Category Archives: United Nations

Alex Newman: Trump Tells Bankrupt UN to Find Money Elsewhere

by Alex Newman

Facing a massive hole in its budget, the United Nations is implementing “emergency measures” to avoid missing payroll and other obligations before the end of the year. Unsurprisingly, UN bosses are demanding that taxpayers in America and other nations hand over more money now or face global catastrophe. Even UN officials and apologists, though, have blasted the “bloated” organization for squandering massive amounts of money on everything from luxurious air travel and fancy hotels to globalist propaganda promoting its own agenda. Trump reacted to the whining by calling on the UN to go look for money elsewhere.

According to the UN, one third of all “member states” are delinquent in paying their “dues” to the UN this year. That includes the United States, which funds between a fourth and a third of the UN’s overall budget, compared to Communist China’s meager 8 percent. In exchange, the regime in Beijing runs almost one third of all UN specialized agencies, while an American runs just one out of 15. State Department officials said the U.S. government would pay up at some point in the fall.

While the exact numbers are hard to pin down because so many federal agencies provide so many funding streams to the UN and its maze of bureaucracies — not to mention the “peacekeeping” — official estimates suggest the U.S. government sends well over $10 billion per year. American taxpayers pay more than 185 other UN member states, combined. And in return for all that money, the UN constantly attacks Americans’ liberties while praising and aiding mass-murdering regimes.

The official UN deficit is about a quarter of a billion dollars. In a letter addressed to the almost 40,000 bureaucrats based at the UN Secretariat, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a radical socialist, sounded the alarm about the numbers. “Member states have paid only 70 percent of the total amount needed for our regular budget operations in 2019,” he complained. “This translates into a cash shortage of $230 million at the end of September. We run the risk of depleting our backup liquidity reserves by the end of the month.” If the situation does not improve, the UN could default on salaries to employees and payments to vendors very soon.

But Trump was unmoved by the whining. “So make all Member Countries pay, not just the United States!” he fumed on Twitter in his typical style. Prior to that, speaking at the UN in New York City, Trump told “world leaders” last month that the UN needed to ensure that “no member state shoulders a disproportionate share of the burden.” As of right now, the General Assembly, which UN bosses such as then-Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon have dangerously characterized as the “Parliament of Humanity,” decides how much each government is expected to hand over from their citizens.

But Americans and their elected president are getting tired of shouldering an outlandish portion of the burden. On the campaign trail, for instance, Trump noted that the UN was not a friend to freedom or the United States. He has also repeatedly blasted globalism, most recently telling the UN General Assembly that the future did not belong to globalists, but to patriots. And the UN’sraison d’etre at the moment — the man-made global-warming hypothesis — was described by Trump as a “hoax” to benefit the dictatorship enslaving mainland China. And he won the election in an electoral college landslide.

Since his victory, Trump has dealt several major blows to the UN, even before this budget impasse. For instance, in 2017, the administration managed to get the UN budget slashed by a quarter of a billion dollars. That same year, Trump announced that the U.S. government was withdrawing from the UN Paris Agreement on “climate change.” He also withdrew from several key UN organs including UNESCO, the UN’s totalitarian-controlled “education” bureaucracy; and from the dictator-controlled UN “Human Rights Council,” which specializes in praising mass-murdering regimes while constantly attacking America and other nations that still enjoy some freedoms. Trump defunded a number of UN programs, agencies, and schemes, too.

As might be expected, the U.S. State Department used a more diplomatic tone to emphasize American reluctance to continue paying so much for the UN. “Overall the United States, as the largest contributor to the UN, contributes roughly $10 billion annually in assessed and voluntary contributions across the United Nations system,” a spokesman for the department was quoted as saying in media report. The Trump administration “has been very clear on its position that no one member state should pay more than one-quarter of the Organization’s budget,” the spokesman added.

Even before Trump was president, though, it was clear that there was growing bi-partisan outrage about the UN. In 2016, following a UN Security Council vote attacking Israel, leaders of both parties in Congress blasted the UN and threatened to withhold funding. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), for instance, blasted the global outfit for being “fervently anti-Israel.” And in previous Congresses, lawmakers have come very close to nixing funding for the globalist body.

Just the UN Secretariat alone has over 44,000 overpaid bureaucrats working for it, not including the tens of thousands of additional bureaucrats working at the 15 UN specialized agencies or the dizzying array of auxiliary UN outfits. Adding insult to injury, UN bureaucrats make enormous amounts of money, too, including $400 per day per diem while in New York. According to a 2012 report, there were 637 employees of the UN Development Program (UNDP) with over $1 million in their accounts. There were over 1,000 who had homes worth more than $1 million, too. Leaders at the UN pull down salaries and benefits that would boggle the mind.

Even UN officials see it. Former First Vice-President of the UN Staff Union Guy Candusso, who worked for the UN until retiring recently, slammed the global body. “Over the last 10 years, the UN has become a bloated organization, especially at the top,” he argued, adding that financial shortages in the 1990s were even worse but had somehow been solved. “If the cash crunch is considered so serious now, there should be a complete hiring freeze along with the other measures announced.”

Among the measures being taken by the UN to deal with the problem is an end to all “non-essential” travel. Why UN bureaucrats were flying around the world in luxury on “non-essential” travel paid for by taxpayer money was not made clear. Ironically, thanks partly to air travel, the UN’s carbon-dioxide footprint was larger than the entire population of some of its own member states, ranging from Malta to Liberia. Even UN officials have lambasted the globalist organization for using tax money so they can fly around the world in business class or even first class, while the people who pay their salaries sit in much smaller economy-class seats or struggle to even survive.

UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric urged member states to immediately pay up “to avoid a default that could risk disrupting operations globally.” But this has been a long time coming. UN boss Guterres, a socialist politician who has lived all his life feasting on the fruit of taxpayers’ labor, warned back in June that the UN was facing big money problems. “The solution lies not only in ensuring that all Member States pay in full and on time, but also in putting certain tools in place,” he warned the budget bosses at the UN’s Fifth Committee. “We are at a tipping point and what we do next will matter for years to come.” Apparently nobody listened, since the press is now acting surprised.

Calls for the UN to cut spending, or scale back its commitments, or quit paying exorbitant salaries to corrupt UN officials, are not wrong — but they seriously miss the point. Yes, the UN is bloated. Yes, it wastes outlandish amounts of the public’s money. But that is not the real problem. “The best thing that you can say about the United Nations is it’s mostly ineffective and a waste of money,” Representative Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has a bill to get the United States out of the UN, told The New American magazine. “That’s the best thing you can say about it. So I’m glad that they are somewhat ineffective, but I don’t like that we waste the money.”

But rather than making it more efficient, or less corrupt, Massie and other liberty-minded lawmakers say the time has come for the U.S. government to completely ditch the UN and remove its headquarters from U.S. soil. “It’s full of dictators, and it’s also something that I don’t think our sovereign government should defer to,” Massie explained. The bill, known as the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204), would sever all U.S. ties and funding to the UN while evicting it from New York. The legislation is currently in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where Democrats hope to keep it bottled up. But if they lose control of the House at the next election, an “Amexit” from the UN may well end up on the agenda.

TNA:https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/33652-trump-tells-bankrupt-un-to-find-money-elsewhere


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

Tom DeWeese: NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION’S BETRAYAL OF ITS OWN INDUSTRY

by Tom DeWeese

MY ADDRESS TO THE COLORADO INDEPENDENT CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION

I’m not a cattleman and I’m not going to pretend I know everything you are facing. But I do know that the major weapon being used against your industry is the misnamed control devise called Sustainable Development. I know why and I know who the players are. I hope I can leave you today with some ideas on how to fight them.

To begin, let’s set the terms and make one thing very clear. The use of the word sustainable may sound like a comfortable term, not threatening. After all, you, your parents, and those before them have probably been successfully working the same land for decades. That’s true sustainability. But that is not what it means to those forces pushing that term today. Sustainable today means sustained control. Sustained power. And very soon – sustainable poverty for many.

Most people immediately equate Sustainable Development with environmental policy. Of course, concern for the environment is the justification most often used for its implementation. But, in fact land, and economic control are at the heart of Sustainable policy and, assuming it is simply good environmental stewardship proves to be a serious and dangerous mistake.

The term “Sustainable Development” was born on the pages of the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. It is basically the policy for the implementation of Agenda 21 which came along in 1992. The announced purpose of Agenda 21 was a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”.

Now to make this blue print effective they needed us to voluntarily give up our liberties. What could be such a powerful threat to get us all to do that? Well, how about the threat of Environmental Armageddon? It doesn’t matter how many rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on! Climate change is the tool of choice to scare us all into voluntarily surrendering our liberties to this BLUEPRINT to change human society. And that’s why they will not give up on this scam – no matter how much true science debunks it.

If you doubt that then let me share this quote from Christina Stewart, the former Canadian Minister of the Environment: “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.” That “justice and equality” she speaks of is redistribution of wealth – which means socialism. Sustainable Development is not just a conservation policy to assure we are good stewards of the land: rather, it affects every corner of our lives.

