United Nations

United Nations “Peacekeepers” Will Now Go On the Offensive in Africa


(KURT NIMMO)   Blue helmets will take military action against militias in the war-torn Congo, the Washington Times reported late last week. They will no longer simply stand on the sidelines, but will take an active role in the warfare between rival tribal groups.

“To be a peacekeeper doesn’t mean you need to be passive,” Gen. Carlos Alberto dos Santos Cruz told the newspaper. “To be a peacekeeper, you need to take action. The way to protect the civilians is to take action. If you see the history of atrocities here, it justifies action.”

Formerly, the globalist organization did its best to present a neutral presence as favored governments and handpicked proxies engaged in military action. Stakes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, however, are high. It is a mineral rich area where much of the world’s coltan is mined.

Coltan, short for columbite–tantalite and known industrially as tantalite, is used to manufacture tantalum capacitors used in electronics, especially cell phones.

The CIA has worked behind the scenes for decades in the Congo. It began with the assassination of the country’s first prime minister after independence from Belgium, the socialist Patrice Lumumba. The United Nations worked hand-in-glove with the United States and the CIA to destabilize the Congo and set it up for the bloody conflict that continues there today. Since the establishment of Africom, the U.S. Africa Command, and the importation of al-Qaeda and other CIA-created terror groups in northern Africa, a renewed emphasis has been placed on stepped-up balkanization and pacification of the continent.

Congolese “minerals are vital to maintaining U.S. military dominance, economic prosperity, and consumer satisfaction,” write Dena Montague and Frida Berrigan. “Because the United States does not have a domestic supply of many essential minerals, the U.S. government identifies sources of strategic minerals, particularly in Third World countries, then encourages U.S. corporations to invest in and facilitate production of the needed materials.”

In fact, the U.S. government is owned and operated by the global elite and their transnational corporations and bankster institutions, not other way around. As should be readily apparent, a once affluent American middle class, thanks to decades of prosperity, financed the expansion of the U.S. military and its proxies into resource rich areas. The U.S. has consistently acted as an enforcer for the global financial and corporate elite.

Montague and Berrigan continue:

Tantalum, also referred to as coltan, is a particularly valuable resource – used to make mobile phones, night vision goggles, fiber optics, and capacitors (the component that maintains the electrical charge in computer chips). In fact, a global shortage of coltan caused a wave of parental panic in the United States last Christmas (2000) when it resulted in the scarcity of the popular PlayStation 2. The DRC holds 80% of the world’s coltan reserves, more than 60% of the world’s cobalt, and the world’s largest supply of high-grade copper.

A ramped up UN military posture not only threatens the sovereignty of Africans, but other people who might resist the geopolitical machinations of the elite. The U.S. military, while still a potent force on the world stage, has weakened considerably in the wake of more than a decade of military adventure, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. A fresh infusion of “peacekeepers” will be needed to enforce the next phase of globalist domination as China makes serious moves on the continent and the western global elite move to counter it.


U.N. Report Advocates Teaching Masturbation to 5-Year-Olds

(FOXNEWS)   The United Nations is recommending that children as young as five receive mandatory sexual education that would teach even pre-kindergarteners about masturbation and topics like gender violence.

The U.N.’s Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released a 98-page report in June offering a universal lesson plan for kids ranging in age from 5-18, an
“informed approach to effective sex, relationships” and HIV education that they say is essential for “all young people.”

The U.N. insists the program is “age appropriate,” but critics say it’s exposing kids to sex far too early, and offers up abstract ideas — like “transphobia” — they might not even understand.

“At that age they should be learning about … the proper name of certain parts of their bodies,” said Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, “certainly not about masturbation.”

Turner was disturbed by UNESCO’s plans to explain to children as young as nine about the safety of legal abortions, and to advocate and “promote the right to and access to safe abortion” for everyone over the age of 15.

“This is absurd,” she told FOXNews.com.

