Author Archives: AmLib1

Alex Newman: At UN Summit, America and Capitalism — Not CO2 — Are Enemy #1

by Alex Newman

MADRID — Throughout the United Nations COP25 “Climate” summit in Spain, America, the GOP, and President Donald Trump — not carbon dioxide or even “climate change” — were public enemy number one. Indeed, the U.S. government, the American people, their elected officials, and what remains of the free-market system that ushered in unprecedented global prosperity were all viciously and relentlessly attacked.

Globalists, communists, Islamists, socialists, environmentalists, and crackpots of all varieties dropped the mask in a carefully orchestrated show. Incredibly, even the many prominent Americans who spoke at the summit demonized their own nation and the freedom that made it so succesful. If the “climate” coalition gets its way, the consequences will be catastrophic for America, liberty, self-government, and material well-being.

Inside and outside the conference, activists funded by Big Oil, socialist governments, the Kremlin, the Rockefeller oil dynasty, and other shady sources shouted obscenities through bullhorns. “F*** Trump!” chanted a man with a bullhorn in front of about 100 “youth” and even more “journalists” from around the world. “F*** America!”

At a “Fridays for the Future” protest that began inside before heading into the street, shrieking children and “youth” screamed all sorts of Marxist talking points while putting their hands in the air — each one painted with an occult-style eye painted on it. The “young people,” terrorized and carefully managed by adults, chanted, among other things, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Occasionally, people would stand up and rant about the alleged evils of America, CO2, patriarchy, energy companies, markets, and more.

Once outside, the dozens of noisy children, made to look like an enormous march by the media, surrounded by well-spoken adults giving instructions and adoring “journalists” broadcasting the spectacle to the world, shouted “anti-capitalist, anti-capitalist” over and over again. Then they began chanting “system change, not climate change.” When asked about it, every protester said the goal was to dismantle what remains of the market system.

On the last day of the summit, “CommunismoEsVida” (Communism Is Life) was trending on Twitter in Spain as indoctrinated children on social media ranted against economic freedom.

Inside, similar rhetoric was everywhere. Infamous Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, for instance, called for an end to free market. “Capitalism is at the heart of what is driving” alleged man-made climate change, he declared at UN summit. “We’ve got to throw the system out.”

He probably felt right at home. Even the big cheese, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, is an admitted socialist. Before taking the reins at the UN, he led the Socialist International, the world’s most powerful alliance of Socialist and Marxist political parties, many with the blood of countless innocents on their hands.

Among the significant demands was that the U.S. government hand over climate “reparations” under the guise of “loss and damage.” Hundreds of “youth” activists — many funded by the very governments and companies they were “protesting” against — demanded that America fork over the money. In short, poor and middle-class American taxpayers would end up paying Third World kleptocrats for supposedly causing bad weather, forest fires, and other natural disasters. Seriously. The UN now claims America cannot avoid paying up.

Adults speaking at the summit sounded similar. On one of the most prominent platforms in the entire UN summit, radical population-control advocate Stuart Scott with the group “Scientists Warning” blasted the United States as the “the kleptocratic States of America.” Speaking of President Trump, he went even further. “This man is a threat to the planet, as is his corporate owned Republican Party, who have been bought by the fossil fuel industry and other polluting industries,” argued Scott.

The idea that American officials and the voters who elect them represent a mortal danger to the planet has been a common theme for weeks. Prominent professor of international relations Ole Wæver at the University of Copenhagen even suggested that the UN Security Council could decide that “climate change” is a “threat to international peace and security,” thereby sending in UN “peacekeeping” troops to enforce its climate mandates at the barrel of a gun.

Scott, who told The New American in an interview that reducing the population of the planet was urgent, continued to spew hatred against Trump while sitting on the UN stage. “They have together done a huge disservice to humanity and all of life on Earth,” he said about Trump and Republicans. “They’ve done all this for the sake of money. Make no mistake: Trump has got a particular personality aberration.”

“The callousness of this man is astonishing and revolting,” Scott continued, blasting Trump’s “amazing depravity.” Not a single pro-Trump or pro-GOP speaker was allowed on stage to offer an alternate perspective.

Sharing the stage with him was Dan Galpren, an attorney and legal advisor to leading climate alarmist James Hansen. “The derangement goes well further than Trump,” he told the UN summit, adding that the entire Republican Party was deranged, as well. Even though the American people who voted for those elected officials pay more for the UN than anybody on the planet, nobody challenged the narrative in an official capacity throughout the entire two-week summit.

For some reason, Scott then shared some teenage gossip he heard about Trump during his childhood. “I grew up a couple miles away from where Donald Trump grew up,” he said. “And the story in the hood — the neighborhood — was that he got kicked out of a couple schools locally, and so his parents put him in a military academy where they tolerated him as long as his parents paid. And his initials became the acronym for serving detention at the military academy.”

He also claimed that by getting the U.S. government out of the UN Paris agreement, Trump was “not trying to protect the American people, that’s very clear.” Using nasty foul language to demonize Trump, Scott said the president was a reality TV star, “you will recall, who could create his own reality on his programs.” “This man somehow cheated, lied, hoodwinked the public into becoming president of the United States,” Scott said, claiming the GOP had rigged the election through “a lot of gerrymandering the districts to help make that possible.”

Christians, of course, say, “What Would Jesus Do?” when considering actions. Scott, though, concluded his highly controversial remarks by asking, “What would Greta do?” It fit perfectly with the words by Trump’s former climate advisor, Dr. William Happer of Princeton, who spoke at a separate non-UN summit in Madrid and accused the man-made warming crowd of being a “bizarre cult” that would do enormous damage if not stopped.

Other major speakers at the UN summit called for massive depopulation of America and Europe in order to stop “climate change,” while others said reducing the number of Africans and Asians should be a top priority.

Former Secretary of State John Kerry, an uber-wealthy former politician who also spoke from one of the most prominent stages at the UN summit, declared that he was ashamed to be American. “I assume the burden unfortunately of a country that is the largest naysayer of all,” he told throngs of officials, journalists, and activists from around the world. “And I’m sorry for that. I regret it enormously. Only the United States of America has a head of government who calls climate change a Chinese hoax.”

Kerry also took some time to lie, multiple times, about various issues ranging from diesel particulate to the supposed “science” underpinning the man-made-warming hypothesis. He claimed solar power, “now absolutely, under any standard by whatever you measure, is cheaper than coal, no question about it.” If that were true, everybody would be using solar power, of course.

Currently serving American officials who spoke at the summit were also extremists opposed to fundamental American values. Speaking on a panel called “Subnational strategies in North America for meeting Paris Commitments,” for instance, Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes called on the world to “stymie capitalism.” All of the other U.S. and Canadian officials were similarly left-wing extremists.

