domingo, 30 de abril de 2017

New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist

Escrito por Alex Newman










Ver aqui


«At a newly established “School of Global Governance,” one of the most brutal and murderous dictatorships on the planet is training what it hopes will be the managers and leadership of the emerging “global governance” system. That dictatorship is the one enslaving Communist China, responsible for murdering more people than any other government in human history. But as the regime proudly celebrates its growing role in what it openly touts as the “New World Order,” humanity must resist before it is too late, or freedom may be extinguished worldwide.

The Chinese regime is shouting about its new “School of Global Governance” from the rooftops. In an article published this month by Beijing's propaganda and espionage apparatus Xinhua headlined "China opens new college to train professionals of global governance," the regime said the school would train “more multilingual professionals with global vision and cross-cultural communication proficiency.” The school for indoctrinating and training future globalist-communist leaders was inaugurated this month at the Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU), known as the “cradle of diplomats” for Communist China and international communism more broadly.

Among other schemes, the Communist Party-run “School of Global Governance” will reportedly carry out research on globalist institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and others. “Through innovative training model, the school is expected to cultivate talents who are proficient in international rules and at least two working languages of the United Nations,” BFSU President Peng Long was quoted as saying by Xinhua. That should ensure a steady supply of thoroughly indoctrinated Communist Party functionaries to fill key posts in the UN and global-governance system.

The new Chinese Communist Party-dominated “global governance” school will also aim to “provide intellectual support for China's participation in international organizations and international affairs,” according to Peng and Beijing's propaganda machinery. But of course, even before that so-called intellectual support was formalized with the unveiling of the new school, the Chinese dictatorship was already taking an active role in “global governance” — a role that is growing larger and more significant with every passing day as Chinese agents bring in more Chinese agents into the senior ranks of the UN.

Indeed, as The New American has documented extensively, the mass-murdering regime already has its agents leading numerous important UN agencies. Among the globalist agencies under Communist Chinese leadership are the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), which is helping to transfer Western technology to Beijing's oppressive allies; the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which globalists hope will regulate the Internet; the UN World Health Organization (WHO); the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO); the UN Department Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA); and more. Interpol, the self-styled "global law enforcement" agency, is also run by a Chinese Communist. Other Communist Chinese agents hold senior positions across the UN system, at the IMF, and beyond. Many of them have been openly pushing the regime's agenda.

And even the list of UN agencies run by Communist Chinese agents does not do justice to the growing influence the mass-murdering dictatorship wields within the globalist organization. Beijing holds a veto-wielding permanent seat on the UN Security Council that was illegitimately taken from the Republic of China (on Taiwan). Despite a requirement that member states uphold the highest standard in “human rights,” the murderous regime infamous for human rights abuses also holds a coveted seat on the discredited UN Human Rights Council. Beijing is the largest troop contributor among the permanent UNSC members to the UN's scandal-plagued “peacekeeping” force, too.

Communist Chinese agents have also played an enormous role in crafting the treaties, agreements, and documents that globalists are using as a road-map for global governance — including policy formation in the United States. The 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Brazil, also known as the Rio+20 Summit, for example, featured notorious anti-American Chinese Communist Sha Zukang as its secretary-general. More recently, the dictatorship boasted through its propaganda organs that it played a “crucial role” in crafting the UN Agenda 2030, described by then-UN boss Ban Ki-moon as the global “Declaration of Interdependence” for the world organization he described as the “Parliament of Humanity.”






Sha Zukang










Ban Ki-moon e António Guterres





Indeed, its own statements and propaganda reveal that Beijing and its leading tyrants are preparing to take a far more active role in the global-governance system. In 2013, for instance, the dictatorship's mouthpiece ran a revealing propaganda piece advocating a “de-Americanized” so-called New World Order with Third World dictatorships such as the Communist Chinese government and its allies at the helm. Blasting the United States, the communist regime said it was time for a “new world order” with the UN's “authority” at the center of it. Plenty of Western globalists and establishment operatives have used the same rhetoric.

Of course, running the sought-after “New World Order” will require plenty of thoroughly indoctrinated Chinese Communist agents well versed in atheism, Marxism-Leninism, oppression, censorship, population control, and “global governance.” Hence the need for the new “School of Global Governance” at BFSU. The new school, which grew out of a pilot program launched in 2010, will offer undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs, the regime's propaganda service said. Its graduates are already hard at work in the UN education agency known as UNESCO, the Pan American Health Organization, the UN Office at Geneva, and beyond.

With the UN-backed global scheme known as the “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) initiative, which will help expand Communist Chinese domination across Asia and beyond, even more communist globalists will be needed. “Expansion of the program into a school is in response to the education opening-up requirement and demand for talents by the Belt and Road Initiative,” BFSU publicity department boss Chen Haiyan was quoted as saying by Xinhua, which even former reporters at the agency have exposed as an intelligence-gathering operation in addition to its propaganda duties. Multiple Chinese Communists within the UN have been promoting the OBOR scheme in their official capacity as UN functionaries.

But it is not just the Chinese Communists. Lest anyone get the false impression that the regime in Beijing is rising on its own, or even in defiance of the Western establishment, the facts show nothing could be further from the truth. As this magazine and countless other sources have documented, elements of the Western establishment and subversive forces operating within the U.S. government at the time all but ensured that Chairman Mao Tse-Tung — history's worst mass-murderer in terms of the number of victims — came to power by, among other schemes, stabbing Chinese leader and U.S. ally Chiang Kai Shek in the back.

