The unthinkable – an internet controlled and operated by the United Nations.
If the U.N. INTERNET TAKE OVER happens it could change the Internet and our world as we know it. When Obama was president, he announced publicly the plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet – he also promised the United Nations would never take control. But if the U.S. gives up internet protections, the likely result could be the U.N. taking control of the internet under the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) on September 30.
What would the implications be of a takeover of the World Wide Web by the United Nations under ICANN?
Censorship galore. Think communist China – so called “conspiracy theories” and unfavorable opinions would cease to exist. Calling George Soros an evil bastard would not be possible.
Indeed, with all the funding Soros gives to “globalism” to destabilize countries in favor of international governing rackets, the U.N. would certainly protect their sugar daddy the way CNN protects Hillary Clinton.
Speaking of Soros, he has his ugly crinkly hands all over this issue – a leaked document by DCLeaks shows that Soros’s Open Society Foundation called for regulating the internet to favor it’s supporters. Maybe the “Open Society Foundation” should change it’s name to the Censored Society Foundation because such a proposal is ludicrous.
From the Daily Caller –
An internal proposed strategy from George Soros’s Open Society Justice Initiative calls for international regulation of private actors’ decisions on “what information is taken off the Internet and what may remain.” Those regulations, the document notes, should favor “those most supportive of open society.”
“Our freedom of expression work furthers the free exchange of information and ideas via the media and internet, and proposes to begin to address the free expression and association rights of NGOs. The internet has been a key tool for promoting freedom of expression and open societies — as in the Arab Spring — and is a potential safeguard against monopoly control of information in such places as China and Central Asia”
“But it is also presenting underaddressed challenges, including lack of regulation of private operators that are able to decide, without due process procedures, what information is taken off the Internet and what may remain. A ‘race to the bottom’ results from the agendas of undemocratic governments that seek to impose their hostility to free speech on the general online environment. We seek to ensure that, from among the norms emerging in different parts of the world, those most supportive of open society gain sway.”
~Open Society Foundation Document.
Without the U.S. contract allowing ICANN to keep it’s anti-trust exemption, ICANN would seek to be overseen by another government group.
Already, authoritarian regimes have proposed that ICANN become another arm of the U.N. to make it easier for these regimes to censor the internet globally.
There is still some time for Congress and We The People to come together and fight back – demand our legislators vote and prevent the Obama administration from giving up protection of the internet.
In the immediate aftermath of Brexit, the issue of its relationship with the UN has come to the fore in the United States.
Sarah Palin, once the governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate, suggested that the United States take similar steps to leave the United Nations. «May UN shackles be next on the chopping block», she said.
Palin demanded the United States extricate itself from the UN, which «dissolves a nation’s self-determination and sovereignty». The first Republican woman nominated for the vice presidency is an influential figure. She is one of the Tea Party leaders. Her book Going Rogue has sold more than two million copies.
In 2014, Palin launched an online news network, the Sarah Palin Channel.
She has the means to influence the US public opinion.
Now the issue will hit public discourse as the pro-nationalist, anti-globalist sentiment is spreading in the wake of the British «leave» vote.
Actually Sarah Palin’s statement is just part of the story and she is not the only public figure and politician to raise it. Alabama congressman Mike Rogers wants the United States to exit the United Nations. Rep. Mike Rogers
(R-AL3) has long been one of the most vocal opponents of the UN and recently laid out his major issues with the multi-national organization in a statement.
He believes the United States’ participation with the United Nations should end immediately. According to Rogers, the UN continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars. «Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world?» Rogers asked rhetorically. «The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations».
Congressman Rogers’ frustrations with the UN led him to introduce H.R. 1205, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015, which he said would «end country’s participation in the UN and any organizations affiliated with them».
Several other liberty-minded congressmen have also sponsored the legislation.
If approved, the legislation would repeal the UN Participation Act of 1945 and shutter the US government’s mission to the outfit. It would also «terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations». That specifically includes UNESCO along with the World Health Organization, the UN Environment Program (UNEP), and more. It would end all US involvement in all UN conventions and agreements, too.
The proposed law, introduced in numerous legislative session of Congress in recent decades, would also end all funding to the UN and all of its agencies. The legislation also aims to end all US military involvement in UN military «peacekeeping» schemes and ban United States troops from serving under UN command. Finally, the bill would seek to evict the UN from US soil. It would also ban any use of American government facilities by the global outfit, while stripping UN officials and dignitaries of diplomatic immunity.
In the US Senate, pro-sovereignty sentiment is going strong. Last year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a former contender for the 2016 nomination which he lost to Donald Trump, blasted the UN and suggested it should be dismantled.
The 2014 Gallup poll showed that a staggering 57 percent of Americans believed the UN was doing a «bad job», versus 37 percent who thought it was doing a «good job».
More than two thirds of Americans were upset with the UN, and independents were also overwhelmingly opposed. But even among Democrats, half thought the UN was doing a bad job.
