Category Archives: Global Government

Bill Lockwood: Green Doctrine of Sustainable Development Partially Responsible for Ukraine Invasion 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

The Green Doctrine of Sustainable Development, maintained by our own government, is partially responsible for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. This is not to ignore the wicked dictatorial actions of Vladimir Putin, nor to downplay the atrocities of the Ukrainian war that is now being waged by Russian forces.

However, it is worthwhile for us to consider what are some of the causes of the invasion. One of those causes is our own Green Energy Doctrine that is being maintained by the ruling oligarchs in Washington, D.C.

Evolution

For those unfamiliar with the methodology utilized by government elitists to force their own belief-systems on the rest of us, consider the General Theory of Evolution. Philip Johnson, in his blockbuster 1991 book, Darwin on Trial, demonstrated the complete lack of objective scientific evidence supporting evolution. Yet, evolution, treated as “fact,” has been crammed down the throats of Americans via the Academy for well-nigh over 100 years.

Consider the evolutionary position. Natural selection, in combination with mutation, is an innovative evolutionary process capable of producing new kinds of organisms. That’s the proposition. And what sort of evidence is marshalled to support it?

Douglas Futuyma wrote Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, which has been widely used in collegiate classrooms. The “evidences” for the above position include: (1) Bacteria naturally develop resistance to antibiotics; (2) Male sparrows survived more frequently than smaller ones in the 1898 severe storm in Massachusetts; (3) The average size of birds, and their beaks, at Galapagos Islands went up appreciably through the drought in 1977.

Futuyma included others—but one can immediately sense that these do not begin to show the general theory of evolution. How did bacteria come to exist in the first place? Where do sparrows come from to begin with? How did birds on Galapagos Island come to exist? None of his examples begin to scientifically establish the general theory of evolution as explanatory of all forms of life. Yet, evolution is considered “fact.”

Sustainable Development

It is the same with theory of man-made Climate Change, a key component of the doctrine of Sustainable Development. The Green Agenda, the official doctrine of the United Nations as well as the elitists in Washington, D.C., is that of that Climate Change is human caused. That’s the doctrine. Hence, we must have draconian government control known as “Sustainable Development.” Government controlled everything.

Has there been any debate on Climate Change? No. Has there been any evidence brought forward which has been allowed to be cross-examined that humans cause Global Warming? Again, no. Has there been a “national conversation” on this subject—aside from 2-3 minute segments on news organs? No.

Nevertheless, climate change is declared to be an “existential crisis” that threatens human existence. Leonardo de Caprio picks up the Green Gospel and tells the UN that wildfires worsen in America because of human caused carbon emissions. Even more apocalyptic is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a sitting member of Congress, who says “The world is going to end in 12 years if we do not address climate change.” That was in 2019.

Doomsdayers such as these continue to multiply. It would not be so bad for Americans, except that many of them are lawmakers, or have the ear of lawmakers. The answer: shut-down America’s dependence upon fossil fuels—oil—and force us into a Green Energy world where everything will be solar or wind powered.

President Joe Biden, our chief executive officer, has completely bought into this. Not because he necessarily believes any of this doctrine—but this is the method to gain socialistic control of the economy. His primary political agenda involves unconstitutionally forcing America itself to leave an oil-based economy and into “Clean Energy.” Once again, no debate. No discussion.

Thus, as soon as he came into office Biden single-handedly, on day one, shut down the Keystone Pipeline. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, last January—within the first week of occupying the Oval Office, he issued an “executive order that introduced a sweeping, government-wide approach to climate policy.” His administration is “halting new oil and gas leasing on federal onshore lands and offshore waters.”

Biden also ordered the secretary of the interior to consider whether to adjust coal, oil, and gas royalties in order to account for corresponding climate costs, as well as ordering the Department of the Interior to take steps toward conserving 30 percent of public lands and waters by 2030 and toward doubling offshore wind production. These moves followed his executive orders to halt leasing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and effectively suspended new leases. Other draconian measures followed.

War in Ukraine

What has this to do with the war in Ukraine? Only this. The complete executive blockage of our own oil production has forced America to rely on foreign imported oil—namely, from Russia. While impoverishing America, Biden has purposefully enriched Russia.

History professor and Hoover Institution fellow Victor David Hanson, pointed out the obvious connection with Putin’s War on Ukraine. Putin has become “adventuristic” whenever he has been flushed with cash due to limited oil production in the United States. Hanson cited the 2014 attack on Crimea and the 2008 invasion of Georgia as examples.

Who has flushed Putin with cash? Biden has forced America to do that.

Fox Business host Larry Kudlow recently made the same point.

Mr. Biden, you need to be honest about the damage you’re doing to the American energy industry. In fact, you’ve done everything you can to drive up prices and you know it because you’re dancing the radical green tune. Your jihad against fossil fuels has held down production in the face of rising demand and that has been a key factor in driving up world oil prices towards $100 a barrel. In effect, Biden’s jihad against fossil fuels is financing Vladimir Putin’s military adventures because if we were producing at 13 million BPD as we did pre-pandemic … oil prices would be substantially lower and Putin would be significantly poorer.

While the atrocities in Ukraine continue at the hand of Putin, remember that Biden has helped fund him.

Kathleen Marquardt: THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION = PLANNED DYSTOPIA 5 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

Klaus Schwab has been someone in the background of global machinations for many decades. He is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) which he formed in 1971 (fifty years ago) as an International NGO (one of the way too many “civil society” partners of the United Nations). The majority of these NGOs are there to promote and embed Agenda 21/2030/The Green New Deal into every country, no matter how small, in the world. Schwab’s WEF was set up to push Public-Private Cooperation, in other words, fascism, across the globe.

Kimberly Amadeo, President of World Money Watch defines fascism as: “a brutal economic system in which a supreme leader and their government controls the private entities that own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. A central planning authority directs company leaders to work in the national interest, which actively suppresses those who oppose it”.[i]

To simplify and clarify what Public-Private Partnerships PPPs) are:

In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:

During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”

Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.

Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.

Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:

Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.

Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.

Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.

Tom nails it:  Public/Private Partnerships = Government-Sanctioned Monopolies

It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.

That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.

Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.[ii]

For fifty years the WEF has been using these PPPs to cancel any liberty, individual freedom, and take property rights from individuals. Agenda 21! The Public Private Partnerships are a big tool in relieving us of our property, liberty, and control of our nation. PPPs and Regionalism, with its unelected governing bodies, work hand in hand to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law.

As society breaks down, the globalists welcome the anarchy, chaos, and general social unrest. Next, they need a defining event.

What drew Schwab to set up the WEF?

“The most influential group that spurred the creation of Klaus Schwab’s symposium was the Club of Rome, an influential think tank of the scientific and monied elite that mirrors the World Economic Forum in many ways, including in its promotion of a global governance model led by a technocratic elite. The Club had been founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish chemist Alexander King during a private meeting at a residence owned by the Rockefeller family in Bellagio, Italy.”[iii]

The Club of Rome spelled out what they view as the true enemy:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.[iv]”

Realizing that back in the ‘70s, when the above was written, the masses weren’t yet dumbed-down enough to accept that they needed to join VHEMT, the voluntary human extinction movement. The globalist Marxist Left decided a New Ice Age would fit the bill of a major crisis that only they could fix. Oops, it didn’t happen. So, let’s flip it to Global Warming (to go along with the hole in the ozone. Of course, the Earth wasn’t warming. Tweak that, voila, Climate Change. Ignore the fact that the climate changes four times a year, and sometimes daily.

No matter the science. We are facing an apocalyptic threat.

Maurice Strong, former Undersecretary General of the UN, Sec. Gen. of UN Conference on the Environment, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, was called a visionary and a “pioneer of global sustainable development. He was the secretary-general of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit which unveiled Agenda 21, the culmination of decades of scheming, planning, and cajoling to bring about a global government via the UN. He was also a close friend of Klaus Schwab, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and many of the rogues’ gallery of One-World government advocates.

In interviews that Strong did with two reporters in Canada wanting to write about their golden boy, both times he talked about his vision of the future. The early vision focused on the WEF:

“Each year, the Word Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics, gather in February. to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.

