Jacob's Soap Box

02 October, 2009

Last week we saw one of the most frightening exposition of the end of our individual (respective) national sovereignties as we have been accustom to know it. Last week was the watershed in what our politicians often refer to as “the journey” towards global governance. Call me “scare monger” or “conspiracy theorist” if you wish but I am here neither to scare you nor to advocate a conspiracy theory, I merely seek to highlight certain facts that are unfolding right in front of our eyes and ears and propose their significance, as I see it.

But first let me explain, global governance is not the same as global government. Global government refers to the establishment of one world-wide government, presumably under the auspices of the United Nations (or a similar organisation yet to be established), that would govern the whole world as if it was one single country. Although there are some who aspire to it, world government is not going to happen, not without a lot of bloodshed anyway.

On the other hand global governance is the action of governing under common global set of rules. Instead of blue helmets “policemen” and Black Hawk helicopters with blue UN emblem enforcing the rules of a global tyrant, under global governance, our own, friendly (or not), policemen and women will continue enforce the laws of the land, except that increasingly the laws of the land will be the laws of the globe and will come from a global governance bodies such as the UN and its agencies, proposed and drafted by faceless UN bureaucrats and rubberstamped largely by Non-Aligned Movement’s countries who hold the majority voting power in the UN.

Those of us who live under democracy will still have democracy of sort, we shall continue to vote for our respective national democratic institutions except that those institutions will be subservient to the global governance body. In other words our national governments of the future, in time, will have as much powers as the current federal powers of your local municipal council, the powers given to it by Agenda 21, more about Agenda 21 later.

Within a week, the week ended on 28September, 2009, we saw the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change in New-York (Sept 22), the United Nations Security Council Meeting (25 September,2009, chaired by president Obama, the general debate of the opening of the 64^th session of the General Assembly of the United Nation in New-York (on 23-28 September,2009) and the Pittsburgh G20 Partnership Meeting (on 24-28 September, 2009). Whilst none of these events, in themselves, are anything new, apart from a lot of symbolism, it was the first time that leaders of the western democracies not only spoke in such unison on all raised issues BUT the all push the “Global” part above the interest of their own countries.

Our so-called leaders went to New-York and Pittsburgh to represent us, one would assume, but instead they ended up pushing their own global governance agenda through climate change, G20 or straight out UN speak, here are some example:

Barack Obama in a speech to General Assembly, highlights provided:

We have sought — in word and deed — a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.

He later said:

Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; the preservation of our planet; and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.

Go and tell the brainless idiot Marxists anti-globalisation protestors in Pittsburgh that their Messiah and their activists professors are the champion of globalisation, but hey why lets some pesky fact spoil a good anti capitalists demonstration, beside, who said that riots need have a good reason?

And our illustrious Prime Minister Kevin Rudd aka Kevin747 was at his besting terms of laying grounds for his next job, he said to the very same forum:

And it is on the current challenges facing the global order that I wish to speak to this 64th General Assembly today – the global financial crisis, the unfinished business of the Doha Round, the unfolding crisis of the planet itself, the unresolved question of nuclear weapons 20 years after the end of the Cold War – and of the future of global governance itself.

Dear Kevin, he does not mince his words, does he? He continued:

And a wake-up call that our system of global governance today is in radical need of reform.

You see, to Mr. Rudd, global governance is already in here, all it needs is a radical reform, is that the same person who had told the Australian voters the he, Kevin 07, has plans for Australia? I do not recall any mention of making Australia governed from New-York.

Indeed, in certain aspect global governance is already with us, it has been here for some thirty years, just look at all conventions, declarations, charters, protocol and other euphemisms for RULES, coming down from the UN and ratified by our respective governments under our noses.

Whilst you and I been busy labouring to put roofs over our respective families, and food on our tables, the people who we elected and TRUSTED to protect our interests we busy scheming amongst themselves to bring us a global governance by stealth.

Take a look at some examples, The Lima Declaration of 1975, states, inter alia:

[Solemnly declare] their resolve to ensure the speedy and effective implementation of the principles of industrialisation laid down in the International Development Strategy for the 197Os which is being adapted to the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order; [para 25]

And

That countries, particularly developed countries, should undertake an objective and critical examination of their present policies and make appropriate changes in such policies so as to facilitate the expansion and diversification of imports from developing countries and thereby make possible international economic relations on a rational, just and equitable basis; [para 27]

In other words, we “particularly the developed countries”, must hand our production to under-developed countries. Why? Because we, the developed country are evil and must pay for our sins – nothing about the billions of aid money that was squandered by corrupt leaders, nothing, no one talks about it because they are VICTIMS.

