Thread: The U.N. Deception

Uploaded by maf1989a on Dec 26, 2010

The John Birch Society - John Birch Society | The U.N. Deception (United Nations) Learn how top United Nations proponents exploit small arms, the enviroment, and justice to pressure Capitol Hill into quietly surrendering America's heritage of freedom. The U.N. Deception reports what the nightly news does not: The UN's creators intended that their organization would become a world government and that Americans would be subservient to it. Should these UN plans remain unopposed the consequences are ultimately grim.

United States vs. United Nations: United States vs. United Nations - YouTube

The John Birch Society | The John Birch Society - John Birch Society
RTR.org - Home Page | Campaign For Liberty
TrueWorldHistory.info - A Historic look at the world of yesterday, today and tomorrow | PRESS FOR TRUTH


The U.N. Deception - YouTube

Dick Morris – Obama Will Sign Gun Control Treaty on July 27 2012
Thursday, July 05, 2012 3:50



Dick Morris

USA --(Ammoland.com)- Without any national debate – and after secret negotiations – Obama is going to sign the Arms Trade Treaty which will lead to UN imposed gun control.

Read More:

U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Drafting Starts This Week
UN Arms Trade Treaty – Targeting U.S. Guns

About Dick Morris:
Dick Morris is an American political author and commentator who previously worked as a pollster, political campaign consultant, and general political consultant. Visit: DickMorris.com




Before It's News

UN Shipped Computers To Iran & N Korea
Filed under News, Technology, US News {27 Comments}



The U.S. State Department is investigating the shipment of computers and other sophisticated equipment to North Korea and Iran by way of an obscure United Nations agency, despite ongoing U.N. and U.S. sanctions against both governments aimed at blocking their development of nuclear weapons.

The broadening inquiry raises new concerns about the ways in which U.N. agencies have managed to sidestep restrictions that the world body expects the rest of the world to obey in halting the spread of sensitive technologies to nuclear-ambitious pariah regimes.

It also calls into question how much U.N. member states know about the activities of agencies they supposedly approve and supervise.

Continue Reading on Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos
State Department investigating UN agency for computer shipments to Iran and North Korea | Fox News



UN Shipped Computers To Iran & N Korea*|*Front Porch Politics

Friday, July 6, 2012
U.N. finalizing Arms Trade Treaty, U.S. claims Second Amendment will be protected
Madison Ruppert, Contributor
Activist Post

Currently, the Obama administration is joining countries from around the world at the headquarters of the United Nations (UN) for negotiations, being held from July 2-27, 2012, attempting to finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), part of which is the somewhat infamous “small arms treaty.”

As Brent Daggett rightly wrote in his fantastic summary of the ATT, the treaty was originally proposed all the way back in 2003. However, it was not actually addressed in the UN until December of 2006 when the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution entitled, “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”

Since that time, support for the treaty – along with what I believe are misguidedly optimistic interpretations of its implications – has grown considerably.

This is evidenced by rehashed claims such as that of Timothy Johnson, who writes for Media Matters for America (an incredibly biased and imbalanced George Soros-backed operation), “U.S. gun owners have nothing to fear from a treaty that essentially seeks to apply the standard for importing and exporting firearms already in place in the United States on a worldwide scale.”

Unsurprisingly, Johnson’s only sources are: the chair of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, Ambassador Roberto García Moritán of Argentina, a UN General Assembly resolution, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a senior policy advisor to Oxfam America.


One of Johnson’s main sources in claiming that concern over this treaty is nothing but a “laughable conspiracy [which] has no place in reality” is the UN General Assembly resolution passed on January 12, 2010.

This resolution (which isn’t actually cited by Johnson but instead the reader is provided with a broken link), coded as A/RES/64/48, states:

Acknowledging also the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory.

If you want to read the resolution yourself, which I recommend you do, click this link and then navigate to item number 29, “The arms trade treaty : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly.”

It appears relatively clear that Johnson is taking this out of the context of the resolution, which contains the presupposition “that arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation are essential for the maintenance of international peace and security,” which I do not think is necessarily a reasonable conclusion.

Sure, disarmament and non-proliferation are, in and of themselves, wonderful ideas. However, when some states are disarmed while others are not or when private citizens are disarmed and governments are not, “international peace and security” is not the most likely outcome.