 What if a small group of these world leaders were to form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse? It’s February. They are all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered a panic using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies. They’ve jammed the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries . . . I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”[v]

Does this sound familiar? Sure sounds plausible to me. In his second theoretical vision, Strong dreams, “what if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive those rich countries would have to sign an agreement, reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no”. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, a group decides ‘isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse’.”[vi]

It’s in the works now; it has been for decades. But a statement that most overlook, but it shows that the people on the Left, the globalists, the Fabians, the cultural Marxists, the Communists are all looking for the right bait, the right evil foe to attack.

Strong and Klaus Schwab were good friends; they were also close with David Rockefeller. They were (are, in Schwab’s case) members of that not so secret, secret society, the Bilderburg Group. The Bilderburg Group is approximately 130 political leaders from Europe and North America who meet once a year for informal discussions about major issues. “The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”[vii]

According to Schwab, the fourth Industrial Revolution provides the potential “to robotize humanity, and thus compromise our traditional sources of meaning—work, community, family, identity.[viii]” He also predicts that it will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness.[ix]” And it will “upend the existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering”. That was a statement from 2015, so don’t think he hasn’t been pushing this for a long time. Now his edicts are getting more definitive, “Even our thinking and behavior will have to dramatically shift. We must have a new social contract centered on Social Justice. We need a change of mindset, moving from short-term to long-term thinking, moving from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder responsibility (ed. note: PPPs). Environmental, social and good governance have to be a measured part of corporate and governmental accountability.”[x][xi]

While Schwab is predicting that his Industrial Revolution will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness”, Dr. Anthon Mueller, a German professor of economics, wrote, “The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030 —because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.”

Johnny Vedmore at Unlimited Hangout writes, “At the Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in January 2021, Schwab stressed that the building of trust would be integral to the success of the Great Reset, signalling a subsequent expansion of the initiative’s already massive public relations campaign. Though Schwab called for the building of trust through unspecified “progress,” trust is normally facilitated through transparency. Perhaps that is why so many have declined to trust Mr. Schwab and his motives, as so little is known about the man’s history and background prior to his founding of the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s.”

The Global Technology Governance Summit (GTGS) of the World Economic Forum, meeting in Tokyo (and virtual) the first week of April 2021 has a number of documents to be discussed. One, Harnessing new technologies, states:

“Industry transformation: No industry has been untouched by the global response to COVID-19. The world can no longer operate as it has, and as such markets will have to respond to its new and evolving needs. To survive, every business in the world will have to become a technology company. – Government transformation: The transformation of government will be front and centre in the area of digital infrastructure as technology services become an essential public utility comparable to electricity, water or roads.” In simple terms, Pubic Private Partnerships. The government controls, the businesses follow government orders.

In one of the best articles I’ve read on the Great Reset, Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Great Nonsense of “The Great Reset”, is this:

[S]ocialism . . . is . . . the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with . . . the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment . . . . [C]apitalism must be monitored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism.”    Robert Heilbroner, “After Capitalism,” The New Yorker, Sept. 10, 1990

The above quotation by socialist economist, the late Robert Heilbroner, was written in the context of an article that lamented and mourned the worldwide collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. The great debate between capitalism and socialism was over, he said, and Ludwig von Mises was right about socialism all along, said a man who had spent the past half century promoting socialism in his teaching, speaking, and writing. But do not despair, he told his fellow socialists, for there is one more trick up our sleeves, namely, the Trojan Horse of achieving socialism under the guise of ‘environmentalism.’

“The basic strategy was then, as it is now, to constantly frighten the gullible public with predictions of The End of the World from environmental catastrophe unless we abandon capitalism and adopt socialist central planning. This has always been the one constant theme of the environmentalist movement (not to be confused with the conservation movement which is actually interested in the health of the planet and the humans who occupy it) since the 1960s.  It ignores the fact that the twentieth-century socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China had by far the worse environmental problems on the planet, orders of magnitude worse than in the capitalist countries.”

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller at a 1994 UN Dinner

Can a combination of two fraud emergencies, COVID and Climate Change, be the crises that will usher in the globalist dream of a New World Order? If so, and if the inhabitants of what remains of the free world do not get off their duffs and wake up to this threat, Klaus Schwab et al will have achieved the “global transformation” they have spent 100+ years to achieve.

I for one want to see them fail. We, the useless eaters, the nobodies, can stop them. All we have to do is turn over the rock they are under and let the sun shine in. Most people, if they see the truth, will start thinking.

The World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:

  1. People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
  2. The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
  3. Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
  4. Meat consumption will be minimized.
  5. Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
  6. To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
  7. People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
  8. Western values will be tested to the breaking point.

I cannot believe even half of the American people want to live like that.

We must take back our country a city and a county at a time. All the while, we must get our lesser magistrates to ignore unconstitutional federal laws, throw the bums out of office, and we must educate our children with truth, reason, and sound science.

[i]  Amadeo, K. thebalance.com/fascism

[ii]  Americanpolicy.org/public _private_partnerships

[iii]  Unlimitedhangout.com Schwab

[iv]  Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, p. 85

[v]  Wood, Daniel, West magazine May 1990.

[vi]  Johnston, Jim, British Columbia Report 3, no.22 (May 18,1992).

[vii] Bilderburg Meetings.org

[viii]  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-h         ow-to-respond/

[ix]  Ibid.

[x]  https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/06/the-great-reset-a-unique-twin-summit-to-begin-2021

[xi]  https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/12/26/german-economist-great-reset-will-cause-a-crash-worse-than-1930s/

Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.

Tom DeWeese: AGENDA 21 TO GREEN NEW DEAL – THE WAR ON HUMAN SOCIETY 5 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Tom DeWeese

For nearly thirty years, as some of us have attempted to sound the alarm over plans to reorganize human society into global governance, we have been mercilessly attacked and labeled as radical conspiracy theorists.

Now, as those very plans move ever closer to enforcement, many are beginning to ask questions about the origins of the plans. Who stands behind them, and where will it all lead? Will life be better? Will there be more freedom and happiness? Are we finally going to create a society free of war and strife, as promised by the promoters? Who’s right, the conspiracy theorists or the promoters?

First, a little history. One of the direct results of World War II, which had affected every nation, was the desire to find a way to prevent war. Most of all, the threat of nuclear war truly terrified everyone. This led to the creation of the United Nations as a way to provide a forum where nations could work out their problems in a public forum instead of on a battlefield. That was the selling point, at least.

The fact of the matter is, the United Nations is a club in which nations join voluntarily and pay dues for the privilege. However, from its very beginning, some envisioned a much larger role for the club. They envisioned the end of independent sovereign nations in which they charged were the root of war, strife and poverty. They claimed that for true freedom to exist, everything must be equal, including food, possessions, and opportunity. To achieve that, individual nations must surrender their sovereignty to the greater good – global governance overseen by the United Nations.

Right away, many socialist and communist-run nations grabbed hold of the concept. These were nations where the rights of the people were already determined by those in charge. In short, where government granted rights.

But there was one nation, in particular, that openly opposed this concept, because that nation had been created under the idea that every person possessed their rights from birth and that it was government’s job to protect those rights. Such a concept was completely antithetical to the growing determination to give the United Nations central power over the Earth. The United States was soon seen as the major obstacle to the globalist agenda.

Over time, a “cold war” between the totalitarians of the communist nations and the advocates of free nations erupted and the United States found itself the designated leader of the “Free World.” As a member of the UN’s Security Council, the United States used its single-nation veto power to foil many of the efforts by the communist nations to build a UN power structure. This caused major frustration to those behind the goal of global governance. A solution had to be found to bring the United States into compliance.

Finally, in the 1970s a novel tactic emerged in the form of the illusion of environmental Armageddon by way of the illusion of “Climate Change.” It was the perfect tool to propel the argument for independent nations. “It doesn’t matter what rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on!” The drive for global governance took hold, full speed ahead. One of the main proponents of the global governance movement, the Club of Rome said, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be over come. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” There it was! The answer. The environment doesn’t recognize political or national boundaries. Just grab control of the land, water and air, and control every nation and every human life.

It didn’t take long for the globalist forces to jump onto the concept. Again, the Club of Rome laid out the party line necessary to grab control: “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though it may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the task at hand. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” So, according to this concept, in order to replace these leaders which were elected by the people, we are going to enforce global policy created by forces unseen, unknown, and equipped with their own agenda. Yep – that will solve the world’s problems!

It didn’t take long for the communists to grasp the idea. Former Soviet dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, after the collapse of his socialist paradise, quickly set himself up as an environmentalist to promote this new world order. He explained to the State of the World Forum, “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of world government.” And there is was — the real goal, out in the open.