The Sustainable ground troops are made up of hundreds of Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), including the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. They, and hundreds more like them, helped to write Agenda 21.

How many of you have heard of the Wildlands Project? In the 1980s one of the most radical environmental organizations emerged – named Earth First! Its leader was Dave Foreman. Earth First! saw themselves as “Eco-Warriors” the Esprit de Corp of the radical environmental movement. Monkeywrenching was their tactic of choice. Sabotage. They destroyed mining equipment, blew up power transmission lines and spiked trees. That little bit of fun meant they drove a spike into a tree. When the timber company then cut the tree down and sent it to the mill, as the saw blades hit the spike they would explode. Timber production stopped! Victory for the Eco Warriors.   

Forman had big plans. He said, “My three main goals would be to reduce human populations to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full compliment of species, returning throughout the world.” Do you see any room for you and your cattle in that vision?

Oh, but these were just the ravings of a radical lunatic – not to be taken seriously. Well…not so fast! You see, Foreman’s ideas became the basis for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. “Rewilding” became the term to lock away over 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way if was before Christopher Columbus came this way. No human activity. No roads. No homes. No industry. That became the basis for the whole Sustainable movement.

Foreman got specific about how he saw YOUR future. “Our vision is simple. We live for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska. When gray wolf populations are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland.”

One of Foreman’s fellow Earth First!ers said, “The native ecosystems and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” You see, this “vision” became the driving force for the entire radical environmental movement. It was first expressed in the 1970s in the UN’s Habitat 1 Conference that said, “Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” That’s how you reorganize human society.

Thomas Lovejoy, a Clinton appointed Science Advisor to the Department of Interior said, “We will map the whole nation…determine development for the whole country and regulate it all.” That is Sustainable Development.

Why is the excuse of environmental protection their most diabolical weapon? Because the environment doesn’t obey political boundaries. Rivers run through many towns and states. Then we have the corridors of crops and wildlife patterns. So environmental protection becomes the perfect excuse to move national sovereignty out of the way and open the borders to the “natural migration” of people.

On the county level we then have a need for a coalition of multiple counties working together on “mutual” needs, thus reducing your power at the ballot box to elect the kind of local government you desire. Then there is the matter of that boundary around your house – your private property – that the community needs to control – just to protect the environment, of course.

It is essential that every American understands that these leading issues we face today are not just random concerns that accidentally find their way into the forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to be policies of Sustainable Development and the restructuring of our way of life. Their selected tactic is to control the land, water, energy, and population of the Earth. To achieve these ends requires, among other things, the destruction of private property rights and elimination of every individual’s ability to make personal life-style choices, including personal diet. That’s why the American Beef Industry is such a tasty target.

Of course, no totalitarian-bound movement would ever put their purpose in such direct terms. That’s where the environmental protection excuse comes in. Instead, American cattle producers are simply assured that no one wants to harm your industry, just make it safer for the environment. The gun industry might recognize that such an assurance sounds a bit familiar. Same source, same tactics, same goals.

Enter Bill Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development, (which was created a year after Agenda 21 to assure it’s policy of Sustainable Development became the rule of law). The President’s Council included representatives of most federal agencies, many of the NGOs who helped write Agenda 21 at the UN level, and representatives of global corporations. The President’s Council laid out the “Principles of Sustainability” called “Our Vision of a Sustainable United States of America.”

To carry out these plans, the President’s Council created a task force called the Sustainable Agriculture Task Force. The purpose, according to the report – “The Sustainable Agriculture Task force is developing an integrated vision of sustainable Agriculture, focusing on sustainable production practices and systems. The Task force will recommend goals and actions in the areas of agriculture-related research and education, technology, and farming practices and system to the Council for National Action Strategy.” So the offered solution to “fix” the beef industry is “sustainable certification”. All the cattle growers have to do is follow a few simple rules and all will be fine, peaceful, and profitable.

Now, enter the World Wildlife Fund and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB). The task force led the way to its creation. In all of their “expert wisdom” based on this Taskforce, here are some of their reasons why they claim the beef industry is not sustainable.

  1. Deforestation – the claim is that farm animals require considerably more land than crops to produce food. The World Hunger Program calculated that if the land was used to grow grain and soy instead of cattle the land could provide a vegan diet to 6 billion people. Do you get that – a vegan diet!

Of course, as I’m sure you know, most grazing land in the U.S. cannot be used for growing food crops because the soil wouldn’t sustain crops. It’s also interesting to note that in Brazil, the WWF managed to force that government to lock away almost 50% of that nation’s land into unusable parks. Now they are working on that same goal in the American west.

  1. Fresh Water – they claim that the America diet requires 4,200 gallons of water per day, including animal drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, etc. Whereas a vegandiet only requires 300 gallons per day. Apparently they don’t plan to irrigate the land to grow wheat or to wash the vegetables.

The interesting thing about this detail is that the actual sustainable policies they are enforcing to fix this problem destroy the small family farms in favor of the very giant corporate factory farms they profess to oppose.

Food Productivity – say the Greens, food productivity of farmland is falling behind the population and the only option, besides cutting the population, is to cut back on meat consumption and convert grazing lands to food crops. However, the only places where such shortages may exist are in totalitarian societies where government is controlling food production and supplies – Just like the Green’s plan for sustainable beef.

  1. Global Warming – here we go! Say the Greens, global warming is driven by energy consumption and cows are energy guzzlers.

But there’s more to the story. Cow flatulence! A single dairy cow, they claim, produces an average of 75 kilos of methane annually. Meanwhile, environmentalists want to return the rangelands to historic species, including buffalo. And a buffalo, grazing on the same grass on the same lands, would emit about the same amount of methane. It’s a non-issue.

Not long ago many farmers were being harassed by government agents over pollution in streams running through their land. The government charged that the cattle were the cause and demanded they build a fence to keep the cattle from the stream. They demanded, they harassed, and they threatened. Then they found that the pollution wasn’t being caused by the cows, rather the source was feral hogs. Of course, an environmentalist, who has never worked a ranch or farm and rarely comes out of his New York high-rise, might not know that.

So, these are some of the reasons why it’s charged that beef is unsustainable and must be ruled, regulated and frankly, eliminated. These are charges brought by anti-beef vegans who want all beef consumption stopped. In cahoots, are environmentalists who seek to stop the private ownership and use of land under the excuse of environmental protection.

And the sad fact is, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the organization many have been trusting to represent your interests, has betrayed you by allowing itself to be used as the Judas Goat to lead the industry to sustainable slaughter.

To bring the cattle industry into line with this world view the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has accepted the imposition of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, which is heavily influenced, if not controlled, by the World Wildlife Fund, one of the top three most powerful environmental organizations in the world and a leader of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), which basically sets the rules for global environmental policy.

This is the same World Wildlife Fund that issued a report saying, “Meat consumption is devastating some of the world’s most valuable and vulnerable regions, due to the vast amount of land needed to produce animal feed.” The report went on to say that, to save the Earth, it was vital that we change human consumption habits away from meat. Again, the fact is, most land used for grazing isn’t capable of growing crops for food.

Regulations using these principles impose a political agenda that ignores the fact that smaller, independent cattle growers have proven to be the best stewards of their own land and that for decades have produced the highest grade of beef product in the world. Instead, to continue to produce you will be required to submit to a centralized control of regulations that will never end and will always increase in costs and needless waste of manpower.

To follow the sustainable rules and be officially certified, you, as a cattle grower, must agree to have much of the use of your land reduced to provide for wildlife habitat. There are strict controls over water use and grazing areas. This forces you to have smaller herds, making the process more expensive and economically unviable for the industry. In addition, there is a new layer of industry and government inspectors, creating a massive bureaucratic overreach, causing yet more costs for you.

The Roundtable rules are now enforced through the four packing companies that control the entire American beef market. Your ability to get your cattle to market is getting harder every day – unless you comply with rules that are simply designed to put you out of business. And yet, if you do comply, you will certainly go out of business.

Do you understand the game that is being played on you? You are not supposed to win – you are supposed to quietly comply and then die. You cannot reason with them. You cannot compromise with them. You follow their rules. They own the game.

So as the packers, Cargill, Tyson, JBS and National Beef, force their expensive, unnecessary, and unworkable sustainable certification on American cattlemen, they are systematically bringing in cheaper product from other countries that don’t necessarily adhere to strict, sanitary, safe production. As a result there is a noticeable rise in news reports of recalls of diseased chicken and beef in American grocery stores. They get away with this ruse because their first step was to remove the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) from the packaging in stores so consumers have no idea where the product is coming from.

This, then, is the situation that is threatening the American beef industry. If one reads the documents and statements from the World Wildlife Fund, the United Nations Environment Program, and others involved, it is not hard to realize that the true goal is not to make beef better, but to ban it altogether. And believe it or not, the fact that some of the beef sold in stores is becoming lower grade and even diseased, works in the Sustainablist’s favor too – because the ultimate goal is to stop the consumption of beef. So fear is a valuable tool.