Indeed, despite constant shrieking about “this is what democracy looks like,” there was literally no representation for conservative Americans or Republicans anywhere at the summit. Not a single conservative, pro-America speaker could be found among the 25,000 attendees. There was just a tiny handful of American patriots who reject the man-made global-warming hypothesis even allowed in the conference, and none of them were given a platform to speak.

Prestigious U.S. scientists who reject the man-made-warming narrative were also denied a platform to share their views or express their concerns. Instead, a coalition of “skeptic” and “realist” scientists and experts such as Princeton physicist Dr. Happer, who served on Trump’s National Security Council, had to gather elsewhere in Madrid to present their views. Out of thousands of journalists from around the world, just a tiny handful showed up at the Climate Reality Conference they hosted.

The United States, along with a handful of other nations with governments that did not bow down to the “climate-emergency” agenda, consistently faced demonization by powerful activists inside, too. The “Climate Action Network,” for example, repeatedly gave the U.S. government the “Fossil of the Day Award” for being the “best at being the worst.” Even Canadian government officials in the audience cheered it on.

In the spectacles, funded by the Kremlin and the Rockefeller oil dynasty, trophies were handed out to activists pretending to be Donald Trump, who would stand up and make America look evil, greedy, and ridiculous. There were many supposed reasons for America being the worst country in the world: Not handing over enough money, not slashing CO2 emissions quickly enough, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, sending delegates to represent U.S. interests despite being in the withdrawal process, and more.

Despite all the hatred, the U.S. delegation hardly rocked the boat in a serious way. “The United States continues to lead on clean, affordable, and secure energy while reducing all types of emissions ― including greenhouse gases ― over the last 15 years,” said U.S. Ambassador Marcia Bernicat, who headed the U.S. delegation. “Our model shows how innovation and open markets lead to greater prosperity, fewer emissions, and more secure sources of energy.”

After saying this COP25 would be the last one where the U.S. government would be a party to the UN Paris Agreement, she vowed that Washington, D.C., would remain involved. “We remain fully committed to working with you, our global partners, to enhance resilience, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Ambassador Bernicat said during the three-minute time allotted to the U.S. government.

In conversations with The New American, U.S. State Department officials said the reason 50 American delegates were required was to “represent U.S. interests” while the federal government remained involved in the Paris Agreement officially until next year. Depending on who one talked to though, it was not clear whether the U.S. delegation was advancing or slowing down “progress” on the UN’s controversial “climate” agenda.

“The United States is proud of its record as a world leader in reducing emissions, driving economic growth, and fostering resilience at home and abroad,” a State Department spokesman told The New American. “The United States will continue to be a leader in assisting our partners to reduce emissions, protect natural resources, increase resilience, and respond to natural disasters.”

With U.S. officials perpetuating the narrative that CO2 is pollution, despite Trump having called the theory a “hoax” to benefit Communist China, all the rage might seem hard to understand. But at least one heavyweight on the side of climate realism suggested the hatred against America had to do with the U.S. government’s lack of cooperation.

“Why is the UN having a hard time advancing the global warming ball?” asked Craig Rucker, president of the free market-oriented environmental group known as CFACT. “One name — Donald J. Trump and his plans to pull America out of the Paris Climate Accord. It’s no fun making spending plans when you can’t leach off the world’s biggest economy.”

“What is actually happening at this year’s UN climate talks is a wait-and-see game geared toward next November’s American election,” he continued. “After watching Britain give the Tory party its biggest victory since Thatcher during the talks, and moves now afoot to pull Britain out of the E.U. once and for all, government by global bureaucracy is under threat. The UN is plenty scared.”

Of course, if CO2 were the real enemy, the UN summit would have been praising America non-stop, as the nation’s emissions of the essential gas continue to plummet. Instead of America being demonized, the “climate justice” warriors would have targeted Communist China, which is far and away the world’s largest emitter of CO2. And yet, not only was the murderous regime in Beijing not criticized; increasingly, it has been painted as the savior of multilateral “climate solutions.”

With the raw hatred against America and freedom that was on display throughout the COP25, it should be beyond clear to Congress that not one more American cent should be used to fund this absurdity known as the UN. Instead, though, Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to keep America shackled to the UN’s “climate” regime at all costs. The American voter is now the only significant human force holding back planetary disaster in the form of a UN “climate” regime. The next election will be crucial.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34356-at-un-summit-america-capitalism-not-co2-are-enemy-1


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Pamela Geller: The Ground Zero Mosque Project Is Back

by Pamela Geller

Lest we forget, the building of the intended “Islamic center” was destroyed in the 911 Islamic attacks. Human remains were found on the site. 9/11 families were joined by immigrants from India, Russia, Egypt, Israel, Africa, Iran and Europe to show opposition to the construction of a mega-mosque at our protest at Ground Zero. Others flew in from overseas to speak or just to share their particular ethnic communities’ experiences at the hands of moslems.

The news was buried under two dense paragraphs and five large photos in an article in New York YIMBY about a different project: “Construction has also yet to begin on 51 Park Place, which is slated to become a 71-foot-tall, 16,000-square-foot Islamic cultural center.”  The infamous Ground Zero Mosque project, a long buried effort to build a triumphal mosque at the site of the worst jihad terror attack in American history, is back.

Construction has yet to begin, but it will: the shady developer behind the Ground Zero Mosque scheme, Sharif El-Gamal, has been working to build this sinister structure for years.

We defeated the Ground Zero Mosque project once before.  The 16-story mosque that El-Gamal initially planned to build there has not been built.  Our efforts in showing what an insult it was to the American people and to the victims of 9/11, and how many Muslims worldwide would inevitably view it as a triumphal mosque built on the site of a jihad attack, defeated it.  Tens of thousands of people came out for our rallies in lower Manhattan against this celebration of this 9/11 attacks, and El-Gamal was beaten in the court of public opinion.

It was a long battle.  President Obama announced his support for the mosque at an Iftar dinner, no less.  Then-mayor of New York City and current presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg supported the mosque as well, claiming hysterically that “if we don’t build it, the terrorists will win!”  The media actively campaigned for it — the elites in their increasingly fragile ivory towers relentlessly stumped for the Cordoba mosque (euphemistically called an Islamic center with a prayer space) for years.

And yet despite all this opposition and much more, the people stood up and fought the Ground Zero Mosque and won.  An army of Davids.

