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

21 May, 2009

Studies have shown that 95% of people die whilst laying in bed. I can no longer remain silent on such mass slaughter of innocent people by the multinational bed and linen corporations, in particular women and children. I therefore resolved to create awareness of the challenges ahead and establish the Coalition For Sleeping On the Floor.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel For Sleeping Change (IPSC), that comprises of the best scientists research funds money can buy and Unocrats, recognised my efforts and produced its First Report On Sleeping Change in preparation for the Bedford Protocol On Sleeping Change.

According to the IPCS report, unless a drastic action is taken to reduce sleeping in beds habits, mathematical models have shown that nearly 40% of all people living today will die by the year 2050 and 99.9% will be dead by 2110, shocking results indeed!!!

In a speech before the Bedford Protocol delegations I said:

There is a sufficient scientific body of consensus, the science is settled, we must act and we must act now! sleeping on beds is no longer a sustainable option. We must come together (but not in beds) and meet the challenge bed-head on and rid the world of beds before we shall all perish.

Former Vice-President, the inventor of the Internet and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, joined my efforts and produced an astonishing docoganda called The Embedded Truth in which he revealed astounding statistics that the death rate per hospital bed is 97.3 times that of a domestic bed actualised the urgency of action. Mr Gore moved for the immediate ban on hospital beds to the applaus of the enthusiastic crowd.

In his docoganda, Mr Gore, holding a hockey stick, pointed to large graphs on the wall behind him showing a steady death rate against number of beds going back to the stone age until the 20^th century when both number of beds and death rate picked suddenly hence the name hockey stick. He added:

The is no doubt, ladies and gentlemen, that the increase death rate is due to manmade beds. As you can see [pointing to the beginning of the graph] the death rate in the stone age is very law indeed, we now know for certain that it is attributable to the lack of beds.

Despite a concentrate efforts scientists were unable to unearth any death certificate from the stone age thus concluded that people did not die during the stone age because there were no beds back then

The Bedford protocol for sleeping change called for a gradual reduction in concentrations of beds to 50% by year 2050, 100% by year 2100 and 150% by 2150 (to be on the safe side). At the suggestion of the Women Against Going To Bed With Men, the habit of two people using the same bed was declared disgusting and banned (unless both bedded are of the same sex).

Ms. Penny Worth, the Australian Minister responsible of sleeping change said:

We cannot allow irresponsible people negating the benefits of reduction of beds by sharing the remaining beds. However, we are cognisant of the human rights issues involving with same sex bonking thus have made some welcome exceptions

* * * * *

Sleeping on the floor has been proven environmentally friendly too. Not only you will be closer to nature and to your ancestors but by us all sleeping on the floor we shall no longer be depended on foreign imports of lead pained beds (ichs) from China carried by foreign own ships propelled by dirty fossil fuel!!! Sleeping on a the floor has a smaller carbon print thus it is considered socially responsible.

It was also shown that as people sleep in floors their lower position viz-a-viz the stratosphere means that the carbon dioxide they exhaling is less likely to reach the stratosphere, thus reducing global warming.

In a teleprompter shattering speech, president Bedvasser said:

America is addicted to its beds, we can no longer sustain such out of control beds. In future American bed manufacturer shall be required to conform to the government smaller SBEU (Single Bed Equivalent Unit – a scientific bed measurement unit) per person.

America can no longer afford irresponsible behaviour such as person sleep alone on a king size bed of 2.75 SBEU’s. I therefore announce a new bedding targets which will come into effect immediately.

The Australian Prime Minister Kevin Tucheslaker said me-too and introduced similar measurers in Australia in order to save humanity, as he put it. Somehow the fact that if we all perish tomorrow the affect on the world population would be a reduction of 0.35% escaped him as did the fact China will make up such shortfall by next Friday.

However, member states of the Non-Aligned Movement of the UN, otherwise known as the Third World countries, who in fact controls the voting of the UN General Assembly were allowed to continue to develop sleeping in beds habits. Their UN spokesman, Mr. Bunkie Moon said:

For centuries we slept on the floor whilst people in America and Europe were tucked in beds under worm quits on soft matrasses with electric blankets turned on “max”, it is now our turn to enjoy such luxuries.