The UNESCO report, called “International Guidelines for Sexuality Education,” separates children into four age groups: 5-to-8-year-olds, 9-to-12-year-olds, 12-to-15-year-olds and 15-to-18-year-olds.

Under the U.N.’s voluntary sex-ed regime, kids just 5-8 years old will be told that “touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation” and that private parts “can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.”

• Click here to see the report.

By the time they’re 9 years old, they’ll learn about “positive and negative effects of ‘aphrodisiacs,” and wrestle with the ideas of “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.”

At 12, they’ll learn the “reasons for” abortions — but they’ll already have known about their safety for three years. When they’re 15, they’ll be exposed to direct “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion.”

Child health experts say they are wary of teaching about the sticky topic of abortion, but stress that as long as messages stay age-appropriate, educating kids at a younger age helps better steer them into adulthood.

“The adults are more leery of [early sex-ed] than the kids are,” said Dr. Jennifer Hartstein, a child psychiatrist in New York. “Our own fears sometimes prevent us from being as open and honest with our kids as possible.”

Hartstein, however, who didn’t see much harm in explaining basic concepts that kids of all ages will have questions about, was baffled by some of the ideas the U.N. hoped to introduce to kids as young as 5 years old, who will be taught about “gender roles, stereotypes and gender-based violence.”

“I want to know how you teach that to a 5-year-old,” Hartstein told FOXNews.com.

Despite those challenges, the U.N. insists that “in a world affected by HIV and AIDS … there is an imperative to give children and young people the knowledge, skills and values to understand and make informed decisions.”

UNESCO officials said the guidelines were “co-authored by two leading experts in the field of sexuality education” — Dr. Doug Kirby, an adolescent sexuality expert, and Nanette Ecker, the former director of international education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.

Their report was based on a “rigorous review” of sex-ed literature, “drawing upon 87 studies from around the world,” said Mark Richmond, director of UNESCO’s Division for the Coordination of U.N. Priorities in Education, in an e-mailed statement.

Richmond defended teaching about masturbation as “age-appropriate” because even in early childhood, “children are known to be curious about their bodies.” Their lessons, he added, would hopefully help kids “develop a more complex understanding of sexual behaviour” as they grow into adults.

But Michelle Turner, of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, said that such roles should be left up to parents, and worried that children were being exposed to too much information too soon.

“Why can’t kids be kids anymore?” she said.


Troops Ordered To Kill All Americans Who Do Not Turn In Guns

(INFOWARS)   The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter adds that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and “international crime syndicates,” the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a “Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.”
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a “United Nations Peace Force” that would “enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.”
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, “for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and the UN “peacekeeping” force itself, which would require “agreed manpower.”
“The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes,” states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet’s supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish — taking a huge bite out of the second amendment — is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.



As U.N. Finalizes Arms Trade Treaty, Opponents Warn of Global Gun Grab

(CNS NEWS)   Amid energetic lobbying from both sides, the Obama administration is taking part in month-long negotiations at United Nations headquarters aimed at finalizing a conventional arms trade treaty, which supporters say will save millions of lives but opponents fear threatens to restrict Second Amendment rights at home and U.S. arms sales policies abroad.

U.N. bureaucrats insist that the U.N. Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will have no impact on civilian gun ownership, saying that it will deal only with the arms trade across borders. They also stress that its outcome will not be imposed on any country, noting it will only be binding on countries that ratify it.

In a letter to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the eve of the conference, 130 Republican lawmakers outlined their concerns that the treaty being negotiated could negatively affect U.S. security, foreign policy and economic interests – as well as Americans’ constitutional rights.

“The ATT must not accept that free democracies and totalitarian regimes have the same right to conduct arms transfers: this is a dangerous piece of moral equivalence,” the letter stated.

“Moreover, the ATT must not impose criteria for determining the permissibility of arms transfers that are vague, easily politicized, and readily manipulated,” it continued, referring in particular to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and Israel.

The lawmakers warned that they would oppose the appropriation or authorization of any taxpayer money to implement a “flawed” treaty.

