Mitt Romney will continue Obama’s Plan to destroy the Middle East and North Africa

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 10, 2012

The Republican candidate for the U.S. presidency, Mitt Romney said Tuesday  that if he wins the election next November, the United States will continue to arm the opposition in Syria to fight against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. This statement may be surprising for many who see Romney as an alternative to Obama’s failed ‘hope and change’ hoax. But the truth is that neither candidate seems to deviate significantly from the travesty administration of George W. Bush, who democrats blame for everything that Obama inherited; or from Bill Clinton who built carried out the same policies that Bush Sr., Bush Jr. and Obama support.

The thought that a Romney presidency will further help set up the Middle East and North Africa ablaze is not so strange. Mitt Romney himself has said it clearly in his speech at the  Virginia Military Institute in Lexington. He assured the audience that if elected on November 6, he will work with U.S. allies to “identify and organize the Syrian opposition members” who share their values “and to ensure they get the weapons they need to defeat tanks, helicopters and planes from the Assad government”. This statement is revealing indeed. Mr. Romney has confessed that his administration shares the same values of the Syrian opposition groups.

The Syrian fighters are admittedly, US and NATO supported members of Al-Qaeda and its affiliate terrorist groups, so in a sense, Romney has admitted to supporting the use of terrorism to bring about change in Syria. As The Real Agenda has reported before, the terrorist militias that attack innocent people in Syria are the same groups that operate from across right across the border on Turkish territory. These are also the same groups that launched a false-flag attack against Turkey — the weapons used belonged to NATO — to blame Syria for it, so Turkey would have an excuse to fire its weapons against Syria. The government of Turkey has officially approved legislation to attack Syria and it has been doing so for the past 7 days. The move has been praised by NATO, the UN the United States government and of course Mr. Romney himself.

During his speech in Virginia, the former governor of Massachusetts criticized the “passive policy” of President Barack Obama in the Middle East conflict, and the absence of a strong reaction to the attack on an American consulate in Libya last month that killed U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. officials. So for Romney the killing of hundreds of people by US allies and guerrilla groups that operate clandestinely in Libya and Syria, and which are funded with American taxpayer dollars is way too passive. As it has now been revealed, the attack on the American consulate was at the very least overlooked by the Obama administration after receiving multiple requests and warnings that the attack was coming.

According to Romney, Obama has failed both Israel and the Palestinians, as “what should be a negotiation process has become a series of heated disputes in the United Nations,” said Romney. “In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new president will bring the opportunity to start over. There is a yearning for American leadership,” said the candidate, who gave no details of his plan for the region.

Romney said that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, which incidentally happened on September 11, was probably the work of “the same forces” who bombed the US in 2001. “You can not blame this attack on a video that insulted Islam even though the government has tried to convince us of it for so long,” he added.

Regarding the Iranian threat, the Republican to occupy the White House said it would take in “new sanctions and tighten” existing ones to bring Iran to its knees. “I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the eastern Mediterranean and in the Gulf region, and work with Israel to increase military assistance and coordination,” he added. In other words, Romney intends not only to sustain the current murderous campaign being carried out by Barack Obama, but also to increase the level of aggression against non aligned nations.

Obama is credited — wrongfully many argue — with the death of the leader of the terrorist network Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the end of the war in Iraq, a limited military intervention that ended the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya with intensified air attacks with drones against suspected terrorists, and the gradual reduction of troops in Afghanistan.

As a political candidate, Romney has adopted the concept of many conservatives in the United States according to which political systems of Europe, especially the French, are socialists and contrary to the “free market” American style. This is true, just as it is true what Romney said about self-entitled, government-dependent people who can never get enough welfare and who knowingly choose to support the bribery system sponsored by the central government.

But the similarities between Obama and Romney do not stop at speeches given to brainwashed supporters. Both the US president and the Republican candidate believe that government can and should Bailouts, ‘too big to fail’ entities, provide free money to banks and corporations in the form of stimulus packages, use quantitative easing and deficit spending as development policies, send troops to protect others borders and sending taxpayer money to foreign dictators, intervene in the affairs of other nations, restrict gun ownership, surveil and oppress citizens with tools such as the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretaps and so on.

Both presidential candidates also support the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, trial or legal counsel. They both support the assassinations of American citizens or anyone else without due process and socialized healthcare, among others.

Choosing the least dangerous option this time around is just not a viable way to go this time for the American people, because Romney and Obama as equally dangerous.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

A new Figueres Presidency to hand Costa Rica over to the U.N.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

Former Costa Rican president, Jose María Figueres Olsen.

The first time I heard about sustainable development was during high school and throughout my college years. In 1994, Costa Rica had elected president a member of one of the most influential families in the history of the country. Jose Maria Figueres Olsen, the son of Jose Figueres Ferrer, served himself — not the country — from 1994 to 1998. During this time I worked as a Journalist for a local television station in the north region of the country, which allowed me to become aware about environmental issues.

Mr. Figueres made it one of his campaign’s highlights to speak about sustainable development; how Costa Rica was already an example worldwide because of its natural riches, and how it was necessary to implement new and better policies to make sure the country championed environmentally friendly practices which guaranteed conservation.

After planting the seed about sustainable development, Figueres Olsen concluded his tenure while being involved in controversy because of a scandal related to the murder of Jose Joaquin Orozco. The case known as the Chemise Case, had the former Costa Rican president appear as a witness to the case. During four years Figueres managed to obtain international recognition because of his initiative to turn sustainable development into a governing model for Costa Rica. He continued to work on environmental issues in the private sector after disappearing from the Costa Rican political landscape.

Who is this man and what are his ideas?

Mr. Figueres likes to say that his interest about the environment is rooted on his dad’s teachings about living in harmony with nature. Only he knows whether that is truth or not, but the fact is he has managed to make a career out of his interest for sustainability. After his presidency, Figueres founded the Costa Rican Foundation for Sustainable Development. He then traveled to and lived in Europe, where he got involved in the carbon credit scheme. He met and worked with Nicolas Negroponte and Jeffrey Sachs to found the Digital Nations Consortium, an entity overseen by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Later, he was called by the former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to head a U.N. group on Information, Communication and Technology, which later landed him the position of Chairman of the United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force (ICT). In 2000, Figueres was appointed Managing Director of the World Economic Forum, the well-known globalist, elitist group where he occupied the position of CEO. After 3 years at the Forum, he resigned due to his involvement in a consultancy scandal with Alcatel.

Immediately after, Figueres got involved with an organization known today as Concordia 21 in Spain. He was also a director of the globalist run World Wild Fund and Chairman of the Carbon War Room, an organization founded by Virgin’s Richard Branson, a man who promotes the carbon credit hoax, through which individuals like Al Gore sell rights for corporations to pollute the environment as long as they pay royalties to businesses that work in the imaginary carbon emissions market. Companies such as the one headed by Gore emit worthless pieces of paper labeled as licenses that allow large corporate conglomerates to pollute at will.