Then we have The Rio Declaration which is part of Agenda 21, documents that, irrespective of our sovereign laws, mandates local government and NON-GOVERNMENTAL organisations (NGO’s) an official status not only in relation to environmental legislation but also, the use of the environment as an excuse for all left wing doctrines – indeed a masterpiece of left wing activism, here are some examples (from the Rio declaration):

Principle 20

Women have a vital role in environmental management and development. Their full participation is therefore essential to achieve sustainable development.

Principle 21

The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

Principle 22

Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognize and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.

Principle 23

The environment and natural resources of people under oppression, domination and occupation shall be protected.

Principle 24

Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary.

Principle 25

Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

[Highlights provided]

And we had thought that looking after the environment means to ensure clean air, clean water and rain forests. Oh no! Agenda 21 makes it clear that just about any left wing activist can become a police officer.

When your local council require an environmental impact study before it approve your car port, say Agenda 21, when you council declare you town Nuclear Free Zone, say Agenda 21, when your council put up signes calling for the protection of the Tasmanian rain forest, say Agenda 21 – in fact when you council involves itself with issues outside its boundaries chances are that it is Agenda 21.

Charity organisations such as Oxfam or World Vision, supposedly established in order to assist the needy in poor countries (but not in their own for some reason) are getting vocally involved in issues such as global warming or join in condemning Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force, say Agenda 21 – You see my friends, the misery industry, just as the watermelon environmentalism, green on the outside and red on the inside.

The way it works is that the UN organises a convention on the issue, the UN bureaucrats, most come from under-developed countries, who prepare the final outcome and name it as a convention, protocol, declaration, agenda or whatever, it automatically passed by two third majority of the so-called non-aligned bloc with 113 votes of which about Half (56) are also members of the Organisation Of The Islamic Conference (IOC) and now you have it a “UN resolution” that your government rash to ratify as a good global citizen – It is for your own good, even the UN said so ….. hmmm hmmm hmmm.

I am sick and tired hearing politicians using “other countries” excuse as if the monopoly on wisdom lay in other countries – I like it here as it is, thank you very much but when I see politicians from all over the world using the same speak about global governance I get frightened.

whose side are they on?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer, 2009

14 march, 2009

It was recently revealed that our Governor-General, our Queen’s representatives down here, Quentin Bryce, is about to take a controversial 18 days 9 African counties trip, apparently canvassing for Australia seat on the United Nation Security Council (UNSC)

The trip is controversial because, contrary to conventions, our G-G agreed to participate in partisan politics, but this is to be expected when a socialist megalomaniac PM like Kevin 747 appoints a fellow Queenslander, socialist activist republican to represent the queen.

Leaving the constitutional question of the trip aside, it seems that our illustrious PM’s sudden urge to for substantial engagement with Africa has nothing to do with Kumbaya but to pander to the Africans, canvassing their support for Australia’s (non-permanent) seat on the UN Security Council in the 2012 General Assembly vote for 2013/14 tenure.

Whilst there is nothing wrong or unusual about Australia seeking a UNSC seat per se, Australian interests, or world peace, does not appear to be the motive of Kevin747, not in my opinion anyhow.

As an avid Kev watcher, I cannot escape the feeling that this is all done to satisfy Kevin’s control freakishness, megalomaniac tendencies and a further excuses to dance on world stages. I would not be surprised if behind it all is the background of Kev eventual assault on the job of Secretary General when Kev is “elder statesman” former PM and Ban Ki Moon had enough.

My main concern is that, if I am judging the situation correctly, Australia’s interests are about to be trampled on for a personal agenda. Oh, don’t tell me, Kevin does not do it for himself, it is all for Australia. Bull dust!

The UN is the most corrupt organisation in the world, there no revere can come to Australia from associating with such shady body (in it current structure) that is anything but what its founders intended.

How does it works?

The Security Council

The Security Council (UNSC) is the only UN body with “teeth”; unlike the General Assembly, it has the powers to enforce its resolutions (if it wishes) by mastering peace keeping forces, apply sanctions, embargoes or even engage in a military campaign as it did in the Korea War and the Gulf War I.

The UNSC also vets and recommend admission of new member states to the UN for approval (or not) by the General Assembly (GA).

It also select the new Secretary General for member states approval by a vote in the Assembly (or not).

The UNSC is the “executive branch” of the UN, similar to a Board Of Directors (except the veto powers) whilst the general Assembly is akin to the shareholders of a company

The UNSC comprises of fifteen members, fives permanent, perms in UN jargon and ten rotating members, non-perms.