But that wasn’t the end of the story.  Crains New York reported on El-Gamal’s new project in 2015 in a story that demonstrated how the developer was hoping to sneak his triumphal mosque into existence: “Mr. El-Gamal’s Soho Properties has proposed a 667-foot condominium tower at lower Manhattan’s 45 Park Place.  The glass skyscraper, which has yet to break ground, will include at least 15 full-floor units of 3,200 to 3,700 square feet, and average prices higher than $3,000 a square foot, according to plans released to Bloomberg by the developer.”

That sounded normal enough.  But then the article added: “Adjacent to the tower, Soho Properties will build a public plaza connected to a three-story Islamic museum and prayer space.”  An Islamic prayer space is a mosque.  The article also said: “An Islamic museum ‘is just as much of an insult,’ Pamela Geller, a blogger and one of the center’s most vocal opponents, wrote in an email.  ‘It will be like having a museum touting the glories of the Japanese Empire at Pearl Harbor.’”

I think an Islamic museum at Ground Zero dedicated to the half-billion victims of jihadi wars, land appropriations, sharia, cultural annihilations, enslavements, and sharia enforcement is an excellent idea, but is that what Sharif El-Gamal had in mind?  Of course not.  And how did El-Gamal plan to finance this?  The answer was predictable.  The New York Post reported in May 2016 that “the developer of the failed Ground Zero Mosque has nailed down ‘Sharia-compliant financing’ for a new, luxury condominium tower and Islamic cultural museum on the same site, he and his banking partners said.”

Then in May 2017, the New York Times ran a story entitled “Condo Tower to Rise Where Muslim Community Center Was Proposed.”  The Times said that “45 Park Place, a 43-story condominium that will soon rise three blocks from the World Trade Center,” was “something of a consolation prize for the developer,” as it “replaces the developer’s 2010 plan to build a 15-story Islamic mosque and cultural center on this site, an idea that erupted into a national controversy and cable news network bonanza.”

In the last couple of years, there has been virtually no news about this “Islamic museum.”  But the New York YIMBY story shows that the project has been advancing under cover of darkness.  A 71-foot-tall structure is three stories high, as in the revised plans announced in 2015.

El-Gamal has many friends and allies among New York City’s political and media elites.  It is likely that de Blasio city officials and the New York Times and other city papers all met with El-Gamal and agreed to keep the reporting on this project to an absolute minimum, so that it could get built without incurring the righteous anger of the public again.  The first time around, they courted publicity and tried to make El-Gamal a hero.  We demolished that and destroyed their plans.  So now they’ve clearly decided to go ahead surreptitiously.

It is disgusting that El-Gamal continues to taunt Americans and poke at America’s most egregious recent memory.  El-Gamal was there when we had tens of thousands in the streets opposing his Ground Zero mosque.  He knows how angry and upset people get at these Islamic structures on the site of jihad war.  The 9/11 Muslim terrorists extolled Allah no fewer than 90 times in their last letters.  Will those letters be on display at this Islamic cultural center/museum?

There is an important lesson to be learned here — and one we would be wise to adopt.  They never stop.  No matter how absolutely they lose, how many setbacks they suffer, they keep on pursuing their supremacist goals.

The Ground Zero Mosque project was and is a middle finger to the American people.  There has never been a mosque of reconciliation and healing built on the site of a jihadi attack.  Ever.  It is, on the other hand, an Islamic pattern to build triumphal mosques on the cherished sites of conquered lands.  History is riddled with triumphal mosques built on the sites of jihad attacks or appropriated from other religions: the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, and innumerable mosques built on the sites of Hindu temples that were demolished by Muslims all attest to that.

And now it looks as if Sharif El-Gamal is going to be able to build his own triumphal mosque at Ground Zero after all.

GR: https://gellerreport.com/2019/12/gzm-back.html/


Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and publisher of The Geller Report and President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of Fatwa: Hunted in America (foreword by Geert Wilders) (Dangerous Books), The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton) (Simon & Schuster) and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (WND Books). She is also a regular columnist for numerous publications.

E.W. Jackson & Jerome Corsi: The Impeachment Show Trial

by E.W. Jackson & Jerome Corsi

Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler set a very dangerous precedent when they refused to conduct impeachment hearings according to constitutional due process standards. Democrats are so desperate for power that they would overturn the election of a President of the United States based on their biased and partisan interpretation of his telephone conversation with a foreign leader.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was initially reluctant to risk the electoral backlash of impeachment. She finally bowed to far-left pressure, ignoring the President’s astounding economic and foreign policy successes. Her worst nightmare is coming true — rising approval for President Trump and rising disapproval for the Democrat Party and their presidential candidates.

This is because the impeachment process we are witnessing is decidedly un-American. Using secretive, totalitarian-style, one-party interrogations is not due process and is unworthy of a constitutional republic.

Democrats ignored the constitutional standard for impeachment to remove a president:  “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  No unbiased  adjudicator could conclude that President Trump’s telephone discussion with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is an impeachable offense. Far from a “high crime,” the President was carrying out his duty to the people of the United States. He was guarding our treasure and protecting our national integrity. Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt nations in the world, and he was right to request an investigation. If taxpayer funded aide was used as leverage to enrich the former vice president’s son, the American people should know.

Instead of thanking the President for his diligence, Democrats in Congress had the temerity to accuse him of committing an “abuse of power.” The Executive Branch of the United States government is separate and co-equal. George Washington University law professor and constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley told the House Judiciary Committee that it would be Congress abusing power if they try to stop the President from exercising his constitutional prerogatives. Schiff, Nader and Pelosi ignored that unbiased counsel.

They have chosen instead to drag the country through an impeachment process while trampling the constitutional and due process rights of a sitting President. If they ignore his rights, why would they respect those of the average citizen?

Due process rules are not reserved to criminal trials alone. They are essentially the same in regulatory and administrative hearings. Those rules reach even to private entities operating under “color of law.” To suggest that a proceeding as grave as a presidential impeachment need not follow the same basic procedural rules of fairness is ludicrous on its face.

Hearsay is excluded from evidence in court proceedings because it is notoriously unreliable. Yet Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor were called before the House Intelligence Committee with great pomp and ceremony to offer only hearsay. Defendants always have a right to confront their accusers, yet the “whistleblower” remains an anonymous figure.

Adam Schiff went beyond hearsay to outright falsehood. Speaking on the floor of Congress, he reported that President Trump said to President Zelensky, “I want you to dig up dirt on my opponent and lots of it.” The President said nothing of the kind. Schiff later claimed it was a parody.”  This is the same Adam Schiff who said he had incontrovertible evidence that President Trump colluded with Russia. The only conclusion supported by evidence is that Adam Schiff is a pathological liar.