Jose Maria Figueres departed Costa Rica in 1998, but in a sense he actually never left. Mr. Figueres sat out while the two main political parties voted to amend the Costa Rican Constitution so that former presidents could run for office again. Now, in 2012, and after several rapid visits, he returned a couple of months ago to his native country to present an initiative that he labeled “Proyecto País” where he invited the public to share their ideas about how to transform the country. Figueres’ plan was and still is to make people think he wants everyone involved in the transformation of the country, although the truth is that his plan is already full of preconceived ideas and plans that will be implemented whether Costa Rican people agree or not.

Figueres himself did not present any concrete plans in public, he simply seemed to be serving as a forum creator. When asked about the lack of concrete ideas, Figueres said that his “Proyecto País” was just the beginning of a long process that sought to involve the whole society. This is a very important detail which I will complement later when I explain how Mr. Figueres intends to use his international experience and name to once again run for the presidency in Costa Rica, a decision he has already made public through spokespeople.

After using the presidency as a platform to make a name abroad, Figueres spent the best part of the last decade in Geneva and Zurich, rubbing shoulders with the elite in Europe and also in the United States, learning how to implement United Nations environmental policy so that he could later implant it in Costa Rica.

While Jose Maria Figueres gained experience on the private sector abroad, his sister Christiana Figueres became the head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This organization is the strongest pusher of United Nations initiatives to curb carbon emissions, impose the Kyoto Protocol on nations, reduce or prevent development in the third world and de-industrialize developed nations; all in the name of saving the Earth from a catastrophe that the organization blames on all humans.

Both Jose Maria Figueres and Christiana Figueres are involved in private ventures that profit from the United Nations led environmental alarmism, that is supported by people like Richard Branson, Al Gore, Ted Turner and organizations such as the World Wild Fund, and philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. All of these people and organizations called for the implementation of policies to drastically reduce the world’s population. The Figueres siblings have also contributed to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Climate Neutral Network,  an international initiative of which Costa Rica is a member nation.

Costa Rica already favors U.N. globalist environmental policies, such as the Carbon Neutrality Strategy, which seeks to eliminate all carbon emissions by the year 2021. UNEP praised Costa Rica’s carbon cutting scheme as one of the most innovative the organization has seen:

“[…] a balanced zero or negative national inventory of emissions by sources and absorption by sinks of all anthropogenic activities of the different sectors considered by the IPCC Guidelines on Inventories of Greenhouse Gases. This strategy seeks to have zero impact on the climate.”

A second Figueres presidency will simply mean an acceleration in the hand over of the Costa Rican territory to the United Nations.

But how will this be accomplished? The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the U.N. organization headed by Christiana Figueres, created a model to tie up all nations and to absorb them as “champions” of the environment. In a document called Establishing National Authorities for the CDM, which was edited by Christiana herself, the organization explains how to infiltrate and conquer nation-states from the inside, while establishing a UN led National Environmental Authority (NA) governed by rules and regulations created by the United Nations.

How will Figueres hand over Costa Rica to the U.N.?

CDM stands for Clean Development Model and the idea is to challenge national organizations; both governmental and NGOs to press societies to create a sort of environmental National Authority (NA) which eventually becomes the manager of everything related to the handling of resources, urban and rural development, population control, national protected territories and so on.

The idea, as the U.N. proposes on its Agenda 21 document, is to keep human populations limited to narrow pieces of land, where they live in tight, compact housing units, while most of the territories remain untouched. See below the future map of the United States as the United Nations intends to turn the country into an off-limits area should Agenda 21 be fully implemented.

As you can see, only a small fraction of the American territory — shown in light green — is left for humans to live, while most of the continental U.S. is “saved” for the purposes of “sustainable development”. The same model being applied today in the United States will be enacted everywhere else in the world where governments signed in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Heritage Program and where society permits the creation and legitimation of National Authorities such as the one described on the CDM document. It is necessary to emphasize that given the drastic reduction of land where people will be allowed to live, the UN expects two things to happen. One, concentrate populations in highly compact urban centers, where everything is controlled by the government. Two, a significant decrease in the number of people who live on this planet.

Although the complete PDF is filled with revelations as to how the globalists intend to grab national territories from the hands of their rightful owners, most of the juicy details regarding the ways a National Authority works is explained beginning on page 53 and up until page 64 of the guide created specifically for developing countries. Page 53 begins with an explanation about how National Authorities have evolved throughout the years.

The Takeover

Before implanting the NA, the document advises interested parties to conduct an assessment on the conditions available in each country. That assessment, it says, must include the political environment, political stability, ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, institutional rivalries, intersectoral communication, technical knowledge and so on. The U.N. basically requires the interested parties to complete the field work to gauge the level of acceptance or rejection that a NA would have, before implanting its policy framework.

The PDF warns about resistance from “climate skeptics, environmentalists who oppose certain side effects of projects and activists that may feel that there are more urgent social or economic issues to be supported. If these groups can have a negative impact on the NA’s implementation, the strategy must consider working with them in identifying how national needs can be met through the CDM.”

This is a typical approach from globalist organizations which intends to make people feel involved in the decision-making process, even though all the relevant decisions have already been made. What Agenda 21 is trying to implement are a series of policies created at global conflagrations to be implemented at the local level. The same model used with the NA’s is implemented during U.N. environmental gatherings such as the Rio+20 in 2012.

According to the CDM document, the steps to create an NA are as follows:

* Define the NA’s mission and objectives (a process that has been already completed by the U.N. but that is left open-ended so that globalist minions in each country convince their people to accept the idea that country’s objectives are the same ones sought by the U.N.).

* Obtain official status (this steps seeks to legitimize the NA’s work at the national level as well as to look for government exceptions, funding from the taxpayers, force nations to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and so on).

* Review and establish national legal framework (as explained in the CDM document, this step intends to make any and all decisions made by the NA binding for the government and all organizations associated with it. In a sense, it is the legal takeover of the country).

*Align program strategies with national sustainable development priorities (during this process, the NA acts as if it is trying to involve the community, but in reality, what it does is present already prepared policies which people then vote on, as supposed to creating their own initiatives).

* Attain broad stakeholder participation (through this step, the NA seeks to get important social and corporate groups involved. The broad stakeholders will be the founders of the NA until it manages to obtain government and international donations from foundations, philanthropic groups and the U.N. itself).

* Obtain financial and non-financial resources (at this point the NA has earned the respect and visibility of the society, as a tool to execute projects that intend to “conserve and protect” natural resources, but that in reality seek to limit the access of the population to those areas, which are later developed for elite members).