Since then, top globalist schemers from the West have been among mass-murderer Mao's biggest fans. In a 1973 op-ed in the New York Times, for example, senior globalist architect David Rockefeller of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, and other establishment organs actually showered praise on the Communist Chinese regime after a trip to the enslaved nation of China. “Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose,” he claimed. “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” The succesful “social experiment” also resulted in the murder of an estimated 77 million innocent people, according to University of Hawaii democide scholar R.J. Rummel.

The bizarre praise for the totalitarian regime by top establishment globalists and statists continues up to the present. In 2009, for instance, billionaire globalist and Rothschild protege George Soros said the brutal Communist Chinese dictatorship should “own” what he called the “New World Order.” “I think you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, financial world order,” Soros told the Financial Times. “I think you need a new world order, that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns … the current order.” Beijing appears to have taken him very seriously. Countless similar statements by other prominent globalists could also be cited.






Xi Jinping












To find out what a New World Order owned by Communist China and its totalitarian allies might look like is not difficult. For one, Americans can see what happens in China itself — an enslaved nation where authorities murder and persecute dissidents and Christians, use forced abortions and UN aid to enforce their population-control regime, harvest organs from religious and political prisoners, censor the Internet, prohibit the exercise of even the most fundamental God-given rights such as free speech, and perpetrate other atrocities against the Chinese people on an unprecedented scale. And that is just what is publicly known and well-documented.

As far as its international agenda goes, the dictatorship has also been clear about its ambitions for global governance. In a 2013 joint declaration, top Communist Chinese officials joined with their counterparts in the BRICS regimes — Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa — to openly push the globalist agenda of world tyranny. “The UN enjoys universal membership and is at the center of global governance,” the totalitarian-minded rulers said, calling for an IMF-managed global monetary system to replace the U.S. dollar. “We underscore our commitment to work together in the UN to continue our cooperation and strengthen multilateral approaches in international relations based on the rule of law and anchored in the Charter of the United Nations.”

The following year, a collection of over 100 of the world’s communist, Islamist, and socialist regimes, along with some elected, but mostly corrupt, Third World regimes, gathered in Bolivia at the G77 plus China summit to demand what they called a “New World Order to Live Well.” UN boss Ban Ki-moon joined the anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-national sovereignty, anti-free market festivities. He called on the assembled rulers — the biggest voting bloc at the UN by far — to keep pushing “sustainable development” and man-made global-warming alarmism. The goal: foisting what he also called a “New World Order” on humanity. And they all made clear, even in the summit’s final declaration, that the UN would be at the heart of that order, with the UN General Assembly serving as the “emblem of global sovereignty.”

The Chinese regime's “Global Governance” school intends to churn out bureaucrats and petty tyrants to help impose a totalitarian regime of “global governance” on humanity. That much is plain to see. However, the threat is not nearly as enormous as it may seem, and the solution is in fact rather simple: If the United States were to abandon the UN, which globalists and communists all declare to be at the “center of global governance,” then the totalitarian threat becomes far less dangerous to Americans. Already, legislation to achieve an “Amexit” from the UN, known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 193), is sitting in Congress.

At that point, as long as Americans and other freedom-loving peoples can maintain military superiority over Communist China and its dictatorial allies — a simple feat provided the free market is allowed to operate in the free world and Beijing's legions of spies are finally arrested — the “global governance” bureaucrats Beijing and its allies are preparing to unleash can be laughed out of the room. But stopping the totalitarian agenda will take organized action by the American people».

Alex Newman («Communist China Opens "Global Governance" School», in The New American, 18 April 2017).


«The UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance issued its much-heralded report, Our Global Neighborhood, in 1995. The foreword to the book states: "As this report makes clear, global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government." And that has been the absurd line echoed by the global-governance chorus ever since, even as the contours of global government have become ever more visible on the horizon.











Every once in a while, however, some member of the Power Elite drops a line in public. Sometimes it’s accidental, on other occasions it is purposely done to gauge public reaction.

Along these lines, we refer to a story about Rachman’s employer, the Financial Times, which has been playing a lead role in disavowing and covering up the global-government designs of the global-governance crowd. The story was related in a speech by bestselling British author Frederick Forsyth to the anti-EU Bruges Group. Forsyth, an outspoken opponent of the EU threat to national sovereignty, said:

I sat once in a meeting in, well I don’t know what I was doing in the meeting but I was invited clearly by a renegade to a meeting at the Financial Times editorial offices in Blackfriars to listen to Mr Pohl. He was a former president of the Bundesbank and he had been eased out of that presidency by Helmut Kohl specifically to work with Jacques Delors in the creation of the new currency, the Euro. And he was, I thought, extremely forthcoming. He said, 'It is my duty to tell you my English friends (they never say British, I don’t know why, they always say English) that you will have to abandon the British nation state because the future has no provision for the nation state within it.' There was a stunned silence. And then in the course of the remarks that followed almost immediately afterwards, Peter Hain stood up and told us quite bluntly that we had not heard what we thought we had heard. It hadn’t been said. And a rather bemused German former president of the Bundesbank sat there as if someone had accused him of being slightly deranged. He had of course said exactly what he had said. We had all heard it. It was beyond doubt his informed position. He was giving us the final destination of the European Union project.

But, of course, the Financial Times never breathed a word of this meeting or the words of the German central banker to its readers. No indeed, because the Financial Times is a very important part of what Forsyth referred to as “a very powerful cabal in our country that is quite literally dedicated, fanatically, to a futuristic dream. It’s a vision, it’s a dream, it’s an imagined utopia.”

