Oh, Great: Robots Are Set to Conduct National Security Clearance Interviews
by Lucas Cort
Canadian Awareness Network
Jul 28, 2014
Oh, Great: Robots Are Set to Conduct National Security Clearance Interviews
Written by STEPHEN BURANYI
July 22, 2014 // 01:32 PM EST
Advancing a career in the US government might soon require an interview with a computer-generated head who wants to know about that time you took ketamine.
Psychologists at the National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) are developing an interview system that uses a responsive on-screen avatar for the first stage of the national security clearance process.
Initial screening for a variety of government jobs currently requires applicants to fill out a form disclosing past drug use, criminal activity, and mental health issues, which is then reviewed during an interview—with a human.
But a recent NCCA study published in the journal Computers and Human Behavior asserts that not only would a computer-generated interviewer be less “time consuming, labor intensive, and costly to the Federal Government,” people are actually more likely to admit things to the robot.
The study used US Army basic trainees as volunteer subjects for a mock national security clearance interview. The trainees were not told that the questions would be asked by a robot. After being hooked up to electrodes for cardio graphic and electrodermal (heart and skin) responses the volunteers were told that the interview would be with a computer avatar, and were left alone in a chamber with their on-screen interrogator.
The program used for the study was capable of responding to vocal cues and taking multiple conversation paths depending on the subject’s answers. The researchers were hoping to leverage the power of presence: the idea that people recognize another sentient being in the environment, and are more responsive as a result.
The bot is racially ambiguous and looks like a sort of cross between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin. Clean-shaven and all business, the bot asks you to divulge your most embarrassing personal mistakes in the name of national security and trustworthiness.
And apparently these computer-generated heads had a lot of presence. Volunteers in the study were significantly more likely to disclose alcohol use and mental health issues to the avatar than to the questionnaire. Responses for drug use and criminal charges were about the same.
Using the avatar also allowed the researchers to measure pauses in conversation and take advantage of questions that would seem out of place on a paper form. At the end of each interview section the computer-generated interviewer asked the volunteers “if there was anything at all” they wished to discuss—with over 10 percent then responding with more information.
The researchers concluded, in so many words, that national security clearance interviews can totally be outsourced to a computer-generated agent. That’s not an empty recommendation: The NCCA grew out of the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute and is still responsible for “lie detection” training for all branches of government. It’s also tasked with developing new technologies for credibility assessment.
In other words, when “Blade Runner” is an actual job, they will likely be trained at the NCCA headquarters in South Carolina.
The NCCA predicts a bright future for its virtual agents. The study notes that computer-generated interviewers might help mitigate the gender and culture bias that affects human interviewers. It also recommends using avatars with distinctive physical characteristics and “culture-specific utterances.”
The interviewer isn’t quite a sentient AI; it relies on a dialogue tree similar to telephone customer service: tell the computer all the simple things, then press 0 for a human to explain the story behind your streaking arrest.
Still the idea of a computer conducting national security clearance interviews, even with human oversight, is bound be unsettling for some. But depending on the system’s effectiveness and the potential cost savings, we may see national security screening being done by a screen in the very near future.
Read More Here
It’s Official: Being Poor in America Has Been Outlawed
by Joshua Krause
Activist Post
Aug 5, 2014
As they say, you can always judge a society by how they treat their weakest members. So I shudder to think of how future generations will judge our society. We’ve become a nation that discards our poor like they are trash, and anyone who doesn’t “fit in” is segregated from the herd.
The police are now fining homeless folks for any arbitrary offense they can think of, and city councils across the country are making it illegal to sleep in public. They’ve gone so far as to make it illegal to camp, or even sit or lay down in certain public areas. Worst of all, many cities are making it illegal, or prohibitively expensive to give food to the homeless. According to an interview from The Independent, with a former police chief involved in a charity dedicated to feeding the poor:
The homeless are an embarrassment for the town, said Arnold Abbott, a 90-year-old former police chief from Pennsylvania and director of Love Thy Neighbor, an organization that has been feeding homeless here for over 20 years. Five times the city has tried and failed in court to stop him serving meals each Wednesday on the beach beneath the tourist strip.
