A UN Militia in Your Community? Rapid Reaction against UN Foes

1999 (updated
2013)

Skip down to behind-the-scenes leader Maurice Strong

Obama Requests 15,000 Russian Troops For “Upcoming” Disaster

[June]:
“An unsettling report prepared by the Emergencies Ministry (EMERCOM) circulating in the Kremlin today on the just completed talks between Russia and the United States in Washington D.C. says that the Obama regime has requested at least 15,000 Russian troops trained in disaster relief and
‘crowd functions‘ [i.e. riot control] be pre-positioned to respond to FEMA Region III during an unspecified
‘upcoming’ disaster.”

      “…these Russian troops would work
‘directly and jointly’ with [DHS Director Janet Napolitano] Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of
whose mission is to secure the continuity of the US government in the event of natural disasters or war.
…FEMA Region III, the area Russian troops are being requested for, includes
Washington D.C. and the surrounding States…”

Coup D’etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial:
“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic, have prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce a resolution that re-affirms such behavior as an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor” under the Constitution.”
(Jones’

video message to Congress, March 7, 2012)

Army study suggests new ‘police force’:
“A newly released Rand Corporation report proposes
the federal government create a rapid deployment
‘Stabilization Police Force‘ that would be
tasked with ‘shaping an environment before a
conflict’ and restoring order in times of war,
natural disaster or national emergency…. Darrell
Castle [retired Marine Corps officer and
attorney]… believes
the unit could be used in the U.S. against
Americans.'”
January 22, 2010

“As professional volunteers develop into
a cohesive UN
force, they can assume responsibility for some of the riskier
operations mandated by the Council but for which troop contributors
have been hesitant to contribute.'”1
Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability for the
UN

“Governments are understandably reluctant to commit troops
rapidly for UN action, particularly in civil wars and internal
conflicts….”2 Our Global Neighborhood,
The Report of the Commission on Global Governance

In the near
future, could the United Nations actually place its own police
force in our communities to quell local conflicts? Worse yet,
would it have authority to deal with the mere risk of such a
conflict? Would this intrusive militia bypass U.S. authorities
in order to fulfill any UN Security Council command?

The answer to all three questions is an alarming “Yes.”
Consider the evidence:

1. In 1998,
the Clinton administration quietly gave the UN $200,000 as seed
money to establish the a UN military operation called the Rapidly
Deployable Mission Headquarters. A UN Secretariat official who
prefers to remain anonymous explained the need for such “backdoor
support.” It was “because of the political sensitivity
over creating an army under UN command and political authority.”3

According to George Archibald, who reported this incident
in his Washington Times article, “White House backs standby
U.N. army,” the UN official indicated that Canada and the
Netherlands are primary backers of this UN force. That’s
true, but the USA has been actively pursuing this goal together
with Canada.

2. In 1995,
a detailed report titled Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability
for the United Nations was prepared by an International Consultative
Group co-chaired by Sir Brian Urquhart of the Ford Foundation
and Dr. John C. Polanyi, Nobel Laureate of the University of
Toronto. This Group consisted of “experts drawn from governments,
academic institutions and non-governmental organizations”
and included U.S. leaders such as Dr. Jessica Mathews, Senior
Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations. Published by the Canadian
government, it called for UN management of satellite surveillance,
information systems, databanks, and every other technological
tool for managing people. It concluded that–

“As long sovereign states retain the right to decide
on the deployment of their national units, there will never be
complete assurance that a UN force can meet an urgent situation
on time . . . .”4

“Command, Control, Communications, Computer and Intelligence
systems (C41) would incorporate the full range of strategic and
tactical communications networks, together with data processing
capabilities and real-time information transfer….

“… A number of UN Member States are bound to be
wary of systems and equipment designed for advance surveillance,
intrusion detection, early warning and enhanced analytical capabilities,
even if similar systems are already part of the national inventories
of neighbors or adversaries. Some of these systems… might
be considered too “intrusive” for use by an inter-governmental
organizations. Even if these political hurdles can be overcome,
acquisitions of these capabilities face enormous financial obstacles
. . . .