Like many of the other leading “news” organizations, the Financial Times is more about propagating the misinformation and disinformation that suits the interests of the cabal it serves than in providing true information to the public. Not only has it been a top cheerleader for the continuous empowerment of the EU, but it also has always deceived its readers as to the final planned result of that empowerment, as Forsyth’s experience shows.

Rachman and his colleagues at the Financial Times have proven their trustworthiness to the powers that be; they are frequent or occasional attendees at secret functions of the Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, the World Economic Forum, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and other power centers of what Forsyth accurately described as a cabal.

We can probably expect to see more editorials, columns, and news stories similar to Rachman’s popping up in the controlled elite media as trial balloons. After decades of denying that their “globalization” efforts have anything to do with building world government, the globalists are switching gears; now they will begin to call more openly for world government as the only solution to what they claim are imminent, planet-threatening global crises».

William F. Jasper («Dropping All Pretenses About "Global Governance"», in The New American, 17 December 2008).


«United Nations “peacekeeping” troops have faced some 2,000 allegations of rape, pedophilia, and sexual abuse of civilians in a little over a decade, an explosive investigation by the Associated Press found. Many of the victims were just young children. And considering the fact that it is well known and even acknowledged by the UN that the atrocities perpetrated by its soldiers are drastically under-reported, the thousands of accusations likely represent just the tip of a gigantic iceberg of horror. Adding insult to injury is the impunity with which the soldiers act, victims say, with the UN's “peace” forces virtually never held accountable for their savage crimes. While the UN's militarized predators inflict atrocities on civilians across the globe, Haiti has been especially hard hit, following many years of UN military occupation. The AP investigation reported on a child sex ring operated by 134 UN peace troops from Sri Lanka who gruesomely exploited at least nine children for years. Not a single UN child rapist was imprisoned for the ghastly crimes.

Ver aqui















Many of the victims were very young. “I did not even have breasts,” said one girl, identified only as Victim Number 1 (V01). She said that between the ages of 12 and 15, she was raped by almost 50 UN peace troops, including a “Commandant” who gave her 75 cents.

In a report, the UN admitted much of it. “The evidence shows that from late 2004 to mid-October 2007, at least 134 military members of the current and previous Sri Lankan contingents sexually exploited and abused at least nine Haitian children,” the UN report explained. “The sexual acts described by the nine victims are simply too many to be presented exhaustively in this report, especially since each claimed multiple sexual partners at various locations where the Sri Lankan contingents were deployed throughout Haiti over several years.”

In 2015, The New American reported on the widespread abuse, murder, and rape of Haitians, particularly children. Among other atrocities, a report by investigative journalist Kathie Klarreich outlined the grotesque sexual abuse of a mentally handicapped young boy — starting when he was just eight years old and lasting for five years — by UN troops from Pakistan. When it was reported to the Pakistani UN commander, rather than reporting it to the UN mission, the commander “decided to handle it himself.” Apparently the UN officer was hoping the case would disappear, “since he was also abusing the boy,” Klarreich reported. The UN force then reportedly hired a kidnapper to hide their victim from investigators. Another Haitian boy was raped by UN troops on video camera in an incident that sparked a global outcry.

The UN has interviewed some victims. One 15-year-old boy, V09, for example, was raped by over 100 UN peace troops, according to investigators. V04, a 14-year-old girl, was raped every day by a UN soldier. V02 was repeatedly raped by a UN commander. Another victim, 16 at the time, was lured to a UN compound by a UN soldier using bread with peanut butter. Once there, the UN soldier raped her at gunpoint, leaving her pregnant. “Some days, I imagine strangling my daughter to death,” the girl, who is constantly in tears, said in an interview quoted by the AP. Like countless other victims, the girl never reported the rape, fearing the thought of having to see the rapist again or even being blamed for the savage crime.

The majority of victims — likely the overwhelming majority of them — never even report the abuse, the evidence suggests. And in fact, even UN investigators and reports have documented that fact. A 2015 report by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), for instance, found that sexual abuse by UN peace troops was “significantly under-reported.” Out of 225 victims, the report found, just seven even knew about the UN's policy ostensibly prohibiting sexual exploitation and abuse, and not a single victim was aware that the UN mission had a hotline to report it, “thus demonstrating significant under-reporting.”

Former UN OIOS investigator Peter Gallo, who was pushed out of the UN for doing his job too well, is among those blowing the whistle on it all. “Under-reporting is a massive, massive problem,” he explained in a recent Al Jazeera program examining the issue. “I think there's essentially two aspects to that. One is that the nature of the assault, the nature of the attack is deeply embarrassing and so it's difficult for victims to come forward and admit this has happened to them. But secondly and more importantly, those that do face a system which is basically geared up to dismissing their cases, and dismissing them, and does not want to know.”

“In the first instance, you have to understand that the economic disparity is such that it's very easy to bribe people,” continued Gallo, who has become an increasingly prominent voice in the effort to expose such problems within the UN. “I mean, $50 doesn't get you very far in Washington. It will get you an extreme change of life situation — that kind of money is more than most people in Haiti can actually aspire to in months or years of work. But more sinister than that, when the UN does receive a complaint, the first thing they will do is assess it and try to dismiss it. And there are many, many cases of that happening, and women basically being told there's no evidence and so no case to answer, with the UN basically dismissing it at that point and taking no further action.”




Anders Kompass. Ver aqui




Another UN whistleblower, Miranda Brown, a former senior official with the UN “Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,” testified about the problem in Congress. She noted that the problem of sexual abuse by UN forces is “vastly under-reported, with bottlenecks for reporting at various stages inside and outside the UN.” In other words, the horrors that the public knows about represent just a fraction of the total number of such UN abuses perpetrated against civilians.