The UN’s Commission on Global Governance went further to explain how it would all come about as it reported, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Now, how to set it all into place…?

 The UN began to sponsor a series of international meetings, specifically focusing on the environment and how to “save planet Earth.” After a series of such meetings where private, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), officially recognized and sanctioned by the United Nations, met with government leaders, diplomats, and various bureaucrats, began to draw up a plan for using environmental issues as the basis for regulating human activity – all through the noble guidance of the United Nations, of course. Finally, in 1992, more than 50,000 NGOs, diplomats, and 179 world leaders, including U.S. President, George, H.W. Bush, met in an “Earth Summit,” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Here, they introduced a series of four documents and treaties for the world to accept as guidelines for UN-led reorganization to save the planet.

Most significant of these plans was one designed to create a global plan of action for the 21st Century. It was named Agenda 21, and its supporters promoted it as a “Comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” All 179 world leaders signed onto the document, including President Bush, and promised to bring its goals into national policy.

Here’s a quick overview of the Agenda 21 plan:

There are four parts: Sections 1 is titled Social and Economic Dimensions. Details include, international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development policies, combat poverty, changing consumption patterns, protecting and promoting human health conditions, and promoting sustainable development by integrating environment policy into development plans.

Section 2: is titled Conservation and Management of Resources for Development. This section outlined plans for promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development, integrating those policies into planning and management of land resources, enforcing sustainable policy into every body of water from seas to rivers and lakes, waste management, and conservation of “fragile” ecosystems, .

Section 3: is titled “Strengthening the Role of Major Groups. Here we get into who was going to promote these policies in a divide and conquer tactic. First, the infamous NGOs who wrote the document gave themselves a major role under the chapter entitled “Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development.” But we were also to have “global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development.” Next, children were specifically targeted to be promoters of sustainable development. Another chapter outlined how to pull in local elected officials to promote support for Agenda 21 initiatives. Each chapter in this section of the Agenda 21 document focuses on more and more individual interest groups needed to push the agenda, from business and industry, to science and technology to farmers. No stone was left unturned in this outline to reorganize human society.

Section 4:  titled Means of Implementation. Here, finally, are the details on how it was to be accomplished. As all of the individual groups are brought under the umbrella, now the enforcers would focus on the necessary financial resources, transferring environmental technology into decision making, and  focusing on education process, not only for schools, but also for “public awareness and training.” And then, of course, there are the necessary “International legal instruments and mechanisms.”

Here it is, a complete and comprehensive outline for the agenda to completely transform all of humanity under the umbrella of globalism. And of course, it was urgent that the agenda be enforced as quickly as possible because, we were facing an environmental Armageddon caused by selfish, uncontrolled, ignorant humans, unfettered in unenlightened nation-states.

First Global Warming, and then later Climate Change became the focus of the looming disaster. And it simply did not matter if there was no true science to back up the scare tactic. As the Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, openly admitted, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” There is was! The truth. This whole charade wasn’t about saving the environment, but about changing the world order with a new gang in charge.

Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation, further enforced that fact when he said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” There it is again – “economic policy!”

And finally, there was Paul Watson, a co-founder of the radical Green NGO called GreenPeace. He summed it all up very nicely, saying, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” No muss, no fuss, just get in line and don’t question us!

However, there was still a skeptical world that had to be indoctrinated to follow the party line. So, it was important that the language, while keeping the urgent tension of environmental crisis in the forefront, used soft-peddle words to promote the policies. For example, soothing, reassuring comments such as, “we are just concerned about the environment, aren’t you?” “We want to help those less fortunate, living in poverty. Don’t you?” “Imagine all the people sharing all the world.” Nothing to worry about here, just a giant, loving, world-wide group hug. So, the agenda moved forward, with few questioning its details, motives, and true goals.

Meanwhile, forces inside the UN were determined to hurry along the real agenda — global governance. As we moved closer to the year 2000, many insiders saw the start of the new Millennium as the perfect opportunity to launch a full-scale framework for global politics. In preparation, the UN planned to sponsor a Millennium Summit to plan the future for the world. A document was prepared for presentation at the Summit called the Charter for Global Democracy. In the UN’s words, the document contained “detailed, practical measures which set out an ambitious agenda for democracy in international decision-making, now increasingly known as ‘global governance.”

The Charter contained 12 principles or goals. It would consolidate all international agencies under the direct authority of the United Nations. In addition, the UN would regulate all transnational corporations and financial institutions, along with the establishment of a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by insuring sustainable development. The Charter called for a declaration that Climate Change is an essential global security interest that requires a “high level action team” to control carbon emissions. And, the Charter called for the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and for “equitable sharing of global resources,” including land, air and sea, plus various wealth redistribution schemes. Under the Charter for Global Democracy there would be no independent, sovereign nations, no private property or free enterprise. All would be controlled and regulated by UN edict – all in the name of environmental protection, of course.

But there is more. To establish a government, three main ingredients are necessary; a revenue taxation system, a criminal court system, and a standing army. Principle 3 of the Charter for Global Democracy demanded an independent source of revenue for the UN. Proposed were taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels and licensing the use of the global commons. The “global commons” are defined to be “outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and related environment that supports human life.” In other words, the UN claimed control of the entire planet, its air and water, even outer space, and the power to tax use of it all.

Principle Number 5 would authorize a standing UN Army. Principle Number 6 would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the United Nations.

Principle Number 8 would activate the International Criminal Court, make the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and give individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy what they deemed social injustice, meaning redistribution of wealth based on emotional tirades rather than the rule of law.

There you have it, all the tools necessary to make the United Nations a full- fledged global government, a government over the whole world. But, the Charter for Global Democracy broke one major rule in the UN’s plans to dominate the world – it was too honest. It lacked the soft sell and, instead, marched brutally forward, revealing their true agenda. It was never officially presented to the Millennium Summit for world leaders to approve in front of the cameras. However, it remains a shadow agenda, with parts included in other documents. The Criminal Court does exist and there is still a drive for an environmental court. The UN continues to push for full ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty that would give it full control of the waters of the planet. While the United States has not officially ratified the treaty, Congress has promoted regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce many of the same goals.

Meanwhile, the UN has continued to add more details, a little at a time, through documents released at yet more international gatherings. The Millennium Summit did issue 8 goals, mostly focusing on eradicating poverty, respecting nature, and “Protecting the Vulnerable.” The goals are there, just not the direct wording of the Charter. Peace, Brother!

In 2016, the UN issued Agenda 2030, containing 17 goals. They are all the same as Agenda 21 and the Millennium Goals, however each new document issued reveals a little more detail as the UN moves ever closer to enforcing all 12 principles of the Charter for Global Democracy.

Most recently, however, the Sustainable forces again took off the gloves of misdirection, and this time they have gotten away with it. This latest version is called the Green New Deal and it didn’t come as a declaration or a suggestion from another summit. This time it came as actual legislation introduced into the U.S. Congress and has been openly accepted as the center of political debate across the nation.

Even though the word “green” is in the title, it, too, is not an environmental policy. The Green New Deal is an economic plan to reorder society away from free enterprise, private property, and limited government. Gee, where have we heard that before? Oh yes, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Millennium Declaration!

The Green New Deal is divided into four pillars. First is the Economic Bill of Rights, demanding full employment, guaranteeing a living wage, Medicare for all, tuition-free education and the right to affordable housing. Can you find any issue there that is designed to save the planet?

Pillar 2 is labeled the Green Transition. Surely here is where we will find concerns expressed for clean rivers and air, right? Nope. We find money and tax schemes for global corporations who agree to play ball and spread the sustainable propaganda. This helps to fill their pockets as it kills competition from small, independent businesses. There’s also the usual attack on cars along with schemes to end shipping of food and products by truck or air. Each community, you see, will be responsible for providing all of its needs for the local population.

Pillar 3 called Real Financial Reform, turns banks into public utilities run by government, doing away with the stock market, all leading to higher taxes and the end of freedom of choice for your financial needs.

Pillar 4 is called a Functioning Democracy. It calls for the creation of a “Corporation for Economic Democracy” that will basically combine government agencies, private associations, and business enterprise into one big corporation, all to be controlled by one, central ruling authority. The last time I checked on such an idea it was called communism.

