Posts tagged ‘U.N.’
Published : 21 Nov, 2015
The United Nations has called the states to fight “a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security” which is Islamic State (IS, ISIS/ISIL, Da’esh). All 15 members of the UN Security Council voted to adopt the French-proposed resolution.
The resolution “calls upon member states that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures … on the territory under the control of ISIL … in Syria and Iraq.”
IS “constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security,” the resolution says.
Russia has repeatedly called for action to cut the terrorists’ financial lifelines, with President Vladimir Putin revealing on Monday that IS is receiving funding from 40 countries.
Syria’s UN Ambassador, Bashar Ja’afari, hinted prior to Friday’s vote that this resolution was long overdue. “Welcome to everybody who finally woke up and joined the club of combating terrorists.”
Meanwhile, Russia is continuing its work on a draft resolution proposing international military campaigns to fight against Islamic State. The current text is an updated version of a document submitted on September 30. The text, submitted on November 18, stresses the need to coordinate military actions with the governments of the countries where the anti-terror operations are being conducted.
Russia’s Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said that Moscow is working towards having the draft resolution passed soon. Churkin also stressed that it is shortsighted of some UNSC members to try to block Russia’s draft resolution on fighting terrorism.
“We believe the attempts by several members of the UN Security Council to block our work on the project is politically shortsighted. You can fight terrorism with one hand and with the other practically play along with them,” Churkin said.
After the vote, Churkin also added that the French delegates included “important corrections introduced by Russia” into the resolution. Russia’s Ambassador to the UN was assertive when calling on international players to unite against the threat of global terrorism, adding that any plan must be based on “concrete steps.”
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
President Obama’s new “Strong Cities Network,” announced with little fanfare last week at the United Nations, appears to be another effort to strip authority from local police departments and to demonize conservative Christians, say advocates of civil and religious liberties.
The stated goal of the program is to connect local police departments with their peers around the world in an effort to combat “violent extremism,” according to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who announced the program to the U.N. on Sept. 30.
Lynch, with New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio by her side, told world leaders that the time has come for a more globalized and comprehensive effort to combat violent extremism. She said:
“Until now, we have lacked that mechanism. We haven’t had the benefit of sustained or coordinated cooperation among the growing number of cities and municipalities that are confronting this ongoing challenge. Communities have too often been left isolated and alone. But through the Strong Cities Network that we have unveiled today, we are making the first systematic effort in history to bring together cities around the world to share experiences, to pool resources and to forge partnerships in order to build local cohesion and resilience on a global scale. Today we tell every city, every town and every community that has lost the flower of its youth to a sea of hatred – you are not alone. We stand together and we stand with you.”
De Blasio called it a global coalition of cities seeking to combat extremism and terrorism in all of its “many forms,” and he assured the ACLU that the program would not lead to the profiling of Muslims.
So far, about two dozen other cities have signed up including Paris, London, Mumbai, Montreal, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Denver, Tunis, Oslo, Beirut and Palermo, among others.
Pastor Shahram Hadian of the Everette, Washington-based Truth in Love Project, said it’s no coincidence that the project was launched at the United Nations.
“So who are they going to target when they talk about violent extremism?” asked Hadian, a former Muslim who grew up in Iran and now travels nationwide teaching churches and law enforcement about the dangers of Shariah law. “Well, if you look at their track record, it always seems to be that your violent extremists are your Christians, your veterans and your Second Amendment advocates.”
National media blackout
Paul McGuire, a Fox News and History Channel contributor who has authored several books including the new release, “The Babylon Code: Solving the Bible’s Greatest End Times Mystery,” said it’s also interesting how little media coverage was given to Obama’s Strong Cities global policing program.
“There was no national media coverage whatsoever of the Strong Cities Network; it was completely buried,” McGuire said. “So the question is, why? This is massive because it’s such a contradiction to the Constitution, and there was no consultation with Congress, and they did a complete end-run around everything that our Constitution stands for.”
Like Hadian, McGuire sees a sinister motive in the use of the term “violent extremism,” which he said is an attempt to draw a moral equivalency among all religions, even though 99 percent of all religious-based violence in the world today involves Muslims killing non-Muslims.
