Tuesday, October 25, 2016

United Nations

by -

The panel affiliated with the United Nations demands that the United States should pay reparations due to our “human rights crisis.”

As part of the study by the United Nations’ Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, the way police are killing black people is cause for reparations and they are classifying it as a “human rights crisis.”

The findings of the panel were given to lawyers on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Here are a few sections from the report.

“In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent. Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching.

Lynching was a form of racial terrorism that has contributed to a legacy of racial inequality that the United States must address. Thousands of people of African descent were killed in violent public acts of racial control and domination and the perpetrators were never held accountable.”

The report says that the problems today are because of our past, and it is time for the United States to accept responsibility and pay reparations.

Reparations can include a formal apology, educational opportunities, financial payments to African descendants and even credit forgiveness.

The report doesn’t mention at all the name of George Soros who has spent millions of dollars funding anti-police groups like Black Lives Matter and paying protestors to be violent and antagonistic.

The report doesn’t include George Soros’ connections to the U.N. and his role in facilitating the Syrian refugee crisis to help destabilize Europe.

Something has to be done to help the racial divide in our country, but the United Nations is wrong about the path to take.

If reparations were made, they would have to be made to families of African ancestry that were brought here over 60 years ago. Some black people would receive them and others won’t. That won’t fix anything.

Is this the globalists like George Soros pushing their agenda or do we have a legitimate “civil rights crisis” on our hands with 150 unarmed black people being killed each year?

What do you think about our “human rights crisis” and the preparations? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

A UN official due in court for tax fraud on Monday died over the weekend and conspiracy theorists are looking at the Clintons.

In 1993, a lawyer from Arkansas who was the childhood friend of Bill and former coworker of Hillary was found dead because of an apparent suicide. The conspiracy theories haven’t stopped since then, but now a new “conveniently timed” death could spark new conspiracy theories.

John Ashe was due in court today, but he never made it.

The United Nations officially said Ashe died of a heart attack. Local law enforcement think differently.

Local officials in Westchester Country think that Ashe died because of a crushed windpipe–.that a barbell fell on his throat while he was lifting weights.

The confusion about the cause of death is odd to say the least. Another thing that is odd is the connection between John Ashe and the Clintons.

John Ashe is a disgrace. He was under investigation for tax fraud with his co-defendant, Ng Lap Seng, a Chinese businessman who is charged with sneaking $4.5 million into the US.

Ashe and Seng worked together and Seng is considered a “bagman” for the Clintons.

A 1998 report identified Ng Lap Seng as the source of almost a million dollars that was illegally funneled to the DNC through an Arkansas business owner during the time Bill Clinton was in the White House.

Ng was never charged with a crime.

The death of John Ashe is unique, because in court Ashe’s connection to Seng and to the Clintons would have come out during prosecution. The entire event would be embarrassing to the Clintons and that is something they don’t need right now.

The local police are keeping the case open and are conducting an autopsy.

The lawyer to Ashe, Jeremy Schneider, does not think it was a murder though. Schneider is quoted as saying, “There is not one iota of evidence that it was a homicide. This is nothing like Vince Foster”.

Maybe Ashe was just working out and dropped a barbell on this throat and died like the local police claim. Maybe Ashe died of a heart attack like the United Nations claims. Maybe it was a murder to keep negative information about the Clintons from hitting the press. Maybe it was aliens. We don’t know.

What we do know about Ashe’s death is that there are still a lot of questions surrounding the circumstances, and he is yet another person who was involved with the Clintons and ended up dead.

How do you think Ashe died? Let us know in the comments.

by -

Illegal immigrants who cross the border and are caught are dropped off at the McAllen, Texas bus station and then travel all through the United States.

We have seen a surge in illegal immigration and people crossing our southern border, but happens to those people that are caught? They are taken to a bus station.

A former firefighter and a volunteer who is helping the immigrants through a Catholic charity says he likes “helping people”.

