Category Archives: World Government

U.S. Federal Reserve And U.S. Government To Use Corona Virus For Excuse To Get Rid Of Cash.

download (31)

Digital Dollar And Digital Wallet Bill Surfaces In The U.S. Senate.


By Jason Brett

Updated 3/24/20 11:35pm: New bill text inserted at the bottom with press release from the bill sponsor.

A bill has surfaced in the Senate called the ‘Banking For All Act’, sponsored by the Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH). In the press release, Senator Brown lays out the details of his bill as well as how he looks forward to urging his colleagues to include it as part of the coronavirus economic stimulus package.

‘At the height of this pandemic we must do more to protect the financial wellbeing of hardworking Americans and consumers. They are on the front lines of this crisis and are already feeling the effects of the economic fallout. My legislation would allow every American to set up a free bank account so they don’t have to rely on expensive check cashers to access their hard-earned money.’

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

This bill offers a definition for digital dollars as well as for a digital dollar wallet, and provides the provision for a pass-through digital dollar wallet with the mandate for all member banks to open and maintain digital dollar wallets for all persons, including those eligible to receive the stimulus.

Member Vs. Non-Member Banks In The United States

In the United States, the vast majority of banks, with the exception of the big banks such as Wells Fargo that are supervised by the OCC, have the option to be members of the Federal Reserve and to buy shares in the Reserve as a way of becoming a ‘member bank.’ These banks are then supervised and regulated by the Federal Reserve. A ‘non-member bank’ is a bank that chooses not to be a ‘member’ of the Federal Reserve and is regulated by the FDIC.

For large banks, there is a provision in the bill that online applications for pass-through digital wallets must be made available. The pass-through digital wallet contains consumer protection terms where it notes the wallet ‘shall not be subject to any account fees, minimum balances, or maximum balances and shall pay interest at a rate not below the greater of the rate of interest on required reserves and the rate of interest on excess reserves’.

Federal Reserve Banks and the U.S. Postal ‘Banking’ Service

From one institution that likely most Americans have never even entered, the Federal Reserve, to the Post Office, where sometimes daily visits can be part of a person’s routine, this bill includes mandates for each agency to assist in the supply of digital dollar wallets for all. The Federal Reserve may maintain digital dollar wallets. And for low-income areas where the Federal Reserve may not be able to have a branch, the Fed will partner with postal retail facilities to carry out this mandate. For access to the digital cash, ATMs will be provided at U.S. Post Offices.

Now that both Chambers – the House and the Senate – have legislation introduced within both the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, it does appear that the concept of digital dollars is one that Congress realizes reaches beyond the current coronavirus crisis, and may become a bi-partisan issue. With concerns over China and other countries developing a CBDC, the U.S. might be using this bill to introduce its own digital currency – and also be looking to solve one of the oldest policy issues of all in reaching out to offering banking services to the unbanked and underbanked.

Fed Just Revealed Plans for Digital Dollar Replacement.


Thanks to the Federal Reserve, the idea that you can go into a store and anonymously purchase something with cash might soon be obsolete.

Why? Because they’re developing something called Fedcoin, which would be based on blockchain technology.

If you’re unfamiliar with blockchain technology, you’re not alone. Here’s how a piece on Motley Fool describes it:

The digital and decentralized ledger that records all transactions. Every time someone buys digital coins on a decentralized exchange, sells coins, transfers coins, or buys a good or service with virtual coins, a ledger records that transaction, often in an encrypted fashion, to protect it from cybercriminals. These transactions are also recorded and processed without a third-party provider, which is usually a bank.

Right now, Bitcoin is a popular form of cryptocurrency that operates using blockchain technology. Like the description above, Bitcoin is decentralized, its transactions are anonymous, and no central bank is involved.

But the irony is, the blockchain tech behind the Fed’s idea isn’t likely to be used the way Bitcoin uses it. Not even close.

Originally, the “Fedcoin” idea appeared to be a security enhancement to a century-old system used for clearing checks and cash transactions called Fedwire. According to NASDAQ in 2017:

This technology will bring Fedwire into the 21st Century. Tentatively called Fedcoin, this Federal Reserve cryptocurrency could replace the dollar as we know it.

The idea didn’t seem to move very much three years ago, but now the idea of a central bank-controlled “Fedcoin” seems like it could be moving closer to reality, according to a Reuters report from February 5.

According to the report, “Dozens of central banks globally are also doing such work,” including China.

Of course, there is risk, according to Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard. For example, there is the potential for a country-wide run on banks if panic ensued while the Fed “flipped a switch” and made Fedcoin the primary currency for the United States.

But blogger Robert Wenzel warns the risks of the Federal Reserve issuing its own cyber currency may run even deeper than that.

“This is not good.”

Lawmakers try to package and sell whatever ideas they come up with, no matter how intrusive or ineffective they might be.

According to Brainard, Fedcoin has the potential to provide “greater value at a lower cost” for monetary transactions. Sounds reasonable, if taken at face value.

But no matter how the Fed may try to “sell” the idea of utilizing Fedcoin in the future, Wenzel’s warning is pretty clear:

A Federal Reserve created digital coin could be one of the most dangerous steps ever taken by a government agency. It would put in the hands of the government the potential to create a digital currency with the ability to track all transactions in an economy—and prohibit transactions for any reason. In terms of future individual freedom, this would be a nightmare.

If you use cash at a grocery store, no one will know who you are or what you bought unless it was caught on video or you use a reward card. In the rare instance a store accepts Bitcoin, the same would be true.

But if you were to use a centrally-controlled digital currency like Fedcoin, who knows what the Fed will decide to track now or in the future? Or what meddling they could come up with to deny your transaction?

If the Federal Reserve wanted to outlaw cash, and your only choice was to use Fedcoin to make purchases, then your financial life would be tracked under their watchful eye.

“Not good” indeed.

Protect your retirement by maintaining your financial freedom

Who knows if the Federal Reserve will move closer to making cash a thing of the past? Perhaps Fedcoin will add to the number of ways the Fed can meddle with your retirement?

Until that gets sorted out, you can consider other options to protect your retirement with a tangible asset that can’t be converted into digital form.

Precious metals like gold and silver continue to hold value, and have for thousands of years. And because they are physical assets, you can’t be tracked as you could if Fedcoin moves from being a bad idea to reality.

Bill Gates & World Economic Forum (U.N.) Ran Coronavirus Outbreak Simulation Just 6 Weeks Before The Real Outbreak Started In China. United Nations Released Biological Weapon On World.

download (30)


In this report we take an inside look at Event 201, which took place in NYC on October 18 2019.

Event 201 is a high-level pandemic exercise hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

This is extremely fascinating because this pandemic simulation exercise of coronavirus took place about 6 weeks before the first illness from the coronavirus was actually reported in Wuhan, China.

That is one hell of a coincidence if you believe in that sort of thing.

Another fascinating connection is the fact that not only did the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation participate in and help set up the pandemic simulation of a coronavirus outbreak, but they just so happen to fund the group who owns the patent to the deadly coronavirus and are already working on a vaccine to solve the current crisis.