“That’s code for ‘We’re going to crack down on Christian values and conservative values,’ because they’ve already announced that they’re pro-Islamic,” McGuire said. “Proof that both political parties are involved in this, is the fact that not one single Republican has brought it up. This is a direct intrusion of the U.N. into the sovereign status of the U.S. at every level, and not one single Republican brought it up.”
WND reported in August that the Obama administration is, indeed, targeting conservatives in its campaign against “violent extremism.” The FBI, according to the report, sent out a bulletin to state, local and national law enforcement warning of attacks against Muslims by “militia extremists” even though no proof of such an impending attack existed.
Police and veterans are also under pressure to conform to Obama’s agenda of giving special concern to Muslims and other minorities in the wake of the Ferguson, Missouri, riots.
Hadian said that as racial tensions increase in U.S cities, often stoked by paid outside radicals to whom the government turns a blind eye, it appears Obama is trying to goad the so-called “right wingers” into an attack.
“They tried the race bait, and it hasn’t really happened the way they had planned,” he said. “Perhaps Muslim baiting is now a part of their plan, even though the true narrative is the exact opposite as we’ve seen in Roseburg, Oregon, and in Garland, Texas; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Oklahoma City; Fort Hood, Texas; and the Boston Marathon.”
Even in Charleston, South Carolina, it was black Christians who were targeted, in that case by an anti-Christian young white man, Dylan Roof, with mental health problems.
When a young Muslim couple was killed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, last year in an argument over a parking space, the Council for American-Islamic Relations tried to paint the crime as motivated by anti-Muslim bigotry. This theory was debunked by all the evidence collected by police, but CAIR has never retracted its statements.
So CAIR, in bed with federal law enforcement, is looking hard to pin a “hate crime” on a conservative Christian so they will have their poster child for a police-state crack down on free speech along with new gun-control laws, Hadian said.
“That’s CAIR’s modus operandi now, saying not just that you’re an Islamophobe but that you’re inciting violence (against Muslims) whenever you say anything critical of Islam,” Hadian said.
CAIR was exposed as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror-financing trial ever conducted on U.S. soil, yet several of its leaders have gone on to fill advisory roles within the Obama administration.
‘Waiting for someone to attack a Muslim’
So the threat to Christians is real, said Hadian, and that’s why it’s important to balance the truth about Islam and its Quranic calls to jihad and Shariah with a call for evangelization and love.
“It’s not about hating Muslims. We want to save them, reach out to them with the truth of the gospel, and we know this is a spiritual battle,” he said. “At the same time, we are becoming targets. It seems like at everyone one of these (mass shooting) events they are going to go out of their way to paint the extremist as some right-wing guy, and it just seems to fall apart every time they try to push that narrative.”
“I have no problem encouraging people to defend their homes and their lives, but we certainly don’t need to go on the offensive because this is what they are looking for,” Hadian said. “They’re waiting for someone to attack a Muslim so they can say, ‘Aha, see, I told you so.’”
‘Eyes in the sky’
Enlisting global “cooperation” against the “violent extremist” should send chills down the spine of every American, said John Whitehead, a constitutional lawyer, founder of the Rutherford Institute and author of “Battlefield America: The War on the American People.”
“As I have been saying for quite a while, we have practically moved into a global government already,” Whitehead told WND.
“You look at the NSA’s Five Eyes Program, and this is spread around the world,” he said. “They’ve created basically an electronic concentration camp, and they’re working with Google to do it. In essence, globalism armed with technology is going to happen and under Obama we’ve moved closer and closer to federalizing the police. The FBI is moving into several local police departments, most recently in Oakland (California). Their main job is to use social media to track people.”
Now, with Strong Cities Network, U.S. cities will be cooperating and “sharing resources” with foreign governments around the world. Local police are already training with FBI, DHS and even the military. Obama’s new program lays the groundwork for them to train with foreign police units under the banner of the U.N.