“A prudent, long-terms approach… would focus initially
on the acquisition of advanced communication/information management
systems for UN headquarters and the field. These would be “secure”
systems which could readily be linked electronically to a variety
of national systems provided to the UN under memoranda of understanding.
The UN could then build upon this base…. “5

3. What if this
plan conflicts with U.S. laws, American values, and our national
sovereignty? It doesn’t matter, according to Sir Brian Urquhart
and Erstine Childers. Political obstacles may slow, but not block,
the move toward an international police force under UN Command.
Their 1993 statement was quoted in the above report, Towards
A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations:

“The fact that the theoretically best solution is not
at present politically feasible does not mean that the system
must simply muddle on indefinitely in its present condition.
A great deal can be achieved without constitutional change, by
changes in such salient features as geography, legal mandates
and behavior.”6

Does that statement sound familiar? A mere Constitutional
objection cannot stop these visionaries. Nor can national laws
or public opinion. After all, laws can be reinterpreted and public
opinion manipulated. As long as the mainstream media can win
either the consent or the silence of the masses, Clinton and
his team of change agents can continue to write life-changing
rules and regulations that bypass Congress.

It’s happening in education, health, environmental programs,
and every other area of life. The global management system Al
Gore points to in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance,
refers primarily to sustainable development,
7
but the transformation he envisions involves every part of the
all-inclusive global system. As you read the following statement,
don’t forget that “voluntary” has become a buzzword
for a system with built-in controls that reward compliance and
shows zero tolerance for non-compliance. To these social engineers,
their ends justifies any deceptive means:

“Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed
to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every
treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and
course of action – to use, in short, every means to
halt the destruction of the environment…. Minor shifts
in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric
offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of
appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to
believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation
of society will not be necessary.”8

4. Behind UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan stands the powerful Canadian multi-billionaire
Maurice Strong. The founder of both the World Economic Council
and Planetary Citizens, he has served as director of the World
Future Society, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen
Institute, and a member of the Club of Rome. As head of the Earth
Council, he began to prepare an Earth Charter—a global code
of conduct based on global values and radical environmental guidelines.
[He was
discredited after accepting a
million dollars from Saddam
Hussein during the UN “Food for Oil” travesty.]

Strong led the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro
(United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). It
produced the controversial Biodiversity Treaty and Agenda
21 — the monstrous plan for reorganizing the world along
environmental guidelines. One of his offices is only two blocks
away from the White House.

Officially, Strong was “hired” by Annan to “reform”
the massive, inefficient, and corrupt UN bureaucracy so that
the US Congress would pay its dues. But his leadership brings
little comfort to those who remember Strong’s occult and
environmental ties, globalist ambitions, and corrupt business
practices.

His true plan for UN reform is documented in Our Global
Neighborhood, the report of the UN Commission on Global Governance,
which Strong helped write. Like Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability
for the United Nations, this report calls for a volunteer
UN army under UN command, with UN police stationed in every region
of the world:

“In many of today’s crises, it is clear than an
early intervention could have prevented later negative developments….
This underlines the need for a highly trained UN Volunteer Force
that is willing, if necessary, to take combat risks….This
would be particularly useful in low-level but dangerous conflicts.
Such an international Volunteer Force would be under the exclusive
authority of the Security Council.”
9

What if the U.S. Congress disagrees with UN decisions. Could
it simply press for a U.S. veto on the Security Council? Not
if Strong implements his vision of reform. The United States,
which is billed 25% of the huge UN budget, would be dismissed
from the Security Council:

“We recommend that a new class of ‘standing‘
members be established…. Of these new members, two should
be drawn from industrial countries and three from among the larger
developing countries. Of the two from industrial countries, presumably
one will be from Asia and one from Europe. Of the three from
developing countries, we would expect one each to be drawn from
Asia, Africa, and Latin America. . . . The new standing members
will not possess a veto, and we believe the aim should be for
the power of the veto to be phased out.
10

5. Most of the
incremental steps toward UN control over its own local police
happen in secret, behind closed doors. But some are made public,
such as the following UN Press Release (#6397) issued on July
14, 1997:

“Noting the increasing role and special functions of
civilian police in United Nations’ peace-keeping operations,
the Security Council this morning encouraged States [nations] to make appropriate
trained police available to the Organization at short notice.
. . . The council encouraged States to provide appropriate training
of civilian police for international service…. [C]ivilian
police performed indispensable functions in monitoring and training
national police forces. They could play a major role, through
assistance to local police forces, in restoring civil order,
supporting the rule of law, and fostering civil reconciliation.”