Democrats also violated the principle that the accused has a right to a vigorous defense. The earliest hearings were closed to Republicans. Information from those inquiries was selectively leaked to the press. Depositions were taken in secret. Rep. Andy Biggs, Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, compared the sessions to Soviet secret hearings. He proposed a resolution on the House floor to condemn and censure Schiff, but of course House Democrats tabled the proposal.

Long gone is the Democratic Party of President John F. Kennedy, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Senators Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn. It is now a party of hardcore leftists, more aligned with Karl Marx than Thomas Jefferson. They are now completely driven by extreme leftist ideology.  Lacking evidence that President Trump committed any crime or even did anything morally wrong, they recklessly passed articles of impeachment, with no regard to the great damage they are doing to our Republic. The Democratic Party once had statesmen, but it is now the refuge of demagogues.

Their Stalinist impeachment show trial demonstrated gross disrespect for our elections and the peaceful transition of power. This has been nothing less than an attempted coup d’etat, but these de facto communist revolutionaries will face the wrath of the American voter. Tuesday, November 3, 2020 will be a day of reckoning.

AT: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/the_impeachment_show_trial.html


Bishop E.W. Jackson, retired attorney and Dr. Jerome Corsi, author and journalist are members of the STAND Against Communism Political Action Committee. www.standagainstcommunism.com

 

Wayne Allyn Root: Trump Clone Boris Johnson’s UK Landslide a Preview of 2020

by Wayne Allyn Root

There was a huge development in the world of politics this week. And it wasn’t impeachment. Boris Johnson, a clone of President Donald Trump, and his Conservative Party, the Republicans of Britain, won in a landslide of epic proportions.

This is our canary in the coal mine. It’s a surefire preview of what’s to come in America next November.

I’ve been busy predicting a Johnson landslide in the United Kingdom on my national radio and TV shows for weeks. How did I know? Because U.K. liberals are clones of the loony, radical, America-hating socialists dominating the Democratic Party in the United States.

Britain often represents a look ahead to America’s future. Back in 1979, Margaret Thatcher was elected British prime minister. Next came Ronald Reagan in the United States. Back in 2016, Brexit passed against all odds. Then came Trump’s huge upset. Now conservatives have won a stunning landslide in the United Kingdom. Next up is Trump’s reelection.

Trump campaigned on a simple message to middle-class Americans: “Make America Great Again.” Johnson campaigned on a simple message aimed at the U.K. middle class: “Get Brexit Done.” And, of course, Johnson is known for his wild, Trump-like personality and his penchant for saying offensive things. Obviously, it works — even an ocean away.

But the real lesson is that middle-class people don’t want socialism or big government. Look at what Jeremy Corbyn and his Labour Party were trying to sell to the British people. See if it sounds familiar: the largest government expansion in history, with spending increases of more than 80 billion pounds annually; the demonization of the rich; the nationalization of water, the railroad, buses, mail and broadband companies — because, of course, government can do it better than the private sector; dramatically higher corporate taxes; and dramatically higher oil and gas taxes.

Other parts of the platform included much higher spending on the country’s failing government-run health care system; a new tax on the superrich; higher inheritance taxes; a new tax on second homes; a new financial transactions tax on stock trading; open borders; promises of free stuff for everyone — free broadband internet, free shelter for the homeless; forcing landlords to sell homes to tenants at a “fair” price determined by government; massive spending on a U.K. version of the Green New Deal to combat climate change; and an end to Brexit — even though this is what the people voted for.

Sound familiar?

One more thing radical leftist Labour members had in common with today’s Democrats: The Hollywood actors and elitist intellectuals of the United Kingdom all supported Labour and called conservative voters dumb and racist.

Not surprisingly, the British people destroyed Labour and handed Johnson a smashing victory. Working-class Brits abandoned Labour in droves. Conservatives won a key seat that Labour had held for almost 70 years. It was the biggest landslide since Thatcher in 1983. Conservatives dominate Parliament.

Europe’s newspapers called it “an earthquake.” Britain’s currency, the pound, hit the highest level since May 2018 because investors celebrated the Trump-like future of the U.K. economy.

Just like in America, U.K. liberals and young people on social media are in shock — disgusted, angry and frothing at the mouth.

Trust me, it’s all about to happen in the United States. The American people despise what Democrats are offering. A Trump landslide is coming.

TH: https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2019/12/15/trump-clone-boris-johnsons-uk-landslide-a-preview-of-2020-n2558018


Wayne Allyn Root is a CEO, entrepreneur, best-selling author, nationally syndicated talk show host on USA Radio Network and the host of “The Wayne Allyn Root Show” on Newsmax TV nightly at 8 p.m. ET.

William F. Jasper: Socialists Stop Spread of Success

by William F. Jasper

The United Nations and the Socialist International are waging war against Chile and its conservative president, Sebastián Piñera. Since mid-October, Chile’s capital, Santiago, and other cities across the country have been wracked by violent riots, with dozens of people killed, thousands injured (including hundreds of police and military personnel), thousands arrested, and an enormous amount of destruction of public infrastructure and private property, including train stations, businesses, shops, and supermarkets.

The Piñera government declared a state of emergency and imposed curfews. President Piñera faces a National Congress that is stacked against him, as well as a hostile media, and leftist-controlled universities that serve as hotbeds for revolution.

The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, has responded to the turmoil by sending a team of UN investigators to Chile to examine allegations of human rights abuse by the Chilean government. This move by the UN should have caused suspicion from the get-go. Why? Well, for one thing, Michelle Bachelet is herself a former president of Chile (two terms, 2006-2010 and 2014-2018) and a virulent opponent of President Piñera. That alone should lead any reasonable observer to suspect, at the very least, that her UN “investigation” is likely to be politically motivated.

However, it goes much deeper than that. Bachelet, a hardcore Marxist, is an ardent admirer of the late communist dictator Fidel Castro, and, as one of her last acts as president of Chile, made a pilgrimage to Cuba to praise Fidel and meet with his designated successor and brother, Raúl Castro, the current communist dictator of Cuba. She is also a supporter of the Marxist regimes in Nicaragua and Venezuela.

In the 1970s, Bachelet left Chile and moved to communist East Germany, then one of the most oppressive dictatorships in the Soviet bloc. Moreover, Bachelet is a longtime member of, and was elected president while the leader of, Chile’s ultra-left Socialist Party, which is a member of the Socialist International, the global cabal of more than 135 national political parties from all continents, including former communist parties that have rebranded themselves as socialist or social democrat.  The secretary-general of the Socialist International is Luis Ayala, a radical Chilean who is a close comrade of Bachelet in the Socialist Party. Bachelet was selected for the UN high commissioner post by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, a former president of the Socialist International. Although barely known in the United States (because it is seldom mentioned by our controlled “mainstream” media — and is even largely ignored by our alternative media), the Socialist International (SI) virtually runs the United Nations and many of its agencies, with Guterres being only the most obvious example of its influence.

