Two amateur videos were posted on YouTube on Monday showing what appear to be images of 20 dead Syrian soldiers, blindfolded and handcuffed. They were reportedly executed by rebel fighters in the northern city of Aleppo.
The video showed the men dressed in army clothes, sprawled along a road with their bloodied heads lying on a pavement.
Men believed to be rebel fighters are then shown holding assault rifles calling the men “Assad’s dogs”.
It was not possible to verify the authenticity of the video.
A man off camera, filming a car with the name of the brigade written on the bonnet, said “The Suleiman al-Farisi brigade killed several members from the (state) security”.
The Suleiman al-Farisi brigade is one of a number of units from nearby Aleppo provinces, which have taken up arms against the Assad regime and pushed into the city itself.
Rami Abdulrahman, head of the London based opposition watchdog, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, told Reuters that four people in Aleppo had told him about the incident, which is believed to have happened on either Friday or Saturday.
“The soldiers were from the Aleppo district of Sekenat Hanano but they were killed in the district of Sabaa Baharat,” he told Reuters by telephone.
More than 27,300 people are believed to have died in an uprising to topple President Bashar al-Assad that has lasted more than 17 months.
As the violence continues to rage the UN has reached a diplomatic impasse on Syria. The US and Russia disagree over a Russian proposal for a new UN Security Council resolution, which calls for a ceasefire and political transition which the US says has “no teeth”.
He is also due to visit Damascus, the Syrian capital, in a couple of days. He has said he faces a “very difficult mission”.
But Editor in chief of the newspaper the Syrian Tribune, Dubai Mohamad, told RT that Brahimi might have a chance if he can persuade those countries supplying the rebels with weapons and money to stop, “Just like what we said regarding Annan, only if the countries backing the rebels and sending them weapons and money stop doing so, [then] we can have a peaceful resolution to the crisis. If Lakhdar Brahimi is capable of convincing these countries and I doubt it, then, yes, he has a chance,” he said.
New U.N.-Arab League envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi.(Reuters / Amr Dalsh)
Conservative activists around Texas are citing a 1992 U.N. resolution called Agenda 21 in protesting various local development initiatives. Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution that promotes sustainable development..
A Lubbock County judge’s comments last week that President Obama might cede U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations and spark a civil war have been widely ridiculed. But concerns about U.N. overreach are gaining ground, with the attacks mostly focused on a 20-year-old nonbinding U.N. resolution called Agenda 21.
Texas critics of the resolution have seen their fears echoed by activists at city council meetings around the state and adopted by some of the state’s Republican leaders.
Agenda 21 was signed by more than 170 countries, including the U.S., in 1992 and aims to encourage governments to promote environmentally friendly development such as preserving open spaces and discouraging urban sprawl. A variety of organizations around the world promote similar principles.
Such issues have become of particular concern in fast-growing Texas. Many regions are struggling to integrate a steady stream of new residents while avoiding gridlocked roads and retaining communities’ character.
Critics of Agenda 21 view it as a sinister effort by an international organization to tell communities what to do and a blatant infringement on private property rights.
Dean Almy, director of the graduate program in urban design at the University of Texas at Austin, has taught classes on Agenda 21, and described the resolution’s 1992 adoption as an important moment in the history of urban design.
“It has to do with the way our cities are managed,” Almy said. “They’re basically saying things like, ‘It’s good to build more compactly. It’s more sustainable. It’s better ecologically. You use less cars, burn less fossil fuels.’”
Ted Cruz, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate who will speak at the Republican National Convention this week in Tampa, has a page on his campaign website devoted to Agenda 21, describing the measure as an effort to abolish “golf courses, grazing pastures and paved roads.”
“It’s ostensibly to promote sustainable development and it manifests at the local level in all sorts of initiatives that seek to undermine property rights and undermine our economic liberty,” Cruz said on Glenn Beck’s radio show in January. He added later in the program, “More broadly, it’s about putting the tentacles of the United Nations into the very foundations of our government throughout this nation.”
The Republican National Committee adopted a resolution in January against Agenda 21 as “a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control.” The Texas Republican Party followed suit at its state convention in June, adding opposition to Agenda 21 to the party’s platform.
Almy said Agenda 21 has traditionally had greater sway in other countries, where some cities will explicitly cite the resolution in their development plans. Yet over the past year, he’s noticed it cited frequently by conservative activists and groups in Texas and other states amid protests on sustainability projects.
“It’s changing the status quo of how we operate as a country that is developing, and so it’s threatening to some people,” Almy said. “Urban design by its nature is about the collective good, and it isn’t necessarily about the freedom of any one person to do whatever the hell they want.”
