What The UN Wants Obama To Do

U.S. Treacherously Dragged From

Sovereignty To Global Submission

America Marches Towards The Kingdom Of The Anti-Christ

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world

(Rev. 13:1-8).

"...why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary (UNESCO)? The United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites as United States parks or preserved historic sites. The land is already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN heritage purposes. ...REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF?"

With U.N. Statement,

Backlash Against Arizona Goes International

Sept. 5, 2010 (May 12, 2010)

With U.N. statement, backlash against Arizona goes international

KGUN9-TV: Sheryl Kornman and Forrest Carr

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12466216

     TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement Monday in Geneva calling out Arizona for a "disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants." The U.N. statement, written with the help of a University of Arizona law professor, points at Arizona's new crackdown on illegal immigration, and also at a new Arizona law targeting the ethnic studies program at Tucson Unified School District.

      In part, Arizona's new immigration law, SB 1070 as amended, makes local law enforcement officers responsible for carrying out what had been a federal agency task: taking into custody individuals who are suspected of being in the United States illegally. The U.N. statement complains that the law requires police to determine the immigration status of individuals based on "just a reasonable suspicion" that they are in the country illegally. According to the statement, officers can arrest that person "without a warrant" if the officer has "probable cause" to believe the person is an illegal alien.

      However, the statement fails to mention that SB 1070 allows a police officer to question a person's immigration status only if the officer has first stopped the suspect for some other offense. It also mischaracterizes the penalties SB 1070 mandates for being in the country illegally, saying that the offense is "punishable by up to six months in jail." For the simple act of being in the country illegally, the final version of SB 1070 actually allows a maximum penalty of only 30 days in jail, even for repeat offenders.

      The statement also expresses concern that the new law may lead to "detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics." The final version of SB 1070 removed race and national origin as a reason to question someone's immigration status, "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." The U.N. document acknowledges the change, but notes that "legal experts differ" about what that amended language really means. The U.N. statement urges "the state of Arizona and the United States Government to take all measures necessary to ensure that the immigration law is in line with international human rights standards." Those standards, adopted in 1990, aim to protect migrant workers and their families around the world.

      The document also attacks HB 2281, the new Arizona law restricting certain practices within public school ethnic studies programs. The statement sharply criticizes Arizona Schools Superintendent Tom Horne, who pushed for the law, saying that he has "repeatedly stated that the law is aimed at eradicating particular existing ethnic studies programs that provide instruction featuring the history, social dynamics, and cultural patterns of Mexican-Americans in the United States." Horne has said that TUSD's program promotes "ethnic chauvinism" and racial resentment toward whites. The law, which Governor Brewer signed on Tuesday, bans programs that teach ethnic solidarity or promote resentment toward any ethnic group.

     TUSD has said its program does no such thing and has promised to defend it. The U.N. statement supports that idea, saying, “Everyone has the right to seek and develop cultural knowledge and to know and understand his or her own culture and that of others through education and information." The plain language of HB 2281 does not actually ban ethnic studies. In fact, it specifically allows them, provided they are open to all students, do not advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, and don't violate the restrictions against promoting ethnic solidarity or resentment against any ethnic groups. That fact cut Arizona no slack with the U.N. human rights team, which wrote, "such law and attitude are at odds with the State's responsibility to respect the right of everyone to have access to his or her own cultural and linguistic heritage and to participate in cultural life. Everyone has the right to seek and develop cultural knowledge and to know and understand his or her own culture and that of others through education and information."

     The U.N. statement states that the two new laws "raise serious doubts about... compatibility with relevant international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party." But the statement does not propose penalties or sanctions. A team of six well-respected human rights experts wrote the statement. One of them, S. James Anaya, is a professor of law at the University of Arizona in Tucson. According to his University bio, Anaya teaches human rights law and policy, and has worked on the United Nations human rights team since 2008. In response to a query from KGUN9 News, a law department spokesperson said Anaya is out of the country and not immediately available for comment. The other five members of the team are: Gay McDougall of the United States, Jorge A. Bustamante of Mexico, Mr. Githu Muigai of Kenya, Farida Shaheed of Pakistan and Vernor Muñoz Villalobos of Costa Rica.

