The War on Humans

Make no mistake; there are plenty of people, (Sir David Attenborough warns that mankind is a “plague on the Earth.”) who also happen to occupy senior roles in Gov’ts, NGO’s (extremist Green groups), the EU and the UN, who firmly believe humans are the enemy.

Peddling Imaginary Global Warming is the perfect cover story for these anti-human forces to enact their deadly ideology. You know the world has gone mad when some people suggest plants have “rights” also.

The video below runs for 31 minutes, but it’s well worth watching.

Continue reading

The hypocrisy, selectivity, and politicisation of the UN is staggering

Via the Times of Israel

Quote

…The (UN) General Assembly will have adopted a total of 22 resolutions condemning Israel—and only four on the rest of the world combined.

…193 UN member states, condemned Israel for violating the human rights of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, of Palestinian refugees, and even of Syrians in the Golan Heights.

That’s right: the UN adopted a resolution today that mentions the word “Syria” no less than 10 times—yet said nothing of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s massacre of more than 100,000 of his own people.

Entitled “Occupied Syrian Golan,” the resolution condemned Israel for allegedly mistreating Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights. Israel was also condemned for violating the rights of Syrian citizens under international humanitarian law. The UN found no time today, however, to comment on the international legality of President Assad gassing his own citizens to death.

What a Joke: Saudi Arabia, Cuba & China will join UN ‘Human Rights’ Council

 

Quote

…It is well and good to hold Israel to account for its treatment of Arab and other minorities, just like every other nation.

Yet something is wrong when not a single word in today’s Palestinian-themed resolutions mentioned the genocidal anti-Semitism expressed regularly by Hamas organs in Gaza, or the dangerous incitement by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, whose official schools, mosques, newspapers, and TV stations continue to glorify the murderers of Israeli civilians as heroes worthy of emulation.

Word is father to deed. Yet none of today’s UN resolutions concerning the West Bank mentioned the outburst of Palestinian terrorist attacks over recent weeks, such as the brutal murder of Shraya Ofer outside his Jordan Valley home, as his wife managed to escape. The murder of Ofer by axes and iron bars was “a gift to the Palestinian people and Hamas prisoners, in honor of Eid al-Adha,” the two suspects said under questioning.

By turning a blind eye to Palestinian incitement and terrorism, the UN resolutions promote a one-sided narrative that gives a free pass to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Authority, encouraging intransigence instead of compromise.

No wonder a UN interpreter said anti-Israel votes are a ‘bit much’…

Quote

On Thursday a United Nations interpreter, unaware that her microphone was on, uttered words of truth in reaction to the General Assembly’s adoption of nine politically-motivated resolutions condemning Israel, and zero resolutions on the rest of the world.

Under the mistaken impression that she was speaking only to colleagues, the interpreter uttered the following words into the headphones of every UN delegate, and before a live webcast audience worldwide:

“I think when you have… like a total of ten resolutions on Israel and Palestine, there’s gotta be something, c’est un peu trop, non? [It’s a bit much, no?] I mean I know… There’s other really bad shit happening, but no one says anything about the other stuff.”

Laughter erupted among the delegates.

The UN is a joke.

 

 

Follow Andy on Twitter

Like us on Facebook

UN run AGW ‘middleman’ awash with cash but claims to face hard times

CAGW is nothing but a massive money merry-go around scam.

Via Fox News

Quote

The United Nations-administered cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gases is sitting on a cash hoard of close to $200 million, even as it warns of hard times ahead that could impede its mission.

The cash cushion for the Geneva-based organization known as the Clean Development Mechanism, or CDM, amounts to more than 400 percent of the $45 million reserve that it considers a normal set-aside for rainy days, according to its recently published business plan for 2014-2015.

Given the organization’s projected belt-tightening budget of about $33 million for next year, it also means the CDM’s more than 170 employees could, theoretically, do absolutely nothing for the next six years before they would have to go out of business.

The CDM’s intention, of course, is to do the opposite:  it is preparing to suffer through a lean year or two and counting on 194 nations that assembled in Warsaw, Poland, this week, to successfully kick off negotiations intended to lead to a new global climate control treaty for signing in 2015 — and, the organization hopes, a new and even bigger gusher of cash.