The town, he said, really wants the homeless to go away. “They would like to put them in a bus and send them to Miami or Palm Beach. It’s very close to ethnic cleansing. But they are not going to succeed.”
Thank God there are still some people willing to do the right thing, even if it means breaking the law.
In other cities, you now need a $500 permit from the health department to give away food, or perhaps you’ll have to spend $800 to rent the park every time you try to hand out food there. On the surface, it’s bad enough that they are making it so difficult to help out those in need, but when you take the homeless out of the equation, it starts to sound really asinine. To the city councils out there that are perpetuating these laws, are you really going to make it illegal for one consenting adult to buy a sandwich, and voluntarily give it away for free to another adult who wants it? When it’s phrased that way, doesn’t it just sound utterly contemptible and insane?
In LA, things may be about to get downright draconian. If this whistleblower is to be trusted, then the city of Los Angeles is preparing to force their homeless population into internment camps. Of course it would never be called that. They would simply be referred to as ‘low cost housing’ or maybe they’ll just call it a homeless shelter, but with the caveat that once you enter, you wouldn’t be allowed to leave. This would probably be disastrous for anyone entering the facility, as many homeless shelters are notoriously awful and dangerous places. After all, if most shelters provided a safe and healthy environment, would there really be that many people on the streets? So they’re going to make a “homeless shelter” that you’re not allowed to leave? I’m sure that place will just be a ray of sunshine won’t it? But as you’ll see next, finding alternatives to a shelter can end disastrously if you have a family.
Last month, a family in Houston had their kids taken away by CPS when it was discovered that the family had been living in a storage unit for the past three years. The family had fallen on hard times after the father had lost his welding job, and after getting a job with maintenance at the storage facility, decided that living in a unit there would be far safer for his family than a homeless shelter. By all appearances, these are otherwise lawful and caring adults just trying to provide the best they can for their family in a difficult economy.
There were no reports of abuse, and the unit had air conditioning and two computers. While it lacked running water, if they’ve lived there for 3 years without anyone getting severely ill, then it’s safe to assume that they’re doing their “business” in a proper bathroom somewhere else. They obviously have permission from the owners of the storage facility to live there, or they would have been kicked out a long time ago. So what’s the problem? What did they do to deserve this?
They happened to be poor, that’s what they did. This is what it means to live in America now. If you fail to achieve a certain income, then you are now at the mercy of the authorities (or God knows who else on the streets). And if you really think about it, if the government is going to treat the poor like this, then there is no reason to have a government in the first place. I thought that the main reason we have a government, is because life without them would be hell. It would be a chaotic place where the weak are indiscriminately killed, or are abused and exploited by the strong. At least that’s what we’ve been told.
If the poor are being treated this way, then our modern society is just as much of a Darwinian struggle as it was for our primitive ancestors. If that’s the case, can we even call what we live under, a government? Keep in mind, I’m not asking the government to step in and help. I’m not asking for them to provide free housing or increase welfare entitlements. I’m asking them to stay out of the way. How could you make it so difficult for private citizens to help each other out?
Perhaps what I said at first was wrong. Maybe our society isn’t so bad. Future generations won’t judge us for how we treat our fellow man. Plenty of private citizens have done their part to help the homeless.
No. They’ll judge our government, for breaking up families, fining people with no money, starving them, and then throwing them into internment camps.
Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared. He was born and raised in the Bay Area and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshua’s reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter. Joshua’s website is Strange Danger .
“We Will Raise the Flag of Allah in the White House” ISIS Warns America — video included
The Islamic State has warned the United States that it plans to attack America and raise “the flag of Allah in the White House.”