“With the Strong Cities program we see the goal is to have global police, so it’s going to be very hard to rein in global cops,” Whitehead said. “Cops who were trained locally are going by the wayside, dealing solely with local cops is going to be a thing of the past. It’s sort of in your face, it’s saying the U.N. is going to be a global police force, working in this country one way or the other. New York City, L.A., Chicago are going to lead the way. Americans better get ready for this because what it means is, our Constitution is being replaced, and the constitutional protections we have will be gone.”
Among the first steps taken will involve merging some of the law-enforcement capacities within regions, with U.S. cops cooperating more closely with those of Mexico and Canada, Whitehead said.
“They’re working to fuse them together, so local autonomy, local authority, will be diluted and eventually eliminated,” he said. “They’re already globalizing, technology demands it.
“Google is moving quickly with robotics, driverless cars, and coordinating everything on the web under one umbrella,” he continued. “Amazon was paid $600 million to build an intelligence cloud for the FBI, DHS and CIA.”
Eric Schmidt, the renowned software engineer, is involved in international elitist groups such as the secretive Bilderbergs, Whitehead said, and Hillary Clinton spoke at the last three major events for Google.
“You have John Podesta (Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager). Eric Schmidt. Google, Amazon,” he said. “They want world government. Hillary wants it, Obama wants it. So that is where it is heading.”
McGuire said the U.N. will always pick a “politically correct” situation in which to intervene. It will not intervene to stop the slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, but it will intervene to protect transgenders, Islam or perceived racial bias by police. That’s why U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for the protection of civil rights during the Ferguson uprising in August 2014 even as rioters were looting, turning over police cars and burning buildings.
Gun control tops U.N. agenda for law enforcement
“Whatever the U.N. moves into, it’s always a politically correct situation. So when the Michael Brown protests were going on, the U.N. secretary general demanded that police adhered to what he called ‘U.S. and international standards,’ and he’s basically taking authority over local police forces,” McGuire said.
Another critical aspect of the U.N. agenda is universal gun registration and gun control.
“We all know that you have to get rid of the guns to bring in the dictatorship. Hitler did this, the Soviets did it,” McGuire said. “So they know that, and that’s why Hillary Clinton wants to overhaul gun laws and Obama is now talking about using executive actions to enact gun control.”
After finishing the research for his latest book, “The Babylon Code,” which he co-authored with journalist Troy Anderson, McGuire said he came to an unavoidable conclusion.
“I believe we are now reaching a tipping point that is going to happen very soon,” McGuire said. “It could happen overnight and most likely after a crisis event. The U.N. is already in control of a great deal, but we are going to see the U.N. come out of the shadows and openly exercise its authority over the United States. They will still have some kind of illusion of the United States for the masses, but I believe the elites are ready to bring global government out of the closet, and we’re going to see a very radical, aggressive change. They want to do this by 2030, and in Paris they’re going to announce another round of sweeping changes (in November) and then you look at all the trigger points, the Syrian war, the international debt crisis, etcetera.”
Using refugees, mass immigration to build ‘social cohesion?’
While the Strong Cities Network talks a lot on its website about “building social cohesion” in the world’s cities, the policies of the globalists are achieving just the opposite. They are using Islam and Muslim refugees to “break down social cohesion all over the world,” McGuire says, setting the stage for mass unrest. When the predictable violence breaks out, the solution will be police-state crackdowns.
“They’re using refugees in Germany to take over towns and cities. And here in U.S., they’re using refugees to wage war on the social cohesion of our society. So they’re going to slam-dunk the global government, and it will be a terrorist attack or financial crisis that triggers it,” McGuire said.
Author and blogger Pamela Geller also believes that the Strong Cities’ references to “building social cohesion” are a form of Orwellian Doublespeak. The real intent, she says, is to demonize and punish anyone who criticizes the growing Islamization of their community.
The term “social cohesion” is a “euphemism” for keeping peace between non-Muslim and Muslim communities – “mostly by making sure that non-Muslims don’t complain too loudly about, much less work against, rapidly expanding Muslim populations and the Islamization of their communities,” Geller writes.
According to the U.N.’s own data, more than 70 percent of “refugees” arriving in Europe are healthy Islamic men between the ages of 18 and 45.
