Monday, January 05, 2009

What Do You Know About the United Nations? (Part 1)

"The shape of the New World Government was foretold in Commentary, the official magazine of the American Jewish Committee in New York, which stated in 1958: 'The international government of the United Nations, stripped of its legal trimming, then is really the international government of the United States and the Soviet Union acting in unison.' (p 5)
Ever Wonder, What is the United Nations?The Answer to, What is the United Nations, is Simply That it's an Organization Built for Totalitarian Rule Over You and Your FamilyPosted by Federal Debt Relief System
What is the United Nations?
Here we have an extremely interesting question.
In short, the United Nations is a front organization for those wishing for a One World Government.
It calls itself a peace keeping organization when in reality it's nothing but a haven for the war mongering international bankers and elitists seeking the New World Order.
In many cases, the United Nations' idea of keeping the peace is bombing hospitals, schools, post offices, etc., of formerly peaceful Third World countries.
What is the United Nations? It's an organization that was founded by members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in an effort to spread communist ideals worldwide.
Its goals have nothing to do with the old American Republic and are far more in line with the current concept of leadership in American democracy.
What is the United Nations: Basic PhilosophyThe United Nations plays to the sympathies of people in "wealthy" countries like America by spreading propaganda that one of its biggest goals is to liberate and help those poor people in Third World nations.
The truth is that the "...UN's basic philosophy is both anti-American and pro-totalitarian. Our Declaration of Independence proclaims the 'self-evident' truth that 'men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights'. But, in its Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN ignores God's existence, implies that it grants rights, and then repeatedly claims power "as provided by law" to cancel them out of existence. If any government can place restrictions on such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, freedoms of the press, association, movement, and religion, soon there will be no such freedoms."- The Truth About the United Nations
What is the United Nations: Ultimate GoalWhat is the United Nations? Is its goal really a New World Order?
First, let's look at the goal of the organization that created the UN, the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Council on Foreign Relations' goal is "...the submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all powerful, One World Government."- Admiral Chester Ward (former CFR member)
Carroll Quigley studied the CFR for two years and wrote Tragedy and Hope. In the book he wrote that the CFR wanted " create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as whole."
What is the United Nations: Hegelian Methods
As you ask, what is the United Nations, it's important that you understand that its zeitgeist operate under the Hegelian philosophy. This means that they create problems (chaos) already knowing that they can swoop in with the solution (order).
They use it to create wars (Pearl Harbor, for example, was a set up to get the U.S. into WWII). They use it to get you to buy their pharmaceuticals by creating new disorders, convincing you that you have a new disorder, and then magically selling you the drug to relieve it.
As you try to understand the world, pay close attention to WHY nations act as they do. Are the reasons for entering war or taking police action valid or just plain made up (like America entering Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction, WMDs)?
Side-note: For the real reason America's in Iraq, see the amazingly interesting talk by John Perkins, ex-Economic Hit Man.
What is the United Nations: Build U.S. Empire, Then Control World Through ItSince WWII, American political policy hasn't had anything to do with the United States Constitution. It's had everything to do with following the United Nations agenda. Along with the Council on Foreign Relations, groups like the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Society have been working tirelessly to build an 'American Empire'.
This 'Empire' hasn't been built to bring peace and a democratic way of life to the world. It's been done to destroy America by causing it to be seen as an evil 'Empire' throughout the world. The United States police state has been built by, and is being used by, the world's elitist international banking and industrial families to bring about their totalitarian view of a New World Order. These monstrous criminals want a world where they can:
· Achieve the UN Plan for Population Cotrol (the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Family Planning Agency (UNFPA) are UN arms already doing this to Tibetan women)
· Control the World's Children by banning home schooling (see Home Schooling vs Public Schools) & stealing your children away from you through UNICEF programs
· Control the U.S. Military Forces under UN policy
· Enact all the characteristics of Communism
· Crush all opposition
What is the United Nations? Again, nothing but a One World communist front.
What is the United Nations: Americans Fund the New World OrderAn additional point to understand when asking, what is the United Nations, is the fact that much of the funding for all this is provided by the American people themselves. Americans participate in the UNICEF trick or treat campaigns (that trick us and treat communist regimes) or donate money directly. Americans funnel billions into the New World Order machine through their taxes and debt payments.
For a peek into the tax fraud, see:
· What is the Federal Reserve
· Grace Commission Report
· America: Freedom to Fascism
What is the United Nations: Our Effort at ChangeAfter we asked, what is the United Nations, and then learned the truth, we decided we had to try and make an impact against these crimes. Therefore, we've become experts on helping Americans to stop funding New World Order efforts through their debt payments.
Through our debt termination process, we fight back against the illegal money creation scheme used by the international banking cabal. This scheme literally reaches into your pocket each and every month of your life and steals the fruits of your labor.
We can legally eliminate your debt. This process will free you financially while reducing the amount of money available to the corrupt cabal. For every dollar of debt you legally eliminate through us, you're cutting $33 out of their pockets because of their fractional reserve banking scam.
You've asked, what is the United Nations? You've learned the answer. Now, let's work together to stop its totalitarian plans.
What is the United Nations? Nothing but a front for a criminal cabal bent on destroying the American ideals we all love so much.
US Troops Wearing UN Colors
By Chuck Baldwin
November 13, 2009
According to a report in World Net Daily, "Troops in the United States' USNORTHCOM ranks appear to have adopted a shoulder patch showing a North American continental design, with an emphasis on United Nations colors, giving evidence of the strength to integrate North America.
"The patch reveals the continent of North America in the orange and blue colors typical to the U.N.
"It also carries the image of a mosque to designate the unit's service in North Africa in World War II."
