Category Archives: United Nations

United Nations Healthcare v. The Bible

United Nations Healthcare v. The Bible- “The only Constitutional and biblical solution to America’s health-care problem, therefore, is to repeal ObamaCare.”

by Bill Lockwood

As the Health Care debate wages in Congress and across America, the United Nations, fulfilling its world “governance” destiny, is seeking to influence our laws. Dainius Puras, the UN “Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”, warned the Trump Administration in February that “repealing ObamaCare” would violate “international law.” The United States, in going back to a more constitutional government, would become a “human rights violator.”

This is more than merely meddlesome political pressure for Puras declares that it is the duty of the UN to manage America. “It is my responsibility, under the mandates provided me by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention.” Puras demanded not only more information from the Trump Administration, but asserted the UN’s supposed responsibility to “prevent” violations by the United States. The Republicans would be committing illegal actions by International Law if ObamaCare is repealed because, according to the UN, healthcare is a “right” for all citizens to enjoy.

Back to Basics

Seeing the mass confusion on this issue led by the socialists of the world at the UN, let’s go back to pick up basic concepts.

First, if there is no God, there are no so-called “rights.” A “right” as normally defined refers to a moral or legal entitlement to something or to a certain behavior. But an “entitlement” by definition means “to give a right” or to “bestow a privilege.” The atheistic UN has no ground upon which to argue that any nation “ought” to do this or “ought not” to do that. Omitting God as the UN has done removes the basis from which to argue that anything should be “given” to some by others. Things just are. “Human rights” are just the personal tastes of those who populate the World Dictator’s Club known as the United Nations.

Second, the inalienable “rights” of mankind, as set forth in our Declaration of Independence, are posited on the ground that they are gifts of God. Important it is for Bible students to recognize that nowhere does God actually speak of “man’s rights” in the sense of “entitlements.” One might argue that rights to life, liberty and property are implied due to the fact that murder and theft are forbidden (Exo. 20:15; Dt. 5:21) and the ability to own private property is assumed. So also is my ability to earn a living wage (1 Cor. 9:9-11).

But it is just as important to recognize the fact that these privileges are actually blessings from God and not entitlements that are owed to me by my Maker.

Third, good health is actually itself not a “right” but a blessing from God. Not every person in the world is born with good health. Many have defects and diseases due to the sin-cursed earth upon which we live. Resentment can easily be created in persons who have disabilities if they assume the notion that they are “entitled” to good health by God. If we consider good health in life a “blessing” from God we are much closer to a biblical frame of mind.

Fourth, maintaining my health is a personal responsibility which I have, not a “right” to which I am entitled. My body actually belongs to God and is considered a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:9-11). My physical body is a “gift” from God which prevents me from abusing it or destroying it with health-altering drugs or lifestyles. How many myriads of people deliberately abuse their bodies into poor health? Whose is responsible for addictive behaviors or poor choices that people make pertaining to their bodies?

Fifth, health care is a service provided by some people on the behalf of others. Becoming a doctor or nurse is no different than becoming a carpenter, plumber, or even an attorney—except for the amount of training that is necessary. These are all occupations by which people serve others for profit. Health care therefore is the means whereby I can fulfill my God-ordered responsibility to my body and to family members under my care. There is no difference in principle in my hiring a doctor to serve myself or my family than hiring a carpenter to build my house. Health care is not a right owed to me by others.

Government intrusion via ObamaCare and all socialized medicine schemes are actually forcing individuals who are in the professional business of providing health-care to serve some people for little or no compensation—or, for compensation provided by a taxpayer.

There is no difference between this and slavery. For government to overstep its God-ordered bounds of maintaining order to extract money from me in order to provide for others who may or may not have the means to care for themselves is a form of slavery, pure and simple. Government run Health-Care also enslaves health care providers by forcing them to provide for others at either their own expense, or others’ expense.

The only Constitutional and biblical solution to America’s health-care problem, therefore, is to repeal ObamaCare. This may make America, in the eyes of the UN, a “human rights violator,” but according to the world body, it prefers communist dictatorships to freedom.

As Jefferson famously observed, “…a wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

Kathleen Marquardt: The Third E of Sustainable Development

The Third E of Sustainable Development – “It exposes the inception of this so-called economic order designed to transfer the wealth…”

by Kathleen Marquardt

On May 1, 1974, the United Nations adopted a resolution “. . . to study for the first time the problems of raw materials and development, devoted to the consideration of the most important economic problems facing the world community.

