UN Migration Pact: Ponzi Scam

While speaking before the UN General Assembly, Germany’s Merkel made an interesting announcement:  If 2/3rds of the UN member states, totaling 193, vote for the Migration Pact, then The Pact will be adopted for ALL member states and will become legally binding.   To date, there are not nearly enough countries that have opted out.  Therefore, the only way to not be subject to the law of the Pact, would be to completely drop out of the UN.  There are only three countries that are non-members:  Vatican City, Kosovo, and Palestine.

On December 19th, the final vote will determine whether this Migration rule of law will proceed.

The legal issue is inserted because of the new definition of migration – Human Right.  Therefore, while the pact loosely states it is non-binding, in fact the rule of law would pursue a violation of Human Rights against a country that does not comply.   Brought before the International Criminal Court, the UN and its court can recommend sanctions, and demand reparations for ‘victims’.  Acting as a mega-NGO, the UN could create a class-action of migrants that were disallowed into states that refused, and order those UN member states to pay off the migrant for violating his/her Human Right to migrate.

In addition, anyone, including the media, who thereafter references ‘illegal migration’ can be charged with criminal hate speech and subject to jail and fines.

A few days ago, the Leader of the latest Mexican Caravan demanded $50,000 for every migrant that came to Tijuana and was not permitted into the US.  Currently, that would be considered extortion.  Under ICC law, the UN could impose those fees and redefine them as reparation once the Migration Pact becomes law.

The members this UN/NGO would likely target first would be those who refused to sign;  US, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Israel, Switzerland, and Slovakia.

While the Pact claims to be non-binding, the UN gives itself the power to ‘collectively manage’ migration for all countries so as to protect human rights whereby ‘illegal’ immigration no longer exists as borders are open to anyone and everyone.  While the UN claims that member states must still ‘manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner,” and to ‘increase legal certainty and predictability of migration procedures,’ they are assuring that they, the UN, have no monetary responsibility to assure that borders are orderly.  Nor will they have any financial responsibility to send immigrants to their designated country, those costs would be born by the country’s taxpayers.

Both the Pope and the UN Special Rapporteur, Felipe Morales, have stated that the US needs to buck up and take in anyone and everyone or face charges… given security should not over-shadow Human Rights.

Bottom Line:  this is classic legal double-speak which means that a country is not bound to accept immigrants, however, if they don’t, they may be subject to Criminal Human Rights Violation Charges by the ICC and subject to whatever monetary and other outcomes this court determines.

Iran – Assets confiscated by US

The US has confiscated $2billion of Iranian assets to compensate the victims or their families of terrorist attacks purportedly linked to Iran in the 1983 Marine Barracks attack in Beirut that killed 254 US servicemen, and the 1996 bombing of the Khobor Towers in Saudi Arabia.

Beirut: What happened? The barracks was unprotected given that the US servicemen were not their as military contingents, but as peacekeeping agents leaving a wide open gate and no sentries. A truck laden with 21,000lbs of TNT flattened the entire barracks and everyone inside. A formal report issued by the US indicated serious errors in judgment by officers on the ground with a military chain of command taking the heat. Reference was made to ‘jihadists’ and ‘militants’.

The problem? The group that claimed responsibility, Islamic Jihad, did not necessarily exist. While there is speculation that they were a front for Hezbollah, there is no definitive proof one way or the other. Robert Baer, former CIA, has some lucid analysis on the situation, but describes it as a mutual war of terrorism, almost a tit-for-tat, at the time between Iran and the US with Lebanon in the middle.

Khobor Towers: What happened? Nineteen people died when a truck loaded with a bomb blew up the dormitory in the Towers which housed US Air Force pilots and staff. It was ten years later that a US court and the Saudi’s decided that Iran was responsible and another nine years before the Saudi’s arrested the man they found was the mastermind, a Saudi Shiite, Mughassil, was arrested in 2015. Mughassil was a military commander of the Saudi branch of Hezbollah.

The problem? Timing. Timing is everything and the Sauds desperately hate the Iranians.

But a larger problem emerges, reparation for victims of terrorism.

The same logic that is currently being used to stifle and quash the release of documents that purportedly show the Saudi involvement in the 911 attacks – is being used against Iran. And the logic that opening that can of worms could create exponential financial repercussions on the US in various failed and successful coups that resulted in civilian “casualties” and could be classified as terrorism by courts in other countries.

It also sets up the potential for the International Criminal Court to be prescribed future cases involving terrorism and what constitutes terrorism. Current cases being judged by the ICC include war crimes in Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Central African Republic, Libya, Mali, Cote D’Ivoire, and Georgia. All cases are investigating representative governments for crimes against humanity including attacks against ‘peacekeepers’.

So how is it that the US may make an international declaration against Iran without going through the ICC?

While the ICC, based in Hague The Netherlands, pats itself on the back for its astounding work, it’s true function would seem similar to NATO or the UN. Their budget is huge, their actual productivity sparse at best. As of 2014, 12 years of operation and $1billion later, the ICC had issued exactly two convictions, both against Congolese warlords. Not exactly a legal system that makes people tremble with fear.

And then there was the award the ICC admitted to Exxon Mobile and its subsidiaries against Venezuela after Exxon-Mobil restructured its Venezuelan business under the Netherlands–Venezuela bilateral investment treaty – OUCH!   No conflict of interest there.

So, did Iran commit these crimes?   I don’t know, and maybe that isn’t really the bigger issue. The bigger issue is implicating governments of countries that think they are immune. Ukraine has filed a claim under for the Maiden protests which caused civilian massacres. There is a preliminary case against the UK for crimes against Iraqi civilians.  What about the US involvement in Ukraine?  The US involvement in Cuba?  The US involvement in Brazil?  The list is long – and the reparations could bankrupt us…

How these will play out is up for grabs, but given the ICC history, we’ll have to wait ten to twenty years before we find out.


How much money is at stake for Iran? The figures are not available but estimates range from $10 to $100 billion that the US is attempting to appropriate. I wonder if that includes interest…