“I say to America that the Islamic caliphate has been established,” Abu Mosa, a spokesman for the terror group, also known as ISIS, told Vice Media in a video interview posted online Thursday. “Don’t be cowards and attack us with drones. Instead send your soldiers, the ones we humiliated in Iraq. We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House.”
Vice Media has produced a five-part series of videos using footage from reporter Medyan Dairieh, who spent three weeks embedded with ISIS fighters and gained unprecedented access to the terror group. In the first video, Dairieh heads to the Syrian city of Raqqa, where the brutal extremists are building a regime while also laying siege to a Syrian army base.
Here is the first video:
Newsmax continues:
The ISIS threat to conquer the United States was issued before President Barack Obama announced Thursday that he planned to authorize “targeted” airstrikes against the hard-line Sunni jihadists to prevent the genocide of ethnic minorities in Iraq, including tens of thousands of fleeing Christians, as well as to protect U.S personnel in Irbil and Baghdad.
ISIS, which now calls itself the Islamic State, seized territory in both Iraq and Syria and declared an Islamic caliphate.
They have engaged in ruthless slaughter, and have targeted minority groups.
From CNN:
“I don’t see any attention from the rest of the world,” a member of the Yazidi minority in Iraq told the New Yorker. “In one day, they killed more than two thousand Yazidi in Sinjar, and the whole world says, ‘Save Gaza, save Gaza.’”
In Syria, the group hoisted some of its victims severed heads on poles. One of the latest videos of the savagery shows a Christian man forced to his knees, surrounded by masked militants, identified in the video as members of ISIS. They force the man at gunpoint to “convert” to Islam. Then, the group beheads him.
Today, the US began dropping laser-guided bombs on ISIS artillery in Iraq, beginning the airstrikes Obama threatened yesterday.
In a speech from the White House last night, Obama said that he was authorizing airstrikes to protect American interests in Iraq and drops of food and water for tens of thousands of refugees trapped by ISIS on a mountain in Iraq, reports NBC.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Lily Dane of The Daily Sheeple.
Lily Dane is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple. Her goal is to help people to “Wake the Flock Up!”
Lily Dane
The Daily Sheeple
August 8th, 2014
Latin youth operatives posed as aid workers in Anti-Cuban plot, new report says
Intellihub.com
Aug 4, 2014
By Shepard Ambellas
Obama Admin sought to create Cuban rebellion
Havana Cuba (Photo credit: Nathan Laurell/Flickr)
(INTELLIHUB) — According to a new bombshell report by the AP, young Latin operatives were actually deployed into Cuba under direction from the Obama Administration to recruit anti-government protestors and rally a rebellion. Shockingly, the covert operation was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, which was also instrumental in the development of a Cuban Twitter style social media network.
The AP reported:
According to internal documents obtained by the AP and interviews in six countries, USAID’s young operatives posed as tourists, visited college campuses and used a ruse that could undermine USAID’s credibility in critical health work around the world: An HIV-prevention workshop one called the “perfect excuse” to recruit political activists, according to a report by Murillo’s group. For all the risks, some travelers were paid as little as $5.41 an hour.
The travelers program was launched during a time when newly inaugurated President Barack Obama spoke about a “new beginning” with Cuba after decades of mistrust, raising questions about whether the White House had a coherent policy toward the island nation.
There’s no evidence that the program advanced the mission to create a pro-democracy movement against the government of Raul Castro. Creative Associates declined to comment, referring questions to USAID.
USAID would not say how much the Costa Rica-based program cost. In response to questions from the AP, the agency issued a statement that said, “USAID and the Obama administration are committed to supporting the Cuban people’s desire to freely determine their own future. USAID works with independent youth groups in Cuba on community service projects, public health, the arts and other opportunities to engage publicly, consistent with democracy programs worldwide.”
In a statement late Sunday, USAID said the HIV workshop had a dual purpose: It “enabled support for Cuban civil society while providing a secondary benefit of addressing the desire Cubans expressed for information and training about HIV prevention.”