My colleague, climate change expert Paul Driessen, produced a very clear picture of what life will be like under the Green New Deal. Are you ready America? According to Paul’s analysis, the GND would, “control and pummel the jobs, lives, living standards, savings, personal choices and ecological heritage of rural, poor, minority, elderly and working classes.” Says Paul, the GND would turn middle America into vast energy colonies. Millions of acres of farmland, wildlife habitat, and scenic areas would be blanketed by industrial wind, solar, and battery facilities. Windswept ocean vistas and sea lanes would be plagued by towering turbines. Birds, bats, and other wildlife would disappear. As you are forced to rip out exiting natural gas appliances from your kitchen, replacing them with electric models, electrical power would only be there when its available, rather that when you need it. And don’t forget, as the GND moves to ban petroleum, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, plastics for computers would all be gone, along with millions of jobs. Not to mention that the cost of near non-existent energy would soar.

This, then, is the future offered to us by the power-mad control freaks now plotting every day to “reorganize human society.” These policies now dominate political debate and are becoming established in more and more states and communities, yet any attempt to reveal the true goals are immediately labeled “conspiracy theories” and those sounding the alarm are called extremists.

Meanwhile, as we have all suffered through the COVID lockdowns, the forces behind these policies have been busy planning ways to use tactics they have learned from enforcing the pandemic to move forward with a “Green Reset” to tackle the so-called climate crisis. In a recent issue, Time magazine announced the “Great Reset,” asserting “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want… to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.”

Bill Gates said that large-scale economic shutdowns are “nowhere near sufficient” to curtail climate change. Rather, we need “to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors.” He went on, “Simply shutting down (the economy) is not going to get (us) to our goal. So just like we need innovation for COVID-19, we also need to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors and bring down climate change.” Are you ready to live in a cave with no heat or running water to satisfy Bill Gates’ demands to reorganize society? What else would be the alternative if we must completely shut down our entire infrastructure of transportation, industry, buildings, electricity, etc?

Green New Deal advocates, like Gates, see the COVID-19 outbreak as a signal to the international community that it is necessary to reform humanity’s relationship with nature, pointing to concerns that “as habitat and biodiversity loss increase globally, the coronavirus outbreak may be just the beginning of mass pandemics.” That’s the new scare tactic – piled on top of climate change. Just as the Club of Rome prediction declared decades ago, the real enemy is humanity itself. So there it is, now facing us like never before – the interconnection of climate change, the Green New Deal, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Step by step, changing and controlling human society.

The COVID-19 lockdown has been the master experiment as to how much manipulation people will accept out of fear. It has been the grand experiment to get us to stop driving, reducing energy use, and change our living habits. All called for in the Green New Deal. Arn Menconi, an environmental activist and recent candidate for the Colorado state senate said, the “coronavirus has proved we can afford the Green New Deal and Medicare for all.”

But there is much more planned for the reorganization of human society that few have counted on. Take careful note of the growing manipulation of the free market, a main target of Agenda 21/GND policy. Global corporations, such as Amazon and Walmart, that have agreed to join in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) with government to promote the Sustainable policies, have been allowed to continue near normal operations and they are thriving in the lockdowns. Meanwhile local, small, independent businesses have been forced to close their doors. As those small business jobs are lost, employees are left with little alternative than to seek positions in the global behemoths or accept government handouts. Soon, we will begin to see the corporations demanding that employees accept Bill Gates’ mandatory COVID vaccines or lose their jobs. That means that more and more will have no choice but too march in lockstep with the dictates of their masters. Free thought, free market competition, and free expression will no longer exist anywhere but in the minds of those old enough to remember “when”. These are all the enemies of totalitarianism and must be curtailed.        

They’ve managed to find the perfect scare tactic to get us all to “voluntarily” give up our liberties, allow government to shut us in our homes, kill our jobs, stop our schools, and destroy human contact. They have finally achieved the vision of British monarch, Prince Phillip who once said, “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”  Never tell these people a joke, because they will eventually turn it into global policy!  

How do we stop this drive to destroy our way of life? One thing the COVID lock-down has proven, is that we must regain control of local and state governments. It was mayors and governors who led the way to enforce most of the draconian controls over our ability to move about, go to work and church, see our doctors, and open our businesses. That’s why it’s imperative that those concerned about stopping this transformation must become active on the local level, organizing, researching, speaking out and running effective local government campaigns.

One major obstacle standing in the way of the forces of freedom to stop this drive for global governance is that too many on the Right have ignored the threat, joining in the chorus against we who have been sounding the alarm. Not one mainstream, Washington, DC-based conservative organization will even mention the words Agenda 21 or the many issues connected to the global agenda. Many Republicans in Congress lamely accept many of the environmental positions, instead offering lighter, “more reasonable” positions. Once they do that, they’ve already lost the argument. Today’s mainstream Conservative movement has changed little of their tactics from those used 50 years ago, when they were fighting Soviet communism. Yet, as the environmental movement takes over the American beef industry and leads the way to destroy private property rights and single-family neighborhoods, little action is taken. We cannot win if we ignore the massive loss of property in cities and farms. We cannot win if we fail to stand with the growing number of Americans who are suffering from the radical environmental assault. We have to change the debate and appeal to the growing legions of victims. And we must learn that the most effective place to begin the fight is on the local level in our communities – not on Capitol Hill.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 49 states. Think about that when you look at today’s election results. When that happened, the Left said “never again” and they began to organize. They focused on the local level and not just city council and county commission races. No position was too small or unimportant, including appointed boards, and even city hall jobs. These are the places where policy is decided and regulations, licensing, and government attitudes are prepared and carried out. When was the last time a local Republican group discussed the importance of the office of City Attorney? Yet these are the positions of power that have enforced the COVID lock-downs. After this most recent election don’t you wish we had some influence over voter registration and Board of Elections?  This is how the Democrats have managed to turn formerly red states blue. Pure determination.

Every freedom-loving American must become vitally aware that we now face the most powerful, determined force of evil to ever threaten humanity. To defeat them we must become equally determined to do the dirty work which our side has ignored for fifty years. This includes, local organization of precincts, finding viable candidates to run, and controlling the debate over issues as they appear, making sure our side is heard. We must decide to relentlessly focus on the three pillars of freedom, including protection of private property rights, taking necessary steps to help small business thrive, and assure that government is a servant of the citizens rather than citizens submitting to government.

Take such actions to secure your community as a Freedom Pod where these rights are the backbone of every decision made by your local government. If you are successful, the idea will get the attention of neighboring communities and another Freedom Pod will be planted there — and then the next and the next. These are the actions we must take to “flatten the Socialist curve” and take America back! As Winston Churchill said, “Never Give In, Never, Never, Never.”

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. He is also the founder of The American Policy Center. He is the author of several books.

 

Alex Newman: At UN Summit, America and Capitalism — Not CO2 — Are Enemy #1 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

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

Alex Newman: CFR: U.S. Needs More Mass Migration, Bigger Welfare State 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Alex Newman

Under the guise of keeping America “competitive” in the looming high-tech future, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations is urging policymakers at all levels to dramatically expand the size and scope of government. The bloated welfare states in Sweden and Denmark are cited as examples of the “advantages” of massive government programs to take care for people. Without the sort of fundamental transformation of America envisioned by the CFR, the nation will supposedly be left behind in the emerging new paradigm, the organization claimed. Critics, though, blasted that idea.

In its new report, dubbed “The Work Ahead: Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century,” the CFR Task Force offered a broad array of policy recommendations for federal, state, and local officials. These range from ever more immigration and a greater role for government in various facets of the economy, to a dramatic expansion of the welfare state modeled on Big Government schemes from Northern Europe. The CFR’s demands regarding education, which are a key component of the report, will be covered in an upcoming article.

Some of the leaders involved in creating the CFR report told The New American that without implementing the sought-after changes, America would be left behind as the world moves toward a globalized future of fast-moving technological progress. But experts and legislators invited to participate in the scheme who spoke to The New American sounded the alarm about the CFR’s vision. Among other concerns, they warned that the controversial CFR report and outreach efforts selling it to policymakers reveal a hidden plan to push a dangerous agenda and bring state and local officials into the establishment’s globalist orbit.

One reason why the CFR’s pronouncements are so important is because of the key role they play setting policy. Indeed, looking at its membership and influence, many analysts consider the CFR to be a key Deep State hub in America. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, explained that this enormous power is used for neferious purposes. In fact, Ward said, the main objective of the organization is to undermine U.S. sovereignty and facilitate the merger of the United States into what he described as an “all-powerful one-world government.”