Again, an incredible coincidence…

In this report you will see footage from inside the event from the members of the emergency epidemic board in this simulation consisting of representatives from major banks, the UN, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johnson and Johnson, logistical powerhouses, the media as well as officials from China and America’s CDC just to name a few.

This simulation also includes news reports that were fabricated just for this exercise — please keep that in mind because they are eerily similar to reports we are currently seeing regarding this real-world coronavirus outbreak.

Communist Factions United Nations And Chinese Government Release Biological Weapon On the World In Response To President Trump’s Defunding Of U.N. And U.S. Trade War With China.

download (28)

CONFIRMED: CoVid-19 coronavirus found to contain unique “gain-of-function” property “for efficient spreading in the human population” … exact quote from science paper just published in Antiviral Research.



02/19/2020 / By Mike Adams

We now have bombshell, smoking gun evidence that the CoVid-19 “Wuhan” coronavirus was specifically engineered as an offensive biological warfare weapon, designed to target to exterminate human beings.

A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Antiviral Research (Vol. 16, April 2020) is entitled, “The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade.”

It reveals that the CoVid-19 coronavirus contains unique features that allow it to function as a more efficient weapon system for human-to-human transmission, which helps explain why the virus has been impossible to contain (even under “quarantine” conditions, which have universally failed in China, Japan, Korea and elsewhere).

As the science authors of the paper explain in the full text, “This furin-like cleavage site… may provide a gain-of-function to the 2019-nCoV for efficient spreading in the human population.” (Emphasis added)

Further, the science paper finds that there is no known viral ancestry to the CoVid-19 coronavirus, meaning it did not evolve from nature. It was engineered, and the science paper authors also state that the virus contains elements from MERS, stating, “Before the emergence of the 2019-nCoV, this important feature was not observed in the lineage b of betacoronaviruses.”

The abstract and full PDF (paid) of the study are available through this link at


The “smoking gun” aspects of this research were brought to light earlier today by Prof. Frances Boyle who appeared on the Alex Jones Show (2nd broadcast hour, Feb. 19th, 2020, to reveal his findings that confirm the Wuhan coronavirus was an engineered biological weapon.

The following graphic from the published study shows some of the S-protein sequences found in the CoVid-19 “Wuhan” coronavirus which share a nearly identical pattern with MERS-CoV, but not with any previous ancestry of “lineage b” type coronavirus:


The new feature engineered into the Wuhan coronavirus has, “the potential to cleave specifically viral envelope glycoproteins, thereby enhancing viral fusion with host cell membranes,” conclude study authors.

This feature results in, “higher pathogenicity, pronounced neural symptoms and neurotropism in infected chickens,” according to the paper. That means, essentially, it kills more easily and causes nervous system damage while infecting nerve cells. Note that many of the human victims in China appear to suffer seizures and a total, almost instantaneous nervous system shutdown, literally collapsing in seconds.


Furthermore, this enhanced property of the virus results in, “a widening of the cell tropism of the virus,” meaning it allows the virus to live and thrive in a much wider variety of human cells, including respiratory system cells. This means the virus lives in both respiratory cells and nerve cells.

Interestingly, the study further confirms that “ACE2” receptors are the vector of opportunity for the virus to infect human beings, stating, “ACE2 is also the receptor of the newly emerged nCoV.”

Additionally, the study finds that another element of the CoVid-19 virus appears to have been assembled from the SARS coronavirus, further confirming Frances Boyle’s claim that the engineered weapon is a “chimera” of multiple strains of biological weapons, including SARS, MERS and HIV. From the study: “Notably, the IFPs of the 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV are identical, displaying characteristics of viral fusion peptides (Fig. 2).”

Engineered to attack the human respiratory system, but there may be a defense… (you won’t like it)

The CoVid-19 coronavirus is specifically engineered to exploit the biology of the human respiratory system. Again, from the paper text:

Since furin is highly expressed in lungs, an enveloped virus that infects the respiratory tract may successfully exploit this convertase to activate its surface glycoprotein (Bassi et al., 2017; Mbikay et al., 1997). Before the emergence of the 2019-nCoV, this important feature was not observed in the lineage b of betacoronaviruses.

Finally, study authors explain that people who have already been exposed to other viral infections may have enhanced immunity against the coronavirus. From the study:

…it was recently shown that in an effort to limit viral infections, host cells that are infected by a number of viruses provoke an interferon response to inhibit the enzymatic activity of furin-like enzymes.

Although we caution that this supposition is just theory (so far), it may turn out that one way to boost defenses against the coronavirus could be to get infected with a weaker respiratory virus first. Stated another way, people who routinely interact with the public and are exposed to a wide variety of in-the-wild circulating viruses may be automatically building improved defenses by overcoming other viral infections first.

This finding has huge implications for individuals who take vaccines, given that vaccines expose the human body to weakened viral strains that often fail to provoke the full response of “in-the-wild” viruses such as seasonal influenza. Although the research did not focus on this point, it might also turn out that people who routinely take seasonal flu shots could theoretically demonstrate a weakened immune response against the coronavirus, while those who avoid flu shots and allow their own bodies to naturally fight the flu each year will show enhanced immunity against CoVid-19 coronavirus.

Or, arguably, it might work the other way around, where people who routinely take more vaccines and are exposed to a wider variety of weaker strains therefore have more capacity to produce an “interferon response.” It’s too early to tell, but it certainly seems to be the case that people who are rarely or never exposed to other viral pathogens may be far more vulnerable to this one.

Refer to the “Hygiene Hypothesis” for more ideas on the ramifications of this research


US, China Sign Historic Phase One Trade Deal Six Days Before First Case Of Corona Virus Hits U.S.

Click Here: CDC Confirms First U.S. Case Of Coronavirus From China





Articles Around Internet That Support Covid-19 Is Man Made.




President Trumps Record Against the U.N. And Putting America First Better Than Any U.S. President Ever In History.

download (24)

CantonTruth: Public protests burning the Communist United Nations flag sounds better and better. Want to ban a flag start with this one.


Articles Below Supporting the video: Click Article to view.

Trump said set to halt funding for UN agencies, other groups that give PA, PLO full membership.

Trump’s UN Budget Cuts Funding; Some Agencies Would Get Zero.

Trump Tells Bankrupt UN to Find Money Elsewhere.


U.S. Independence Attacked As Never Before By U.N. Interdependence.

download (56)


Tuesday, 28 June 2016

By Alex Newman

download (22)
On this July 4, as Americans celebrate the birth of the United States and the sacrifices of the founding generation to secure the blessings of liberty, U.S. independence is under threat like never before. The implications of the threat are enormous. As long as the United States retains its independence and the U.S. Constitution is preserved, the American people still possess the means to chart the nation’s destiny. But if the United States is submerged into an “interdependent world” under the control of international “authorities,” all of that — and much more — will be lost. Yet the threat is growing.
The United Nations already has its own courts, bureaucracies, “international law,” and even “peacekeeping” armies under its command in over a dozen nations, and on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the UN last year, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took it a step further. Speaking at the “lighting ceremony” when the Empire State Building was lit up in “UN Blue” in commemoration of “UN Day” on October 24, he boasted that the UN was in fact the “Parliament of Humanity.” In the months after that, he referred on multiple occasions to Agenda 2030 — the UN plan for the planet — as a “Declaration of Interdependence.”The theme of the UN’s 70th anniversary festivities was also about as blunt as could be: “Strong UN. Better World.” All over the world, hundreds of monuments — ranging from the Empire State Building to the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro to the Great Wall of China — were lit up blue as part of the “turn the world UN Blue” campaign. The “Stronger UN. Better World.” slogan was unfurled on banners worldwide. So was the UN flag.