* Staff the NA (the organization opens its doors to local shakers and movers, but the management is done from outside the country either by having a UN minion come into the country, or by training local uninformed people who are compartmentalized).

* Establish relationships with the national focal point for climate change and other ministries (the NA takes over the policies of local ministries and their work in construction, development, housing, conservation, and creates rules for the administration of existing national parks and conservation areas already in the hands of the United Nations).

That is, in a nutshell, how the take over happens. If you would like to learn more details, please read the complete document.

The Implementation Process

While reading the CDM document, it is clear that right off the bat, the U.N. and its organizations intend to make countries abide by its own rules. The U.N. provides no chance for locals to bring their own ideas. The process of creating a National Authority limits participant organizations and nations to simply vote on the already existing rules and regulations. On page 75 of the CDM, the guide is very clear about how the evaluation and approval process of projects will be conducted.

“The evaluation and approval process can be designed in four steps: 1) adopt international criteria 2) develop national criteria 3) establish national procedures for the evaluation and approval of projects and 4) establish guidelines for the presentation of projects.”
Noticeably, everything begins with the adoption of international criteria, from everything else is created.

Those criteria stem from the Kyoto Protocol, which many nation-states signed onto since its inception in 1992. The CDM guide provides three criteria for evaluating and approving projects:

1. Projects must assist Non-Annex I Parties “in achieving sustainable development and contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention.”
2. Projects must result in “real, measurable and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change.”
3. Projects must result in “reductions in emissions that are additional to any that would occur in the absence of the certified project activity.”

The job of the National Authorities is to capture countries from the inside, given the failure of the United Nations attempts to do it from the outside through their failed international meetings. As explained of pages 75 and 76 of the CDM guide, the projects created through the NA must have “Consistency with UNFCCC decisions”. For a project to be deemed as compliant, it must provide solutions to the widely debunked global warming and climate change hoaxes that the U.N. have been running since the early 1980s. That is right, the globalists  who know warn us about global warming, are the same people who in the 70s and 80s tried to scare the world about “global cooling”.

Everything surrounding the National Authority’s operation deals with initiatives to curb carbon emissions, global warming and development. All projects must comply with so-called national sustainable development objectives, be congruent with national climate policy and/or carbon offset strategies and whether such projects meet eligibility criteria originated from CDM-established activities, technologies, and so on.

As seen on the diagram above, the National Authority provides a prepared evaluation procedure under which the NA itself decides in every step of the way whether a project is approved or not, based on its own conditions. Through its screening process, the NA can mandate the reformulation of the projects or simply discard them if they do not comply with its rules. This process is completely opposite to what a real grassroots environmental organization — which is what the NA intends to be — would use to approach environmental challenges. In that situation, the communities and their organizations would ultimately decide what projects should be implemented.

Marketing and Propaganda

The work of a National Authority goes beyond being the decider on environmental policy. It is also the marketer of projects which are carefully filtered so that they adhere to U.N.’s policies. Just as it happens in the decision-making process, the marketing of projects works based on the deeply flawed belief — not scientifically proven — that human activity is the generator of the largest amounts of greenhouse gases, and that these gases are the cause of climate change and global warming. So according to the CDM guide, for a project to be considered as a valid initiative, it must have it at its core to reduce greenhouse gases.

“At the basic level it is important to understand what all CDM projects have in common: the environmental objective of lowering the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” says the document. It goes on to refer people to another flawed instrument to measure a project’s eligibility. “The details of any of these methodologies can be found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Reference Manual.”

The success of the propaganda campaign is based on diverting people’s attention from real environmental problems such as Genetically Modified Organisms, and to concentrate efforts on proven lies. That is why the NA will always refer people to failed policies regarding renewable energy, energy efficiency, emission reductions, transportation, waste management and the most important of all, land use change. On ways to use lands, especially publicly owned lands (government-owned lands) the document suggests the use of pep-talk on hoaxes such as biodiversity protection, soil conservation, watershed maintenance and sustainable forest management.

The Figueres Connection

The Figueres connection between globalist policies and the management of Costa Rica as a nation is very well established. Not only have the Figueres siblings gained experience in the private sector regarding so-called sustainable development, but they have also been trained to bring U.N. propaganda and policies to Costa Rica. The Proyecto País that Jose María Figueres presented a couple of months ago in San José has at its core the same goals that the United Nations has: to avoid the development of third world countries.

According to Alvaro Ramírez, the Executive Coordinator of the project said it very clearly. The Proyecto País seeks to change the direction of the country from the traditional development-centered process to a ‘soul-seeking’ adventure. Ramírez regurgitated United Nations talking points about how development and the enjoyment of benefits that wealth have usually provided are bad, and that people need to start thinking about ways to live in harmony with themselves and the environment. He added that Costa Rica is today a nation without goals or purposes and that this is where the plan presented by Figueres intends to help.

Jorge Oller, another Figueres assistant in the Proyecto País initiative, explained that he is in it because as a Costa Rican person, he wants to contribute with the former president’s idea to “turn all this process into a collective dream.” Not only there is a political and private sector connection between the Figueres family and the U.N., but also an ideological one. “This new star we are proposing to be the guide for the country is based on four pillars that are included in our document presented yesterday.” Those pillars: identity and values of the Costa Rican society, inclusion of segregated sectors of the Costa Rican society, innovation, and the fourth pillar is, as you might have guessed already, sustainability.

In case you only know sustainability as a tool to help conserve the environment, which is the hoax the United Nations uses to swindle people into supporting its rules and regulations, please let me explain the part that the U.N. does not want you to know.

The United Nations works through various organizations that fancy themselves as pro environment, pro conservation, pro humanity and pro life. However, the core of these organizations revolve around exactly the opposite. Take for example the UN Population Fund (UNPF), which in numerous occasions called for a global population reduction by use of family planning which is code for depopulation by decreasing fertility among humans. A recent study by this organization claims that as urbanization extends further outside large population centers, the planet’s biodiversity will suffer dearly due to human activity which will increase the impact of global warming.

Scientists working for UNPF suggest that humans would be served better if they lived in large dense and highly controlled and monitored cities. “We certainly don’t want them strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together],” said their study. Studies conducted by universities state that urbanization will expand out of control and that such expansion must be curbed in order to protect the planet’s resources from being used by humans. But this calculation and the impact the alleged expansion will have is measured according to the already debunked global warming and climate change alarmism.

Environmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, universities and of course the United Nations, all of which favor Agenda 21 policies as the base for social control, seek to transform current living standards around the planet but not so that everyone lives equally well. In fact, those policies intend to make people equally poor — with the exception of the global elite. The globalists themselves call the new transformed cities eco-communities and they will be placed that respect United Nations regulations regarding production of CO2 to the and development.