The entire goal of the operation was to essentially stir up rebellion in Cuba from within, a goal all so common to the United States.
About the author:
Shepard Ambellas is the founder and editor-in-chief of Intellihub News and the maker of SHADE the Motion Picture. You can also find him on Twitter and Facebook. Shepard also appears on the Travel Channel series America Declassified.
Interest in MH17 Fades as Sanctions & War Edge Closer
August 4, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – NEO) – It is abundantly clear that a truthful resolution to the tragedy of the downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was never the goal of Washington, London, and Brussels. Citing baseless accusations surrounding the tragedy, the West has leveled a series of incrementally expansive sanctions against Russia while using the tragedy to justify increased military support for Kiev’s military forces even as they wage total war against their own population including the use of ballistic missiles, airstrikes, artillery barrages, and tanks. Clearly the goal then was to exploit the air disaster as long as possible before the truth began to emerge – and when that truth did emerge, to ensure the subject of MH17 altogether faded from the collective consciousness of the general public.
Surely if the facts surrounding the disaster tallied with Washington, London, and Brussel’s initial and baseless accusations, it would make the subsequent moves by the West to sanction Russia while propping up the regime in Kiev, Ukraine, all the more poignant. Instead, the West appears to be intentionally playing down the actual investigation and pushing forward its gains made – wrought from the tragedy and hailed as a “game changer” in a conflict the West was decidedly losing.
As the Truth Trickles Out…
In the propaganda firestorm following the downing of MH17 the West was careful to cherry pick certain aspects of the disaster and spin it relentlessly as it accused Russia and eastern Ukraine. But even amongst the West’s own investigators a story far from conclusive emerged casting serious doubts on the narrative being peddled from behind podiums in Washington. In an interview with Canada’s CBC News, Michael Bociurkiw, a Ukrainian-Canadian monitor with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) claimed to have seen what looked like machine gun holes in the fuselage and no evidence he could see of a missile.
While Bociurkiw would admit he lacks the trained eyes to discern what actually may have downed MH17, his eyewitness account sows doubt among the feigned certainty the West used to push through sanctions and to justify military aid to Kiev. The West has utterly failed to provide any evidence at all to either explain Bociurkiw’s observations, or any aspect of their own official narrative. Bociurkiw’s observations do however corroborate certain aspects of Russia’s rebuttal to the West’s accusations.
Russia disclosed radar information and satellite images that contradicted the West’s accusations. The Russian data would also indicate the presence of a Ukrainian SU-25 jet in the vicinity near MH17 before it went down. The SU-25 possesses a 30 mm cannon that would inflict damage like that observed by Bociurkiw. While far from conclusive, it is a much more viable explanation as to what happened to MH17, based on physical evidence, than what has thus far been put forth by the West.
In addition to Bociurkiw’s account, there are many other witnesses and experts who have suggested an SU-25’s 30 mm cannon as the possible culprit behind the downing of MH17 – and as these accounts and analysis begin to reach a crescendo, the West’s interest in ascertaining the truth behind the disaster appears to be at an all time low. So much emphasis was initially placed on the theory of a surface to air missile downing the aircraft that other possibilities were defacto ruled out. However these alternative possibilities were ruled out without any proper investigation or demonstrable evidence to justify doing so.
Sanctions and War In Lieu of an Investigation
Just as the West had attempted to rush to war against Syria based on tenuous, suspicious circumstances surrounding the gassing of thousands on the edge of Damascus, the West now seeks to punish Russia economically and edge itself and Europe ever closer to an expanded proxy war with Moscow. It would be later confirmed that the sarin gas attack in Damascus was the work of NATO itself through its terrorist proxies – and similarly as evidence trickles out regarding MH17 – it appears the West and its proxies were not only the greatest benefactors of the tragedy, but the prime suspects as well.