“There is only one flag that belongs to all of us,” Ban said in a UN Day 2015 message, referring to the blue UN flag. “The United Nations works for the entire human family of seven billion people, and cares for the earth, our one and only home,” he continued, claiming the UN brings hope, peace, security, and sustenance to the world. “The timeless values of the UN Charter must remain our guide. Our shared duty is to ‘unite our strength’ to serve ‘we the peoples.’”

A “Parliament for Humanity” that will unite humanity under a shared flag to serve “We The Peoples”: That is, in a nutshell, the globalist agenda, at least as promulgated for public consumption — a monopoly of power at the international level, supposedly for humanity’s own good.

Even the White House got involved with the 70th anniversary celebrations last year. Obama, a staunch UN proponent, issued a “presidential proclamation” urging all 50 governors and “officials of all other areas under the flag of the United States” to “observe United Nations Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.” He also called on everyone to “summon the spirit of unity and cooperation at the heart of the United Nations Charter.”

A few years earlier, in a 2012 speech at the UN General Assembly, Obama told assembled dictators and representatives of government from around the world that we live in “an interdependent world” where “all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.” Conflicts, meanwhile, arise from “difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.”

Clearly, “interdependence” is a major theme of the Obama White House. It is also a key marketing slogan being used by the UN chief. Just a few months after first declaring the UN to be the “Parliament of Humanity,” Ban was at it again. “This General Assembly has truly become the Parliament for all people,” Ban declared on January 11, 2016, noting that presidents and prime ministers were increasingly being joined “by individual activists, business executives, superstar entertainers and major religious leaders” in speaking to the UN body.

The UN boss also pointed out that last September the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as UN Agenda 2030. “This 21st century Declaration of Interdependence is our collective promise to deliver a life of dignity for all,” Ban explained. The “interdependence” theme is not new, of course, but it is now being pushed with increasing regularity.

The media mostly missed the UN chief’s rhetoric about building a stronger UN and even transforming the outfit, often ridiculed as the “dictators club” by critics, into what he called a “Parliament” for all mankind. But it was a big deal — no, a huge deal. Words have meaning. And you can be sure that words as important as those do not just slip out of the mouth of the UN boss, repeatedly, without a great deal of thought, preparation, and approval from the powers behind the curtain.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “parliament” as “the group of people who are responsible for making the laws in some kinds of government.” That definition, combined with Ban’s explosive claim, leads to a number of questions. Is the UN already a government? And if it is a government — it has basically all of the attributes of one, as we shall show — who are these people who imagine that they get to make “the laws” that would govern all of humanity? Who, if anyone, voted for this, or gave their consent to be ruled by this global government? What checks and balances are in place to prevent abuses? How does the UN system compare to the American system, and would Americans be better or worse off if they gave up American independence for UN interdependence? Let’s take a look.

The American System

The Founders of the United States were very clear on what the purpose of government is, and who was to make the laws in America. Laws governing domestic affairs were to be created, primarily, by state legislatures and local legislative bodies such as county commissions, city councils, and so on. All legislative powers at the federal level dealing with the few powers specified in the Constitution — foreign affairs and war, for example — were vested in a Congress composed of a House of Representatives to represent the people, and a Senate to represent the states.

But neither Congress nor the state legislatures were to be seen as supreme. As influential founding-era jurist Sir William Blackstone explained so eloquently, all human laws must necessarily be subject to the laws of man’s Creator to be valid. “This will of his Maker is called the law of nature,” Blackstone explained, adding that the law of nature was “of course” superior to any other. “No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force … from this original.”

The ideas outlined by Blackstone were all widely understood in America’s founding era. So was the purpose of government, as the Founders explained in the Declaration of Independence adopted by the Second Continental Congress in 1776. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” reads the Declaration, pointing to a higher power while outlining timeless principles that were to serve as the foundation for the new nation then being birthed. “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The purpose of government, then, is the protection of God-given rights.

Yet on its own, the historic document was just a piece of paper. After realizing that the government created under the Articles of Confederation was not adequate for the task, America’s Founders developed the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, the document was an effort to put the principles enshrined in the Declaration into practice — creating a national government that would help “We The People” to, among other goals, “establish Justice” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The governmental system established under the Constitution, while building on thousands of years of tradition and Western Civilization, was unique in many respects. One of its chief attributes was that it limited government by granting it certain powers. If there was no specific delegation of authority over some area, that power was retained by the states or the people, as was later explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution also enshrined the separation of powers. First of all, it divided power vertically, leaving the sovereign states to stand as a bulwark against abuses of power from the federal government. Next, the Constitution divided power horizontally by dispersing it across three branches of government — judicial, legislative, and executive. The idea was that the God-given rights of the people would be best protected if power was divided. If one of the three federal branches abused its power, the others would rein it in. And if either the feds or the states abused their power, the other level of government would rein it in.

The UN System

Unlike the American system, which is based on the principle that rights come from God, the UN acknowledges no higher power than the UN itself.

The UN “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which according to the UN is supreme over all the Earth, assumes that “rights” are bestowed by governments and treaties. The problem is that, if government is the originator of rights, then government may properly limit and abridge rights.

Consider Article 29 of the UN “human rights” declaration, which claims that “rights” can be limited “by law” under the guise of everything from “public order” to “the general welfare.” Separately, the same article claims that everyone has “duties to the community” and that “rights and freedoms” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Already, as this magazine documented in the January 6, 2015, article headlined “United Nations Exploits Pseudo-‘Human Rights’ to Attack U.S.,” the UN and its top officials have claimed that “human rights” and “international law” require that governments outlaw and punish certain speech, impose more gun control, ignore due-process protections, overturn state self-defense laws, eliminate constitutional limitations on federal power, prohibit spanking of children as a disciplinary tool, regulate private schools, provide more welfare and subsidized housing, and much, much more.

Further evidence of the UN’s view on “human rights” can be gleaned from the composition of its UN “Human Rights Council,” created 10 years ago after Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s regime was elected to chair the UN “Human Rights Commission.” Among the rights-violating regimes serving on the current UN “human rights” body are the communist and socialist autocracies oppressing Cuba, mainland China, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Namibia, South Africa, Venezuela, and Vietnam. Plenty of Islamist dictatorships serve on the council, too, including, among others, those ruling Algeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and more. Also on the outfit are the rulers of Russia, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Ivory Coast, Congo, Burundi, and more. Just a handful of governments in what could be properly considered truly “free” countries serve on the UN Council.

Then there is the membership of this global parliament that must be considered. Most of the UN’s member states are oppressive or worse. Many are outright dictatorships controlled by mass-murderers and genocidal maniacs. Even according to Freedom House, an establishment-minded organization that ranks governments based on its definition of freedom and democratic credentials, less than half of the world’s governments qualify as “free.” Yet these are the very same UN member states that are currently in the process of becoming the “Parliament of Humanity.” In the UN General Assembly, a vote by mass-murderers such as Raúl Castro, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-un, or Omar Bashir is worth the same as a vote by the U.S. government. Will those governments protect your God-given rights? Of course not, as history amply shows.