Another SI/UN alum is former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, a former member of Chile’s Socialist Party and one of the Chileans often quoted in recent stories undermining President Piñera. He is also one of the few SI members named to the “Committee of Twelve Distinguished Members of the Socialist International.” In 2007, he was named as a UN special envoy on climate change, along with former SI vice president and UN functionary Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway.

Bachelet, Guterres, Lagos, Brundtland, and other SI/UN comrades are welcomed as honored guests at the CFR and other globalist gatherings. Bachelet and Lagos are both members of the elite Club of Madrid, as well as Inter-American Dialogue, where both have served as co-chairs.

The cause of Chile’s current “unrest,” according to the lords of the Fake News Media, was the government’s subway fare hike of 30 pesos, the equivalent of four U.S. cents. Anger over the fare increases, goes the standard line from media commentators, caused spontaneous, “student-led” flash mobs of hundreds of youths to jump the Metro turnstiles in protest, which then escalated to “youth-led” mobs setting buses and Metro stations on fire and looting stores, and then escalated still further and broadened into massive protests, supposedly motivated by “income inequality.”

This is the story we get from the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, CNN, PBS, and the rest of the Deep State media cartel. Most of these “news” reports take their cues on the issue from so-called experts at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council of the Americas, Inter-American Dialogue, and similar globalist propaganda founts that posture as objective think tanks.

According to Amelia Cheatham, a “Special Assistant” at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), “The turmoil began on October 18 with student-led protests over a metro fare increase.” Her CFR blog post entitled “What’s Behind the Chile Protests?” states that “Political unrest is sweeping Chile, as impatience with inequality grows in what has been one of Latin America’s most prosperous and stable countries.”

President Piñera and other Latin American leaders paint a different picture. “We are at war against a powerful enemy, who is willing to use violence without any limits,” Piñera declared in a late-night televised statement on October 29. “We are very aware that [the perpetrators of riots] have a degree of organization, logistics, typical of a criminal organization,” he said. According to news reports from Chile, Cuban and Venezuelan nationals were arrested as instigators of the rioting. And Chile is not alone in this regard.

On October 22, Argentina’s National Security Council met to consider the wave of violent protest that is sweeping across Latin America. Following the meeting, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie pointed to Cuba and the Marxist dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela as the source of the orchestrated upheavals. “They intend to intervene in the political, institutional and social lives of our countries, threatening us like a Bolivarian hurricane that brings in its winds hunger, poverty, dictatorship, the loss of liberty and a prison sentence,” Faurie charged. “Bolivarian” refers to the political philosophy of Venezuela’s founding father, Simón Bolívar, which has been expropriated and hybridized by Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro, and others of the communist-Left to advance their socialist agendas.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/34153-socialists-stop-spread-of-success


William F. Jasper is an American journalist and author, and a senior editor of The New American, and long-time member of the John Birch Society.

Matt O’Brien: Foreign Criminals Are Victims: Welcome to the New Way Forward

by Matt O’Brien

Democrats in the House of Representatives have proposed a new immigration bill called the New Way Forward Act. Although touted by the Sacramento Bee as, “[restoring] due process protections for all immigrants, including those in deportation proceedings, the bill does nothing of the sort. If enacted, what it would actually do is destroy the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and remove all distinctions between U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants, and illegal aliens.

Among the New Way Forward Act’s provisions are the following radical departures from current legal norms:
• End mandatory detention of aggravated felons.
• Exempt drug traffickers from deportation.
• Place a five-year statute of limitations on all deportations.
• Grant all foreign immigration violators a right to release from detention on bail.

As an example of the alien criminals who would benefit from the New Way Forward Act, the Sacramento Bee points to Cuong Nguyen. Nguyen came to the U.S. as a refugee at age 11. However, when he was a grown man, he knowingly transported illegal drugs to pay off a debt owed by his father.

Nguyen was arrested, convicted and served 24 months in prison. INA § 101(a)(43)(B) explicitly states that illicit trafficking of a controlled substance is a deportable offense. Therefore Nguyen’s conviction rendered him subject to removal from the United States and ineligible for any relief.

According to New Way Forward Act sponsor Ayanna Pressley, that’s evidence of “racial and anti-immigrant injustices embedded in our immigration laws.” And that’s why, in her opinion, we need her bill.

But it should be obvious that it’s actually Pressley and her ilk who are being racist. Their approach to immigration law presumes that all non-European immigrants, no matter how long they have been in the United States, are hapless victims, forced into a life of crime by a racist system. It’s an example of what Bush ’43 speechwriter Michael Gerson labeled the “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Bizarrely, Pressley and her cohort make the “hapless victim” argument while simultaneously claiming that immigrants are essential to the U.S. because they are more entrepreneurial than native-born Americans. But that’s a prime example of cognitive dissonance in action. One can be a hapless victim, or one can be an intelligent individual in control of one’s own destiny. It’s impossible to be both.

People who care about the rule of law in the United States cannot afford to succumb to emotional caricatures that portray immigrants like two-dimensional characters in made-for-TV movies. The most just approach we can take is to hold immigrants to the same standards as we hold ourselves. In fact, one of the reasons immigrants want to come here is because we have a free and fair legal system.

So instead of asking how we can give foreign felons a greater chance to remain in the U.S., we should begin asking more important questions: Why do legislators like Ayanna Pressley balk at the notion of holding immigrants to the baseline requirements of our society – like holding down a job, supporting one’s children, and staying out of trouble with the law? And why do they exalt foreigners, even those who fail to live up to those baseline requirements, even as they deride honest, hard-working Americans as “racists” for simply expecting foreign guests to obey American laws?

In reality, the best way forward is to stop infantilizing immigrants and demonizing Americans. In a world inhabited by people, not cartoons, it isn’t remotely unfair to expect adults – immigrant or citizen – to accept responsibility when they commit serious crimes.

IR: https://www.immigrationreform.com/2019/12/20/illegal-aliens-crime-congress-sanctuary-immigrationreform-com/


Matt O’Brien joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2016. Matt is responsible for managing FAIR’s research activities. He also writes content for FAIR’s website and publications. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in French from the Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Maine School of Law.

David Horowitz: Anatomy of a Lynching/The political uses of race.

by David Horowitz

Editor/Writer’s note: Anti-white racism and generalized ignorance so permeate our media elites and elected officials today that some common sense reminders are in order. Lynching – named after a Judge Lynch – was a form of Alice-in-Wonderland Frontier Justice: first comes the verdict and the punishment, then the trial.