By forcibly injecting waves of Islamic migrants into Europe, the stage has been set for riots and violence. “That will demand a police-state crack down,” McGuire said. “And the other half of the equation is you create Shariah law, and you break apart that non-Islamic consensus so Europe no longer has a European culture and is therefore more likely to assimilate into globalism.
“That synergistically with the Muslim refugees would produce anarchy throughout Europe that would demand an authoritarian police state takeover, and suddenly the U.N. is no longer a set of ‘would you please do this, or please do that’ type recommendations. You’ve created the trigger points and the crisis points. You’ve created on top of it a huge number of people who will always vote socialist. The same potential exists here as in Europe, a crisis and then an authoritarian U.N. government moving in to take control of the mayhem. It’s dark and dirty, and most people do not want to face it, but it’s a real danger.”
If anyone doubts that sinister motives lie behind efforts like the Strong Cities Network, McGuire says all they need do is study the words of the world’s most elite globalists, such as Henry Kissinger.
“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”
– Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1991, as transcribed from a tape-recording made by one of the Swiss delegates.
Published July 22, 2015, FoxNews.com
House Speaker John Boehner vowed Wednesday to do “everything possible” to stop the newly struck Iran nuclear deal, as Congress formally begins consideration of the hard-fought pact. “While the president’s Iran deal may have been applauded at the United Nations, I think he faces serious skepticism here at home,” Boehner told reporters at a briefing. “Let me just assure you that members of Congress will ask much tougher questions this afternoon when we meet with the president’s team, because a bad deal threatens the security of the American people.”
The warning comes just days after the U.N. Security Council endorsed the deal, over the objections of many in Congress. Republicans, and some Democrats, had wanted the administration to wait until Congress reviews it before seeking approval from the United Nations. Congress nevertheless will have its say. Fox News has learned the administration formally sent the deal to Capitol Hill on Sunday — this starts a 60-day clock for lawmakers to consider it, and then vote to approve or disapprove it or take no action.
The White House has launched an aggressive campaign in recent days, trying to sway wavering Democrats while publicly ripping Republicans for opposing the deal. In an appearance on “The Daily Show” Tuesday, Obama portrayed the controversial deal as the best compromise the government could achieve. In a jab at the George W. Bush administration, he joked that his critics think if only former Vice President Dick Cheney had been on the U.S. negotiating team, “then everything would be fine.”
But Congress is facing pressure from both sides of the issue. While the White House lobbies for approval, Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, a foe of the Iran nuclear, is telling Republicans that Congress must stop the pact.
Dermer met Wednesday morning with some 30 to 40 Republicans — part of the Conservative Opportunity Society — at the invitation of Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the group’s chairman. Dermer told the group that Congress is the last backstop and no deal is better than a bad deal.
The U.N. action would not take effect for 90 days. Congress technically has limited leverage over the international aspects of the agreement. Still, Obama does not want Congress to kill any part of the deal, and has vowed to veto any such effort. The agreement itself would roll back sanctions in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear program, with the ultimate goal of blocking Tehran’s pathway to a nuclear weapon for as long as the deal’s in place.
Critics argue that Iran could still be well-positioned to pursue a nuclear weapon after a decade, all the while reaping billions in economic benefits. Further, they’re concerned the deal gives Iran too much leeway to stall when international inspectors want to visit suspected nuclear sites.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., said in a statement Tuesday that they learned from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that two “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA will remain secret from Congress and the public. According to the lawmakers, one agreement covers inspection of the Parchin military complex, and the other concerns potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. On the former, they said, Iran would be able to strike a separate arrangement with the IAEA concerning inspections at Parchin.
“In failing to secure the disclosure of these secret side deals, the Obama administration is asking Congress and the American people to trust, but not verify,” Cotton said in a statement. “What we cannot do is trust the terror-sponsoring, anti-American, outlaw regime that governs Iran and that has been deceiving the world on its nuclear weapons work for years.”
Fox News’ Chad Pergram and Lucas Tomlinson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
A few congressmen are fighting to block the planned importation of thousands of Syrian refugees into American cities and towns, arguing that they present a grave security risk because many Syrians have ties to the Sunni rebel groups ISIS and al-Nusra Front.