In June of 1976, The Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements, the genesis of Agenda 21, was announced to the world and bring the 3Es to the fore. Rather than taking bureaucratic worded quotes from the UN document, I am going to let a far more learned person give you a taste of what the resolution proposed to do (and the UN is busy at work carrying through with it – to the extent that the UN carries anything through).

Harry G. Johnson, Professor of Economics at The University of Chicago, Professor of Economics at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva; educated at Toronto, Cambridge, and Harvard; and Professor of Economics at The London School of Economics among many other prestige positions gave the Woodward Court Lecture at The University of Chicago on October 5, 1975, on the UN’s New International Economic Order.

Below are excerpts. I hope It will tempt you to read the entire speech, it is only 18 pages.

The New International Economic Order

The new international economic order, considered as a set of proposals for changing the present international economic order, can be evaluated most succinctly by remarking that it is not new; it is not international: it is not economic; and it is not an order. Let me develop these points in turn. Actually, the ideas and proposals are by no means new; they have been around a long time.

In broad essentials, they were the focus of the 1964 Geneva Conference on World Trade and Development, and specifically the background document for that meeting, Towards a New Trade Policy for Development, prepared by the Secretary-General of the Conference, Dr. Raùl Prebisch. Individually, the ideas had been around for much longer.

On the one hand, the idea that international trade is a zero-sum game by which the rich benefit at the expense of the poor goes back to the Marxist view of imperialism, and before that to the mercantilist idea that foreign trade is a means of transferring wealth from one’s customers to oneself and the main thrust of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and of classical economics was to refute mercantilism. p. 1,2.

The fourth demand evolved into the so-called “link proposal” for coupling the creation of new international reserves or liquidity with distribution of a substantial part of the new money as aid to the less-developed countries. Such is the attraction of the idea that the creation of money involves bringing into existence something for nothing that this scheme has both excited a great deal of expert discussion, and become a general operating principle of International Monetary Fund thinking about world monetary reform.

Nevertheless, the benefits to the developing countries are likely to be small, since the subsequent emergence of world inflation is a symptom of the fact that the world has too much international liquidity, not too little.

The idea of international agreements to stabilize and raise the prices of commodity exports of developing countries-crystallized at the First United Nations Conference on Trade and Development into the concept of “an integrated core of the current demands for a new international economic order. However, nothing much came of it in the decade or so after the first conference.  p. 4.

The demand for a new international economic order is therefore not new; nor are the proposals themselves new; what is new, if anything, is the idea of trying to make a system or order out of a collection of monopolistic and discriminating policies, and the arguments for doing so. For this reason, the new international economic order is not “international” either.

It is not a system of arrangements among nations, each of which participates by virtue of its being a nation. Instead, it proposes, politically, a system of confrontation between two groups of nations, a numerical minority of successfully developed nations and a preponderant majority of developing or less-developed nations, on the basis of a majority vote.

Moreover, the developing country group is based on no clear-cut criteria, there being blatant discrimination against certain poor countries which are excluded-most notably Israel. In this proposed system, the minority is expected to yield to the majority partly on the basis of acceptance of a false parallel with the idea of democracy, partly on the basis of presumed guilt, past and present, for the underdeveloped state of the underdeveloped.

Third, the proposed new international economic order is not economic, at least if economic means more than the truism that any international arrangement has economic effects. Economics as defined by the vast majority of its practitioners is concerned with the rationale and effects of trade through markets including by extension the rationale and effects of the replacement of competitive markets by central planning, which in this context entails replacing multifarious private decision takers by a centralized social decision-taking process, but does not alter the principle of using rational allocation procedures to maximize the extent to which planning objectives can be fulfilled. p. 5,6.

On the other side, the proposed system relies on the ability to create and enlist feelings of guilt sufficiently strong to support regular payments of blackmail, made in the form of artificially high commodity prices. Economists have, it is true, been working on the economics of crime, bribery, and (so far as I know) hush money and blackmail as well; but no one has yet suggested that these phenomena have ever been, of a viable economic system.