Interestingly the resolution Johnson cited acknowledges only “the right of all States to manufacture, import, export, transfer and retain conventional arms for self-defence and security needs and in order to participate in peace support operations,” while still acknowledging “the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownership, exclusively within their territory.”

Unfortunately, this resolution clearly isn’t actually protecting the right ofindividuals to keep and bear arms, instead it is just acknowledging that sovereign nations have the right to follow their own laws.

This does not, however, mean that anyone is actually protected by this resolution, it simply acknowledges that if states have national constitutional protections on private ownership, they are allowed to follow them.

Personally, I see this as absurd as it is simply restating the obvious: the UN has absolutely no place meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. If they did, the UN would thereby undermine everything that sovereignty really is.

Johnson also attempts to claim that the UN shouldn’t actually be supporting the rights of people around the world to protect themselves with firearms if need be. Unsurprisingly, he is unable to cite anything but research from the United Nations.

Unfortunately, the United States already professed support for the treaty all the way back in 2009, with some “Key U.S. Redlines” which they claim cannot be crossed by the treaty.

These redlines are, according to the U.S. State Department:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.
The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.
The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.
There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.
There will be no lowering of current international standards.
Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.
The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.
There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

That all sounds quite wonderful, doesn’t it? The only problem is that the promise is being made by none other than the Obama administration, which is just about the least trustworthy source it could possibly come from.

After all, I bet a lot of people thought Obama was serious about stopping the warrantless wiretapping, when it turns out he is fighting to keep it by utilizing the tired state secret claim despite the testimony of former NSA employees.

I bet a lot of people thought he was serious about stopping the medical marijuana raids, the countless wars (which show no signs of stopping), the overwhelming lobbyist influence in Washington and submitting his administration to a previously unknown level of transparency.

Of course, all of this is patently untrue as you can see from the above links. If you believe that the Obama administration will suddenly become trustworthy, I believe that it is quite unlikely that any amount of factual evidence will get you to think otherwise.

Yet, even if we accept the Obama administration’s alleged redlines as truthful (which is a stretch), it must be noted that several American allies disagree with some of these positions.

The governments of the UK, France, Germany and Sweden all released a joint position this week which states, “We believe that an arms trade treaty should cover all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, all types of munitions, and related technologies.”

Furthermore, CNS News notes:

On the issue of consensus, the Control Arms coalition also wants the conference to follow usual U.N. practice, requiring ‘wide agreement’ on a final text but not giving countries veto power.

This means that the United States could easily have each and everyone one of those redlines crossed while still claiming something to the effect of, “Well, at least we did the best we could!”

They also point out that a quite venerable coalition of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including Oxfam (cited above by Johnson) and Amnesty International (AI), has stated that not only must the treaty be enforceable but include international reporting of sales and a mechanism with which to monitor compliance with the treaty.

Is it just me or does that sound a lot like it would violate this redline, “There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT,” doesn’t it?

“Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally-binding arms trade treaty that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Of course, he does not believe that “people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence,” actually have the right to defend themselves, instead handing the sole power over to the UN. No surprise there.

I just caution my readers to realize and tell others that trusting the Obama administration to stick to these redlines – even if the Obama administration had veto power, which it doesn’t – is horribly misguided and naïve.

Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at admin@EndtheLie.com with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.

Please support our work and help us start to pay contributors by doing your shopping through our Amazon link or check out some must-have products at our store.

This article first appeared at End the Lie.

Madison Ruppert is the Editor and Owner-Operator of the alternative news and analysis database End The Lie and has no affiliation with any NGO, political party, economic school, or other organization/cause. He is available for podcast and radio interviews. Madison also now has his own radio show on Orion Talk Radio from 8 pm -- 10 pm Pacific, which you can find HERE. If you have questions, comments, or corrections feel free to contact him at admin@EndtheLie.com


Activist Post: U.N. finalizing Arms Trade Treaty, U.S. claims Second Amendment will be protected


Kind of like I am here from the government and I am here to help you....are we awake yet???

July 8, 2012


Congressmen urge the UN to trample the US Constitution
Published: 10:36 AM 07/02/2012


Today begins the most important 26-day period for our Second Amendment freedoms in recent history.

