Category Archives: United States of America

Alex Newman: UN Human Rights Boss, a Socialist, Slams Trump

by Alex Newman

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet blasted the Trump administration for its policies on immigration, the environment, and more. According to the far-left UN boss, a Chilean socialist with close ties to mass-murdering communist dictatorships, the U.S. government threatens everything from water and children to “human rights.” Many Third World regimes, by contrast, were praised by Bachelet for their alleged progress in complying with UN demands.

Among Bachelet’s most significant targets was the White House effort to secure the border and enforce U.S. immigration law. “Restrictive U.S. migration policies raise significant human rights concerns,” the UN “human rights” chief claimed during a recent session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. “Reducing the number of people trying to enter the country should not be done in disregard of asylum and migrant protections. The situation of children in detention is of particular concern.”

Bachelet, who once defected to the mass-murdering East German dictatorship, was referring to Trump’s attempts to somewhat slow the enormous flow of illegal migrants into the United States — the nation that accepts more immigrants than any other on the planet, by far. How accepting more migrants than any country on Earth could be viewed as “restrictive” was not explained. The claim about children in detention was also left unexplained, with the UN human rights chief not making clear whether she believed having children in tow should constitute a proverbial “get out of jail free” card for any and all criminals.

Another focus of Bachelet’s ire was the Trump administration’s move toward deregulation, particularly on pseudo-environmental concerns. “The United States is also rolling back environmental protections, including for waterways and wetlands,” she complained, referring to Trump’s undoing of the Obama administration’s illegal scheme to federalize control over virtually every mud puddle in the United States. “Untreated pollutants may now be poured directly into millions of miles of streams and rivers, putting ecosystems, drinking water and human health at risk.”

Of course, in the real world, pouring untreated pollutants into a river or stream — and especially into drinking water — is a crime in every single state. Under the U.S. Constitution, which delegates a few limited powers to the central government, federal authorities actually have no regulatory authority over rivers, streams, or other environmental issues. Instead, as the 10th Amendment makes clear, those powers are reserved to the states or to the people who own the property that is affected.

As if to prove that the UN does indeed intend to control every aspect of human life, even the current regulation of fuel standards in the United States is now a target of the UN’s human rights machine. “Weaker fuel emission standards for vehicles, and decreased regulations on the oil and gas industries, could also harm human rights,” claimed Bachelet, as if American energy independence and slightly less onerous (but still unconstitutional) federal regulations on the energy sector were some sort of human rights crisis requiring UN intervention.

Meanwhile, Bachelet had nothing but praises for more than a few brutal regimes that literally remain in power through terror and mass murder. Not a word of condemnation, for instance, was handed out to the mass-murdering Communist Chinese regime, which has millions of dissidents in re-education camps and continues to perpetrate forced abortions, among other horrific violations of actual human rights. Bachelet said only that she welcomes the invitation to visit to “analyze in depth the human rights situation in China,” and that other governments should “do their utmost to combat discrimination” against Chinese people in light of the coronavirus. Seriously.

Regarding her native Chile, which has been under intense attack by communist forces led in part by Venezuelan and Cuban intelligence operatives, Bachelet demanded that authorities there “address the protests’ root causes: inequalities.” In other words, to placate the violent rioters and looters seeking the overthrow of individual liberty and economic freedom with Marxism, Chile must accept more Marxism. Seriously. Her office has apparently “provided recommendations” to Chilean authorities “for a sustainable roadmap guided by human rights norms.”

Of course, this is not the first time Bachelet has attacked the Trump administration and its policies. In fact, last summer, she lashed out against the U.S. government, claiming to be “appalled” and “deeply shocked” by the enforcement of federal immigration law. Taking the globalist extremism to new heights, she even claimed the U.S. government’s practice of detaining illegal immigrant self-proclaimed “families” for prosecution may be “prohibited by international law” for being “cruel” or “degrading.”