The former UN official also told lawmakers that those in charge of investigating the abuses fear for their own job security and even their physical safety. Brown lost her job at the UN office after supporting Anders Kompass, the UN human-rights official who first blew the whistle on child-raping UN troops in the Central African Republic. Despite a global outcry over the scandals and persecution of whistle-blowers, including involvement by the U.S. Congress, Brown has still not been reinstated at her job. She said the persecution of Kompass and other whistle-blowers “is having and will continue to have a serious chilling effect on the reporting of abuses in peacekeeping missions.” Perhaps that was the point.

As for Kompass, when he tried to stop the rape of children by “peace” troops in Africa, he was escorted from his office under armed guard, investigated, humiliated, and more by top UN officials. Citing impunity for UN bosses and officials amid the ongoing child-rape plague among UN troops, Kompass finally decided to resign. In a statement explaining the situation, he said he was skeptical that ethics could ever return to the UN and slammed the “impunity” that permeates the global body. The high-profile resignation sent shock waves around the world, but UN troops continue to rape children around the world with impunity.

While the worldwide attention is new, the horrifying abuse of civilians and children by the UN and its disgraced “peace” military goes back to the earliest UN “peace” missions. Indeed, in one of the earliest UN “peace” missions, UN troops brutalized and slaughtered aid workers and the civilian population of Katanga when the province refused to submit to a mass-murdering communist dictator backed by the Soviet Union and the UN. Even young children were bayoneted to death by UN troops as UN planes bombed hospitals.

More recently, a decade-old survey by the non-profit group Save the Children revealed that in one town in Ivory Coast, eight out of 10 underage girls admitted to being raped and sexually exploited by UN forces occupying the nation. Across Africa, the Americas, Asia, and even the Balkans in Europe, UN troops have been exposed being involved in systematic abuses of women and children, ranging from rape of children and killing protesters to sex-slavery and human trafficking. Virtually nobody, top to bottom, has been held accountable for the ghastly atrocities.

And it is not just “peace” troops. In 1987, for example, the New York Times reported that UN committee members were arrested for operating a studio producing child pornography in the basement of the UNICEF building in Brussels. It was not clear where the UN “children” agency procured the children it exploited, many of whom were of North African origin. More than a thousand child-porn photographs were seized in the case. And analysts said that was just the tip of the iceberg.

More recently, in 2015, multiple UN staffers were again caught distributing child pornography using UN computers. And that same year, then-UN boss Ban Ki-moon, in celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court's illegal homosexual "marriage" ruling, openly praised a homosexual child rapist for sparking “America’s gay rights revolution,” even as UN troops around the world were under fire for raping children. Some of the victims of the child rapist praised by Ban went on to commit suicide.

"Forças da manutenção da paz" das Nações Unidas no Congo (Janeiro de 1963). Ver aqui


Saab S 29 C Tunnan









Ao centro: Moïse Kapenda Tshombe













As they have for decades, the UN's chief bureaucrats continue claiming that something is being done to rein in the swarms of barbaric child predators wearing the UN's infamous blue helmets. “We believe we are advancing in the right direction, especially with the secretary-general's new approach,” claimed Atul Khare, who runs the UN department ostensibly charged with disciplining the UN's scandal-plagued military forces. “Improving the assistance provided to victims, who are at the heart of our response, is fundamental.”

The situation has become so extreme and so well known that even high-ranking pro-UN members of Congress have been forced to speak out. U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), for example, said that if UN troops were on their way to America, he would be on the first flight home to protect his family. Indeed, even the rabidly pro-UN globalists at the Council on Foreign Relations have acknowledged the enormity of the problem. But in typical establishment globalist fashion, CFR “Global Governance” Director Stewart Patrick grotesquely proposed giving the UN even more power as a solution to the crisis.

Congress has threatened to cut off funding over the growing scandal. And President Trump is also reportedly working to slash funding for the UN. But rather than trying to reform a UN that is corrupt to the core, a better solution would be to “Get U.S. Out of the UN.” The American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 193) would do precisely that. All that is needed is a sufficiently large outcry by the American people. And with the UN's predatory peace troops back in the global headlines for systematically raping children, the time for that is now».

Alex Newman («Thousands of Sex Abuse Claims Against UN "Peace" Troops», in The New American, 14 April 2017).


«The push to empower the UN with global legislative, executive, and judicial powers has already yielded huge dividends, and UN bodies are now exercising those powers to various degrees — and constantly pushing to usurp more control. Here is a brief survey.

The Global Army: On its Web page entitled “Honoring 60 Years of United Nations Peacekeeping (1948-2008)” the UN makes this ominous boast:

A massive enterprise — The UN is the largest multilateral contributor to post-conflict stabilization worldwide. Only the United States deploys more military personnel to the field than the United Nations. [Emphasis added.]

There are almost 110,000 serving on 20 peace operations led by the UN Departments of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Field Support (DFS) on four continents directly impacting the lives of hundreds of millions of people. This represents a seven-fold increase in UN peacekeepers since 1999. [Emphasis added.]

The United States picks up 27 percent of the direct tab for UN peacekeeping operations, but that is only a fraction of the American contribution. Through the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI) and the African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance (ACOTA) program, both operated jointly by the U.S. Departments of State and Defense, the U.S. military has trained (and continues to train) tens of thousands of UN “peacekeepers,” many of whom have been charged with carrying out genocide and atrocities, including widespread rape and sodomizing of women and children, as well as sexploitation of impoverished children in Haiti, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Congo, Somalia, and Kosovo. An even larger chunk of UN war-making disguised as “peacekeeping” is carried out under the auspices of NATO — again, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers and U.S. armed forces.

