually.

WHY?
WHO IN THE HELL STARTED THIS AND WHY?

Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes (and gasoline) .

Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know.

Disgusting isn’t it?

The Peace Plan has arrived!

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

The Plan!

Robin Williams, wearing a shirt that says ‘I love New York ‘ in Arabic.

You gotta love Robin Williams……..Even if he’s nuts! Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan. What we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.
Robin Williams’ plan…(Hard to argue with this logic!)

‘I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here’s one plan.’

1) ‘The US, UK , CANADA and AUSTRALIA will apologize to the world for our ‘interference’ in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those ‘good ‘ole’ boys’, we will never ‘interfere’ again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany , South Korea , the Middle East, and the Philippines . They don’t want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave We’ll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are from. They’re illegal!!! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don’t like it there, change it yourself and don’t hide here.. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don’t need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5) No foreign ‘students’ over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don’t attend classes, they get a ‘D’ and it’s back home baby.
6) The US, UK , CANADA and AUSTRALIA will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise.. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don’t like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not ‘interfere.’ They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don’t need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us ‘Ugly Americans’ any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH..learn it…or LEAVE…Now, isn’t that a winner of a plan?
‘The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…’ She’s got a baseball bat and she’s yelling, ‘you want a piece of me?’ ‘

If you agree with the above, forward it to friends…If not, and I would be amazed if you DELETED it!!

I think I saw this plot on the sci-fi channel.

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

Climate chief Christina Figueres warns future is at stake
Special to A.M. Costa Rica

With the future of humanity at stake, governments must continue building common ground to further progress on climate change, the new United Nations chief on the issue said in the latest round of international negotiations which kicked off in Bonn Monday.

“Whether we succumb to the storms of climate change or work together to reach the far shore is up to us to decide,” said Christiana Figueres. She is a Costa Rican and executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. She was invoking the journey made by Christopher Columbus more than five centuries ago.

May be Christina Figueres should read about the fraud and lies put out by the people who benefit from climate fraud. Enough is enough of the hysteria. The history of the earth shows there are continuous changes and man has had very little to nothing to do with these. We need to work to have clean air and clean water but enough of the foolish hysteria.

More U.N. disrespect for the U.S.

Friday, July 2nd, 2010

Dollar Plunges After UN Call To Ditch Greenback

May be the U.S. portions should be reduced to to a more equal amount. The United Nations should be based more on equality and the U.S. should cut back and let other Nations pay their fair share… Isn’t that the Obama way? If The Obama wants the United States to get down to the level of Europe we should start contributing like the nations of Europe.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/dollar-plunges-after-un-call-to-ditch-greenback.html

The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The regular two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are funded by assessments. The General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by their Gross National Income (GNI), with adjustments for external debt and low per capita income.[45]

2009[44] Member state Contribution
(% of UN budget)
United States 22.00%
Japan 16.624%
Germany 8.577%
United Kingdom 6.642%
France 6.301%
Italy 5.079%
Canada 2.977%
Spain 2.968%
China 2.667%
Mexico 2.257%
Other member states 23.908%

United Nations speech by President Obama was more of a See what I have done to the U.S. and what I expect to do for the world.

Thursday, September 24th, 2009

 
Obama made a speech at the United Nations that show cases OBAMA. He used the word I more than any other word in his speech. He has said climate change must be fought now or it will be to late. Climate change must be paid for by the wealthy nations who have caused the problem. Clearly his speech was his first as Obama the new world leader of a NEW WORLD ORDER (NWO).  This will be the subject of concern for the rest of this presidency. Obama has said that the world wide meltdown was something that can not be allowed to happen again and must be controlled.  GREED caused the financial meltdown, guess he is clueless that governments policies and interference caused the issue. I wonder where Kirk and Spock were as Obama moves to start the United Federation of countries based on the Start Trek model? Global economy and control are his goal. Global world order is on the way and Obama see’s himself as the ONE in charge. He blamed America for being selective on supporting democracy.  The speech Obama gave was the prelude to the surrender of United States sovereignty to the NWO lead by Obama.
 
No where has Obama spoke on unifying the United States as a nation of Americans.  The United States was started as melting pot but has turned away from that over the year. Obama should have called for a unified United States and worked toward that but he has done just the opposite. Obama has only spoke of the faults and what he views has been done wrong by the United States. He has gone out of his way to apologize for everything done by our country including his United Nations speech. Isn’t time Obama apologized to the American people for failing to protect seniors healthcare, failure to help business to allow them to create jobs for the American people, His insulting and turning HIS back on Americas allies?? Obama has continued to embarrass America by his failure to do his job.  When does he stop running a campaign and start to work for the people not for the government. 
 
Let us offer the president some examples since neither he or most of his elitist congress have ever had REAL jobs running any kind of business.
 
It could have been called, “You have two cows.” 

Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

Socialism — Bureaucratic: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.

Fascism : You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

We would love to hear your thoughts on which kind of economy  Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are wanting American cows to live in!

The Obama United Nations speech on Sept 23, 2009.