Luis Guerroro who has been volunteering for over a year, says that the immigrants are dropped off at the McAllen bus station and they are left to find family and travel on their own.

At first Luis Guerroro said there was just one bus a day that would drop off the people who crossed the border throughout the day.

Now Luis says there are a couple of busses a day. The spike in illegals coming to the bus station is spiking and so is the number crossing our border.

The United Nations said that there are tons of people from Central America who are making their way through Mexico to the United States. They are on the way.

There are reports that we have brought in more illegal immigrants so far in 2016 than all of 2015. This is a major problem and dropping illegals off at a bus station to travel anywhere in the US they want is not a good idea.

What do you think we should do about illegal immigrants? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

The latest song by Mohammed Assaf–a Palestinian pop star and official United Nations “youth ambassador”–doesn’t leave much to the imagination.

Because, by the final verse of his song “Ya Yumma” (“Oh, Motherland”), he’s basically calling his fellow Palestinians to step up and murder the Jews.

For the good of the homeland, of course.

The song’s music video features interpersed scenes of Assaf singing into a microphone in a recording studio, Palestinian civilians living their day-to-day lives, and Israeli soldiers harming innocent Palestinians and launching bombs on the streets.

The song starts as a patriotic call to action:

“We are the sons of this land… Homeland of the brave…”

Before taking a turn for the more jingoistic:

“We are your soldiers… Be strong, the resistance will win. And victory will come and Al-Aqsa will be free. There is no perseverance like yours in Jerusalem.”

And then, it got slightly more literal (and graphic) about the Israel-Palestine conflict:

“Some were martyred, some were injured, their blood blossomed, and our precious blood is still spilling. We draw the map of independence on our soil.”

By the last verse, Assaf gives up altogether on euphemisms. As the footage of the Israeli soldiers invading Palestinian streets gets increasingly more violent, Assaf sings:

“Salute the determined people who are resisting the occupiers. Fight back until you defeat the aggressor… Oh, motherland, don’t accept the occupier from north till south.”

Assaf, 26, was living in a Gaza Strip refugee village, when he shot to fame in 2013 as the winner of “Arab Idol,” an international singing competition by the creators of “American Idol.”

He was named a regional youth ambassador by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) later that year.

So far, the United Nations has not yet addressed the controversy of Assaf’s latest “hit.”

by -

Like a good lap dog, the U.S. is dedicating $36.5 million to help Africa train doctors because the famously corrupt United Nations determined that the continent has a terrible shortage of medical personnel and faculty.

That means Uncle Sam must come to the rescue. The latest Africa allocation is in addition to the eye-popping $654,778,938 that American taxpayers gave the U.N. general fund in 2015 and billions more to the peacekeeping budget and other U.N. organizations. The U.S. has always been the single largest contributor to the world body, which is well known as a pillar of fraud and mismanagement. Even the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, also funded primarily by American taxpayers, is a huge joke.

A few years ago Judicial Watch reported that the U.N. awarded a genocidal warlord indicted by an international court for crimes against humanity a seat on its laughable human rights council. Last year President Obama committed an astounding $3 billion to a new U.N. Climate fund run by communist and terrorist nations.

Now the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.N.’s public health arm, has determined that sub-Saharan Africa is in desperate need of medical personnel. The region bears almost a quarter of the global disease burden yet has only 3% of the world’s health workforce, according to WHO. So this week, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the nation’s medical research agency, kicked in the $36.5 million to train Africans.

The NIH doles out north of $31 billion annually to hundreds of thousands of researchers at thousands of universities and institutions around the globe. A few years ago President Obama launched an NIH program to boost the number of minorities in biomedical research and he appointed the nation’s first ever Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity to mastermind a multi-million-dollar effort.