That’s because today, representatives from many of the world’s socialist, tyrannical and dictatorial regimes will gather at United Nations headquarters in New York for a month-long meeting, in which they’ll put the finishing touches on an international Arms Trade Treaty that could seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm.

Specifically, the U.N. wants to implement international gun registration requirements, bans on commonly owned firearms, tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and create a new U.N. gun control bureaucracy.

You might think that something so obviously menacing to one of our enumerated fundamental rights would receive a strong rebuke from our top government leaders. But you’d be wrong. This is President Barack Obama’s vision for America, and we’re expected to just go along with it.

In fact, a group of anti-gun members of the U.S. House of Representatives, led by U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), went so far as to circulate a letter last week to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, in which they “strongly urge the United States to take a leadership role in pushing for a strong, verifiable Arms Trade Treaty.”

These House members insist that the treaty include “controls on a comprehensive list of weaponry, including small arms and light weapons,” as well as controls on ammunition. For good measure, they wrap their unconstitutional demands in the mantle of advancing “human rights” and preventing international violence.

Since when did it become fashionable for sitting members of Congress to lobby international thugs, tyrants and dictators against our own U.S. Constitution?

Rep. Grijalva should consider the plight of good people in countries like the Sudan, where it’s virtually impossible for an average citizen to legally own a firearm for self-defense.

He, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should open their eyes to the unspeakable human rights atrocities that exist in their gun-ban utopia. They ought to see how far their gun-confiscation agenda resonates with hundreds of thousands of defenseless Sudanese men, women and children who live in constant fear of being beaten, raped, sold into slavery or murdered.

It’s easy for Congressmen Raul Grijalva, James McGovern, Bobby Rush, Dennis Kucinich and every other signer of this woefully ignorant letter to sit on high — surrounded by the secure walls of freedom built by our strong Second Amendment rights — and dictate to oppressed citizens in other parts of the world that their lives would be better if they only had less freedom than we do in the United States.

Thankfully, these clueless representatives don’t speak for the majority of us. The NRA has been warning Americans about this ticking time bomb at the U.N. for over 15 years. Now it’s zero hour. Wayne LaPierre and I will be at U.N. headquarters in New York this week, fighting tooth and nail to protect the same constitution that Raul Grijalva and his pals swore an oath to uphold and defend.

And I can promise you, we won’t stop fighting until our Second Amendment freedoms are safe from this international disgrace.

Chris W. Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.

Read more: Democratic congressmen back UN Arms Trade Treaty | The Daily Caller

Soros Promotes UN Control Over Gun Ownership
Written by Joe Wolverton, II



Soros Promotes UN Control Over Gun Ownership

George Soros is financing the fight to give the United Nations control of your guns.

Through his Media Matters organization, Soros is dumping pro-UN gun control propaganda into the mainstream media to coincide with the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty being held in New York July 2–27.

In a blog post published on July 3, Timothy Johnson of Media Matters describes the notion that the United Nations would ever try to take away the right of Americans to keep and bear arms “laughable.”

Johnson goes on to promote the passage of the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as a means of “curtailing the illicit arms trade” and thus cracking down on those who use these weapons to deny others their “human rights.”

The blog post assures citizens concerned about the potential eradication of the rights guaranteed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution that they have nothing to fear from the UN’s gun control treaty.

Top officials from the United Nations, the United States, and other high profile supporters have repeatedly and clearly said that the treaty does not aim to restrict anyone's "freedom to own" a gun. Indeed, the UN General Assembly's resolution on the treaty makes clear that countries will "exclusively" maintain the right within their borders to "regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through national constitutional protections on private ownerships."

Constitutionalists will instantly notice a couple of red flags raised by Media Matters’ word choice.

First, there need be no quotation marks around the phrase freedom to own a gun. Americans should enjoy the unqualified right to bear arms and it is not some antiquated idea or some unicorn-like mythical creature that requires special punctuational treatment. Americans are well aware that an unarmed citizenry is easier to subdue and will rightly resist all efforts to abridge that right.

Second, the citizens of the United States do not need the permission of the United Nations to maintain the “exclusive” right to own a gun. This right, as with all others protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, comes from God, not man, and may be neither given nor taken away by any government.

