What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know The father of the U.N. was an American communist

A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done. He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later). At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy and sent to prison. Only then did people understand why the emblem of the United Nations looked so much like the emblem of the Soviet Union. It now made sense that the Soviet Union, at Yalta, was given control over all of Eastern Europe. Then everyone understood how the Soviet Union managed to capture three votes in the U.N. General Assembly compared to one for the United States. Then it became clear why a secret deal had been struck stating that a communist would always hold the office of of head of the U.N. military.

The U.N. charter was authored by a communist, the first U.N. Secretary-general was a communist, and the U.N., from the beginning, was designed to be a Union of World Socialist Republics.

On a recent tour of the U.N., not one mention was made of any of this by our guide. Hiss' name was not mentioned one time. When pictures of the founding conference contained his picture, our U.N. guide avoided telling us who it was.

I'm sure everyone was taught about the United Nations and its importance in school, but I'm also sure that the above information was conveniently omitted from your textbooks!

Secret agreement: U.N. military to always be commanded by a communist
One of the most important positions within the entire United Nations—if not the most important—is that of Undersecretary-general for Political and Security Council Affairs. Most Americans have never even heard of this position, much
less anything about the man who holds the job. The undersecretary-general for political and security council affairs has three main areas of responsibility. They are:

  • Control of all military and police functions of the United Nations peacekeeping forces.
  • Supervision of all disarmament moves on the part of member nations
  • Control of all atomic energy ultimately entrusted to the United nations for peaceful and “other purposes”.

In view of the fact that these three functions may soon constitute the ultimate power of life and death over every human being on the face of the earth (once national disarmament is achieved and all military is under the control of the U.N.), there would appear to be some minor justification for us to be more than passingly curious over who wields this power. Since the United Nations was created in 1945 there have been fifteen men appointed to the position of undersecretary-general of political and security council affairs. Astonishingly, every single one of them has been a communist!

Communists appointed to the position of undersecretary-general

  • Arkady Sobolev--USSR (1946-1949)
  • Konstantin Zinchenko—USSR (1949-53)
  • Ilya Tehernychev—Ygoslavia (1954-1957)
  • Anatoly F. Dobrynin—USSR (1958-1960)
  • Georgi Ptrovich Arkadev—USSR (1960-1962)
  • Eugeny Dmiterievich Kiselev—USSR (1962-1963)
  • Vladimir Pavolovich Suslov—USSR (1963-1963)
  • Alexie E. Nesterenko—USSR (1965-1968)
  • Leonid N. Kutakov—USSR (1968-1973)
  • Arkady N. Shevchenko—USSR (1973-1978)
  • Mikhail D. Sytenko—USSR (1978-1981)
  • Viacheslav A. Ustinov—USSR (1981-1986)
  • Uasiliy S. Safronchuk—USSR (1987-1992)
  • Vladimir Petrovsky—Russia , “former USSR (1992-)
  • James O. C. Jonah—Sierra Leone (Co-chairman)

Some observers feel that fifteen Communists out of fifteen appointees constitutes a trend of sorts. But whatever we call it, Trygve Lie, the first secretary-general of the United Nations, revealed that this pattern was no mere coincidence. In his book In the cause of Peace Lie wrote: "Mr. Vyshinsky (of the USSR) did not delay his approach. He was the first to inform me of an understanding which the Big Five had reached in London on the appointment of a Soviet national as assistant secretary-general for political and security council affairs...

"Mr. Stettinius (U.S Secretary of State) confirmed to me that he had agreed with the Soviet delegation in the matter...

"The preservation of international peace and security was the organization's highest responsibility, and it was to entrusting the direction of the Secretariat department most concerned with this to a Soviet national that the Americans had agreed." (From The Fearful Master by Edward Griffin)

Every U.N. Secretary-general has been a socialist
No wonder someone said that the truth is stranger than fiction! This incredible saga of the United Nations just goes on and on. Perhaps the most revealing fact of all concerning the powers that control the United Nations is that every single Secretary-general since the U.N.'s formation has been a socialist.