One of the most noticeable successes of the U.N. has been the way it has infiltrated countries through fake grassroots entities that seem to organically push for conservation. These entities are funded by programs promoted by the hijacked governments or by international environmental organization who receive large donations from globalists. Just last week, Costa Rica announced the funding 11 new conservation projects at a cost of 208 million colones, just over $400,000. The monies taken from taxpayers pockets will work on projects related to biodiversity and climate change. The local mainstream press announced the projects financing as an exchange between the governments of Costa Rica and the United States. According to the reports, the U.S. forgives Costa Rican debt in exchange for investment in environmental projects.

The monies given to these projects are managed by the Costa Rica Por Siempre Association, a supposed non-profit organization that manages public-private initiatives developed by the Costa Rican government. According to its web page, the association works with known globalist organizations such as the Nature Conservancy. In fact let’s take a look at the goals established by the Costa Rica por Siempre Association as the organization displays them on its website:

1. Costa Rica will at least duplicate the extension of its marine protected areas.

2. The government of Costa Rica will improve the management of protected areas through specifically developed administrative tools, by updating the management plans and also by improving its tax collection system.

3. Costa Rica will identify and label the threats, potential impacts and adapting capacity of ecosystems that are more vulnerable to climate change.

4. External members of the initiative (The Nature Conservancy, Linden Trust for Conservation, Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, Walton Family Foundation), will create a source of continuous funding to be utilized for the protection of protected areas through a privately managed trust fund. Such trust fund will be used as the government deems it appropriate in a plan that seeks to achieve the goals established by the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity.

As seen in this example, the ultimate goal this and other environmental associations and organizations have is to help enable a system of globalist domination at the local level. In doing so, the globalist-controlled organizations will seek to use taxpayer funds to rob Costa Rican people of their natural resources which will fall in the hands of the United Nations.

But there is more. The creators of the Clean Development Mechanism actually say the CDM and the National Authorities it promotes are the only way forward. “COP-7 marked a milestone in the climate change negotiations as Parties to the Protocol sat down to decide on the rules and modalities for the CDM as a global mechanism, and the procedures for individual CDM projects. The CDM executive board continues to move this agenda forward.”

As in most cases it is in the hands of the Costa Rican people to prevent the handover of their country to the United Nations. Costa Rica must avoid the election of Jose Maria Figueres or anyone else, from any political party, who seeks to steal Costa Rican from the Costa Rican people. They must also reject through voting and effective forms of social opposition the adoption of policies originated in international globalist organizations that intend to control the land and the people of Costa Rica. One good first step would be to abandon the United Nations, which would liberate Costa Rica of the tyrannical compromises that were signed by previous governments including that of Figueres himself.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the use of the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web, unless you request and receive written permission to do so. If permission is granted, you must publish the article EXACTLY as it appears on The Real Agenda.

Former Malaysian Minister calls for UN to be Global Police Force

JURRIAN MAESSEN | EXPLOSIVEREPORTS.com | SEPTEMBER 3, 2012

Yesterday the Malaysian Daily Express reported on a plea by former Malaysian “first minister”, Harris Salleh calling on the United Nations to reform itself, changing the current system to a single “World Parliament with member countries’ representatives as members”. This proposed parliament must co-exist with, as Harris explains, a “World Government Ministry” which in turn must direct a UN Police Force, to be deployed all over the world to enforce decisions green-lighted by the World Parliament.

“Make the United Nations the only authority vested with power and authority to solve country to country international finance, monetary and trade problems”, Harris states in his paper “United Nations Needs Reform and Restructure Very Badly”- which apparently he e-mailed out to all member countries at UN headquarters in New York.

“The Security Council will pave the way to setting up of a World Parliament and a World Cabinet making the UN the most powerful and having full authority on earth”, Harris wrote.

The former First Minister of the Malaysian state of Sabah underscores the current UN security council system needs to be reviewed, especially when it comes to veto powers of single member states. Harris stresses that the Security Council may be done with altogether, as it still represents the old world order.

Read Full Article →

UN Arms Trade Treaty Text Confirms Call to Ban Legal Possession of Firearms

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JULY 26, 2012

As The Real Agenda informed readers last July 20, the United Nations is continuously seeking for ways to destroy individual rights. One of the most important of those rights is the one that allows people to own and bear arms. This right is different in every country, but in the eyes of the UN, such a right is equally threatening to its existence, no matter how constitutional it is. As we explained in our article The United Nations Plan to Disarm You and Arm itself, the UN had prepared a preliminary text to bamboozle nation-states into signing it as a binding agreement.

The United Nations has now released the latest draft, and possibly the final text of the Arms Trade Treaty, which as we told reader before seeks to eliminate the rights of individuals to own and bear arms. the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is the beginning of the United Nations’ plan to carry out a globe wide disarmament of every nation on the planet, and with it the effective disarmament of each and every single person who lives in those nations. As expected, the warnings regarding the repercussions that such a treaty would have on the right to keep and bear arms, which exists in many countries, began immediately.

We have copied and pasted the original text below for everyone to read for themselves and create their own educated opinions about this new attempt to end with another constitutional right. Readers can find the text as originally published on the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights’ website here.

PREAMBLE             

The States Parties to this Treaty.

  1. Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
  2. Recalling that the charter of the UN promotes the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources;
  3. Reaffirming the obligation of all State Parties to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, in accordance with the Charter of the UN;
  4. Underlining the need to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of conventional arms and to prevent their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use, such as terrorism and organized crime;
  5. Recognizing the legitimate political, security, economic and commercial rights and interests of States in the international trade of conventional arms;
  6. Reaffirming the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems;
  7. Recognizing that development, human rights and peace and security, which are three pillars of the United Nations, are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.
  8. Recalling the United Nations Disarmament Commission guidelines on international arms transfers adopted by the General Assembly;
  9. Noting the contribution made by the 2001 UN Programme of Action to preventing combating and eradicating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects, as well as the 2001 Protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in Firearms, their parts and components and ammunition, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
  10. Recognizing the security, social, economic and humanitarian consequences of the illicit trade in and unregulated trade of conventional arms;
  11. Recognizing the challenges faced by victims of armed conflict and their need for adequate care, rehabilitation and social and economic inclusion;
  12. Bearing in mind that the women and children are particularly affected in situations of conflict and armed violence;
  13. Emphasizing that nothing in this treaty prevents States from exercising their right to adopt additional more rigorous measures consistent with the purpose of this Treaty;
  14. Recognizing the legitimate international trade and lawful private ownership and use of conventional arms exclusively for, inter alia, recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities for States where such ownership and use are permitted or protected by law;
  15. Recognizing the active role that non-governmental organizations and civil society can play in furthering the goals and objectives of this Treaty; and

16. Emphasizing that regulation of the international trade in conventional arms should not

hamper international cooperation and legitimate trade in material, equipment and technology

for peaceful purposes;

Have agreed as follows:

Principles

Guided by the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations, States Parties, In promoting the goals and objectives of this Treaty and implementing its provisions, shall act in accordance with the following principles:

  1. The inherent rights of all States to individual or collective self-defense;

2. Settlement of individual disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

3. The rights and obligations of States under applicable international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law;

4. The responsibility of all States, in accordance with their respective international obligations, to effectively regulate and control international transfer of conventional arms as well as the primary responsibility of all States to in establishing and implementing their respective national export control systems; and

5. The necessity to implement this Treaty consistently and effectively and in a universal, objective and non-discriminatory manner.

