Tag Archives: Sustainable Development

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

Evolution

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

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

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

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

Sustainable Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War in Ukraine

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

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

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

Fox Business host Larry Kudlow recently made the same point.

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

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

Tom DeWeese: SOCIAL JUSTICE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND GOVERNMENT TYRANNY 4 (1)

by Tom DeWeese

You are a poor minority living in a government housing project called “Affordable.” It’s all paid for by the tax dollars of mostly middle-income Americans. Included in still more government programs are monthly checks and coupons to supply food, free healthcare, free education, and let’s also throw in free cell phone.

Does that not make us a generous nation? Are not the poor well cared for and satisfied? Aren’t the taxpayers proud of their contribution to the common good?

The answer to every one of these questions is NO!

First, consider these facts about that stipend income from the welfare check. Originally, it was called “assistance” and the purpose was to help out when the paycheck wasn’t quite covering needs. Then that system was changed and the welfare check means you can’t hold a job as you are collecting that monthly check. If a recipient even tries to put some away in savings, just an attempt to get ahead, it is confiscated and possibly the welfare check stops. It’s no longer “assistance” during hard times. Now it’s control.

Then there is that public housing situation. Here’s what it’s like to actually live in those government projects. In many cites these neighborhoods are drastically rundown in disrepair as lights, air conditioning, and appliances fail to work. The roof leaks, windows are broken, and the plumbing backs up. Trash around the grounds is in ever-growing piles, is rarely, if ever cleaned and hauled away. Don’t even think about any kind of yard work to create a place for the children to play. Worse, the residents live in fear of gang elements like MS-13 that have taken over the neighborhoods to rule as their territory. Pimps, pedophiles, and drug dealers prey on the children. And no matter how many times residents may ask for repairs, it never happens.

Why are the conditions so bad in this government-controlled housing? Government is a monopoly that has no incentive to be efficient. The taxpayers are forced to pay and the money rolls in so the politicians can puff out their chests over how generous THEY are in helping the less fortunate. Meanwhile, the management of these properties is by government bureaucrats with no personal stake in the projects. Their paychecks keep rolling in, no matter what happens to the properties they manage. Only private owners care about the condition of their property.

In such an atmosphere, the inherent hopelessness leaves little room for making future goals for their lives. There is no way out once the system has a hold on you. By herding African-Americans, other minorities, and low-income families like cattle, the government is committing them to a future worse than poverty. They have lost their rights, their choices, and their ability to excel through self-determination and personal growth.

Yet, proponents of government’s fair housing want you to think that those favoring the programs are the compassionate ones, helping minorities to survive in an oppressive capitalist world of the rich. Essentially, fear is the common tactic used to keep minorities in their programs. Anyone who opposes their system of control and, instead, argues sound economics and a system of equal opportunity, is accused of heartlessness and racism, determined to pull the plug on their lifeline.

To promote the fear and division, politicians, the news media, and the public education system continually drive home the message that our nation’s founders created an oppressive society in which Whites got all the goodies and minorities are deliberately oppressed. In addition, goes their propaganda, the free enterprise system is designed to take the money from the poor and put it in the rich man’s pocket. The result is strife, jealousy, and hatred between the races.

This, then, is the announced mission of today’s Democrat party and the official policy driving the Democrat-controlled Congress and the Biden administration. They are determined to be the saviors of the oppressed. Government oversight, redistribution of the wealth, and social justice are the chosen tools to enforce equality.

However, it’s interesting to note that the U.S. government has been on a drive to artificially enforce “equality” since Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” in the 1960s. Trillions have been spent as government size and power has mushroomed, and a whole segment of the population has come under its control, all in the name of compassion. Yet, the only true result has been the massive growth of poverty.

Now this current failed government housing model is being prepared for all of us.  

The new drive is to eliminate single-family home zoning protection. Our new controllers insist that such policy is really designed as a means for wealthy homeowners to “self-segregate” themselves from those they don’t want living in their neighborhoods. Specifically they charge that private property ownership is racist. To establish true “FREEDOM” in America, they tell us we need to open these “white privilege neighborhoods” to allow federal fair housing programs, including high rise government rental units in every neighborhood. They claim single family home neighborhoods contribute to a growing housing shortage. Why, don’t you know, we could put ten families in the area where only one now lives in those neighborhoods. It’s only fair!

Baltimore, Maryland became one of the first cities to feel such pressure and threats as the NAACP sued Baltimore over alleged housing segregation. The NAACP argument was that Section 8 subsidized housing programs “bunch people together, and that it only fuels more crime and other problems.” Not fair!

The solution, says the NAACP, is to “integrate the poor among wealthier families.” Outrageous as it sounds, such social justice mongers actually accuse those living in affluent neighborhoods of “self segregation for white privilege.” Racism!

The pressure from these groups, has resulted in Baltimore being forced to agree to spend $30 million of tax-payer dollars over the next ten years to build 1,000 low-income homes in affluent neighborhoods.

The result will be a destruction of property values and the loss of equity for the homeowners. In short, destruction of earned wealth, leading to destruction of the middle class.  More poor. It’s a growth product.

In Portland, Oregon, the infamous “poster child” of federal Smart Growth development policies, the city council unanimously approved a new tax to raise $12 million per year to pay for “affordable housing.”

Says Portland Commissioner Dan Saltsman, “The lack of affordable housing is the greatest crisis facing our city right now.” Perhaps he should take a long look at the twenty-year Smart Growth history of Portland in which massive amounts of land were locked away to limit the “sprawl” of the city. This led to land shortages, which led to bans on single-family homes, which led to the need for massive high rise apartment buildings, all of which led to higher costs and shortages of homes. Now, Portland has a “crisis “of low-income housings. Their solution is another tax on construction, driving up housing costs even more.

These same attacks on private property are growing across the nation. The Biden Administration is backing the bans on single-family home zoning as part of its official policy. Landlords are being labeled the new boogey men of our day, as taxes, rules, regulations, and even a ban on their ability to qualify potential renters as to whether they can afford to live in the building. Such policy is the destruction of private property rights, targeting an entire industry.

Of course, the government doesn’t say it that way, preferring to pretend that denying people who can’t afford to pay the rent to live in your property is “discrimination.” And how can the landlord survive and provide his property for housing if the tenant can’t pay? The only result will be fewer landlords and fewer choices for housing. Housing shortage, indeed!

All of these policies, instituted in the name of social justice and redistribution of wealth, will very quickly lead to one final solution. Private homes, privately owned rental properties, and the individual owner’s ability to prosper, will disappear. That means the rule of law is dismissed in favor of “fairness.” Social Justice is purely based on redistribution of wealth. Your wealth. That’s money you worked for, saved, invested, and protected for YOUR needs; YOUR dreams; YOUR future.

Eventually – and very soon – the only source of housing will be from government. Take a good look at the destroyed neighborhoods now under government control and see your future. Property rights and personal ownership is an equal opportunity for everyone to build wealth and freedom. It’s how the United States quickly became so prosperous. Government destroys personal choice, incentive, and the wealth created from it. It’s the reason we are now plummeting into poverty.


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

by Kathleen Marquardt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What drew Schwab to set up the WEF?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ii]  Americanpolicy.org/public _private_partnerships

[iii]  Unlimitedhangout.com Schwab

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

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

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

[vii] Bilderburg Meetings.org

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

[ix]  Ibid.

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

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


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

Bill Lockwood: Antonio Guterres & Eco-Imperialism 4 (1)

by Bill Lockwood

The war has always been between liberty and bondage. Allow people to control their own lives with local government, or will complete control of people gravitate to the top in a statist society? The left has been about the latter, which is why the United Nations was initially created.

One tool only is in the toolbox of the UN Dictator’s Club—Climate Change, which is now upgraded to “Climate Emergency.” So bartender turned scientist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warns. It is the crowbar to beat America over the head into economic submission. We must bow down to the Imperialism of the UN—for the environment, of course. Eco-Imperialism.

The Dictator’s Club Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calls on all the countries of the world to immediately declare a “climate emergency” (December 12 Summit). His hand-wringing last year included that President Donald Trump had withdrawn from the “Paris Climate Accord.” Trump actually exposed the truth that the Sustainable Agenda of the UN Paris Accord is nothing less than a socialist siphoning-off of billions of American dollars to redistribute around the world. Climate sins, you know.

Now that Joe Biden is in, what a relief to the globalists! His first day in office, slow of speech he may be, but he quickly began goose-stepping to the tune called down from the globalist masters, and the Paris Climate Accord has been rejoined. He can’t speak very well, but he can take orders.

That was a close one for the Global Masters of the UN. With Donald Trump at the helm, it looked like they would not conquer America after all. This is why Jeffrey Sachs, an economics professor at Columbia University, and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development, opined out loud that the most severe emergency facing the Dictator’s Club was Donald J. Trump being in office. Now that that is solved, back on the fast-track of globalism and eco-imperialistic governing from the United Nations.

A “State of Climate Emergency” has been declared by the UN. Antonio Guterres breaks it down for us. “This is a moral test. We [read, ‘America’] cannot use these resources [fossil fuels] to lock in policies that burden future generations with a mountain of debt or a broken planet.” The prime minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, suggested that the primary crime of America was that we are “major emitters of carbon dioxide.”

What about the real major emitters, China and India? Chinese President Xi offers only modest changes to cut emissions per unit of GDP by 65 percent by the end of the decade. He also promised to make non-fossil fuels account for 25% of China’s energy by 2030. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged no new climate commitments.

No matter. It is America the globalists want. Our liberty has rendered us immoral climate sinners. Morality has nothing to do with how many of its citizens China may torture. No. It is how much carbon dioxide society as a whole emits. Guterres knows. We must submit to the Eco-Imperialists. This is the moral thing to do. And you thought science was a study of the natural world through systematic observation and experiment. Foolish Americans.

Rich Loudenback: Trump’s advisors may ruin his legacy 0 (0)

by Rich Loudenback for American Policy Center

FR Pres. Richard Haas: “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks.” – AND, Trump Hasn’t a Clue!

Quietly, without debate, one of the most dangerous attacks on American freedom and sovereignty is moving through Congress and headed to President Trump’s desk for signing,. The USMCA agreement will create a North American Union worse than the European Union. Yet there is no voice of opposition being heard. My friend Rich Loudenback has written a urgent, detailed report on this looming disaster. He shows clearly that this is not an improvement over NAFTA as claimed. In fact it contains most of the provisions of NAFTA, plus a lot more. It will be a disaster to American industry, especially for agriculture. Efforts to change some of the worst provisions have been ignored. Why do you think Nancy Pelosi has allowed it to pass the House? Please read and share with as many people as possible. This must be stopped now! Tom DeWeese

President Trump is being lied to by his trusted advisors and he is clueless about their deceit.  Why is he clueless? Because he can’t possibly be supporting something that is so comprehensively bad for America and even antithetical to his wall.  Perhaps he so strongly wants to believe in the USMCA, that he’s been easier to be ‘covertly convinced’ about ‘the deal.’

Lest one good American with his ear can open his eyes before this arrives on his desk, it’s a real ‘done deal.’ It appears he is ready to sign it immediately, leaving with these advisors, his trust.  He will be screwed!  And America will be ‘transformed’ into a different world.

Believe it or not, I have actually had a couple people tell me they think it’s possible that Trump does know the truth about the USMCA, which would make him also part of the problem.  Like most devout Trumpers, I choose to believe that that’s not possible.  I am all in for him, but this USMCA just doesn’t comport with his many, many incredible accomplishments and persona projecting American greatness.

Trump’s signing the USMCA will, in fact, be the biggest mistake of his presidency to date and unfortunately will probably become his enduring legacy.  He will be ‘The US President That Signed Off America’ to be run by the UN/globalist community steered most largely in America by the clandesant deep state managers at the Council on Foreign Relations in lockstep with their UN/globalist comrades.

Once he signs this monstrosity of deception with all its controlling tentacles that will render our government and our Constitution feckless, President Trump doesn’t get a do-over.  He was able to cancel TTP and TTIP because they were still looming bills in congress.

When he signs this as law, that’s it!  It has a six year review written into it and an 18 year renewal statement.  Trying to get out of it will be like England’s’ BREXIT but tougher, because a lot more money will be easily spent to hold us down since we are the globalists’ biggest threat.

Short of a literal civil war or a long standing BREXIT type ordeal we will be ‘cooked’ as a once breathing, sovereign, free nation.  Oh, we will probably still be allowed to keep our name for comfort’s sake, like the former nations now under the tenacity of the EU umbrella, but gone will be many of our freedoms we’ve enjoyed as Americans.  All of America will be forced into the Agenda 2030 UN program with its controlling ‘Sustainable Development’ 17 Goals.  See:  Welcome to Agenda 2030 in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho

One of many negative issues for the United States is cited by Christian Gomez in his article ‘What’s Really in the USMCA’ stating, “In the name of protecting fishes and other marine life, the United States would have to surrender its sovereignty over all of its waterways and miles of coastal oceans (including everything under, on, in, and above them) over to the jurisdiction of UN international law.”

What is particularly sickening about this horrendous climax about to befall America is that literally all the supporting conservative talking heads on TV & radio have bought into this because they believe in our great President and don’t fathom that his enthusiasm for it is the product of ingenious ‘stealth programming’ of him by others.  Virtually no one has done any vetting.  Worst of all, our apathetic citizenry is not present on most issues anymore and totally oblivious on this one since there has been no causations to notice for concern.

How many patriotic Americans are going to tolerate President Trump’s much vaunted USMCA once it begins being implemented by the powers of the UN globalist, once our patriots see what the USMCA really does.  It will:

This is all hard to believe isn’t it, since virtually all the talking heads in the media including all of them on Fox News choose to believe our wonderful President who is so busy and wants something so badly that is better than NAFTA, he is willing to follow the recommendations of his ‘trusted advisors’ who are to the one, all blatantly poker face lying to him.   See:  Why All ‘Free Trade Agreements’ Must Be Banned, They are Sovereignty Stealing, Deceitful Tools of Globalists: Some History & Facts

Since this is truly so hard to believe, then do something none of the media talking heads nor, unfortunately, none of the 348 House Democrats and Republicans who just voted ‘YEA’ for the USMCA obviously did not do:  Read the damn document!

We should be livid, because they generally like to say they voted for the ‘bait’ woven into the document for them to justify their votes, like they are pearl-like gifts for dairy farmers or other special interests.

This is a national crisis and quite literally nobody is aware of it.  We will morph into what will more than likely become the North American Union which will in turn become a segment of the UN run global government, ‘think New World Order.’  Again, should you have doubt, just read the document.

Read: THE FULL ACTUAL DOCUMENT: USMCA | United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

However, it runs for 1,809 pages — 1,572 pages for the treaty chapters, 214 pages for additional annexes, and 23 pages of side letters. Obviously, the mammoth size of the agreement should set off alarm bells that much more is involved than “free trade,” which should mean the absence of government intervention.

A much easier approach to learning all that’s in this scheme to ‘transform’ (sound familiar) America into a member state of a regional UN run government via this fine- tuned instrument of deception and guile, is to look at Christian Gomez’s spectacular expose’ of it in his article What’s Really in the USMCA? – A MUST READ!

Gomez’s genius approach to revealing the USMCA is to expose the UN’s controlling tentacles within the Trojan Horse agreement in his article and then allow you to go to his in-depth ‘USMCA Issues Index’ at the bottom of the article that features links to any of your concerns that take you directly to them in the actual agreement.  You will save a lot of time and be convinced quite quickly why this is all a ruse to take utter control of our freedoms and our government rendering The United States of America null & void.

“The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward,” says Gomez.

TREACHEROUS BETRAYAL BY ‘TRUSTED’ ADVISORS:

“A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change.” – Quote from Christian Gomez in his New American Magazine special report ‘USMCA – A TPP Redux?’

Guess who was the chief negotiator in both NAFTA and TPP?

Answer: Robert E. Lighthizer, who is also a member of the globalists’ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  See:  The Council on Foreign Relations: the Deep State’s Leaders ‘In their Own Words’

Larry Kudlow, President Trump’s Chief Economic Advisor assures Trump that Lighthizer is the best negotiator we have and the USMCA is just what we need.

Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas said “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP. I suggest the US-Pacific Trade Agreement (USPTA),” Haass said on Twitter, adding, “What matters is that the US joins it; doing so would bolster our strategic position visa-vis China and our economy.” The next day, Haass again took to Twitter, where he reiterated his renewed hope of the United States rejoining TPP. Haass tweeted: “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks.”

The USMCA — the NAFTA replacement — represents the next globalist step toward the economic integration of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into an EU-style North American Union.

Oh, and they said NAFTA would boost our trade in large numbers and add at least 177,000 new jobs.  Yet, after having had a trade surplus for years, we immediately went to a $15.8 billion deficit the first year and it has increased every year since and we LOST at least 700,000 jobs stated Robert E. Lighthizer in his remarks on a NAFTA renegotiation, Aug. 16, 2018

Now VP Mike Pence’s office states, “The U.S. International Trade Commission says that within five years, the USMCA could add up to $235 billion in new economic growth and 589,000 jobs to the U.S. economy. 

Yet, The United States International Trade Commission website usitc.gov, their article ‘USITC Releases Report Concerning the Likely Impact of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)’ those claims differ markedly:  “The Commission’s model estimates that USMCA would raise U.S. real GDP by $68.2 billion (0.35 percent) and U.S. employment by 176,000 jobs (0.12 percent). The model estimates that USMCA would likely have a positive impact on U.S. trade, both with USMCA partners and with the rest of the world. U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (5.9 percent) and $14.2 billion (6.7 percent), respectively. U.S. imports from Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (4.8 percent) and $12.4 billion (3.8 percent), respectively.“  ???  Right.

The late, Professor Robert A Pastor, one of the leading architects of the European Union wrote in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”

OUT OF NOWHERE, THE USMCA PUSH HAS STRANGE BEDFELLOW:  NANCY PELOSI

Making the strongest of statements on how bad this monstrosity must be,  the person that would do about anything to hurt Trump, Nancy Pelosi, all of a sudden is pushing for its passage, in fact, its reported that after having a lot of new Progressive stuff inserted into it at the last minute, she is even now trying to take credit for the bill and its passage.  That is all most true Constitutional conservatives should need to hear to ‘catch on.’

If this passes by the Senate and Trump eagerly signing it, there is NO second chance!  Trump was able to cancel the TPP/TTIP on the 3rd day of his Presidency because it was still just a bill in progress.  Once he signs this giant win for the globalists it would take Congress and Trump to repeal it.  Good luck with betting on Congress.  This could be tougher to accomplish than BREXIT in England, given the kind of money that would be available for our sorry LOBBYI$T loving legislators and see how frustratingly BREXIT has been going, going and going.  It’s possible that spirited American patriots may be more inclined toward civil war than putting up with absolute control by unelected, unaccountable, global elitists who know what’s best about everything for everybody in a Socialist world.

We have almost no time left to wake up Senators and especially President Trump.

I really want to believe in President Trump enough to think he would nuke this masterpiece of sovereignty destroying, evil deception as soon as he recognizes the truths about it.

If we could only find one person who has his ear to open his eyes.  In the meantime all we can do is all we can do.  Please spread the word and make phone calls ASAP.

Mitch McConnell has said that he won’t bring this up till after impeachment trials in January.  But then, he could bring it up tomorrow.  I do not trust Mitch McConnell!

Call and log your opposition to this American sovereignty killing bill, the USMCA:

President Trump at 202 456-1111 or 456-1414

Your Senators at 202 224-3121

Your Representatives at 202 225-3121- Ask how your representative voted!

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2020/01/10/cfr-pres-richard-haas-usmca-is-nafta-plus-tpp-plus-a-few-tweaks-and-trump-hasnt-a-clue/


Rich Loundeback:  An Idaho native, Rich spent 40+ years in sales, management, and publishing. He worked at factory and distributor levels in the high-end appliance industry, published a trade newspaper and worked for a management consulting company covering 9 states and 4 provinces of Canada. After living in 6 mostly southeastern states and working in all but Maine and Hawaii, he retired in 2009 in Hayden, Idaho and began writing again and now serves as the North Idaho editor for Gem State Patriot News.

Alex Newman: UN Speakers Push Population Reduction for “Climate Emergency” 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

MADRID — To deal with the alleged “climate emergency,” reducing the number of people on the planet is high on the agenda among activists and speakers at the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit. The growing extremism and even paranoia among population-control advocates, who worry that more people will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, is reaching deafening levels. But the establishment media is largely keeping silent.

The advocates of population control and population reduction are divided, though, on what particular peoples and groups should be targeted most heavily. One key speaker at the UN summit said “white men” and especially Americans and Swedes must stop having babies. An exhibitor promoting “sustainable development,” meanwhile, argued that Africans and Asians ought to be the key target of the depopulation. Others think all of the above.

What means should be used was also a subject of debate. Some activists and speakers promoted propaganda, indoctrination, tax-funded contraception, abortion, ubiquitous birth-control availability, and even coercive population-reduction measures. Others say even more drastic means are needed to deal with the “emergency.” One UN speaker went even further earlier this year, suggesting that actually “killing” people could be on the table.

A major speaker at the UN summit, Oscar-winning director Michael Wadleigh (shown above) of “Woodstock” fame, minced no words in an interview with The New American. “Don’t have children — and I’m looking at you, white man,” he said on camera, speaking in a deep voice, echoing comments he made in high-profile official speeches at the summit.

The reason why it is so important to reduce the population of Europeans and their descendants is because their nations are more developed and they consume more resources, he said. Even Scandinavia and Sweden, which have a “clean” image, are destroying the planet, Wadleigh continued, warning that average Swedes consume 40 times more than average Tanzanians. Even socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is not radical enough on these issues, he said.

“If you were into population control or population reduction, which is good idea worldwide, you should go to Sweden, because if your efforts resulted in one less baby in Sweden, that would be equal to your efforts to go to Africa and reduce populations by 46 percent, sorry, by 46 people in Africa,” said the director turned population-control activist, who spoke just a few hours prior on the same stage as former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

Wadleigh, who has one child and works closely with the UN, crunched the numbers and became convinced. “So where does it make sense to start your population reduction efforts? Start with the people who are the highest per capita emitters, if your goal is to reduce climate change and unsustainable development,” he explained, without noting that the environment in more developed countries such as Sweden, America, Switzerland, Japan, and so on is generally far cleaner than in Third World nations.

Prominent population-control advocates such as neo-Malthusian Paul Erlich of “Population Bomb” fame and Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren have offered radical ideas on this subject. In their 1977 book EcoScience, the duo — who at the time were peddling “global cooling” alarmism — discussed mandatory abortions and adding “sterilizing agents” to the water supply as potential tools for bringing population levels under control.

When asked if those ideas might be going too far, Wadleigh smiled and responded: “You haven’t heard me talk yet!” The ultra-left-wing UN speaker, a fan of communism, did not elaborate on how much further he would be willing to go to reduce human numbers, before going on to speak about what he sees as over-consumption.

In one of his UN talks from one of the most prominent stages in the entire convention, Wadleigh emphasized the need for government coercion to achieve his vision. One of his main messages was the need to drastically reduce consumption. “We can no longer do this voluntarily,” said Wadleigh, pining for a global government that he said did not yet exist. “Make it a law, not a voluntary action.”

A few hours later, former Senator Kerry took the same stage to bad-mouth America and lie about all sorts of things. Among other “climate whoppers,” he claimed that solar energy was now cheaper than traditional forms of energy “by every metric.” If that were true, everybody would be using it, of course.

Rather than targeting Western nations — virtually all of which have birth rates at less than replacement levels — others in Madrid for the COP25 proposed targeting Third World populations. Alejandro Moran Rodriguez, for example, a UN volunteer at the COP25, was manning a booth promoting the UN’s controversial “Sustainable Development Goals.” He told Rebel News that countries in Africa and in Asia should be high on the list for population-control, because they do not have “that culture.” And so, governments must “manage their population,” he said, calling for UN enforcement of contraception.

Another UN speaker also veered into the highly controversial and sensitive area. Self-described “Eco-Social Strategist” Stuart Scott with the group Scientists Warning, who gave almost a dozen talks and press conferences throughout COP25, spoke on topics such as “Too Many Of Us.” “It is undeniable that humanity’s footprint is the number of us times the consumption,” he said, adding that concerns over upsetting religious people were holding back necessary discussions on how to limit the number of human beings on the planet. The Christian Bible, for example, calls on people to “be fruitful and multiply.”

But Scott does not think that is a good idea at all. Pointing to Project Drawdown, Scott suggested that “educating females” and making tax-funded “family planning” available to them would be among the top three ways to reduce CO2 emissions if combined into one package. “The topic [of population control] needs to be part of the negotiations,” he argued. “We are making tiny progress…. Our request — it should be our demand, but I’m not the one making the demand — is that the UN put it on the agenda.”

Asked about whether the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN agency tasked with population control, was doing an adequate job, he responded: “I can’t comment on that because I’m not well enough informed.” According to congressional testimony, the UNFPA and Planned Parenthood have worked with Beijing on perpetrating forced abortions.

Of course, Communist China’s coercive population-control regime literally includes kidnapping pregnant women and killing their pre-born children. When asked if the regime had gone too far in its efforts, Scott did not say. “Even though China relaxed its one-child policy, it’s birth rate has not gone up the way they thought it would,” he said, hopefully, suggesting that fears about climate change were causing women not to have children.

While controversial, Scott’s efforts have been endorsed by everyone from prominent global-warming scientist James Hansen and neo-Malthusian Ehrlich to organizations such as 350.org, Friends of the Earth, and Citizens Climate Lobby, which has former Secretary of Treasury and State George P. Schultz on its advisory board. Erlich, one of Scott’s supporters, has been one of the most vocal advocates of reducing human numbers. Scott even spoke on a panel with Hansen during COP25.

This zealotry for reducing the number of people on the planet has become a common theme at UN gatherings. Earlier this year, at the 68th UN Civil Society Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, one speaker went further than most would dare to in public. After speaking on a panel with UN Assistant Secretary-General Satya Tripathi, Global Initiative for Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP) Executive Director David Michael Terungwa dropped a bombshell. “We can’t kill them all,” he said, twice, laughing.

Before that, at the COP24 in Poland last year, Al Gore trumpeted the theme. Among the solutions to the supposed “climate crisis,” Gore touted more and stricter population-control policies by government. Perhaps oblivious to the ghoulishness of his words, Gore praised the population-control regime operated by the government of India, which has been widely condemned as abusive and coercive. Showing a graph of China’s population, he also celebrated the policies of the mass-murdering dictatorship in Communist China.

However, showing a graph of Africa’s population, Gore suggested that Africans were still having far too many babies for planet Earth to sustain in the face of supposed “climate” change. Despite lip-service to the pope and Catholicism, Gore demanded, among other tactics, that contraception be made “ubiquitously available” all over the world. The goal: Help reduce the number of children, and especially Africans.

The New American asked Democrat presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for his desire to have Big Government disarm you and regulate everything from Big Gulps to salt content in food, for his thoughts on the population-control subject. “Thank you, have a nice day,” he responded with a strange grin. His handlers promptly rushed in — “he’s not taking interviews right now” — before his armed security, looking grumpy, whisked him away. 

Children are already being bombarded by UN propaganda at school and in official UN publications. The goal: convincing students that having babies is bad for the planet. The the 1994 UN-produced book Rescue Mission: Planet Earth : A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21, the UN’s self-styled “education” agency teaches children that “the planet groans every time it registers another birth.” And that is just the start of what critics say is the anti-human, anti-Christian, anti-freedom propaganda that has been peddled by the UN to children for decades now.

During the recent debate on a whether or not to declare a “climate emergency,” German Members of the European so-called Parliament expressed deep unease over the declaration. The reason is that the German term for emergency, der Notstand, is associated with a Nazi law adopted by Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party to consolidate power.

The UN summit, led by international socialists such as Antonio Guterres, appears to be hoping for vast new powers to deal with this supposed “climate emergency.” And at the top of the list will be reducing the number of people on the planet, by any means that they consider necessary.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34329-un-speakers-push-population-reduction-for-climate-emergency


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

Bill Lockwood: Freedom v. Force 0 (0)

by Bill Lockwood

Freedom irritates the left. Not their own freedom—but yours. Democrats live with a hatred; a despising of the very principle of liberty. This is the essential difference between the left and the right—not merely how spend money and upon what—but whether or not to curtail your freedom.

Consider free speech. The free and open exchange of ideas has been the hallmark of American society for over two centuries. The First Amendment has served as a prohibition against the Federal Government from managing any kind of speech. Alarmingly, however, more than one-half of Americans today favor a “re-writing” of the First Amendment whereby “hate speech” would be illegal. The survey was taken by the nonpartisan Campaign for Free Speech (CFS).

As everyone knows, the determination of what constitutes “hate speech” is the crux. Who will determine what type of speech is hateful enough to be illegal? (see First Liberty Institute article, 11-15-19).