The CER’s (carbon emission reduction certificates) aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

Quote

(CDM) essentially acts as a middleman in the process of creating projects in developing countries, paid for by participants in developed countries, that are calculated by its vetted experts — predominately a host of European and Asians consulting and technical contractors — to provide certified reductions in carbon emissions.

As part of the same middleman role, the CDM sits at the center of a much bigger array of consultancies and other service providers that create and sustain its project inventory.

…Less well known is the fact that the CDM takes a fee for every CER that it issues — worth $0.10 for each of the first 15,000 tons, and $0.20 for every ton thereafter, “to assist with the administrative expenses of the executive board and other bodies involved in the Protocol framework.” 

To judge from the size of the CDM surplus, the “share of proceeds” has clearly done a lot more than that. But even in 2013 — when the number of projects registered by the CDM has dropped to about 80 percent from the previous year, fees and “share of proceeds” is expected to bring in $35 million, or just less than the CDM’s $38 million budget. The difference will hardly make a dimple in the organization’s current cash trove.

What a bunch of thieves… 

 

Follow Andy on Twitter

All Quiet on the UNHRC Front

Eh

One of the most under reported stories of recent months must surely be the troubling developments at the United Nations Human Rights Council (the UNHRC – not to be confused with the UN High Commissioner of Refugees) writes Elle Hardy

Formed in 2006 from the ashes of the hamstrung and ineffective Commission on Human Rights, the body’s watery but noble aim is to “help member states meet their human rights obligations through dialogue, capacity building, and technical assistance.”

The UNHRC is the lead body within the UN for human rights. Its reports and recommendations can ultimately only be enforced by the UN Security Council. It serves three functions: to review and give recommendations on the self-reporting of human rights in all participating countries every country every four years, to promote and discuss human rights, and to report gross violations.

The Council’s great fame is its infamy: passing repeated resolutions to condemn Israel, while only expressing “deep concern” on Sudan’s genocide in Darfur (and subsequent nomination of Sudan for a seat on the Council by the African bloc), and the repeated resolutions on “defamation of religion” brought by Islamic states and backed by allies in despotism, such as Cuba, Russia, and China.

In July this year, envoys from both Syria and Iran announced that they would attempt to run for a seat in 2014. Presently, the Council is reviewing the human rights credentials for the nominations for the 47 seats by Saudi Arabia, Senegal, China, Nigeria, Mexico, Mauritius, Jordan, Malaysia, Central African Republic, Monaco, Belize, Chad, Israel, Congo and Malta.

Last week saw all but several western countries take to the floor to congratulate Saudi Arabia and China on their ‘advancements’ in the field. Farce is a too temperate word; irony too wry.

A seat on the UNHRC may be of little consequence to the enslaved women of Saudi Arabia, or the starving Congolese – but there is an ethical incumbency to prevent tyrants and megalomaniacs from possessing the faintest air of legitimacy, or a platform to espouse their bilious views.

Furthermore, if any institution with such gravitas, resources, and access is of vacuous morality, is it not conceivable that particular countries or voting blocs could use this standing to cover-up, to corrupt, or to abet further human rights violations?

Outside of right-aligned, pro-Israel groups UN Watch and Human Rights Voices, there is little reporting, let alone criticism. The silence on UNHRC from the major left-aligned organisations Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International has been particularly disappointing.

It must be asked whether the inherent belief in and support of the United Nations by social-democratic and progressive movements in politics, media, and civil society is informing their silence.

Their collective failure for vocal criticism of the UNHRC can be seen through three key defining planks of much of the modern left: the notion of equality, moral relativism, and environmentalism.

Belief in democracy of nations is a logical fallacy. By giving equal seats at the table and votes to countries who do not afford their citizens the same rights, the UN was flawed from inception. Such an existential right of participation is the most absurd form of collectivism.

Moral relativism defies the modern concept of human rights, which dates from the French and American revolutions – where there was universal support for the assertion that human rights both exist and are possessed equally. Strains of the apparent slur of ‘enlightenment imperialism’ pervade the UN and many of its supporters on the left.

It is essentially a front for anti-American and anti-Israel chauvinism. While both countries rightly receive criticism for their records, they are the straw men of a deeply flawed organisation.  Orwell said it best when he noted “the sin of nearly all left-wingers from 1933 onward is that they have wanted to be anti-fascist without being anti-totalitarian.”

