Did the UN Really Install a Global Police Force at the Local Level?
By Amanda Warren
While people were in a daze of reverie following the lunar eclipse and the Pope’s U.S. visit, a very important yet overlooked announcement was made by the Department of Justice.
“Launch of Strong Cities Network to Strengthen Community Resilience Against Violent Extremism” rang the bell to usher in a global-local initiative to ferret out extremism at the local level – yes, in the United States. Symbolically, it could also signal a turning point when it comes to local authorities and their treatment of the residents at large. Indeed, it is a global enmeshment that most Americans are either a) in the total dark about, or b) going hysterical over, if they’ve heard about it.
Honestly, either of those reactions is understandable when you start digging into the announcements and its sponsors only to find the typical convoluted, global-psycho-babble that signals to the astute that they are about to lose their rights and be perceived as domestic terrorists. But can anyone really say for sure? Of course not. Not when the message is written in Newspeak gibberish.
What is the Strong Cities Network and why did some U.S. cities join up?
On the face of it, SCN is to strengthen the bond between cities in the U.S. and global cities in the fight against violent extremism, internationally and at the local level. It will funnel help to local authorities of those cities which hop on board.
From the press release:
While many cities and local authorities are developing innovative responses to address this challenge, no systematic efforts are in place to share experiences, pool resources and build a community of cities to inspire local action on a global scale.
Technically, SCN doesn’t have much to do with the U.N. but people think of the U.N. because this action is global and the launch was announced on the margins of U.N. General Assembly in New York on September 29 by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. To a lot of people, that match-up doesn’t bode well. The Keynote address came from U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch.
All cities are encouraged by them to join up, but the major U.S. cities that are currently a part of it are actually among the founding “Steering” committee. New York, Denver, Atlanta and Minneapolis are among the couple dozen founding cities across the world. They will all “steer” simultaneous action among city authorities and officials. And while SCN tries to portray itself as for the little guy, that couldn’t be further from the truth if you really browse around their website and cut through the B.S. language. Citizens will have virtually nothing to do with their decisions and actions unless they are of high community affluence. Just look at the information of their first global summit and see who it’s intended for and who will speak.
SCN’s Internation Advisory Board is run by by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) which considers itself a leading international “think-and-do” tank. It began as The Club of Three, started in the mid-1990s by Lord Weidenfeld. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue was created in 2006 as an umbrella organization and also created initiatives like Against Violent Extremism, Extreme Dialogue, Counter Extremism and European Muslim Women of Influence.
Regular readers to this site probably don’t just think in terms of the U.N. power grab – but the myriad NGOs, institutes, think tanks, initiatives, corporate foundations etc. that seal and bolster global authority. That’s what this reeks of.
See if you can figure out the actual goals as extracted from the DOJ press release:
◾Garnering partnership of cities in international efforts to build social cohesion and resilience to violent extremism
◾Using persuasive voices of authorities and communities to challenge violent extremism in all of its forms and manifestations
◾Capacity-building and improvement of collaboration
◾To counter a range of domestic and global terror threats
◾To enable cities to learn from one another, to develop best practices
◾Will empower municipal bodies to fill this gap while working with civil society
◾Safeguard the rights of local citizens and communities
◾Determine action at all levels of governance to counter violent extremism
◾Coordinate our efforts and cooperate across borders
◾Connect cities, city-level practitioners and the communities through a series of workshops, trainings and sustained city partnerships
◾Provide an online repository of municipal-level good practices and web-based training modules and grants supporting innovative, local initiatives and strategies
◾International Steering Committee of approximately 25 cities and other sub-national entities from different regions that will provide the SCN with its strategic direction
◾Use collective lessons in this international platform for joint innovation
Does that leave you scratching your head as to what is really going to happen? It should, unless you know for a fact what social cohesion and community resilience really means. Their definition of violent extremism isn’t even laid out.
The launch was made following the Leaders’ Summit on Countering ISIL and Violent Extremism. A better way to counter terrorism would be to stop funding it! And stop projecting the Western-backed terrorism onto the people as though they are guilty. That’s why these actions should be a big concern.
Truthfully, the declaration of actions provided by SCN under Club of Three are clear as mud, and must undergo more inquiry and scrutiny before ever recognizing their actions as legitimate. Some of the inquiry might include a look at why the DOJ is bolstering this global “Steering” committee.
While some outlets are reading “social cohesion” to mean partnering up with Muslim fanatics to install Sharia Law in the U.S. – a more likely observation is that this initiative deflects from the major unresolved issue of State violence supported in some local law enforcement sectors.