Although a repugnant racial dimension eventually entered into its practice it was carried out against criminals — white as well as black — whose victims lynch mobs feared would not get justice in the courts. One third of all lynch victims were white. Impatience with due process is endemic to the progressive Left, the #MeToo mobs, the Destroy-Brett-Kavanaugh-Feminists and the Remove-President-Trump-Democrats. Why hold Star Chamber impeachment “inquiries” where the president has no rights if their purpose is really to inquire rather than what it obviously is — to convict and punish?
Below we are reprinting a Frontpage article by David Horowitz about how he learned the truth about the most famous lynching of all, and discovered what its real political agendas were. We are also linking a talk he gave on “progressive racism” which is in effect the lynching mentality of our time.

According to President Obama racism is “part of the DNA” of America, transmitted through the generations from its origins right to the present.  This statement is perhaps the most malicious libel ever uttered by an American president against his own country. It is true that racism became one of the rationales for slavery, an institution America inherited from the British Empire before abolishing it. But slavery existed in Africa for a thousand years before a white person ever set foot there, and for 3,000 years in all societies. It is what peoples of all races and ethnicities imposed on their enemies when they conquered them. Moreover, for 3,000 years no one declared slavery to be immoral – not Aristotle, not Moses, not Jesus, not the African slavers – until white Protestant Christians in England did so towards the end of the 18th Century. At that time, in Britain’s North American colonies a white slave owner named Thomas Jefferson wrote into the birth certificate of a new nation the proposition that liberty is a God-given right, which government cannot take away – and equality too. Within little more than a generation, and at the cost of 350,000 Union lives, slavery was abolished in America, and then rapidly throughout the Western hemisphere.

In other words, every black person alive in this country today owes his or her freedom to America – to the Americans who conceived this nation in liberty and gave their lives to make it so. That is the true DNA of America: liberty, not racism. An unappreciated effect of Obama’s libel is to persuade large numbers of black Americans that it is true, and thus to alienate them from their own country and make them feel like outsiders in a land whose heritage they are a part of. Black people are as American as any race or ethnicity who came or were brought to these shores. They arrived in 1619, before the Mayflower and have been an essential part of America’s culture and history ever since.

Sometimes it takes years to ingest so crucial a fact. Sometimes, even a lifetime is insufficient as President Obama has shown. Even then, the knowledge can be lost through the ignorance or prejudice of the next generations. In the 1960s radicals rallied around the slogan, “You can’t trust anyone over 30,” which was an expression of youthful arrogance and poor judgment. Because youth lack real world experience, the slogan “Be cautious about the conclusions of anyone under 30” would have been a more reasonable counsel.

When I was eleven years old, a book came into our progressive household titled We Charge Genocide. It was published by an organization calling itself the Civil Rights Congress and was a book-length petition calling on the United Nations to condemn the United States for conducting genocide against American Negroes (as they were then referred to). The frontispiece to the book featured a photograph of a lynching that took place in Indiana in August 1930. It was, in fact, the most famous photograph of a lynching, one that was the direct inspiration for Strange Fruit, Billie Holliday’s elegy for the victims. The photograph shows two black men hanging from the limbs of a tree surrounded by a crowd of whites. One man facing the camera points at the hanging bodies with a ghoulish grin.  Everybody who has seen any picture of a lynching has probably seen this photograph.

The image is horrifying but it took me more than 10 years before I had read enough to understand that lynching was actually not devised for black people. To be sure, as practiced, there was a racial dimension to lynching, and an evil one.  But in its origins lynching had no racial dimension. It was just frontier justice – “Let’s not waste time with trials and get on with the punishment.” In the course of my reading I also learned that a third of all known lynching victims – more than a thousand – were white. This tells us two important things: First, that lynching wasn’t just a practice against black people, and second that the victims were punished because they had allegedly committed crimes worthy of hanging. In other words, most lynchings were not about mobs of white racists grabbing black people and stringing them up because of their skin color. They were extra-judicial hangings to punish people for serious crimes of which they had been accused. This is not to say that racial prejudice was not an important factor, as evident in the fact that two-thirds of the lynching victims were black. There were probably prejudicial aspects to the cases where whites were targeted as well, though less obvious and fewer. That is why we provide due process to all as a constitutional right. In any case, the photograph of one lynching or many is not evidence of genocide.

The two men hanged in the famous photograph in We Charge Genocide were named Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith. A third man with them, James Cameron, who was sixteen and also black was not lynched. The three had been arrested, after being accused of murdering a young white factory worker and raping his girlfriend. A mob 2,000 strong had broken into the jail where they were being held, and taken the three men out, and then hanged Shipp and Smith from the tree.
I learned these facts by accident nearly fifty years after I first saw the photograph. I had tuned into a National Public Radio program on which James Cameron, who was then an old man, was being interviewed about what had taken place. According to Cameron, Shipp and Smith had actually committed the murder they were accused of. As for the rape, the white woman who was the alleged victim said afterwards that she had not been raped. So the rape charge was spurious. But the murder charge was not. This does not make the lynching right, but it does call into question whether there was a racial dimension to this incident after all.

Why didn’t the lynch mob hang James Cameron, who was also black and who was accused of the same crime? The answer is that Cameron claimed he didn’t want to participate in the robbery and murder, and stayed in the car. It is possible that he would have been hanged by the lynch mob anyway but the reason he wasn’t was this:  A member of the lynch mob, a white man, stood up for him and affirmed his innocence. Afterwards, Cameron was tried in court and convicted of being an accessory to the crime before the fact. He served four years in prison, and then spent the rest of his life fighting for civil rights, founding three chapters of the NAACP in Indiana. In 1991, the State of Indiana pardoned him. One can find all this out on Wikipedia, if one just looks up “Marion Indiana lynching.”

We Charge Genocide featured the photograph of this lynching as a symbol of America’s racism – of its genocidal white racism. But once the facts are known, this claim is shown to be an unscrupulous misrepresentation of a troubled but more complicated reality. Other facts complicate it more. The genocide petition was presented to the U.N. in December 1951. But at this time a great civil rights revolution in America had already begun, in large part because Americans had just defeated an enemy dedicated to the idea of a “master race.” The conscience of a nation had been awakened, and racial barriers had begun to fall. In 1947 the military was integrated along with the civil service, and Jackie Robinson became the first black athlete allowed to participate in America’s national sport. It was only a couple of years before Brown v. Board of Education integrated the nation’s school systems, and only a few more before segregation and racial discrimination were banned by the Civil Rights Acts.