The report also states, "The design of the patch with the U.S. eagle image superimposed seems to imply a hierarchy in which the U.S. 5th Army exerts its military command under the authority of USNORTHCOM, with its domain defined as all North America, including the U.S., Mexico and Canada, for the United Nations, as implied in the orange and blue motif."
As most of my faithful readers know, USNORTHCOM is a combatant command "created to respond to national emergencies in North America." Readers should also be aware that the US and Canada signed an agreement earlier this year allowing the armed forces from one country to assist the armed forces of the other country during a "domestic civil emergency, EVEN ONE THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE A CROSS-BORDER CRISIS." (Emphasis added.)
Creation of a North American Union has long been the goal of the elitists at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and sister organizations. This objective is so far along now that anyone who would question it simply isn't paying attention--or has an ulterior motive for denying it.
In fact, I have chronicled much pertinent information relative to this burgeoning North American Union on my web site. I encourage readers to review (and share) the information I have accumulated on this page. See it here.
Readers will recall that former President George W. Bush, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and then-Mexican President Vicente Fox signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, in Waco, Texas. The SPP was based upon the CFR's Task Force report entitled "Creating a North American Community," which was issued just prior to the Waco gathering. Remember, too, that the SPP was signed without any knowledge, oversight, or consent of the US Congress--or any Canadian or Mexican legislative body either, for that matter.
As the WND report states, "The unannounced goal of the SPP was to create a North American Union by advancing the trade integration realized in NAFTA into continental political integration through the creation of some 20 trilateral bureaucratic working groups and the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, composed of 30 North American business executives--10 each hand-picked by the chambers of commerce in the three countries."
In this regard, it makes absolutely no difference whether a Republican or Democratic President sits in the Oval Office. President Barack Obama is pushing forward with the same internationalist policies as did his predecessors, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Herbert Walker Bush. (And, no, Martha, nothing would have changed had John McCain been elected last year.)
For the most part, the leaders of both major parties in Washington, D.C., are globalists. With few exceptions, they have all bought into the CFR's philosophy of internationalism. The fact that we even have such a military command as USNORTHCOM--and even more, that the unit is wearing insignia with UN colors and a three-nation, North American patch--without the slightest protest from virtually any US congressman or senator, demonstrates the apathy of Washington elitists regarding America's merger into a multinational governing structure.
Add to the compliance of Washington politicians the US Chamber of Commerce, the US military Joint Chiefs of Staff, the mainstream news media (with the exception of Lou Dobbs, and look what happened to him: CNN reportedly paid him $8 million to leave the network), the National Education Association--along with the vast majority of America's top educational institutions, and even America's leading churchmen (for example: mega-church pastor and Pied Piper author, Rick Warren, and Southern Baptist spokesman, Richard Land, are both members of the CFR). In other words, virtually every major institution in America is betraying our country's sovereignty and independence.
Even Big Labor is, for the most part, silent in its opposition against international unification. Where is the union-led protest of President Obama's policy reversal to continue President Bush's plan allowing Mexican trucks to roll down US highways? Where is Big Labor's opposition to Obama's decision to continue pushing the goals and objectives of the CFR and Chamber of Commerce via the SPP and related supranational agreements?
Without a doubt, the attempted merger of North America is well underway. But this, too, is part of a much bigger picture. The destruction of the dollar, the formation of a global currency, the development of a new UN army (of which USNORTHCOM is the prototype), perpetual war, state-sponsored fear mongering over super-hyped "pandemics" such as the Swine Flu, the push for universal health care, etc., all serve the purpose of collapsing US sovereignty and independence, and creating global government.
Of course, one thing the elitists driving this global merger are counting on is the continued apathy and indifference of the American people. Obviously, an awakened, energized, and angry populace could seriously jeopardize their pernicious plans. They are somewhat rattled at the success of grassroots Tea Parties, etc., but they are counting on the major news media and establishment churches to keep the sheep asleep.
If America's pastors would wake up and begin sounding the clarion call for freedom and independence (as did their brave forebears), they could--almost single-handedly--turn the country around. Until they do, it is left to the rest of us to keep Thomas Jefferson's "spirit of resistance" alive.
As for me and my house, we plan to do our part by pledging no loyalty to the North American Union, the UN, or any other globalist entity.
Teaching U.S. Kids the U.N. WayDepartment of Education, National Education Association, No Child Left Behind
By Alan Caruba
Friday, July 31, 2009
It’s horrible enough to think of the way school children have been deliberately and unnecessarily frightened by the teaching in American schools about “global warming.” Since the 1980s it has been part of the curriculum in schools throughout the nation, convincing a lot of children that the Earth was doomed.
It was difficult enough to grow up as I did knowing that the Soviet Union could annihilate most of the population with nuclear missiles or that their brand of communism could destroy the liberties Americans take for granted.
Ever since Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education, the nation’s educational systems, once among the best in the world and answering directly to local school boards, have produced a dismal record of general failure to teach the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic. It was taken over by the National Education Association, a union, and a curriculum of liberalism has existed ever since.
American children grew up learning that the Founding Fathers were slave owners. They were forced to learn “fuzzy math” and “whole words”, two systems that left them unable to add or subtract sums without a calculator in hand and to read without some difficulty.
Schools became increasingly dangerous places, often requiring the fulltime presence of a police officer. In sum, schools, i.e. administrators and faculty, increasingly sought to place themselves between the student and his parents as the primary authority.
Now we learn that the Obama administration is imposing “education reform efforts” that will adopt “internationally benchmarked education standards.” They will become national standards. The incentive will be federal “stimulus” dollars. There’s more to learn about this at,
It’s worth keeping in mind that “No Child Left Behind” is widely regarded as a failure and that all children do not learn at the same rate. Albert Einstein was deemed a dimwit because, for his first years, he did not speak much to anyone. NCLB became a “teach to the test” monstrosity that eliminated any creativity from the teaching process and produced results that, along with previous “reforms” left American students ranked way behind many other nations.
