If you connected all the dots to the various United Nations (U.N.) Agendas, would you create a map of mass regionalization and an eventual Totalitarian State?
Agenda 21: Global Regional Plans Implemented Locally
According to the author of Behind the Green Mask, Rosa Koire says that “U.N. Agenda 21 is an agenda for the 21st century. It is an inventory and control plan; inventory of all land, water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all food, all energy, all information, and all human beings in the world.” It’s about moving populations into concentrated city centers and clearing them out of rural areas under “Smart Growth.” Under the guise of “Sustainability,” Agenda 21 is the hijacking of the environmental movement.
Agenda 21 is top-down hierarchy, moving away from current government structure based on elected positions in Federal-State-County-City, to a global-regional-neighborhood structure without elections. Currently hundreds of millions of federal dollars are going to cities to create regional plans to give over control of land, and land use, to corporations. For instance, the federal government gave the Telecom Industry new powers to sidestep over the public right-of-way for the roll out of 5G technology by removing regulatory barriers that might prevent infrastructure.
In an order last year by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), If Verizon wants to build a 5G network in a city, the local government is limited in how much it can charge in application fees, and is pushed to approve permits quickly.These rules also mean cities are limited in how they can respond to residents who are upset about equipment going up near them. Many local leaders have spoken out against the FCC’s rules, dozens of whom have banded together to file a lawsuit to overturn it, which has advanced to the Tenth Circuit.
Read the entire article
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Thursday, July 18, 2019
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
As US seeks to crush media freedom, we all need to read Assange’s letter from prison
The US government has now indicted Assange on 17 new counts under the Espionage Act. Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who released the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam war to the New York Times and other newspapers in 1971, told Democracy Now! in response that:
There hasn’t actually been such a significant attack on the freedom of the press… since my case in 1971.
Executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) Bruce Brown, meanwhile, said:
Any government use of the Espionage Act to criminalize the receipt and publication of classified information poses a dire threat to journalists seeking to publish such information in the public interest, irrespective of the Justice Department’s assertion that Assange is not a journalist.
Assange is currently serving 50 weeks in Belmarsh prison for skipping bail – a sentence WikiLeaks described as “shocking and vindictive”. The UN working group on arbitrary detention also said it was a “disproportionate sentence” for what it described as a “minor violation”.
The letter
The letter attributed to Assange was sent to independent journalist Gordon Dimmack, who was among many to write to Assange over recent weeks. Dimmack explains that he was reluctant to share the letter before the US government’s latest indictment against Assange.
Read the entire article
There hasn’t actually been such a significant attack on the freedom of the press… since my case in 1971.
Executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) Bruce Brown, meanwhile, said:
Any government use of the Espionage Act to criminalize the receipt and publication of classified information poses a dire threat to journalists seeking to publish such information in the public interest, irrespective of the Justice Department’s assertion that Assange is not a journalist.
Assange is currently serving 50 weeks in Belmarsh prison for skipping bail – a sentence WikiLeaks described as “shocking and vindictive”. The UN working group on arbitrary detention also said it was a “disproportionate sentence” for what it described as a “minor violation”.
The letter
The letter attributed to Assange was sent to independent journalist Gordon Dimmack, who was among many to write to Assange over recent weeks. Dimmack explains that he was reluctant to share the letter before the US government’s latest indictment against Assange.
Read the entire article
Friday, March 22, 2019
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
As the UN jabs nervously at the truth about Khashoggi, remember how often journalists’ deaths are brushed aside
It’s encouraging to hear that Agnes Callamard, the UN’s execution expert, is at last in Istanbul to lead the “independent international inquiry” into the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Better late than never, perhaps, but the old UN donkey clip-clops upon the world stage according to the politics and courage of the panjandrums beside the East River in New York.
Thus Callamard arrived all of four months after Khashoggi was butchered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. And she is now politely asking the Saudis themselves – “respectfully”, she tells us – to give her access to the murder scene “at some stage”.