The way it advances its objectives was explained by Admiral Ward, too. “Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition,” he said. “The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible.”

“By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, [CFR mouthpiece] Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be,” the respected admiral warned after ditching his membership at the CFR. “If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.”

While that may not be true in the Trump era, when voters and their president have openly rejected globalism, it certainly has been true for decades, if not generations, regardless of the party formally in power. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted publicly that the CFR told her what she should be doing and how she should be thinking about the future. Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, joked that he worked for CFR boss Richard Haass. Even many top “Republicans” are involved.

Of course, the latest CFR agenda starts with a kernel of truth. As anybody with common sense can see, the economy is changing and will be undergoing further changes in the years ahead. As a result of technological developments, the future of work will look very different in 30 or 40 years than it does today. Many Americans will lose their jobs. All that is true. Of course, it would be difficult to sell enormous policy changes if the entire premise behind them was nothing but fiction, obviously.

But the agenda being pushed is another matter. Under the pretext of responding to the obvious changes coming in the years ahead, the CFR — a leading Deep State institution in America that has dominated foreign policy for generations — is pushing what critics warned was a dangerous scheme to expand the power of government. The plan also advances globalism at every level of society, a key goal of the CFR dating back to its founding. In short, it is a massive and dangerous power grab that should be resisted, critics told The New American.

Policy Proposals

Globalist notions of “free trade” and mass migration are at the heart of the agenda. “Openness to trade and immigration are vital for maintaining U.S. technological leadership,” the CFR report says. Indeed, there are over 60 references to “trade” and more than 60 mentions of immigration, especially the alleged need to expand the already-massive immigration numbers coming to America.

As readers of this magazine know well, though, when the CFR advocates “trade,” it is generally referring not to genuine free trade, but to sovereignty-shredding “free trade” agreements that strip nations and peoples of the right to govern themselves. Mass migration, meanwhile, also helps smash national identities, culture, and eventually, the nation-state itself, as Europe is learning the hard way right now.

On the government’s role in the economy and the welfare state, the CFR report also seeks major changes. “U.S. efforts to help displaced workers are inadequate,” the report says, ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s limits on federal power and insinuating that it is the federal government’s role to train and help workers. “Unemployment insurance is too rigid and covers too few workers, and retraining programs are not based on the best global models,” the report continued, without giving many details on what these “global models” demand of America.

The report also includes seven specific recommendations for policymakers at all levels. These mostly revolve around the supposed need for much larger and more intrusive government across the board. Among other recommendations, the CFR claims:

• Government should be involved in “creating better jobs and career paths for Americans,” as if the real problem facing America was a lack of central planning, government-created “jobs,” and government-directed careers.

• Another recommendation calls for more immigration, including “highly skilled” migrants who would help drive down wages for America’s embattled middle class even as the CFR warns that countless people will lose jobs due to automation.

• Also supposedly needed is more government funding for “research,” as if the state, rather than the private sector, knows better what ought to be researched and what projects would be worthwhile to fund.

• Putting college and university “education” within “reach” of all Americans is important, too, the report said, implicitly advocating even more tax funding for bloated “educational” institutions that are churning out ignorant socialists with worthless “degrees” literally by the millions.

• America should also adopt the “best features” of what the CFR report describes as the European “flexicurity” models. As examples of the supposed “advantages” of these models, the Task Force pointed to the bloated welfare states of Sweden and Denmark, where tax rates (including VAT, income taxes, energy taxes, and more) can consume three-fourths of individuals’ earnings, and where individual freedom is severely limited.

• Finally, the report calls for the U.S. government to “create portable systems of employment benefits tied to individual employees rather than to jobs themselves.” This government-created system should be “universal,” as the report puts it — or in other words, mandatory for everyone.

There are many other recommendations woven throughout the 162-page report. Some make sense, such as scaling back the enormous growth in state licensing schemes that inhibit consumer choice and do nothing to protect the health and safety of consumers. But the overwhelming majority call for larger and more intrusive government: Creating a “National Commission on the U.S. Workforce,” offering more tax-funded subsidies for “affordable” housing, spending more money on government-controlled “public transportation” systems, and more.

As part of the initiative, CFR Vice President for National Programs and Outreach Irina Faskianos organized a conference call for state and local officials to promote the policy recommendations. On that call, CFR term member Chike Aguh, a member of the CFR Task Force behind the report and a former teacher who now works at the McChrystal Group, condensed the subject matter into four “buckets,” as he described it. Phrased as questions, he put it this way: “What is the work of the future? How do we make sure that we have the workers who have the skills to do that work? How do we make sure that those workers can find that work, and vice-versa? And lastly, how do we make sure that there’s a safety net to support them the entire way?”

Among other topics, Aguh argued that new systems were needed to help people who need work to find work that needs to be done. Using an example of a casino that could not find enough workers, he claimed there was “a lack of matching between people who could do the work and the work that needed to be done.” “And the question is,” he continued, “how do we solve that?” In a free-market system, those problems generally work themselves out. If there are not enough workers to fill job openings, then the employers may need to pay higher wages, or offer more benefits, or advertise better. But in the CFR’s view, it seems more bureaucracy and government programs are the answer.

Another topic on the call was establishing a “social safety net” that will “support the worker through this whole process.” According to Aguh, the existing welfare state is not enough. Complaining that the current regime was established in the 1950s and has not changed much since then, Aguh argued that the government should play a much more active role in providing economic “security” for people. For instance, he said some people might stay in their job simply because of the benefits it provides, whereas if the government created programs for health and welfare, that worker could move to another job more easily.

In a phone interview with The New American, Aguh noted that there were major changes when the economy went from primarily an agricultural system to a more industrial system. “As we look at this new economy, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we argue that we need a change,” he explained, adding that the system would have to change to keep pace with the changes happening in the economy such as automation, job losses, and so on. But in the end, there is “no silver bullet,” he said. “There’s a myriad of things that have to happen.”

Separately, CFR Task Force Project Director Ted Alden acknowledged to The New American in a phone interview that the report seeks to tackle an enormous range of issues. “The danger of this is that it becomes a report about everything,” he said, chuckling. Then he provided an overview of some of the many areas where the CFR group believes policymakers should make changes.

Asked about “global models” for unemployment insurance, Alden said there were two big pieces. One is to make the system more “effective.” “Europeans do better than we do here; Denmark and Sweden do this better than we do,” he said. “That doesn’t mean we necessarily need to follow them — they have different systems — but they do a lot right. For example, their unemployment systems. The U.S. is an enormous laggard in re-training and in spending.”

In America, the unemployment system was designed for cyclical downturns as people were laid off in bad times. “We argue for a move toward more of an affordable benefits program, recognizing the emergence of the gig economy,” he said, citing issues such as California’s recent scheme to force Uber and other similar companies to treat all their drivers as actual employees. “We have to have a social-benefit system that makes this kind of model work.”

While saying that did not necessarily mean a government takeover of health insurance, retirement, and other benefits people often obtain from their jobs, Alden and the Task Force report made clear that the federal government has a significant role to play. “What we’re talking about is allowing people to move more easily between jobs and retain benefits,” said Alden, who described his role as “working to try to fashion a consensus from the smart and visionary people” involved in the Task Force. “We need greater flexibility. The gap in economic security between full-time workers and part-time workers is enormous.” The Task Force did not get down to the “very granular level,” but there are many different models worth looking at, he said.

On immigration, Alden said he did not want to speak for the group on how to design an immigration system. “What I can say with confidence about the position of the group is we were trying to deal with a conundrum,” he said. “How does U.S. remain most competitive and innovative economy in the world? Our prosperity depends on us maintaining a technological lead. We don’t want to see government throwing wrenches that slow down technological progress. But if you look at evidence on high-skilled immigration to U.S., it’s a tremendous benefit to the U.S. economy and innovation.”

When pressed about the views of critics, Alden said the “notion of immigrants as competition for American workers” was actually “short sighted.” But of course, it is an established fact that an increased supply of labor will have the immediate effect of driving down wages, compounding the looming job losses and relocation that purport to justify the entire CFR Task Force’s agenda.