Instead of expecting children whose first language was Spanish or some other to learn English, bilingual education was introduced at considerable expense that ensures those most in need of learning English would have one more obstacle to overcome. Then schools were saddled with mandates for “special” students with disabilities who often cost local school boards hundreds of thousands of dollars to meet their needs.
What this indoctrination is all about is “a de facto federal curriculum” that will financially reward states that adopt what the DOE wants taught. Here’s where it really gets ugly. As Allen Quist of EdWatch points out, the curriculum will be “internationally benchmarked” which is a way of saying American educational standards will be determined by UNESCO, the United Nations education arm.
In practice this means children will be taught about the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but might not get much or any instruction regarding the U.S. Constitution. As Quist puts it, “American schools used to teach the fundamentals of the United States, including the inalienable, God-given rights of life, liberty and property, as guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Not any more. Our children will be taught that they only have those rights the UN says they have.”
Then, for good measure, throw in the UN’s Earth Charter which includes the “promotion of the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.” It also endorses nuclear disarmament, gay marriage, legalized abortion, and a general curriculum of flat out Earth worship.
The UN is unquestionably the most corrupt international institution on the face of the Earth. President Obama has just ensured future generations of American students will be indoctrinated with its belief system instead of the one our Founding Fathers gave us.
Is it any wonder that home schooling has become such a fast-growing trends among parents who do not want to turn their children over to a system that denigrates American values?
If you think this nation is being sabotaged by the White House, add education to the list of its handiwork.
U.N. to Emerge as Global IRSBy Cliff Kincaid
June 24, 2009
While our media sleep, the United Nations is proceeding, with President Obama’s acquiescence, to implement a global plan to create a new international socialist order financed by global taxes on the American people.
The Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development that begins on Wednesday will consider adoption of a document calling for “new voluntary and innovative sources of financing initiatives to provide additional stable sources of development finance...” This is U.N.-speak for global taxes. They are anything but “voluntary” for the people forced to pay them. [Read Cliff's book: "Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule The World"]
The most “popular” proposals, which could generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue for global purposes, involve taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and financial transactions such as stock trades.
The document was agreed to at an informal meeting of expert “facilitators” and was made available on Monday afternoon at 3 p.m. It is doubtful that any changes will be made to it.
The conference was postponed from June 1-3 and will now take place June 24-26 at the U.N. in New York. While the “outcome document” has been watered down somewhat from the previous version, it still reaffirms attainment of the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals, which would require the payment of $845 billion from U.S. taxpayers. A commitment to the MDGs was a stated objective of the Global Poverty Act, which Barack Obama had introduced as a U.S. senator. It requires the U.S. to devote 0.7 percent of Gross National Income to foreign aid.
Now, as President, Obama can bypass the Congress and simply direct his Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice to approve the U.N. conference document. Then the pressure will be increased on Congress to come up with the money and satisfy our “international commitments.”
This is the pattern that he followed in regard to more money for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). After agreeing at the G-20 summit to provide more money for the IMF, the Obama White House slipped the cash and credit into the recently passed emergency war funding bill. The Obama White House had added billions in cash, as well as a $100 billion line of credit, for the IMF.
Rep. Mike Pence commented, “This legislation, which includes $108 billion in loan authorizations for a global bailout, for the International Monetary Fund—at a time when this government has run up a $2 trillion annual deficit—I believe does a disservice to taxpayers and to those that defend us. Passing a $108 billion global bailout on the backs of our soldiers is just not right.”
The U.N. conference document explains where all of this is leading—the destruction of the American dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the build-up of global institutions such as the IMF and the U.N.
It declares that “We acknowledge the calls by many states for further study of the feasibility and advisability of a more efficient reserve system, including the possible function of SDRs in any such system and the complementary roles that could be played by various regional arrangements.” SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a form of international currency that enables global institutions like the International Monetary Fund to provide more foreign aid to the rest of the world. The U.S. pays for SDRs through its financial contributions to the IMF.
If implemented, the document would officially mark the end of the United States as the world’s leading economic power.
Urging socialism as the solution to the crisis, the document states that “Insufficient emphasis on equitable human development has contributed to significant inequalities among countries and peoples. Other weaknesses of a systemic nature also contributed to the unfolding crisis, which has demonstrated the need for more effective government involvement to ensure an appropriate balance between the market and public interest.”
The nerve center of this emerging new international socialist system will be the United Nations, a body that has developed a reputation for corruption and incompetence and whose “peacekeepers” have been implicated in sexual abuse and other human rights violations.
“The United Nations, on the basis of its universal membership and legitimacy, is well positioned to participate in various reform processes aimed at improving and strengthening the effective functioning of the international financial system and architecture,” the document says.
“This United Nations Conference is part of our collective effort towards recovery,” it adds.
The Obama Administration’s unofficial point man in U.N. deliberations has been economist Joseph Stiglitz, who has been coordinating a “Commission of Experts” that has reported to U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto, the notorious Communist Catholic Priest who received the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union.
Stiglitz produced his own document which called for “the issuance of additional SDRs,” “additional sources of funding” for global institutions, a new global reserve currency, and a new global credit facility. Key recommendations have been incorporated into the official U.N. conference document but Stiglitz and his “experts” provide far more details about them.
In terms of new funding sources, the document calls for “innovative sources of financing such as emission rights trading and financial transactions taxes…” The concept of “emissions trading” enables corporations to avoid limits on greenhouse gas emissions if they pay taxes to government. It is part of the “cap and trade” legislation that the liberals are now pushing on Capitol Hill.