The question must then be asked, why is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association allowing this to happen, and indeed, joining with the Sustainable Beef Roundtable to force these policies on its members? The answer is actually quite tragic. They have beaten you into submission with that word Sustainable. American ranchers, farmers and livestock growers have been targets of the environmental and animal rights movements for years.

You just want to be left alone to work your farms and herds like your forefathers have done for more than a century. But the pressure is growing day by day. So, many have come to believe that if you just go along – put the sustainable label on your product — then this pressure will stop. In short, it would be a pressure valve release.

I’m sorry to tell you that it is not a release. Compromising and trying to play ball with these zealots is not going to make it go away. You must understand that the goal is not about improving your industry or environmental protection. The tragic reality is this is a drive for the destruction of your industry. Remember, the UN calls this the reorganization of human society. You and your way of life are to be reorganized to fit their view of human existence.

The attack has now grown to major proportions with the Green New Deal. Beefeaters have no place in the sustainable paradise of city apartment dwellers who accept government controls to choose for them what they are permitted to eat.

R-CALF USA, the courageous group leading the fight to save you, has managed to slow the Sustainable capture of the industry. But the packers’ control is a major roadblock if you can’t reach the market. R-CALF has filed Abuse of Conduct suits to shed light on the anti-trust activities of the monopoly tactics of the packers. It’s a good and valuable start.

However, the beef industry cannot recover on its own. Your story must be told to the consumers. They must become outraged about the real reasons prices are soaring and quality is going down, as the danger to their own health is increasing. You must focus on how to get your message out to consumers that a force is loose in our country that is robbing them of the freedom of choice for their own dinner plate, perhaps even for their own health. You know these facts – but the average American doesn’t. Now how do you do that? You are in a crisis situation. That calls for drastic, creative measures.

You must get dramatic to get the attention of consumers. You must get the American people to understand the threat to the beef industry. I have a modest little suggestion as to how you can get the attention of the entire nation – and start a nation-wide discussion on your plight.

Here is my modest suggestion to help you get the public’s attention. Start a cattle drive right down the main street of cities across the country. Drive your cattle right to city hall or the state capital. As you pass through town people are going to be very startled and curious, to say the least. Take advantage of that by passing out leaflets that tell them why you are doing this.

Now that you have everyone’s attention, tell your story. Hold a news conference right there on the steps of city hall or the state capital. In that news conference, demand that “Country of Origin” labels be put on all beef products so you know where your food comes from.

Second, demand that the Department of Agriculture reject this sustainable myth and protect the American free market that has always provided superior products.

Third, expose the packers by name. Help the American consumer become your ally in every grocery and steak house in the nation. Demand American beef for Americans! So, if they see that cute little WWF panda on the label – they’ll drop it like a hot potato.

Above all, publicly call out the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to get its collective head out of the sand and join you before the entire industry is destroyed. Expose the fact that the NCBA is working directly with your mortal enemy, the World Wildlife Fund, which believes that beef consumption must be stopped in order to save the earth.

At your news conferences ask this question of the NCBA: Why would the WWF be welcomed into any part of your industry? It means they can effectively destroy you from the inside. And that is exactly what they are doing.

Can you imagine the impact this would have if you had five cattle drives in five cities in one day? It would get international attention. The only way you can survive is to fight.

I know some of you may be thinking this idea of a cattle drive is over the top. Perhaps it will cause more trouble than it’s worth. Well, just a few weeks ago several thousand farmers in the Netherlands staged a protest over similar government restrictions on their industry by blocking the roads into The Hague. The resulting traffic jam brought nearly the entire country to a halt. And the people supported the framers. The national government immediately reacted and called an emergency meeting to discuss the situation. The point is you must do something dramatic to get the nation’s attention!

So-called sustainable policy is not a free market. It is a government-sanctioned monopoly that is little short of a criminal enterprise. This is a dark, evil force with a one-sided goal designed to put you out of business and control or destroy your industry.

If you intend to survive, you must all become modern day Paul Reveres. That means taking direct, creative action. The very future of our nation and its ability to feed itself, while remaining free and strong, depends on the choices you make today. As martyred rancher LaVoy Finicum said, it matters how you stand!


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/10/16/national-cattlemens-beef-associations-betrayal-of-its-own-industry/

Alex Newman: China Seeks to Run UN “Crime” Agency

by Alex Newman

Not content with its agents running about a third of United Nations agencies already, the Communist Party of China is now pushing one of its minions to lead the powerful UN “crime” agency as well. The bid comes amid surging influence for the mass-murdering dictatorship within the “global governance” system. But unlike during the Obama administration, this time, critics from Capitol Hill to the White House are paying attention — and speaking out.

Beijing’s move to install Andy Tsang-Wai-hung as chief of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) comes just after Communist Chinese agent Qu Dongyu secured the top spot at the massive UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO). Whistle blowers and diplomats accused the regime of using bribery and threats to secure enough votes from UN member governments to have Qu take over the influential post.

The effort to have Tsang run the UN “crime” agency also comes shortly after the Communist Chinese agent running Interpol, the self-styled global “law-enforcement” agency, was arrested by authorities in China. Among other charges, communist officials in Beijing publicly accused former Interpol boss Meng Hongwei of failing to obey Communist Party orders while running the France-based international organization.

Headquartered in Vienna with a biannual budget of around $700 million, the UNODC that Beijing has its eyes on claims to be a leader in the fight against crime, terrorism, and more. It is currently led by a former diplomat for the mass-murdering Soviet regime, Yury Fedotov, who regularly blasted the United States for obeying the U.S. Constitution by failing to enforce blatanly unconstitutional UN agreements. The brutal Iranian dictatorship, by contrast, was regularly praised and celebrated by Fedotov’s administration.

Tsang’s history suggests he will be just as bad — if not worse — than Fedotov when it comes to advancing globalism, whitewashing savage tyranny, and threatening national sovereignty across a broad range of policy areas. Among other roles, Tsang serves as deputy director of the regime’s “National Narcotics Control Commission.” The outfit has developed a global reputation for barbarism and horrifying human-rights violations, including beating and torturing prisoners and using them for slave labor, as documented by Human Rights Watch.

Before that, while serving as police chief, Tsang was instrumental in violently suppressing the peaceful “umbrella movement” protests in Hong Kong. As The New American reported at the time, authorities used tear gas and brute force to smash popular dissent against Beijing’s growing authoritarianism in the once-semi-autonomous city. Protesters sought expanded voting rights, less interference from Beijing, the preservation of a free press, and the safeguarding of basic individual liberties. Tsang and his minions responded with an iron fist and bloodshed.

Now, finally, after the Deep State helped the murderous Communist Chinese regime take control of about one third of all the UN’s so-called “specialized” agencies, officials in Washington, D.C., are starting to take notice. Indeed, within the upper echelons of the U.S. State Department, meetings and memos have been discussing the issue and seeking solutions to rein in Beijing’s growing role within the UN system.

In response to the latest candidate offered by Beijing to run a key UN agency and the broader context of Communist China’s ongoing takeover of the UN, officials within the Trump administration are working on a strategy to counter those moves. However, from public statements made by officials, it is clear that — at least in the bureaucracy — there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the problem.

“China’s concerted push has more to do with advancing its self-serving interests and authoritarian model than demonstrating genuine leadership consistent with the principles and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the U.N Charter,” an unnamed official was quoted as saying by Fox News. Of course, it is true that Beijing is interesting in advancing its authoritarian model. But the idea that the dictator-dominated UN is based on principles of freedom is beyond ludicrous.

In reality, the UN charter does not enshrine any freedoms, fundamental or otherwise. The official quoted in the media may have been referring to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But even allowing for that possibility, the statement is absurd. Unlike the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, which protect God-given rights that pre-exist government, the UN’s “human rights” instruments purport to endow people with revocable privileges that cannot be used against the UN and can be abolished at any time under virtually any pretext. In short, it is a giant fraud.

On Capitol Hill, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas has been a leader in speaking out about the effort to have Tsang run the UNODC, even urging the Trump administration to do something about it. “The UN has no business putting yet another Communist Party cutout in a leadership position, especially one with a direct history of advancing China’s abuses in Hong Kong,” Cruz was quoted as saying media reports. “The Trump administration should use its voice and vote to block this appointment.”

Senator Cruz, who has also spoken out against Beijing’s espionage and influence operations in the United States, blasted the penetration of the leadership of global outfits such as the UN. “The Chinese Communist Party has systematically pursued a policy of joining and exploiting international organizations to advance their agenda,” said Cruz, who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “The pattern is the same across issues as varied as the WTO, Internet governance, Interpol, and human rights bodies.”