Fourth, the system that would result, namely one of developed-country toleration and support for developing-country use of every possibility of monopolistic exploitation they could devise, would not be an order, but an experiment in the rule of the jungle-a rule modified by the hope that the largest and most savage carnivores will be so ashamed of their present existence by virtue of the killing and eating successes of their ancestors that they will offer themselves up as willing sacrifices to the hunger of the smaller fry. No amount of repetition of the rhetoric of “an integrated commodity policy” can convert the rule of the jungle into a rule of law. p. 7,8

There is more, much more meat in this paper. Please take the time to read it. It exposes the inception of this so-called economic order designed to transfer the wealth, mostly of American wealth, to the UN and its NGOs through “aid” programs.

The UN resolution is below:
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 3201 (S-VI). Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

 

Tom Deweese: Trump orders State Department to slash $5B from UN budget

Trump orders State Department to slash $5B from UN budget – This is what you and I have been waiting for!”

by Tom DeWeese

Two major actions have been taken in Washington, DC to prepare to end the tyranny of the United Nations.
You and I must not let these opportunities die!

First, President Trump has ordered the State Department to slash $5 billion from the money we pay in dues to the United Nations. That’s a full 50% of the money the United States wastes on this tyrannical, globalist threat every year!

Clearly the United Nations stands as a direct threat to the ideals and principles of the United States. Slashing these American payments from the UN budget will greatly reduce the UN threat. It must be done.
But President Trump is under huge pressure from the Left. They are attacking every move he makes. And they are furious that he is now threatening the United Nations.

That’s why President Trump must know that he has your STRONG support to slash our UN payments.
To help you send that strong message of support to President Trump I have included a personal email for you to sign and send to him.

SEND YOUR EMAIL OF SUPPORT TO DONALD TRUMP

Slashing the UN budget by 50% – that one move – if successful – would mark the doom of the United Nations. The UN depends on the United States to pay its bills and supply it with an army- our American soldiers forced to do the UN’s bidding. That’s a disgrace. President Trump wants that to stop – now.

The United States pays more than one fourth of all the UN’s budget. Without the United State paying its bills, the UN will simply cease to exist. President Trump has taken the first step to make that happen.
And now you and I also have a SECOND way to help end the United Nation’s threat. New legislation by Alabama Representative Mike Rogers (HR 193) calls for the end of US membership in the UN.

You and I can now attack the UN from two directions!

We need to build support for Rep. Rogers’ bill to get us out of the UN.
Showing strong support for both of these efforts means we WILL damage the United Nations. We will cut funding and we will build support to end our membership. We must do both!

SEND YOUR EMAIL OF SUPPORT TO DONALD TRUMP

The UN is already in a panic. They know this can all happen. And the UN is trying to fight back. In fact, they have just threatened to take away the US vote on the Security Council.

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

Good! Let them. That can only strengthen our fight to get out of the UN.
Please help me lead this fight. I need to let President Trump know that we support him. It’s vital that you sign the Email of Support to President Trump. Tell him that you support his efforts to stop payments to the UN.

Together you and I can win this fight.

My American Policy Center (APC) is a recognized leader in the fight to get us out of the UN. I’ve been on the front lines of that fight for several decades.

APC has exposed the UN’s plans to destroy our national sovereignty through Agenda 21. In fact, APC made Agenda 21 a major national issue that’s now being fought in city councils and state legislatures across the country.

Of course, for that effort I have been personally attacked on the front page of the New York Times and in the Washington Post. The Southern Poverty Law Center has written four separate reports attacking me by name. Several years ago APC collected more than a million signed petitions to support former Congressman Ron Paul’s bill to get us out of the UN.

In fact, in the year 2000, during the UN Millennium Conference, APC sponsored a national news conference on Capitol Hill. It was carried on national television. At that national news conference I personally delivered over half a million petitions to support Rep. Paul’s bill to get us out of the UN.

Now, Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers has reintroduced a new bill (H.R. 193) to end U.S. membership in the United Nations. His bill also demands that the UN leave American soil. Americans are beginning to understand the UN threat. Obama actually stood before the UN General Assembly and called for Americans to surrender our national sovereignty to this world body.

As Obama worked feverishly to build UN intrusion into our lives through actions like Agenda 21 and by joining the UN’s Strong Cities Network to militarize our police, the rest of the world started to revolt against UN global policies that are destroying their national independence and economies. Countries like England and France now get the message that the UN is bad news for their freedom and independence.

Now there is growing support in our own Congress to stop funding the UN and even to get us completely out of it. The idea of pulling back on paying UN dues has been expressed by several members of Congress in recent months.