Article 1

Goals and Objectives

Cognizant of the need to prevent and combat the diversion of conventional arms into the illicit market r to unauthorized end users through the improvement of regulation on the international trade in conventional arms,

The goals and objectives of this Treaty are:

–          For States Parties to establish the highest possible common standards for regulating or improving regulation of the international trade in conventional arms;

–          To prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion to illegal and unauthorized end use;

In order to:

–          Contribute to international and regional peace, security and stability;

–          Avoid that the international trade in conventional arms contributes to human suffering;

–           Promote cooperation, transparency and responsibility of States Parties in the trade in conventional arms, thus building confidence among States Parties,

Article 2

–          A. Covered Items

–          1. This Treaty shall apply to all conventional arms within the following categories:

–          a. Battle Tanks

–          b. Armored combat vehicles

–          c. Large-caliber Artillery systems

–          d. Combat aircraft

–          e. Attack helicopters

–          f. Warships

–          g. Missiles and missile launchers

–          h. Small Arms and Light Weapons

–          2. Each State Party Shall establish and Maintain a national control system to regulate the export of munitions to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph a1 (a)-(h) are not circumvented by the export of munitions for those conventional arms.

–          3. Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system to regulate the export of parts and components to the extent necessary to ensure that national controls on the export of the conventional arms covered by Paragraph A1 are not circumvented by the export of parts and components of those items.

–          4. Each State Party shall establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within Paragraph 1 above, as defined on a national basis, based on relevant UN instruments at a minimum. Each State Party shall publish its control list to the extent permitted by national law.

–          B. Covered Activities

–          1. This Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms covered in paragraph a1 above, and set out in Articles 6-10, hereafter referred to as “transfer.”

–          2. This Treaty shall not apply to the international movement of conventional arms by a State Party or its agents for its armed forces or law enforcement authorities operating outside its national territories, provided they remain under the State Party’s ownership.

Article 3

Prohibited Transfers

  1. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate any obligation under any measure adopted by the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular arms embargoes.
  2. A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements, to which it is a Party, in particular those relating to the international transfer of, or illicit trafficking in, conventional arms.
  3. A State Party shall not authorize a transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty for the purpose of facilitating the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes constituting grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or serious violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949.

 Article 4

National Assessment

  1. Each State Party, in considering whether to authorize an export of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty, shall, prior to authorization and through national control systems, make an assessment specific to the circumstances of the transfer based on the following criteria:
  2. Whether the proposed export of conventional arms would:
    1. Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law;
    2. Be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law;
    3. Contribute to peace and security;
    4. Be used to commit or facilitate an act constituting an offense under international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism or transnational organized crime, to which the transferring State is a Party;
  3. In making the assessment, the transferring State Party shall apply the criteria set out in Paragraph 2 consistently and in an objective and non-discriminatory manner and in accordance with the principles set out in this Treaty, taking into account relevant factors, including information provided by the importing State.

4. In assessing the risk pursuant to Paragraph 2, the transferring State Party may also take into consideration the establishment of risk mitigation measures including confidence-building measures and jointly developed programs by the exporting and importing State.

5. If in the view of the authorizing State Party, this assessment, which would include any actions that may be taken in accordance with Paragraph 4, constitutes a substantial risk, the State Party shall not authorize the transfer.

 Article 5

Additional Obligations

  1. Each State Party, when authorizing an export, shall consider taking feasible measures, including joint actions with other States involved in the transfer, to avoid the transferred arms:
  2. being diverted to the illicit market;
  3. be used to commit or facilitate gender-based violence or violence against children;
  4. become subject to corrupt practices; or
  5. adversely impact the development of the recipient State.

Article 6

General Implementation

  1. Each State Party shall implement this Treaty in a consistent, objective and non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the goals and objectives of this Treaty;
  2. The implementation of this Treaty shall not prejudice previous or future obligations undertaken with regards to international instruments, provided that those obligations are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Treaty. This Treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.
  3. Each State Party shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions of this Treaty and designate competent national authorities in order to have an effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms;
  4. Each State Party shall establish one or more national contact points to exchange information on matters related to the implementation of this Treaty. A State Party shall notify the Implementation Support Unit (See Article 13) of its national contact point(s) and keep the information updated.
  5. State Parties involved in a transfer of conventional arms shall, in a manner consistent with the principles of this Treaty, take appropriate measures to prevent diversion to the illicit market or to unauthorized end-users.  All State Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with the exporting State to that end.
  6. . If a diversion is detected the State or States Parties that made the decision shall verify the State or States Parties that could be affected by such diversion, in particulate those State Parties that are involved in the transfer, without delay.
  7.  Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to regulate transfers of conventional arms within the scope of the Treaty.

 Article 7

Export

  1. Each State Party shall conduct risk assessments, as detailed in Articles 4 and 5, whether to grant authorizations for the transfer of conventional arms under the scope of this Treaty.  State Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 consistently, taking into account all relevant information, including the nature and potential use of the items to be transferred and the verified end-user in the country of final destination.
  2. Each State Party shall take measures to ensure all authorizations for the export of conventional arms under the scope of the Treaty are detailed and issued prior to the export.  Appropriate and relevant details of the authorization shall be made available to the importing, transit and transshipment State Parties, upon request.

Article 8

Import

  1. Importing State Parties shall take measures to ensure that appropriate and relevant information is provided, upon request, to the exporting State Party to assist the exporting State in its criteria assessment and to assist in verifying end users.
  2. State Parties shall put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of the Treaty.  State Parties shall also adopt appropriate measures to prevent the diversion of imported items to unauthorized end users or to the illicit market.
  3. Importing State Parties may request, where necessary, information from the exporting State Party concerning potential authorizations.

Article 9

Brokering

  1. Each State Party shall take the appropriate measures, within national laws and regulations, to control brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty.