Another problem is the nearly clichéd truism by Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The UN does not have a U.S. Constitution limiting government to a few specified powers, nor does a 10th Amendment reserve all other powers to the member nations or people. If absolute power were concentrated in the hands of the UN, it is guaranteed to attract the most dangerous elements, with the most ruthless and cunning rising to the top.

Agenda 2030: Global Socialism

It should therefore deeply concern anyone who values freedom that there are already big plans to replace American independence with global interdependence.

At the center of the new order will be the UN, of course, and what’s known as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or Agenda 2030, a sort of outline for global governance agreed to by the UN and Obama last September, along with virtually every national government on Earth. “Sustainable development” may sound like a good thing, but the UN uses this euphemism as a rationale for its vision of global totalitarianism.

As already noted, Secretary-General Ban has referred to Agenda 2030 as the “21st century Declaration of Interdependence.” So too has UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson, who said in January, “Let us make the 2030 Agenda a living and lasting Declaration of Interdependence for the 21st century.”

Just what is this Agenda 2030, or “Declaration of Interdependence,” which received so little coverage in the establishment media, but which purports to be the master plan that must guide all nations and every last person on the planet? In brief, it is a comprehensive plan to govern virtually every element of human existence, comprised of 17 “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” with 169 specific “targets.” The scheme dovetails nicely with the deeply controversial UN Agenda 21, even including much of the same rhetoric and agenda. But it’s even bigger than that. “This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity,” reads the preamble. “All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.”

Among the many elements of the plan is an undisguised demand for national socialism — and even global socialism. Goal 10 calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” That, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.” But national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is not enough, with the Agenda calling for international socialism to battle inequality even “among” countries.

Socialist rhetoric is found throughout the scheme. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources,” the document demands. “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services.” In short, what remains of free markets must go, with wealth redistribution and central technocratic planning of the economy to take its place.

Education is another key component of the global agenda, with an entire goal dedicated to ensuring that young people everywhere are indoctrinated into supporting the plan and its overseers. “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity.” Euphemisms such as “sustainable lifestyles” (read: getting by with less), “gender equality” (read: the LGBT agenda), and “global citizenship” should telegraph to the discerning reader the UN’s interest in indoctrination in the name of education.

Of course, a plan as grandiose as Agenda 2030 won’t be cheap — it will all cost trillions of dollars. One official propagandist for the agenda, Thomson Reuters Foundation editor-in-chief Belinda Goldsmith, cited unnamed “experts” putting the price tag as high as $172.5 trillion. For perspective, that is more than 10 times more than the annual economic output of the United States. Western taxpayers will be the primary financiers of the scheme.

Step by Step

In many respects, the UN is already behaving as if it were a global government. In Agenda 2030, the UN claims that no person can be left out of the new system, and therefore, the population and territory of the entire globe are under its jurisdiction. In other words, everyone must be subject to UN rule, even if the specifics are administered, for now, by member states. Despite the fact that many governments have refused to ratify the relevant treaties, the UN has its own courts, such as the International Criminal Court, that purport to have jurisdiction over every person on the planet for vaguely defined crimes of “aggression” and more. The late Dr. Charles Rice, who served as professor at Notre Dame Law School, called the ICC “a monster” that essentially “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence and cancels the 4th of July.” He is right.

Despite these obvious concerns, the UN continues to accumulate and usurp more and more power. It has an environmental agency that purports to have global powers over the environment. It has an education agency that boasts of using schools to create “global citizens” with UN-approved values, attitudes, and beliefs. It has “peacekeeping” armies that currently occupy some 16 nations, often raping and brutalizing the most vulnerable civilians it is ostensibly sent to protect. It has a world health organization that purports to have awesome powers over humanity, including the ability to quarantine entire nations. It has an agricultural agency, an aviation agency, a terrorism agency, a postal agency, a drugs and crime agency, a world trade agency with “tribunals” that already overrule the U.S. Congress, an Internet agency led by a Chinese communist, and much, much more. The architecture of global government, then, is already in place.

The UN also already has its own means, albeit limited thus far, of raising revenues independently of member states. The UN World Intellectual Property Organization, for example, charges “fees” to inventors who seek protection for intellectual property. If globalists get their way, though, they have plans to radically expand the UN’s ability to raise its own funding. From a slew of proposed new global taxes to power-grabs such as the UN Law of the Sea Treaty that would grant the “dictators club” control over the resources of the world’s oceans and the revenue they generate, the outfit has major plans to extract wealth from humanity without member states acting as intermediaries.

And the International Monetary Fund, part of the “UN system,” has plans to become the would-be global government’s own central bank. If the agenda is not stopped, as has been documented many times in the pages of this magazine, the IMF would be to the UN what the banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve is to the U.S. federal government — an out-of-control currency-printing machine that funds the welfare-warfare state while trapping the people into a cycle of perpetually expanding debt.

American Collaboration

Of course, without collaboration and support from the United States and its leadership, the UN would be mostly a joke — a gaggle of dictators who get together to praise each other and make demands for more money. The notion that U.S. independence is outdated and that it is time for “global interdependence,” though, has existed among U.S. leaders for generations.

One such leader, John Foster Dulles, approvingly acknowledged that world governance was the goal behind the United Nations from the get-go. And he was in a position to know, having participated in the San Francisco Conference that led to the creation of the United Nations in 1945, before becoming U.S. secretary of state in the 1950s. “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage,” he wrote in his book War or Peace. “Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.” Dulles also observed in his book, “I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with ‘teeth’ in it, or for ‘world government’ or for ‘world federation,’ which could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”

Since the 1940s, dozens of “declarations of interdependence” have been proposed by various groups and individuals. One of the most notable was written by liberal historian and Columbia University Professor Henry Steele Commager for the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. Dated October 24, 1975 (UN Day), this undisguised call for global government was endorsed by well over 100 members of Congress. “When in the course of history the threat of extinction confronts mankind, it is necessary for the people of the United States to declare their interdependence with the people of all nations,” the declaration stated. “Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.”

The declaration includes this brazen call for UN empowerment: “A world without law is a world without order, and we call upon all nations to strengthen and to sustain the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and other institutions of world order, and to broaden the jurisdiction of the World Court, that these may preside over a reign of law.” Who would make this global law? The “Parliament of Humanity.”

Even as far back as 1962, a U.S. president made the case for a “Declaration of Interdependence” rather than independence — on July 4, America’s Independence Day, no less. That president was John F. Kennedy, whose administration actually took some of the boldest steps toward surrendering U.S. sovereignty to the UN. In an official 1961 State Department publication entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, the Kennedy administration outlined how the United States would disarm as the UN’s military forces were progressively strengthened to the point where no nation would be able to challenge the UN’s monopoly on force.