The new Africa allocation will help the region strengthen medical school curricula, upgrade community-based training sites and expand communications technology, according to an NIH announcement. “Research must play an integral part in generating sustainable, quality health care in sub-Saharan Africa, which is the ultimate goal,” NIH Director Francis Collins said. “It is critical that we increase research capacity so Africans can carry out locally relevant investigations themselves, and develop the necessary expertise in areas such as bioethics, informatics, environmental science, and genomics. That will empower their participation in international collaborations.”

This is all based on the WHO’s assessment. Here’s an example of how the U.N. health agency works; a few years ago it determined that 180,000 obesity-related deaths worldwide were linked to sugary drinks. The figure included about 25,000 Americans and the U.N. study made headlines because it supported a preposterous effort by the former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, to ban sugary drinks. Bloomberg’s ridiculous legislation eventually got struck down by a court.

This year the WHO became an even bigger joke for trying to ban disease names, such as swine flu, bird flu and monkey pox, that create a stigma. The effort includes banning the term German measles and Spanish flu because it might upset Germans and Spaniards. A British newspaper called it “an astonishing example of political correctness.”

by -

In a heavy and ham handed effort to make the facts fit the theory, scientists at the taxpayer- funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have found a way to “explain” why there has been a 15-year “pause” in global warming: Temperature readings needed to be “adjusted” to give warming temperatures context over a greater period of time.

The new climate data by NOAA scientists first doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting previous temperatures downward and then inflating recent temperature readings in more recent years – in effect, resetting the timeframe for heating and cooling periods to make it seem as if “warming is a natural part of a cooling trend”.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

This is NOAA’s version of “cooking the books”.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data:

“…had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

Writing for The Daily Caller, Michael Bastasch says that for the years of 1998 and 2012
NOAA’s “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data had shown a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years, which baffled climate scientists, any effort to explain the hiatus in warming is rendered unnecessary by NOAA’s new “study”.

The new numbers seen in a different light allows NOAA to claim that the overall warming trend beginning with the year 1880 shows that the warming trend has not been significantly changed.

“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago – that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid…” the study claims.

Scientists Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the Cato Institute say the adjustments made by NOAA were “guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data.”

Cato scientists also argued that NOAA’s new data is an outlier compared to other global temperature records, which overwhelmingly show a hiatus in warming. The three scientists write:

“Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data…”

Bastasch further writes that:

“scientists and climate experts skeptical of man-made global warming have become increasingly critical of temperature adjustments made by government climate agencies like NASA and NOAA. Skeptics charge that agencies like NOAA have been tampering with past temperatures to make the warming trend look much more severe than is shown in the raw data.”

This all boils down to one thing. The United States should make sure a problem exists before developing and implementing solutions for it.

by -

Those wild and crazy bureaucrats on the banks of the East River are at it again. The United Nations – a bureaucracy so bloated and byzantine that it makes the United States Senate appear efficient by comparison – is poised to begin tossing legal monkey wrenches into international firearms transactions; and indirectly affecting firearms policies in the United States.

This new phase in international gun control began September 25th when the 50th country ratified the infamous Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that was adopted formally by the United Nations a year and a half ago (and signed by our own Secretary of State Kerry in September 2013). The process itself began more than a decade ago – in the summer of 2001 – when the UN began formally debating a “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.”

Since the UN officially launched that piously-named, multi-year and costly “programme” shortly before the world was turned upside on September 11, 2001, the international anti-gun cartel led by the United Kingdom, Japan, Mexico and other “allies” of the United States, have waited patiently for this day. With the ratification by the governments of at least 50 supporting nations, the deeply anti-Second Amendment ATT now will be subject to implementing conferences and actions with very real consequences.

Those of us in this country who understand and support the concept of “the right to keep and bear arms,” might defer any concern because the Senate has not and likely will not “advise and consent” to the ratification of this thoroughly rotten document. Problem is, the mere fact that John Kerry lent his John Hancock to the ATT makes the United States a “signatory” to it, and is cause for real concern.

The problem is two-fold.