But the fact is, as President Obama ignores the concerns of U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and others on the House Homeland Security Committee, the Syrians have already started to arrive stateside.
Since January, more than 70 U.S. cities have been on the receiving end of a Syrian visitation.
WND has compiled a complete list of cities (see chart below) that received Syrian refugees since Jan. 1. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres has as many as 11,000 Syrians in a pipeline waiting for admission into the U.S., which is responsible for screening them for criminal and terrorist activity.
And therein lies the problem.
McCaul has tried to block the arrival of the Syrians based on testimony from FBI counter-terrorism experts. As chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, he held a hearing on the national security risks of the Syrian refugee program in February and has scheduled a second hearing for June 24. He’s also sent two letters to Obama, urging him not to let the U.N. refugee program become a “jihadist pipeline” into the United States.
The Syrian civil war, now more than four years old, has chased more than 3.8 million Syrians from their homes, according to the U.N., which has about 130,000 it wants to resettle permanently in outside countries. Some of the top destination points in the past few months have been in;
- Texas, where the cities of Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston have each received more than 20 Syrians since January.
- Chicago has received 42 Syrians so far this year, more than any other city,
- while San Diego has taken in 25
- and Phoenix 20.
- The troubled city of Baltimore has not been left out. It has received 19 Syrians
- while Louisville, Kentucky, has taken in 21.
“Baltimore is already suffering with all of the black crime violence (in the wake of the Freddie Gray shooting) and now we’re going to plunk down 19 Syrians,” said Ann Corcoran, who runs the watchdog blog Refugee Resettlement Watch. “It doesn’t make sense.”
WND reported earlier this week that 93 percent of the 922 Syrian refugees resettled into the U.S. since the civil war started in 2011 have been Muslim. The vast majority, 86 percent, have been Sunni Muslims, which means some could have ties to the Sunni rebel groups fighting to bring down the government of President Bashar al-Assad, a Shiite Alowite.
Assad protected the Christian minorities who have now come under brutal attack from ISIS and al-Nusra. Yet, only 4.9 percent of the 922 Syrians brought to the U.S. so far as refugees have been Christians.
Syria is home to one of the world’s oldest Christian communities. It was in Antioch, Syria, where followers of Jesus Christ were first called “Christians,” yet their churches have been destroyed and their families decimated by ISIS and al-Nusra terrorists. Many have watched family members beheaded or shot in front of their eyes. “Syria represents the single largest convergence of Islamic terrorists in history,” McCaul wrote in his June 11 letter to Obama. It also represents the largest refugee crisis.
The United States takes in more U.N.-designated refugees than the rest of the world combined. Of the 130,000 Syrians the U.N wants to permanently resettle, the U.S. is being asked to take half, or about 65,000, by the end of Obama’s term in office. The State Department insists they are “intensely screened” even as the FBI has admitted they are impossible to screen because the U.S. has no “boots on the ground in Syria” and Syria is a “failed state” with no reliable law-enforcement data, said Michael Steinbach, deputy director of the FBI’s counter-terrorism unit, in his Feb. 11 testimony before McCaul’s committee.
Growing ‘pockets of resistance’
The State Department, working through nine private contractors and 350 subcontractors, resettles U.N.-certified refugees into more than 190 cities and towns across America. The refugee program has operated in its current form since Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980.
Some cities in recent years have begun to push back against the arrival of refugees in their communities, saying they have become a burden on social services and aren’t finding jobs that will support themselves without government assistance. Elected leaders in Clarkston, Georgia, for instance, complained in 2011 to Gov. Nathan Deal, who was able to strike a deal in which no new refugees would be sent to the town other than family members of existing refugees.
The mayors of Lynn and Springfield, Massachusetts, as well as Manchester, New Hampshire, and Athens, Georgia, have also questioned why they can’t have more information and influence over how many refugees get sent to their towns. These have been dubbed “pockets of resistance” by the resettlement agencies working for the federal government. A manual was written by one contractor on how to deal with local grassroots activists who push back against the arrival of refugees.