In his July 4 speech, Kennedy put it all out there. “I will say here and now, on this Day of Independence, that the United States will be ready for a Declaration of Interdependence, that we will be prepared to discuss with a united Europe the ways and means of forming a concrete Atlantic partnership, a mutually beneficial partnership between the new union now emerging in Europe and the old American Union founded here 175 years ago,” he declared at Independence Hall. “For the Atlantic partnership of which I speak would not look inward only, preoccupied with its own welfare and advancement. It must look outward to cooperate with all nations in meeting their common concern. It would serve as a nucleus for the eventual union of all free men — those who are now free and those who are vowing that some day they will be free.” In other words, a global government.

In 1991, President George H. W. Bush, in his address to the American people announcing U.S. military action in the Persian Gulf, said that “we have a real chance” at bringing about a “new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role [war-making powers] to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.” And in 2002, President George W. Bush, in his address to the UN General Assembly, asked regarding UN resolutions relating to Iraq: “Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” He went on to say that “we want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced.”

Get US Out!

Americans must resist the siren calls for surrendering their right to self-government.

One organization, The John Birch Society, which publishes this magazine, has been working to “Get US out of the United Nations” for some 50 years. And it is still possible to do exactly that. In fact, right now, legislation sitting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee would end U.S. membership in and funding of the UN, and evict it from American soil. Dubbed the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act,” or H.R. 1205, the bill could set the globalist agenda back decades in one fell swoop. But Americans must act to make that happen.

“The reason that we declared and fought for our independence in 1776 was that we could no longer decide for ourselves as a people our economic future and we saw that we would never be allowed to do so again,” JBS CEO Art Thompson said. “Now our leaders are involving us in international schemes that will do the same thing our Founders fought against. Without independence, we will not only be hindered in our economic affairs, but military, environment, etc. It will become more harsh than the patriots who died for us ever imagined. Their sacrifice will mean nothing if we proceed down the road to internationalism.”

Fortunately for Americans, it is not too late to stop the agenda. In fact, the foundation of the plot is built on quicksand. The UN Agenda 2030, or the “Declaration of Interdependence,” as top UN officials call it, has not even been ratified by the U.S. Senate, as required under the Constitution. Obama does not plan on even asking for ratification, because he knows it will flop. Plus, it is all built on lies and false assumptions. With truth and organized action, activated and educated Americans can kill the agenda with relative ease, especially when compared with what the earliest American Patriots were prepared to sacrifice when they issued the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, and defied the most powerful empire then in existence.

If liberty and self-government are to survive, Americans must firmly resist the dangerous push for global government and expose the soothing rhetoric of “interdependence.” It can be done — and for the sake of our posterity, it must be.

Vision Zero Planned For Nashville, TN As Local Media Sells It To Public As Mayor’s Plan Not Mentioning Its A United Nations Plan.


New crosswalk underway on Charlotte Pike one day after pedestrian death.


by: Stassy OlmosPosted: Jan 25, 2020 / 10:00 PM CST / Updated: Jan 25, 2020 / 10:14 PM CST

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – Following a record 32 pedestrian deaths in Nashville last year, one person has died just about every week in the first month of 2020.

The most recent was on Charlotte Pike and Watts Lane Thursday, where a 38-year-old woman was struck and died at the hospital.

“Any time somebody’s trying to get somewhere for food or for shelter, you want them to get there safe and alive, so it’s pretty sad that someone had to lose their life to trying to get across the street,” said resident Christian Crawford.

While all three deaths were outside of crosswalks, residents in West Nashville say the lack of crosswalks on Charlotte Pike contributes to the problem.

“It’s becoming more and more frequent. I think a younger generation is kind of moving into this area and they like to walk. And restaurants benefit from that too, and commercial spaces so I definitely think that it’s increasing the traffic’s increasing and that it’s definitely a good idea to have crosswalks,” said Brooke Usher.

“I’ve had to hit the breaks a couple of times with people trying to get across the street almost every day, so it’s kind of scary,” Crawford added.

A crosswalk had been planned for one block over from where the woman was struck Thursday, but construction delayed due to fiber relocation.

The project started Friday.

Last weekend, Nashville’s mayor promised to make city streets safer to walk with his new “Vision Zero” initiative, identifying 14 priority spots.

But even with changes, rules will have to be followed by all modes of transportation.

“Crosswalks are really helpful and a great idea if everyone follows the rules. Drivers and pedestrians, if pedestrians stick to the crosswalks and if drivers respect the crosswalk,” said resident Sarah Amos.

Metro public works poured pole foundations for the new crosswalk on Charlotte Pike Friday.

This week, they plan to add road crossings and ramps.


Illustrated above are 32 pairs of shoes representing the 32 people who were killed while walking in Nashville during 2019.

Mayor commits to Vision Zero to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries in Nashville.


January 23, 2020 – Cover Stories

During remarks at the annual Walk Bike Nashville Pedestrian memorial Event last week on the steps of the courthouse, Mayor John Cooper announced his administration’s commitment to Vision Zero to help eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries in Nashville and Davidson County.

Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero is gaining momentum in major American cities including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Vision Zero starts with the ethical belief that everyone has the right to move safely in their communities and that system designers and policy makers share the responsibility to ensure safe systems for travel.

“This is an important commitment for our city – one made in honor of those who have lost their lives in traffic fatalities and to help protect future generations of Nashvillians,” said Mayor Cooper. “Nashville is currently ranked number one in the state for injury crashes, speed crashes, and crashes among young and senior drivers. We must do better, and our commitment to Vision Zero will play an important role in turning those numbers around.

A great city is a walkable city, a bike-friendly city – one that shapes its transportation plan and mobility infrastructure around the safety and well-being of all residents and all modes of travel.”

Committing to Vision Zero requires the following strategies:
1. Building and sustaining leadership, collaboration and accountability, especially among a diverse group of stakeholders to include transportation professionals, policymakers, public health officials, police, and community members;
2. Collecting, analyzing and using data to understand trends and potential disproportionate impacts of traffic deaths on certain populations;
3. Prioritizing equity and community engagement;
4. Managing speed to safe levels; and
5. Setting a timeline to achieve zero traffic deaths and serious injuries that brings urgency, accountability and ensuring transparency on progress and challenges.

Mayor Cooper also announced that 14 locations of concern for pedestrian and cyclist safety – identified by Walk Bike Nashville – have been added to his administration’s transportation plan for priority safety improvements.

These locations include Church Street between 15th Ave N and 16th Ave N, Clarksville Pike between Buena Vista Pike and Cliff Dr, and Gallatin Pike between Eastland Ave and Chickamauga Ave.

The administration is also examining dangerous vehicular intersections throughout Davidson County, such as Hickory Hollow Parkway and Mt View Rd, Bell Road and Cane Ridge Road, and Broadmoor Drive and Dickerson Pike.

Since 1998, Walk Bike Nashville has sought to make active transportation an option for Nashvillians, no matter where they live or where they’re trying to go. The group uses a mix of educational programs focused on safety and skills, encouragement events for all ages and abilities, and grassroots advocacy to achieve its goals.

The Vision Zero Network is a collaborative campaign helping communities reach their goals of Vision Zero – eliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries – while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. As a nonprofit project, the Vision Zero Network is committed to defining, building momentum and advancing Vision Zero in communities across the United States.