Once again the West has advanced its agenda forward by disingenuously leveraging tragedy to sell otherwise unjustifiable and undesirable measures against a member of the international community. Stronger European sanctions against Russia had just failed in the days prior to the downing of MH17, but in the wake of the disaster, passed with ease. Likewise, providing Kiev with weapons and training was becoming increasingly unthinkable as their human rights record and their affiliations and proclivities toward Nazism became increasingly difficult to cover up or spin.
Now it appears the West has been able to work around these otherwise insurmountable obstacles and move the region closer toward war and further away from a settlement that would have surely left the West in an undesirable position in relation to Moscow. And as the West moves forward toward what it believes is a more desirable outcome, ascertaining the truth behind what downed MH17 will become an inconvenience. While the West used the memories of those lost in the tragedy to portray Russia and eastern Ukraine as heartless and indifferent to the suffering of innocent lives lost – it is the West who is now demonstrably obstructing justice for these people while shamelessly exploiting it to advance their geopolitical agenda both in Ukraine and against Russia.
For all the promises the West made in regards to seeking the truth behind MH17 – what we see today is memories and enthusiasm fading, the victims forgotten, and the tragedy all but buried – leaving us with sanctions against Russia and binding agreements made by the West to arm, fund, and train militants fighting for the regime in Kiev. If one were to believe the West’s rhetoric about Russia being the “bad guy,” what then, considering the current priority of MH17 within the West’s agenda, does that make Washington, London, and Brussels?
Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
Statues Depict UN in Control of Canadian Army’s Past, Present and Future
by Frankie Gotz
Canadian Awareness Network
Mar 29, 2014
On Sunday Aug 8th 2004, the Canadian Association of Veterans obtained funding to put up and display three statues in Memorial Park in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The statues are located near the corner of Osborne St. N and Memorial Blvd, north of Memorial Park. It is located north of the Masonic Legislative building as well.
It is dedicated to Peacekeepers who have lost their lives in the service of the country of Canada since the signing of the United Nations Charter on Oct 24th 1945.
Google Maps
The statue is called Peacekeepers Cairn. Cairn is defined as a heap of stones set up as a landmark, monument, tombstone, etc.
The three pillars are said to represent the Army, Navy, Air Force (and supposedly also the RCMP).
The pillar on the left is 10 feet tall, has a 45 degree beveled top to show a symbol from the front of a Peacekeeping medal depicting three soldiers. One soldier is an unarmed United Nations Military Observer, holding a pair of binoculars. A second soldier, a woman, shoulders a radio, while the third stands guard with a rifle. Above them flies a dove, the international symbol of peace. This side of the medal also bears the inscriptions PEACEKEEPING and SERVICE DE LA PAIX (translated to service out of peace), together with two maple leafs. The word“PAST” is engraved vertically into the front.
The center pillar is 12 feet tall with a 45 degree beveled top to show the United Nations symbol engraved into the stone. The symbol of the words UN on the top of a map of the world with what I construe as, it consits of longitude and latitude lines. The logo has a border of leaves, 7 on the left and 6 on the right. The word “PRESENT” is engraved into the pillar vertically.
The pillar to the right of center statue is 8 feet tall with the same bevel as the others and showing the Peacekeeping medal, reversed side. The medal’s reverse shows the cipher of Her Majesty the Queen on a maple leaf surrounded by two sprigs of laurel and the word CANADA. The word “FUTURE” engraved vertically into the front of the pillar.
Click HERE for the source (description of symbolism of peace medal).
So in essence the cairn depicts the Canadian Army’s past, present and future is aligned with UN peacekeeping missions and that the Canadian Armed Forces is essentially an army for the British Monarchy. After all that should come as no surprise to civilians who know section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada which defines the “Canadian Forces” as the armed forces of Her Majesty
Are UN peacekeeping missions really about peacekeeping?