The Bush administration in 2006 cast the lone negative vote when 153 nations passed a U.N. General Assembly resolution that began the treaty-drafting process, which is now in its final phase in New York. President Obama reversed that position in 2009, backing the initiative but making its support conditional on consensus decision-making.

Alert to the political sensitivity of the issue as the election looms, the administration says it has clear red lines that it will not allow to be crossed.

At home, it says, the Second Amendment must be upheld: “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.”

Abroad, the U.S. will oppose any provisions that would “unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests,” it says.

Further, the administration pledges not to accept a treaty that covers ammunition or explosives, or one that establishes an international enforcement body.

Some of Washington’s closest allies differ with at least some of those positions.

For example the British, French, German and Swedish governments in a joint position published this week said, “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.”

Britain, France and Germany are among the world’s top six arms suppliers, along with the United States – the leader by far – as well as China and Russia.

A powerful coalition of non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International and Oxfam says the negotiated treaty must be workable and enforceable, with international reporting of sales and a mechanism for monitoring compliance.

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.

‘Goal is clear: A robust and legally-binding arms trade treaty’

The month-long negotiating conference got off to a slow start this week after demands by Arab states that the Palestinian Authority be allowed to participate as a voting delegate, citing the precedent set by UNESCO in admitting “Palestine” as a full member nine months ago. After reported boycott threats by the U.S. and Israel, the P.A. was seated as an observer, without voting rights.

In his opening remarks, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said poorly-regulated international arms transfers fuel civil conflicts, destabilized regions, and empowered terrorists and criminal networks.

“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,” he said.

One of the key issues under discussion is criteria that should be met when countries decide on selling arms. Any deal that would contribute to war crimes, human rights violations or terrorism should not be authorized, although who would make such determinations remains fuzzy.

If left up to countries themselves, argue proponents of a strong treaty, this would allow Russia, for example, to continue selling arms to Syria since Moscow views the regime’s actions against the anti-Assad opposition as lawful.

Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball argued in a recent paper that the treaty must require countries to withhold problematic arms transfers, not merely require them to take any potential risks into account.

On the other hand, global regulation of sales could impact the right of the U.S. to sell arms to allies that have powerful enemies in the international community, such as Israel and Taiwan.

“Washington is the only capital that now sells weapons to Taipei, aiding its defense against Beijing’s unprecedented arms buildup,” Heritage Foundation senior fellow Peter Brookes wrote in an op-ed Tuesday. “China would love to cut off those sales.”

Also unclear is how arms sales benefiting terrorists would be restricted, given the U.N.’s failure over many years to define terrorism – largely because Arab and Muslim states insist on exclusions for those fighting “foreign occupation.”

Less controversial proposed criteria for arms sales include not fostering corruption or harming the economy of the country buying the weapons.

ATT proponents and the U.N. say the initiative will not affect domestic gun ownership, but Second Amendment advocacy groups are adamantly opposed to the treaty, which Gun Owners of America calls “a backdoor attempt by the Obama administration to impose radical gun control on America citizens.”

Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference last February, National Rifle Association vice-president Wayne LaPierre accused Obama of working behind the scenes with the U.N. on a “treaty that could effectively ban or severely restrict civilian ownership of firearms worldwide.”

“I’ve been around long enough to know that the U.N. has little regard for our Constitution and none at all for the Second Amendment,” LaPierre said. “But I never thought I’d see the day when an American White House would tolerate a proposal that would literally gut one of our most fundamental freedoms in this country.”

Last March Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) introduced legislation prohibiting any funds for negotiating an ATT that would restrict U.S. citizens’ Second Amendment rights. The bill has 19 co-sponsors, all Republicans.


AGENDA 21: Pod hotels are now being pushed as the new way for humans to live

(AFP) – Size doesn’t matter. At least that’s what a handful of hotels in New York hope lodgers will think when they stay in their small, yet functional and affordable rooms.

At The Jane, a tiny red-brick hotel overlooking the Hudson River in West Village, Manhattan’s ultra-bohemian neighborhood, space is at a premium.