If an initiative (or the DOJ) wanted to make sure violent extremism doesn’t happen to communities, it would address this systemic issue first instead of funnel more power its way and strengthen it “systemically” on an international scale.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Jim Garrison Headshot
Jim Garrison Become a fanFounder and President, Ubiquity University
Martial Law by Executive Order Posted: 03/21/2012 7:26 pm EDT
President Obama’s National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order of March 16 does to the country as a whole what the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act did to the Constitution in particular — completely eviscerates any due process or judicial oversight for any action by the Government deemed in the interest of “national security.” Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.
Even as the 2012 NDAA was rooted in the Patriot Act and the various executive orders and Congressional bills that ensued to broaden executive power in the “war on terror,” so the new Executive Order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950 which gave the Government powers to mobilize national resources in the event of national emergencies, except now virtually every aspect of American life falls under ultimate unchallengeable government control, to be exercised by the president and his secretaries at their discretion.
The 2012 NDAA deemed the United States a “battlefield,” as Senator Lindsey Graham put it, and gave the president and his agents the right to seize and arrest any U.S. citizen, detain them indefinitely without charge or trial, and do so only on suspicion, without any judicial oversight or due process. The new Executive Order states that the president and his secretaries have the authority to commandeer all U.S. domestic resources, including food and water, as well as seize all energy and transportation infrastructure inside the borders of the United States. The Government can also forcibly draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of “national defense.” There is not even any Congressional oversight allowed, only briefings.
In the NDAA, only the president had the authority to abrogate legitimate freedoms of U.S. citizens. What is extraordinary in the new Executive Order is that this supreme power is designated through the president to the secretaries that run the Government itself:
• The Secretary of Defense has power over all water resources;
• The Secretary of Commerce has power over all material services and facilities, including construction materials;
• The Secretary of Transportation has power over all forms of civilian transportation;
• The Secretary of Agriculture has power over food resources and facilities, livestock plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment;
• The Secretary of Health and Human Services has power over all health resources;
• The Secretary of Energy has power over all forms of energy.
The Executive Order even stipulates that in the event of conflict between the secretaries in using these powers, the president will determine the resolution through his national security team.
The 2012 NDAA gave the Government the right to abrogate any due process against a U.S. citizen. The new Executive Order gives the government, through the Secretary of Labor, the right to proactively mobilize U.S. citizens for “labor” as the government deems necessary and to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to maintain data to coordinate the nation’s work needs in relation to national defense.
What is extraordinary about the Executive Order is that, like the NDAA, this can all be done in peacetime without any national emergency to justify it. The language of the Order does not state that all these extraordinary measures will be done in the event of “national security” or a “national emergency.” They can simply be done for “purposes of national defense,” clearly a broader remit that allows the government to do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, to whomever it wants, all without any judicial restraint or due process. As Orwell famously said in 1984, “War is peace. Peace is war.”
Finally, the 2012 NDAA was hurried through the House and Senate almost like a covert op with minimal public attention or debate. It was then signed by the president at 9:00 PM on New Year’s Eve while virtually nobody was paying attention to much other than the approaching new year. This new Executive Order was written and signed in complete secret and then quietly released by the White House on its website without comment. All this was done under a president who studied constitutional law at Harvard.
At one level, the prospect for war with Iran is probably an immediate justification. But the comprehensiveness of the Executive Order, like that of the 2012 NDAA, speaks to something much deeper, more sinister. I would suggest that this Order, like the NDAA, has been in the works for some time and is simply the next step in the logic of the “global war on terror.” Our political elites have come to consider democracy an impediment to effective governance and they are slowly and painstakingly creating all the democratic legalities necessary to abridge our democratic rights with impunity, all to ensure our “security.”
The only thing that really remains is the occasion to test the new rules of the game. Perhaps that will be war with Iran, perhaps some contrived emergency, or perhaps, as long as the public and media remain asleep, no occasion will be necessary at all. It will just slowly happen of its own accord and we, like the frog in the pot of slowly boiling water, will just sit there and be consumed.
Political Experience Board Reviewer, Snohomish County Foster Care Citizen Review Board, 2001-present Republican Candidate, Washington House of Representatives, District 39 Position 2, 2012 Candidate, Washington State House of Representatives, District 38-2, District 38-2, 1998, 2000, 2002. Member, Governor’s Committee on Disability Issues, 1986-1988 Aide, Representative Dick Van Dyke, 1985-1987 Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees No caucus information on file. Professional Experience Volunteer, Guardian Ad Litem (Child Advocate), Washington State Superior Court, 1996-2000 Volunteer Crises Intervention Counselor, Care Crises Response Services, 1992-1994 Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, United States Marine Corps, 1979-1981 Religious, Civic, and other Memberships Member, International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety, 2001-present Member, National Rifle Association, 1996-present Member, International Toastmaster Communication and Leadership Program, 2001 View all posts by email@example.com