In Garland, an effort by city leaders to approve a 2030 plan to guide development was delayed by months by residents who believed the plan was a plot to incorporate Agenda 21 principles into city government,according to Mayor Ronald Jones. He said he and other city leaders had never heard of Agenda 21 until critics brought it up.
“They were convinced I was part of a conspiracy,” Jones said at a transportation conference in Irving this month. “That after being involved in neighborhoods all my years, after becoming mayor, I had abandoned my commitment to work with citizens and neighbors and now I was part of a grand scheme to deceive the people.”
Houston City Councilwoman Helena Brown cited Agenda 21 in voting “no” on some energy-efficient building projects in April.
In College Station, City Councilman Jess Fields successfully pushed for the city to drop its membership with the U.S. chapter of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, a nonprofit that helps cities develop sustainability projects and is often targeted by Agenda 21 critics.
“It is an insidious, extreme institution that does not represent our citizens, and for our taxpayers to continue to fund it would be ridiculous,” Fields wrote on his blog.
Don Knapp, a spokesman for ICLEI USA, said the group does not force an agenda on anyone but rather helps local governments save money and energy by pursuing projects those communities want.
“If you look at the work that is actually being done on the ground, it has nothing to do with some conspiracy theory,” Knapp said. “It’s really common sense.”
Yet a motivated group of activists around the state view such efforts very differently.
On Saturday, the Concerned Citizens of Caldwell County held the First Annual Agenda 21 Symposium in Lockhart. About 25 people attended, according to Tracy Forester, one of the organizers. She said the event came about as she and others wanted to learn more about efforts by the U.N. to exert its control over American communities through initiatives approved by local governments.
“It’s coming up everywhere. City and county governments are passing very restrictive ordinances where you essentially don’t have any rights on your own property,” Forester said. “It absolutely is an attack on our sovereignty.”
In further advancement of the New World Order, progressives have plans to implement Agenda 21 during Barack Obama’s second term. Some people know a little about Agenda 21, while others know absolutely nothing. It bears perusal. Republicans, as well as Democrats, are in on it. It is increasingly becoming difficult to know whom to trust. Remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely. So what is Agenda 21?
In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision-making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation.
Land Confiscation & Centers of Habitation of Agenda 21
Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans. U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected. It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth. Although people around the world aspire to achieve the levels of prosperity we have in our country, and will risk their lives to get here, Americans are cast in a very negative light and need to be taken down to a condition closer to average in the world. Only then, they say, will there be social justice which is a cornerstone of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.
UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction,all means of production, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL; that’s what it’s about.
Considering its policies are woven into all the General Plans of the cities and counties, it’s important for people to know where these policies are coming from. While many people support the United Nations for its peacemaking efforts, hardly anyone knows that they have very specific land use policies that they would like to see implemented in every city, county, state and nation. The specific plan is called United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, which has its basis in Communitarianism. By now, most Americans have heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21, according to Democrats Against UN Agenda 21.
Agenda 21 policies date back to the ’70s but it got its real start in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro when President George H.W. Bushsigned onto it. President Clinton signed it later and continued the program in the United States. A non-governmental organization called the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, is tasked with carrying out the goals of Agenda 21. Over 600 cities in the U.S. are members. The costs are paid by taxpayers. Agenda 21 was adopted in 1992 at the international climate change summit in Brazil but has not been ratified by the Senate. The treaty has, however, been endorsed by all four presidents since it was adopted.
As part of the treaty, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives was created to help local governments implement Agenda 21′s recommendations, which include implementing bike paths, solar panels, and land use ordinances. ICLEI has been a frequent target for Agenda 21 opponents, who believe it is a way for the U.N. to take a stronger grip on U.S. policy.
The Republican governor of Alabama declined to tell the Huffington Post why he signed a bill banning the United Nations Agenda 21 sustainability program in his state. “I am not going to answer that,” Gov. Robert Bentley (R) said when The Huffington Post asked about the decision at this weekend’s National Governors Association conference in Williamsburg, Va.
Bentley signed the legislation last month, making Alabama the first state in the country to ban the environmental treaty, which does not carry the force of law in the United States. Before answering the question, a Bentley aide told the governor that he didn’t have to answer questions about Agenda 21.