The Global Prosecutor, Judge, and Jury: The UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC) officially opened its doors at The Hague 10 years ago, in July 2002. The UN boasts that “the ICC has become a fully functional institution, with 16 cases having been brought before the Court, 6 of which are at the trial stage. ICC judges have issued 22 arrest warrants and 6 arrests have been made.” Although most of those targeted thus far are generally recognized as bad men, the ICC’s prosecutions are establishing dangerous precedents that could be used against innocent political targets, including American citizens. The ICC’s governing Rome Statute violates the most basic principles of due process, separation of powers, and national sovereignty. It incorporates within the ICC itself the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury.













Notre Dame University Law Professor Charles Rice called the ICC “a monstrosity.” Ambassador David Scheffer, the pro-ICC negotiator for President Bill Clinton, admitted, “it is not credible to argue … that no American will ever come before it. We are not saying Americans are off bounds.”

The danger is not that Americans (U.S. military personnel, law-enforcement officers, elected officials, or private citizens) will be taken before the ICC against the wishes of the U.S. government, but that our own government officials will acquiesce in the process, arguing that we must uphold “the rule of law” and the will of the “international community.”

The Global Taxman: World government advocates have long lamented that the UN must depend on dues and contributions from its member states. Their dream of a UN that will have an independent revenue stream from global taxes is dangerously close at hand. The controversy and opposition caused by the European Union’s imposition of a “carbon tax” on all air travel has given the UN leverage to propose its own global carbon tax on all air passengers, through the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). However, many other global tax proposals are in the works, with a global financial transaction tax (FTT) being, perhaps, the one closest to realization and receiving major backing from many leaders of the G-20 nations and the NGO lobby. Various FTT proposals, such as the Tobin Tax, could net the UN hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The usual rationale given for an FTT is that the proceeds would be used to end global poverty, but the UN’s record indicates the massive sums taken would end up in the bank accounts of the UN’s corrupt officials.

The Global Fed: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) have wrought economic havoc worldwide for decades, burdening nations (especially the less-developed countries) with impossible debt and onerous economic policies. Over the last several years, a growing chorus of globalists has called for transforming and “supersizing” the IMF into the equivalent of a global Federal Reserve, with a global currency — SDRs, Special Drawing Rights — to displace the dollar. In 2010, the UN issued its World Economic and Social Survey, which said: “A new global reserve system could be created, one that no longer relies on the United States dollar as the single major reserve currency.” According to the UN report, a new reserve system “should permit the emission of international liquidity — such as SDRs — to create a more stable global financial system.”

A global currency would allow whoever controls the currency (in this case the IMF) to control the world economy and to enjoy unlimited financial power. And it could “bail out” or subsidize any company it wishes, to the detriment of other companies. Like a global Federal Reserve, it could confiscate wealth by simply inflating the currency.

The Global Trade Cop: The World Trade Organization (WTO), which entered into force in 1995, has joined NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) in judging and overturning U.S. laws and court decisions. The WTO has already proven the charges by its critics and opponents, that it is an enormous threat to America’s national sovereignty, as well as an engine of global central economic planning.

“Make no mistake about it,” warned Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in 2005, “WTO ministers tell Congress to change American laws, and Congress complies. In fact, congressional leaders obediently scrambled to make sure the corporate tax bill passed before a WTO deadline. Thousands and thousands of bills languish in committees, yet a bill ordered by the WTO was pushed to the front of the line.”

• The Global Enviro-Cop: Through a multitude of environmental agreements, programs, and agencies — Agenda 21, the Biodiversity Treaty, UN Convention on Climate Change, the United Nations Environment Program, the Global Environment Facility, etc. — the UN and its one-world advocates are spinning a web of control over all human activity. As in the case of other global taxes and regulations, the UN depends on national governments to be complicit in adopting “international norms and commitments” that will lock individual nations into the UN’s regulatory grip.




















































Ver 1, 2, 34 e 5









Ver aqui


Ver aqui


Ver aqui














Ver 1, 2 e 3











The Global Gun Grabber: Through its Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) and its Program of Action (PoA) on Small Arms, the United Nations has been pushing feverishly for over a decade and a half to undermine the right of individuals to possess firearms, as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. The UN attack is aimed not only at infringing the right of private gun ownership, but also increasing restrictions on ammunition, gunpowder, and other essential components. In August 2012, the UN began its latest round of efforts to attack this fundamental right, asserting the claimed right of the state to have an unchallengeable monopoly of force. It is not surprising that the United States is virtually the sole holdout, as most UN member states are either dictatorships that do not allow individuals to possess firearms, or socialist countries traveling the same direction on the road to tyranny.

The Global Internet Controller: Since at least 2003, when the United Nations hosted its first World Summit on the Information Society, the UN has been leading an effort to take over the Internet. The countries in the forefront of this effort are Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan — dictatorships where Internet censorship and cyber spying on citizens are standard operating procedures».

William F. Jasper («The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government», in The New American, 11 October 2012).


«Despite regularly ridiculing the United Nations and repeatedly proposing a scaled-back U.S. role in it, President Donald Trump struck a very different tone this week, calling for empowering the controversial UN dictators club to somehow “solve” the North Korea issue, Syria, and other problems. Speaking at a meeting of UN Security Council diplomats convened at the White House on Monday, Trump demanded that the UN be ready to impose new sanctions if Communist Chinese-backed North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un does not cooperate. Ironically, the dictatorship in Beijing — North Korea's strongest ally — holds a veto-wielding seat on the UN Security Council. But Trump nevertheless indicated he wants that same global body to wield even more power.