6. On September
14, 1998, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen addressed the
Council on Foreign Relations. In the euphemistically veiled language
so typical of the Clinton administration, he described the current
crisis and offered a government solution:

“To deal effectively with these challenges, we must have
a national security policy based on four pillars:

• Bi-partisan
  support for Defense Policy
• Budgets adequate to maintain the world’s best military today
  and in the future
• International cooperation
• Interagency cooperation within our government”

Keep in mind that “international cooperation” means
working with NATO and the UN. Three of the four points above
were covered in the report mentioned earlier, Towards A Rapid
Reaction Capability for the United Nations. The list of excerpts
at the end of this report broadens our view of the vast bureaucracies,
monstrous power, and arrogant ambitions that drive the UN agenda
and its worldwide network of disciples every closer to Maurice
Strong’s vision of “global governance”. To speed
the process, the United States is expected to contribute troops
as well as its enviable expertise in surveillance and reconnaissance
technology. American taxes would fund and arm a global management
system that aims to crush Christianity, Western culture, capitalism,
and the US Constitution.

7. Controlling
the flow of information is vital to the envisioned global management
system. To this end, each nation must fund and implement its
part of the massive global information and monitoring system.
In the following section of Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability
for the United Nations, notice the reference to
Information
Management.

“The types of technologies which could play a greater
role in peacekeeping operations are: surveillance technologies,
communications equipment and enhanced information management
systems….

“An attractive technology for a variety of peace operations
is aerial reconnaissance of ground activity. Access to satellite
capability… may have great strategic potential.

“The ability to locate, identify and monitor virtually
all vehicular movement… has obvious applicability to monitoring,
surveillance and control missions.

“….surveillance technologies and information management
systems could be integrated into an organization-wide system
to enhance contingency planning….” (pages
56-57)

Such an integrated UN-U.S. information management system is
needed for other global programs as well. At the 1995 UN Conference
for Women in Beijing,
11 our U.S.
delegation committed our nation to participate in an international
monitoring system controlled by the UN Economic and Social Council.
This system would monitor compliance with politically correct
gender roles in schools, workplaces, and homes (parents
could no longer model traditional gender roles in the home).
Fulfilling his part of the UN plan, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13011, establishing
a massive interagency bureaucracy with power to –

• manage
  “Federal Information Technology”
• disseminate
  politically correct information
• build
  massive data banks
• share
  the data with international bodies such as the United Nations.

  8. A crisis need
  not erupt before the UN militia begins its work. In fact, one
  of its major responsibilities would be to monitor human rights
  violations around the world. If that doesn’t concern you,
  please read our reports on Executive
  Order 13107: Human Rights Implementation
  and The UN Plan for Your Mental Health.

The 1998
International
IDNDR Conference on Early Warning Systems for the Reduction of
Natural Disasters chose as its theme, “Building a Culture
of Prevention.” For our globalist leaders who promote “systems thinking,”
the theme of prevention includes all conceivable areas of potential
conflict and non-compliance. What’s more, this theme provides
a catchy rationale for continual and pervasive surveillance of
beliefs, attitudes, and actions. In light of the UN’s overall
quest for global “peace” and “solidarity,”
ponder the following quote from The Declaration of the Potsdam
Early Warning Conference:

“Successful early warning requires unrestricted access
to data that is freely available for exchange. Ultimately, all
resulting information must be credible, and emanate from a single
officially designated authority.