Vision Zero Exposed As United Nations Communist Plan To Restrict Travel By Vehicle. Plan Implemented In Name Of Safety By City Mayors Across United States.

download (21)

Vision Zero Isn’t Working

Source: The Antiplanner | December 2, 2019 Follow upTransportation

An article posted on the Atlantic‘s CityLab last week documented that many of the cities that have adopted “vision zero” policies have seen pedestrian fatalities sharply increase. These cities, notes the article, have “spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, rebuilding streets to calm traffic and reduce driving, lobbying for speed limit reductions, launching public awareness campaigns, and retraining police departments.” Yet Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, among others, saw sharp increases in pedestrian and/or bicycle fatalities after adopting Vision Zero policies.

This won’t be a surprise to Antiplanner readers. As described in Policy Brief #25, Vision Zero is an overly simplistic strategy that fails to solve the real problems that are causing pedestrian fatalities to rise.

Vision Zero is based on the observation that pedestrians hit by cars traveling at high speeds are more likely to die than if the cars are traveling at low speeds. So Vision Zero’s primary tactic is to reduce driving speeds. Vision Zero’s secondary goal is to reduce driving period by making auto travel slower and less desirable compared to the alternatives. Neither of these are working very well.

As Policy Brief #25 noted, the real problem isn’t speed but design. The fastest driving speeds are on urban freeways, yet they have the lowest pedestrian fatality rates because pedestrians are normally excluded from the freeways. Traffic on one-way streets tends to be faster than on two-way streets, yet pedestrians suffer fewer accidents on one-way streets because they only have to worry about traffic coming from one direction when crossing the streets.

Moreover, simply slowing daytime traffic doesn’t treat another major problem, which is unsafe behavior. More pedestrians die and the rise in fatalities is greater during the three-hour period between 3 am and 6 am than the nine-hour period between 9 am and 6 pm. Most fatalities are also away from intersections and a high percentage of nighttime pedestrians who died had alcohol in their bloodstreams. Presumably the same is true for the drivers, but the data don’t report driver alcohol levels for pedestrian accidents alone.

Better street lighting, better enforcement of driving under the influence laws, and policies aimed at discouraging people from crossing the streets outside of designated crosswalks, especially at night, would be more successful at reducing fatalities than increasing traffic congestion during rush hours, which is really what Vision Zero is all about.

We can say for certain that Vision Zero’s efforts to reduce driving have failed. Chicago and Los Angeles were the first major cities to adopt Vision Zero goals in 2012. Since then, per capita driving in Chicago has grown by more than 5 percent while in Los Angeles it has grown more than 2 percent.

For decades, traffic engineers followed a tried-and-true formula for reducing auto fatalities: improve roadway designs in ways that reduce the number and impact of accidents. Vision Zero has diverted cities from that formula in an overt anti-auto strategy that sometimes actually makes streets more dangerous (such as when one-way streets are converted to two-way operation). So it is no surprise that Vision Zero isn’t working.

What Happens When a City Tries to End Traffic Deaths.



NOVEMBER 21, 201

Several years into a ten-year “Vision Zero” target, some cities that took on a radical safety challenge are seeing traffic fatalities go up.

In 2012, Chicago ventured where no other big U.S. city had. Under then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the city set a mission of eliminating traffic fatalities and injuries in 10 years. The city didn’t mention “Vision Zero” by name, but its ambitious goal took inspiration from that road safety policy platform enacted 15 years prior in Sweden, leading to one of the lowest national traffic mortality rates in the world.
The basic logic of Vision Zero is that any traffic collision that results in death or serious injury—whether for a pedestrian, cyclist, motorist, or any other road user—isn’t an unavoidable “accident,” but a tragedy that could be prevented through smarter engineering, education, and enforcement.

Seven years later, dozens of U.S. cities have hopped on the Vision Zero bandwagon, pledging to stop traffic fatalities in ambitious time frames. They’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, rebuilding streets to calm traffic and reduce driving, lobbying for speed limit reductions, launching public awareness campaigns, and retraining police departments.

Yet while some places have managed to bend their traffic fatality curves, others have struggled to budge a transportation status quo that prioritizes the ease of driving over the safety of other people on the road. Since 2013, the numbers of deaths among U.S. pedestrians and cyclists have risen by nearly 30 percent and 14 percent respectively, nationwide.

That pattern is shared in several cities wearing the Vision Zero mantle, according to a CityLab analysis of traffic fatalities in five major cities that were among the first in the U.S. to establish Vision Zero targets. Three of the cities, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., have seen fatalities rise or remain relatively flat. Two others, San Francisco and New York City, have made headway towards zero, but are seeing pedestrian and cyclist fatalities creep up more recently.

Most of these cities have fatality rates below the national average, and it’s possible to see substantial, non-linear changes in the total number of fatalities from year to year. But based on their rate of change to date, none of these five cities are on pace to reach zero traffic fatalities for decades, let alone by their ten-year targets.

These five early adopter cities were selected by CityLab for analysis because of their size and geographic diversity. Other cities that were among the first to embrace the zero-casualties platform are also unlikely to meet their targets, including Austin and San Jose, which have seen an upturn in fatalities since launching their programs in late 2014 and mid-2015 respectively. The roadside death toll in Seattle, which announced its plan to end traffic deaths and injuries by 2030 in early 2015, has stayed flat for years.

Several factors are fueling this disconcerting trend, from low gas prices that make it easier to drive, rollbacks on state-level traffic safety laws, the ongoing prevalence of digital distractions, and the rising popularity of ride-hailing services and heavy-duty SUVs. Such factors are frustratingly beyond the control of local leaders. But mayors, city councilmembers, and safety advocates have often struggled with local politics and state preemptions to make as much headway as they hoped. What seemed like a universally unassailable goal, ending preventable deaths, has proven a sticky political quagmire in many cities—one that hardly moves until someone else dies.

Communist United Nations Convention On The Rights of the Child Makes World Government Your Childs New Parents. Loser President Bill Clinton Tried To Pass It Here In U.S.

UN flag burning

Source: Wikipedia

The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it. It has been claimed that American opposition to the Convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives.[58] For example, The Heritage Foundation sees “a civil society in which moral authority is exercised by religious congregations, family, and other private associations is fundamental to the American order”.[59] and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) argues that the CRC threatens homeschooling.[60]

The United States had in the past permitted the execution and life imprisonment of juvenile offenders, in contravention of the Article 37 of the Convention.[1] The 2005 Supreme Court landmark decision in Roper v. Simmons declared juvenile executions to be unconstitutional as “cruel and unusual punishment“;[61][62][63] in 2012, the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.[64]

State laws regarding the practice of closed adoption may also require overhaul in light of the Convention’s position that children have a right to identity from birth.

During his 2008 campaign for President, Senator Barack Obama described the failure to ratify the Convention as “embarrassing” and promised to review the issue[65][66] but he never did. No President of the United States has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate requesting its advice and consent to ratification since the US signed it in 1995.[67]

The United States has ratified two of the optional protocols to the Convention,[9][10] the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

Dana Gabriel
Borderfire Report
March 6, 2009

Through its various agencies and treaties, the United Nations seeks to undermine individual, as well as national sovereignty. It has been almost 15 years since President Clinton signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The U.S. remains one of the last holdouts as the treaty lies dormant, yet to be ratified. The UNCRC grants children new civil, social, cultural and economic rights that could override parental decisions. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), is pushing for a vote as there is a real sense that under an Obama presidency, the UNCRC could finally be ratified.