State Department Stands By Decision

To Include Arizona In U.N. Human Rights Report

Aug 30, 2010

State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/state-department-stands-decision-include-arizona-human-rights-report/

     The State Department included a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law into a United Nations human rights report to show how U.S. rule of law can be an example to the world, a State Department spokesman said Monday. Spokesman P.J. Crowley said the Arizona immigration law included in an Aug. 20 report to the U.N. high commissioner on rights came up during the preparation period, when teams went around the country gathering ideas for the report. Crowley said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton included the dispute in the report because she thought the U.S. could serve as "a model" to other nations.

     "The universal periodic review, we believe, can be a model to demonstrate, you know, to other countries, even other countries on the Human Rights Council, this is how you engage civil society,' Crowley told reporters. "And the Arizona immigration law is a good example of how we are debating this as a society. There is a legal case ongoing. And this issue will be resolved under the rule of law," he said. The Justice Department sued Arizona to prevent enactment of the law, which allowed local law enforcement to inquire about a person's immigration status when he or she is questioned about other potential legal violations. Supporters say the law is necessary because the federal government won't enforce immigration rules. Critics claimed it would lead to racial profiling.

     Attorneys for the state argued that it's impossible to make such a claim before the law has been put into practice. But a federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect. In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling. "A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."

     Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday demanded that a reference to the law be removed from the State Department report on ways the federal government is protecting human rights. It is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, Brewer, a Republican nearly guaranteed re-election as a result of the legal dispute, wrote to Clinton. "The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," she said. On Monday, she described the situation as "nationalism run amok." "We talk about human rights. We have, you know, thousands of illegal aliens coming across our border and suffering under inhumane conditions due to the drug cartel and due to the heat, and, you know, dying out in the middle of the desert. It doesn't have anything to do with Senate Bill 1070," Brewer told Fox News.

     Arizona Republican state Sen. Frank Antenorri told Fox News on Monday that he thinks it is an insult to the American people, who overwhelmingly support the state's right to enforce the law, to include Arizona in the report. He added that nothing in the lawsuit makes any mention of human rights or the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal justice. The Justice Department argued the 10th Amendment in its suit, claiming that the state does not have the authority to enforce federal laws. "Name a human rights violation. Name it," Antenorri demanded of the Obama administration. "Tell the people of this country where in this U.N. report you are defining a human rights violation occurring in the state of Arizona. It's garbage," he said, adding, "I find it comical to kowtow to dictators in this global effort to demonize the United States. "The federal government, the president should be ashamed of himself for putting this on an international stage with a commission that is put together by countries that commit actual genocide and atrocities," he added.

US Human Rights Report Is Ridiculous

Aug 25, 2010

US human rights report is ridiculous

BlueRidgeNow.com

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20100825/ARTICLES/8251000/1014

     Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. boycotted the United Nations Human Rights Council, a wise move. The Human Rights Council is dominated by despotic countries with terrible human rights records and exists almost entirely to condemn Israel. Under President Barack Obama, the United States joined the Human Rights Council, hoping to change it from within. Now that membership has borne its first fruit, a 29-page report, submitted to the Human Rights Council by the United States, detailing our nation’s human rights failings. According to a story by The Associated Press, the report actually pointed out as successes the abolition of slavery and granting of the right to vote to women but said discrimination is still a problem.

     The report also noted that blacks, Latinos, Muslims, South Asians, Native Americans and gays and lesbians still suffer from high unemployment rates, hate crimes, poverty, poor housing, lack of access to health care and discriminatory hiring practices. It is, in terms of the human rights record of a country, a ridiculous and bizarre collection of statements. While it is true that unemployment is high, it is only high by American standards, not by world standards. Furthermore, what does our current unemployment situation have to do with human rights? Do we have crimes motivated by hate? Sure, a few, against members of both minority and majority groups, but they aren’t committed by the nation. They are committed by criminals, and when possible, those criminals are prosecuted. Are there Americans who suffer from poverty, poor housing and lack of health care? Sure, Americans of all colors and creeds sometimes go without. What does that have to do with the human rights record of our nation? Is there sometimes discrimination in hiring? Sure, but it is illegal, and violators can be prosecuted.