“Participants emphasized that early warning is effective
only to the extent that policy makers at national levels of authority
have the will, and make a sustained commitment of resources that
will establish protective measures. It is crucial that these
measures support the development of early warning capabilities
at the community level and that they be based on local vulnerability
and risk assessments.”
12

In other words, the U.S. must provide the UN with all the
data needed to assess potential conflict of any sort anywhere.
Among the conflicts the UN police are being trained to resolve
are human rights violations. In the eyes of UN leaders, any group
that violates the UN standard for politically correct beliefs
and values could be “at risk” of creating conflict.13 Would non-compliant people be among
the risk factors that could trigger the “early warning systems”?

9. Finally,
see how the pieces fit together. Ponder the following quotes
from Towards A Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations:

“… This study’s central objective is to recommend
changes at all levels of the UN system which would give the UN
an enhanced capability to respond rapidly to crisis situations.”
(p. iv)

“…there are several generic components of rapid
reaction which must be included in an UN capability if it is
to be effective:

• an early warning mechanism to alert the system to
  an impending conflict or crisis;
• an effective decision-making process…
• adequate finance….
• well-trained personnel.” (p. iv)

“Current early-warning systems could be substantially
strengthened by working towards an element of ‘automaticity’
in early-warning arrangements. Ideally, as Jessica Tuchman Mathews,
of the Council of Foreign Relations, New York has suggested,
“The UN should develop an automatic system of responses
. . . . The key is that a certain set of findings would trigger
a set of predetermined responses for rapid reaction.. . . .

“Nothing can tie the hands of the Security Council in making
decisions.” (p.44)

“To enhance rapid reaction, the UN and Member States
need to address the nature of training to be conducted and the
management systems which should be put into place to ensure that
national training programs are responsive to the UN’s requirements.”
(p. 54)

“The UN … would not have to await the lengthy domestic
processes of each Member State before a critical mass of police
forces is assembled…. a permanent force could be trained to
the high standards which the UN should demand. . . .

“The Vanguard Concept … is based on standby arrangements
for nationally-based units linked to a UN operational headquarters.
… The presence of regional headquarters would provide for
greater flexibility and reduce the time required for deployment.
. . . Governments are sometimes reluctant to release their forces
for duty…. Even when Governments are disposed to concur…
the process of seeking authorization is often slow…. (p. 60)

“As they would remain under national command, national
authorities would retain primary responsibility for their administration,
pay and benefits.” (p. 61)

The United Nations may well position its “highly trained”
Volunteer Force armed with America’s latest surveillance
and reconnaissance technology in our midst. Such an action would
fit the vision of many US leaders who, for political reasons,
prefer to let the UN make such unpolular choices for them. If
this happens, and if this Force must carry out Security Council
orders that our Congress would forbid, there will be no earthly
place to hide from tyrannical leaders.

While we must do all we can to stop this intrusion upon American
sovereignty and freedom, we need to remember that the forces
arrayed against us are far greater than our mere human efforts.
Only God can bring victory. I suggest that we turn to Him, listen
to His instructions, and follow His plan. Jehoshophat, a godly
king in Old Testament days, said it well:

“O our God, will You not judge them? For we have no
power against this great multitude that is coming against us;
nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.” (2
Chronicles 20:12)

Together, the people prayed, followed God’s instructions,
and won the war in a mighty demonstration of the power and faithfulness
of our God.

Endnotes:

1.Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability
for the UN (The Government of Canada, 1992), p. 62.
2. Our Global Neighborhood, The
Commission on Global Governance (Oxford University Press, 1995),
110-111.
3. George Archibald, “White House
backs standby UN army,” Washington Times, April 23,
1998.
4. Towards a Rapid Reaction Capability
for the UN , page 63.
5. Ibid., page 56-57.
6. Ibid., page 55.
7. See
Local
Agenda 21.
8. Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit (Houghton
Mifflin, 1992), p. 274.
9. Our Global Neighborhood,
The Commission on Global Governance (Oxford University Press,
1995), 110-111.
10. Ibid., 240, 241.
11. You can read about this UN conference,
and the global sisterhood that led it, in chapter 9 of
A Twist of Faith.
12. http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/ewc98/finaldec.html
13.See the UN
Plan for Your Mental Health