Article 10

Transit and Transshipment

  1. Each State Party shall adopt appropriate legislative, administrative or other measures to monitor and control, where necessary and feasible, conventional arms covered by this Treaty that transit or transship through territory under its jurisdiction, consistent with international law with due regard for innocent passage and transit passage;
  2. Importing and exporting States Parties shall cooperate and exchange information, where feasible and upon request, to transit and transshipment States Parties, in order to mitigate the risk of discretion;

Article 11

Reporting, Record Keeping and Transparency

  1. Each State Party shall maintain records in accordance with its national laws and regardless of the items referred to in Article 2, Paragraph A, with regards to conventional arms authorization or exports, and where feasible  of those items transferred to their territory as the final destination, or that are authorized to transit or transship their territory, respectively.
  2. Such records may contain: quantity, value, model/type, authorized arms transfers, arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), recipient State(s), and end users as appropriate. Records shall be kept for a minimum of ten years, or consistent with other international commitments applicable to the State Party.
  3. States Parties may report to the Implementation Support Unit on an annual basis any actions taken to address the diversion of conventional arms to the illicit market.
  4. Each State Party shall, within the first year after entry into force of this Treaty for that State Party, provide an initial report to States Parties of relevant activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty; including inter alia, domestic laws, regulations and administrative measures. States Parties shall report any new activities undertaken in order to implement this Treaty, when appropriate. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit.
  5. Each State Party shall submit annually to the Implementation Support Unit by 31 May a report for the preceding calendar year concerning the authorization or actual transfer of items included in Article 2, Paragraph A1. Reports shall be distributed and made public by the Implementation Support Unit. The report submitted to the Implementation Support Unit may contain the same type of information submitted by the State Party to other relevant UN bodies, including the UN Register of Conventional Arms. Reports will be consistent with national security sensitivities or be commercially sensitive.

ARTICLE 12 

ENFORCEMENT

  1. Each State Party shall adopt national legislation or other appropriate national measures regulations and policies as may be necessary to implement the obligations of this Treaty.

ARTICLE 13

IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT UNIT

  1. This Treaty hereby establishes an Implementation Support Unit to assist States Parties in its implementation.
  2. The ISU shall consist of adequate staff, with necessary expertise to ensure the mandate entrusted to it can be effectively undertaken, with the core costs funded by States Parties.
  3. The implementation Support Unit, within a minimized structure and responsible to States Parties, shall undertake the responsibilities assigned to it in this Treaty, inter alia:
    1. Receive distribute reports, on behalf of the Depository, and make them publicly available;
    2. Maintain and Distribute regularly to States Parties the up-to-date list of national contact points;
    3. Facilitate the matching of offers and requests of assistance for Treaty implementation and promote international cooperation as requested;
    4. Facilitate the work of the Conference of States Parties, including making arrangements and providing the necessary service es for meetings under this Treaty; and
    5. Perform other duties as mandated by the Conference of States Parties.

ARTICLE 14

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

  1. States Parties shall designate national points of contact to act as a liaison on matters relating to the implementation of this Treaty.
  2. States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate, to enhance the implementation of this Treaty consistent with their respective security interests and legal and administrative systems.

States Parties are encouraged to facilitate international cooperation, including the exchange of information on matters of mutual interest regarding the implementation and application of this Treaty in accordance with their national legal system. Such voluntary exchange of information may include, inter alia, information on national implementation measures as well as information on specific exporters, importers and brokers and on any prosecutions brought domestically, consistent with commercial and proprietary protections and domestic laws, regulations and respective legal and administrative systems.

4.   Each State Party is encouraged to maintain consultations and to share information, as appropriate, to support the implementation of this Treaty, including through their national contact points.

5. States Parties shall cooperate to enforce the provisions of this Treaty and combat breaches of this Treaty, including sharing information regarding illicit activities and actors to assist national enforcement and to counter and prevent diversion. States Parties may also exchange information on lessons learned in relation to any aspect of this Treaty, to develop best practices to assist national implementation.

Article 15
International Assistance

  1. In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty.
  2. States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty.
  3. Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Article 16
Signature, Ratification, Acceptance, Approval or Accession

  1. This Treaty shall be open for signature on [date] at the United Nations Headquarters in New York by all States and regional integration organizations.
  2. This Treaty is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the Signatories.
  3. This Treaty shall be open for accession by any state and regional integration organization that has not signed the Treaty.

4. The instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States and regional integration organizations of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, and of the receipt of notices.

6. “Regional integration organization” shall mean an organization constituted by sovereign States of a given region, to which its Member States have transferred competence in respect of matters governed by this Treaty and which has been duly authorized, in accordance with its internal procedures, to sign, ratify, accept, approve or accede to it.

7.  At the time of its ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, a regional integration organization shall declare the extent of its competence with respect to matters governed by this Treaty.  Such organizations shall also inform the Depositary of any relevant modifications in the extent of it competence.

8.  References to “State Parties” in the present Treaty shall apply to such organizations within the limits of their competence.

Article 17

Entry into Force

  1. This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of the deposit of the sixty-fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary.
  2. For any State or regional integration organization that deposits its instruments of accession subsequent to the entry into force of the Treaty, the Treaty shall enter into force thirty days following the date of deposit of its instruments of accession.
  3. For the purpose of Paragraph 1 and 2 above, any instrument deposited by a regional integration organization shall not be counted as additional to those deposited by Member States of that organization.

Article 18

Withdrawal and Duration

  1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.
  2. Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to withdraw from this Convention. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties from this Convention.  It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other States Parties and to the Depositary.  The instrument of withdrawal shall include a full explanation of the reasons motivating this withdrawal.
  3. A state shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this treaty while it was a party to the Treaty, including any financial obligations, which may have accrued.

Article 19
Reservations

  1. Each State party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may formulate reservations unless the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of this Treaty.

 Article 20
Amendments

  1. At any time after the Treaty’s entry into force, a State Party may propose an amendment to this Treaty.
  2. Any proposed amendment shall be submitted in writing to the Depository, which will then circulate the proposal to all States Parties, not less than 180 days before next meeting of the Conference of States Parties. The amendment shall be considered at the next Conference of States Parties if a majority of States Parties notify the Implementation Support Unit that they support further consideration of the proposal no later than 180 days after its circulation by the Depositary.
  3. Any amendment to this Treaty shall be adopted by consensus, or if consensus is not achieved, by two-thirds of the States Parties present and voting at the Conference of States Parties. The Depositary shall communicate any amendment to all States Parties.
  4. A proposed amendment adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article shall enter into force for all States Parties to the Treaty that have accepted it, upon deposit with the Depositary. Thereafter, it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of accession.

 Article 21
Conference of States Parties

  1. The Conference of States Parties shall be convened not later than once a year following the entry into force of this Treaty. The Conference of States Parties shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing its activities, including the frequency of meetings and rules concerning payment of expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.