     Our government isn’t, in the U.S., supposed to run everything. It is not supposed to guarantee employment or housing or jobs to the people. Ideally, it is mostly supposed to keep things fair and stay out of the way. But again, the Human Rights Council is run largely by governments that exert far more control over their people than the United States. Saudi Arabia, China and Cuba currently sit on the council and Libya was chosen in 2003 to chair its predecessor, the Human Rights Commission. Putting a report that accuses the U.S. of human rights violations before a council largely composed of brutal nations is wrong. The shortcomings detailed in the report stem not from a national policy the government tries to enforce but from the actions of criminals our government works to punish. That is far different than the state-sponsored horrors that occur in China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia. And the Obama administration almost seems to tip its hand with this report, implying that full employment, housing and, of course, every aspect of health care should fall under the government’s control. After all, everybody knows how much massing all power in a central government does for human rights, right?

Time To Leave Human Rights Council

Aug 18, 2010

Time to leave Human Rights Council

By Noah Pollak

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41213.html

     Among the first things the Obama administration did to break from the “unilateral” policies of the Bush administration was to join the United Nations Human Rights Council, which the U.S. shunned when it was formed in 2006. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised that “we will engage in the work of improving the U.N. human rights system.” U.N. ambassador Susan Rice declared that we were joining “because we believe that working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights.” Now, almost a year and a half later, the Council remains as it ever was: a body composed of some of the worst human rights abusers in the world, devoted to attacking Western democracies, demonizing Israel, covering up the abuses of authoritarian regimes, and undermining the pursuit of human rights. The only difference today is that America’s name is being lent to this effort.

     The administration’s desire for cooperation and engagement at the U.N. has led to acquiescence and even active involvement in a number of unsavory proceedings. The United States co-sponsored a “freedom of expression” resolution with a dictatorship, Egypt, which in effect endorses the suppression of free speech. When Libya and other authoritarians were elected to the Council, Ambassador Rice refused to say whether the U.S. had opposed their admission. When the Syrian representative claimed that Israeli children “sing merrily as they go to school, and, I quote, ‘With my teeth I will rip your flesh. With my mouth I will suck your blood,’” the U.S. representative made no protest. This summer, the U.S. voted for a resolution that seemed to absolve Iran of human rights abuses.

     One of the Council’s flagship projects has been promoting the Goldstone Report on last year’s war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. The Council is now pushing forward with a second phase that seeks to “implement” the findings of the report. This new effort will attack the very legitimacy of the Israeli legal system and declare Israel unfit to conduct its own investigations, opening the door to the involvement of the International Criminal Court. There is a long-standing tradition in international law of deference in legal matters to national courts and governments. As enshrined in the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Criminal Court, and in customary international law, states are given primacy in investigating and prosecuting misconduct during war — one recent example being the U.S. military’s prosecutions of abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. It is only in cases where there is no state authority, or a state refuses to investigate credible allegations of large-scale atrocities, that international bodies may be entitled to get involved.

     These rules are an obstacle to the Council, because Israel’s legal system, both civil and military, conducts rigorous investigations into allegations of wrongdoing. It ranks with those of the leading liberal democracies as one of the most professional and independent in the world. Thus, the task before the Council is to produce a deeply biased document that provides a fig leaf of credibility to the claim that outside investigations are warranted. Why is it likely that the Council’s new panel will conclude that Israel’s military justice system is illegitimate? It is led by a German radical named Christian Tomuschat, who performed legal advisory work for Yasser Arafat in 1996, and in 2002 wrote that Israel’s targeted killings of terrorists — the same policy the United States currently employs in Afghanistan and Pakistan — means that Israel “uses the same tactics as the terrorists themselves.” He also accused Israel of “ordering the systematic commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.” Furthermore, Tomuschat has written that when it comes to fighting terrorism, “there is little hope that the judicial system of the state concerned will conduct effective investigations and punish the responsible agents.”