A pod hotel in Midtown Manhattan. At The Jane, where some 40 permanent residents still live

“In my room, I can turn around, and that’s about it,” said Kai Neuhaus, 33, of Germany.

With their wood paneling, velvet benches and Oriental carpets, most of the 150 rooms occupy just 50 square feet (4.6 square meters) and recalls boat cabins. A large mirror hangs on the wall to counter any claustrophobic feelings.

The century-old building, which long welcomed sailors then disadvantaged people, now attracts tourists the world over who, for 100 dollars a night — 125 dollars for bunk beds — don’t fret about sleeping in close quarters.

“But for two days in New York, it’s good enough: very well located, not too expensive, and I really use it just to sleep,” said Neuhaus, who chose to save on his lodging so he could better enjoy the city, with his hiking bag on his back.

Considered one of the most expensive cities in the world, New York averages 260 dollars per night for hotel rooms. The least expensive rooms with Hyatt and Novotel hotels are 300 to 350 dollars, while W Hotels’ starting rate stands at 600 dollars.

Bolstered by the economic crisis, several popular sites like Jane offer cut price lodgings, with a narrow bed and a shared shower room on the landing.

Pod hotels can generate higher returns on real estate investment. And by their very nature, they’re not service oriented, so they have low requirements for staffing, explained Bjorn Hanson, dean of New York University’s Tisch Center for Hospitality.

“To the extend that pod rooms feature both low real estate costs and low payroll costs — which are the two biggest costs for hotels in NYC — they operate on a niche market which has extremely favorable economics,” he said.

The precursor to the trend was the Pod Hotel, which opened in 2007 amid the skyscrapers of Midtown Manhattan. This trendy spot offers 345 rooms, with sizes varying from 85 to 130 feet squared (eight to 12 meters squared) for 89 to 169 dollars a night.

Their minimalist design recalls the interior of a plane, from stainless steel sinks embedded into the wall to lighted signals indicating whether the shared bathroom on the landing is free.

With an average occupancy of 93 percent, the Pod’s success is such that it plans to open a second location near Grand Central Station in 2012.

As early as next spring, British chain Yotel plans to open at a new location on Times Square, complete with 669 “capsules” of less than 160 square feet (15 meters squared) for 150 dollars a night.

Already present at London and Amsterdam aeroports, the British chain already proposes cabins inspired by Japan’s capsule hotels, complete with purple neon lighting and featuring a bed, retractable desk and shower.

These hotels promise “micro-luxury:” air conditioning, a safe, a flat-screen television and free Wi-Fi. The Jane also offers its clients a bathrobe and slippers.

“We don’t sell a bed, we sell a room,” said Pod Hotel managing director David Bernstein. “The atmosphere is much cleaner and more upscale than in a hostel. The size is really what makes them affordable.”

Pod hotels also offer shared common areas. At the Pod Hotel, guests can enjoy two terraces. Yotel features a lounge of over 19,400 square feet (1,800 meters squared).

At The Jane, where some 40 permanent residents still live, the sleek bar attracts a crowd of hipsters each weekend, offering clients a uniquely New York experience, at a bargain price.


U.S. agrees to timetable for UN Gun Ban

UN GUN BAN(NATIONAL GUN RIGHTS)   The United Nations and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are moving forward with their plan to confiscate your guns.

The United States joined 152 other countries in support of the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution, which establishes the dates for the 2012 UN conference intended to attack American sovereignty by stripping Americans of the right to keep and bear arms.

Working groups of anti-gun countries will begin scripting language for the conference this year, creating a blueprint for other countries when they meet at the full conference.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Former United Nation’s ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners about the Arms Trade Treaty and says the UN “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Establishing the dates for the Arms Trade Treaty Conference is just the first step toward their plans for total gun confiscation.

The worldwide gun control mob will ensure the passage of an egregious, anti-gun treaty…

. . .and that’s where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton steps in.

Once the UN Gun Ban is passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations it must be ratified by each nation, including the United States.