Our time has come – if we demand action now! 

SEND YOUR EMAIL OF SUPPORT TO DONALD TRUMP

Since its founding, the UN has advocated the desire to eradicate sovereign nations — while imposing what it calls “world-mindedness. In the 1990’s, Maurice Strong said, “it is not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation/states, however powerful.”

The UN’s real goal is to destroy the ideal the United States was founded on – limited government, individual freedom and free enterprise.
The UN wants the power to tax us.
The UN wants its own army to control us.
The UN already has its own court.
Those three things are all it needs to become a world government.
You and I must stop it. And now we have a President who agrees – the UN is a danger to American freedom.

Now we have the chance to end the UN’s tyranny.

I pledge to you that my American Policy Center will work tirelessly to build support for Rep. Mike Rogers’ bill (HR.193) to end our membership in the UN. Will you now also take direct action to stop the UN by signing your Email of Support to President Donald Trump for his effort to stop sending American money to the UN?

SEND YOUR EMAIL OF SUPPORT TO DONALD TRUMP

Both efforts are vital if we are to build support across the nation to get us out of the UN.

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: The Renewed Drive to Exit the United Nations

 The Renewed Drive to Exit the United Nations – “The United Nations, internally, is a mess. It now finds itself buried under scandals.”

by Tom DeWeese

Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers has introduced a new bill (H.R. 193) to end U.S. membership in the United Nations. The bill is the reintroduction of his American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 1205) from the last Congress. And of course, that was basically the same bill introduced year after year by former Congressman Ron Paul. In the past, both Paul’s and Roger’s bills have been ignored by Congress, but things are changing. Americans are beginning to understand the UN threat. Obama has actually stood before the UN General Assembly and called for Americans to surrender our national sovereignty to this world body.

As Obama worked feverishly to build UN intrusion into our lives through actions like Agenda 21 and by joining the UN’s Strong Cities Network to militarize our police, the rest of the world has started to revolt against UN global policies that are destroying their national independence and economies.

The Brexit vote in England was the shockwave heard around the world. The European Union is the first such organization of the UN’s goal to create such unions in every region of the world, including North and South American Unions; an Asian Union and so forth. The EU was to be the wave of the future. England struggled under its shackles until it could no longer stand it and so revolted. As the vote came in suddenly other members of the EU started thinking – if England can escape, why not them? Suddenly the global New World Order juggernaut has begun to show cracks.

Meanwhile France is about to elect its own Trump-style president ready to pull back its global policies as Italy rebels in its own way. Worst of all for the UN globalists, their one excuse for power, Climate Change, is being discredited as President Elect Trump prepares to throw out the Paris Treaty along with the TPP.

However, it was the most recent Obama shenanigans in allowing a massive UN attack on Israel over its settlements in favor of a non-existent Palestine that has created the strongest ever anti-UN sentiment in the U.S. Pulling back on paying UN dues has been expressed by several in Congress as support for such a sentiment has begun to grow across the nation. Without the United States and its money the UN is nothing. It will cease to exist in a very short time, just as did the old League of Nations.

Now, to feed that growing sentiment Congressman Rogers has again introduced the legislative means to make it happen. This time more and more Americans are listening. To help readers understand why the UN is such a threat to our nation and freedom-loving people everywhere, I am reissuing my opening statement given in a debate over the UN before the 200 year old English debating society, Cambridge Union in 2006. At the time I was debating the former UK Ambassador, Lord David Hanney; the head of the Liberal Party and member of Parliament, Simon Hughes; and the head of the UN Millennium Project, Salil Shetty.

Representative Mike Rogers’ H.R. 193 must now be seriously considered and passed by Congress. The time is finally here to make a strong stand to get the United States out of the United Nations.

Opening Statement by Tom DeWeese: Before the Cambridge Union Society, Cambridge University–October 26, 2006

“This House believes that the United Nations is a dead loss.”
 It is reasonable that honest, compassionate people seek a means for governments to come together to discuss and air their differences. It is also reasonable that honest, compassionate people should desire some way to voluntarily pool resources to provide charitable aid to those who are starving or are victims of natural disaster.

Indeed this is the image of the United Nations that has been sold to the world since its inception.
It is not, however, the reality. The world is in chaos and, quite frankly, it’s the UN’s fault. It gives validity to zealots and petty bigots. It helps to keep tyrannical dictators in power. It gives a voice to international terrorists.

