U.S. Approves United Nation’s Invasion of America

United Nation military troops may soon arrive and see action on American soil following the United States’ announcement of support for “a set of principles that give a green light for U.N. peacekeeping troops and police to use force to protect civilians in armed conflicts,” Military Times reports.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told attendees at an important U.N. meeting that the United States was “proud” and “humbled” to be a included in the new agenda and promised to follow by the 18 pledges, Fox News reports.

The arrival of the United Nations requires federalization of police in order to set a global standard of law enforcement. President Barrack Obama has pounced on the opportunity to exploit recent shootings to push for the federalization of local police forces.

More federalization of local police, collaborated with the arrival of the United Nations military presence, could mean big trouble for liberty and freedom of speech in America. Videos are flooding the internet documenting the slow-moving invasion of United Nations military-like vehicles across America.

This is not the first time American politicians have attempted to sell their citizens out to the powers of the United Nations. The UN’s first attempt to capture America was in 1951, under a top secret program titled, “Operation AGGRESSI.” In strange fashion, forces flying the flag of the United Nations began to occupy small towns and cities across the United States. This was intended to test the will of the people and see if they would accept a UN “takeover.” The test failed and sparked controversy and concerns over a “revolution-in-the-making” that would destroy any plot formulated by the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations.

Project AGGRESSI forces were quickly met with much resistance and silently left occupied government buildings and removed United Nation flags nationwide. Broadcaster Myron C. Fagan documented the secretive operation in the 1960’s claiming:

“… the UN ‘invasions’ were intended to be completely hush-hush. The mass media were very accommodating and the local newspapers and radio stations in the ‘invaded’ cities were kept silent under order of the UN. However, in several of the cities the local police refused to be ‘captured’. That caused quite an uproar — true, only locally, but it threatened to spread nationwide, especially after troops and officers assigned to additional ‘invasion units’ refused to ‘serve’. The alarmed plotters hastily halted all further ‘invasions’.”

Webster’s dictionary defines “treason” as: “the crime of trying to overthrow your country’s government or of helping your country’s enemies during war.” Let that sink in.

***

War is Crime note: Below is the quote from the book The Iron Curtain Over America (1951) by Col. John Beaty, formerly of the U.S. Military Intelligence Service:

How would outside power force its will upon the United States? The day-by-day method is to exert economic pressure and to propagandize the people by the control of the media which shape public opinion (Chapter V, above). At least one other way, however, has actually been rehearsed. Full details are given by John Jay Daly in an article “UN Seizes, Rules American Cities” in the magazine, National Republic (September, 1951). As described by Mr. Daly, troops flying the United Nations flag — a blue rectangle similar to the blue rectangle of the State of “Israel” — took over Culver City, Huntington Park, Inglewood, Hawthorne, and Compton, California. The military “specialists” took over the government in a surprise move, “throwing the mayor of the city in jail and locking up the chief of police … and the chief of the fire department. … The citizens, by a proclamation posted on the front of City Hall, were warned that the area had been taken over by the armed forces of the United Nations.” If inclined to the view that this United Nations operation — even though performed by U.S. troops — is without significance, the reader should recall that the United States has only one-sixtieth of the voting power in the Assembly of the United Nations.

The present location of the UN headquarters not only within the United States but in our most alien-infested great city would make easy any outside interference intended to break down local sovereignty in this country — especially if large numbers of troops of native stock are overseas and if our own “specialist” contingents in the UN force should be composed of newcomers to the country. Such troops might conceivably be selected in quantity under future UN rule that its troops should speak more than one language. Such a rule, which on its face might appear reasonable, would limit American troops operating for the UN almost exclusively to those who are foreign-born or sons of foreign-born parents. This is true because few soldiers of old American stock speak any foreign languages, whereas refugees and other immigrants and their immediate descendants usually speak two — English, at least of a sort, and the language of the area from which they or their parents came.

As has been repeatedly stated on the floors of Congress, among others by Senator Pat McCarran on April 25, 1949 (see the government pamphlet, Communist Activities Among Aliens and National Groups, p. A1), the presence of the UN within the United States has the actual — not merely hypothetical — disadvantage of admitting to our borders under diplomatic immunity a continuing stream of new espionage personnel who are able to contact directly the members of their already established networks within the country.

(John Beaty, The Iron Curtain Over America. 1951; 2016 edition, pp. 262-263.)