Finally, I suspect the left has abdicated the cause in favour of fighting climate change. While many on the right also support the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is a hybrid of lionisation of the IPCC – and by extension the UN – and a siege mentality. Do they fear criticising the UN could undermine their position in the environment wars?

The only body that can enforce findings of the UNHRC is the impotent UN Security Council – of which Australia is a temporary member. It is well established that our voice on the Security Council will be inconsequential, as the power of veto by the permanent members have rendered it almost completely ineffectual. If Australia wishes to make any use of its time, both the government and human rights groups within Australia should use this platform as an opportunity to condemn the despotic cabals of the UNHRC in the strongest possible terms.

The Human Rights Council is set to review Australia’s commitment to human rights in 2015. It is certain that opponents of the government will pounce upon any criticism of our record. If such opponents do indeed have regard for the enlightenment values of human rights, it will be the height of hypocrisy if we hear scant from them beforehand.

Elle Hardy is a banker and freelance writer with an interest in liberty, politics, international affairs, and the Oxford comma. She can be found on Twitter @ellehardytweets

Really Not Part Of The Plan

EXCLUSIVE:

by Allan Essery

Sustainable Development? Part 3

In support of its deception the United Nations through its pseudo-scientific educational programme claims that private ownership of property, including both urban and rural, facilitates environmental degradation.

Acceptance by many of this bizarre UN teaching were caught up in ''Group-Think''.  Group-think is almost always associated with feel good philosophies and is the irrational consensus thinking that aggressively rejects alternatives.  This is the mentality that causes large numbers of people to accept a bizarre belief  that a tax on carbon dioxide can control the climate.

Most Australians would agree that care of the environment is necessary and the development of a locally designed sustainability programme arrived at by democratic process would be acceptable. State governments such as the New South Wales and Victorian governments in particular rejected that and moved to an ecocentric sustainability policy which has been designed by a foreign entity, namely the UN, and is monotored by a foreign entity, again the UN and poses a fundamental and ongoing threat to the sovereignty and democracy of NSW and Victoria and all of their residents.

The rights of private land owners are increasingly being eroded under the guise of environmental concerns generated by the United Nation's fradulent Agenda 21 and associated programmes.  Instead of defending the fundamental importance of private property rights, the NSW and Victorian governments have actively worked against landholders by introducing so much green tape that it is leading to properties becoming unusable and worthless. In addition, green laws are preventing the clearing of woodland regrowth and undergrowth and that will directly contributed to the increasing fierceness and uncontrollably destructive nature of bushfires as we have just witnessed.

In order to implement their green laws, State Governments will make local councils agents for Local Agenda 21, promoted by the International Council For Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) which was created and monitored by the UN. The UN is fully aware that to achieve its intended goal of 'World Government' it must first succeed at a local level.

Federal and State Government plans to empower local councils to force Agenda 21 upon it residents in defiance of the Commonwealth and State Constitutions and two referendums that make such empowerment illegal would be seen by any responsible person to be an abandonment of democracy.  Given that local council do not have legislative authority it is surprising that they undertake a widespread adoption of Agenda 21 without challenge. It is frightening that both levels of government and local councils have made a decision to treat their constituents with utter contempt by NOT seeking democratic endorsement of Agenda 21 during the normal electoral process or by referendum.

 

In a demonstration of amazing ignorance of the law and/or arrogance, the CEO of the Victorian Melton Local Council, Kelvin Tori, during an open council meeting claimed,  ''The rates and charges that council impose are imposed under the power granted to council by the State of Victoria, under the Victorian Constitution.  Local Government is recognised within the Victorian Constitution which gave rise to the Local Government Act 1989, and confered to local government some of the powers of the State.  That would include the power to impose rates and charges.''

Now, that statement brings to light a major problem for Mr Tori and the Melton Council.  In the 1988 referendum there were three questions. Look at questions 1 and 3.

Question 1 was in regard to recognition of local councils as ''Local Government'' in the Federal Constitution.  Question 3 was, ''Each state shall provide for the establishment & continuance of a system of local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the state, and empowered to administer, and make by-laws for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the state.''