So why the charge of genocide – a campaign to exterminate an entire people – since it is obviously a malicious libel? It took me 40 years to put together all the facts to arrive at the answer: The Civil Rights Congress, the organization responsible for the petition, was a Communist Party front, and thus the genocide campaign was designed by people who wanted to create a “Soviet America” and help Russia – America’s mortal enemy – to win the Cold War. The extent of Moscow’s control of the American Communist Party was something that the world only learned as a result of the opening of the Soviet archives after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

At the same time the We Charge Genocide petition was being put together, Moscow was conducting a series of arrests in its East European satellites, followed by purge trials and executions many of whose targets were Jews. In Czechoslovakia these purges climaxed in a show trial of the top leaders of the Czech Communist Party who were accused of being part of a “Trotskyite-Titoite-Zionist conspiracy.” Of the thirteen Czech leaders hanged, eleven were Jews, which prompted an international outcry in which the Kremlin was accused of anti-Semitism, a charge it was desperate to counteract. In other words, the “We Charge Genocide” campaign was not about black Americans at all. It was about using blacks as a battering ram against the United States as part of a Kremlin effort to neutralize the bad publicity Moscow was getting for its purges of Jews in Eastern Europe, which then spread to the Soviet Union itself.

The use of blacks as a battering ram against opponents of the left is a progressive tradition that lives on today in the Democratic Party, and the latest version of the Civil Rights Congress is the heavily funded organization called Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter is officially endorsed by the Democratic Party and Democratic funders like George Soros have raised tens of millions of dollars to create a professional army to support its divisive mission. A month before the 2016 elections 100 of Black Lives Matter activists gathered at the University of California Irvine to attack the Los Angeles police department with this chant: “LAPD what you say? How many people have you killed today? LAPD you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide.”

The protest was one of hundreds in the last couple of years conducted across the nation to attack police departments for an alleged “genocidal” war against blacks. There is no factual basis for this charge. According to the Washington Post, for example, police shootings make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths, which is three times the proportion of black deaths resulting from police shootings. According to FBI data, over the last 10 years 40% of cop killers have been black, while police officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher  than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.

Equally preposterous is Black Lives Matter’s claim – echoed by many Democrats – that America is a “white supremacist” nation. This is a racist claim, implicating all whites, and particularly absurd since America – now completing the two terms of a black presidency – is perhaps the most tolerant nation on earth. Since the 1990s, America has had two black Secretaries of State, a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, three black heads of the National Security Council, and thousands of black elected officials at state and municipal levels. Major American cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia and Baltimore are run by blacks, and many more are governed by black mayors, black police chiefs, black judges, non-white majority city councils and black superintendents of schools. How ironic that more than half a century after the end of segregation and the passage of the Civil Rights Acts, after the integration of America’s military and schools and popular culture, this racist incitement should be the emblem of a movement for “social justice.”

FPM: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/10/anatomy-lynching-david-horowitz/


David Horowitz is an American conservative writer. He is a founder and president of the think tank the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC); editor of the Center’s publication, FrontPage Magazine; and director of Discover the Networks, a website that tracks individuals and groups on the political left.

Alex Newman: UN Speakers Push Population Reduction for “Climate Emergency”

by Alex Newman

MADRID — To deal with the alleged “climate emergency,” reducing the number of people on the planet is high on the agenda among activists and speakers at the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit. The growing extremism and even paranoia among population-control advocates, who worry that more people will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, is reaching deafening levels. But the establishment media is largely keeping silent.

The advocates of population control and population reduction are divided, though, on what particular peoples and groups should be targeted most heavily. One key speaker at the UN summit said “white men” and especially Americans and Swedes must stop having babies. An exhibitor promoting “sustainable development,” meanwhile, argued that Africans and Asians ought to be the key target of the depopulation. Others think all of the above.

What means should be used was also a subject of debate. Some activists and speakers promoted propaganda, indoctrination, tax-funded contraception, abortion, ubiquitous birth-control availability, and even coercive population-reduction measures. Others say even more drastic means are needed to deal with the “emergency.” One UN speaker went even further earlier this year, suggesting that actually “killing” people could be on the table.

A major speaker at the UN summit, Oscar-winning director Michael Wadleigh (shown above) of “Woodstock” fame, minced no words in an interview with The New American. “Don’t have children — and I’m looking at you, white man,” he said on camera, speaking in a deep voice, echoing comments he made in high-profile official speeches at the summit.

The reason why it is so important to reduce the population of Europeans and their descendants is because their nations are more developed and they consume more resources, he said. Even Scandinavia and Sweden, which have a “clean” image, are destroying the planet, Wadleigh continued, warning that average Swedes consume 40 times more than average Tanzanians. Even socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is not radical enough on these issues, he said.

“If you were into population control or population reduction, which is good idea worldwide, you should go to Sweden, because if your efforts resulted in one less baby in Sweden, that would be equal to your efforts to go to Africa and reduce populations by 46 percent, sorry, by 46 people in Africa,” said the director turned population-control activist, who spoke just a few hours prior on the same stage as former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

Wadleigh, who has one child and works closely with the UN, crunched the numbers and became convinced. “So where does it make sense to start your population reduction efforts? Start with the people who are the highest per capita emitters, if your goal is to reduce climate change and unsustainable development,” he explained, without noting that the environment in more developed countries such as Sweden, America, Switzerland, Japan, and so on is generally far cleaner than in Third World nations.

Prominent population-control advocates such as neo-Malthusian Paul Erlich of “Population Bomb” fame and Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren have offered radical ideas on this subject. In their 1977 book EcoScience, the duo — who at the time were peddling “global cooling” alarmism — discussed mandatory abortions and adding “sterilizing agents” to the water supply as potential tools for bringing population levels under control.

When asked if those ideas might be going too far, Wadleigh smiled and responded: “You haven’t heard me talk yet!” The ultra-left-wing UN speaker, a fan of communism, did not elaborate on how much further he would be willing to go to reduce human numbers, before going on to speak about what he sees as over-consumption.

In one of his UN talks from one of the most prominent stages in the entire convention, Wadleigh emphasized the need for government coercion to achieve his vision. One of his main messages was the need to drastically reduce consumption. “We can no longer do this voluntarily,” said Wadleigh, pining for a global government that he said did not yet exist. “Make it a law, not a voluntary action.”

A few hours later, former Senator Kerry took the same stage to bad-mouth America and lie about all sorts of things. Among other “climate whoppers,” he claimed that solar energy was now cheaper than traditional forms of energy “by every metric.” If that were true, everybody would be using it, of course.