As an arch enemy of gun owners, Clinton has pledged to push the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty. She will push for passage of this outrageous treaty designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.

That’s why it’s vital you sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty.”

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

Don’t let any of the “experts” lull you to sleep by saying “Oh, we have it handled” or “Until you know exactly what’s in the treaty you can’t fight against it.”

Judging by Ambassador Bolton’s comments — who certainly knows what to expect from the American-freedom-hating international crowd that infests the U.N. — we are certain the treaty’s going to address the private ownership of firearms.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate (which is where we must ultimately make our stand), the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION. So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!

You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.

Here’s what you can do to help the National Association for Gun Rights fight Hillary Clinton and her United Nations cronies:

Click here and sign our petition to DEMAND that your United States Senators vote AGAINST the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

• Forward this petition to your friends and relatives who share your concern for American sovereignty and protecting our right to keep and bear arms.

Please consider making a generous contribution to the National Association for Gun Rights to help us fight Hillary Clinton and the United Nations “Small Arms Treaty.”


UN agency calls for global cyberwarfare treaty, ‘driver’s license’ for Web users

INTERNET LICENSE(RAW STORY)   The world needs a treaty to prevent cyber attacks becoming an all-out war, the head of the main UN communications and technology agency warned Saturday.

International Telcommunications Union secretary general Hamadoun Toure gave his warning at a World Economic Forum debate where experts said nations must now consider when a cyber attack becomes a declaration of war.

With attacks on Google from China a major talking point in Davos, Toure said the risk of a cyber conflict between two nations grows every year.

He proposed a treaty in which countries would engage not to make the first cyber strike against another nation.

“A cyber war would be worse than a tsunami — a catastrophe,” the UN official said, highlighting examples such as attacks on Estonia last year.

He proposed an international accord, adding: “The framework would look like a peace treaty before a war.”

Countries should guarantee to protect their citizens and their right to access to information, promise not to harbour cyber terrorists and “should commit themselves not to attack another.”

John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence agencies in the major powers would be the first to “express reservations” about such an accord.

Susan Collins, a US Republican senator who sits on several Senate military and home affairs committees, said the prospect of a cyber attack sparking a war is now being considered in the United States.

“If someone bombed the electric grid in our country and we saw the bombers coming in it would clearly be an act of war.

“If that same country uses sophisticated computers to knock out our electricity grid, I definitely think we are getting closer to saying it is an act of war,” Collins said.

Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, said “there are at least 10 countries in the world whose internet capability is sophisticated enough to carry out cyber attacks … and they can make it appear to come from anywhere.”

“The Internet is the biggest command and control center for every bad guy out there,” he said.

The head of online security company McAfee told another Davos debate Friday that China, the United States, Russia, Israel and France are among 20 countries locked in a cyberspace arms race and gearing up for possible Internet hostilities.

Mundie and other experts have said there is a growing need to police the internet to clampdown on fraud, espionage and the spread of viruses.

“People don’t understand the scale of criminal activity on the internet. Whether criminal, individual or nation states, the community is growing more sophisticated,” the Microsoft executive said.

“We need a kind of World Health Organization for the Internet,” he said.

“When there is a pandemic, it organizes the quarantine of cases. We are not allowed to organize the systematic quarantine of machines that are compromised.”

He also called for a “driver’s license” for internet users.

“If you want to drive a car you have to have a license to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance.”

Andre Kudelski, chairman of Kudelski Group, said that a new internet might have to be created forcing people to have two computers that cannot connect and pass on viruses. “One internet for secure operations and one internet for freedom.”


Show some support!

We are 100% Listener & User supported!! Every little bit helps us continue. Donations help fund the site and keep all the free information on it. Thanks in advance and KEEP UP THE FIGHT!!!

Visitor Map

Subscribe For New Posts & Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to FederalJack and Popeyeradio and you will receive notifications of new posts by email.

News Categories
The Wigner Effect
Col. L Fletcher Prouty: Secret Team