Chapter Five of this document, “International Financial Innovations,” goes into detail, declaring that “For some time, the difficulty in meeting the UN official assistance target of 0.7 percent of Gross National Income of developed industrial countries as official development assistance, as well as the need for adequate funding for the provision of global and regional public goods (peace building, fighting global health pandemics, combating climate change and sustaining the global environment more generally) has generated proposals on how to guarantee a more reliable and stable source of financing for these objectives.”
The document notes that an international airline ticket tax is now in effect, as a result of the actions of the “Leading Group on Solidarity Levies” that now involves close to 60 countries and major international organizations. This money is going to fight global diseases.
The term “Solidarity Levies” is U.N.-speak for global taxes.
The Stiglitz document explains, “Some of the initiatives that have been proposed encompass ‘solidarity levies’ or, more generally, taxation for global objectives. Some countries have already decreed solidarity levies on airline tickets but there is a larger set of proposals. There have also been suggestions to auction global natural resources—such as ocean fishing rights and pollution emission permits—for global environmental programs.”
It goes on to say, “The suggestion of taxes that could be earmarked for global objectives has a long history. To avert their being perceived as encroachments on participating countries’ fiscal sovereignty, it has been agreed that these taxes should be nationally imposed, but internationally coordinated.”
So the nations of the world, including the U.S., will collect the taxes but then turn them over to institutions such as the U.N. The world body will function, in effect, like a global IRS.
Is it too much to ask that our media take some time off from talking about the girl with star tattoos on her face, “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” and Perez Hilton, to examine what is going on at the United Nations?
UN panel says world should ditch dollarWed Mar 18, 2009 11:16am EDT
By Jeremy Gaunt, European Investment Correspondent
LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - A U.N. panel will next week recommend that the world ditch the dollar as its reserve currency in favor of a shared basket of currencies, a member of the panel said on Wednesday, adding to pressure on the dollar.
Currency specialist Avinash Persaud, a member of the panel of experts, told a Reuters Funds Summit in Luxembourg that the proposal was to create something like the old Ecu, or European currency unit, that was a hard-traded, weighted basket.
Persaud, chairman of consultants Intelligence Capital and a former currency chief at JPMorgan, said the recommendation would be one of a number delivered to the United Nations on March 25 by the U.N. Commission of Experts on International Financial Reform.
"It is a good moment to move to a shared reserve currency," he said.
Central banks hold their reserves in a variety of currencies and gold, but the dollar has dominated as the most convincing store of value -- though its rate has wavered in recent years as the United States ran up huge twin budget and external deficits.
Some analysts said news of the U.N. panel's recommendation extended dollar losses because it fed into concerns about the future of the greenback as the main global reserve currency, raising the chances of central bank sales of dollar holdings.
"Speculation that major central banks would begin rebalancing their FX reserves has risen since the intensification of the dollar's slide between 2002 and mid-2008," CMC Markets said in a note.
Russia is also planning to propose the creation of a new reserve currency, to be issued by international financial institutions, at the April G20 meeting, according to the text of its proposals published on Monday.
It has significantly reduced the dollar's share in its own reserves in recent years.
Persaud said that the United States was concerned that holding the reserve currency made it impossible to run policy, while the rest of world was also unhappy with the generally declining dollar.
"There is a moment that can be grasped for change," he said.
"Today the Americans complain that when the world wants to save, it means a deficit. A shared (reserve) would reduce the possibility of global imbalances."
Persaud said the panel had been looking at using something like an expanded Special Drawing Right, originally created by the International Monetary Fund in 1969 but now used mainly as an accounting unit within similar organizations.
The SDR and the old Ecu are essentially combinations of currencies, weighted to a constituent's economic clout, which can be valued against other currencies and indeed against those inside the basket.
Persaud said there were two main reasons why policymakers might consider such a move, one being the current desire for a change from the dollar.
The other reason, he said, was the success of the euro, which incorporated a number of currencies but roughly speaking held on to the stability of the old German deutschemark compared with, say, the Greek drachma.
Persaud has long argued that the dollar would give way to the Chinese yuan as a global reserve currency within decades.
A shared reserve currency might negate this move, he said, but he believed that China would still like to take on the role.
Why the UN is Worthless to Human ExistenceBy Tom DeWeese
February 18, 2009
Africa has more natural resources than the United States. Yet its people wallow in poverty and a horrible existence, not because the land doesn’t provide for them, but because of bad governments.
Case in point is Zimbabwe which, by all accounts, should be the richest of all African nations. It was once called the breadbasket of Africa because of its rich soil and prosperous farmers. Today, under the brutal, unending dictatorship of insane ruler Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe sits in ruins. As The Washington Times reported, “People are starving and compete in the countryside with baboons, jackals and goats for roots and wild fruits; health care has imploded and cholera is on the march as water and sewer systems collapse.”
Why the collapse of this once wonderful country? Robert Mugabe. He hates whites, wants them out of the country, and so has literally stolen their land – mostly the once-rich farms. Then he gave the farms to his cronies or to just poor people living on the street. Most of these people had never even seen a farm, let alone worked one. The result was certainly predictable -- instant starvation. Mugabe maintains power through a gang of thugs which roam the streets and savagely beat and murder anyone who dares stand in opposition.
In spite of that, Mugabe has a strong, organized opposition that has bravely struck back, forcing elections and even winning them to throw out Mugabe. Twice. But he refuses to go. He just ignores the election results. In desperation, the opposition then tried to force at least a coalition government, allowing both Mugabe and opposition leaders to run the government. That lasted a couple of minutes. Mugabe made clear his position on the collation government when he said, “This thing called democracy is a problem. It’s a difficult proposition because always the opposition will want much more than what it deserves.”