Rather than targeting Western nations — virtually all of which have birth rates at less than replacement levels — others in Madrid for the COP25 proposed targeting Third World populations. Alejandro Moran Rodriguez, for example, a UN volunteer at the COP25, was manning a booth promoting the UN’s controversial “Sustainable Development Goals.” He told Rebel News that countries in Africa and in Asia should be high on the list for population-control, because they do not have “that culture.” And so, governments must “manage their population,” he said, calling for UN enforcement of contraception.

Another UN speaker also veered into the highly controversial and sensitive area. Self-described “Eco-Social Strategist” Stuart Scott with the group Scientists Warning, who gave almost a dozen talks and press conferences throughout COP25, spoke on topics such as “Too Many Of Us.” “It is undeniable that humanity’s footprint is the number of us times the consumption,” he said, adding that concerns over upsetting religious people were holding back necessary discussions on how to limit the number of human beings on the planet. The Christian Bible, for example, calls on people to “be fruitful and multiply.”

But Scott does not think that is a good idea at all. Pointing to Project Drawdown, Scott suggested that “educating females” and making tax-funded “family planning” available to them would be among the top three ways to reduce CO2 emissions if combined into one package. “The topic [of population control] needs to be part of the negotiations,” he argued. “We are making tiny progress…. Our request — it should be our demand, but I’m not the one making the demand — is that the UN put it on the agenda.”

Asked about whether the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency tasked with population control, was doing an adequate job, he responded: “I can’t comment on that because I’m not well enough informed.” According to congressional testimony, the UNFPA and Planned Parenthood have worked with Beijing on perpetrating forced abortions.

Of course, Communist China’s coercive population-control regime literally includes kidnapping pregnant women and killing their pre-born children. When asked if the regime had gone too far in its efforts, Scott did not say. “Even though China relaxed its one-child policy, it’s birth rate has not gone up the way they thought it would,” he said, hopefully, suggesting that fears about climate change were causing women not to have children.

While controversial, Scott’s efforts have been endorsed by everyone from prominent global-warming scientist James Hansen and neo-Malthusian Ehrlich to organizations such as 350.org, Friends of the Earth, and Citizens Climate Lobby, which has former Secretary of Treasury and State George P. Schultz on its advisory board. Erlich, one of Scott’s supporters, has been one of the most vocal advocates of reducing human numbers. Scott even spoke on a panel with Hansen during COP25.

This zealotry for reducing the number of people on the planet has become a common theme at UN gatherings. Earlier this year, at the 68th UN Civil Society Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, one speaker went further than most would dare to in public. After speaking on a panel with UN Assistant Secretary-General Satya Tripathi, Global Initiative for Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP) Executive Director David Michael Terungwa dropped a bombshell. “We can’t kill them all,” he said, twice, laughing.

Before that, at the COP24 in Poland last year, Al Gore trumpeted the theme. Among the solutions to the supposed “climate crisis,” Gore touted more and stricter population-control policies by government. Perhaps oblivious to the ghoulishness of his words, Gore praised the population-control regime operated by the government of India, which has been widely condemned as abusive and coercive. Showing a graph of China’s population, he also celebrated the policies of the mass-murdering dictatorship in Communist China.

However, showing a graph of Africa’s population, Gore suggested that Africans were still having far too many babies for planet Earth to sustain in the face of supposed “climate” change. Despite lip-service to the pope and Catholicism, Gore demanded, among other tactics, that contraception be made “ubiquitously available” all over the world. The goal: Help reduce the number of children, and especially Africans.

The New American asked Democrat presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for his desire to have Big Government disarm you and regulate everything from Big Gulps to salt content in food, for his thoughts on the population-control subject. “Thank you, have a nice day,” he responded with a strange grin. His handlers promptly rushed in — “he’s not taking interviews right now” — before his armed security, looking grumpy, whisked him away. 

Children are already being bombarded by UN propaganda at school and in official UN publications. The goal: convincing students that having babies is bad for the planet. The the 1994 UN-produced book Rescue Mission: Planet Earth : A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21, the UN’s self-styled “education” agency teaches children that “the planet groans every time it registers another birth.” And that is just the start of what critics say is the anti-human, anti-Christian, anti-freedom propaganda that has been peddled by the UN to children for decades now.

During the recent debate on a whether or not to declare a “climate emergency,” German Members of the European so-called Parliament expressed deep unease over the declaration. The reason is that the German term for emergency, der Notstand, is associated with a Nazi law adopted by Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party to consolidate power.

The UN summit, led by international socialists such as Antonio Guterres, appears to be hoping for vast new powers to deal with this supposed “climate emergency.” And at the top of the list will be reducing the number of people on the planet, by any means that they consider necessary.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34329-un-speakers-push-population-reduction-for-climate-emergency


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Bill Lockwood: Was Jesus a “Refugee?”

by Bill Lockwood

As reported by CNN, a Methodist church in California is displaying a nativity scene depicting Jesus, Mary and Joseph as refugees in cages to “draw attention to the conditions faced by migrants seeking asylum in the United States.” The Claremont United Methodist Church, which is about 30 miles east of Los Angeles, “posted the photo on its website showing the three held in separate cages topped with barbed wire. The baby Jesus is wrapped in a silver foil blanket.” The “lead pastor” Karen Clark Ristine told CNN that “we thought about the most famous refugee family in the world.”

The United Methodist Church, ever ready to warp biblical narratives into liberal political messages, has displayed a stunning ignorance of the Bible. As Gary DeMar observes, “Leftists have little regard for the Bible unless it can be used to scold Christians for judging righteously … and to support socialism based on a passage about voluntary giving (Acts 2:42-45; 4:32-35).”

As I wrote in a former article, there are several biblical considerations that need be made. (1) God Himself established borders of nations. Read Acts 17:26. (2) God demanded that Old Testament Israel respect the borders of other nations. God gave Mt. Seir to Esau and his descendants for a “possession.” Therefore, Israel, when coming out of Egypt, was not to cross it (Deuteronomy. 2:5). The same regarded Israel’s respect of Moab’s borders.

(3) Once settled in Canaan, the Israelites were sternly warned to “drive the Canaanites out.” The stated reason for this was to preserve the culture of Israel (Numbers. 33:51,52). (4) Even Abraham was deported once it was discovered that he lied to border agents. Read Genesis 12. (5) Regarding Jesus and the holy family, as DeMar notes, they were living within the confines of the Roman Empire. Egypt was part of the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus’ birth. Their escape from Bethlehem was only to another Roman Province. (6) Another command given to Joseph and Mary was that they were to return to their homeland after the death of Herod (Matthew. 2:20). DeMar asks, “How many refugees return to their home nations after entering the United States?”

« Older Entries Recent Entries »