The United Nations vs. The United States

Over the past few months I have seen a steady pattern emerging whereby the United Nations has started taking an active interest in issues related to the internal operations and sovereignty of the United States. Especially regarding civilian access to means of self-defense. Like so many other deceptive maneuvers currently active on the American front, this trend seems to demonstrate an active, coherent plan through which global ambitions can be achieved.

Before I go any further with this story I will tell you, I am not a journalist. I am a mechanical engineer working in the body armor industry and have been doing so for the better part of 15 years. After launching my own company through what I believe to be the direct call of God, I now find myself in a position to obtain and share vital information with the American public. The biblical precept of the Watchman on the Wall is a mandate that I believe God has placed on my life, and I am led to both inform and protect the American people. The fact that HR 378, the so called “Responsible Body Armor Act”, which would make civilian ownership of body armor illegal, was proposed 2 days after I started Hoplite Armor is not a coincidence. God is moving, seeking out those that will serve him, and he has called me to provide those that stand for him with the information and equipment they need to survive any situation. There is no such thing as coincidence in the life of a Christian.

With that in mind, I am greatly concerned by recent actions on the part of both the UN and the Obama administration.

In May 2016, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told a high-level U.N. meeting focusing on the responsibility to protect civilians that the United States was “proud” and “humbled” to join 28 other countries that have pledged to abide by the 18 pledges. These principles establish the framework through which the UN could potentially utilize peacekeeping troops in order to “protect” citizens in armed conflicts, through the use of force, in any UN member nation without requiring additional approval from member governments. (8)

According to Mrs. Power, “The Kigali Principles are designed to make sure that civilians are not abandoned by the international community again,” she said, recalling how U.N. peacekeepers left Rwanda before the 1994 genocide and Srebrenica before the 1995 massacre. (8) However, as you will see, these measures provide the means through which UN “intervention” can be established through pseudo-legal means.

For example, look at the language in Pledges 7 and 8:

  1. To avoid undue delay in protecting civilians, by investing our contingent commander with the authority to use force to protect civilians in urgent situations without the need for further consultations with capital.
  2. Not to hesitate to take action to protect civilians, in accordance with the rules of engagement in the absence of an effective host government response or demonstrated willingness to carry out its responsibilities to protect civilians.

In other words, if there is a conflict within the United States of America and the UN does not agree with the government’s response, they can take whatever action they deem appropriate without consulting the “capital.”

Pledges 9 and 10 are equally disturbing;

  1. To demand clarity from the UN and mission leadership on our rules of engagement, including under which circumstances the use of force is appropriate.
  2. To seek to identify, as early as possible, potential threats to civilians and proactively take steps to mitigate such threats and otherwise reduce the vulnerability of the civilian population.

In short, the United Nations is now required to “intervene” in times of crisis or conflict, in any member nation, as determined by the UN board of unelected “officials”, and could do so in the United States by invoking the Arms Trade Treaty, which will revoke the second amendment, in direct violation of the United States Constitution.

This mandate allows the UN decide the rules of engagement; they decide when force is appropriate and are allowed to target those groups or individuals they deem a “threat” and to proactively take steps to mitigate such threats.

As outlined in the 2009 MIAC Report, it was determined that a U.S. citizen can be considered a potential dangerous “militia member” if they oppose: The United Nations; The New World Order; Gun Control; The violation of Posse Comitatus; The Federal Reserve; The Income Tax; The Ammunition and Accountability Act; A possible Constitutional Convention; The North American Union; Universal Service Program Radio Frequency Identification (RFID); Abortion, or; Illegal Immigration.

If you support the US Constitution, and support the constitutional sovereignty of the United States, you are, by definition, a threat to the imposition of the globalist agenda and a potential terrorist. In other words, you are a target.

The problem with foreign troops being trained to intervene on American soil is that they have no loyalty to the US Constitution, they have no loyalty to the God given rights of American citizens, and they have no basis for restraint in any action they might perceive as necessary, regardless of our laws. The UN has no constitutional right to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and any potential UN intervention on US soil must be prevented.

NATO and the UN have the same goal, mission, and function: to subvert the sovereignty of the United States and the rest of the world, turning us all into a fascist worldwide state. Our government officials have proven time and again here lately that they are not to be trusted. Congress is nothing more than a rubber stamp for what the administration wants, not the representative body of the citizenry as it should be.

What catastrophic event is this administration preparing to implement now in order to seize the control they so desperately want?  (6)

It has been previously noted that recent allegations of Russian hacking could mean the Department of Homeland Security will be charged with protecting the Presidential election in November. In fact, as Joe Joseph noted in his latest daily news update, the Department of Defense and U.S. military may be joining DHS to ensure a fair electoral process. Coupled with previous reports that “independent” United Nations observers will be overseeing this year’s vote suggests there may be some legitimacy to the concerns regarding the UN.

Amidst accusations that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the rise of ISIS and ignored intelligence reports prefacing the rise of ISIS, one has to wonder if the Obama administration isn’t setting up Christians and Patriots in America for slaughter by refusing to acknowledge that many such Americans have been targeted by ISIS on their recent “kill list.”

There is a movement afoot in the UN, bolstered by outgoing current UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon who recently declared, “We must place the human rights of all refugees and migrants at the heart of our commitments.”

Additionally, the UN New York Declaration calls on member nations to resettle as many refugees as possible and for the more wealthy nations of the world (read: the U.S.) to shoulder more of the financial burden.