Undaunted, however, Soros will continue to use his mouthpieces to promote the globalist agenda, including the incremental dismantling of the U.S. Constitution and the sovereignty it protects.

The current draft of the ATT mandates that the governments of member states petition the United Nations for approval of any contract to sell weapons to any nation where there exists a “substantial risk of a serious violation” of human rights.

While the end of reducing the abuse of human rights is laudable, the means to achieve that cannot lawfully include the requirement that the Congress of the United States ask for permission from the UN overlords before it passes a law, including one authorizing the sale of arms to another country. That is a direct assault on American legislative sovereignty, and an indirect attack on the sovereignty of the American people who elect the members of Congress who vote on such measures.

In the text of the ATT, the United Nations specifically calls for the passage of a legally binding instrument that will impose international standards for the ownership, trade, and transfer of weapons.

In another section the ATT includes “controls on a comprehensive list of weaponry, including small arms and light weapons.” Predictably, all these controls are couched comfortably in talk of “human rights” and ending senseless killings by rogue regimes.

In order to avoid being labeled a “human rights abuser,” the United States (along with all member states) is ordered by the UN to comply with the ATT. To compel this compliance, the ATT empowers the UN to force Congress to:

• Enact internationally agreed licensing requirements for Americans

• Confiscate and destroy unauthorized firearms of Americans while allowing the U.S. government to keep theirs

• Ban the trade, sale, and private ownership of semi-automatic guns

• Create and mandate an international registry to organize an encompassing gun confiscation in America

On this point, in 2011, the UN’s General Assembly declared “that disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation are essential.” In other words, if world peace, the protection of human rights, and the disarming of violent regimes could be achieved through the confiscation of personal firearms, then so be it.

Make no mistake, however, Soros and his fellow globalist gun controllers don’t have in mind (at least at first) to march blue-helmeted UN soldiers into the homes of Americans with orders to seize their guns and ammunition. Rather, through the passage of binding international treaties and UN resolutions, they will force the national governments of the world to do the dirty work for them.

Sadly, officials of our own federal government, including President Obama, are pushing Congress to sign off on this treaty.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the Obama administration is working with the UN to lean on Congress to consent to the ATT.

Clinton has pushed the treaty as an "opportunity to promote the same high standards for the entire international community that the United States and other responsible arms exporters already have in place to ensure that weaponry is transferred for legitimate purposes."

There is little doubt that the scope of those “legitimate purposes” will be determined by Soros, Clinton, Obama, and the rest of the globalist gang who have much to fear from an armed and educated citizenry.

For now, the resistance to ratification of such a treaty is strong in the United States. Last July Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and 44 other senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary Clinton encouraging them to stop pushing for passage of UN gun control treaties. In the letter, Moran wrote:

Our country’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations. Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.

George Soros, through his Media Matters outlet, promises that “U.S. gun owners have nothing to fear” from the ATT or from similar UN agreements to restrict the manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearms. The globalists’ only goal, they maintain, is “the maintenance of international peace and security.”

For those whose fears are assuaged by such gentle words, we offer this competing comment from Benjamin Franklin written in a letter penned in 1755: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Soros Promotes UN Control Over Gun Ownership

Water Securitization, Agenda 21 and the Right to Life


The Truth Behind The News

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
July 11, 2012


There is an estimated 366 million, trillion gallons of water on planet Earth. That number appears to be fixed, according to UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Council of the International Hydrological Program (HIP). The alarmist threat of man-made climate change states that where and how this water manifests itself in hydraulic flux across our biosphere is questionable.

The HIP are a UN program system devoted to researching and finding natural water resources and managing those resources found. While the UN is well aware that the necessity of water as a vital source for life means the retention of power over all life, they are well into their schemes to develop global governance over all sources of fresh, clean water.

The IPCC document HS 15332 Climate Change Impacts: Securitization of Water, Food, Soil, Health, Energy and Migration explains how the UN plans to secure resources to use at their disposal. Through the International Monetary Fund (IMF) under-developed countries are forced to sell their resources to the global Elite as “full cost recovery” to the global central bankers. Once those resources are under the complete control of the IMF they become assets to be reallocated back to the enslaved nations for a price.