As we all know, Khashoggi wrote the truth about Saudi Arabia, was lured to his country’s consulate in Istanbul, got strangled, chopped up and secretly buried. And if we’re going to come down hard on those who kill members of our journalistic profession – alas, we’ll have to put aside for the moment all those Turkish journos banged up in their own country – Callamard has made a start. As opposed to all those like the boss of the Morgan Stanley investment bank, James Gorman, and the president of Switzerland, Ueli Maurer, who are keen to get back to business with Saudi Arabia.
“We have long since dealt with the Khashoggi case”, Maurer has announced. Common sense, I suppose. But then there’s very little chance that Gorman or Maurer will be lured to a Saudi embassy, strangled, sawed into bits and dumped in an unknown grave.
But that’s not quite my point. What I’m really asking is why the killing of one Arab journalist is more equal than the killing of other Arab journalists? Why, for example, is the fate of Jamal Khashoggi, a friend and colleague of many of us, of infinitely more pressing importance than the fate of Yaser Murtaja?
Read the entire article
Thus Callamard arrived all of four months after Khashoggi was butchered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. And she is now politely asking the Saudis themselves – “respectfully”, she tells us – to give her access to the murder scene “at some stage”.
As we all know, Khashoggi wrote the truth about Saudi Arabia, was lured to his country’s consulate in Istanbul, got strangled, chopped up and secretly buried. And if we’re going to come down hard on those who kill members of our journalistic profession – alas, we’ll have to put aside for the moment all those Turkish journos banged up in their own country – Callamard has made a start. As opposed to all those like the boss of the Morgan Stanley investment bank, James Gorman, and the president of Switzerland, Ueli Maurer, who are keen to get back to business with Saudi Arabia.
“We have long since dealt with the Khashoggi case”, Maurer has announced. Common sense, I suppose. But then there’s very little chance that Gorman or Maurer will be lured to a Saudi embassy, strangled, sawed into bits and dumped in an unknown grave.
But that’s not quite my point. What I’m really asking is why the killing of one Arab journalist is more equal than the killing of other Arab journalists? Why, for example, is the fate of Jamal Khashoggi, a friend and colleague of many of us, of infinitely more pressing importance than the fate of Yaser Murtaja?
Read the entire article
Monday, November 26, 2018
Russia calls for urgent UN Security Council meeting over clash with Ukrainian ships in Black Sea
Moscow has called for an emergency UN Security Council meeting following an incident near Crimea that saw the Russian military detain Ukrainian warships for breaking into its territorial waters in violation of the UN convention.
Russia has called for the meeting "in connection to the dangerous developments in the Azov Sea and subsequent events,” Russia's First Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, told media late on Sunday.
The meeting is scheduled for Monday. “Maintenance of international peace and security” will be the sole item on its agenda, Polyanskiy said.
Earlier on Sunday, the Russian military opened fire and seized three Ukrainian Navy vessels it says entered Russian territorial waters near Crimea.
The Ukrainian vessels were sailing between two Ukrainian ports: from Odessa in the Black Sea to Mariupol in the Azov Sea. The only waterway that connects the two is the Kerch Strait between Crimea and mainland Russia. Kiev says it has notified Moscow in advance that its navy ships would be sailing through the area. Moscow denies it had been given the warning.
Read the entire article
Russia has called for the meeting "in connection to the dangerous developments in the Azov Sea and subsequent events,” Russia's First Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN, Dmitry Polyanskiy, told media late on Sunday.
The meeting is scheduled for Monday. “Maintenance of international peace and security” will be the sole item on its agenda, Polyanskiy said.
Earlier on Sunday, the Russian military opened fire and seized three Ukrainian Navy vessels it says entered Russian territorial waters near Crimea.
The Ukrainian vessels were sailing between two Ukrainian ports: from Odessa in the Black Sea to Mariupol in the Azov Sea. The only waterway that connects the two is the Kerch Strait between Crimea and mainland Russia. Kiev says it has notified Moscow in advance that its navy ships would be sailing through the area. Moscow denies it had been given the warning.