The Conference of States Parties shall:
a. Consider and adopt recommendations regarding the implementation of this Treaty, in particular the promotion of its universality; TR

b. Consider amendments to this Treaty;

c. Consider and decide the work and budget of the Implementation Support Unit;

d. Consider the establishment of any subsidiary bodies as may be necessary to improve the functioning of the Treaty;

e. Perform any other function consistent with this Treaty.

3. If circumstances merit, an exceptional meeting of the State Parties may be convened if required and resources allow.

Article 22
Dispute Settlement

  1. States Parties shall consult and cooperate with each other to settle any dispute that may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of this Treaty.
  2. States Parties shall settle any dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Treat though negotiations or other peaceful means of the Parties mutual choice.
  3. States Parties may pursue, by mutual consent, third party arbitration to settle any dispute between them, regarding issues concerning the implementation of this Treaty.

Article 23
Relations with States not party to this Treaty

  1. States Parties shall apply Articles 3-5 to all transfers of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty to those not party to this Treaty.

 Article 24
Relationship with other instruments

  1. States Parties shall have the right to enter into agreements on the trade in conventional arms with regards to the international trade in conventional arms, provided that those agreements are compatible with their obligations under this Treaty and do not undermine the objects and purposes of this Treaty.

 Article 25
Depositary and Authentic Texts

  1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the Depositary of this Treaty.
  2. The original text of this Treaty, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic.

The United Nations Plan to Disarm You and Arm itself

This is the Treaty that no citizen of any country should allow public servants to introduce, adopt or vote in favor of; neither in part nor in full.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JULY 20, 2012

Everyone knows the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or at least has heard about some of the most important rights that it contains. There are, however, two articles I’d like to concentrate on as a preamble to the main topic of this article. Those articles are number 28 and number 29. So let’s cite them here in full and try to understand their implications.

Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Please understand that the United Nations was created back in 1945, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was officially adopted on December 10, 1948 in Paris France. That is just three years after the creation of the United Nations itself. Now, please call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but does not article 28 resemble a lot the type of speech the politicians of the world and the main stream media have been filling airtime with for the past three to five years? What article 28 basically says is that we are all entitled to a World Order. If this term is new to you, please do your own research and get yourself familiar with it. An international social order is what Bankers, Politicians and main stream media outlets have been claiming for more strongly in the past 24 months.

Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is closely related to the next article; number 29. In essence, article 28 says that we are entitled to having an international social order in which the content set on the declaration is fully realized. So, let’s tie it to the following article in order to understand the magnitude of their meaning before we move on.

Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows:

“Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

The complete article 29 has serious implications, but it is especially the last sentence, together with article 28, what should make anyone who the most minimum sense of self-preservation fall off their chair. What the last sentence of article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights means is that all of the rights supposedly given to any person under that declaration are void, should such rights are exercised in a manner that opposes the principles that govern the United Nations. So, on one side we have an organization that specifically intends to create a world order, and on the other it affirms their intention to limit or eliminate a human’s rights if it considers that those rights infringe its own existence.

If this connection between articles 28 and 29 are not serious enough to get you moving, let me add another caveat. The United Nations as an organization possesses the legal standing of a person. Although it sounds paradoxical, it is exactly as it is written. The UN is an organization conceived by monopoly men that is legally understood as being a person.

Please keep the information presented up to this point when reading further.

A few years ago, rumors about how the United Nations was considering some kind of non-binding agreement or treaty that would ask member nations to adopt tighter arms controls saw the day of light. At that point, it all seemed unclear and mere speculation. Then, the supposed idea for the creation of a non-binding agreement got a name. Today, it is publicly being identified as the Arms Trade Treaty. Although its name suggests that this may be a kind of plan to limit, control or prohibit the sale of arms as a way to avoid so-called illegal arms trade, — of the kind of Fast&Furious — it is not so.

As the title of this article describes it, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), is the beginning of the United Nations’ plan to carry out a globe wide disarmament of every nation on the planet, and with it the effective disarmament of each and every single person who lives in those nations. As expected, the warnings regarding the repercussions that such a treaty would have on the right to keep and bear arms, which exists in many countries, began immediately. Most of those warnings are sounding in countries like the United States, where 130 Congressmen wrote to Barack Obama voicing their concerns:

“We write to express our concerns regarding the negotiation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), the text of which is expected to be finalized at a conference to be held in New York during the month of July…. The U.S. must not accept an ATT that infringes on our constitutional rights, particularly the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment.”

In addition to Congress, the National Riffle Association (NRA) also sounded the alarms on June 29, warning about the threat that the ATT poses to the rights of the citizens, which it believes, would be violated if the United States were to adopt or accept such a treaty:

“… the Senate has final say on treaties, and stating their unequivocal opposition to any treaty that would affect civilian ownership of firearms, challenge the authority of Congress to regulate firearms within the United States, or call for an international gun registry.”

Although most of the text of the treaty now being discussed in New York has been kept off the public eyes, some very revealing portions were made available which help us understand what this treaty intends to achieve. Take a look at the following sentence: “United Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various types of conventional weapons have been … misused by lawful owners”. That is why the UN is now proposing that a new Arms Trade Treaty be created to “regulate in ways that would … minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.” So the ATT is meant to regulate those people who right now own fire arms because the UN thinks that some owners have, or may in the future misuse the existing laws that govern over the purchase, sale and possession of fire arms in each country.

As explained by Larry Greenly in his article Oppose Signing and Ratification of the UN Arms Treaty, the United Nations considers gun ownership a failure and is proposing an arms treaty in order to curtail such a ‘failure’. Mr. Greenly correctly states that “the U.N. regards gun ownership — even under national constitutional protection and for lawful activities — as a cultural failure that it needs to redress and that it has no patience at all with the idea that self-defense is an inherent right.”

Remember that idea that the treaty was not going to be binding? Well, the tides have changed and now the UN is talking about a completely binding resolution for all of the signing member states. What reason does the UN and its supporting institutions provide to agree on and enact an arms treaty? “It has been estimated that approximately three quarters of a million people are killed each year in armed violence. Millions more lives are blighted through injury, displacement and destroyed livelihoods,” said UN Foreign Office Minister, Alistair Burt. At this point it is important to bring up the fact that during the 20th century, governments murdered between 260,000,000 and 350,000,000 people. Doesn’t it make more sense then to create a treaty that did away with violent forms of government if all we want is to protect people from dangerous, irresponsible use of arms?

Despite Congress and the NRA showing their concern about the ATT, there are still people, especially in the blogosphere and forums who say that, even if approved, the treaty wouldn’t have any impact, because this kind of agreements cannot overwrite the Constitution. That is exactly what everyone thought before the National Defense Authorization Act was approved, before the Patriot Act was passed, before Barack Obama said he would govern by issuing executive orders if he had to, before he and Leon Panetta said that the Pentagon did not need permission from Congress to carry out wars abroad, if the UN authorized them. If that type of discourse is not clear enough to understand that the UN and the corporations that founded it are in charge, then these bloggers and forum participants are missing a screw.