WND last month uncovered a document authored by one of the federal government’s main resettlement contractors that detailed plans to counter the growing “backlash” that is occurring in many cities that would like to shut the refugee spigot off, or at least slow it down. The report recommended monitoring blogs by activists and turning in some to the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center which could then brand them as “anti-Muslim” or guilty of “Islamophobia.”
The most recent uprising has been in Spartanburg, South Carolina, in the district of Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
Gowdy has tried to gather facts on exactly how the program works so he can answer the questions being asked of him by an organized resistance to World Relief’s plans to resettle 60 refugees from Congo, Syria and other countries over the next year.
So far, no Syrians have arrived in Spartanburg, but they have arrived and will continue to arrive in ever larger numbers in many other cities and towns. The chart below logs the numbers who have arrived just in the past five months.
Some of the questions Gowdy has pressed the State Department to answer are:
- Who makes the ultimate decision as to which cities get refugees from what countries?
- What variables are taken into consideration when distributing these refugees? Is it done, for instance, according to population density, geography, job and housing availability or availability of welfare benefits?
- What local officials are brought into the decision-making process and at what point?
- How are the other “stakeholders” chosen in the receiving communities?
- How are the financial and economic impacts of the refugees to taxpayer-funded budgets being measured in the various cities where they are sent?
Hiding behind ‘public-private partnerships’
As Gowdy discovered, the State Department dodged most of the questions that concerned Americans have been asking for years.
After Secretary of State John Kerry provided an initial response that Gowdy called vague and “wholly inadequate,” the State Department followed up by saying any further information would have to come from the resettlement agency. In the case of Spartanburg, that would be World Relief, an evangelical agency that contracts with the government on resettlement work. Because it is a private agency, World Relief considers its reports on individual cities to be “proprietary information.” The public is not invited to the quarterly meetings in the receiving communities nor, typically, is the local media.
Approximately 70 percent of World Relief’s revenues last year came from government grants totaling $41.2 million, according to its IRS returns. It also receives funding from foundations such as the Vanguard Charitable Foundation, Mustard Seed Foundation, Soros Fund Charitable Foundation, Pfizer Foundation and Global Impact.
Besides World Relief, the other eight resettlement agencies that contract with the government are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Church World Service, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the International Rescue Committee, Episcopal Migration Ministries, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, and the Ethiopian Community Development Council. These nine agencies present themselves to local communities as “charities.”
But if they are truly doing the Lord’s work, why are their budgets funded so heavily by the government, and why have they agreed to carry out their work without sharing the gospel message to their refugee clients, many activists have asked.
The nine contractors share the wealth with more than 350 subcontractors. For instance, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops subcontracts with Catholic Charities, while Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service subcontracts with Lutheran Social Services and Church World Service contracts with affiliates of the National Council of Churches.
Many of the agencies and their myriad subcontractors also accept donations from leftist foundations tied to George Soros, Bill Gates, the Tides Foundation, Walmart, Target, the Komen Foundation, the United Way and many others.
Big money flows into resettlement business
According to research in a new book by James Simpson, an independent investigative journalist, the Lutheran resettlement efforts, which have been very active in bringing Somali refugees into Minnesota among other places, are financed 92 percent by the government. This Lutheran “charity” also receives donations from George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, Global Impact, Fidelity Investments, Bank of America and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Simpson sums up the program in his book, “The Red-Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America.” He writes:
“Hatched by the U.N. and the American Left, the resettlement agenda is dedicated to erasing our culture, traditions and laws, and creating a compliant, welfare-dependent multicultural society with no understanding of America’s constitutional framework and no interest in assimilation. The ultimate target is a voting base large enough for the Left’s long-sought ‘permanent progressive majority.’
“Most people would be shocked to know that America currently takes more refugees from the world’s ghettos than all other refugee resettlement countries in the world combined. The State Department brags about it. Furthermore, most of those refugees are referred to the United States by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The refugees (and the illegal aliens flooding the southern border from Central America) are then ‘resettled’ by taxpayer funded ‘Voluntary Agencies’ or VOLAGs as they are called.”