Read the entire article
Thursday, October 11, 2018
As Nikki Haley Resigns, Critics Forced to Clarify That "Pro-War, Pro-Imperialist" Sycophant for Trump Is No "Moderate"
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley unexpectedly announced her resignation on Tuesday, but informed critics are raising their voices in the aftermath of the news to make sure nobody gets away with describing the outgoing diplomat—who said she will serve in the position until the end of the year—as anything other than what she is: a sycophant for President Donald Trump and a horrible war-monger who used her powerful position to push a neoconservative foreign policy while undermining global goodwill, overtly attacking human rights, and making the world a more dangerous place.While some news outlets and commenters ignored historical evidence as they attempted to frame Haley as a "moderate" voice in the Trump administration and Republicans applauded her "moral clarity," progressive critics hit back hard against such blatantly false characterizations.
"Moderate?" exclaimed political commentator Amir Amini in a tweet responding the New York Times' story about the surprise resignation. "Haley spent every minute of her time at the UN threatening innocent nations w/ war, terror and literally bullying and trying to blackmail (and miserably failing) the entire [world] into supporting her agenda dictated by the military industrial complex."
Blasting CNN for whitewashing the record, Medea Benjamin of CodePink didn't have a hard time cataloging some of Haley's most deplorable accomplishments while at the UN:
Read the entire article
"Moderate?" exclaimed political commentator Amir Amini in a tweet responding the New York Times' story about the surprise resignation. "Haley spent every minute of her time at the UN threatening innocent nations w/ war, terror and literally bullying and trying to blackmail (and miserably failing) the entire [world] into supporting her agenda dictated by the military industrial complex."
Blasting CNN for whitewashing the record, Medea Benjamin of CodePink didn't have a hard time cataloging some of Haley's most deplorable accomplishments while at the UN:
Read the entire article
Thursday, October 4, 2018
Thursday, January 25, 2018
U.S. Blames Russia For All Chem Weapons Attacks Based On Claims From White Helmets Terrorists
It seems as if the U.S. State Department has been on a continual loop ever since August, 2013 when Western-backed terrorists launched a chemical weapons attack that was subsequently blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian government by the United States and other imperialist nations assisting in the attempted destruction of Syria. Ever since 2013, when the United States almost succeeded in propagandizing the general public enough to support a direct military invasion of Syria, we have seen the U.S. State Department whining and shrieking about “chemical weapons attacks” conducted by the “regime” in Damascus against “his own people,” “civilians,” and “beautiful babies” on a bi-monthly basis. The tired “chemical weapons” line has never been able to provide the U.S. with as much payoff as it almost did in 2013, however, and, in 2018, Heather Nauert’s whining and Nikki Haley’s head-swinging fits at the U.N. simply don’t have the same effect as Samantha Power’s theatrics in the halls of the same institutions a few years ago.
Five years on, the actors may have switched places but the play remains the same. In fact, so does the stage and the dialogue. Once again, the U.S. is screaming at the top of its lungs that the Syrian military has used chemical weapons against civilians in Ghouta, outside Damascus.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that, “Only yesterday more than 20 civilians, most of them children, were victims of an apparent chlorine gas attack. He stated that the alleged attacks “raise serious concerns that Bashar al-Assad may be continuing to use chemical weapons against his own people”.
Of course, there is absolutely no evidence that the Syrian military used chemical weapons in the attack referenced by Tillerson, nor is there any credible evidence that the Syrian government even maintains a stockpile of chemical weapons to use if it wanted to. Indeed, the only sources supporting Tillerson’s claims are the White Helmets, the al-Nusra Front propaganda wing that has been exposed ad nauseum as a terrorist outfit designed to construct propaganda fitted for Western audiences.
Read the entire article
Five years on, the actors may have switched places but the play remains the same. In fact, so does the stage and the dialogue. Once again, the U.S. is screaming at the top of its lungs that the Syrian military has used chemical weapons against civilians in Ghouta, outside Damascus.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated that, “Only yesterday more than 20 civilians, most of them children, were victims of an apparent chlorine gas attack. He stated that the alleged attacks “raise serious concerns that Bashar al-Assad may be continuing to use chemical weapons against his own people”.