Delay. Negotiate. Recommend. Study. Reconsider. Do nothing. This is the game the UN has played in nearly every international crisis. It is the reason North Korea remains a threat after 50 years. It is the reason Zimbabwe’s murderous Robert Mugabe is able to steal his election and then steal the land of white property owners, drive the nation into economic ruin and starvation without an international protest, boycott, or sanction. Instead, Mugabe is given a voice in the UN’s Sustainable Development conference in South Africa.

It is the reason why the Chinese government is able to ignore UN rules not to its liking — while growing as an international military and economic threat. And it is the reason why a terrorist nation like Syria can be given a seat on the UN’s Human Rights Council. The United Nations, internally, is a mess. It now finds itself buried under scandals. It has Oil-for-Food scandals. Smuggling scandals. And theft scandals.

Peace keeping missions actually bring fear to the local citizens they are supposed to protect. Rob, rape and pillage seem to be the UN’s modus operandi. How can we be surprised by such revelations? Who has the power to oversee and control its actions? The people don’t vote on UN actions. The media has little access behind the scenes. Who audits the accounting books?

Of course, even its supporters will readily agree that such problems exist. They are quick to jump in and call for “reform.” However, when talking reform, one must be very careful of what the word may mean.
UN reports on reform don’t indicate a simple desire to plug holes in UN spending — or to clear up scandals. Quite the contrary. According to Kofi Annan, Maurice Strong and many others, reform means global governance.

Since its inception, the UN has advocated the desire to eradicate sovereign nations — while imposing what it calls “world-mindedness.” A 1949 UNESCO document said, “nationalism (is) the major obstacle to the development of world-mindedness.” In the 1990’s, Maurice Strong said, “it is not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation/states, however powerful.”

There in lies the true goal of the United Nations. And that belies its public image as simply a place where nations may come to air their differences and act responsibly. Instead, the UN is openly working to gain power for itself in order to become independent and supreme over its member nations.

To do that it needs the power to tax. On September 19th (2006) plans were approved to begin the creation of a global tax, mostly through airline tickets to help pay for the treatment of aids. They of course euphemistically call it a contribution. There are several other tax schemes on the UN wish list, including a carbon tax on Co2 emissions, a currency tax on transactions of foreign currency exchanges, and taxes on the Internet, to name a few. If the UN gains the power to tax and the enforcement power necessary to collect them, then the UN will become an unstoppable force in the world. A monster free from its chains.

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

And, of course, the UN wants its own military. It already has its own court. These three things; the ability to collect taxes to provide nearly unlimited funds from independent sources; the ability to enforce its will with a military force; and a court system to impose its own brand of justice, are all that is required to create a government.

Imagine a world run by the justice of China, with the economics of Cuba and the military might of the United States. Such is the world of the future under United Nations global governance. Public relations propaganda aside, clearly, the United Nations wants to be much more than a place where nations can come together to air their differences under a voluntary membership association.

The truth is, today, fifty years after the inception of the United Nations, the international community is a dangerous place. Today the world has more wars, more poverty and more suffering that anytime in human history. Obviously, the United Nations is irrelevant as a body to deliver world peace. Just as obviously, the UN is more interested in meddling in the sovereign affairs of nations, seeking to impose its own agenda over development, production and what it calls social equity in a drive to set itself up for global governance.

Using images of dire environmental emergencies or life-threatening diseases or starving children, the UN promotes an agenda which really seeks to redistribute the world’s wealth. Its only answer is government control – and confiscation of individual wealth and property.

Nowhere is there mentioned in a single UN document that I have read an advocacy for the right to own private property. In fact, quite the opposite is the case as nearly every UN document, report, working paper, program, treaty, protocol, declaration and resolution is dedicated to the confiscation, redistribution, regulation and tax of someone’s property.

It is a fact that the inability to own private property creates poverty. It is also a fact that confiscation of private property never helps to eradicate poverty. It is bad economic policy. Yet that is the UN’s only solution to the massive suffering throughout the world. Take it from one source to give to another. And that, I contend, is the very root of the suffering – not the solution.

The UN was wrong from its very beginning and wrong now because it has always sought to interfere with national sovereignty rather than to provide a unique forum to help keep the peace. The United Nations is not “dysfunctional” as some “reformists” have claimed. It is a criminal enterprise in which no moral nation should ever participate, let alone perpetuate.