And the CEOs of these resettlement agencies get paid handsomely. According to Simpson’s research, they bring in six-figure salaries of between $300,000 and $500,000 per year. Of the nine main resettlement agencies, six are faith-based or as Simpson says, “nominally religious,” because they operate with mainly government cash and they are forbidden by their government contracts from evangelizing their clients, many of whom are Muslim. “All are in it for the money and top staff make high six figures,” Simpson writes. “Together the VOLAGs are paid close to $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to resettle refugees. Two more organizations (including Baptist Family and Children Services) who settle most of the unaccompanied alien children (UAC) brought the total to over $1.3 billion last year.”
Forty-nine of the 50 states, with Wyoming being the lone exception, have a refugee resettlement program in place with the federal government. In most states the governor appoints a refugee resettlement coordinator to handle the shipments of refugees, but in 12 states the contractors handle the refugees with little or no input from the governor’s office.
Gun rights advocates fear U.N. treaty will lead to U.S. registry
The Washington Times Tuesday, April 2, 2013
The U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday approved a sweeping, first-of-its-kind treaty aimed at regulating the estimated $60 billion international arms trade, brushing aside gun rights groups’ concerns that the pact could lead to a national firearms registry in the U.S.
The long-debated U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) requires countries to regulate and control the export of weaponry such as battle tanks, combat vehicles and aircraft and attack helicopters, as well as parts and ammunition for such weapons.
The treaty also provides that signatories will not violate arms embargoes or international treaties regarding illicit trafficking, or sell weaponry to countries where they could be used for genocide, crimes against humanity or other war crimes.
U.S. gun rights activists say the treaty is riddled with loopholes and is unworkable in part because it includes “small arms and light weapons” in its list of weaponry subject to international regulations. The activists said they do not trust U.N. assertions that the pact is meant to regulate only cross-border trade and would have no impact on domestic U.S. laws and markets.
One provision requires participating countries to keep records of arms exports and imports, including the quantity, value, model/type, and “end users, as appropriate” for at least 10 years.
Gun record-keeping is a thorny issue in the U.S., where similar questions have stalled a debate over expanding background checks to include all private gun sales.
Second Amendment supporters worry that such records eventually will pave the way for a national firearms registry, currently prohibited by federal law.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday saying he would sue to block the treaty if it is ratified. It “appears to lay the groundwork for an international gun registry overseen by the bureaucrats at the UN,” the letter said.
The Senate last month also signaled its aversion, voting 53-46 to oppose the treaty in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate. Eight Democrats joined all 45 Republicans in opposing the treaty.
“The U.S. Senate is united in strong opposition to a treaty that puts us on level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arm terrorists, but there is real concern that the administration feels pressured to sign a treaty that violates our constitutional rights,” Mr. Moran said.
White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with the outcome, but “as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty.”
Amnesty International and the Arms Control Association hailed the U.N. vote.
Under the treaty, countries must consider whether weapons would be used to violate international humanitarian or human rights laws and facilitate acts of terrorism or organized crime.
“The treaty’s prohibition section, if it were in force today, would prohibit the ongoing supply of weapons and parts and components to the Assad regime in Syria,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the ACA, a national group that works on arms-control policies.
The American Bar Association released a white paper arguing that the treaty would not affect Second Amendment rights.
The U.N. vote clears the way for countries to add their signatures to the treaty starting June 3. The treaty will take effect 90 days after 50 nations sign it.
Within one year of signing on, each country must submit a report outlining the steps it has taken to comply. But more specifics on the implementation, enforcement and possible punishment for violations of the treaty remain to be seen. Countries have the right to withdraw from the treaty, but are not, as a result, excused from obligations they had while participating.
“This is a very good framework, I think, to build on — it’s fair, I think it’s balanced, and it’s strong. But it’s only a framework,” Mr. Woolcott said. “And it’ll only be as good as its implementation.”
More rule-making is to be delegated to a conference of participating countries, to convene within one year after the treaty goes into effect to review its implementation and consider amendments.
Some abstaining countries, including India and Egypt, said the treaty did not go far enough on its language regarding terrorism or human rights.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC.