Tag Archives: climate change

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.

Tom DeWeese: The Renewed Drive to Exit the United Nations

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

by Tom DeWeese

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

The Failure of the Green State Religion

The Failure of the Green State Religion

by Bill Lockwood

America does indeed have an official state church. It is the Green Environmental Sect which preaches the Gospel of Sustainability. Effectively, for all practical purposes, it has become the endorsed “religion” of the state and has supplanted Christian precepts in the minds of our indoctrinated youth. The ideals of the Sustainability Movement with a socialist-style utopia has displaced academic freedom and transformed students into firebrands for Global Governance.

It might be well here to remind ourselves that our nation repudiated the concept of a state-sponsored religion. The idea that tax monies would be confiscated to support a particular doctrine whether or not the citizens believed that doctrine was to fall into the same European trap from which the founders of this nation fled. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, if Christianity be true, allow it to compete in the free-marketplace of ideas. “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God,” he advised Peter Carr. Christian welcome this test.

Free-Marketplace of Ideas

It is precisely this test, the “free-marketplace of ideas,” where the Environmental Movement of the Green Gospel fails most miserably. Led by the powers-that-be in Washington, D.C. and the Academy of Professorships from Maine to California to the U.N., sustainability activists work through government force to impose their own version of a carbon-free economy.

What exactly is “Sustainability?” It is not simply care for the “environment,” though it includes that. The word “marks out a new and larger ideological territory in which it is claimed curtailing economic, political, and intellectual liberty is the price that must be paid to ensure the welfare of future generations” (Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism; An Executive Summary of a Report by the National Association of Scholars, 2015).

Jeffrey Sachs, one of the original analysts of “global development,” served for twelve years as director of Earth Institute at Columbia University and has spent thirteen years advising the United Nations secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals, recently wrote a textbook calling for “global justice” entitled The Age of Sustainable Development. Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon writes the forward. Sachs explains very clearly what is involved in Sustainability.

It is “governance” (read, “government”) that will “motivate” (p. 486) member-states to “End extreme poverty, including hunger” by “giving support for developing countries.” “Giving,” according to socialists, really means “forcibly extracting monies from citizens” to apply to projects in which they believe. This is how the Democratic Party has used the word “investment.” A cloaked concept meaning forced taxation. When you are forcibly taxed for their projects you are “investing!”

Involved in Sachs’ plan is the goal to “achieve gender equality…and human rights for all.” ObamaCare and Nationalized Health Care are small measures. He calls for “Universal health coverage” (p. 487) and implementation of global policies to “help individuals make healthy and sustainable decisions regarding diet, physical activity, and other individual or social dimensions of health.”

But all of that does not really spell out in one bottom line the question, “What is Sustainability?” Sachs unveils much of it with this: “Curb human-induced climate change and ensure sustainable energy” (p. 488). To accomplish this he finalizes plans to “transform governance for sustainable development” (p. 489). In other words, Sustainability means forcibly rationing resources and controlling human activity. And Sachs tells us what this requires: “GOOD GOVERNANCE” (p. 502). A clarion call for World Government.

Another founding father’s words come to mind here: George Washington. “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master.” World mastery over all human activity is what the global environmental movement is about.

The Brundtland Report

In 1987 a United Nations report was issued entitled Our Common Future. It is better known as the Brundtland Report. “It united environmentalism with hostility to free markets and demands for ‘social justice’” (NAS Report). The Brundtland Report defined Sustainable Development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

This means, of course, that a “global governing body” must “watch over” the amount of energy and resources that we use and forcibly limit those nations (America) that seem to splurge by utilizing too many natural resources. Freedom causes “splurging,” therefore the “splurgers” must be “mastered.” Those societies must be transformed from the top down. “Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society.”

That transformation has been underway for a long period. There are over 1,400 degree programs at 475 colleges and universities in 65 states and provinces focused on or relating to sustainability studies. The number of institutions which are “signatories” of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, obliging them to eliminate or offset 100% of all greenhouse gases emissions and to integrate sustainability into the curriculum is 697.

Middelbury College offers 422 courses in sustainability—about 25% of all course offerings. Cornell University offers 290 sustainability courses, 13% of all course offerings. More than 400 student-led fossil fuel divestment campaigns are active on campuses across the United States. These figures are just the tip of the iceberg.

A Religion

At root level, Sustainability is the primary doctrine of a failed Green Environmental Religion. It includes the preaching of virtue: “Thrift and forethought.” “Sin” is the selfish usage of resources. America is the chief sinner. “Places like the United States are causing far more damage and risk than other parts of the world” (Sachs, 394). “The United States, … needs to learn to live sustainably” (p. 485).

Not only is Environmentalism a religion, but it is a weak and failed religion that can only rely on government force to “sustain” itself. Its “sustainability doctrine” cannot depend upon mere persuasion and preaching in an open market-place of ideas but, like the Roman Church of the Middle Ages, depends upon government-enforced edicts.  Academic freedom is lost. “[On] matters such as global warming, the campus version of sustainability replaces debate with doctrinaire declaration and enforces the party line” (NAS Report, 3). No open discussion. No debate. No reasoning. No examining upon what evidence the pretensions of the ideas are founded. Only government edicts that “the debate is closed.” Collegiate indoctrination is all about the transfer of governing power: Global Governance.

Back to Homepage