First, virtually all of the ATT-ratifying countries (a number that already has grown to 53, and which will continue to increase as more countries succumb to the siren song of “security through gun control”) engage in trade with the United States; many receive military assistance from us and purchase armaments. Others are countries in which American hunters travel for their sport. Still, other countries in this group might at some point serve as a base in which individuals or groups hostile to the United States hide, and against which we might legitimately seek to take action. Our options in all these circumstances might be severely limited if the ratifying countries comply fully with the myriad terms of the ATT.

American firearms and ammunition manufacturers could in many instances be barred from exporting to, or importing from such countries. American hunters might no longer be able to bring firearms into those countries. And, future administrations might find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide defensive armaments to freedom fighters with such countries.

Secondly, because John Kerry signed the treaty on behalf of the United States, according to its terms we are obligated not to “act contrary to” its terms and its referenced and underlying documents. These foundational materials include some of the most blatantly anti-Second Amendment screeds available. Those provisions include numerous detailed gun control measures, including a mandate that all civilian-owned firearms be registered with the national government, severe restrictions on who could possess firearms and what types, and many other deeply anti-freedom restrictions.

The danger is obvious. An anti-Second Amendment administration, such as the current one led by President Barack Obama, could cite such interpretation of the ATT as a pretext for quietly ordering various gun control measures to be undertaken by agencies under its control (such as the State Department and ATF). We all are painfully familiar with the Obama Administration’s penchant for taking substantive actions without benefit of, or in actual contravention to, lawful authority. In its tortured view of executive power, citing an international treaty such as the Arms trade Treaty as justification for limiting Second Amendment rights would be easy.

Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of Senators already are on record committing that they would never vote to ratify the ATT, they and their colleagues in the House of Representatives must take proactive steps to ensure that this Administration – and any future administration – be stopped from implementing any provisions of or supported by the ATT. Our congressional committees must be far more vigilant than they have in the past to monitor ATF, the State Department, and all other federal agencies to ensure they do not take any steps through regulations or other means to implement or enforce any provisions lurking in the ATT. Failure to do so runs the very real risk of surrendering many aspects of our precious Second Amendment-guaranteed rights to a cadre of faceless bureaucrats at the United Nations and in far-flung capital cities around the globe.

by -
UN Gun Treaty

For the past 13 years, the United Nations has been working on a small arms treaty that has been ratified by 55 of their member states, crossing the threshold to take effect.

The treaty will begin on December 24, 2014.

The UN Gun Treaty would focus on imports and exports of conventional weapons and track their use among each nation’s civilian population.

The purpose of the treaty, according to the United Nations, is to ensure weapons don’t cross existing embargoes and do not end up being used for human rights abuses, including terrorism.

However, critics of the treaty feel the resolution goes much further.

The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has been fighting the treaty for years.

The NRA-ILA states, “Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That’s a bald-faced lie.

“For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported.

“In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration.

“If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.”

Advocates of the small arms treaty claim it will reduce risk of use in nations where acts of genocide, organized crime and gender-based violence occur.

Secretary of State John Kerry signed the treaty on behalf of the United States in September of last year.

While Kerry signed the treaty with the support of President Obama, it must still be ratified in Congress.

However, given Obama’s unilateral action on immigration amnesty, critics of the treaty fear the president will use executive action to ratify the resolution on behalf of the United States.

The organization, Second Amendment Foundation, recently began a campaign to raise awareness of the possibility of President Obama signing an executive order on the UN Gun Treaty.

The group is also threatening a lawsuit on the issue with the organization’s founder, Alan Gottlieb, stating, “”SAF will not allow the Obama administration to attack our constitutional rights without a fight. If Barack Obama takes executive action, we will file a lawsuit to stop him, and hold him accountable.”

In the meantime, the countdown to Christmas Eve continues.



When Comey, the director of the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton, it looks like it had more to do with money than...