“In most of these cases, the migrants and refugees have embarked on perilous journeys with their children in search of protection and dignity and away from violence and hunger,” Bachelet said, displaying either ignorance or dishonesty regarding the true situation at the U.S. border. “When they finally believe they have arrived in safety, they may find themselves separated from their loved ones and locked in undignified conditions. This should never happen anywhere.”

In reality, as the U.S. government has thoroughly documented, human-smuggling rings are using children — some of whom are being trafficked for sex slavery — as a pretext to avoid detention after crossing the border illegally. “They are pairing children with unrelated adults, knowing adults who enter the United States with children won’t be detained,” explained U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, citing a recent Department of Homeland Security Human Smuggling Cell report. Some of those children are kidnapped for the purpose, he continued, noting that once in the United States, they are often sold into sex or labor slavery. Many of the smugglers use fake documents to make it seem like the children are part of their “family.”

Before Bachelet’s comments, Deputy Human Rights High Commissioner Kate Gilmore lambasted the state of Alabama for trying to protect the lives of innocent children, calling the alleged attack on “women’s rights” a “crisis.” Another “human rights” spokesman for the UN also chimed in on the issue, saying the global body was “very concerned” about American states passing laws that “define all unborn children as persons.” In the UN’s view, murdering pre-born babies is a “human right,” while protecting the God-given right to life of those same children is a violation of human rights.

And before Bachelet even took over, her predecessor, a radicalized Islamic prince, was constantly attacking the United States and Trump. So extreme was Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad Al Hussein that he compared the American president’s tactics with those used by the Islamic State (ISIS). He also routinely attacked the God-given rights guaranteed in both the First and Second amendments to the U.S. Constitution, demanding “robust” gun control and draconian restrictions on free speech under the guise of “international human rights law.”

Of course, the UN has a very different view of “human rights” than Americans’ traditional understanding. America’s Founding Fathers declared that rights were endowed upon each individual by God, and that governments are created to protect those pre-existing, unalienable rights. The UN, by contrast, makes clear that governments and international instruments are the source of “rights” (really privileges) and that those pseudo-rights can be revoked or limited by government at will. In Article 29, the UN’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” states that those supposed “rights” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

To understand the depth of the absurdity of UN’s self-proclaimed role as overseer of human rights, consider the fact that the mass-murdering communist dictatorship enslaving Venezuela was recently selected to sit on the UN Human Rights Council. The regimes enslaving Communist China, Cuba, Sudan, and other nations are also welcome. Or consider Bachelet’s own background as a notorious communist operative allied with mass murderer Fidel Castro and other Latin American barbarians. Considering that reality, it is no surprise that brutal dictators are celebrated by the fraudulent UN human rights bureaucracy, while liberty-minded nations are under relentless attack.

President Trump gave a devastating blow to this fraud by ordering the withdrawal of the U.S. government from the UN Human Rights Council in his first term. However, that is not enough. As American taxpayers fork over more than $10 billion each year to fund the UN, much of that money goes into demonizing the United States and trying to subvert its sovereignty. The only sustainable solution to this grotesque reality is a full withdrawal from the UN and all of its agencies. In his second term, Trump would do well to push for that goal with the passage of the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204). Nothing less will do.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/35073-un-human-rights-boss-a-socialist-slams-trump


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

Is it Time for Divorce?

Is it Time for Divorce?- “How Deep is the Divide?”

by Bill Lockwood

With all of the political rancor boiling out of the Left against President Donald Trump, perhaps it is time to ask the question if the time has come for American states to consider an amicable divorce? Political separation. The chasm that divides right from left in our nation is wider than can be bridged by mere bi-partisanship. America is in the midst of a brewing civil war. The community organizers and Deep State devotees continue to foment rebellion behind the scenes while their street goose-steppers violently rampage with impunity.

What is the cause of all of this? What is the real issue? It is not about, as shallow thinkers suggest, Trump’s tweets. It is instead the same issue that has been festering beneath the surface for over a century and is just now coming to an ugly head. Will we have a limited government whereby the individual can enjoy his or her God-given liberties?; or, will we have total government control which dispenses or retracts these “freedoms” as central-planners see fit?