Indeed, especially in recent years, the UN has become increasingly vocal in attacking the US for violations of human rights and international laws. In 2014 The United Nations Committee Against Torture released a report that deeply criticized the US for racial discrimination and other Civil Rights issues, including electronic surveillance, CIA interrogations, immigrant detentions, the failure to shut down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay etc.
The report’s findings are the «concluding observations» of hearings during the «Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment», which took place in Geneva.
A new UN report in 2015 criticized the United States for being the only country in the world that imprisons children for life without parole.
The same year the United States was sharply criticized over its human rights record by numerous countries at the United Nations Office at Geneva.
Member nations blasted the US at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, rebuking the country over its human rights record. During the second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the US, country after country urged the US to strengthen legislation and expand training to eliminate racism and excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.
The legality of using drones by the US has been questioned many times by the international community.
In 2003 the US attacked Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council, in 2011 as a member of NATO alliance it went beyond the UN resolution on Libya.
The list can go on. There is a plethora of examples to prove that the US is a country in serious trouble with the international law.
The UN may be imperfect but at a time when the global security is under threat, let it be terrorists, rogue states of climate change, the Organization remains a vital instrument of international governance in the interdependent world. Engagement and cooperation, not isolation or unilateralism, are the keys to security. After WWII, the world would have been a much worse place without the UN. This international body has managed many conflicts. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency have greatly contributed into preventing a nuclear war. A half dozen core human rights treaties and the creation of a Human Rights High Commissioner to monitor them have changed the world for the better. An extensive international criminal justice system has been developed under UN auspices. More broadly, the UN has addressed social problems to feed the hungry and shelter the dispossessed. It has helped to provide education to millions of children. A world without the United Nations would have thrown us back to the Stone Age. With the UN jettisoned, the US would return to pre-Second World War isolationism in the age of the computer, the Internet, and the high-speed airplane.
The global law and order are threatened by irresponsible US politicians willing to free the country from the burden of international law and global commitments. The decision will undermine every foundation the contemporary world is based on. It’s time to ring alarm bells.
Follow WE ARE CHANGE on SOCIAL MEDIA
Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news
We use Bitcoin Too !
Visit The Gear Store Wearechange.org/gear
United Nation military troops may soon arrive and see action on American soil following the United States’ announcement of support for “a set of principles that give a green light for U.N. peacekeeping troops and police to use force to protect civilians in armed conflicts,” Military Times reports.
The militarization of local police, combined with the arrival of a United Nations military presence, could mean big trouble for liberty and freedom here in America.
U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told attendees at an important U.N. meeting that the United States was “proud” and “humbled” to be a included in the new agenda and promised to follow by the 18 pledges. Fox News
The arrival of the United Nations requires federalization of police in order to set a global standard of law enforcement. President Barack Obama has pounced on the opportunity to exploit recent shootings to push for the federalization of local police forces.
Videos have been flooding the internet documenting United Nations military-like vehicles moving across America.
And this would not the be the first time American politicians have attempted to sell their citizens out to the powers of the United Nations. The UN’s first attempt to capture America was in 1951. In strange fashion, forces flying the flag of the United Nations began to occupy small towns and cities across the United States. This was intended to test the will of the people and see if they would accept a UN “takeover.” The test failed and sparked controversy and concerns over a “revolution-in-the-making” that would destroy any plot formulated by the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations.
UN forces were quickly met with much resistance and silently left occupied government buildings and removed United Nation flags nationwide. Broadcaster Myron C. Fagan documented the secretive operation in the 1960’s claiming “the UN ‘invasions’ were intended to be completely hush-hush. The Mass Media were very accommodating and the local newspapers and radio stations in the ‘invaded’ cities were kept silent under order of the UN. However, in several of the cities the local police refused to be ‘captured’. That caused quite an uproar — true, only locally, but it threatened to spread nationwide, especially after troops and officers assigned to additional ‘invasion units’ refused to ‘serve’. The alarmed plotters hastily halted all further ‘invasions’.”
President Obama has signed an executive order that allows for the US military to use force against American citizens for the first time in history.The order was signed on July 1st, 2016 and is titled “Executive Order — United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force“.
The order appears to have changed the rules of engagement between the military and ordinary U.S. citizens in an end-around the Constitution.
UNITED STATES POLICY ON PRE- AND POST-STRIKE MEASURES TO ADDRESS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN U.S. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations. As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.
The protection of civilians is fundamentally consistent with the effective, efficient, and decisive use of force in pursuit of U.S. national interests. Minimizing civilian casualties can further mission objectives; help maintain the support of partner governments and vulnerable populations, especially in the conduct of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations; and enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of U.S. operations critical to our national security. As a matter of policy, the United States therefore routinely imposes certain heightened policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of armed conflict that relate to the protection of civilians.
Civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of force in situations of armed conflict or in the exercise of a state’s inherent right of self-defense. The U.S. Government shall maintain and promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, take appropriate steps when such casualties occur, and draw lessons from our operations to further enhance the protection of civilians.
Sec. 2. Policy. In furtherance of U.S. Government efforts to protect civilians in U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense, and with a view toward enhancing such efforts, relevant departments and agencies (agencies) shall continue to take certain measures in present and future operations.
(a) In particular, relevant agencies shall, consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:
(i) train personnel, commensurate with their responsibilities, on compliance with legal obligations and policy guidance that address the protection of civilians and on implementation of best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, including through exercises, pre-deployment training, and simulations of complex operational environments that include civilians;
(ii) develop, acquire, and field intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems that, by enabling more accurate battlespace awareness, contribute to the protection of civilians;
(iii) develop, acquire, and field weapon systems and other technological capabilities that further enable the discriminate use of force in different operational contexts;
(iv) take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, such as providing warnings to the civilian population (unless the circumstances do not permit), adjusting the timing of attacks, taking steps to ensure military objectives and civilians are clearly distinguished, and taking other measures appropriate to the circumstances; and
(v) conduct assessments that assist in the reduction of civilian casualties by identifying risks to civilians and evaluating efforts to reduce risks to civilians.
(b) In addition to the responsibilities above, relevant agencies shall also, as appropriate and consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:
(i) review or investigate incidents involving civilian casualties, including by considering relevant and credible information from all available sources, such as other agencies, partner governments, and nongovernmental organizations, and take measures to mitigate the likelihood of future incidents of civilian casualties;
(ii) acknowledge U.S. Government responsibility for civilian casualties and offer condolences, including ex gratia payments, to civilians who are injured or to the families of civilians who are killed;
(iii) engage with foreign partners to share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of and responding to civilian casualties, including through appropriate training and assistance; and
(iv) maintain channels for engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other nongovernmental organizations that operate in conflict zones and encourage such organizations to assist in efforts to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, including by appropriately marking protected facilities, vehicles, and personnel, and by providing updated information on the locations of such facilities and personnel.
Sec. 3. Report on Strikes Undertaken by the U.S. Government Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities. (a) The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), or such other official as the President may designate, shall obtain from relevant agencies information about the number of strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, as well as assessments of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from those strikes, and publicly release an unclassified summary of such information no later than May 1, 2017. By May 1 of each subsequent year, as consistent with the need to protect sources and methods, the DNI shall publicly release a report with the same information for the preceding calendar year.
(b) The annual report shall also include information obtained from relevant agencies regarding the general sources of information and methodology used to conduct these assessments and, as feasible and appropriate, shall address the general reasons for discrepancies between post-strike assessments from the U.S. Government and credible reporting from nongovernmental organizations regarding non-combatant deaths resulting from strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.
(c) In preparing a report under this section, the DNI shall review relevant and credible post-strike all-source reporting, including such information from nongovernmental sources, for the purpose of ensuring that this reporting is available to and considered by relevant agencies in their assessment of deaths.
(d) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs may, as appropriate, request that the head of any relevant agency conduct additional reviews related to the intelligence assessments of deaths from strikes against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.
Sec. 4. Periodic Consultation. In furtherance of the policies and practices set forth in this order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, through the National Security Council staff, will convene agencies with relevant defense, counterterrorism, intelligence, legal, civilian protection, and technology expertise to consult on civilian casualty trends, consider potential improvements to U.S. Government civilian casualty mitigation efforts, and, as appropriate, report to the Deputies and Principals Committees, consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 1 or its successor. Specific incidents will not be considered in this context, and will continue to be examined within relevant chains of command.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) The policies and practices set forth above are not intended to alter, and shall be implemented consistent with, the authority and responsibility of commanders and other U.S. personnel to execute their mission as directed by the President or other appropriate authorities, which necessarily includes the inherent right of self-defense and the maintenance of good order and discipline among U.S. personnel. No part of this order modifies the chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces or the authority of U.S. commanders.
(b) No part of this order modifies priorities in the collection of intelligence or the development, acquisition, or fielding of weapon systems and other technological capabilities.
(c) No part of this order shall prejudice or supplant established procedures pertaining to administrative or criminal investigative or judicial processes in the context of the military justice system or other applicable law and regulation.
(d) The policies set forth in this order are consistent with existing U.S. obligations under international law and are not intended to create new international legal obligations; nor shall anything in this order be construed to derogate from obligations under applicable law, including the law of armed conflict.
(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 1, 2016.
Follow us on our other Social media accounts
Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news
We use Bitcoin Too !
Visit The Gear Store Wearechange.org/gear
Source: Sustainable Pulse
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions Against Monsanto, joined by dozens of global food, farming and environmental justice groups announced today that they will put Monsanto MON (NYSE), a US-based transnational corporation, on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide, in The Hague, Netherlands, next year on World Food Day, October 16, 2016. (more…)