     So the Council’s new “investigation” is a foreordained farce intended to slander Israel, restrict its right to self defense, and weaken its international standing. Congress funds 22 percent of the Council’s activities. Is it right to collude in allowing a democratic ally to become an international punching bag for activists who are only prevented from treating us the same way by virtue of our greater power? And should the United States help promote the idea that one of the most important and effective national security tools we employ — targeted killings — is an act of state terrorism that must be prosecuted by international courts? The Obama administration joined the U.N. Human Rights Council with high hopes. But the Council has proven too hostile to democratic values to be reformed. It is time that the administration abandoned the Council. And it is time that Congress stopped funding it.

What does the UN want from Obama?

Restoring U.S. Leadership Through Global Cooperation

Sept. 5, 2010

What does the UN want from Obama?

Restoring U.S. Leadership Through Global Cooperation

Advocacy Agenda 2010

United Nations Association of the USA

http://www.unausa.org/Page.aspx?pid=751

     Goals: Among others: Soon after taking office, President Obama should publicly endorse the MDGs and re-commit the United States to the 2015 deadline for achieving the MDGs. UPDATE: In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2009, Obama "fully embraced" the MDGs. The Congress and the Obama administration should develop a strategic plan for achieving the MDGs that takes advantage of multilateral development assistance channels; and The United States should align its foreign assistance programs with the Millennium Development Goals.

     Among others: The United States should lead international efforts to strengthen the treaty, including through the creation of an international nuclear fuel bank; UPDATE: In April 2009, President Obama called for the creation of an international nuclear fuel bank.

     Among others: Goals: The President should work with other key world leaders to initiate a high-level diplomatic effort to reform the Security Council, including expanding its membership, and strengthen UN peacekeeping operations; and The United States should lead an active and urgent diplomatic effort at the UN to implement all of the recommendations of the 2000 Report of the Panel on UN Peace Operations, establish a well-trained and –equipped UN rapid deployment force, and ensure that the new UN Peace-building Commission receives adequate resources and support.

UNESCO, UN Infringement On Sovereign American Territory

Feb 21, 2008

UNESCO, UN infringement on sovereign American territory

By Tom Deweese

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1968

     Many Americans have been disturbed to find that there are 22 areas in this nation that have been designated as United Nations’ World Heritage Sites. These sights are natural places such as parks or cultural monuments like Tom Jefferson’s home, Monticello. As a result of a UN treaty called “The Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” these sites come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the source of major debate as to whether the UN has infringed on sovereign American territory. However, the debate may be about to rage even hotter. Because Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne (Feb 21, 2008) has just announced his selections of 14 more sites to be considered for nomination by UNESCO as World Heritage Sites.

     Today, of the original 22 UN Heritage Sites that are located on American soil, fully 68 percent of American national parks, preserves and monuments are included in the UN designations. The new sites will include Dayton, Ohio Wright Brothers-related aviation sites; Civil Rights Movement sites in Alabama; George Washington’s home, Mount Vernon in Virginia; Hopewell Indian Ceremonial Sites in my home town of Newark Ohio; and the Virginia State Capitol building in Richmond, to name just a few of the selected sites. These will be added to the existing list that includes Independence Hall, Yellowstone Park and the Statue of Liberty.

     Proponents of the UN Heritage Sites say such designations are nothing more than a great “honor” to the nation. They assure us that there is no threat to American sovereignty and that all designated sites remain firmly under control of the United States government. If true, then the question must be asked, why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary? The United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites as United States parks or preserved historic sites. The land is already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN heritage purposes. These lands are valuable for their historical significance to this nation. REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF?