This is the only explanation for the intensified vicious hatred flung at President Trump. He is doing exactly what he said he would do — rolling back the gargantuan total state that has been created after the socialist will. But the heart of the left will always be about imposing their ungodly agendas on others by totalitarian-style edicts of the New World Order.

Witness some of these edicts. They range from population-control schemes; mandating the activity of each person on earth as is clearly enunciated by Agenda 21 UN goals; over-riding national sovereignty by international law; the complete destruction of capitalism; militant sexual LGBT worldviews; absolute federal and international control of our children’s education; the forced funding of the welfare state; complete domination of unconstitutionally-held land; complete control of our money supply and wealth by which slavery is promoted in the form of debt; and a thousand other similar well-established practices.

Therefore, perhaps the time has come to consider an amicable divorce. States that wish total government, go your own way. Those that eschew despotism, go another. Irreconcilable differences.

How Deep is the Divide?

To consider how deeply we are divided, ponder James Madison’s statement pertaining to government power. “The powers delegated [by the people] by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce… The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Those enumerated powers of which Madison spoke equal about twenty specifics (Art. 1, Sec. 8). So important was this basic concept of a limited government that the Founders added the 10th Amendment which was to serve as a lock on the the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson even wrote, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” (1791)

We are now on that “boundless sea” and the horizon does not look promising. We have completely lost the Constitution as the people writhe beneath a centralized state. In common with every breed of despotism, communism, Marxism, socialism, Nazism, or fascism—all of which are rooted in atheism—individual rights and liberties are almost non-existent in our nation. This is exactly what the left wants. Therefore, whether one reads the U.N. Earth Charter or the Manifestos of the Humanists or the Democratic Party platform, they all cry for more government control and less freedom of the individual.

Deeper still is the principle that was observed by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830’s. He noted that that which united Americans, transcending political parties and religious differences, was a fundamental moral consensus in the heart of the people. This was so impressive to the French diplomat. Sadly, consensus does not any longer exist between the opposite sides of our divide which advocate two very different world views.

With a complete lack moral consensus today and cultural leaders of western civilization who love to have it so, it seems insufficient to even call for state conventions for the purpose of adding amendments to the constitution or even demanding the federal government retreat. Statist policies of government officials will continue unfettered and anarchy will escalate.

So, instead of middle America being forced to tolerate the near-Satanic-style assaults from the left, making it impossible for our elected president to govern, perhaps it is time for those addicted to government management of their lives to write their own constitution and go their own way.

The Ghost of Ted Kennedy: The Balkanizing of America

The Ghost of Ted Kennedy: The Balkanizing of America

by Bill Lockwood

America is committing cultural and national suicide. In part, this is due to the present balkanizing of the United States. To balkanize means to break up into small compartmental segments or units mostly hostile to one another. Disunity is the result. At the opposite end is harmony. At the hands of socialistic American and European globalists the entire western world is fracturing and splintering into thousands of warring pieces that no longer fit together. In the case of the United States these societal and cultural fractures can be traced directly to the late Ted Kennedy, the Democratic strategist who boldly lied to the America people to leave us a legacy of massive immigration. President Obama knows no better than to follow his lead and say, “This is who we are.”

World Wide Crisis
Western culture is fast disintegrating. Consider Europe. As reported by Gatestone Institute “Sweden is fast approaching a complete collapse.” At an October 9 Press Conference Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said that “Sweden is in a state of crisis” because of the massive influx of migrants. Within a few years Swedes will be a minority in their own country. “Sweden is descending into anarchy” as more than 190,000 unskilled and unemployed migrants swarm the country’s services. Police protection for Swedes is becoming scarce while applications of gun licenses goes sky-high. Violence is escalating as Muslim immigrants pour in from war-torn Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Denmark is no better. Jihadism from the migrant crisis is undermining the rule of law and police have little resources to handle escalating crime rates. According to The Guardian Germany, France, Macedonia and Greece are begging the ruling EU for “immigration quotas.” “With European asylum and immigration policies increasingly confused and national governments failing to come up with a coherent response to the worst migratory pressures witnessed in many countries, Berlin and Brussels are sounding the alarm.” Germany expects upwards of 800,000 immigrants next year with numbers tripling from several years ago.