The Five perms are United State, Untied Kingdom, France, Russia and China, each has a veto power on any UNSC resolution.

Every year five of the ten non-perms are voted for a two years tenure, similar to the half senate elections. Their composition is based on the following key:

Africa: 3; Latin America & The Caribbeans: 2; Eastern Europe: 1; Asia: 2; Western Europe & Others: 2.

In addition, there must always be at least one Arab member that comes off either from the Asian or the African allocation.

The “others” in the Western Europe group include Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.

Israel is the 57^th state member of the UN, in order of joining. Israel Was accepted as a UN member state on 11 May, 1949. It preceded countries such as Austria, Finland, Italy, Portugal Spain and the vast majority of Africa (the exception are Egypt, Ethiopia and South Africa).

Because of Arab opposition, Israel was not accepted as part of the Asian bloc, it became an “untouchable” bloc of itself, a bloc that is not entitled to a seat on the security council.

In 2000 Israel was accepted “temporarily” to the Western Europe & Others bloc ON THE CONDITION that it would not seek a seat on security council, still untouchable.

There you have it, whilst the Arab countries always guaranteed a seat on the Security Council, Israel is “guaranteed” never to have one. What about cultural diversity, social inclusion and other PC spins? Heh?

The United State has requested Israel not to “rock the boat” on the issue of seat on the UNSC in exchange for a US “diplomatic umbrella”. This is the real source for the USA support of Israel in the UN, rather than “strong Jewish lobby” although there is little doubt that USA support for Israel needs no special agreements.

The purpose of these facts are not to present Israel as a victim, just to demonstrate one of many hypocrisies that rule the UN.

To gain a seat on the Security Council, Australia must get the two third of the votes in the General Assembly (GA) or 128 vote out of total 192 members. The fact that Finland and Luxemburg have also put their candidacy forward makes it a three horses race.

The charade has commenced, now let us turn to the working of GA.

The General Assembly

The General Assembly (GA) is the forum of All 192 members states of the UN, practically all the countries in world, except Taiwan and the Vatican.

The voting in the GA is one state one vote, thus the vote of the USA or Russia is equal to the votes of, say, Maldives or Andorra.

Not so when it comes to funding the UN. The UN is funded by its members according to their relative capacity to pay (measure by the respective Gross National Income). The top six of the contributors to the UN provide about 64% of its budget (2006 figures) whilst the last third of members provide less then one thousandth of it (0.1%).

Russia is the only UNSC perm that does not make the first fifteen contributors list, nor would you find any OPEC member in that list.

The GA meet yearly from September to December but may be called for extraordinary seatings. About two third of members, also known as known as G77 (although they are nowadays about 130 in number) or the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) practically control the stage on the assembly when they vote en bloc which is most times.

NAM was founded during the Cold War days by India’s Nehru and Yugoslavia’s Tito as supposedly a bloc of counties that are not aligned with the West or with the USSR. These countries were also known as the third world, developing countries etc. Today, counting observers status too, the bloc includes all the countries in Africa, all the countries of Asia (except Japan, South Korea, Turkey and Israel) and all the countries of Latin America and the Caribbeans (except Argentina).

Like all UN euphemisms, the tern non-aligned is nothing but a bad joke. The phrase suppose to denote a forging policy independent from the USA and Russia; Really? How foreign policy independent is NATO member such as non-aligned Poland? The same question can be asked of former USSR states such as Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan who enjoy the Russian bear hug?

Be that as it may, you now realise that if you want a resolution passed in the UN you have Buckley’s chance of getting it unless you have the 113 votes of Non-Aligned, or about 130 votes if you include “observers” (and hangers on) which is just over two third of the UN vote that will guarantee control on the assembly.

But wait, it is getting even better, 54 members of the non-aligned bloc also belong to the 57 states strong Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) meaning that just about half of the so-called non-aligned countries are the Muslim countries; put it in other words, as there is no veto powers in the GA, the UN General Assembly is in fact controlled by the Muslim world!!!

Now, you don’t really need to be a rocket scientists to see the reasons for the constant obsession of the UN and its institutions with constant condemnations of Israel. Do you really believe that had Mamma Teresa headed the Israeli government the relations of Israel with the UN would have been any better? if you do I have some excellent investment opportunity for you in one of Bernard Madoff’s secured investment funs.