(Privately Mr. Moon was concerned that unless there is allowance to his country his first name may be politically incorrect.)

When the USA representative, Ms. Julia Gotobeds, attempted to warn Mr. Moon of the dangers in adopting such risky sleeping strategy, Dr. Shi Tin Bed from China mumbled something in Chinese, a keen simultaneous translator voice was heard whispering in the earpieces a second later:

We don’t care if our people will die, we have too many of the anyway, serve them right for breeding like rabbits.

In order to avoid objections and procrastinations by the all powerful Bedding Industry, the conference decided to establish a new financial instrument Bed Sleeping Credits (BSC) a system by which a Monopoly-like money is transform to real money. Governments will issued large corporations with BSC’s on the basis of contributions in the last elections (when relevant). Those credits will be traded on the stock exchange. People who cannot fall asleep on the floor can buy such credits to compensate society for their anti-social behaviour. The system will be known as Nap And Trade.

* * * * *

One small bald with glasses and goatee German mathematicians, Dr Hans Sensemacher, tried to explain to the conference that the existence of strong mathematical correlation between two variables is not a proof of cause and effect. It is possible, he argued, that laying in bed may be not be a cause of death but a consequence of the more likely causes, such as illness, accident or old age.

He was booed down by angry participants calling him sceptic, right winger, redneck and neo con. Later the conference heard From Congersman Bernie Klieneweewee that Dr Sensmacher been receiving moneys for his research from the giant Gootschluf matrasses manufacture, of Bavaria and the Iranian president’s cousin, Dr Ahmedpeeinbed.

Post scriptum

On the following morning Greenpeace, World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) and the Wilderness Society raised a strong objection to the elimination of beds altogether because, they claim, it destroys the habitat of bed-bugs and, if such destruction of habitat proceeded with, it will bring bed-bugs to the brink of extinction.

A world without bed bugs is considered even greater environmental disaster than a death of a few people.

The BBC together with the New-York Times, launched the Save The Bed-Bug campaign featuring the great environmentalist Mr David Attengetter shown on TV playing with cute bed-bugs providing running commentary of their contribution to our planter’s fragile eco-system (must have one of those).

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2009 – all rights reserved.

12 May, 2009

As of  Monday 4^th may 2009, supermarket plastic bags are banned in the state of South Australia (capital: Adelaide). Like it or loath it, it is another landmark win for the green social engineers.

In fact this is a win for emotional mediocrity, shallowness, ignorance and stupidity of the South Australian public that allow itself to be anaesthetised by morally corrupt journalists and their editors. Not to be overly harsh on the South Australian public, I am certain that, had it been another state, the results would have been the same – no one would hit the streets with banners because of shopping plastic bags.

But plastic bags are not the real issue, they are only a stage the takeover of our lives by the social engineers in the name of the environment.

Was it only me? I listen to an interview on the ABC Radio (no relation to the American media organisation with the same name) with the South Australian Environment Minister, whose name escapes me and not sufficiently important to look it up, that proudly bragged that ” now the landfills of South Australia have been saved” (or words to that affect).

Let me just put it in proportion; South Australia is nearly one and a half times the size of Texas (1.4 to be precise) with a population of 1.6 million, or 6.6% that of Texas. Take off 1.1 million people who live in Adelaide that leaves 400,000 people, who mostly live in coastal towns, for the rest of the state and a vast empty desert for hundreds of miles – saving landfills? Who are they kidding?

But wait a minute, by law we are required, at least here, to wrap our house refuse in plastic bags. Most people indeed re-use shopping bags for that very purpose which means that from now on, in South Australia, shoppers have to buy plastic bags to wrap their garbage in. How do landfills get to be saved with purpose purchased plastic bags as distinct from the re-used shopping variety? Anyone? Anyone?

Lesson number one; environmentalists do not care about contradictions in their massages.

On this very issue, it is some 25 years since the paper bags were banned because they damaged the environment, “save the forest” the echo-Whacko told us, yet if you do not wish to buy the “green” shopping bags in South Australia you will be supplied with … wait for it! … paper bags!