Trump's comments amid the meeting Monday suggested that the White House has reversed course and betrayed the president's most loyal supporters yet again. Despite correctly identifying the UN as an enemy of freedom and America, Trump now appears to believe the UN should be given teeth. Among other jobs, he hopes to see the UN help rein in the North Korean regime. “The status quo in North Korea is also unacceptable,” Trump told the UN Security Council ambassadors representing the 15 governments and dictatorships — including some close allies of the North Korean dictator — at the April 24 White House meeting. “The Council must be prepared to impose additional and stronger sanctions on North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile programs.”

The President, who campaigned on an anti-globalist platform, also suggested that the scandal-plagued globalist body should somehow be responsible for “solving” the issue of North Korea, as if the UN were some sort of global government in charge of dictating solutions and policies to national governments. “This is a real threat to the world, whether we want to talk about it or not,” Trump said. “North Korea is a big world problem and it's a problem that we have to finally solve. People put blindfolds on for decades and now it's time to solve the problem.” And Trump vowed that under his watch, the UN would start taking on the expanded role he appears to envision for it.

Describing the UN Monday as an “underperformer,” he told the UN Security Council ambassadors that the global body “doesn’t like taking on certain problems.” “The United Nations is an underperformer, but it has huge potential,” Trump told the attendees after warning during the campaign of a globalist "cabal" with "international bankers" seeking what he called "global government" for humanity. “I think that the United Nations has tremendous potential.” Indeed, former U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, one of the architects of the UN and a committed establishment globalist, also believed that. In his 1950 book War or Peace, he said the UN at that time was just a “primitive stage.” Eventually, he said, the UN Charter would allow the emergence of what he described as “world government” and “world federation.”

The implication of Trump's comments was clear: the UN should be “taking on” even more real and imagined problems than it currently does. “It hasn’t lived up to the potential,” Trump continued, outlining a vision of a radically expanded UN. “I see a day when there’s a conflict where the United Nations, you get together, and you solve the conflict. You just don’t see the United Nations, like, solving conflicts. I think that’s going to start happening now. I can see it. And the United Nations will get together and solve conflicts. It won’t be two countries, it will be the United Nations mediating or arbitrating with those countries.”




Ver aqui





Ver aqui e aqui






























“So I see fantastic potential and fantastic things ahead for the United Nations,” Trump added.

“But as we look around the world, it’s clear that there is much work for you to achieve,” the president told the UN Security Council diplomats and their spouses. “You’re going to be very busy people, I suspect, over these coming months and years.

” The only minor rebuke Trump offered of the UN was on the cost. Trump argued that costs have “gone out of control,” that U.S. taxpayers shoulder too much of the burden, and that the current arrangement is unfair. “But I will say this,” Trump added. “If we do a great job, I care much less about the budget, because you’re talking about peanuts compared to the important work you’re doing. You really are. You’re talking about the most important things ever. And I must say, I’m a budget person. You see the way I’m talking about NATO, the same thing, but if you do a great job at the United Nations, I feel much differently about it because we’re talking pennies compared to the kind of lives and money that you’ll be saving.”

That is all very bad news for Americans who believed Trump's campaign promises to promote Americanism and reject globalism. Indeed, on the campaign trail, Trump blasted the UN over and over again. “The United Nations is not a friend of democracy, it's not a friend to freedom, it's not a friend even to the United States of America, where as all know, it has its home,” the real-estate mogul told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) while on the campaign trail. Earlier in the campaign, Trump also ridiculed the UN as a “political game,” calling for “smaller numbers,” presumably a reference to downsizing the globalist organization. He also vowed to “cancel” the UN Paris Agreement on “climate,” which has still not happened.

On Monday, Trump also spoke with Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping about the North Korea issue. According to the White House, Trump “criticized North Korea’s continued belligerence and emphasized that Pyongyang’s actions are destabilizing the Korean Peninsula.” The White House claimed that Xi shared Trump's sense of urgency about the alleged threat posed by North Korea's missile and nuclear programs. And Xi apparently even “committed to strengthen coordination in achieving the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” However, Beijing's mass-murdering regime is essentially the puppet master behind Pyongyang, suggesting the Chinese Communists believe they are playing Trump for a fool.

Indeed, despite Trump claiming to believe the UN will help rein in communist regimes, the UN was literally founded by communists. Those communist founders included even leading U.S. representative Alger Hiss, who served as secretary general of the conference that founded the UN and created the UN Charter. Hiss was later convicted in court over charges related to his Soviet espionage. And on the other side of the table from Hiss was mass-murdering Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and his Soviet minions. Today, the Kremlin and Beijing hold seats on the Security Council. The current UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres, meanwhile, is a known Socialist operative, having led the global alliance of communist and socialist parties known as the Socialist International.

But it seems the globalist strategy to dupe Trump into supporting the UN — outlined by globalist Council on Foreign Relations “Global Governance” boss Stewart Patrick shortly after Trump took office — may have worked. Basically, Patrick and his CFR cohorts proposed that the Socialist Guterres try to hoodwink Trump into believing that the dictators club could be used by the Trump administration to “get things done.” Citing the George W. Bush administration, Patrick claims that “this message could resonate with Donald Trump.” And indeed, it appears that it might have, at least if Trump's comments this week are any guide.