The UN declaration goes on: “The declaration proceeded to inform host countries that they must make all efforts to ensure that adult refugees are provided with jobs and children enrolled in school.” (4)

As tens of thousands of young, healthy Muslim men stormed the gates of Europe in the fall of 2015, touching off a migrant crisis financed and encouraged by billionaire globalists like George Soros, then-United Nations refugee czar Antonio Guterres “demanded” that the E.U. nations open their borders and “welcome” the migrants.

He said Europe “must accept up to 200,000 refugees” as part of a “common strategy” to replace their “piecemeal” approach to the migrant crisis, the BBC reported.

Guterres, who headed of the U.N. refugee agency, said the E.U. must mobilize “full force” for the crisis, calling it a “defining moment.”

As it turned out, the 200,000 was just a small down payment on what the U.N. high commissioner for refugees had in mind for Europe. Nearly 2 million “refugees” would eventually come, almost none of them from the persecuted Christian communities in Syria.

The same trend occurred in the United States, which took in 12,587 U.N.-selected Syrian refugees in fiscal 2016, and only 0.5 percent were Christian. Most of them were selected by Guterres, who served 10 years as high commissioner for refugees up till Dec. 31.

Now Guterres, 67, has been rewarded for his good work by the same globalists who hold sway at the United Nations. He was recently promoted to the U.N.’s highest post, secretary general, replacing Ban Ki-moon.

So exactly who is Antonio Guterres?

He started climbing the ladder to international politics as prime minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002 as leader of that country’s Socialist Party.

He started out wildly popular but ended up resigning in disgrace in 2002 after his party suffered a humiliating defeat related to the nation’s failing economy.

After being run out of politics in his country of Portugal Guterres found a new home as president of the Socialist International, a global network of national socialist parties seeking to establish “democratic socialism” around the globe.

The Socialist International was formed after World War II, and helped fund socialist movements in Spain and Portugal. In the late 1980s, the SI funded the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

He stayed at Socialist International until 2005, when he joined the U.N.

He is perhaps most famous for presiding over the worst refugee crisis since World War II. All told, some 2 million migrants have poured into Western Europe over the last two years, forever transforming whole villages, towns and cities in Italy, Greece, France and especially Germany.

The migrant invasion was sold as a humanitarian catastrophe driven by the Syrian civil war, when in actuality less than 50 percent of the migrants were from Syria. While there were some true war refugees, most were economic migrants seeking to make it to the wealthy welfare state of Germany where Chancellor Angela Merkel had offered an open invitation.

All the while, the most severe victims of persecution and genocide, in the Middle Eastern Christians, were left to deal with ISIS on their own.

James Simpson, a researcher and writer affiliated with the Center for Security policy, was also at the same conference, put on by the Migration Policy Institute’s annual immigration law conference at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., last October.

“I asked him about the Christians. I said that virtually all of the Syrians being resettled in the West are Sunni Muslims and the U.N. was sending us almost no Christians and why is that?” Simpson recalls.

The answer he got from Guterres was that the Syrian Christians were not being oppressed by the Assad government as the Sunnis were.

Several other sources, including the Catholic Aid to the Church in Need, have told WND that the primary reason Christians avoid the U.N. camps is that they are considered highly unsafe for anyone who is not a Muslim. This, again, is a problem that befell the U.N. refugee agency under Guterres’s watch.

While it’s impossible to know exactly what the United Nations is planning in conjunction with sympathetic U.S. political leaders, we know for a fact that U.N troops are actively operating on our soil and their equipment is already here, lying dormant for whatever orders were to come down the pipeline. Information has been coming to me through a number of sources, all of which point to serious concerns regarding a UN presence on US soil.






If it turns out that the U.S. Presidential election next month is taken over by the Department of Homeland Security amid claims of a cyber-attack on the electoral grid, and is then overturned in favor of Hillary Clinton, then it could well come to pass that United Nations ‘peace keepers’ are activated to quell any disturbance or dissent. (7)

Consider the words of Obama during his last speech as President to the UN on September 20, 2016.

Especially troubling to the UN bureaucrats is the alleged “discriminatory effect of ‘Stand Your Ground Laws,’” While the UN “experts” praised an “investigation” conducted by the federal “Commission on Civil Rights” into the popular state protections for self-defense rights, the un-elected international committee claimed to be “concerned about the proliferation of such laws that are used to circumvent the limits of legitimate self-defense in violation of the State party’s duty to protect life.”

“The U.S. government should take all necessary measures to abide by its obligation to effectively protect the right to life,” the report continues, despite the fact that studies show widespread gun ownership protects lives. “In particular, it should: (a) continue its efforts to effectively curb gun violence, including through the continued pursuit of legislation requiring background checks for all private firearm transfers … and (b) review Stand Your Ground Laws to remove far-reaching immunity and ensure strict adherence to the principles of necessity and proportionality when using deadly force in self-defense.” (9)

Works Cited



4 thoughts on “The United Nations vs. The United States”

  1. Hello there! This blog post could not be written any better!
    Reading through this article reminds me of my previous roommate!
    He always kept preaching about this. I’ll forward
    this information to him. Fairly certain he’ll have a very good read.
    Thank you for sharing!

  2. Hey there! I’ve been following your weblog for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a
    shout out from Lubbock Texas! Just wanted to tell you keep
    up the excellent job!

Leave a Reply