According to the Democrats Against Agenda 21, this plan is a whole life plan. It involves the educational system, the energy market, the transportation system, the governmental system, the health care system, food production, and more. The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms, and take away your voice. One of the ways is by using the Delphi Technique to ‘manufacture consensus.’ Another is to infiltrate community groups or actually start neighborhood associations with hand-picked ‘leaders’. Another is to groom and train future candidates for local offices. Another is to sponsor non-governmental groups that go into schools and train children. Another is to offer federal and private grants and funding for city programs that further the agenda. Another is to educate a new generation of land use planners to require New Urbanism. Another is to convert factories to other uses, introduce energy measures that penalize manufacturing, and set energy consumption goals to pre-1985 levels. Another is to allow unregulated immigration in order to lower standards of living and drain local resources.
Citizens need to research Agenda 21 for themselves and vote for those officials who wish to see Agenda 21 defeated. Also, the United Nations needs to be told that its lease is up and it should relocate somewhere else in the world. Anyone who is anti-capitalist, anti-sovereignty, or anti-Constitution will promote Agenda 21. We are on the precipice of a one-world government, and the United States Constitution and Constitutional Patriots are the only things standing in the way. Unruly children, as Barack Obama once described us. America won’t fully understand until it’s too late, unless they take action now. Individual liberty, rights, and freedoms are at stake . . . and so are our children’s.
This global gun control scheme, concocted by the U.N., is called the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Disguised as a way to combat terrorism, insurgents and international criminals, this document endeavors to secure the world’s citizens cannot defend themselves.
The US is the world’s largest exporter of firearms; while private sales between citizens, collectors and sportsmen would all be internationally regulated with the approval of ATT. This includes rules over ammunition, and procurement.
Senator Jerry Moran said in a letter (signed by 44 other senators) to President Obama; warning him not to continue his push for ratification of the ATT. Moran wrote: “Our country’s sovereignty and the Second Amendment rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations. Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.”
Chris Cox, the NRA’s top lobbyist, explains: “As we have for the past 15 years, the NRA will fight to stop a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on the Constitutional rights of American gun owners.” Cox feels that Senators like Moran “sends a clear message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian arms within its scope is not supported by the American people or their elected U.S. Senators. Senator Moran is a true champion of our freedom. We are grateful for his leadership and his tenacious efforts on this issue, as well as the 44 other senators who agree with the NRA’s refusal to compromise on our constitutional freedoms.”
Last month, in press release , The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) andImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has awarded defense contractor ATK with an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) agreement for .40 caliber hollow point ammunition.
ATK has secured a major Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity deal to supply up to 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security . . . The 1 year contract with four option years comes at a time when many Americans believe that DHS, along with certain aspects of the military, will soon turn their sights on the American people during some sort of martial law scenario . . . We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS, ICE,” said Ron Johnson, the president of ATK’s Security and Sporting group.”
This particular type of bullet is meant to expand upon impact “engineered for 100-percent weight retention, limits collateral damage, and avoids over-penetration.”
This order is not the first for DHS. In 2009, DHS contracted Winchester for delivery of 200 million hollow point bullets.
“I have never seen such a situation in all my years as a gun owner, hunter and cop,” saidEdna Aquino , a New York police officer and shooting instructor. “I’m hearing from fellow shooters that they are stockpiling ammunition these days because they are afraid of what they’re seeing in this country.”
The economic state of America has caused US citizens to purchase armory at an incredible rate. A national “ gun-run ” last March saw a shortage of guns in stores for the first time.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has reported that an estimated 6 million requests for pre-sale guns in 2009 reflects a 26% increase.
In response to Americans arming themselves, President Obama is seeking Congress to approve the UN’s international governance over our 2nd Amendment while claiming that it is only an attempt to create more stringent gun legislation for the American public’s protection.
The final version of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, aimed at keeping small arms from terrorists and rogue regimes, is due Friday. US gun rights advocates reject assurances the treaty would not infringe on their rights.
By Linda Feldmann / July 26, 2012
After last week’s shooting in Colorado, President Obama’s remarks Wednesday night about gun violence were a rare departure for a president who usually steers clear of the subject. Now another gun issue is coming to a head that the president likely would just as soon avoid: theUnited Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
The treaty, whose final version is due out on Friday, aims to regulate the $60 billion international trade in small arms in an effort to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes. But gun owners in the United States are on high alert over concerns that the treaty could undermine their Second Amendment rights.
Advocates of the treaty say that they need not worry. The US Constitution trumps international law, and the treaty will not affect domestic gun ownership, they say. But it’s not clear anything can mollify agitated gun owners, even the signatures of 58 senators on letters circulated by colleagues opposing the treaty. If Mr. Obama were to sign the treaty and send it to the Senate, it would fall far short of the two-thirds majority required for ratification.