Of course, there is absolutely no evidence that the Syrian military used chemical weapons in the attack referenced by Tillerson, nor is there any credible evidence that the Syrian government even maintains a stockpile of chemical weapons to use if it wanted to. Indeed, the only sources supporting Tillerson’s claims are the White Helmets, the al-Nusra Front propaganda wing that has been exposed ad nauseum as a terrorist outfit designed to construct propaganda fitted for Western audiences.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Iraq Redux in the Making? US Rhetoric on Iran Brings Back Memories of 2003
Sometimes you wake up in the morning and it’s 2003 all over again. That was the year when the United States embarked on its catastrophic course of intervention in Asia. It was at least "somewhat justified" in invading Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda but then made the mistake of sticking around to fix the country, a repair job that has lasted sixteen years and counting with no end in sight. And it was also the time when the neoconservatives who were then controlling the Pentagon and White House decided that it was necessary to go after Iraq.
As Baghdad in no way threatened the United States, and everyone who had examined the actual evidence knew that to be the case, a false narrative about Saddam Hussein had to be contrived. The White House claimed that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, that it was seeking uranium to construct a nuclear weapon and that it was building gliders that could cross the Atlantic Ocean with cargoes of chemical and biological weapons.
None of that turned out to be true, but the piece de resistance of the go-to-war crowd was the presentation made by Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations on February 5, 2003. With Central Intelligence Director George Tenet sitting behind him presumably to establish bona fides for the information that was about to be revealed, Powell detailed how Iraq was preparing and concealing from inspectors weapons of mass destruction, was avoiding disarming and was colluding with al-Qaeda. It was all a lie, intended only to make a minimal case to the U.N. that increasing the military pressure on Iraq was a supportable, indeed a necessary, policy. One month later President George W. Bush called on President Saddam Hussein to resign based on his failure to comply with U.N. demands and, when he did not do so, launched an invasion of Iraq.
America’s current United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley is no Colin Powell either in terms of intellect or credibility, but she did try to act like him when she spoke on December 14th in front of a sparsely attended press conference that was focused on a much larger US television audience. Haley displayed parts of what she claimed to be fragments from an Iranian-sourced missile that was allegedly used in an attack initiated by Houthi “rebels” and directed against the Saudi capital Riyadh. Haley denounced what she described as Tehran’s “increasing military role” all around the Middle East. She claimed hyperbolically “It’s hard to find a conflict or terrorist group in the Middle East that doesn’t have Iran’s fingerprints all over it,” and warned that Washington will “build a coalition to really push back against Iran and what they’re doing.” To give weight to her message, she pointed at the fragments and said “They are allowing missiles like this to be fired over to innocent civilians.”
Read the entire article
As Baghdad in no way threatened the United States, and everyone who had examined the actual evidence knew that to be the case, a false narrative about Saddam Hussein had to be contrived. The White House claimed that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda, that it was seeking uranium to construct a nuclear weapon and that it was building gliders that could cross the Atlantic Ocean with cargoes of chemical and biological weapons.
None of that turned out to be true, but the piece de resistance of the go-to-war crowd was the presentation made by Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations on February 5, 2003. With Central Intelligence Director George Tenet sitting behind him presumably to establish bona fides for the information that was about to be revealed, Powell detailed how Iraq was preparing and concealing from inspectors weapons of mass destruction, was avoiding disarming and was colluding with al-Qaeda. It was all a lie, intended only to make a minimal case to the U.N. that increasing the military pressure on Iraq was a supportable, indeed a necessary, policy. One month later President George W. Bush called on President Saddam Hussein to resign based on his failure to comply with U.N. demands and, when he did not do so, launched an invasion of Iraq.
America’s current United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley is no Colin Powell either in terms of intellect or credibility, but she did try to act like him when she spoke on December 14th in front of a sparsely attended press conference that was focused on a much larger US television audience. Haley displayed parts of what she claimed to be fragments from an Iranian-sourced missile that was allegedly used in an attack initiated by Houthi “rebels” and directed against the Saudi capital Riyadh. Haley denounced what she described as Tehran’s “increasing military role” all around the Middle East. She claimed hyperbolically “It’s hard to find a conflict or terrorist group in the Middle East that doesn’t have Iran’s fingerprints all over it,” and warned that Washington will “build a coalition to really push back against Iran and what they’re doing.” To give weight to her message, she pointed at the fragments and said “They are allowing missiles like this to be fired over to innocent civilians.”