     WHO OWNS WORLD HERITAGE SITES? It is true that you will not find any UN documents clearly stating that the world body controls or owns American soil through the World Heritage Site Treaty. It is also true that you will not find blue-helmeted UN soldiers standing guard over any of the sites. To fully understand the threat to American sovereignty posed by the UN designation of World Heritage Sites, one must first link this program to a series of other treaties and policies, and how they impact American sovereignty. Above all, one must understand that many in our government see such programs as another tool to build massive federal land-control programs.

     There is strong evidence of close collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the UNESCO World Heritage Site Committee. There is also strong evidence that the designation of UN World Heritage Sites goes hand in hand with the Administration’s Sustainable Development program. That program is nothing less than a massive federal zoning program that dictates property development on the local level, in the name of protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development is to lock up vast areas of American land, and shield it from private use. The designation of United Nations’ World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves can and does result in the centralization of policy-making authority at the federal level, particularly by the Executive Branch. Once a UN designation is made and accepted by the Federal Government there is literally no opportunity for private American land owners to dispute it or undo the designation.

     Private property rights literally disappear, not only in the officially designated area, but worse, in buffer zones OUTSIDE the designated area. Not only has the federal government been using these treaties and agreements to limit access to, and use of these lands to all Americans, but they also have used the UN designations to limit use of private property OUTSIDE the boundaries of the site. That is exactly what happened outside of Yellowstone National Park (a World Heritage Site) when UNESCO delegates were called in by the Park Service in an attempt to stop the development of a gold mine - located OUTSIDE the park. The UNESCO delegates declared Yellowstone to be the first “endangered” World Heritage Site and called for a protective buffer zone of 150-MILES IN DIAMETER AROUND THE ENTIRE PARK. The buffer zone would stop development and access to millions of acres of private property. Such is the purpose of the World Heritage Sites.

     Moreover, in becoming party to these international land-use designations through Executive Branch action, the United States is indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Biodiversity Treaty - a UN treaty that has never been ratified by the United States Senate. Nevertheless, in 1994, the U.S. State Department published the “Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program.” Taken straight from the unratified Biodiversity Treaty, the State Department program is to “create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.” A chief tactic used by the UN and the Federal Government when designating a biosphere reserve or a World Heritage Site is to rarely involve or consult with the public and local governments. In fact, UNESCO policy actually discourages an open nomination for World Heritage Sites. The “Operational Guidelines for the Implementations of the World Heritage Convention” states:

     “In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State (national) parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated inscription pending the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question. Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the committee.” In other words, the nominating committee is to hide the fact that a massive land grab is about to take place. Then, at the appropriate moment, the committee is to involve some local yokels to make them think they have something to say about the grab, then send them away, so that the committee can move ahead, unhindered. They aren’t suppose to worry about the fact that private landowners have just lost control of their property.

     This is not the way the U.S. Constitution says things should be done. This is how despots at the United Nations run things. The Administration is allowing them to do it for the sake of more Federal power. By allowing these international land use designations, the United States promises to protect the sites and REGULATE surrounding lands if necessary to protect the UN-designated area. Honoring these agreements forces the Federal Government to PROHIBIT or limit some uses of private lands outside the international designated area UNLESS OUR COUNTRY WANTS TO BREAK A PLEDGE TO OTHER NATIONS. In a nutshell, here is the real game being played. Through such policies, the Federal Government is binding our nation to international treaties and agreements that stipulate that the United States will manage these lands in a prescribed manner in order to achieve certain international goals and objectives. In other words, we have agreed to limit our right of sovereignty over these lands. That is why it is charged that World Heritage Sites are an infringement on United States sovereignty. You won’t find the smoking gun by reading the treaties. It can only be found in understanding the “intent” and the “implementation” of the policies.

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world

 (Rev. 13:1-8).

_____________________________________

Are you saved? Are you ready for the tribulation to come? Are you headed to hell without hope and God?

Click here to go to our salvation page and learn how you can become born-again and live eternally.