Canada has been in over 30 major peacekeeping missions since 1956 but are the peacekeeping missions all about perpetuating peace? It’s hard to tell unless one gets information first hand from a Canadian soldier or a veteran that’s been on a UN peacekeeping mission. The Canadian Awareness Network had a private interview with a veteran who was deployed to Cyprus and Bosnia under a UN peacekeeping mission. Here’s a quote of what he has to say about UN peacekeeping missions,he would like to remain anonymous:
“I have done a couple peacekeeping missions,I did Cyprus in the middle east. That was more of a peacekeeping mission there for sure. But then we go to Bosnia thinking it’s the same type of deal like Cyprus but it wasn’t.” He was there to give food to civilians.
He then told me in Cyprus there was very little combat saying, “in the middle east… it was one killing in the whole 7 or 8 months that you were there where in Bosnia there were peacekeepers getting shot at everyday… United Nations said it was peacekeeping but you know in the eyes of the soldiers it was definitely far from that. From what they’re trying tell the media and what it actually was to me were two different things.” He describes it to be missions that involve combat of defense He said many soldiers killed their selves from the trauma’s they endure.
An article from OpenCanada.org goes into detail how UN peacekeeping mission can be full out war below:
Steve Saideman | June 13, 2012 OpenCanada.org
“…Peacekeeping missions have always risked violence, and we will continue to see violence in the future, even if less than before. The key factor that needs to be considered, which is frequently ignored, is this: When it comes to peacekeeping efforts, the enemy forces have a say in how things play out – and theirs is the deciding vote.
What does this mean? In any conflict that peacekeepers might enter, there are multiple sides and usually more than one set of actors hostile to the accord. (After all, if an agreement produced consensus, there would be little need for outsiders to intervene.) These “spoilers,” as they are known, may or may not resort to violence, but the threat that they may do so means that the outside interveners must be prepared to be violent themselves. This is basic deterrence logic: You need to be able to threaten to impose costs to deter a potential aggressor, AND you need to use force if deterrence breaks down.
The dramatic failure of the UN mission in Rwanda as the genocide started was partly due to the weakness of the UN peacekeeping effort. The genocidaires chose to be violent, voting for war against the rest of Rwanda. They started it off by killing a number of peacekeepers. As the UN mission was poorly equipped, it did not defend itself, nor did it protect anyone else. Indeed, the lesson drawn by potential spoilers from Mogadishu and Rwanda is this: Start by killing the peacekeepers, who may then flee.
Those nostalgic of past peacekeeping forget the violence the Canadians not only faced in such circumstances, but also deployed. In Croatia, the Canadians battled with the Croatian army, which was engaged in war crimes against the Serb populace. This was the biggest battle Canada fought between the wars in Korea and Afghanistan. History suggests, then, that peacekeeping has always been a violent enterprise, and it is probably more so these days, as spoilers learn from Somalia and Rwanda. “
~ SOURCE
Do Canadian soldiers like being involved in UN peacekeeping missions?
An article from the Globe and Mail answers the question below:
Globe & Mail
Michael Valpy
Wednesday, February 28, 2007Despite high-minded policy statements and public perception, Canada’s global role, Michael Valpy reports
It’s so hard to square mythology with reality. While 70 per cent of Canadians consider military peacekeeping a defining characteristic of their country, Canada has turned down so many United Nations’ requests to join peacekeeping missions during the past decade that the UN has stopped asking.In 1991, Canada contributed more than 10 per cent of all peacekeeping troops to the UN. Sixteen years later, its contribution is less than 0.1 per cent.
On this month’s fifth anniversary of Canadian troops being sent to Afghanistan and one year after assuming responsibility for the counterinsurgency campaign — a war by any other name — in Kandahar province, one of the country’s biggest unanswered questions is: What is Canadian military policy? It’s certainly not to be the global leader in peacekeeping the country once was.
Little more than a year ago, Colonel Michael Hanrahan, the Canadian Armed Forces’ top expert on peacekeeping, was offered the job as chief of staff of the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations. His Ottawa superiors nixed the idea. There is, in fact, not a single Canadian officer in the UN’s peacekeeping headquarters.