The situation is no better in America. Obama’s current objective, in spite of obvious dangers to the homeland, is to bring in up to 100,000 Muslim Syrian refugees into American cities. Added to that we have witnessed both political parties being abjectly unwilling to limit the number of illegals coming across our southern border. Not only do new waves of immigrants bolster Democratic voting blocs, but ensures transforming the face of American politics—exactly what Barack Obama vowed he would accomplish. At the same time the neo-Cons in the Republican Party, such as Jeb Bush, desire to continue open border policies, declaring that illegals coming here is “an act of love.” Ironically, he also believes that we are a nation at war, apparently unmindful of the fact that if we are “at war” that mandates the closing of our own borders like we did in Iraq during the Gulf Wars. Ann Coulter has correctly pointed out that the smug liberals, who want American humbled and destroyed, are exulting in what they are proudly calling “the browning of America.” “The cultural left is overjoyed at the remaking of our society into one that is poorer, browner and less free.”

Ted Kennedy
Where does the late Ted Kennedy fit into this picture? Like most liberals who build their system on hypocrisy Kennedy was the Senator who, according to the Christian Science Monitor, “fundamentally transformed” America through his immigration policies which he foisted on America. Beginning in 1965 he led the complete revamping of our immigration system. Formerly, there were numerical caps and national quotas in place which regulated not only how many immigrants would be able to come here, but controlled which ones, favoring European nations by granting them higher quotas.

According to Kennedy the national quotas and ceiling on the number of immigrants “violated” our principles. When critics argued that the changes he was proposing would alter the mix of the country into ‘voting blocs’ favoring Democrats, which any person of sound mind could foresee, he famously stood on the floor of the Senate and LIED. “The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”

Today, with chain migration, refugee programs, amnesty programs, green card lotteries, H1-B Visa acts, various immigration acts and domestic resettlement programs that continue to swamp the American welfare state, our national values are practically non-existent, our streets are becoming battle zones and even preachers who preach the pure gospel of Jesus Christ must go into the pulpits locked and loaded. The Balkanization of America is in full swing. But this makes some Americans happy. Democratic political strategists Ruy Teixeira and John Judis have been gloating about it for 20 years. A post-1965 immigration, they predicted, would soon produce a country where Republicans could not win an election, anywhere. Then Democrats could do whatever they want. This is exactly what is occurring and explains why the Jeb Bush’s of the world look and sound like the Democrats of yesterday—open borders, nationalized education, and increasing welfare.

Jefferson on Immigration
This brings us back to the Founders. Why did the Founding generation want to control the flow of immigration into this country? What reasoning did they bring forward to justify immigration “quota’s” which were tilted toward European nations? No greater thinker there is than Thomas Jefferson, whose sound reasoning on these matters is probably lost to most in modern America who desire to frame all issues in terms of black, brown, or white skin. The basic clue, however, is grounded in the sharing of values and whether America would be able to exist in the future as a free society based upon these common principles. Ted Kennedy knew this as well but exploited the racial divide in order to conquer.

Here is Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia explaining why excessive immigration would destroy a once-free America. “…But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent.

Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another.”

Continuing, Jefferson explained regarding immigrants from nations who not share our values, “It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

One might suppose that Jefferson was a prophet from the above description. Then with clarity of foresight he asked, “May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements….”

To Obama’s braggadocio “This is who we are” explanation of massive immigration from all points of the compass, perhaps someone ought to point out that “this is not who we were, nor should be”—if we expect to be free. But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles.

Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty.

These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired, or expected?

May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements….
[From Notes on the State of Virginia, ed. William Peden (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1954), 84-5.]

Back to Homepage