Read the entire article
Monday, December 18, 2017
The Case Against Iraqing Iran
The case against Iraqing Iran includes the following points:
Threatening war is a violation of the U.N. Charter.
Waging war is a violation of the U.N. Charter and of the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
Waging war without Congress is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Have you seen Iraq lately?
Have you seen the entire region?
Have you seen Afghanistan? Libya? Syria? Yemen? Pakistan? Somalia?
War supporters said the U.S. urgently needed to attack Iran in 2007. It did not attack. The claims turned out to be lies. Even a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 pushed back and admitted that Iran had no nuclear weapons program.
Having a nuclear weapons program is not a justification for war, legally, morally, or practically. The United States has nuclear weapons and no one would be justified in attacking the United States.
Read the entire article
Threatening war is a violation of the U.N. Charter.
Waging war is a violation of the U.N. Charter and of the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
Waging war without Congress is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Have you seen Iraq lately?
Have you seen the entire region?
Have you seen Afghanistan? Libya? Syria? Yemen? Pakistan? Somalia?
War supporters said the U.S. urgently needed to attack Iran in 2007. It did not attack. The claims turned out to be lies. Even a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 pushed back and admitted that Iran had no nuclear weapons program.
Having a nuclear weapons program is not a justification for war, legally, morally, or practically. The United States has nuclear weapons and no one would be justified in attacking the United States.
Read the entire article
Monday, October 16, 2017
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Unmasked: Trump Doctrine Vows Carnage for New Axis of Evil
This was no “deeply philosophical address”. And hardly a show of “principled realism” – as spun by the White House. President Trump at the UN was “American carnage,” to borrow a phrase previously deployed by his nativist speechwriter Stephen Miller.
One should allow the enormity of what just happened to sink in, slowly. The president of the United States, facing the bloated bureaucracy that passes for the “international community,” threatened to “wipe off the map” the whole of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (25 million people). And may however many millions of South Koreans who perish as collateral damage be damned.
Multiple attempts have been made to connect Trump’s threats to the madman theory cooked up by “Tricky Dicky” Nixon in cahoots with Henry Kissinger, according to which the USSR must always be under the impression the then-US president was crazy enough to, literally, go nuclear. But the DPRK will not be much impressed with this madman remix.
That leaves, on the table, a way more terrifying upgrade of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Trump repeatedly invoked Truman in his speech). Frantic gaming will now be in effect in both Moscow and Beijing: Russia and China have their own stability / connectivity strategy under development to contain Pyongyang.
The Trump Doctrine has finally been enounced and a new axis of evil delineated. The winners are North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. Syria under Assad is a sort of mini-evil, and so is Cuba. Crucially, Ukraine and the South China Sea only got a fleeting mention from Trump, with no blunt accusations against Russia and China. That may reflect at least some degree of realpolitik; without “RC” – the Russia-China strategic partnership at the heart of the BRICS bloc and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – there’s no possible solution to the Korean Peninsula stand-off.
Read the entire article
One should allow the enormity of what just happened to sink in, slowly. The president of the United States, facing the bloated bureaucracy that passes for the “international community,” threatened to “wipe off the map” the whole of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (25 million people). And may however many millions of South Koreans who perish as collateral damage be damned.
Multiple attempts have been made to connect Trump’s threats to the madman theory cooked up by “Tricky Dicky” Nixon in cahoots with Henry Kissinger, according to which the USSR must always be under the impression the then-US president was crazy enough to, literally, go nuclear. But the DPRK will not be much impressed with this madman remix.
That leaves, on the table, a way more terrifying upgrade of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Trump repeatedly invoked Truman in his speech). Frantic gaming will now be in effect in both Moscow and Beijing: Russia and China have their own stability / connectivity strategy under development to contain Pyongyang.
The Trump Doctrine has finally been enounced and a new axis of evil delineated. The winners are North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. Syria under Assad is a sort of mini-evil, and so is Cuba. Crucially, Ukraine and the South China Sea only got a fleeting mention from Trump, with no blunt accusations against Russia and China. That may reflect at least some degree of realpolitik; without “RC” – the Russia-China strategic partnership at the heart of the BRICS bloc and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – there’s no possible solution to the Korean Peninsula stand-off.