…
“In view of the multiple security challenges we now confront, we should be extremely skeptical about arguments that the days of peacekeeping are over and our armed forces are now only in the business of fighting insurgents and targeting terrorists.”[quote from Fen Hampson, director of the Norman Paterson School]
Yet several academics who study Canadian military and foreign policy see patterns of anti-UN bias among senior army officers and a preference for operating beside the United States. The anti-UN bias comes from their experience in UN peacekeeping missions of the past, and their U.S. preference is based on top-grade logistics and tactical support that the U.S. military can offer their own troops.
…
One Canadian academic, who asked to speak anonymously because he works for the military, said he had been told confidently by a senior army officer that Canadian troops would never take part in another UN-led operation. But Prof. Roland Paris, a specialist in international security at the University of Ottawa, is less convinced that Canada is deliberately turning away from the UN. He cites previous cycles of troughs in Canada’s peacekeeping involvement.In any event, the patterns seen by Mr. Heinbecker, now director of the Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., suggest traditional UN peacekeeping operations are a thing of the past, that they have become more akin to the mission in Afghanistan.
“They are almost all complex missions now. They involve combat. Very often the UN is expected to get involved before the fighting is over….”
~ SOURCE
As the above article mentioned, Canadian armed forces have slowly declined in participating in UN peacekeeping missions. But does that mean they are not under UN control? The article above also made mention that Canadian army prefers to work along side of the US army. Ultimately the US army is under full control of the UN. U.S Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified and stated that the UN and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the U.S military, reported by Infowars in 2012.
So does the UN peacekeeping cairn in Winnipeg hold a little bit of truth of Canada still participating with the UN?
In one way or another, yes.
Is the UN all about peacekeeping? No!
Islam Karimov, the Uzbek dictator who likes to boil people alive was given a “Cultural Diversity” awarded by the UN. The UN has declared Fidel Castro, the longtime Communist dictator of Cuba, the “World Hero of Solidarity”. Castro killed thousands and thousands of people during his rule, torturing some to death . Even way earlier in history 26.3 million Chinese died between 1949-1965 under the regime of Moa Zedong’s red China. In 1971 the United Nations General Assembly voted to allow Mao Zedong’s red China into the UN.
The UN was established in 1942 after the second world war by international bankers and political world leaders. The UN is the forefront to establish a “new world order” one world government under UN control, under the guise of protecting human rights and doing peacekeeping. The term “new world order” was first politically used and publicly introduced by former U.S President George H. W. Bush at the United Nations General Assembly in 1991.
Alcoholic court stenographer repeatedly types “I hate my job” instead of transcribing cases
Intellihub.com
Apr 3, 2014
During a high profile court case a New York City stenographer repeatedly typed “I hate my job”
By John Vibes
NEW YORK (INTELLIHUB) — Daniel Kochanski, an alcoholic Manhattan court stenographer went rouge recently and transcribed multiple court cases by typing in gibberish, including the phrase “I hate my job” .
The cases that he recorded included the 2010 mortgage-fraud trial of Aaron Hand, who was also convicted of trying to hire a hit man to take out a witness against him.
A source familiar with the case said Kochanski’s transcripts of that trial were a total mess.
“It should have been questions and answers — instead it was gibberish,” the source told the New York Post.
The source also said that “He hit random keys or wrote, ‘I hate my job. I hate my job. I hate my job,’ over and over.”
Claudia Trupp, of the Center for Appellate Litigation, said her office was handling the appeals in Hand’s and nine other cases.
“I never had a situation where a single court reporter was responsible for so much damage,” she said.
“This situation is terrible for everybody,” Trupp said. “It’s very difficult to come up with a sufficient record based on everybody’s recollection years after the event.”
Kochanski, 43, was fired in March 2012 for misconduct, according to the Office of Court Administration spokesman David Bookstaver.
PN 