In the end, Alden portrayed the CFR’s efforts as a benevolent plan to help America succeed in a complex and globalized world. “Americans feel very uncertain right now,” he said. “They don’t know their place. If we don’t help Americans succeed, the future of the country is going to be very much in question. The U.S. is pulling back in global leadership, but we believe U.S. leadership has been an important force in the world. So there is a very important duality: How do we remain competitive and innovate, while making sure the benefits spread out to all of America, so they can embrace the future rather than be scared of it?”

Different Agenda

Lawmakers who spoke with The New American, though, had a different take on it all. Senator Regina Bayer, an Idaho Republican who was invited to join the CFR’s conference call for state officials, warned of a nefarious agenda hidden just below the surface. “My take on this conference call and task force is the CFR is attempting to establish a new, direct form of communication; new ways to disseminate information,” she explained. “They need to establish themselves as dedicated and honorable so that their information will be accepted as good and truthful.”

Part of the agenda, Senator Bayer continued, was to establish a sort of “open door” communication between the CFR and state and local officials, as the “federal and international approaches are not as successful as they would like to see.” She cited the implementation of the totalitarian United Nations Agenda 2030 as an example. “It is working better now as it is being implemented at the local and state levels rather than just a power push from the top,” she explained. Part of the strategy seems to be to “wow” state and local politicians into feeling important because a well-known organization like the CFR is interested in connecting with them. Interestingly, before Trump’s election, a CFR member was calling for abolishing U.S. state governments entirely.

But the underlying goals are clear. “Both the conference call and the Independent Task Force report are full of global-government ideologies,” she explained. “Most of it reads like Keynesian mumble-jumble. The true remedy would be a return to Austrian economics.” Keynesian economists typically believe government ought to intervene in the economy to deal with all manner of real and imagined “market failures.” Austrian-school economists, by contrast, generally believe the free market without unnecessary government intervention is the best system in terms of creating and distributing wealth.

“There seems to be the same old pitch that government can solve all problems from higher wages to lower home prices,” continued Senator Bayer, warning that government cannot do better than markets and freedom at solving problems. Plus, the CFR’s internationalist agenda is not difficult to discern. “When looking at information discussing the dangers of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the global goals of the CFR become obvious,” the senator warned, citing the “free trade” scheme negotiated by CFR member Robert Lighthizer and strongly endorsed by CFR boss Richard Haass.

Especially among Republicans and grassroots conservatives, thanks largely to the efforts of Americanist organizations such as The John Birch Society and Eagle Forum, even establishment types have long recognized that a public association with the CFR can be politically toxic among voters. That is why, for instance, former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as a director of CFR, boasted in a speech at the CFR of concealing his ties to the globalist organization while campaigning for reelection in Wyoming. But the CFR appears to be working to create ties with lawmakers and policymakers on both sides of the aisle nonetheless.

The CFR is a powerful organization with a well-documented track-record of promoting globalism, undeclared war, unconstitutional Big Government policies, and more. This report will perpetuate that history. So far, the Task Force and “The Work Ahead” report have received very little attention by the establishment press, much of which is openly in bed with the CFR — including many outlets that are corporate members of the group. However, a push to advance the CFR Task Force’s agenda is almost certainly coming, after the groundwork has been properly laid.

As Admiral Ward explained, when the CFR’s leadership decides to pursue a policy, the incredibly powerful propaganda and lobbying apparatus at its disposal represents a force to be reckoned with. That day is likely coming on this agenda, too. For right now, globalism is on defense. But over the long term, only an educated and informed electorate will be able to defend freedom and resist these growing assaults.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/33828-cfr-u-s-needs-more-mass-migration-bigger-welfare-state

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

 

TAKING AMERICA AND THE WORLD TO IMPOSSIBLE LEVELS 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Taking America and the World to Impossible Levels – “As reality takes over and these high speed trains don’t materialize, can you imagine the mess America will be in?”

by Kathleen Marquardt

ICLEI, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, is now called Local Governments for Sustainability so that people won’t know that this is an international organization pretending to be a local one. ICLEI just put out its USA 2016 Report calling for a reduction of global average temperature to just 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Because the Industrial Revolution began around 1760, when the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA ) was just ending, ICLEI and the global elite would have the world reducing carbon output below zero; if we hadn’t had an Industrial Revolution, if we were still living at subsistence levels, we would still be warmer than what they want us to achieve. How do you think they expect to get there?

Toward 1.5

“Spurred by calls from the communities most exposed to climate change impacts, the Paris Climate Agreement set the ambitious goal of limiting the end-of-century global average temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

The Paris Agreement includes Nationally Determined Contributions, reductions in GHG emissions by country — which offer this reality: In 2030, global emissions will be 22 gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GT CO2e) higher than the level needed to stay on track towards the 1.5° target and 15 GT CO2e higher than the level needed for a 2.0° scenario (UNFCCC analysis, May 2016). This is roughly equivalent to the emissions produced by 4,400 coal-fired power plants in one year.

The global community must push to peak greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the power sector by 2050, and deploy negative-emissions strategies by 2040 in order to protect the most vulnerable (Climate Analytics, October 2016).”

[ICLEI USA 2016 Annual Report]

How do ICLEI and the global elite propose to reach “1.5”? They have a blueprint for that – Agenda21/Sustainable Development, and tools to achieve their goals. The original tools are found in The Global Biodiversity Assessment, seven pounds of tools. As science advances more tools are added, but let me show you some of those tools.

To Win the War on Cars, San Francisco Weaponizes Real Estate

As Stephen Frank puts it, “The city is now given building permits for condo’s/apartments that do not have any parking spaces, but include bike racks instead.  Imagine the culture of this city if no one owned a car, and Ford/Chevy and Toyota were criminalized?

“What San Francisco believes it can do, however, is improve life in the city by making it easier to get around without a car. This week, its Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance requiring developers to stock new residential or commercial projects with more alternative-transport perks than ever before. This is no all-out war on vehicles, but rather an attempt to cut down on the number and length of car trips the natives take each day.”

[Read more]

Wimps didn’t build California: the case for high speed rail

“Our vision includes a national HSR Express system connecting cities and states into an integrated system, laid out in phases with an aggressive schedule for full system build out.  Our vision sets high standards for interoperable, state-of-the-art dedicated track, advanced control systems, elegant multi-modal train stations, and top-of-the-line 220 mph trains connecting major cities together.  Our plan calls for a support network of 110 mph trains connecting smaller cities and towns together with the high speed system.”

Their vision is beyond pie-in-the-sky. The first map shows their vision completed; the second, what is now. A very long — and expensive — way to go, yet cities are being restructured to remove cars now. As reality takes over and these high speed trains don’t materialize, can you imagine the mess America will be in?

In the maps of US High Speed Rail, is included this map below showing the plan for a Regional America. Regionalism is the key tool I spoke of above to be used to bring America down – down to 1.5.
The key tool is regionalism.

REGIONALISM IS COMMUNISM

In her article, Charlotte Iserbyt quotes from Dennis Cuddy: “In “The Globalists,The Power Elite Exposed”, page 304, Denis L. Cuddy, Ph.D, says “Most members of the European Union are already members of The Socialist International, and if other nations around the world can be moved toward socialism and regional economic arrangements, then these regional groupings can be more easily merged into a world socialistic government.

This scenario is quite similar to the three-stage plan outlined by Stalin at the 1936 Communist International. At that meeting, the official program proclaimed: “Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries,” after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations.”

Iserbyt goes on to note: “In socialist countries, metropolitan regions enjoy metropolitan regional government and comprehensive planning. Of the many regions on the vast territory of the Soviet Union the Moscow Region commands special attention, for it has been, since the 1917 Revolution, the country’s economic and political center.

The economic and functional efficiencies and the social benefits that comprehensive national, regional and city planning make possible in socialist society explain the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic and social progress. Conversely, our profit-oriented ruling capitalist class makes comprehensive social and economic planning impossible, causing waste and chaos and dragging the entire nation into misery and suffering as its rule deteriorates and declines.”

[Read more]

To close, another bit of Iserbyt elucidation:

“The power elite understood that it would be difficult to get the people of the world to accept a world government all at once, and so a gradualistic approach was suggested. Association of Helpers member and Canadian Rhodes scholar P.E. Corbett in Post-War Worlds (1942) wrote: “A world association binding together and coordinating regional groupings of states may evolve toward one universal federal government. World government is the ultimate aim, but there is more chance of attaining it by gradual development.” More recently, at Mikhail Gorbachev’s first State of the World Forum in 1995, Zbigniew Brzezinski (President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor) announced that we “cannot leap into world government through one quick step, but rather via progressive regionalization.”