This scheme makes water sources under central privatization cost more and become less accessible to those who desperately need it. Water prices rise while the quality of it diminishes. This forces natives in places like South Africa and India to collect water from polluted streams and rivers, which compromises their health. The cycle in complete when those who had their water stolen from them through coercion die from contaminated water that they were forced to use.

If the alarmist view is taken as fact (regardless of the empirical data to disprove it), then rising sea levels will somehow allow more water to evaporate in the atmosphere, lowering water table levels dramatically. Estimations state that hydro-electric dams, like the Hoover Dam, would cease generating electricity by 2024.

While some areas on Earth, under climate change computer models, are expected to become wetter, some are equally expected to become drier. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) claims that from research flooding worldwide takes an estimated 25,000 lives and is responsible for economic loses that add up to $60 billion annually.

Reworking of highways to elevated areas and moving infrastructure from coastlines are a challenge for alarmist engineers. Relying on policymakers and behavioral shifts are at the core of the alarmist perspective. Cities must evolve from out-of-control consumerism to eco-friendly examples of moderation, just as we see in Transition Towns .

Engineers and planners, working with Agenda 21 policies in mind, are devising “ecosystem-based” responses to protecting the biodiversity of land and animals under the guidelines set forth by the UN. When it comes to land conservation, the UN is explicit as to how they want to ensure its success. Schemes that are devised to meter the output of resources and control how much is used by an individual are being made available to governments through allocation of taxpayer money under the direction of the UN Sustainable Development initiatives and Millennium Development Goals.

Over the past two decades, scientists have been using a cheap method called ocean fertilization that is the dumping of iron dust into the oceans in order to stimulate the growth of CO2 breathing phytonplankton. Under guidelines of UNESCO, ocean fertilization is conducted under the assumption that they are “adding nutrients, or increasing the nutrient supply from deep waters” when really they are polluting the oceans with a toxic metal.

Small scale experiments have confirmed that iron seeding of the oceans does promote the phytonplankton’s growth. Yet, ocean fertilization causes catastrophic effects, such as creating oxygen-depleted dead zones in the world’s oceans. The Royal Society , who supports these seeding oceans efforts, admits that the deduction of CO2 it would facilitate is a negligible 10 parts per million which would not have any real impact on global temperatures.

J. Gary Lawrence, adviser to former President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development said : “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking [Agenda 21]. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”

Local governments and municipalities are utilizing the capture of rain-water under strict regulation. It is not meant for any individual to capture rain-water for private use. The community as a whole, under Agenda 21 control and distribute water resources to all; as long as there is enough.

Watersheds, controlled by local governments who adhere to Agenda 21 policies would control who gets access to water, how much and how much it will cost the individual.

The UN Environmetal Program (UNEP) in a UN-Water Survey of 130 Countries Status Report have forced reformation through international water laws that apply pressure under the guise of “expanding populations, urbanization and climate change”. While clean drinking water for humans is controlled, improvements designed to ensure freshwater reserves for the ecosystem are first and foremost.

Management and use of water under the international agreement known as Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) was back at the 1992 UN Conference on Sustainable Development. This is a part of the Agenda 21 plan. Cooperation of the UNEP and the UN-Water, an inter-agency mechanism to control freshwater resources, relates UN policies to governments on how to allocate their assets.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP executive director, said: “The sustainable management and use of water – due to its vital role in food security, energy or supporting valuable ecosystem services – underpins the transition to a low-carbon, resource efficient green economy.”

Steiner believes that integrating UN policies for water resource management will facilitate a sustainable approach to water. The needs of the global population, which is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2050, will demand total governance.

The UN blames population growth combined with communities in rural areas increase the necessity of stricter guidelines to avert “climactic and socio=political disasters”.

The UN “suggests” that by 2015 all countries develop financing strategies and action programs that adhere to the IWRM. They want all nations to report to the UNEP concerning water resources management so that the UN can assess their progress and make changes as they see fit.

Simply put, the securitization of water on a global scale, will be run by the UN only. Their target recommendations will then be directed to individual governments to be made into laws. The citizens of those nations will have no choice but to follow the laws of their countries; if they are to get their ration of life-giving water.

Even in industrialized nations, this will mean the difference between access to fresh, clean water and having to use polluted water sources which threaten our health and well-being.



Before It's News