How the UN and its Muslim member nations are plotting to caliphate planet Earth

While searching the internet to find the document I wanted  to add as an update  to my claim that I had seen a paper "to make it possible for a delegate from the United Nations to act as interim "President" or "Prime Minister" of any country"  I found yet another ploy originating from hell United Nations on how to  bring about a one world government ruled by of course the UN itself.

The article below  is really worth reading in full.   More postings of such ploys to follow as I continue looking for that evasive document on non-elected Presidents and Prime Ministers to be supplied  from within the UN.   Notice how this particular conference had Muslims at the helm of things.  Check out the areas I have highlighted.

The article below is especially ironic at this point in time as we suffer from severe  shell shock  at  the latest whistleblower  disclosure of  what the USA's NSA  has been doing for over a decade.  

The vid below was posted in November last year.

Eli Dourado writing arstechnica:
Behindclosed doors at the UN’s attempted “takeover of the Internet”   Conflicting visions for the future of the Internet collide in Dubai.

In early December, I found myself in an odd position: touching down in Dubai with credentials to attend a 12-day closed-door meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). It's a meeting I spent the last six months trying to expose.

Though the world had been assured that WCIT would not attempt to mount a “UN takeover of the Internet,” that was in many ways what happened..........

....The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the UN agency convening the meeting, vigorously denied that the conference would have anything to do with the Internet at all. The purpose of the meeting, claimed ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré, was simply to update the treaty that governs international phone calls; it had last been revised in 1988, when most phone companies were state-owned monopolies. Claims that the conference would implicate the Internet were part of a misinformation campaign pursued by unnamed opponents of the ITU, Touré said. In any case, the ITU was just a convener of the WCIT, and actual decisions would be made by member states on a non-voting, consensus-driven basis. The ITU, it was said, had no agenda of its own......

....Soon after this, the Chairman of the conference, Mohamed Al-Ghanim, threw everything into disarray. Because it was now Day 8 and so much of the text was still in brackets.........

......Everyone grew frustrated and tired. After working long hours each day, text was beginning to trickle back up to Plenary still laden with brackets, and it was clear that consensus would be difficult, if not impossible, to reach. The US pleaded for everything to be handled in Plenary, rather than cascading down and back up through the chain of groups with little progress.



Amid this frustration, host country United Arab Emirates (UAE) dropped a bombshell. It announced that it was putting forward a new “multi-regional common proposal,” a complete rewrite of the treaty to substitute for all the bracketed text we had worked on. It had support from numerous member states. Bahrain, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Oman all expressed support for the document, which was not yet available for inspection.....

.........The document indicated that it was to be submitted jointly by Russia, UAE, China, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt. It read like a compilation of the most objectionable proposals—it would have nationalized key aspects of Internet governance, including naming and numbering (currently handled by the nongovernmental ICANN), and it created new member state obligations with respect to Internet security. Despite the ITU’s claims that WCIT was not going to be about the Internet, there we were, halfway through the conference, and the Internet was still on the table.......

........We continued to try to make the text work. At one point, US lead negotiator Richard Beaird pleaded that only one additional word—“correspondence”—was necessary to make the definition of a key term acceptable. This appeal was rejected. (The term “public correspondence” would have limited the applicability of the treaty roughly to the traditional common carriers, while “public” alone could have implicated any company providing telecommunication services to anybody.)......

......As a series of countries asked for the floor to express support for Touré’s modified resolution, Ambassador Kramer spoke on behalf of the United States, clearly signaling that the US did not support the resolution.

What followed was surreal. The Chairman calmly said that he had a long list of countries wishing to speak, and that in lieu of going through the list, he was going to take the “feel of the room” by asking countries to hold up their voting boards if they supported the resolution as amended by the Secretary-General. After also asking for those against, the Chairman said simply, “The majority is with having the resolution in.” After some applause, he added, “Thank you. Now we can go to Corrigendum 2.”.......

.........I woke up on Day 11 feeling very encouraged, despite everything. The situation was now out of our hands. Between the Internet resolution, the scope of the operators covered, and the new articles on security and spam, the United States would not sign the treaty.

Furthermore, I looked to the future. After last night’s performance, the ITU could never again deny that it had designs on the Internet, it could never again imply that those who were concerned about the possibility of a takeover of some aspects of Internet governance by nation-states were misinformed conspiracy theorists. The battle lines were now drawn, and this clarity comforted me. But would we stand alone?......

.....The United States took the floor. Ambassador Kramer announced that the US would not be signing the new treaty. He was followed by the United Kingdom. Sweden said that it would need to consult with its capital (code in UN-speak for “not signing”). Canada, Poland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Kenya, New Zealand, Costa Rica, and the Czech Republic all made similar statements before the Chairman cut the meeting short.
All told, 89 countries signed while 55 did not. .....