Trygve Lie from Norway was the first elected head of the U.N. He was chosen by the fifteen-member U.N. Security Council and ratified by the U.N. General Assembly on February 1, 1946.

Lie, at the age of twenty-three, was appointed secretary in charge of administration of the Norwegian Labor Party. The socialist lawyer served as Minister of Justice until June 1939, when a Cabinet reorganization made him Minister of Commerce. In April 1945, Lie was chosen to head the Norwegian delegation to the United Nations Founding Conference at San Francisco. At the conference itself he was chosen chairman of Commission III which was charged with drafting the charter of the Security Council of the United Nations, "the organ...which would have the power to act against aggressors."

Dag Hammarskjold of Sweden was elected Secretary-general of the United Nations on April 7, 1953. At the age of thirty, Hammarskjold became Undersecretary of the Swedish Ministry of Finance. At the Ministry
he worked under the Fabian socialist economist Ernst Wigforss, whom he once said considered his second father. Sweden has long been the leading socialist state of Western Europe, taxing its citizens at a 75% rate.

U Thant of Burma was elected Secretary-general of the U.N. on November 30, 1962. According to Current Biography 1962, U Thant considered himself a democratic socialist.

Kurt Waldheim of Austria took office as Secretary-general of the United Nations on January 1, 1972. Waldheim had been Austria's U.N. ambassador from 1964 to 1968. When the Austrian Socialist party won the March 1970 elections, Waldheim again became Austria's U.N. representative. After serving two terms as U.N. Secretary-general, Waldheim became the head of Austria. It was revealed that Waldheim had lied about his role while serving in the Nazi forces of Adolf Hitler. Facts that were made known resulted in Waldheim being banished from the United States, even though he was the head of Austria.

Javier Perez de Cuellar became U.N. Secretary-general on December 15, 1981. In his address to the General Assembly after being sworn in, Perez de Cuellar called the disparity in wealth between rich and poor nations a violation of "the most fundamental human rights." During his administration, some third-world spokesmen complained that Perez de Cuellar had not been sufficiently outspoken in promoting the massive transfer of resources from rich to poor nations on a global scale (Wealth redistribution has always been the central plank in the platform of international socialism). "I am a third-world man," the Secretary-general replied. "But first of all I am a representative of 157 countries. I have to act in a way so that I am not only the representative of the third world."

read more:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/un_doesnt_want_you_t...

Views: 591

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Disturbing,  but good info.

Get out of the UN and get the UN out of the country

Very Good job    ,Dee I rest my case. This is why we need to sever all ties with the UN and any of their branches such as NATO ! and not just sever all ties but to throw them the hell out of the United States. We need to Stand on our own Like we did once before when we were respected and Great  Souvern Nation. with individual treaties and trade agreements with individual nations we need to get back to that !!!

Mr. Dunlap, Very nice to find someone who does know what the UN and NATO is.

Thank You for your kind response , Mr. Jordan , i know you as well understand it as well and we really need to deal with it !.

Wow, I didn't know that, alot to absorb. Ok, very simple the UN is not our friend, Ron Paul was a champion on Get Us out of the UN and get the UN out of America.
If your auto has bad tires you don't change the windshield, no more time for distractions, America needs to get the hell out of the UN. No we don't need to be there to watch our enemies we need to just tell them don't tread on me or we will smoke you. Build our defense and a nuclear umbrella over America an thank God for the the past present and future prosperity.

God Bless America and the State of Israel

Live Free or Die

ALL of our presidents and top administration have known about this......and YET........they've done everything possible to keep us all in the dark.  And WHY isn't any of this in our history books?

Stay IN the UN and veto everything.

They do not all have veto POWER. We DO.

We can force them to run circles around themselves with our ONE VETO VOTE.

Hang on to that though Mrs. Dee, the issues with the UN is deep and very evil.

Communist are only the fake front of the luciferian elitists. The charter of the UN is the Russian soviet constitution. No rights except what they want to give you.