Sixty six point seven percent (66.7%) of voters said NO and the referendum was soundly defeated.  That meant NO to the establishment/recognition of  'local government', NO to a system of 'local government' bodies and NO to elections in accordance with the laws of the state for 'local government' and NO to the empowerment of 'local government' to administer laws or make by-laws for their respective areas.

The referendum failed to reach a State majority which means there was no mandate for it to have been implemented anywhere, not in the Federal Constitution and not in the State Constitution. The Victorian Local Government Act 1989 and cannot be legally enforced. Local councils remain ''local councils'' that are in fact ''Incorporated Bodies'' complete with Australian Business Numbers (ABN) and the requirement to pay taxes. 

30 cents of every dollar raised by UNICEF is kept for themselves

UNICEF

Their “goals” may be “noble” but,
like all UN run bodies, UNICEF like to keep as much of the cash contributions for
themselves. 

Via Fox
News

Quote

Halloween is an important event for
the United Nations Children's Fund, or UNICEF, as hundreds of thousands of
trick-or-treaters go house-to-house asking for pennies or dollars to help the
world’s needy children. But according to the U.N. Board of Auditors, which
monitors the organization’s finances, the cost of funneling such private sector
money through UNICEF’s national committees to the global organization is
getting so expensive that it merits special notice.

A report by the auditors that was
published last June, but won’t be considered by UNICEF’s supervisory executive
board until next year, highlights the fact that those national committees last
year kept an average of 29 percent of overall private sector
 contributions for themselves, either as expenses or as stockpiled cash.

In all, more than $341 million in
donations was held back by administrators in 2012, and more than $2.39 billion
over the period from 2006 to 2012, amounts that the auditors dryly labeled as
“high.”

 

 

Follow Andy on Twitter

 

Really Not Part Of The Plan

EXCLUSIVE:

Sustainable Development?

by Allan Essery. Part 2

Resulting from an enormous volume of evidence gathered by a small army of those suspicious of the intent of the Club of Rome and the United Nations it becomes very clear that there was and currently is a plan to undertake the greatest act of socialist treason ever visited upon mankind.

AGW hysteria was created as means of the UN achieving its intended goal and it was said, “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.''  They went on to say, ''It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or one invented for the purpose.”


In introducing the latest buzz word ''Future Earth'' the UN and its agencies have a global plan to:

• Research and develop methods to control food, water, energy.  

• Utilise technology, sciences and economics fraudulently to create an illusion.

Pressure governments and law makers to support their efforts.

• Manifest agendas with academics and corporations  to appropriate  funds and control production.

Control under-developed nations by forcing ''sustainable'' technologies.

The success or failure of UN intentions to impose upon mankind total control of every aspect of human life is reliant upon the specific so-called ''sustainability'' orientated education of children from very young ages and the reeducation of adults – the dumbing down of mankind.  In this endeavour the UN Agenda 21, and Common Core, exponents are prepared to use all methods available to them to get their message over and bring about the early education of children and the reprogramming of mankind.

One father in the US was alarmed to learn what his 5 year old daughter was being taught by her public school.  ''Daddy . . ., today we learned that driving cars is making the ice caps to melt and all the polar bears die.'

It is worth noting that our former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is taking up a post with a US group-think institute to work on methods of  ''Global Education''.  There should be concern that people like Gillard are prepared to move Australia in the direction of ''one-size-fits-all'' approach to child education.

That madness extends far beyond the classrooms of your local school and even politicians, especially those of the socialist persuasion, are willingly jumping on the UN Agenda 21 band wagon, but they are not telling you.

The UN programme says, ''Countries and the United Nations system should promote a cooperative relationship with the media, popular theatre groups, and entertainment and advertising industries by initiating discussions to mobilize their experience in shaping public behaviour and consumption patterns . . .''

In the US a congresswoman, Barbara Lee, and friends are pushing a resolution that calls on Congress to, '' . . . recognize that climate change will hurt the plight of women more than men; driving women into “transactional sex” for survival — among other horrible fates.''  

It won't take long for Emily's List and such feminist groups to pick up on this foolishness and it is alarming to think that should you debunk climate change, Agenda 21 or Common Core you stand a good chance of being accused of being part of a movement that forces women into prostitution!