The world has rightfully vilified the corrupt and brutal regimes in North Korea and Iran. The UN has condemned the genocide in Darfur and rung its collective hands over the fighting in the Gaza Strip. The UN has even sent agents to the United States to investigate our legal system and look for human rights violations.
But what of the tragedy in Zimbabwe? What of the brutal rule of Mugabe? Is he considered an international outlaw? Has the UN sent out a call for troops? Is there an international movement to have him removed from office? Has the UN Security Council met to demand action? Is there an international outrage aimed at Mugabe, as there was against the white Apartheid government of South Africa? Sanctions? Blockades? Protest songs by Bono? Anything? No.
Mugabe did speak at the UN’s Sustainable Development Conference in South Africa a few years ago. The 15-nation South African Development Community continues to deal with Mugabe. The South African government continues to “mediate” with him as he ignores the will of his own people and stays in office. Mugabe simply told the Associated Press, “Zimbabwe is mine.” Apparently that’s OK with the UN and the international community.
Meanwhile, rather than divert attention to Zimbabwe and its petty problems, the UN knows it’s much more interesting to get back to the investigations against human rights violations in the United States. There’s so much more wealth to plunder here.
What The UN Doesn’t Want You To Know
The father of the U.N. was an American communist
by Irvin Baxter, Jr.
A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done. He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later). At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.
All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy and sent to prison. Only then did people understand why the emblem of the United Nations looked so much like the emblem of the Soviet Union. It now made sense that the Soviet Union, at Yalta, was given control over all of Eastern Europe. Then everyone understood how the Soviet Union managed to capture three votes in the U.N. General Assembly compared to one for the United States. Then it became clear why a secret deal had been struck stating that a communist would always hold the office of head of the U.N. military.
The U.N. charter was authored by a communist, the first U.N. Secretary-general was a communist, and the U.N., from the beginning, was designed to be a Union of World Socialist Republics.
On a recent tour of the U.N., not one mention was made of any of this by our guide. Hiss' name was not mentioned one time. When pictures of the founding conference contained his picture, our U.N. guide avoided telling us who it was.
I'm sure everyone was taught about the United Nations and its importance in school, but I'm also sure that the above information was conveniently omitted from your textbooks!
Secret agreement: U.N. military to always be commanded by a communist
One of the most important positions within the entire United Nations—if not the most important—is that of Undersecretary-general for Political and Security Council Affairs. Most Americans have never even heard of this position, muchless anything about the man who holds the job. The undersecretary-general for political and security council affairs has three main areas of responsibility. They are:
Control of all military and police functions of the United Nations peacekeeping forces.
Supervision of all disarmament moves on the part of member nations
Control of all atomic energy ultimately entrusted to the United nations for peaceful and “other purposes”.
In view of the fact that these three functions may soon constitute the ultimate power of life and death over every human being on the face of the earth (once national disarmament is achieved and all military is under the control of the U.N.), there would appear to be some minor justification for us to be more than passingly curious over who wields this power. Since the United Nations was created in 1945 there have been fifteen men appointed to the position of undersecretary-general of political and security council affairs. Astonishingly, every single one of them has been a communist!
Communists appointed to the position of undersecretary-general
Arkady Sobolev--USSR (1946-1949)
Konstantin Zinchenko—USSR (1949-53)
Ilya Tehernychev—Ygoslavia (1954-1957)
Anatoly F. Dobrynin—USSR (1958-1960)
Georgi Ptrovich Arkadev—USSR (1960-1962)
Eugeny Dmiterievich Kiselev—USSR (1962-1963)
Vladimir Pavolovich Suslov—USSR (1963-1963)
Alexie E. Nesterenko—USSR (1965-1968)
Leonid N. Kutakov—USSR (1968-1973)
Arkady N. Shevchenko—USSR (1973-1978)
Mikhail D. Sytenko—USSR (1978-1981)
Viacheslav A. Ustinov—USSR (1981-1986)
Uasiliy S. Safronchuk—USSR (1987-1992)
Vladimir Petrovsky—Russia , “former USSR (1992-)
James O. C. Jonah—Sierra Leone (Co-chairman)
Some observers feel that fifteen Communists out of fifteen appointees constitutes a trend of sorts. But whatever we call it, Trygve Lie, the first secretary-general of the United Nations, revealed that this pattern was no mere coincidence. In his book In the cause of Peace Lie wrote: "Mr. Vyshinsky (of the USSR) did not delay his approach. He was the first to inform me of an understanding which the Big Five had reached in London on the appointment of a Soviet national as assistant secretary-general for political and security council affairs...
"Mr. Stettinius (U.S Secretary of State) confirmed to me that he had agreed with the Soviet delegation in the matter...
"The preservation of international peace and security was the organization's highest responsibility, and it was to entrusting the direction of the Secretariat department most concerned with this to a Soviet national that the Americans had agreed." (From The Fearful Master by Edward Griffin)
Every U.N. Secretary-general has been a socialist
No wonder someone said that the truth is stranger than fiction! This incredible saga of the United Nations just goes on and on. Perhaps the most revealing fact of all concerning the powers that control the United Nations is that every single Secretary-general since the U.N.'s formation has been a socialist.
Trygve Lie from Norway was the first elected head of the U.N. He was chosen by the fifteen-member U.N. Security Council and ratified by the U.N. General Assembly on February 1, 1946.
Lie, at the age of twenty-three, was appointed secretary in charge of administration of the Norwegian Labor Party. The socialist lawyer served as Minister of Justice until June 1939, when a Cabinet reorganization made him Minister of Commerce. In April 1945, Lie was chosen to head the Norwegian delegation to the United Nations Founding Conference at San Francisco. At the conference itself he was chosen chairman of Commission III which was charged with drafting the charter of the Security Council of the United Nations, "the organ...which would have the power to act against aggressors."