Wanting to get to global government faster, we are now being pressured to undo the modern world – that is, for us. The elite will keep all modern amenities. But we, who must live under their rules, regulations, fees, taxes, penalties, are now told we must go back to a subsistence living – to grow our own food, to live without air conditioning and modern appliances, to be as close to animals as they can manipulate us into being.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2017/04/03/taking-america-and-the-world-to-impossible-levels/?mc_cid=04575abac8&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: Incrementalism, Regionalism and Revolution 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Incrementalism, Regionalism and Revolution – “We, America and the UN, are fighting wars around the world. None of them legitimate… ”

by Kathleen Marquardt

This is an article I wrote in 2012, and I am running it now in hopes that those who think Trump is our knight in shining armor and is going to wipe out all the evil/anti-western culture things that are now in our government policies. Even if he tries, he can’t. These policies are embedded in every level of local, state, and federal government. We can hope that he is able to steer the ship of state away from the far left it has been going in. But, we the people will still have the job of getting these policies out of our local governments, some of which have been part of our laws and regulations for over 100 years.

revolution – (rev-loo-sh-n)
 1 a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.
 • ( the Revolution) the American Revolution.
 • (often the Revolution) (in Marxism) the class struggle that is expected to lead to political change and the triumph of communism.

How many times have you heard someone say, “They (government) will only get my guns over my dead body.” Or, “Don’t worry, we patriots are locked, loaded and ready; we will save the Republic,”? Or “I HAVE MY GUNS AND AMMO, WHEN THEY COME TO GET THEM WITHOUT “CAUSE” THEY SHOULD PACK A LUNCH AND BRING BODY BAGS!” I spent some time wondering when all this was going to be sparked; what was going to be the incident that would bring about an uprising of the people.

To all those who carry that sentiment in their hearts, sorry, you are way too late. The globalists have been taking away our rights and conditioning us for slavery over the past hundred years. They bypassed the revolution and have co-opted us with barely a whimper. The sparks are many but way too small to be noticed by the naked eye.

Oh, there are plenty who can see exactly what is going on and can see who are the perpetrators of this take-over of America. But most of America is just wondering what hit them. If it could be explained in sound bites, we might get somewhere but the answer is not terribly complicated — just long.

So how did we get co-opted, and how did it start so long ago? I won’t go to the beginning. To know the early history of the American road to serfdom, read Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the U.S.A. 1884-1966 by Rose L. Martin (Jan 1, 1966), or The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G. Edward Griffin (May 1998). There are many more books and also videos that expose the early foundations of our downfall.

The result of Fabian planning, or better put, scheming is something called Communitarianism. This is the version of Collectivism or Socialism that is being foisted on the entire world. A simple definition is that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the interests of society as a whole. Where have we heard that before? We have been pummeled with the social justice notion of promoting the common good over that of the individual; that we must think of the community, the earth, our global neighbors, everything but us and our individual freedoms and rights.

But as Tibor Machan pointed out in 1991, “Communitarians wish to place community and individual on a collision course, saying there is some kind of balance that is needed between the rights of individuals and the rights of the community. But if we consider that “community” means simply a lot of other people than oneself, this makes for majority rule. If we consider that such other people usually leave it to a few who will speak out in their behalf, we will have a few community representatives dictating to the rest of us what we must do and what our “responsibilities” are. Communitarians are interested in diminishing the decision-making power of people as individuals. Yet, it is just such power that is required for a morally responsible life, including one that does full justice to our moral responsibilities to others.”

But that presupposes those in power care whether their form of governance promotes responsible behavior. The globalists or Communitarians are saddled with having a desired outcome (the reduction of 85% of the people on the planet, making slaves of the rest and taking all the land in the world for themselves {nothing about responsible behavior}) but, because that outcome might enrage most of the populace, they must disguise their desired end in touchy, feel-good doublespeak so that the people will not only accept it but use it as their guiding light. So far they have achieved their aims far better and easier than one would hope by using the environment as the club to beat us with: if you don’t quit using air conditioning . . . if you don’t quit building fences . . . if you don’t quit making dust you are going to destroy the earth. (At least they have quit with the global warming scare for the most part.) Read More

APC: http://americanpolicy.org/2016/12/15/incrementalism-regionalism-and-revolution/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: Are you ready for the globalist world? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Are you ready for the globalist world? – “…Technocracy as the sole global economic system while destroying capitalism and free enterprise. ”

by Kathleen Marquardt

Now the powers that be want to get rid of fake news. I think it is because the fake news has accomplished its task: to get the general public to believe in sustainable development, global warming, and global government while also believing that global warming is real and will destroy our world within several decades. I kid you not. You have all seen those videos of people asking students, and even adults, questions like, do you think incest is okay? Or showing a picture of Biden and asking can you name him. They obviously don’t know what incest is, but don’t want to look stupid, so they agree. And they can’t identify the Vice President, but they all can identify a Kardashian. Are they dumbed down enough yet to be able to read real news and not ‘get’ it?

This comes to you straight from the World Economic Forum, The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better!

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car.

“My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.” –World Economic Forum

Yep, many have been brainwashed to believe in Smart Cities/stack-em and pack-em housing. In college I took a course on ecology and one of the things we studied was overcrowding – of rats and people. The consequences of overcrowding on both make them crazy. One has to assume that the powers that be know this, so are we to surmise that they want us to go crazy? Another tool in their kit to help reduce world population by 90%?

How will the globalists be certain that the future goes the ‘correct’ way, their way? But legislating everything. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is here. What laws do we need to make sure we all benefit from it?

Why does governance matter for the Fourth Industrial Revolution?

“Because if we don’t govern it, it doesn’t happen. There’s a common assumption that economic progress happens regardless of what the governance environment looks like. The thinking goes: the Fourth Industrial Revolution will happen anyway. And if we can figure out how to govern it, it’ll happen better. Governance is seen as the icing on the cake. I think that’s the wrong perspective.

“The Fourth Industrial Revolution is upon us, but if we don’t govern it properly then its full economic and social potential will not be realised. So how do we create legal infrastructure for something that is so new and complex, asks Gillian K Hadfield, professor of law and economics at the University of Southern California and author of Rules for a Flat World: Why Humans Invented Law and How to Reinvent It for a Complex Global Economy.” –World Economic Forum

Because the voters of America didn’t vote as the powers that be had expected, they will now have to find other ways to achieve their goals of instituting a devastating carbon tax. I think they should back off now that California has decided to control cow farts; that should take care of everything.

World Mayors Gather To Plot Against Trump On Climate Change

“Mayors from scores of the world’s biggest cities gathered in Mexico Wednesday to plot their strategy for fighting climate change in the face of skepticism from U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.
“As leaders of busy, polluted cities home to millions of people, they want countries to push on with adopting the so-called Paris Agreement to limit harmful emissions – an accord that Trump has cast doubt on.

“In the aftermath of this election there’s never been a more important time for those city leaders to stay on course – the whole world is counting on them,” said Clover Moore, mayor of Sydney, Australia.
“Hidalgo has vowed to push “for the world’s biggest and most influential cities to mobilize to make sure the Paris Agreement is fulfilled.” –Technocracy News & Trends

And, because new useless eaters are born everyday, indoctrination must be on-going in order to keep the children dumbed-down.

Universal Design for Learning or Microcosm for Destruction?
“Those from groups like Teach for America and Relay Graduate School of Education are at this moment learning how to plug kids in. They will be facilitators making sure the computer is working and that students sit in their chairs straight.
It all makes sense now. It’s the universal design for privatization, and it’s created by corporate America to replace democratic public schools.” –Nancy Bailey’s Education Website

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

 

Tom DeWeese: The Mental Dismemberment of Children 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

The Mental Dismemberment of Children – “With the creation of the Federal Department of Education there grew a massive industry in mind manipulation.”

by Tom DeWeese

This past Halloween I had an opportunity to take part in an activity that I haven’t done in a couple of decades- hand out candy to the children on Beggers Night. It was fun to see the creative costumes. Some of beautiful princesses; others, usually the boys, dressed as scary monsters from movies. The scariest was, hands down, a young man who dressed up as Michael Meyers from the Halloween movies. Even the other kids wanted to stay clear of him. He had it down so well, the jump suit, the walk. He said nothing as he approached, we carefully put the goodies in his bag.