Congressional opponents are trying to make sure the treaty never gets to the Senate.
“Disguised as an international arms control treaty to fight against terrorism and international crime syndicates, the UN small arms treaty is in fact a massive, global gun-control scheme,” Rep. Paul Broun (R) of Georgia says in a recorded message distributed Tuesday by the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights.
For many conservatives, the UN arms treaty pushes two hot buttons – the UN, which some fear has the potential to supersede US national sovereignty, and gun rights.
Assurances from the Obama administration that it will protect US domestic gun rights in the UN treaty aren’t enough, says Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, a state-wide tea party organization. He worries that Obama can simply put the treaty in force without Senate approval, just as he put Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray in charge of the controversialConsumer Financial Protection Bureau in a recess appointment, bypassing Senate confirmation.
“I’d put gun rights way at the top” of issues tea partyers care about, Mr. Zawistowski says. “That’s really high on the emotional ladder.”
On Tuesday, the UN Arms Trade Treaty Conference released a draft of the treaty to widespread criticism that it was ambiguous and contained loopholes. Even groups supportive of the treaty’s concept voiced concern.
“All the core provisions of this draft treaty still have major loopholes which will simply ratify the status quo, instead of setting a high international standard that will change state practices and save lives on the ground,” said Peter Herby, head of the arms unit of the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to Agence France-Presse.
But on the issue of protecting civilian gun rights in the US, humanitarian groups watching the treaty negotiations were reassuring.
“This treaty is only about the international transfer of civilian weapons,” says Scott Stedjan, a senior policy adviser at Oxfam America. “A transfer means when a weapon both crosses a national boundary and there’s a change of title or control. US gun rights do not involve weapons flowing from one border to another border – it’s only about things domestically within the United States. The Second Amendment applies to the use of weapons within the United States.”
Mr. Stedjan said that once the National Rifle Association (NRA) sees the treaty text, it will see that it does not pose a threat to individual gun rights.
Suzanne Trimel, media director of Amnesty International USA, accused the NRA of sowing fear.
“The goal of this treaty is to keep weapons out of the hands of countries that we know are going to use them to commit human rights abuses and atrocities, like in Syria, like mass rapes in theDemocratic Republic of Congo,” said Ms. Trimel. “The fearmongering of the NRA should not get in the way of the proper argument, which is stopping human rights abuses and atrocities.”
The NRA declined a request for comment.
Monitor intern Kimberly Railey contributed to this report.
“Complete disarmament” of the American people
Please spread the Word.
Paul Joseph Watson
The UN Arms Trade Treaty that has been identified by observers as a flagrant threat to the second amendment and which Barack Obama is determined to sign has its roots in a 1961 State Department memorandum which explains how the United Nations will oversee “complete disarmament” of the American people under the ruse of preventing war. The UN Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target “all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons,” according to Forbes’ Larry Bell.
Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton also warns that the agreement “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
A letter sent last month by 130 Republican House members to President Obama argued that the treaty should be rejected because it infringes on the “fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms”. The letter adds that “…the U.N.’s actions to date indicate that the ATT is likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy, and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.”
Using the rhetoric of the threat post by terrorists, insurgents and “international crime syndicates,” the UN is busy trying to imply that all weapons are somehow involved in illegal activity on a global scale and should therefore be controlled and regulated by a global authority.
This is precisely the same language used in a 1961 U.S. State Department briefing which outlined a long term agenda to carry out a “Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.”
Invoking the threat of nuclear warfare, the document spells out a plan to create a “United Nations Peace Force” that would “enforce the peace as the disarmament process proceeds.”
While the document initially focuses on scrapping nuclear weapons, it later makes it clear that the only groups allowed to own weapons of any kind would be governing authorities, “for the purpose of maintaining internal order,” and the UN “peacekeeping” force itself, which would require “agreed manpower.”
“The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes,” states the document. While the memorandum outlines a broader mandate to destroy national sovereignty, eviscerate national armies and institute the UN as the planet’s supreme authority with a world army, the document serves as a stark reminder that the plan for the United Nations to oversee the abolition of the second amendment has been in the works for decades.
As Bell points out in his Forbes article, the threat of the Obama administration relying on a UN treaty to do what successive administrations have tried but failed to accomplish — taking a huge bite out of the second amendment — is by no means far fetched.
After all, a plethora of UN treaties and international agreements have already stripped the United States of its sovereignty and its power to decide its own laws. The power to authorize U.S. involvement in wars and conflicts has now been almost completely stripped from Congress and handed to the United Nations.