Although the resolutions of the GA are not binding, they are often used as excuses to limit our liberties for the greater good of the planet … or such like similar crap. How many such UN resolutions have been used in such a manner? Let’s look at some examples:

On 6 December, 1973 (in a middle of oil embargo against the West by OPEC, mind you) the UN passed Resolution 307, the LIMA DECLARATION ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION, also known as the Lima Declaration in short, that mandated the largest ever transfer of wealth from of the developed word to the Third World. e.g:

25. [The signatories declares that They] resolve to ensure the speedy and effective implementation of the principles of industrialisation laid down in the International Development Strategy for the 197Os which is being adapted to the Programme of Action on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order;

27. That countries, particularly developed countries, should undertake an objective and critical examination of their present policies and make appropriate changes in such policies so as to facilitate the expansion and diversification of imports from developing countries and thereby make possible international economic relations on a rational, just and equitable basis;

[Emphasis and highlights provided]

(Hey, who needs conspiracy theories?)

Let us look at another issue, the Environment. The REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, also known as the Rio Declaration, The forerunner to the Kyoto Protocol. Again, the UN General Kumbaya agree that we must save the planet but … wait … not if it hurts some poor none-aligned.

Principle 6 of the declaration makes sure that saving the planet is a NIMBY (Not In My back yard) affair.

The special situation and needs of developing countries, particularly the least developed and those most environmentally vulnerable, shall be given special priority. International actions in the field of environment and development should also address the interests and needs of all countries.

The futility of global warming aside, the same principle is used by China and India to excuse themselves from taking action on global warming, not because it is a the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on human kind but because the proportionality doctrine that says that it is now their “turn” to emit carbon dioxide.

Perhaps we can also agree that all those nations who missed out on slavery be allowed to introduce it provided it is proportionate to previous slavery, how about it? It is their turn!

And so the Third Word gets away exempting itself from a whole host of UN resolutions due to cultural sensitivities, We, in the west, are prevented from discipline our kids by the UN Convention On The Right Of The Child, whilst third world countries may continue to practice child slavery and deny education to Muslim girls having regard to economic, social and cultural rights as permitted by Article 4 (and elsewhere) in the convention.

Women may be bitten and honour-killed in conformity with cultural sensitivities simply because the Organisation of Islamic Conference control the Third World voting bloc in the General Assembly, the same applies to other human rights that are too culturally sensitive to be adopted in Muslim countries.

The whole travesty they call human rights, in the context of the UN, is an issue by itself, but you can do no more than shaking your head in disbelief observing countries such as Libya, Sudan, Iran and other with abhorrent human rights records leading the Untied Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) reprimanding western democracies on the subject.

But don’t think that if you don’t like what you see you have a right to criticise it, you don’t! Take a look at the UN Resolution 62/154 Combating Defamation Of Religions, which has been dubbed as Anti-Islamophobia Resolution. It calls for countries to take measure to stop criticism of Islam.

But I guess that Muslim have a cultural sensitivity that allow them to call Jews and Christians apes and swine.

The UN has ceased to fulfilled its intended functions sometimes in the 1960’s. It has become a tools to drag humanity back to the seven century, limit our sovereignty and rid us of our liberties.

Too often we see narrow and radical self interests within our countries use the UN to subterfuge the democratic process and liberties as if the UN is some sort of a supreme benevolent umpire (*gulp*).

Next time that you see a UN resolution, just before you get all wet an worm on the inside, remember Who the hell is actually running this charade we call the United Nation.

16 January, 2009

Here is math question for fifth grade:

There are about 900 people in the neighbourhood, half of them went to watch a football game. The number of kids watching the game represents one third of the total neighbourhood and the number of women and kids represent 40% that neighbourhood.

Question: How many of each men, women and children are at the game?

Answer: 90 men, 60 women and 300 children (all about)

What that got to do with anything?

If you have listen carefully to the Hamas propaganda parroted by the UN and the media you will learn over a number of bulletins that: Total casualties is 900 (as of Monday 12 January, 2009) half are civilians, one third are children and 40% are women and children.

In solving this simple arithmetic problem we learn that, according to the Hamas, the ratio of children fatality is two dead children for each non combatant adult fatality or four dead women and children for every man. Can some please offer an explanation for such disproportion?

If you believe the Hamath numbers please tell us why are there two dead children to each adult? what are there four dean women and children for every man? Where are the parents of those kids? and where are the husbands and fathers of those woman and children? why aren’t these disproportionate victims not in bomb shelters? There are many such question but don’t expect the media to ask them.

The media main concern is that Israeli casualties are not higher, plain and simple.

Unless anyone under the age 50 is defined as “child” the number of kids that were hurt are highly exaggerated or kids are being pushed forward to front the Israeli troops to achieve Hamas’s propaganda targets. The true facts of this conflict will come out eventually, as they did nearly seven years ago when Israel invaded the West bank town of Jenin.