A number of experts on China and international relations have also spoken out against Tsang’s candidacy. Author and analyst Gordon Chang, who wrote the book The Coming Collapse of China, said Tsang would be a “hideous” appointment in comments made to Fox News. “Any candidate proposed for a drug enforcement post by a one-party state behind some of the world’s most dangerous drug networks should be rejected out of hand,” he said, noting that Tsang has failed to stop Chinese fentanyl rings despite having virtually unlimited power and tools to do it.

The Communist regime ruling China, however, which has murdered more people than any government in human history, defended the nomination amid escalating global criticism. Tsang’s nomination, Beijing “Foreign Ministry” spokesman Geng Shuang said, shows “China’s concrete action in support of multilateralism and work of the UN.” He also vowed that the communist regime would “devote more efforts to fighting transnational organized crime and strengthening international counter-narcotic cooperation.”

Other UN agencies under China’s control include the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is pushing global taxes on air travel. Also run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN Industrial Development Organization, a disgraced entity helping to build up hostile Third World regimes such as the murderous dictatorships in North Korea and Cuba with Western money and technology. Another key UN entity run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is seeking global censorship and controls of the Internet. Also under Communist Chinese control is the powerful UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Beijing has agents serving as deputy leaders of multiple UN organizations as well, not to mention the IMF, the World Bank, and beyond.

In short, Beijing is set to play a starring role in what globalists call the “New World Order” — at least if the Deep State gets its way.

Foreign-policy wonks in and around Washington, D.C., are increasingly taking notice of Communist China’s rapidly increasing control over the architecture of global governance. The influential Heritage Foundation, for instance, recently released a report outlining the problem and recommending ways for the U.S. government to deal with it. Unfortunately, however, none of those solutions involve abandoning the increasingly totalitarian UN system that was designed from the start to become more and more oppressive and powerful. Without the United States, the whole ediface would collapse.

The decision on who will lead the UNODC will be made by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, former leader of the Socialist International, sometime in the coming months. Considering Guterres’ personal involvement in the spread of socialist and communist totalitarianism around the world and throughout the UN system, it remains unclear whether he will resist Beijing’s demands for ever more power and control over global policy.

The Trump administration has withdrawn from a broad range of UN agencies and agreements, ranging from a UN deal promoting mass-migration to the UN’s “education” agency. The American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204), however, would go further, ending all U.S. government involvement and funding for the “dictators club” that is the UN. With Communist China openly taking the reins at the globalist outfit, critics of the UN say it is past time for American taxpayers to stop subsidizing it all.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/33401-china-seeks-to-run-un-crime-agency


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

Tom DeWeese: POVERTY, THE COMPASSION CARTEL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

 

by Tom DeWeese

In 2006, I was surprised to find myself sitting at a formal dinner in the middle of a 200-year-old debating society at Cambridge University in England. In a few minutes I, and five others were about to engage in a debate over the usefulness of the United Nations. But here, for a few minutes longer, at the long dinner table with the crisp, white tablecloth, I was sitting next to one of my fellow debaters, Salis Shetty, the head of the UN’s Millennium Project.

I had ignored him through most of the dinner, but with just a few minutes left before the debate I finally turned to him and said, “You realize you don’t have a prayer, don’t you?”

He looked at me and asked, “About what?”

I replied, “Ending poverty by 2015 through the use of redistribution of wealth.” (That was one of the eight listed goals of the UN’s Millennium Project, accepted by world leaders in 2000.)

He said, “Yes, I know.”

I began to talk with him about the need to help the poor escape from poverty on their own rather than being condemned to life-long bread lines. I talked about the need to establish private property rights as a means to build wealth. I mentioned that there was estimated to be almost $10 trillion in “dead capital”(property in the world that no one is allowed to own or invest in). That’s enough capital to help a lot of poor people break out of their dire situation.

Mr. Shetty looked at me as I made these observations and said, “Hernando de Soto.”

“Yes!”  That’s exactly whom I was quoting. De Soto is an economist from Peru who has made it his life’s work to help end poverty in the world by promoting private property ownership.

To my amazement Mr. Shetty looked at me and said, “I have associates who are looking on this (de Soto’s ideas) favorably.” Just as he said those words, the call came for us to head to the debating hall for our event. Of course we were on opposite sides.

As soon as the debate was over (I was outnumbered five to one, as usual) I made a beeline to Mr. Shetty and said, “You and I started a conversation and I want to finish it.” A few weeks later I traveled to New York City to meet with him in his UN office. During that meeting, he told me that, in his city in India, the local government was beginning to go over property records and officially register ownership, something that had never been done before. The result was that the economy of the community was starting to improve.

That is exactly the point that Hernando de Soto is making as he travels the world meeting with national leaders. The core reason for poverty is bad government. In most of the world, people may “own” their homes, perhaps via an underground economy, but they have no official records through the government to prove it. Without that official proof or registration, they have no means to use the property for equity loans and investment, so it is essentially dead capital, as de Soto has labeled it.

In his book, “The Mystery of Capital, Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else,” de Soto explains the major difference between the American system and most other nations of the world. Here, every single piece of privately held property — homes, even large equipment, is registered. In fact, the County Registrar’s office is one of the most important tools of freedom because it’s where every American can prove ownership of their property. Because of that system, average Americans can use their property as a tool to obtain loans. At least 60% of American companies have been started thorough equity loans on private property. And those privately held companies went on to employ about 60% of the American workforce. That is how private property ownership made the United States the richest nation in the world, almost over night. Lack of such a system is the reason much of the rest of the world fell into extreme poverty. In those cases the people have no way out of poverty and are forced to rely on government handouts.                       

De Soto’s book was called “The blueprint for a new industrial revolution,” by the Times of London. Today de Soto travels the world, meeting with world leaders who seek his guidance on how they can end poverty in their nations. Yet, when he tells them the secret is private ownership of property, many balk, telling him with a troubled smile, that the people in their nations “just aren’t ready for such a policy – they don’t understand the concept of private property ownership.” So the promise of a great new financial revolution that could spread wealth and freedom to every corner of the world never gets off the ground.

A few years ago I had the great privilege of a private meeting with Hernando de  Soto. He told me a story of one such meeting he had with a national leader. He’s been in enough meetings with world leaders that he can now almost anticipate what they are going to say. In this particular meeting, he said he knew the leader was going to tell him that his people just weren’t ready for private property ownership.  So, before the meeting, de Soto sent a team into the neighborhood around the presidential palace and knocked on doors to ask the people if they owned their homes. Every single one of them said yes, they owned their home. So de Soto’s team members asked each to produce any kind of evidence they might have to show that ownership. They did. It might have been a bill of sale, a receipt or even a copy of a will. In any case, they had something to prove their ownership in a country where property ownership was not supported by the government.

De Soto took copies of these items with him to the meeting, and before the discussion could begin about how the people of his country didn’t understand private property ownership, Hernando de Soto spread his evidence on the table and said to the leader, “your people understand property ownership, now let’s discuss how they can legally own it and build capital from it.”

There are three main reasons the world has not experienced de Soto’s new financial revolution. First is bad government led by dictators who refuse to give up their power over the people by supplying them the means for ending poverty. Poverty is very helpful to dictators because poor people are powerless to rise up against them. Poverty is also convenient to rouse the rabble against political opponents and spread fear.

Those who are barely hanging on from meal to meal are easy to scare with threats from any proposal that dares to differ from the redistribution schemes, even if, in the long run, that would be the best means for them to find a way out of poverty. The Left has used this fear effectively to build hate and resistance against those who promote free enterprise.

The second reason the world is sinking into ever greater poverty is the Environmental movement- the new-style dictatorship that actually prefers people to remain poor, living in mud huts with no infrastructure, running water or electricity. That, they claim, is sustainable.

Believe it or not, there is a worldwide Sustainable Development policy to prohibit funding of development projects in Third World countries if the projects don’t fit the environmental agenda. It’s called the Equator Principles. According to their own documents, the Equator Principles were established in association with the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation in 2003. They have been adopted by at least 73 financial institutions around the world, covering over 70% of international projects such as dams, mines, and pipelines. At least three leading American financial institutions are associates of the Equator Principles, including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup.

In short, such policy actually leads to what can only be called Environmental Racism. A few white, rich people who live in luxury in their first-world nations have made a determination that some who now live in mud huts with no indoor power and no clean running water, must stay that way because these elites have determined it is more ‘sustainable” for the planet.

Stopping development for the poor has become a major drive by Sustainablists. At the Earth Summit in 1992, Chairman Maurice Strong famously said “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Zero economic growth is the announced goal to assure their well-ordered sustainable society stays dormant, thereby assuring their control. Of course, the result will only be more poor people – all in the name of saving the environment.

But fear not, these same power mongers aren’t satisfied to condemn just those already living in poverty. Apparently they are so determined to control every human action on the planet that they are equally happy to condemn the rest of us to such a future – for the planet, of course. Author Ted Trainer has written a book entitled “Transition to a Sustainable and Just World,” which is really nothing more than a blueprint for establishing Marxist principles into your local community. In the book Trainer writes, “The alternative has to be the simpler way, a society based on non-affluent lifestyles within mostly small and highly self-sufficient local economies under the local participatory control and not driven by market forces or the profit motive, and with no economic growth. There must be an enormous cultural change away from competitive individualistic acquisitiveness.” The call for zero economic growth was also heard at the UN’s Rio+20 Summit in 2012.  Trainer’s motto for us all is that “you must live on less!” That is their definition of Sustainable Development. Of course they only mean this future for you and me, not the powerful elite.

Such ideas of destroying human civilization are, in fact, rampant throughout the Green movement. Paul Ehrlich, professor of Population Studies at Stanford University demanded that “a massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Apparently, the advocates of such a desire to make us all poor have missed a very important fact. Only in wealthy nations do people have enough money and time to worry about protecting the environment. The poor worry only about one thing – survival. It is also in the poorest areas where population numbers explode. In rich, secure nations populations are actually going down. So it would seem logical that if one wants to protect the environment and reduce populations then Capitalism would be the economic system of choice. But of course, none of this is really about helping the poor or the ecology. It’s about power.

The third reason for depressed economies and a growing number of poor is what I call the “Compassion Cartel.” Government, private charities and foundations have made poverty big business. It’s the excuse for nearly every governmental spending program. Help the poor! Tax the rich! How dare they get wealthy while others suffer? And the preferred way to eliminate poverty is redistribution of wealth. It’s easy to convince someone to donate to a cause when emotions and guilt are employed. Reason and rational thought take a backseat.

Back to my debate in Cambridge: After the debate was over, the hosts sponsored a reception. As I entered the door, I was confronted by one of the students, who asked with puzzlement – “sir, you really don’t believe in redistribution of wealth?”

I answered, “No, it’s theft.”

And she said, “But if you have more than you need, shouldn’t you share it with someone who needs it?”

I said, “Why should I?”

She looked like I had slapped her. Here she was, one of the bright young students at one of the great schools in the world, and she had never heard an argument against redistribution of wealth or for a free market. As I spoke to her, giving detail after detail about how a free market and property can eliminate poverty, more than 50 other students began to gather around.

I explained that if I take money from each of them today to feed someone more unfortunate, then tomorrow they will need another meal –and again the next day, and the next. You have gained nothing in the battle to help them, other than to delay their agony another day. At best you have offered a band aid. At worse, such policy doesn’t prevent poverty. Something else is causing that poverty and you haven’t addressed it. So, tomorrow there will be more poor, and more the next. And each time you will be forced to provide more and more aid from your now dwindling funds, until one day you too may find yourself forced to be in the receiving line. When I finished my explanation there was a moment of silence and then the young student said, “What an interesting point of view. How can I learn more?”

I wanted to scream “Economics 101!”

Today, anyone who points out such economic facts in a failed welfare system is called heartless and probably racist. What kind of evil person calls helping the poor theft?  Well, take a good look at the world we live in. According to Mr. Shetty’s Millennium Project, there are currently 1.2 billion people living in poverty. Fifty thousand deaths a day occur worldwide as a result of poverty. Every year more than 10 million children die of hunger and preventable diseases. More than half the world’s population lives on less that $2 per day and 800 million people go to bed hungry every night.

To combat all of this we have the Compassion Cartel. We have thousands of charitable organizations and faith-based programs designed to feed the children, along with education programs designed to create awareness of poverty and starvation. Their ads run on television nightly pulling at our heartstrings to “do something.” Most of these charities have built huge private organizations, with highly paid administrators working out of impressive buildings with large staffs. That doesn’t include the huge government programs operating at an even larger scale on your tax dollars. As I said, poverty is big business.

Every politician preaches the gospel of helping the poor and as a result, more than half of every American’s pay check disappears into government coffers even before it hits our own pockets. Billions of dollars of aid pour into federal and international programs to distribute to countries around the world to help feed the poor. Poverty reductions have been set. Goals have been announced, Deadlines for ending poverty have been determined and every national and international leader has signed documents to pledge that poverty must be eradicated. In 2015 it was called Agenda 2030. In 2019 it’s called the Green New Deal.

What is the result of this worldwide focus on poverty? Well, we have more poor! It’s a growth industry. Why? Because not one of these programs offers a single plan to allow the poor to help themselves. Instead, the Compassion Cartel has sentenced every single poor person in the world to a future of life-long breadlines, allowing them to be victims of demagogues, con artists and harsh, hopeless, futureless lives. There is no consideration for their goals and dreams and no real understanding of the hopelessness of their lives. And the middle class of once wealthy nations like the United States is quickly dissolving under the burden of the redistribution schemes. Result – more poor in our once proud nation.

If the self-proclaimed compassion industry had true concern for the poor, it   would begin an international drive to empower the poor by allowing them to build their own wealth – thereby getting themselves off of the breadlines.

Hernando de Soto has offered that way. He has called for the establishment of private property rights that would allow people around the world to build personal wealth and the ability to invest in new enterprises that would, in return, employ more, help build infrastructure to allow still more to have electricity, heat, cooling and clean water in their homes, improving health and the quality of their lives. Step by step these improvements would lead to creating more wealth worldwide, reducing the burden on the rest of us, and in turn, help all of us build even more wealth, strengthening quality of life. Help the poor help themselves and it will also help you. That is a winning compassion for all.

But to take such a step would require a rejection of socialism and an embracing of capitalism. And that, says the Compassion Cartel, can never be allowed, because that would lead to empowering individuals to control their own lives. Instead, in the name of compassion, sustainable oppression in a well-ordered society is so much more efficient.


Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/08/05/poverty-the-compassion-cartel-and-environmental-racism-2019/

Alex Newman: Using Bribery and Threats, China Seizes Another UN Agency

by Alex Newman

Using bribery and threats, the Communist Chinese regime in Beijing just secured control over the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), a key UN agency with a massive budget. Several Western governments tried unsuccessfully to stop the takeover by Communist Chinese operative Qu Dongyu (shown). Especially alarming to observers is the fact that the regime openly boasts that its nationals at international agencies must continue obeying orders from the Communist Party of China. Indeed, the Communist Chinese then-president of Interpol was arrested during a visit to China, with officials saying he was obligated to obey party orders.

But the latest victory for the most murderous dictatorship in human history represents only the most recent international organization to fall into China’s hands. Indeed, a fast-growing number of UN organs are already under Chinese control including the agency being groomed to control the Internet, the agency overseeing air travel, and other powerful UN bureaucracies. And if Beijing and its powerful Western allies get their way, this will not be the last UN outfit to come under Beijing’s control. The implications for freedom in light of Beijing’s growing role in what globalists describe as the “New World Order” are enormous.

The UN FAO selection process was hardly legitimate, sources in Rome and Washington told The New American and other publications. Indeed, a diplomatic source quoted by the French newspaper Le Monde said that Beijing had given African candidate Médi Moungui a multi-million dollar bribe in exchange for withdrawing from the race. Multiple UN FAO ambassadors sustained “intense Chinese pressure.” Various media outlets around the world even reported that Beijing had threatened at least several national governments, including those in Brazil and Uruguay, with a ban on agricultural exports to China if they failed to support Qu. Communist regimes such as the mass-murdering dictatorship enslaving Cuba openly backed Qu.

While the election is based on a secret ballot, it is known that Qu secured 108 votes in the first round of voting. The next closest candidate was Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, a euro-socialist from France with the full backing of the European Union superstate who secured 71 votes. Coming in third place was Davit Kirvalidze from the nation of Georgia, who, despite backing by the Trump administration and some of its allies, barely got a dozen votes. The decision was made by the UN FAO’s 194 member governments and dictatorships, all of which get one vote. The agency has more than 11,000 employees and is one of the largest in the UN system.

Qu and his masters in the Communist Party of China could barely contain their glee. “I’m very grateful to my motherland,” the communist operative declared after winning the secretive selection process. “Without 40 years of successful reforms and open-door policy I would not have been where I am,” he said in his first speech, proudly sporting a lapel pin promoting the totalitarian UN Agenda 2030 that Beijing said it played a “crucial role” in developing. “Now the election is over and I will be committed to the original aspiration, mandate and mission of the organization.”

Among the various policies Qu has touted was a massive surge in what he called “Vitamin M,” or “money.” In a speech, he called for boosting the organization’s funding — already at almost $3 billion per year — by 10 percent annually for every year of his term. And in April, while campaigning for the post, Qu called for “changes” in the “production and consumption” of agricultural goods around the world under the guise of environmentalism. This comes directly out of the Agenda 2030 scheme, described by UN leaders as the “master plan for humanity” and a “global declaration of interdependence.”

Back in Beijing, Qu’s overlords were overjoyed, too. Qu’s victory was a “show of high appreciation of China’s support for multilateralism and advancing global development,” according to Communist Chinese “foreign ministry” spokesman Geng Shuang. Geng vowed that the dictatorship, which starved millions of people to death in the not-too-distant past, would “continue to work with other countries to promote the development of the global food and agriculture industries.” That should be highly troubling to advocates of freedom and private land ownership.

The new director-general, who served as “vice minister for agriculture and rural affairs,” will replace Brazilian communist Jose Graziano, whose term has been marked by seemingly never-ending scandal. Among other outrages, Graziano has worked to shut down honest reporting and criticism of his tenure. In one especially outrageous case, the Brazilian radical even sought to destroy the Italian Insider newspaper while having its editor jailed under arcane local laws. Graziano was outraged that the Rome-based publication was exposing various scandals and misdeeds among FAO leadership, and so, in totalitarian fashion, sought to crush his perceived enemies using the power of government.

Graziano is also a longtime ally of disgraced former Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva, a Marxist revolutionary sitting in jail for corruption. The outgoing FAO boss has also used corruption and nepotism to try to advance the communist takeover of Latin America while trying to protect communist criminals from prosecution by granting them diplomatic immunity. Under Graziano, FAO even awarded honors to the imploding socialist dictatorship in Venezuela for its efforts to “fight hunger” — even as much of the population literally survived by eating garbage, pets, and zoo animals. Unsurprisingly, Graziano was fully behind Qu.

As The New American has been documenting for many years, the Communist Chinese dictatorship, with the full support of subversive Western globalists, has been busy accumulating more and more influence within the emerging “global governance” system. Indeed, there are more Chinese nationals in charge of UN bureaucracies than any other nation or government. Until recently, even the self-styled global “police” agency Interpol was under Communist Chinese control.

Other UN agencies under China’s control include the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is pushing global taxes on air travel. Also run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN Industrial Development Organization, a disgraced entity helping to build up hostile Third World regimes such as the murderous dictatorships in North Korea and Cuba with Western money and technology. Another key UN entity run by a Communist Chinese agent is the UN International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is seeking global censorship and controls of the Internet. Also under Communist Chinese control is the powerful UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Beijing has agents serving as deputy leaders of multiple UN organizations as well.

Communist Chinese agents are also embedded all throughout the IMF, the World Bank, and beyond. Numerous UN agreements and conferences have featured Chinese Communists as leading players, including the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, which was chaired by a Chi-Com agent. The Party-controlled autocracy even opened a “School of Global Governance” at the Beijing Foreign Studies University to train legions of Communist Chinese agents to penetrate the institutions of the so-called New World Order, as Western and Chinese globalists refer to the emerging global regime.

Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokeswoman Joanne Ou warned that Beijing was “systematically deploying its officers to occupy high-ranking management positions in many important organizations, purporting to alter their policies and operations to serve its own national interests,” local media reported. Behind the scenes and increasingly out in the open, senior officials from Western governments are starting to wake up to the increasing threat of Communist Chinese influence operations.

Qu’s widely touted role as Beijing’s “vice minister for agriculture” should itself have been a giant red flag for governments around the world. Among the atrocities being perpetrated against the Chinese people under the guise of “agricultural reform,” for instance, is the wholesale uprooting of families and communities from their land. These rural people are currently being herded — often at gunpoint — into emerging new mega-cities being constructed by Beijing in accordance with UN “sustainability” schemes such as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and more.

Qu has also worked on the dictatorship’s so-called Belt and Road scheme, whereby Beijing intends to expand its totalitarian tentacles across Eurasia. Numerous UN agencies — especially those under Beijing’s control — are hard at work helping China to promote and advance the Belt and Road project. And they do not even bother to hide it anymore.

Qu will take up his post on August 1, with his first term ending in 2023. His salary alone will be more than double President Donald Trump’s pay. With the UN’s agricultural department firmly under Beijing’s grasp, the regime is now working to install Andy Tsang Wai-hung as head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. The U.S. taxpayer funds about one third of the FAO’s bloated budget. And there is already talk in the White House about defunding or withdrawing from the FAO. But that is not enough. It is time for the United States and other civilized and free nations to abandon the corrupt UN and its Communist Chinese-controlled tentacles before the threat grows even more severe.


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: Wealth Redistribution and Globalism, for the Climate

Wealth Redistribution and Globalism, for the Climate  “And because nearly every human activity in the New World Order falls under the umbrella of “fighting climate change,” the importance of this effort is hard to overstate.” 

by Alex Newman

KATOWICE, Poland — The word “ambition” was on everybody’s lips during the United Nations climate summit, almost as if everyone was reading from the same script. But it was not the sort of ambition parents urge their children to show in their studies, their sports training, or their future careers. Instead, the term was being used to describe how “ambitious” the governments and totalitarians who made up the “Parties” of the COP24 climate conference would be in imposing draconian, unpopular, and, in many cases, totalitarian policies on the people they rule.

The attendees of the 24th “Conference of the Parties” intend to be fairly ambitious in centralizing and consolidating their power, though once again the participants did not get all they wanted.

After two weeks of negotiations and months of pre-negotiations, almost 200 governments and dictators from all over the world agreed on a massive and absurdly complicated document that promises to redistribute more wealth and institutionalize the mechanisms to control human emissions of carbon dioxide — and by extension, to control every human activity.

As is usual with such events, the resulting document is mind-numbingly complicated. In an official press release, even the UN itself described the agreement as a “complex and difficult document.” That may be an understatement. But the complexity was obviously by design. If humanity clearly understood what was happening — essentially the fastening of shackles on people and nations under the guise of controlling the climate — there would likely be blood running in the streets. The uprisings across France in response to a new carbon tax, one component of the overall agenda being pushed by the UN and its members, would seem mild by comparison.

And so the almost 150-page agreement inked in Katowice was written in a way that makes it virtually impenetrable to all but the most highly trained lawyers and policy wonks. But while the rules may be obscure and difficult to read, they are reportedly extremely important. And they assuredly will be, since the UN and other alarmist groups will surely find in them the power to do myriad things. As the state-funded BBC put it, these rules “will govern the way the world tackles climate change for decades to come.”

And because nearly every human activity in the New World Order falls under the umbrella of “fighting climate change,” the importance of this effort is hard to overstate.

Officially, the document, being referred to as everything from the “Paris Agreement Working Programme” to the “Katowice Climate Texts” or the “Katowice Package,” is meant to prevent global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above “pre-industrial” levels. More than a few observers, though, recalled the famous story of King Canute. According to legend, in an effort to prove that his power was limited and that God was supreme, Canute placed his throne at the sea shore and commanded the tide to stop rising. Obviously, it continued to rise. “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws,” Canute was recorded as saying.

Despite the total failure of every UN climate model to accurately predict temperature changes as the Earth’s CO2 levels have increased (they all predicted much warmer temperatures than we’ve had), there was no  humility on display among the self-styled climate dignitaries and excellencies assembled in Poland. In their ludicrous quest to control weather and global temperatures by raising gas prices and restricting choices, no pronouncement was too absurd. Indeed, the official narrative broadcast endlessly throughout the summit was that humanity only has 12 years left to do what the UN says, or the Earth will be destroyed due to the carbon-emission sins of evil humans — and particularly evil Western humans, since Chinese and Indian emissions are apparently less evil than emissions from Americans or Germans.

What Does It Do?

Often described as a “rule book,” the agreement is “designed to operationalize the climate change regime contained in the Paris Agreement,” the UN said. The Paris Agreement was concocted by former President Barack Obama and other globalist leaders at the 2015 UN climate summit in the French capital. This pseudo-treaty, which was never ratified by the U.S. Senate and which President Trump announced the U.S. government would withdraw from, has enormous goals — namely, fundamentally transforming the planet.


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: Facing Corruption Scandals, Communist Ex-UN Boss Gets Immunity

Facing Corruption Scandals, Communist Ex-UN Boss Gets Immunity –  “Bokova’s husband, Kalin Mitrev, is also a longtime communist operative with deep ties to international communism…  “

by Alex Newman

Another major scandal is brewing at the disgraced UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. With former UNESCO boss and longtime Communist Party bigwig Irina Bokova and her communist husband both accused of widespread corruption, the controversial new head of the UN “education” agency — herself a Socialist Party member — gave them both diplomatic immunity. The scheme, which appears designed to protect the communist duo from corruption allegations across multiple jurisdictions, includes a bizarre contract paying Bokova $1 that has drawn intense criticism and caused even more suspicion. But for now, archaic UN “diplomatic immunity” protections are likely to hamper any law-enforcement investigations or potential prosecutions.

The New American first became interested in Bokova amid investigations into UNESCO schemes to hijack and weaponize education worldwide. It very quickly became apparent that the longtime member of the Bulgarian Communist Party, which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, was hoping to indoctrinate children into the UN-backed ideologies of globalism, humanism, and socialism. “We have the collective duty to empower every child and youth with the right foundations — knowledge, values and skills — to shape the future as responsible global citizens, [emphasis added]” she declared at a UN summit on education in South Korea, one of many public statements vowing to transform the attitudes and values of children worldwide.

It also very quickly became apparent that the frequent accusations of corruption and malfeasance being made by watchdogs and analysts deserved to be seriously examined. First, Bokova was caught lying on her CV. Then, her ownership of luxurious properties around the world — New York City, London, Paris — properties that investigators said her income could not account for — was exposed by the watchdog group Bivol. After that, scandals involving cronyism in her appointments of unqualified candidates to senior UN posts emerged. She was also widely accused of using public money to campaign for the UN secretary-general job while offering “awards” to potential supporters of her bid including Obama, Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping’s wife, and other key players.

That pattern of alleged corruption appears to have continued — and the benefits are still accruing. While Bokova was running UNESCO, a post she held until recently, the Rothschild-backed communist did more than a few major favors for Russian chemical giant PhosAgro, including forming a “partnership” between the UN agency she ran and the controversial company in 2011. On June 2, 2017, the Moscow-trained Bulgarian communist even gave a speech at the Kremlin-backed St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in which she showered praise on the conglomerate and its leadership.

We need chemistry to move forward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” said Bokova, a reference to the totalitarian UN plan for humanity sometimes referred to as Agenda 2030 or the “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) which the Communist Chinese regime played a “crucial role” developing. “This is why our partnership with PhosAgro … is so important, to support the creativity and innovation of young scientists, guided by the Principles of Green Chemistry.” She also expressed “special gratitude” to PhosAgro boss and controversial Russian billionaire Andrey Guryev for the “leadership he brings to strengthening cooperation between PhosAgro and UNESCO.” And finally, she expressed confidence that the cooperation between the two “will continue to go from strength to strength.”

Unsurprisingly to those monitoring Bokova, she joined the board of directors for PhosAgro almost immediately after leaving UNESCO. While details of her compensation package are not public, sources within UNESCO said the numbers were believed to be extraordinary. The New Americanmagazine reached out to Bokova in March with a request for details about the relationship with PhosAgro, including financial arrangements. She did not respond. This magazine has offered her multiple opportunities to comment or respond to previous articles, but in each case, she has declined. In at least two cases while she was still running UNESCO, though, her deputies sent letters that they declined to post publicly in the comment section.

Bokova’s husband, Kalin Mitrev, is also a longtime communist operative with deep ties to international communism and the former Bulgarian regime’s mass-murdering “security” services. And Mitrev, who also joined the ranks of international bureaucracy by working at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, has been credibly accused of corruption, too. According to multiple news reports last September, Bulgarian authorities launched an investigation into Mitrev. Among other major concerns, Mitrev received about half a million U.S. dollars, part of it via Swiss bank accounts, as part of an alleged money-laundering and influence-buying scheme known as “Azerbaijani laundromat” tied to the brutal dictatorship ruling Azerbaijan. The prosecutor’s office has not provided any recent updates on the status of the investigation.

The case was opened after the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and other media exposed the allegedly shady dealings in major newspapers across Europe. Despite her well-known close ties to the brutal regime in Azerbaijan, Bokova denied knowledge of her husband’s schemes. “I am not privy to the details of my husband’s consulting business and equally, your questions about my opinion on Azerbaijan and its leadership are wholly misplaced,” she was quoted as saying in media reports surrounding the investigation into her husband. “I most vehemently deny any wrongdoing and will consider defamatory any publication of these totally unfounded conjectures on your part.”

It was not clear how extensive Bokova’s attempts at legal action against journalists have been, although at least one prominent reporter who reached out to The New American said that Bokova had targeted him. Several other embattled UN agency chiefs, including the chief of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), who is connected to a Latin American communist network, as well as the head of the UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), have been abusing European legal systems to silence and punish journalists for exposing corruption and crimes at their UN agencies. U.S. lawmakers have also expressed concerns over Bokova’s ties to the regime in Azerbaijan. READ MORE


Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.


Tom DeWeese: A Challenge to The American Planning Association

A Challenge to The American Planning Association- 

“…it’s interesting to note that the American Planning Association is part of the Planners Network.”

by Tom DeWeese

In nearly every community of the nation the policy called Sustainable is the catch-all term for local planning programs, from water and energy controls to building codes and traffic planning. The term “sustainable” was first used in the 1987 report called “Our Common Future,’ issued by the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED).  The term appeared in full force in 1992 in a United Nations initiative called Agenda 21.

According to proponents, the official definition of Sustainable Development is “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  In 1993, the UN further described its purpose, saying, “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” The most often used phrase to describe Sustainable policy is that it’s a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”

These are strong pronouncements concerning our future. How could such ideas be imposed? Who could coordinate such an effort to reorganize our entire society? There are many private non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government agencies involved in creating and implementing the national sustainable policy program on the state and local levels. But there is one that seems to stand in the center of them all.

The American Planning Association (APA) is the premier planning group operating across the nation. It has a long history in the development process, thus is trusted by elected officials to be a responsible force as they spread the gospel of “common sense” community planning to assure healthy, happy neighborhoods from which all may benefit. Above all, the APA strenuously denies any connection to the United Nations or any silly conspiracy theories like the so-called Agenda 21! Everything the APA promotes, they assure us, is based on local input for local solutions to local development planning. Here is a solid group you can trust!

So, it’s interesting to note that the American Planning Association is part of the Planners Network. The network is officially run by a group called the Organization of Progressive Planners. According to the Network’s website, it’s “an association of professionals, activists, academics, and students involved in physical, social, economic, and environmental planning in urban and rural areas, who promote fundamental change in our political and economic systems.”

On a visit to the website PlannersNetwork.org, one will find in its Statement of Principles this quote: “We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources…and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society … because the free market has proven incapable of doing this.”

That statement is advocating redistribution of wealth, social justice and even aspects of psychological manipulation, also called social engineering. That, then, is what nearly every planning group in nearly every community advocate in their planning programs. It is clearly the official policy of the American Planning Association. Still the APA insists that its planning has nothing to do with Agenda 21, even though APA’s planning goals are the exact goals of Agenda 21, and its undated version called the 2030Agenda.

Tactics used by the American Planning Association

Okay, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. How do planning groups like the APA really control opinions and gain support for their planning ideas? How do they overcome the fears as they impose plans that destroy private property and change the entire structure of the community?

Here’s a recent example:

A few years ago, with great fanfare, the American Planning Association (APA) reported results of a survey the group had conducted, “Planning America: Perceptions and Priorities,” showing that the anti-Agenda 21 “crowd is slim.” Said the report, only 6% of those surveyed expressed opposition to Agenda 21, while 9% expressed support for Agenda 21 and 85%, “the vast majority of respondents, don’t know about Agenda 21/2030.”

Typically, APA is using the survey to formulate the image that opponents to Agenda 21/Sustainable Development are just a lunatic fringe with no standing and of no consequence in the “real” world. They continue to portray Agenda 21 as simply a 20- year-old idea, and just a suggestion that planners and local governments might consider.

However, a closer look at the full survey, plus additional APA reports reveal some interesting and, in some cases, astounding facts.

First the survey:

It was designed to show public support for “Planning.” This has become an obsession with the “planning community” because of the growing opposition to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development.

According to the APA, the findings of the Survey reveal that: only one-third believe their communities are doing enough to address economic situations; it says that very few Americans believe that market forces alone (the free market) improve the economy or encourage job growth; 84 % feel that their community is getting worse or staying the same; community planning is seen as needed by a wide majority of all demographics.

Those are pretty astounding findings. It looks like these “honest” planners have their fingers on the pulse of the nation. Well, not so fast. Let’s look at the actual questions the APA asked to get these results.

For example, Finding #4: Community planning is seen as needed by a wide majority of all demographics (79% agree; 9% disagree; and 12% don’t know). Wow!

But here is the actual question that was asked: “Generally, do you agree or disagree that your community could benefit from a community plan as defined above?” The definition provided in order to answer the question was this: “Community planning is a process that seeks to engage all members of a community to create more prosperous, convenient, equitable, healthy and attractive places for present and future generations.”

Asking the question in that manner is akin to holding up a picture of a rent-a-wreck car,  along side one of a Ferrari and asking which one would they want to drive. Give me the pretty one please – say 79%. In fact, in some actual planning meetings they do just that – hold up a picture of the downtown area depicting decaying, dreary buildings versus one of a shining, beautiful utopia, and they literally say, “which one do you want?” If the answer is (of course) the pretty one, then, YES, the community supports planning!

It’s obvious that the APA is playing word games with its surveys and definitions of planning. No wonder such an overwhelming majority answer in the affirmative to such questions. And, yes, maybe a lot of Americans don’t know what Agenda 21 really is. However, if the APA asked real questions that gave a solid clue as to the planning they actually have in mind, it’s fairly certain they would get a much different response – whether the person answering had ever heard of Agenda 21 or not.

For example, listed below are some sample questions that could help the APA take the real pulse of the community – if they wanted to be honest. I challenge the American Planning Association to ask

THESE questions in their next survey:

10 Real Questions Planners Should Ask the Public

1. How do the citizens feel about planning policy that forces them to move from their single- family homes with the garage for the car/s and a backyard for the kids to play with the neighbor kids? Do they want to live in a high-rise where they have to take their kids down 12 flights of stairs and walk to the designated play park? Do they still support such “Planning?”

2. How do the citizens feel about planning with a goal to eventually ban cars? This will be accomplished by planning programs that will narrow or eliminate roads, making it harder to drive cars, then eliminates parking spaces, then forces cars to “share the road” with bicycles and foot traffic as regulations are put in place to make it illegal to even pass this slower traffic? Do they still support such “Planning?”

3. How do the citizens feel about planning that enforces the creation of light- rail public transportation with a limited number of riders – yet cost overruns could triple or quadruple their taxes so much that it would literally be cheaper to buy each potential rider a brand new Rolls Royce, and even throw in a chauffeur for good measure? Do they want to live without a car that would take them wherever they want to go, be it the grocery or the beach, on their schedule instead of a government created train or bus schedule? Do they still support such “Planning?”

4. How do the citizens feel about planning with today’s mandatory smart meters that can overcharge users by 284%? What if such planning forced you to buy all new appliances which can be controlled and even turned off by the utility company without warning – all to enforce energy-use levels as required by arbitrary and unsubstantiated “planning standards,” Do they still support such “Planning?”

5. How do the citizens feel about planning that forces taxpayers to pay for plug-in stations for electric cars that hardly anyone wants or uses, for the specific purpose of eventually forcing people to buy electric cars? Do they still support such “Planning?”

6. How do the citizens feel about planning that creates non-elected boards, councils, and regional governments to enforce their UN-inspired policies, which actually diminish (if not eliminate) the power of the local officials they elected, severely reducing citizen input into policy? Do they still support such “Planning?”

7. How do the citizens feel about planning that forces all housing to conform to specific government design, including projects of multi-family buildings that are forced into their neighborhoods, resulting in the reduction of property values and freedom of choice as to where and how each may live? Do they still support such “Planning?”

8. How do the citizens feel about planning that enforces international building codes and international electrical and plumbing codes designed to require major retrofitting in existing and new buildings to comply, including enforcing every building to look alike, have the same setbacks and even the same trees and shrubs. The result is the creation of a one size fits all society, ignoring local needs and desires of the residents? Do they still support “Planning?”

9. How do the citizens feel about planning that forces rental property owners and landlords to take in tenants that can’t afford their properties, so that they are forced to accept far less income for their investment, which will mean they cannot afford to maintain the property and earn their living,  thereby destroying the rental industry and reducing housing choices? Do they still support “Planning?”

10. How do the citizens feel about planning that uses the power of eminent domain to take property and destroy small, locally owned businesses from lower income and ethnic neighborhoods, forcing the former residents into federal housing programs where their only option is to rent rather than having the chance to build equity and personal wealth through home ownership in the American Dream? Do they still have compassion for such “Planning?”

These are the realities of Sustainable Development planning programs, usually under the term Smart Growth. These policies are taking over local governments across the nation and the victims are mounting. Yet the planners ignore these results as they get fat off the federal grants that enforce the Sustainable plans.

Challenge the American Planning Association to stop whitewashing their plans into sounding like innocent, non-intrusive local ideas for community development. Ask the questions so that they reflect the real consequences of the plans, and then see if the 85% now are so eager to ignore the effects of Sustainable Development. The number one truth about the Sustainable policies that the APA imposes on every community is that none of it is LOCAL!

There is only one right approach for a community to come together to discuss and solve common problems: open discussion, honest debates and votes, and above all, a full concentration on the protection of private property rights as the ultimate decider.

This article is taken from information included in Tom DeWeese’s new book, “Sustainable, The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property, and Individuals.” Book details and ordering may be found at www.sustainabledevelopment.com

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/04/04/a-challenge-to-the-american-planning-association/?mc_cid=6366d56868&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

To President Trump: The United Nations was Designed to Destroy Freedom

To President Trump: The United Nations was Designed to Destroy Freedom “Americans have been slowly indoctrinated toward Global Government…

by Bill Lockwood

President Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly this week had much to commend it. Emphasizing national sovereignty and independence, he also rightly criticized the unfair cost burden to the United States. The American taxpayer shoulders 22 percent of the entire UN budget, more than double the next leading contributor, Japan. Yet, in spite of Trump’s defense of “national sovereignty” he praised the United Nations by urging that the world body live up to its “potential” by continuing to provide a world “forum” for peace which he called its “true vision.”  In these remarks, however, he is mistaken, for the United Nations is flawed by design.

Why is it that almost every American leader since Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt have worked toward the lessening of our sovereignty and towards a World Government, working to erode it “piece by piece” in the words of more than one global leader?

For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security advisor, a longtime CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) member, and a founder of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, explained to world leaders at the 1995 State of the World Forum:

We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. [It] requires a process of gradually expanding the range of democratic cooperation as well as the range of personal and national security, a widening, step by step, stone by stone, [of] existing relatively narrow zones of stability in the world of security and cooperation. In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.

Almost the same words were used by Richard N. Gardner (CFR) in his April 1974 essay in Foreign Affairs, entitled “The Hard Road to World Order.”

Gardner opined that a “case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of ‘sovereignty’ that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis.” Rather than pursuing “instant world government,” Gardner explained to the world that “the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down”—by means of “and end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.…”

Former President Bush, Sr. offered this about the original vision of the UN: “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for the future generations a new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.”

His son, President George W. Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec in 2001 in which he gave “commitment to hemispheric integration and nation and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people.” By “our people” Bush meant people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. He pledged that the United States will build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order, such as the world is witnessing in the EU and now the African Union (AU).

These statements are not unlike former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s “The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty … has passed.” Or, like former President Obama’s speech to the UN in which he urged nations to surrender some of its sovereignty.

Again, the UN’s goals of world government by gradually eroding United States sovereignty could not be plainer than David Rockefeller’s (founder of the CFR) praise to the major media in 1991 for its complicity in this stealth design.

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years …it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national determination practiced in past centuries.

According to these major players, as well as dozens of others who have been coming out of the closet as Americans have been slowly indoctrinated toward Global Government, what is now occurring via the UN has been planned from its inception. This means that UN programs, including global wealth distribution, government control of production, government control of consumption (Sustainable Development), international taxes, world currency, globalized education for children, family planning, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), which already siphons wealth of hard-working taxpayers in America–are all by design.

So, who is right on this? President Trump, who calls upon the UN to live up to its “true vision” which emphasizes national sovereignty; or, the long list of globalists who praise the UN for its gradual implementation of eroding national sovereignty? Obviously, not Trump.

Almost 15 years ago, Michael Hirsch wrote a piece in Newsweek in which he frankly confessed that transforming America into a global policeman and moving toward Global Government is not accidental. Entitled Death of a Founding Myth, he stated,

While the isolationists … tempted millions with their siren’s appeal to nativism—the internationalists were always hard at work in quiet places making plans for a more perfect global community. In the end the internationalists have always dominated national policy. Even so, they haven’t bragged about their globe-building for fear of reawakening the other half of the American psyche, our berserker nativism. And so they have always done it in the most out-of-the-way places and with little ado.

In December 1917 the Inquiry, a group of eager reformers who included a young Walter Lippmann, secretly met in New York to draw up Wilson’s Fourteen Points. In 1941, FDR concocted the Atlantic Charter in the mists off Newfoundland. The dense woods of New Hampshire gave birth to the Bretton Woods institutions—the IMF and the World Bank—in 1944.

And a year later the United Nations came to life at the secluded Georgetown estate of Dumbarton Oaks….So what emerged took us more or less by surprise. We had built a global order without quite realizing it, bit by bit, era by era, with our usual schizoid approach: alternating engagement and withdrawal….Like it or not—and clearly large numbers of Americans still don’t—we Americans are now part of an organic whole with the world that George Washington wanted to keep distant.

Americans have been stealthily and semi-secretly maneuvered into globalism. Why this has occurred is seen in simply glancing at some of the original founders of the UN. The first secretary-general of the UN was America’s own Alger Hiss, later convicted in court of being a Soviet spy.

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin played a key role in it early years, as did our own John Foster Dulles, who wrote the following in 1950: “The United Nations represents not the final stage in the development of the world order, but only a primitive stage. Therefore, its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.”

Later, Dulles had this to say, “I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with teeth in it, or for world government or for world federation, which could not be carried out by either the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”

Like most programs to control free people by socialistic programs, the UN is following the totalitarian path laid out by its founders. It is on track. President Trump needs to realize that the UN is indeed living up to its potential. Global Government. This is why national “sovereignty” and “independence” of nations, particularly America, is anathema to the world body. It is all about transferring the wealth of America to socialist nations. It also explains why the major media globalist elites spin out of control at the mention of such concepts by Trump.

If America is to survive we must get out of the United Nations and the United Nations must get out of the United States. There is currently legislation in Congress called the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017 (H.R. 193), which proposes to do exactly that. It is sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL). Americans need demand its Congressional leaders support it.

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

« Older Entries