Dag Hammarskjold of Sweden was elected Secretary-general of the United Nations on April 7, 1953. At the age of thirty, Hammarskjold became Undersecretary of the Swedish Ministry of Finance. At the Ministryhe worked under the Fabian socialist economist Ernst Wigforss, whom he once said considered his second father. Sweden has long been the leading socialist state of Western Europe, taxing its citizens at a 75% rate.
U Thant of Burma was elected Secretary-general of the U.N. on November 30, 1962. According to Current Biography 1962, U Thant considered himself a democratic socialist.
Kurt Waldheim of Austria took office as Secretary-general of the United Nations on January 1, 1972. Waldheim had been Austria's U.N. ambassador from 1964 to 1968. When the Austrian Socialist party won the March 1970 elections, Waldheim again became Austria's U.N. representative. After serving two terms as U.N. Secretary-general, Waldheim became the head of Austria. It was revealed that Waldheim had lied about his role while serving in the Nazi forces of Adolf Hitler. Facts that were made known resulted in Waldheim being banished from the United States, even though he was the head of Austria.
Javier Perez de Cuellar became U.N. Secretary-general on December 15, 1981. In his address to the General Assembly after being sworn in, Perez de Cuellar called the disparity in wealth between rich and poor nations a violation of "the most fundamental human rights." During his administration, some third-world spokesmen complained that Perez de Cuellar had not been sufficiently outspoken in promoting the massive transfer of resources from rich to poor nations on a global scale (Wealth redistribution has always been the central plank in the platform of international socialism). "I am a third-world man," the Secretary-general replied. "But first of all I am a representative of 157 countries. I have to act in a way so that I am not only the representative of the third world."
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former foreign minister of Egypt, became the first African to head the U.N. on January 1, 1992. "If I was offered the job (of secretary-general) five years ago," Ghali said, "I would have turned it down. The U.N. then was a dead horse, but after the end of the Cold War, the U.N. has a special position." Politically, Boutros-Ghali was a member of the Arab Socialist Union.
Is it coincidence that one communist and six socialists have headed the United Nations since its birth in 1945? Does it seem strange at all that the driving message of the U.N., the message of wealth redistribution, is the central message of international communism? Do you find it amazing that the United States has allowed the Soviet Union to have three votes to our one inthe United Nations since 1945? With the supposed dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1992, each of the fifteen member of the ex-Soviet Union now have a vote in the U.N. So now we are outvoted fifteen to one. Yet Russia retains the right to invade these states if they get out of line.
So what does all this mean? the plain truth is that the United Nations has been designed to be a communistic world government from its very beginning.
What will happen? The United Nations will obtain the world domination that it has been planning for since its beginning. Communism will achieve its dream of ruling the world, but only for a very short time. We know this because the New World Order beast of Revelation 13 appears in another prophecy in Revelation 17. In Revelation 17:3 the beast is red. Red is used by God in another prophecy Communism (See chapter 3 of A Message for the President). And why not?! Red is the official color denoting Communism—Red China, Red Russia, et al.
There are some dreadful times just ahead for this world. The consolation is that the deep darkness that lies just ahead will soon be replaced by the glorious dawning of the kingdom of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. And He shall reign forever!!
How Communism and the U.N. Set Out to Destroy America
By Jill Cohen Walker, J.D.
February 25,
I remember the protests that took place near the lawns of the White House. From the late 1960s into the 1980s, shrill voices filled Washington, DC with anti-American rhetoric wrapped in blame-America-first rampages. It made me wonder why those speaking and those attending didn’t just pack up and move to different pastures—places where they could build something instead of trying to tear down the nation that gave them so much freedom.
It was not a pretty time in the history of America, but it wasn’t just the young people who were to blame. Many had only a marginal knowledge of the real issues and some didn’t even know why they were there. Those protestors didn’t know that the hate-America diatribes were well orchestrated, their roots deeply buried in a series of masterfully crafted plans concocted by those against whom they protested.
It took years for me to realize that what preceded the “hippie revolution” was almost a century old and was far more insidious and dangerous to our sovereignty than youths protesting. Behind our backs, and with the usual media assistance, Americans were sold a passel of lies that only the best charlatans in the political world could have conjured up—with or without evil incantations.
I knew the plan from both the humanist viewpoint and eventually studied Biblical prophecies. Those plans are now coming to fruition as God said they would, which makes living at this point in history (or His Story) rather incredible. Still, I was intrigued by a little book I stumbled upon at a local thrift store—a book that documented some rather evil, behind-the-scenes plotting on the part of our government. It’s the stuff that often warms the hearts and minds of those who subscribe to one conspiracy theory or another; and it was a bit ironic that the book was amidst a collection of Christian literature and Bible studies—a most appropriate place for truth to reside. What did I have to lose other than the meager purchase price?
As the face of the author stared back at me, the title and table of contents convinced me that answers to lingering questions about ongoing plans to destroy the United States would be found within. I bought and read the book, then became determined to revive the author’s story four decades after it was published. I don’t know if he’s still alive, and I don’t care how right wing he was. His story should be told if, for no other reason, to prove that our government has had a long-standing desire to sacrifice our national sovereignty on the altar of a one-world government ruled by those with money and power.
Maj. Arch E. Roberts AUS (Ret), an 18-year veteran, didn’t mince words in his efforts to stop the caustic, anti-American agenda of the ‘liberal establishment’ in the 1950s and ‘60s. In his book, Victory Denied . . . Why Your Son Faces Death in “NO-WIN WARS,”(Chas. Hallberg & Company, 1966). Maj. Roberts did more to expose the real goals of the United Nations and those in the Pentagon and State Department who were driven to destroy the United States. There are some things we already know are true and some we suspected were true. What’s astonishing was the ordeal Maj. Roberts went through for telling his fellow citizens the truth and how little the American people really knew about his plight then or know about it now.
After reading a few intro pages, I came to an editorial from The September 4, 1965, edition of the Chicago Tribune. Written by J. Howard Wood, Publisher, and W. D. Maxwell, Editor, titled “One Man’s Battle,” it told the story of the government’s removal of Maj. Roberts from active duty status. Maj. Roberts made a speech before the Daughters of the American Revolution that “offended army censorship and government officials.” He was in danger of losing his position in the army as well as his military pension for speaking the truth about the socialist/United Nation’s takeover of our government.
Maj. Roberts didn’t take it lying down. A court decision in his favor returned him to full duty with all the attending benefits to which he had previously been entitled. He demonstrated incredible courage against those who wanted to keep him and others like him silent—a sinister enemy that sought to silence American military men. His was a “war” against the real enemies of free speech.
The “rule” that silenced Maj. Roberts and others was instituted during the administration of John F. Kennedy. It emerged from the noted “Fulbright memorandum” that Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR) sent to the president in 1961. At the time, the senator was chairman of the foreign relations committee and was concerned that members of the military were discussing the dangers of communism with such intensity and frequency that they could only be viewed as suffering from right-wing radicalism. The danger was far greater if men, such as Maj. Roberts, told the public what he knew.
Fulbright also claimed that right-wingers believed that social legislation was the by-product of socialism, which was another name for communism. If members of the military were allowed to speak openly against communism, voters wouldn’t support the new administration’s social programs and foreign policies, all of which were socialistic in nature. [Read the entire article at:]
The UN is Communist - What is Bush?
By: Alan Stang
October 11, 2002
For weeks, we have been looking at the major American wars of the Twentieth Century, in order to provide a context of understanding for the present war on Iraq. We have seen that, in behalf of their perennial goal of world government, our own leaders tricked us into both world wars by arranging for the murders of thousands of our own people. The next war we need to look at is the war in Korea, and to understand the war in Korea we need to look first at the United Nations.
The war in Korea was the first war the United States fought in behalf of the UN, under UN direction, for UN purposes. The present war on Iraq is another. It is painfully obvious that President Bush wants the UN to serve as protective cover for Washington's purposes. So, what is the UN? The United Nations was conceived by Communists and has always been run by Communists for Communist purposes.
Remember that after World War I, the world government conspirators failed to arrange American entry into the League of Nations, which was then the rudimentary framework of the world government they were trying to create. They inundated the American people with world government propaganda through conspiratorial outfits like the Council on Foreign Relations, with the result that they were successful in putting the United States into the United Nations after World War II.
The UN was founded at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, as the war was coming to an end. The Secretary-General at the UN conference was a distinguished gentleman names Alger Hiss, movie star-handsome, endlessly efficient and consummately charming. Hiss helped draft the UN Charter. Without credentials signed by Alger Hiss, it was impossible to get into the conference. In a historic news photo that probably appeared on the front page of every newspaper in the United States, President Harry S. Truman and Hiss are shown together on the dais.
As Director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs, Hiss appointed the members of the U.S. delegation to the UN. At the infamous Yalta Conference in the Soviet Union, in February, 1945, where much of this was arranged and where central Europe was secretly deeded to Stalin, Hiss stood at the dying Roosevelt's elbow.
There was only one problem. Alger Hiss was later exposed as a Soviet spy; he was convicted of perjury and imprisoned for lying under oath about his Communist activities. No doubt that was why, at the first London Conference in 1946, a couple of years before he was exposed, Hiss arranged for the Soviets to run UN military activities and for the United States to run UN financial activities, which meant in effect that the Soviet Union won the right to run the UN and we won the right to pay for it. It is important to note that Alger Hiss was just one of many Soviet UN maggots. How likely is it, do you think, that George W. Bush doesn't know all this?Remember that the purpose of all this was and remains the creation of a world government, in which our own U.S. government would at first be subservient and later dissolved. One of your Intrepid Correspondent's books could be helpful in this discussion. In The Actor (Boston, Western Islands, 1968), you will find for instance the following statement published by Foreign Affairs, the monthly periodical of the Council on Foreign Relations. John Foster Dulles, the Marxist revolutionary who was Eisenhower's Secretary of State, is talking here about UN legislation: ". . . The achievement of such a body of laws calls for a lawmaking process. And to enforce them there is required. . . a judicial system and police force. . ." So far, we haven't been able to arrange this, Dulles complains. But then he adds, "We must not accept that condition as permanent. . . ."
Hmm. Let's see. A legislature. A judiciary. A military. Wouldn't all that add up to a government? How likely is it, do you think, that George W. Bush doesn't know all this?
Perhaps the best proof of what is happening comes from our own government. If you have never heard of this before, you will probably not believe it. The only thing we can suggest is that you take no one's word for it, including mine. You can easily check it out for yourself. It is very short; you could read the whole thing in a few minutes.
We are talking of course about the State Department Publication 7277, entitled Freedom From War, The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, released in September 1961, during the Kennedy Administration. This was and remains official U.S. government policy: "The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order. . . "Remember, we warned you. Now, get up off the floor, find your bifocals and read it again. It really does say what you thought it did, doesn't it? Official U.S. government policy is to eliminate all militaries, including our own. What would happen to those militaries? Would they just be disbanded? Would their arsenals just be destroyed?
No, Pilgrim. They would be handed over to something called the United Nations Peace Force. ". . . In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force. . .
"So, when the process is complete, we would be completely defenseless. We would have no military, none at all. The UN would have an invincible military, invincible because no nation could challenge it. Right now, that lesson is being taught to Iraq, which will soon be disarmed. Always the first target of such a Communist tactic is somebody everyone dislikes.
And the UN was conceived by Communists, was founded by Communists and always has been run by Communists for Communist purposes. This would eventually mean the complete Communist subjugation of the United States. Surely none of my very knowledgeable readers subscribes to the preposterous Communist canard that Communism is "dead."
Okay, maybe some Communist lunatic left over by the departing Alger Hiss wrote 7277. But the date on the subversion is 1961, more than forty years ago, an eternity in this fast-moving world. Maybe Jack Kennedy was too busy chasing Fiddle and Faddle in the White House to know about it in the first place. And how do we know it is still U.S. government policy today? Sorry, Pilgrim, we know it because once in a while we check on its status and it is still in force. How likely is it, do you think, that George W. Bush doesn't know about this?
Bush lately has been calling for an ever-stronger UN, a UN with "spine," a UN with "backbone," a UN determined to avoid the fate of the League of Nations. As we have seen, such a UN would mean world dictatorship. To dramatize his commitment, Bush has put the United States back into UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, which the United States quit many years ago.
UNESCO was flooding the nation's schools with Communist world government propaganda. That was one of its main purposes. See the UN series entitled Toward World Understanding. As always, read and decide for yourself. UNESCO hasn't changed a jot, not even a tittle, but here we are in it again, thanks to George Bush. Is the hair on the back of your neck standing up? We're sorry, ladies. Maybe you can work it into an exciting, new style.
Along these lines, UNICEF, the UN Children's Fund, has recently been pushing child sex with homosexuals and with animals. In South Africa, a UNICEF outfit called LoveLife promotes sodomy and abortion. Would the victims of such programs be black?
And in the issue of June 24th, 1997, the solidly leftist Village Voice, which calls itself America's largest weekly newspaper, reported in excruciating detail on sexual exploitation, torture and murder of children, by UN "Peacekeeping" soldiers, including photographs of UN goons literally burning a living child. This story should have been on the front page of every newspaper in the United States. Have you ever heard about it? Does George W. Bush know?
The UN: Thoroughly infiltrated and taken over by Muslims at every levelHugh Fitzgerald
January 5, 2009
It is hard to think of an organization that has been more thoroughly infiltrated and taken over by Muslims at every level, than the United Nations. It has for decades been filled with such willing collaborators as Edward Mortimer, the former Chief Speech Writer and Senior Adviser, as he billed himself, to Kofi Annan -- and for all I know, perhaps he's still senior-advising and chief-speech-writing for that Innocent Abroad Ban Ki-Moon, especially when it comes to Muslim matters.
This infiltration can be seen everywhere, from the actual staffing of the U.N. secretariat, to the power of the Islamic bloc, which is the last sizable voting bloc left now that the Soviet bloc has dissolved. What should be the bloc of enlightened democracies has lost its way -- not least because of the effect of the anti-Israel atmosphere with which the United Nations is suffused, and the atmosphere of apologetics for Islam with which it is also suffused. And then of course there are those Western countries whose elites are terrified of offending the aggressive and dangerous Muslims who are now living in their very midst, and about which they have not a clue as to what to do. At the United Nations, Islam, or the Organization of the Islamic Conference, whenever Israel or Darfur or anything to do with Islam comes up, effectively calls the tune.
Why, almost half the time of the U.N. and its succursales, such as that comic organization supposedly devoted to Human Rights in Geneva, is dedicated to the proposition that Mighty Israel, the vast Empire of Israel, is the single most important topic, and of course threat, in the world today. The Geneva Human Rights council is that one whose deliberations are sometimes interrupted by the voices of steady sanity of David Littman and Roy Brown, and a few others like them. But even there the Muslim delegates have so intimidated, with their aggression and their sheer craziness, so many of the others, even Western European delegates, that even the most intelligent representatives of Western Europe shrink from confrontation with the primitive representatives of primitive peoples, made primitive, it must be said, by Islam itself.
And on the East River, the usual inmates of bedlam try to outdo one another in paying obeisance to Muslim countries. Of course, if those Muslim countries had no oil, they would have nothing. And had they not had, more than a millennium ago, a certain number of Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians in their recently-conquered lands, they would surely not even be able to claim what little they can claim as "Islam's contributions to civilization." An ideology that is all-encompassing, that encourages the habit of mental submission, that restricts so severely the varieties of artistic expression, that discourages in every way the spirit of critical inquiry, that mistreats women and, most important of all, mistreats all non-Muslims but insists on loyalty only to Islam and to fellow members of the Umma -- it is the adherents of this who dare now to demand even more.
The U.N. is now perilously in the position of the League of Nations. The League of Nations, or, as the French call it, La Societe des Nations (and society it was, with lots of elegant socializing) could do nothing about Fascism and Nazism. And even though the odd American veto can prevent the most egregious and absurd of resolutions passed by the Yesterday's Men who are the current diplomats at the United Nations from so many of the now-threatened Infidel lands, the U.N. remains a corrupt and corrupting institution.
Fortunately, just in time, the Muslims have overplayed their hand, with too many attacks in too many places. Now the spectacle of violent mobs of keffiyehed Muslims in European cities has impressed upon many Europeans the notion that these Muslims in their midst, and their local fellow travelers, are a menace that will not go away. That realization is dawning. It is being helped along not so much by what non-Muslims have done or said, but in the main by what Muslims have done and said. And they will continue, in their violence and aggression and impossible demands, to alert the non-Infidel world to what they are and what they are doing. And so that Infidel world is slowly, as if out of a deep sleep, shaking its locks, and coming, fitfully and by slow degrees, awake.