The Arms Trade Treaty is also underestimated because some of its details resemble or originate from ideas contained in the 1961 Freedom from War document signed by John Kennedy. Let’s see what that document says. Among its objectives and goals, the text says that nation-states adhere to common standards of justice and international conduct. This is reinforced by the principles established in the document, which say that “As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened”. The disarmament of all nations is scheduled in three stages. In stage 2, the plan is the “establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations.” In other words, the Freedom from War treaty is a United Nations strengthening, nation-state weakening tool, which would be further empowered by the new Arms Trade Treaty, which would give a global reach to the powers already vested upon the UN.

An interesting point to make about the Freedom from War document and the new United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is that in both cases the language used to describe the goals, stages, requirements and so on are so vague, that it simply invites any interpretation that the people that get the power desire to adopt. That right there is the most dangerous part of the whole issue. Vagueness invites abuse and abuse brings about repression.

When it comes to learning our lessons, especially the ones related to tyranny, there isn’t a better way to do so than by looking back to history. In this case, we will look at the history of the United Nations preparation for the period of time we are entering into right now, and that period is the one where the UN will make a strong push to disarm all nations and its citizens. One reference for the analysis of recent history takes us to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. Another reference is a document called Removing Military Weapons from Civilian Hands.

When describing the use of small weapons by citizens or civilians, the above cited document says that “such weapons make it increasingly difficult for society to rebuild itself following a period of conflict… … This reality makes it more difficult for the State to regain the monopoly of force“. The United Nations believes that the government monopoly of force should be the standard state of affairs. As explained and sourced earlier, we all know by studying history, what a government monopoly of force resulted in last century. So, why would the UN be advocating for a step back in the direction of the mass murder of hundreds of millions of people?

The reason why the UN promotes a monopoly of force in the hands of the States is because while this organization is working hard on disarming individuals, it is also working even harder to become the sole policing power of the planet. It will be in complete power of the most dangerous weapons that exist today, if nations decide to go along the propaganda put out by the UN to “live free from war” which would turn the UN in the unique administrator of all weapons, small and large. What advantages would exist if people were completely disarmed?

For starters, “it would make it hard for anyone to lobby for the maintenance of the people’s right to keep and bear arms,” says the document, because the UN’s initiative would be seen as an effort offer people safety from guns. This view of what the right to keep and bear arms means comes from the idea that people owning guns is about them being able to go hunting whenever they please. Well, in reality the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting, but about the right of the people to defend themselves from the oppression of the government and those who carry out its deeds.

The right to keep and bear arms is a legitimate right, because it was constitutionally adopted and it is written on the document that countries use as the base to conduct business in many parts of the world. That brings us to ask, where does the UN get its legitimacy? For that we need to go back to the founding of the United Nations. Who is the founder of this organization? The key proponent of the UN was Alger Hiss, an American lawyer and communist spy for the Stalin regime, as testified in Congress under oath by Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party member. Other founders of the UN include the Rockefeller family, and some other 30 or 40 members of the Council on Foreign Relations members, among others. Rockefeller himself donated the land on which the UN building sits today. Many people will say, ‘well, but all those countries agreed to create the UN and signed the document that legitimized its creation’. I wouldn’t characterize their actions in legitimizing the UN to more than participating in the signing of the text that Hiss, the Rockefellers and the other globalists had written. In other words, the UN has no legitimacy to be the international body that it is today, since the founders of such a body were not the nations of the world, but Mr. Hiss, the Rockefellers and the other members of the CFR.

Having addressed the issue of legitimacy, let’s continue analysing recent history of the UN attempts to disarm us all. A 2011 document written by Sarah Parker and titled “Improving the Effectiveness of the Programme of Action on Small Arms“, hosted on the website of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, gives us another insight into what the United Nations has in stake. The main goal of this document is to shed more light on the UN initiative to limit and later eliminate the possession of small arms by civilians. In order to achieve their goal, the globalists behind the UN want to implement policies of marking and tracing firearms, as well as creating a digital registration database of all arms in the hands of civilians. The UN also wants to “dispose and destroy” all arms that it collects from individuals and governments, establish “moratorium on the manufacture of small firearms”, which is what Obama has announced he will do in his second term as president of the United States and what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has begun to do.

Under the guidelines of the above mentioned Programme of Action, the UN is calling for more regulation of firearms ownership. “Greater controls for firearms owners is required”. The document also describes how the UN lacks the financial support to create an electronic record of who owns what, and how the nations should chip in to create a fund that would enable the UN to be able to trace all firearms. What the UN is proposing then, is that each country creates a national gun registration database, whose oversight can be transferred to the UN so that it does not cost a penny to the globalists behind the organization.

There is a need to “train law enforcement providers in weapons collection and destruction:. Remember what happened to New Orleans residents after hurricane Katrina? In case you are not aware, the US National Guard took to the streets of New Orleans to illegally confiscate firearms from its legal owners. Members of the Guard kicked down doors, beat homeowners and confiscated all kinds of firearms to “keep people safe” from them. “Training is needed in modern methods of destruction,” continues to describe the document.

Under the section labeled as Public Awareness, the Programme of Action says that it is necessary to enhance the UN’s campaign to get rid of all firearms and that this campaign needs to have an extensive social reach. It also says that such campaigns should include ways to pacify the people who are against surrendering their guns for fear of becoming helpless should any governmental abuse take place, which the document calls false perceptions. Really? After 350,000,000 deaths the UN sees mistrust of governments use of force as a false perception?

Of course, the failure of the UN to end with such perception requires to carry out illegal arms trade — such as Fast & Furious — in order to manufacture the need to have an Arms Trade Treaty. And as if the existence of illegal arms trade wasn’t enough of a fake excuse to bring about the regulation of the individual right to keep and bear arms to defend oneself from oppressive governments and your standard criminal, the UN also cites the fact that the creation of a binding agreement would globally legitimize their attempt to limit ownership of firearms.

To sum up, an illegitimate organization created by globalists and bankers in 1945 has found a way to request the complete disarmament of every country in the world and every citizen in those countries under the excuse that a more peaceful world can be achieved in that organization alone becomes the sole owner of all weaponry that exists on the surface of the planet, in space and under the ground. That same organization, in its Universal declaration of Human Rights states that we all have rights which can be exercised, unless the UN decides the exercise of those rights infringes its existence. Under the UN plans, there needs to be only one POLICE that secures peace and prevents conflict by imposing force over anyone who dares challenge its reign over all nations and individuals. This organization by all known as the United Nations has also lovingly provided us with the right to live under a centralized social world order which it itself will command.

How is that for a peek into the future of our lives under the reign of the banker, globalist run United Nations and its Arms Trade Treaty?