* * * * *

In April 2002 after a spates of suicide bombing, Israel invaded the town of Jenin in the West Bank in an attempt to clean it out. The international hysteria that followed included “eyewitness” accounts of Israeli atrocity including 500 dead citizens, mass graves etc. etc. At the same time Israel said that according to reports by the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) the number is about 50, most of which are Hamas and other terror organisation fighters.

On April 18, in an article titled Jenin ‘Massacre Evidence Growing’ the BBC quoted , Prof Derrick Pounder of Dundee University, who they described as “A British forensic expert” saying:

I must say that the evidence before us at the moment doesn’t lead us to believe that the allegations are anything other than truthful and that therefore there are large numbers of civilian dead underneath these bulldozed and bombed ruins that we see

You would think that four months later, the true might finally come out, yet as late as 1 August 2002 the UN General Secretary issue a press statement SG2077 headed REPORT OF SECRETARY-GENERAL ON RECENT EVENTS IN JENIN, OTHER PALESTINIAN CITIES which, among other things, says that:

— Death toll: Four hundred ninety-seven Palestinians were killed and 1,447 wounded in the course of the IDF reoccupation of Palestinian areas from 1 March through 7 May 2002 and in the immediate aftermath. Most accounts estimate that between 70 and 80 Palestinians, including approximately 50 civilians, were killed in Nablus.

Eventually independent investigation has proven that the number of confirmed Palestinian casualties were 54, most of whom (40+) were terrorist. Even a weekly like the Time magazine, not exactly a pro-Israel publication, published the result for its investigation, it concluded that:

… there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp. According to the U.N., 54 Palestinians are confirmed dead. An additional 49 are missing; it is unclear how many of them perished in the fighting and how many either fled or were captured by Israeli troops

[Emphasis provided]

* * * * *

The lesson from Jenin is clear; Palestinians exaggerate their casualties and the media is keen to cooperate spread any information that makes Israel look bad, what else is new?

You may have noticed, that this time there are no calls for investigation of “war crimes” by Israel as was the case during the Jenin operation, the loons have learned that investigation may prove, as it did in Jenin, no Israel wrong doing, which defeat their purpose.

All the reports from Gaza come from local “journalists”. Since the BBC’s Alan Johnston was kidnapped (and released) in Gaza, no foreign journalist is stationed in Gaza (or Ramallah for that matter), journalists seem to prefer the somewhat more secure environment of the Dan Hotel in Tel Aviv, the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and slum Israel from as far away from the Hamas as possible.

This is hilarious, although they parrot Hamas’s propaganda they still prefer to do it from the safety (and comfort) of Israel.

Israel has learnt from their misjudgment of the foreign press in the Lebanon War of 2006 and now bans the foreign press from Gaza area that has been declared a close military zone by the IDF. The bans were not apply to the Israeli press.

An appeal by the organisation of foreign journalists in Israel to the High Court failed on a ground that the Israeli law does not automatically provides equal rights to non-citizen, and the IDF has the legal power to decide who can enter a close military zone. You see, support for the Hamas is not regarded as a “human right” in Israel.

* * * * *

The Palestinian casualties allegedly come from hospital casualty records. It would be a matter of time before the number itself can be verified, particularly of the alleged disproportion of children victims.

However, hospitals can certify death from injury caused by a bullets, shrapnel, falling debris or explosion but they cannot determined if the bullet is from an Israeli gun or a Hamas purge act. Shrapnel can also come from Hamas rocket exploding during production or launching (so-called industrial accident), accidental trigger of Hamas’s mine or booby traps intended for the Israeli troops, and there are plenty of them around.

Here is a Palestinian school in Gaza that had been booby trapped from a neighbouring zoo. Although, the IDF disabled this particular booby trap, there are many other all over Gaza , as indeed was the case in Jenin.

Hamas Booby Trap a School And a Zoo

Why would the Hamas booby trap a whole school? Did they expect IDF using the class rooms for pottery lessons? or were the Hamas waiting for the schools to fill up with kids before they, the Hamas, detonate the charges and claim “Israeli bombing of schools”?

There is of course the possibility that the Hamas simply inflate the number of casualties and the proportion of children fatalities, I have no doubt that this is the case but as the Hamas, the TV networks and the UN all insist that I am wrong how about they explain why are children casualties are disproportionate to adult casualties?

If you accept the Hamath, why are there two dead kids for every adult or why are there four dead women and children for every man? Apparently, the UN who parrots that information on behalf of the Hamas has seen noting unusual about it. they are too busy demonising Israel.