Establishment-minded analysts have also noticed the trends. Foreign Policy, for example, a globalist-oriented publication, noted that from day one, the Trump administration “screamed its desire to emasculate the United Nations, pushing for draconian budget cuts that would kneecap the world body.” However, under Trump's UN envoy, Nikki Haley, the UN has become “one of the administration’s favored soapboxes, providing an unexpected boost to the organization the White House set out to marginalize.” Even foreign ambassadors to the UN were pleased with how the Trump administration is turning out when it comes to the UN and globalism.











In what may have been one of his most alarming comments, Trump suggested he viewed the UN's potential more favorably than “any other candidate in the last 30 years would have even thought to say.” Considering the fact that Obama openly praised the UN and demanded further surrender of U.S. sovereignty to it, and President George H.W. Bush promised a “New World Order” where the vision of the “UN's [communist] founders” would be imposed by the UN's scandal-plagued “peacekeeping” machine, that is really saying something.

Trump apologists have suggested the president may just be making the globalist comments as a negotiating tool — after all, his administration has floated plans to slash UN funding by more than half, in addition to potential executive orders cutting back U.S. involvement in it. However, considering the growing number of key promises and pledges that Trump has walked back in recent weeks, that appears less and less likely. One thing is certain: This is not what Trump's legions of supporters voted for in November, and it is not what Trump promised on the campaign trail».

Alex Newman («In Bizarre Reversal, Trump Seeks to Empower UN», in The New American, 25 April 2017).





New UN Chief: Globalist, Socialist, Extremist

Globalism-loving socialist Antonio Guterres of Portugal, infamous primarily for helping to engineer the massive tsunami of Islamic immigration into the West, has been officially selected as the next secretary-general of the United Nations. His prescription for what ails the world: more socialism at the planetary level, more power for the UN, more “global governance,” and more mass migration from the Third World to Western countries. In other words, more of the same extremism that already has the world and the West on the brink.

Guterres was formally selected last week by the UN Security Council, beating out corrupt Bulgarian communist and UNESCO chief Irina Bokova, who was the “correct” gender but whose horrifying record was exposed prior to her selection. The UN General Assembly, dominated by unfree governments and dictatorships, confirmed Guterres for the job on October 13. The Portuguese bureaucrat, 67, was the Socialist prime minister of Portugal before becoming the UN “High Commissioner for Refugees” in 2005. He also led the global tyranny-promoting Socialist International.

The Portuguese politician and bureaucrat will assume office in January of 2017. In his capacity as chief administrative officer of the UN, he will oversee almost 50,000 UN bureaucrats and counting. He will also help manage more than 100,000 scandal-plagued UN “peacekeeping” troops, currently facing global criticism for raping children around the world, trafficking sex slaves, slaughtering unarmed protesters and Christians, killing tens of thousands of Haitians with cholera, persecuting whistleblowers, and more — all with total impunity. The scandals have become so horrifying that even the U.S. Congress has threatened to withhold funds.

One of the many giant red flags (no pun intended) on Guterres' troubling résumé is his presidency, from 1999 to 2005, of the Socialist International. Often referred to as SI, the outfit is an alliance of socialist and communist political parties from around the world, including many re-branded “former” communist parties from the Cold War era that murdered and tortured huge numbers of people. Despite the lack of coverage the outfit receives from the U.S. establishment media, the SI alliance is extraordinarily powerful — especially at the UN, where its members control a massive voting bloc and multiple UN bureaucracies.

The outfit is also extremely radical and dangerous. To understand just how extreme Socialist International is, consider that, in 2012, the alliance unapologetically held its annual Congress in an African nation led by a Marxist-Leninist member political party that, according to leading genocide experts, was at that very moment engaged in the planning and preparation phase of genocide in a bid to exterminate an embattled minority group. Earlier that year, the president and party chief who hosted the SI Congress even went on national television to sing songs in front of his military about massacring members of the minority group with his machine gun. SI profusely praised its hosts nonetheless.




Representatives from murderous and unfree regimes and totalitarian parties from around the world came together, as they do every year, to demand more “global governance,” more wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to their corrupt governments, what they call “Global Welfare Statehood,” and other extremism. “During this critical juncture for regional and world peace it is imperative that the role of the United Nations (UN) must be strengthened,” one SI resolution from that year stated before listing all the ways in which the controversial dictators club should be further empowered.

At its 1962 conference in Oslo, the SI came out and said it: “The ultimate objective of the parties of the Socialist International is nothing less than world government.” At its latest meeting last month, the SI also demanded that Western nations submit to international bureaucracies in the resettling of massive amounts of foreigners within their borders — at taxpayer expense. The SI's members, over 160 parties from more than 100 nations, also demanded more global socialism and wealth redistribution.

Of course, socialist and communist regimes have killed more than 100 million of their own people over the last century, according to conservative estimates. And yet, the totalitarians always insist that utopia is just around the corner — just a few more purges and executions and gulags will be needed before the glories of socialism and communism become clear to the proletariat. If there are any remaining doubts about the horrors, savagery, and barbarism of socialism and communism, a quick visit to the utopias of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, or Zimbabwe — all voting UN members, some even on the UN "human rights council" — should put them to rest.

Yet despite the utter failure, misery, terror, starvation, and mass death inevitably produced by the implementation of such collectivist “ideologies,” the proponents of the extremism remain firmly entrenched in power around the world, as evidenced by Guterres' successful bid to lead the UN. Even the Obama administration and the allegedly conservative British government had to sign off on the socialist radical. Most of his fellow candidates for UN chief, too, were communists and socialists, in addition to being globalist radicals.