How about Dr (PhD on butterflies) Paul Erlich, the guru of population control who wrote in his book “The Population Explosion” in 1968 that, unless drastic measures are taken to limit population growth, by 1980 there will be insufficient food for all of us. We are nearly 30 year past that point and the social engineers are gearing up to fight …. oh no! Obesity!

* * * * *

Let me see, the environmental message is about pollution, right?

How many of you think that the atmosphere is more polluted now that it was 30 years ago? If you do you are wrong! By all yardsticks that measure pollutants in the air, such as the level of ozone (O₃), Carbon Monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO₂), lead and others in the atmosphere, the air quality in the in the developed countries is much higher than it was thirty years ago despite the increase in number of motor vehicles (40% in the USA) during that time.

Yes, the air in the USA and in Australia got cleaner during the tenures of George Bush and John Howard (respectively) but do not expect the media to admit that by all impartial accounts the air quality in the USA in the Bush years was better than in the Clinton’s tenure. In fact the media along with the environmental industry tell you the exact opposite.

Lesson number two; the environmental message is not necessarily true, as a matter of fact it is a pack of lies most of the time.

Greg Easterbrook, an environmental writer, asked a New York Times’ journalist why is it that the paper knowingly misleading the public and allows environmental “news” that otherwise would be edited out as sheer lies? the public would become complacent [about the environment] was the answer. You see my friends, the elitist journalistic profession do not trust you with the truth they need to chew it for you before serving it but what else is new Charlie?

The so-called profession is no longer about impartial reporting, it is about pushing a left an agenda. A left wing agenda supporting the liberal left.

Lesson number three; environmentalism has nothing to do with the environment all to do with social engineering.

In order to facilitate social change, the social engineers need to create a crisis. When people feel threatened they are more likely to agree, or at least no object, to more government control – this is what it is all about, CONTROL!

Patrick Moore, the Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace who left the organisation over policy disagreements provides us with some insight into the movement. In May 2000 he said in the Daily mail that:

“…we have an environmental movement that is run by people who want to fight, not to win.

In other words, the movement select unwinnable issues, such as global warming, that enable the perpetuity of their very existence with a healthy sources of publicity and funds. Take Greenpeace which was founded in 1970 primarily resist the nuclear tests in the Pacific by the USA and France – Once the international nuclear test ban can into force, Greenpeace was forced to diversify to other environmental issues to remain in business.

Why don’t you do a small experiment, walk to the nearest environmentalist and tell him or her: I see that the global temperature declined since year 2000, isn’t it great? Watch their reaction. If you think that they will be relieved that “the imminent” perils of global warming been averted, you are up for a bitter disappointment.

* * * * *

Let us examine the largest con ever perpetrated on humanity, global warming or its predecessor in name only climate change. The demonisation of inert, odourless, colourless gas that is naturally occurring in nature and comprises some 0.03% of the atmosphere as the villain that is destroying the civilisation as we know it. Oh sinful people the end is nye!

Let me see if I get it; the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? How does that work? If we go back to live as the stone age Aborigines that came to meet our First Fleet in 1788, our civilisation will be saved?

Do the echo-whackos want us to destroy our civilisation in order to save it? Not at all, they want everything to stay exactly as it is. Remember, they want to fight not to win and they don’t care much for contradictions.

However, in the meantime and with the help of the liberal media, academia, our education systems and … Hollywood, they have created a monster of a propaganda machine that has the world has never seen before, the two Josephs, Stalin and Goebbels, notwithstanding.

What all these bedfellows have in common with the echo-whackos or with each others, for that matter, that they all banded together against us? The answer is simple; ANTI-CAPITALISM! Sounds familiar?

Yes, the green movement is a watermelon, green on the outside and red on the inside. Browse the platform of the various “Green” parties and you quickly see familiar motifs straight out the Communist Manifesto. The reds did not passed away with the death of the Soviet Union, they simply grew green skins.

Now you see the mutual exclusive relation between Communism and environmentalism, every environmentalist is a Communist and every Communist is a greenie and they have one aim which is simply MORE GOVERNMENT. In order to get average Joe and Sheila Citizen to agree, or even demand, bigger government intervention in their affairs, one must create a crisis. Crisis also means more government money for the cause. More money for “research”, more money for “education” (of the public at large) of the impeding “disaster” and the “need to act” NOW!