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: The Big Picture

The Big Picture: Recent Globalist Actions with Huge Implications for a Free America – “…Technocracy as the sole global economic system while destroying capitalism and free enterprise. ”

by Kathleen Marquardt

Okay, so far, so good. We have elected a president who says he is going to Make America Great Again. One of his first steps was hiring Myron Ebell to head EPA transition. Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at Competitive Enterprise Institute, has been at this since back in the Wise Use days. If all of Trump’s choices are this good, we can be happy.

But we have two more months of executive orders from Obama and the onslaught of directives on Sustainable Development and other UN initiatives to take control of the world. Quito was the scene of the most recent SD attack, once again putting ICLEI in the driver’s seat. With Habitat III finished, what are cities’ next steps toward implementation?

The Habitat III conference wrapped up last month in Quito, Ecuador, where nations adopted the New Urban Agenda — a 20-year vision on sustainable urbanization. “The agenda sets an important precedent: For the first time, national governments fully embraced much of the language on local sustainable development that has been used by local and subnational governments for the past 20 years. ICLEI has defined three strategic actions that local governments can take, starting tomorrow.

Three actions
1. Establish local commitments.
“Equally important will be to start building the political capital and commitment necessary to push forward sustainable development policies. This can be done by creating campaigns and movements across the political spectrum in order to ensure continuity of action, regardless of changes in the leadership of administrations through elections. “Similarly, local authorities can immediately start developing multi-stakeholder partnerships with local businesses, civil society and academia.

2. Seek sustainable and innovative financing mechanisms.
“Local governments also can advocate for more and better financing opportunities. ICLEI’s Transformative Action Program (TAP) is one important way to connect potential funders and cities with high ambitions and low resources.

3. Raise awareness and advocate for support.
“City leaders can explain the SDGs to citizens and all stakeholders, including local and multinational business, aiming to mobilize them to participate in their implementation. They also will need to put pressure on national counterparts so that they put in place enabling frameworks and inclusive approaches in defining national strategies for SDGs implementation.

Finally, local leaders can seek to develop urban sustainability alliances engaging a variety of stakeholders. This would help giving momentum to concerted local action to implement the SDGs.”
[Read More]

********** FLASH: This came in as I finished putting this blog together:

EPA Chief Urges Staff To Finish Obama’s Agenda Before Trump Takes Over
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urged employees to finish out the last weeks of the Obama administration “running” to finish implementing what they can of the president’s environmental agenda. “As I’ve mentioned to you before, we’re running — not walking — through the finish line of President Obama’s presidency,” EPA Administrator Gina […]

Another venue for destroying American free-trade is the TPP. In early November, the Republicans were bragging that they had the votes to help Obama push it through. The big questions now are, did they hear the message from the people and are they going to listen? If so, they will back off a vote for the TPP, and maybe live (politically) to see another election.

DR: http://deweesereport.com/2016/11/14/the-big-picture-recent-globalist-actions-with-huge-implications-for-a-free-america/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

 

Patrick Wood: The Real Reason Why The UN Wants Control Over The Internet

The Real Reason Why The UN Wants Control Over The Internet – “To achieve its Utopia goals, the UN must have ICANN’s steering wheel and throttle. ”