Another red flag on Guterres' CV was his decade-long stint as UN refugee boss, a position he held until last year. As Guterres and his office engineered a tidal wave of Islamic immigration into the West, he also implemented a policy to systematically discriminate against Middle East Christians — the very people who, even according to the U.S. State Department, are still facing genocide at the hands of Islamic extremists. Even though almost 10 percent of Syria's population is Christian, for example, less than 1 percent of the refugees resettled by the UN refugee agency in the Western world have been Christian.

Indeed, Guterres' UN “refugee” officials preside over camps where Christians are systematically brutalized, beaten, and even murdered by Islamist “refugees.” U.S. taxpayer-funded aid is also doled out by the UN in a highly bigoted and discriminatory manner, bypassing Christians in favor of Muslims. “Since August 2014, other than initial supplies of tents and tarps, the Christian community in Iraq has received nothing in aid from any U.S. aid agencies or the UN,” said Stephen Rasche, the resettlement official for the Chaldean Catholic Archdiocese in Erbil, Iraq.


As The New American has reported many times, the ancient Christian communities of Iraq and Syria are facing extinction thanks, at least in part, to U.S. and UN policy in the region. Yet Guterres insists that Christians must remain there to be butchered, while potentially radicalized Muslims must be imported to Europe and the United States by the millions, all at taxpayer expense under the auspices of UN officials. In a recent TV interview, Guterres even proposed using airplanes to fly massive numbers of Muslims into Europe from Africa and the Middle East because the optics would be better. He also referred to opposition to his open borders and mass-migration extremism as “irrational.” “Migration is, in my opinion, part of the solution to the global problems,” he claimed.

The agenda, though, is clear, and it has nothing to do with “protecting refugees” or “humanitarianism.” Guterres and his fellow globalist-socialist extremists are not fooling everyone. In Hungary, for example, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has blasted what he termed a “criminal conspiracy” of internationalist fanatics. In essence, he has argued in multiple speeches that these globalist conspirators, based largely in European Union HQ in Brussels, were using mass Islamic immigration as a weapon to undermine Western civilization, Christendom, and the nation-state on the road toward what globalists often refer to as their “New World Order.”

He is right, as even top Insiders such as former Goldman Sachs boss and Bilderberg leader Peter Sutherland, in his capacity as UN migration czar, explained publicly. In an interview posted on the UN's own website, Sutherland said he would urge governments to “recognize that sovereignty is an illusion — that sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us.” He also said “the days of hiding behind borders and fences are long gone.” Westerners must take on “some of the old shibboleths” and “the old historic memories and images of our own country” and realize that we are all “part of humankind.” In other words, no more nations, no more borders — just global totalitarian rule, with people like Sutherland and his extremist cohorts at the helm.

Columnists and commentators at major publications have already expressed serious concern about Guterres' extremism. “As president of Socialist International, Guterres envisaged a radical model of government led by a UN parliamentary assembly that would facilitate the emergence of 'global citizens,’” wrote Jennifer Oriel in The Australian newspaper, citing quotes from the SI congress' resolutions during his term at the helm of the alliance. Among other extremism, SI declared that its goal was to “parliamentarise the global political system” by establishing a “UN parliamentary assembly.”

Not surprisingly, perhaps, outgoing UN boss Ban Ki Moon last year began preparing the way, loudly and repeatedly referring to the dictators club he leads as the “Parliament of Humanity.” He continually referred to the UN's radical Agenda 2030, meanwhile, which demands national and international socialism and other extremism, as the world's “Declaration of Interdependence” for “We The Peoples” of the planet. In short, the independence of the United States — and the God-given rights of her people by extension — are under direct assault by the UN and its allies in Washington, D.C., and worldwide.











































































The mass-migration disaster Guterres helped orchestrate also faced criticism in The Australian newspaper. “During his term as UN high commissioner for refugees, he acted in accordance with socialist ideology by pressuring Western states to open borders and accept a large influx of immigrants from Islamic regimes,” Oriel observed. “Despite the evidence that open border policy facilitated transnational jihadism and the mass murder of Western innocents, Guterres continued to shame governments that protect their citizens with secure borders.”

Guterres also praised the League of Arab States in 2007 in his capacity as UN refugee boss, telling them that Islamic sharia law — which calls for executing apostates, among other things — was an “invaluable foundation for the legal framework” used by his UN bureaucracy. While noting that most of the world's refugees were Muslim, rather than attacking the Islamist, socialist, globalist, and authoritarian regimes that produce refugees, he lashed out at Western “racism” and “xenophobia” as the chief cause of refugee victimhood, Oriel reported. Meanwhile, more than a few Arab dictatorships continue to refuse Muslim immigrants from Syria and Iraq, preferring to use the UN to send them to the West instead.

Ironically, even in his assigned job by its own dubious metrics, Guterres has been a failure. In 2010, the UN's own internal auditors warned that his agency's dubious operations and money management were putting future contributions from member governments (taxpayers) at risk. According to an April 2016 UN report about the UNHCR bureaucracy, the management was “unsatisfactory” during Guterres' tenure. And that criticism is from the unsatisfactory UN, where incompetence, brazen corruption, criminality, and other horrors — even systematic sexual abuse of children by UN “peace” troops — are the norm.

With yet another extremist espousing deadly and fringe ideologies such as socialism, open borders, and globalism on the world stage, it is past time for the United States to officially withdraw from the UN dictators club. Legislation already in Congress, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (HR 1205), would accomplish that in one fell swoop. Then the dictators of the world can be free to select nutty socialists and globalists as their leaders — but not at the expense of U.S. liberties and wealth (in The New American, 14 October 2016).




Ver aqui