Under the guise of human rights, the UN agenda is to further breakup the family. 

If the UNCRC is ratified, parents could be prohibited from homeschooling and spanking their children. It undermines parental authority and gives more power to the state to further dictate how children are raised. It grants children dangerous new rights thus encouraging more rebellious behavior. The truth is that in many cases, children do not have the wisdom and maturity to make sound decisions. The treaty also gives children the mechanism by which they could dispute any parental judgment. The UNCRC transfers more parental authority to the state while granting children radical new rights.

Under the UNCRC, an 18-member committee has been established to review children’s rights and any other disputes that might arise. In many cases, we are already bound by international treaties and the UNCRC gives unaccountable UN bureaucrats the power to make decisions concerning our children’s well-being. Parents are being demoted to simple caregivers, while the state assumes the role of the prime authoritative figure. The UNCRC is an assault on parental authority and is essentially a blank check for governmental interference in family matters. It is meant to further promote child autonomy and freedom from parental guidance.

In the U.S., homeschooling numbers continue to rise as a growing number of parents look to better control their child’s moral instruction. Under the UNCRC, homeschooling could be interpreted as a violation of a child’s well being. Some states have tried to ban and outlaw homeschooling and the UNCRC could make it a UN-sponsored activity. Public school education is designed to correct any perceived errors in rearing and home training. The ideology of globalism and world government is at the very core of the educational system. The UN seeks to undermine parental authority, traditional values and biblical principles. They wish to gain more control over our children’s upbringing and education.

Under the guise of human rights, the UN agenda is to further breakup the family. At recent meetings held in Mexico City, United Nations Population Fund representative, Arie Hoekman, told participants that high divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births were not a social crisis, but instead a triumph for human rights. Traditional values and principles instilled by parents, are being manipulated and pushed aside. The breakdown of the family is bringing about a rise in new values. Children’s love and loyalty to their family and country is being systematically destroyed. Under a new global order, there is no room for nationalism or individuality and a strong family unit represents a threat to this system.

Being a parent is a huge responsibility and undertaking that should not be taken lightly. Parents are not always right and some may be unfit. The reality is that children thrive in an environment where there is love and structure which includes consequences for their behavior. The UNCRC infringes upon parental authority and represents a massive intrusion by the state into family affairs. It has the potential to radically alter parent-child relationships. The UN definitely has no business telling parents how to raise their children and neither does the government unless there is evidence of neglect or abuse. The UN is a morally bankrupt institution with a horrible record of protecting human rights around the world and the U.S ratifying the UNCRC will not change that.

2019 Bilderberg Group Meeting Underway

By Tim Binnall

May 30, 2019

Today marks the start of the infamous annual gathering of global power brokers known as the Bilderberg Meeting. This year, the controversial confab is being held in Montreux, Switzerland and, although the group is notoriously secretive about the details of the conversations held at the event, a press release from the organization provides some insights into both the topics to be discussed this year as well as the participants who will be on hand.

According to organizers, there will be “about 130 participants from 23 countries” in attendance this year. Per usual, the guest list is replete with major players from the worlds of finance, industry, politics, and the media. While the vast majority of the individuals scheduled to attend are not exactly household names to anyone outside of their field of expertise, there are a handful of more high profile attendees who are rather noteworthy.

Perhaps the Bilderberg participant who is drawing the most attention from geopolitical pundits and curious conspiracy theorists is President Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor Jared Kushner. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is also reportedly expected to attend some portion of the event, although his name is, oddly, not on the official list issued by the organization. Other recognizable names who will be in Montreux this weekend are former Senate candidate from Georgia Stacey Abrams, former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, and frequent Bilderberg Meeting attendee Henry Kissinger.

Although only the individuals in attendance will know the specifics of what is said during the three-day-long meeting, an agenda issued by the group provides, at least, a glimpse into what issues are apparently considered pressing to the proverbial ‘powers that be’ at this time. Among the unsurprising areas set to be discussed during the event are the current state of global powers Russia, China, and Europe. Other familiar topics on the list are climate change and Brexit.

Beyond those fairly run-of-the-mill issues on the agenda are a few somewhat more exotic topics which are particularly intriguing. Specifically, attendees plan on discussing artificial intelligence and the ethics surrounding this burgeoning technology, social media becoming weaponized, and “the importance of space.” This is actually the second year in a row that AI has been featured among the talking points for the Bilderberg Meeting, which seems to suggest that this advanced realm of computing is of significant interest to the global elite.

President Trump Suspends United Nations Treaty Of Open Skies Which Allowed Russia To Conduct Aerial Surveillance Of United States.


Russian reconnaissance aircraft will fly over parts of the United States this week through Saturday as part of obligations for the Treaty on Open Skies, U.S. officials said. (REUTERS/Dmitry Petrochenko)

Open Skies Treaty

Fact Sheet:


May 18, 2009
U.S. Department Of State

Origin and Purpose

The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 34 States Parties. The Treaty establishes a regime of unarmed aerial observation flights over the entire territory of its participants. The Treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date to promote openness and transparency of military forces and activities.

The original concept of mutual aerial observation was proposed by President Eisenhower in 1955; the Treaty itself was an initiative of then-President George H.W. Bush in 1989. The Treaty was negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. Provisional application of portions of the Treaty took place from signature in 1992 until entry into force in 2002. During that period, participants conducted joint trial flights for the purpose of training mission crews and testing equipment and sensors. With entry into force of the Treaty, formal observation flights began in August 2002. States Parties have conducted over 530 observation flights over each other’s territory.

Since the signature of the Open Skies Treaty in 1992, the security environment in Europe has changed significantly. The Open Skies Treaty continues to contribute toward European security by enhancing openness and transparency among the Parties.


The 34 States Parties to the Open Skies Treaty are: Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and United States. Kyrgyzstan has signed but not yet ratified. The Treaty depositaries are Canada and Hungary.

The Treaty is of unlimited duration and open to accession by other States. States of the former Soviet Union which have not already become States Parties to the Treaty may accede to it at any time. Applications from other interested States are subject to a consensus decision by the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC), the Vienna-based organization charged with facilitating implementation of the Treaty, to which all States Parties belong. Eight states have acceded to the Treaty since entry into force: Finland, Sweden, Latvia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Estonia, and Lithuania. One application for accession is pending before the OSCC.

Basic Elements of the Treaty

Territory. The Open Skies regime covers the territory over which the State Party exercises sovereignty, including – land, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The Treaty specifies that the entire territory of a State Party is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety; not for reasons of national security.