Read the entire article
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Thursday, July 13, 2017
United Nations Adopts Historic Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
At approximately 11AM on July 7, 2017, following a recorded vote of 122 states in favor, 1 opposed (Netherlands in opposition, on behalf of all NATO states), and 1 abstention (Singapore), Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez, Costa Rican Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, and President of the “United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination,” announced the adoption of this treaty, which had been awaited for 70 years, the legally binding norm prohibiting nuclear weapons.
Following Ambassador Whyte’s announcement, the entire assembly of ambassadors, other delegates and non-government organizations in Conference Room 1 immediately stood, many embraced and all 122 States in support exultantly applauded this historic and long overdue achievement by the majority of member states of the United Nations, none of whom possess nuclear weapons, and all of whom are unified in seeking to end the reign of terror imposed on the world by certain of the states possessing nuclear weapons.
It is surprising that the U.S., the U.K. and France have issued a statement flaunting their violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty: they are required by Article 6 of that treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,” which is precisely what the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons constitutes.
The authors of this press statement evidently consider themselves above international law, and not beholden to any legal restrictions on their use of force. With this press statement, the US, the UK and France have forfeited moral legitimacy, and as permanent members of the Security Council are divested of any authority to sanction North Korea. Further, they should themselves be sanctioned for their violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Their indifference to this new treaty’s basis in international humanitarian law, one of the treaty’s pillars, gives the lie to their pretense of concern for humanitarian considerations which they frequently cite, deceptively, during their speeches at the Security Council.
But July 7, 2017 will remain a pivotal date in the history of the United Nations, the day on which the majority of countries of the developing world, and many of the responsible and mature nations of the “developed world” have confronted the nuclear states with the uncivilized character of their possession of nuclear weapons, and the moral and practical imperative of divesting themselves of these insane instruments of horror.
Read the entire article
Following Ambassador Whyte’s announcement, the entire assembly of ambassadors, other delegates and non-government organizations in Conference Room 1 immediately stood, many embraced and all 122 States in support exultantly applauded this historic and long overdue achievement by the majority of member states of the United Nations, none of whom possess nuclear weapons, and all of whom are unified in seeking to end the reign of terror imposed on the world by certain of the states possessing nuclear weapons.
It is surprising that the U.S., the U.K. and France have issued a statement flaunting their violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty: they are required by Article 6 of that treaty “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,” which is precisely what the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons constitutes.
The authors of this press statement evidently consider themselves above international law, and not beholden to any legal restrictions on their use of force. With this press statement, the US, the UK and France have forfeited moral legitimacy, and as permanent members of the Security Council are divested of any authority to sanction North Korea. Further, they should themselves be sanctioned for their violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Their indifference to this new treaty’s basis in international humanitarian law, one of the treaty’s pillars, gives the lie to their pretense of concern for humanitarian considerations which they frequently cite, deceptively, during their speeches at the Security Council.
But July 7, 2017 will remain a pivotal date in the history of the United Nations, the day on which the majority of countries of the developing world, and many of the responsible and mature nations of the “developed world” have confronted the nuclear states with the uncivilized character of their possession of nuclear weapons, and the moral and practical imperative of divesting themselves of these insane instruments of horror.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Ambassador Nikki Haley vs. President Trump
Donald Trump came to the White House with a reputation as a top notch businessman. He built an international real estate empire and is worth billions. He then went into reality television, where his signature line as he dismissed incompetent potential employees was, “you’re fired!”
On Friday, President Trump held a long-awaited face-to-face meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting was scheduled to be a brief, 30 minute meet and greet, but turned into a two-plus hour substantive session producing a ceasefire agreement for parts of Syria and a plan to continue working together in the future. After the extended session, which was cordial by all accounts, President Trump said the meeting was “tremendous.”
President Trump indicated that the issue of Russian interference in the US elections came up in conversation and that Putin vehemently denied it. It obviously was not a make or break issue in the conversation. President Trump’s latest statement on the issue is that “we don’t know for sure” who was behind any meddling.