Throughout the past 21 years the various governments Federal and State have failed to be up front with the Australian people.  Agenda 21 has purposely not been mentioned and the Australian people certainly have not had a chance to learn of its full intentions nor have they had a chance to vote for or against.

On the other hand gullible politicians have been bewitched by the promises of globalisation.  Alexander Downer once tried to send the Australian people on a guilt trip by suggesting that politics is no longer about left and right but about globalisation (World Government).  He inferred that if you are an opponent of globalisation then you're a globaphobe and hate your country. ''The triumph of globaphobia would be a death note for Australia.'' Downer claimed.

Globaphobia means that Australia and its people come first, but according to Downer and those that think like him, Australia and Australians should come last and the globe first.  It appears that Downer and like minds believe that there is no longer any place for democracy and we should all become drones of the United Nation's ''World Government'' and its agents.  I believe that is bordering on treason.

Sustainable development not part of their plan

EXCLUSIVE:

by Allan Essery

Part 1 – Agenda 21 again

Awareness of the environment and concern for its delicate balance are indeed sensible endeavours. Concern, however, arose during a 1992 United Nation's conference to discuss future environmentally friendly development. From that conference an action agenda was revealed for an innocuously sounding aim of ''Sustainable Development''. That agenda was known as Agenda 21 and not as innocuous as it sounded.

Agenda 21 was promoted as a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan, and so the lie began. It was also called the brainchild of a group of powerful elitists known as the Club of Rome. Their aim was world domination brought about using the United Nations and its agencies to create a World Government together with a World Bank and a Security Force to ensure implementation of its aims.

Far from being a non-binding and voluntary action plan the following was the reality for those that signed on, ''This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the collective vision of "sustainable development." They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainability": Environment, Economy and Equity’’, referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulation, economic control, and redistribution of wealth.

Sold to the world’s nations as a plan for creating sustainable societies 176 governments around the world, including Australia, saw it as a means of social justice and a healthy planet. Initially, few if any were awake to their lies and doomsday scenarios, the pseudo-science and the unimaginable costs that came with this elaborate and fraudulent con.

Had any of the worlds leaders caught up in the lie bothered to undertake just a little research, or even given it some considered thought, they would have realised as did others that, Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental "scientists" who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful "information" will lead to economic and social disaster.''

Back in1992 when Agenda 21 was born there was not yet the hysterical knee-jerk reactions of the alarmist's ''carbon pollution'' and ''man-made climate change'' and so these lies were cleverly created by the UN and its agencies to justify their ''sustainable development'' agenda. 

The UN very effectively, but falsely, enhanced the illusion when the Secretary General of their Earth division said, ''Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middleclass – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.''

In line with this propaganda, new buzzwords came into being. Words such as sustainable development, environmentally sustainable, future earth, smart growth, and biodiversity.  Phenomena such as climate change were promoted as man-made disasters while naturally occurring climate change was conveniently ignored.

To achieve the aims of Agenda 21 it would be necessary to undertake the mammoth task of reprogramming the human race. Human rights as we know them would have to be removed for the good of the collective.

The UN plans to rid the world of poverty as a means of controlling the world's population; but how are they going to achieve that?  Well, they have already surreptitiously commenced a redistribution of wealth from affluent nations to the poorer nations. Think about Carbon Tax and where all the proceeds go. Think about the transfer of manufacturing from affluent manufacturing nations to poorer nations. Think about where Australia's manufacturing and farming assets have gone. Think about the lowering of trade barriers and tariffs to bring that about. And, think about the redistribution of the population of poorer countries to the more affluent nations.

To achieve its intended agenda the UN will attempt to coerce the world's governments into surrendering the sovereignty of their nations. They hope to achieve a quiet transition through which our individual freedoms would be stripped away. Your children would become the sole property of the ''State'' and you would have no say in their upbringing, their education, or their future.  You would not be allowed to own any property and nor would you be allowed to choose where you live.

The United Nations is fearful that more and more of the world's population will realise what is happening and fight against it. They would be ecstatic that some would be sucked into their deception and support Agenda 21 by labelling those against the agenda as ''Conspiracy Alarmists'' and the UN will seek to discredit them and any elected official who undertakes to work against them.