by Patrick Wood

By its very nature, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a non-profit organization exclusively run by Technocrats. As such, it is an apolitical body that is happy to serve whatever form of governance exists as long as funding is received and salaries are paid. To a Technocrat, a world run by science and technology is better than any other form of governance.
That Technocrats have played a supporting role in world history is unquestioned. Scientists, engineers and technicians played a huge role in the Communist dictatorship in the former Soviet Union (For instance, see Science and the Soviet Social Order). Technocrats likewise played a central role in support of Adolph Hitler and National Socialism (See Scientists, Engineers and National Socialism). In both cases, the Technocrat goal was not necessarily Communism or Nazism, but rather the methodical exercise of science according to its Scientific Method. In other words, the process was more important than the outcome – and in both cases, the outcome was not questioned or resisted, but simply accepted.
The reason that ICANN formerly served the interests of the United States was simply that it answered to our government’s judicial, legislative and executive branches. In other words, the U.S. held the umbrella over ICANN and that was enough to keep it working for our national interests and not for someone else’s interests.
Obama changed that when he cut ICANN loose on September 30, 2016 by letting the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract expire without being renewed. After expiration, we forever lost the right to renew the contract again. So, ICANN is now a “free-agent” looking for shelter in the same way that a boll weevil looks for a cotton plant: it needs a host organization in order to practice its craft, and, I dare say, it doesn’t care one whit who that host is.
It is no secret that the United Nations is making a play to become host to ICANN. In particular, the UN’s International Telecommunications Union (ITU), run by the Peoples Republic of China, is expected to play the central role in this effort. However, whether it is the ITU or some other UN agency is immaterial because it will still be the UN in the end.
But, why the UN? Because it is the fountainhead of the plans and operations to establish Technocracy as the sole global economic system while destroying capitalism and free enterprise. Technocracy is the issue here. Others know it as Sustainable Development or Green Economy, but the correct historical term is Technocracy.
In February 2015, the head of climate change at the UN, Christiana Figures, stated, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”[emphasis added]
What is unclear about this? Sustainable Development, or Technocracy, is a resource-driven economic model regulated by energy rather than by supply and demand plus monetary currencies. In 1938, the original Technocrats defined Technocracy as “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.”
To achieve its Utopia goals, the UN must have ICANN’s steering wheel and throttle. But while everyone is stressing over Internet censorship of web sites and the suppression of free speech, the real prize is completely overlooked: The Internet of Things (IoT). In terms of “follow the money”, IoT is expected to generate upwards of $3 trillion by 2025 and is growing at a rate of at least 30 percent per year. In other words, it is a huge market and money is flying everywhere. If the UN can figure out a way to tax this market, and they will, it will provide a windfall of income and perhaps enough to make it self-perpetuating. Currently, the UN is financed by contributions from member states. Read More
Patrick M. Wood, Editor-in-Chief of Technocracy.News
Patrick is also the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation. He is a frequent guest on radio programs around the world, and is the leading spokesman for resistance against the implementation of Technocracy.

Tom DeWeese: The Equator Principles and Sustainable Poverty

The Equator Principles and Sustainable Poverty “The people who just want to improve their lives and have simple things like running water and heated homes…”

by Tom DeWeese

This article was first published in The DeWeese Report in January of 2013. Nothing has changed since then except taxes are higher, government is more powerful and there are more poor in the world as the attack on free market capitalism increases. Corporations that play the Sustainability game are not free enterprise. They are its enemy. The assault continues.  -Tom DeWeese

The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer (Environmental Defense Fund)

The reminders are put in front of us everyday. Poverty in the world. How horrible. Starving children. Unimaginable hardships. Hopelessness. SOMEONE MUST DO SOMETHING!

Of course, the answer for the world leadership is to throw money at the problem, either through volunteer charity programs or mandatory taxation. The problem is, after subjecting us all to this redistribution of wealth in order to sentence the poor to a lifetime of breadlines, the only thing that changes is that we have more and more poor.

What other way is there? How do we eliminate these horrible conditions and create jobs in these very poor countries? Well, in a recent article I argued that “Private Property Ownership is the Only Way to Eradicate Poverty.” It is. But there must also be a workable infrastructure of electricity, clean water, commerce and transportation in place as well. One must have these things to provide jobs, health, and an upgraded standard of living for the means to purchase private property, after all.

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

So, it seems that a good place to start the process of eradicating world poverty and ending the bread lines would be for international companies to begin to invest in such an infrastructure. Building power plants and water treatment plants would lead to the development of housing, schools, shopping malls. Better roads would spring up as people would need to get to the newly created jobs. Farmers would need to employ new ways to increase their output to feed new mouths as people from other regions would arrive seeking the much needed jobs.

Prosperity and hope would overtake poverty and hopelessness. It’s the very system that helped to make the United States the richest nation on earth with the highest standard of living. Finally, instead of depending on us for their daily ration of bread, these people would be able to help, not only themselves, but others in need as well. The entire world could begin to move toward a global prosperity, which our leaders say is their goal.

There’s only one problem. Poverty is unacceptable only as long as it doesn’t hurt the environment! What? Say that again? Yes, you heard me. If such action to end poverty and improve people’s lives is somehow a threat to the world-wide plan for Sustainable Development, then such development is not to be considered. Read More

Read Tom Deweese’s Bio

Back to Homepage