Later on Friday, President Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, said of the Syria agreement that, “I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria.”
On Sunday, President Trump Tweeted in praise of the Syria ceasefire agreement, adding that, “now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!”
Read the entire article
On Friday, President Trump held a long-awaited face-to-face meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting was scheduled to be a brief, 30 minute meet and greet, but turned into a two-plus hour substantive session producing a ceasefire agreement for parts of Syria and a plan to continue working together in the future. After the extended session, which was cordial by all accounts, President Trump said the meeting was “tremendous.”
President Trump indicated that the issue of Russian interference in the US elections came up in conversation and that Putin vehemently denied it. It obviously was not a make or break issue in the conversation. President Trump’s latest statement on the issue is that “we don’t know for sure” who was behind any meddling.
Later on Friday, President Trump’s Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, said of the Syria agreement that, “I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria.”
On Sunday, President Trump Tweeted in praise of the Syria ceasefire agreement, adding that, “now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!”
Read the entire article
Monday, July 10, 2017
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Top CFR Globalist Warns UN Will Get “Hammered” by Trump
Amid escalating outrage surrounding the scandal-plagued United Nations, globalists seem to be in a panic about the fate of their beloved international organization under the incoming administration. Indeed, a high-ranking globalist with the global government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a chief promoter of the UN “dictators club” for generations, whined last week that the widely ridiculed global body was going to be “hammered” by President-elect Donald Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress.
However, being “hammered” may be just the start of problems for globalists and their precious UN. Following a UN Security Council vote late last year declaring certain Jewish settlements to be illegal, establishment politicians and liberty-minded lawmakers in Congress have already joined forces in a bid to defund the controversial international organization. Meanwhile, the movement for a complete U.S. withdrawal from the UN has gone mainstream and is picking up momentum like never before. And Trump campaigned on a platform of rejecting globalism in favor of Americanism.
All of the developments have senior globalists and establishment types in a tizzy. “Among the many foreign policy uncertainties created by Donald Trump's election, there is one prediction we can take to the bank: The United Nations is going to get hammered,” complained Stewart Patrick, the CFR's “director of International Institutions and Global Governance,” in a column last week headlined Future US Relationship With UN in Doubt. “An unapologetic nationalist is bound for the White House, Republicans are in control of both houses of Congress — and the world body is in their crosshairs.”
Like the CFR as a whole, Patrick is an unapologetic advocate of “global governance” and further empowering the infamous dictators club to make policy for humanity. Indeed, Patrick is so extreme in his globalist fanaticism that he managed to exploit even the rape of children by UN “peacekeeping” troops as an argument for handing the UN vast new powers. Seriously. Essentially, he argued that to stop UN troops from raping children all over the world, the UN should establish its own planetary judicial system with the power to prosecute even U.S. troops.
Read the entire article
However, being “hammered” may be just the start of problems for globalists and their precious UN. Following a UN Security Council vote late last year declaring certain Jewish settlements to be illegal, establishment politicians and liberty-minded lawmakers in Congress have already joined forces in a bid to defund the controversial international organization. Meanwhile, the movement for a complete U.S. withdrawal from the UN has gone mainstream and is picking up momentum like never before. And Trump campaigned on a platform of rejecting globalism in favor of Americanism.
All of the developments have senior globalists and establishment types in a tizzy. “Among the many foreign policy uncertainties created by Donald Trump's election, there is one prediction we can take to the bank: The United Nations is going to get hammered,” complained Stewart Patrick, the CFR's “director of International Institutions and Global Governance,” in a column last week headlined Future US Relationship With UN in Doubt. “An unapologetic nationalist is bound for the White House, Republicans are in control of both houses of Congress — and the world body is in their crosshairs.”
Like the CFR as a whole, Patrick is an unapologetic advocate of “global governance” and further empowering the infamous dictators club to make policy for humanity. Indeed, Patrick is so extreme in his globalist fanaticism that he managed to exploit even the rape of children by UN “peacekeeping” troops as an argument for handing the UN vast new powers. Seriously. Essentially, he argued that to stop UN troops from raping children all over the world, the UN should establish its own planetary judicial system with the power to prosecute even U.S. troops.
Read the entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)