As The White House Chief Of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said recently: Never let a serious crisis go to waste, much less if you have gone into the trouble of creating such crisis (the second part is my addition)..

And if we are talking about more crises and more government, who is to say that we mean our own respective sovereign governments, oh no! Global emergencies require global solution. Rather than get tangled with pesky individual constitutions, we need solutions that need not be limited by national laws. So now it is not your elected government who calls the shots, it is the United Nations the most corrupt body of unelected officials on earth who wants to rule the world from New York, Geneva or wherever.

Wait! Just before you decide that you had enough conspiracy theory here, instead of clicking the close button, how about clicking here and check out Agenda 21 and see, amongst other things, how the UN attempt to control every aspect of our lives. If you thought that your local council has to deal with the three “R”, rates, roads and rubbish, you are wrong, chapter 28 is devoted to them.

When recently I demanded to know why my local council waste my rates money on signs that call for the “saving” the Tasmanian forests, not even in my state, Agenda 21 was the answer.

This is how it works, A bunch echo-whacko official UN comes up with an idea and they push it through a committee with fancy name (you bet) till it comes out as UN treaty, declaration, resolution, protocol or agenda and however named such piece of paper that goes to individual members countries, that your country and mine.

Anonymous obscure unelected people in Rio De Janeiro (in this case) decided that my council rates should pay for the greenies agenda in Tasmania, irrespective of what I or any other rate payer think of it.

Our power grabbing politicians, of all persuasions, are happy to push it through because it gives them more powers, how often have you heard that we must adopt one paper or another because even the UN agrees with it? Now and then we see heads of states such George W Bush and John Howard who stand up and refuse to ratify a UN paper, such as the Kyoto Protocol on the ground that it is against the interests of our respective countries, but at great personal cost in term of personal hate campaign by the “companionate” greenies!

And then there is the Kyoto Protocol, a UN agreement to limit the developed (but not other) countries’ emissions by unrealistic levels thus causing untold damage to their economies for … 3% reduction in global warming by 2050. This is a conclusion of a scientist who SUPPORTS the global warming swindle.

Thomas Wigley, a senior scientist with the National Centre For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) said in his article The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming (scroll down) that:

Wigley concluded that the impact on projected temperature increases, with all countries doing only what is required under Kyoto and then continuing with business as usual, would be a scant 0.06 to 0.11°C (0.11 to 0.20°F) shaved off the total warming, roughly a 3% reduction [in global warming].

[emphasis provided]

Hey, with conclusions like these who needs sceptics?

But we already know that the echo-whackos are not concerned about the planet, they want to destroy our economies by attacking the very basis for our lives, energy.

* * * * *

And if you still remain unconvinced that Kyoto was a real attempt to address a problem, albeit unproven one, please address the question why is it that countries, such as France, who rely on nuclear energy for 80% of its electricity production, nor would any other country who would go nuclear, can obtain carbon credits for their effort to reduce omission. Here we have a perfect solution, but no, the echo whackos would not have a bar of it. Of course not, if nuclear power would solve our problem, two things will happen: It will prove that carbon dioxide has no real affect on the weather and more important it will destroy the basis for their agenda – no problem no money.

Planting trees to absorb that retched carbon dioxide was originally excluded from approved activities. Can you imagine that? Turning carbon dioxide into oxygen was banned. The echo whackos later relented somehow but with a caveat, the trees must be native to the areas and MONOCULTURAL, do you get that? We are not allowed to interfere with the “culture” of the trees but we must warship multiculturalism when it comes to … people!

Our government can allow in people with culture even abhorrent to us (try “honour” killings of women for size) and we suppose to treat such culture as sacred in the name of multiculturalism but when it comes to trees, oh no! No foreigners allowed.

All of you out there with eucalyptus trees in your countries, your tree are multicultural, pull them out, they belong to us!

These people have no shame!

© Copyrights Jacob Klamer 2009, all rights reserved.

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.