Lucifer was his angelic name before he rebelled, after God renamed him Satan meaning fallen. It's not a criticism just thought you might like to know. Lucifer was the most handsome or beautiful of all and God allowed him more wisdom and knowledge than all others.

How many know that there is a meditation room that was created by Madame Bablavsky who was a true Satanist. and most still adhere to the Luciferian society that was created by her.  The U>N is nothing but a front for NWO, and Anti Christian and Anti Israel......for which there is only one Scriptural character who fits that Persona Satan his self... Most persons don't have a clue what the U.N. is all about. 

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

ALERT ALERT

FBI Text Should Alarm Every American

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trumpfrom becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.

TEA PARTY TARGET

 Trump Poised To Take
 Control Of The Federal Reserve 

  • The Fed doesn’t stabilize markets and money — it does the opposite
  • President Trump sharply criticized the Federal Reserve this week, saying interest rate increases are hurting the economy.
  • Trump will have the opportunity to fashion the central bank in the image he would like as he has four vacancies to fill on the board of governors.
  • The result could be a more politicized Fed.

President Donald Trump has multiple reasons as to why he should take control of the Federal Reserve. He will do so both because he can and because his broader policies argue that he should do so. The president is anti-overregulating American industry. The Fed is a leader in pushing stringent regulation on the nation. By raising interest rates and stopping the growth in the money supply it stands in the way of further growth in the American economy.

First, He Can

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is required to have seven members. It has three. Two of the current governors were put into their position by President Trump. Two more have been nominated by the president and are awaiting confirmation by the Senate. After these two are put on the Fed’s board, the president will then nominate two more to follow them. In essence, it is possible that six of the seven Board members will be put in place by Trump.

The Federal Open Market Committee has 12 members and sets the nation’s monetary policy. Seven of the 12 are the members of the Board of Governors. Five additional are Federal Reserve district bank presidents. Other than the head of the Fed bank in New York, who was nominated by the president, the other four can only take their positions as district bank presidents if the board in Washington agrees to their hiring. One of these, the Fed Bank president in Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, is already arguing for no further rate increases.

Second, Regulation

Following the passage of the Dodd Frank Act in July 2010, the Fed was given enormous power to regulate the banking industry. It moved quickly to implement a number of new rules. The Fed set up a system that would penalize banks that failed to obey its new rules. These rules included setting limits as to how big an individual bank could be; how much money the banks had to invest in fed funds and Treasurys as a percent of their assets; which loans were desirable and which were not; where the banks had to obtain their funding and many, many, more up to and including how much a bank could pay its investors in dividends.

These rules have meaningfully slowed bank investments in the economy (the Volcker Rule) and they have had a crippling effect on bank lending in the housing markets (other agencies have had an impact here also).

Thus, of all of the government agencies the Fed has been possibly the most restrictive. The president has already moved to correct these excesses by putting in place a new Fed Governor (Randal Quarles) to regulate the banking industry.

Three, Killing Economic Growth

In the second quarter of 2018, the growth in non-seasonally adjusted money supply (M2) has been zero. That’s right, the money supply did not grow at all. This is because the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet ultimately by $50 billion per month. In addition, the Fed has raised interest rates seven times since Q4 2015. Supposedly there are five more rate increases coming.

This is the tightest monetary policy since Paul Volcker headed the institution in the mid-1980s. It will be recalled his policies led to back-to-back recessions. Current Fed monetary policy is directly in conflict with the president’s economic goals.

Moreover, the Treasury is estimating it will pay $415 billion in interest on the federal debt in this fiscal year. A better estimate might be $450 billion if rates keep going up. There are a lot of bridges and tunnels and jobs that could be created with this money.

Then there is inflation. It is likely to rise if the Fed eases its policies. If that happens paying down the federal debt becomes easier. On a less desirable note, higher interest rates lower real estate values. Lower rates that stimulate inflation increase real estate values.

Bottom Line

The president can and will take control of the Fed. It may be recalled when the law was written creating the Federal Reserve the secretary of the Treasury was designated as the head of the Federal Reserve. We are going to return to that era. Like it or not the Fed is about to be politicized.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service