A few of the kids simply wore outfits to look like bums or super heroes. I remember doing similar things as I prepared to rush the neighborhood in a contest to see how much I could collect. It was a good time with fine memories that rushed back as each new batch of kids came up with their open bags yelling “Trick or Treat!”

My main attention, however, was on the little children. So innocent. Some not really sure why their parents were encouraging them to approach these strangers. And why were they giving out candy? But always, with their parent’s encouragement they accepted and said “tank too.” So sweet. They made you want to hug them. The parents of the little ones seemed to be having the best time with the experience. You could feel their love of their children. This was a family outing. This was Americana at its best. Family. Neighbors hugging neighbors.

But as I watched this wonderful experience a thought went through my head and anger seeped in to my happy feelings. I kept thinking about the following Monday when these children would be forced into the local school house, away from their loving patents and into the control of a system that was designed to take advantage of their innocence and rob them of their trust.  My anger grew as I thought about how these young children, taught by their parent’s love to feel secure around others in authority, are to be subjected to a dictatorial federal system that has been transformed away from teaching basic academics to one that instead, focuses on controlling and remolding the children’s minds.

These thoughts reminded me of a story I had read several decades before, written by Ayn Rand in her book entitled The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. In the book Rand included a story written in the nineteenth century by famed writer Victor Hugo. The story was called “The Comprachicos.” Hugo said the term was a compound Spanish word meaning “child-buyers.” The Comprachicos traded in children.
Hugo went on to describe why they bought and sold the children and how they prepared them for purchase. They created monsters. Why? To make people laugh. Kings in their courts needed to laugh. The people needed side shows to make them laugh. To fill the need the Comprachicos created freaks.

The making of freaks for everyone’s pleasure became an art form. They had a talent to disfigure. They operated to change faces into hideous masks. As Hugo described it, the process was a sort of “reverse orthopedics. “Where God had put a straight glance, this art put a squint.” Worse, the Comprachicos became masters at erasing the child’s memory so that they had no recollection of a life before they were horribly disfigured. “Was it not always so?” Later, in China, the process became more perfected as they learned to put the very young children in a box or a bottle so that as their little bodies grew, they grew into the shape of the container. The perfect freaks were created.

Now, why did I have such thoughts on this Halloween night? It wasn’t because of the costumes. Those were make believe and a personal choice by the children. They were simply playing.

No, my thoughts of the Comprachicos were from the second half of Rand’s article when she made her point in the telling of the Hugo story. She saw, as I see now, that the Comprachicos of our day are found in the public school classrooms. Only today, they don’t physically deform the children. Today the education system is designed to deform the children’s minds. In this way these modern day Comprachicos are much more dangerous and evil than those Hugo wrote about. It’s much more difficult to see the immediate results of the deformity. Many, even the parents, find it nearly impossible to see the destruction that is occurring. And so the Comprachicos can work out in the open in complete secrecy.

With the creation of the Federal Department of Education there grew a massive industry in mind manipulation. In November, 1992, following the election of Bill Clinton to the Presidency, Marc Tucker, president of the National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE) wrote an 18 page letter to Hillary Clinton. He excitedly outlined the opportunity the Clinton Administration now had to “remold the entire American system…” He provided a detailed blueprint for a revolution to completely change our nation and its citizens by training children from a very young age to properly serve the global economy.

There was little in Tucker’s plan that had anything to do with teaching how to read, write or calculate. That wasn’t important. Instead it was a plan to control the children’s knowledge base to fit Tucker’s vision of creating the proper global citizen cog. Today, Tucker’s proposal made to Hillary Clinton that fateful day is completely in place.

Read 
Tom DeWeese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

It started with Goals 2000, designed to create a new system of standards that no longer taught our American system of free enterprise and limited government. In fact, it taught them that such ideas were dangerous and selfish. Then came School-to-Work, which focused on job training rather then academics. It was all glued together by a new method of psychological control called “Outcome based Education.” OBE created a computer database on every child and focused on mental, psychological and behavioral evaluations. The data bases were made available to the schools, the government and future employers.

Teachers were designated as counselors to decide if problem children needed drugs to control their behavior. Ritalin over use was born. A system called “Transition” was employed which featured small groups of children sharing their thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Transition contains no academic significance whatsoever. It contains tactics such as role playing. Its purpose is to strip search the students for their ideas and attitudes so that a special personal curriculum can be created to assure those attitudes, such as love of family or country, for example, can be systematically deleted. It slowly trains them to not question authority.

Today, the new term is Common Core. It simply encompasses all of these forerunners to the plan to remold American education, and ultimately change American culture by dictating the thought and belief process of its citizens.  The indoctrination of the children is now in full swing. In 2011, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), another private group contracting with the Department of Education, advocated the “Whole Child Approach,” saying Whole child education is the expansion of education beyond just learning reading, writing, and arithmetic to include student health, community engagement, and social emotional learning (SEL). The ASCD report goes on to explain that “SEL focuses on feelings, emotions, and self-reflection, leading to inclusion of social responsibility and social justice initiatives.”

The Department of Education is now planning to use the SEL process to rate schools on their “nonacademic” factors through its new initiative called “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA) that is to be enforced in the 2017-1018 school year. The bottom line for all of this mumbo jumbo is that children have been designated to be patients that are sick and in dire need of cure. If they believe they are unique individuals; if they love their families; believe their nation is a bastion of freedom; love God; etc. then they are deemed unhealthy, deluded and in urgent need of care.

The “curriculum” that now surrounds them drills home the need to openly seek to change the world in areas such as health care, climate regulation, and “sexual politics.” Children are graded on their activism, volunteerism, commitment to community rather than academic knowledge. Children are taught that only whites can be racist because racism is power and only whites have power. American civics is ignored.

Our founding ideas are dismissed as organized slavery controlled by the rich. Capitalism is evil. Wealth must be destroyed. Government control is the answer to all questions. These things, the children are assured, are the proper attitudes, values and beliefs. And it is their duty as citizens of the world to not only promote and carry out such ideas, but to consider any contrarian thoughts as evil, and to be stopped at all costs. These are the children of today.

In my book ERASE, I write of a process called “Globally Acceptable Truth.” This is an actual policy promoted through the United Nations. It advocates that the reason we have war, poverty and strife is because there is too much knowledge in the world. That, we are told, forces people to struggle to understand too many ideas in order to make decisions for their lives. It’s just too much to of a burden to live under. It’s the reason, we are told, that so many are failing today. They just can’t take the stress of life. So under Globally Acceptable Truth, these decisions are made for them making their lives less stressful.

That is the purpose of today’s education system.

So now, after decades of this mind control and manipulation passing as pubic education, what is the true outcome? Well, simply watch the nightly news as young people take to the streets to protest the election of Donald Trump. Listen to what they say. They are terrified at these politically incorrect ideas.  They oppose policies that seek to keep our nation independent and sovereign. They label any thoughts of the reduction of federal spending programs as hateful and racist. They loath the idea that people can have differing opinions. To advocate ideas of individuality, limited government, pro-second amendment, sound science, free enterprise – all such ideas can now get one labeled as unstable and possibly insane. Such dangerous thoughts must be cured.

So well have these modern day Comprachicos done their job that the once happy, innocent, trusting children now need counseling and safe spaces to protect them from ideas and opinions that are outside of their acceptable truth. They are reduced to coloring books and play dough to cope. Their minds have been remolded into the shape of a hideous, empty, vessel, kept in a state of planned constant adolescence where they remain pliable.

Many will say that the education system has failed. That’s wrong,. It is working perfectly for what it’s been designed to do. If you think it has failed that’s because you are still operating under the incorrect assumption that the purpose of schools are for teaching knowledge and learning academics. In fact, the Comprachicos of Yale and Harvard and every “institution of higher learning” and public school classrooms have succeeded in creating the perfect, pliable, unquestioning, obedient global village idiots, ready to take their selected spot in this well-ordered utopia. Of course, in reality the process is nothing short of child abuse.

I weep for those wonderful little bright eyed children from that Halloween night.  And for all the children just like them across this country.  If you dream of taking the country back, start by saving the children from mental dismemberment by these modern day Comprachicos.

To make the nation great again Donald Trump’s new Administration must set this very specific goal: Tear down the federal Department of Education and set free these young minds so that they may have a life of their own. For that is Freedom.

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

« Older Entries