Aircraft. Observation aircraft may be provided by either the observing Party or by the observed Party (the “taxi option”), at the latter’s choice. All Open Skies aircraft and sensors must pass specific certification and pre-flight inspection procedures to ensure that they are compliant with Treaty standards. Certified Open Skies aircraft include:
Bulgaria An-30
Hungary An-26
POD Group C-130H & J (Benelux, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain)
Romania An-30
Russian Federation An-30 and TU-154
Sweden Saab-340B
Turkey Casa CN-235
Ukraine An-30B
United States OC-135B

Sensors. Open Skies aircraft may have video, optical panoramic and framing cameras for daylight photography, infra-red line scanners for a day/night capability, and synthetic aperture radar for a day/night all weather capability. Photographic image quality will permit recognition of major military equipment (e.g., permit a State Party to distinguish between a tank and a truck), thus allowing significant transparency of military forces and activities. Sensor categories may be added and capabilities improved by agreement among States Parties. All equipment used in Open Skies must be commercially available to all participants in the regime.

Quotas. Each State Party is obligated to receive observation flights per its passive quota allocation. Each State Party may conduct as many observation flights – its active quota – as its passive quota. The Russian Federation and the United States each have an annual passive quota of 42, and other States Parties have a quota of 12 or fewer. The Parties negotiate the annual distribution of the active quotas each October for the following calendar year. Over 100 observation flights are conducted each year.

Data Sharing/Availability. Imagery collected from Open Skies missions is available to any State Party upon request for the cost of reproduction. As a result, the data available to each State Party is much greater than that which it can collect itself under the Treaty quota system.

Implementation of the Treaty

In July 2008, under U.S. OSCC Chairmanship, States Parties commemorated the conduct of 500 observation flights since the Treaty entered into force.

The OSCC continues to address modalities for conducting observation missions and other implementation issues. The OSCC meets in three sessions per year, with monthly plenary meetings. The OSCC has several informal working groups that take up technical issues related to sensors, notification formats, aircraft certification and rules and procedures. The OSCC main functions are to:
consider questions relating to compliance with the Treaty;
seek to resolve ambiguities and differences of interpretation emerging during Treaty implementation;
consider and decide on applications for accession to the Treaty; and
review the distribution of active quotas annually.

The OSCC was established by Article X and Annex L of the Treaty, and has been in session since Treaty signature in March 1992. The OSCC takes decisions by consensus, and has adopted over 90 Decisions since its inception. OSCC Decisions enter into force with the Treaty and have the same duration as the Treaty.

State Department point of contact is Diana Marvin, 202-647-5357.

Note: This Treaty is not related to civil-aviation open skies agreements.

Why Russia Was Allowed to Fly a Surveillance Plane Over the Capitol and Pentagon.

AUGUST 11, 2017

With heightening concerns over conflict with North Korea and lingering allegations of Russian influence in the U.S. presidential election, you might think that the last thing Russia would do right now is fly a surveillance plane over Washington, D.C. But that’s exactly what it did Wednesday — and with clearance from the U.S. government.

The low-altitude aircraft flew over the Capitol building and the Pentagon with U.S. approval thanks to a long-standing global agreement called the Treaty on Open Skies, according to the Associated Press. The pact, which was signed and ratified by 34 nations including the U.S. and Russia in 1992, allows member countries to send unarmed observation flights over the territories of fellow members. It’s designed to promote transparency about military activity and hold participants accountable for diplomatic agreements.

But how did such a treaty come to exist in the first place?

Open Skies dates back to the beginnings of the Cold War, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed the initiative between the U.S. and Soviet Union at the Geneva Conference in 1955.

The idea was similar: exchange maps revealing the location of every military installation in the respective countries, in turn allowing them to conduct aerial surveillance on each other in order to guarantee the fulfillment of established arms agreements. But while France and Britain (the other attendees of the summit as part of the “Big Four” nations) were open to the deal, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev rejected the treaty, labeling it as an “espionage plot.” The proposal sat dormant for years. All the while, tension between the U.S. and Soviet Union further escalated.

It wasn’t until 1989 that the concept of Open Skies was reintroduced by President George H.W. Bush as a means to build trust between North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Warsaw Pact countries. The latter alliance — formed in 1955 between the Soviet Union and its eastern European satellites — ended up collapsing as the socialist state dissolved by 1991. Despite this period of geopolitical change, Bush was able to successfully negotiate the terms of the Open Skies treaty with the majority of the Warsaw Pact countries. On March 24, 1992, the treaty was signed in Helsinki, Finland.

Open Skies officially went into effect on Jan. 1, 2002. Since then, there have been more than 1,200 surveillance flights conducted by the member nations. But given recent foreign relations between the U.S. and Russia, among other countries, will the Open Skies treaty continue in this current political comment?

“The Obama administration carefully assessed the risks and benefits of remaining in the treaty and judged with our European allies that it was in our best interests to stay,” said Lynn Rusten, a senior consultant at the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

She added that the primary concern of Open Skies was the advancement of surveillance technology from film to digital cameras that are able to produce clearer images. But she said the U.S. permitted the upgrades because it felt it was worth the risk.

“It’s critical to maintain any mechanism to retain that confidence,” Rusten said. “It would do more harm than good to walk away from this treaty.”

But Stephen Sestanovich, a professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University and fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, cast doubt over the treaty’s future.

“The Russians have been so ready to roll back or disregard norms and treaties that they’ve got people in Congress, in the military, in the intelligence world asking, ‘Why pretend to trust each other?’” he said. “In that atmosphere, virtually any agreement can be challenged.

Russian FURY After Donald Trump Ends US Surveillance Treaty Sparking ‘ARMS RACE’ Fears.

PRESIDENT Trump has blocked funding for an international surveillance treaty designed to allow countries to monitor each other’s military strength, infuriating Russia and raising fears of a new arms race.


PUBLISHED: 02:40, Wed, Aug 15, 2018 | UPDATED: 10:40, Wed, Aug 15, 2018

The measure was included in a $717 billion defence policy bill which Trump signed on Monday.

It ended US funding for the Treaty of Open Skies, an agreement between 34 states which will allow them to fly unarmed observation aircraft over each others territories.

The intention of the programme, which the UK has signed up to, is to allow countries to monitor each others militaries to deter secret buildups.

Senior Russian figures responded furiously to Trump’s decision.

Vladimir Dzhabarov, deputy chairman of the Russian Federation Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Moscow Times: “This is an attempt to hide everything the Americans will be preparing in the course of a new arms race.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov told a state news agency his government regrets the US decision.

The US had already accused Russia of violating the treaty by limiting surveillance flights over Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave situated between Poland and Lithuania.

There have been numerous reports of a Russian military buildup in Kaliningrad, with some satellite images suggesting the development of nuclear facilities.

Surveillance fights by unarmed aircraft are currently routine between the US, Russia and other signatories of the treaty.

The Pentagon estimates the Russians have carried out over 165 missions over the US since the agreement came into effect.

A Pentagon source told Politico: “We put together the flight plan and with a few exceptions…they are allowed to fly over pretty much the entire territory.”

In August 2017 there was controversy over a Russian reconnaissance flight which travelled over Washington D.C. and a US airforce base in Ohio.

The US State Department had previously described Open Skies as: “designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information through aerial imaging on military forces.”

Tensions between Russia and the US increased last week after the Americans put new tariffs on Russia over its alleged involvement in poisoning Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, and his daughter in the UK earlier this year.

The new US sanctions restrain the export of so-called dual use technologies, which could have a military or civilian application.

Unless Russia takes certain actions, a second round of sanctions, tougher than the first, is expected to follow.

« Older Entries