College campuses lead the nation in showing contempt for free speech. Most college students, according to surveys, want restrictions on what they call “offensive” speech. Marxist professors have instilled a pure hatred for free speech in the student bodies. Witness the hostile reception conservative speakers have had at various Universities around the country.

Even the liberal American Bar Association (ABA) documents in a recent article the silencing of various speakers at college campuses. The authors, Stephen J. Wermiel & Josh Blackman, try to explain that it comes from “both sides”, left and right, but conclude that the “incidents” of disruption to speakers on the liberal side are “less common.” Indeed! And it is more than a stretch to say that “hecklers” wearing “Make America Great Again” hats equate with the violence of shutting down speakers and forcing college campuses to withdraw conservative invitations to speak. Silencing by force is the leftist method.

Force has been used so much by the left that some Republican-led state legislatures have felt the need to impose policies on their state university campuses to allow free speech.

Under the rubric of “hate speech” the big tech giants Facebook and YouTube have already shut down Alex Jones’ voice on InfoWars.  Some Christian voices, like Julio Severo, are put in “Facebook jail” for posting Bible verses such as about homosexuality. Google suppressed Prager University and Twitter temporarily banned Candace Owens. So prevalent has this forcible silencing of speech been on the left that Bill Maher was compelled to ask, “If you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech. That’s free speech for the speech that you hate.”

Consider Climate Change. The Paris Climate Accord from which Trump withdrew in 2017 is all about force. Those who preach the Green Gospel of saving the planet cannot garner enough support for their message by normal debate and means of persuasion. Therefore, these globalists wish to sign American taxpayers on to a globalist “Carbon Pricing Panel” whereby the dictators of the United Nations will force reparations from the United States to pay for our environmental sins. These payments will be distributed to Third World and developing nations.

All of us have pulpits. Some of us preach the gospel of Christ and by reasons addressed to the mind ask worshippers to contribute in collection trays. Leftists and socialists of the Democrat Party cannot garner enough support for their doomsday message that the Sky is Falling, consequently they must save us all—by forcing us to pay contributions to their collection baskets. They cannot rely on freedom or the free-flow of ideas, so proponents of the Green Gospel use force.

Fred Singer, prominent scientist at the Heartland summit, a University of Virginia environmental science Professor Emeritus, and founder of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, observed, “This is about money and power. Science plays a small role, and mostly it’s being misused….It’s a matter of really trying to control things.”

Consider attacks on private property. So essential is this to freedom that John Adams commented that this was the single foundation stone undergirding all human freedom and liberty. “Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.”

The left knows this as well. The all-out attack on private property by the program Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), fostered by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development program and flourishing under HUD funding, has become common-place in American cities.

Big government planners do not like that you have the “freedom of association.” Liberty to live where you like and with those whom you are most comfortable is anathema. We must pare down your liberty branches! Cities are bribed with the endless access to federal money to “re-distribute” the racial mixes of their populations. Cities such as Baltimore, MD are placing minority families in white suburbia. No freedom here.

Liberal bastion Minneapolis, Minnesota became the first city to end single-family zoning. The Mayor of the city called such housing a mark of racism and “self-segregation” that must be halted at once. The white population is in his cross-hairs. Other cities are beginning to follow suit. 1

There are also a large number of organizations, such as Center for Study of Social Policy, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE); Center for American Progress (CAP); W. Kellogg Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and others, that are in the business of bribing cities with large amounts of George Soros money to forcibly re-zone various neighborhoods or re-draw school boundaries to dismantle schools that have “too large a white or Asian population.” 2

Another group, PolicyLink, a radical activist group, pushes policies such as “parks equity” which states that lack of access to city parks are partly responsible for “racial performance gaps” in school and on the job. The manifesto therefore is for middle-class tax-payers, once again by force, to begin funding more parks in slum areas of the country.

The common denominator in all of this is lack of freedom. Force replaces it. This is the tool of the left.

Kathleen Marquardt: WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING AND WATER IS FOR FIGHTING 0 (0)

by Kathleen Marquardt

If whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting, as Mark Twain famously said, then the 2015 Montana Legislature affirmed the truismTristan Scott, Flathead Beacon

In the mid-90s, before the Internet, the U.S. government held a meeting via satellite link between Washington, D.C., and cities and towns across western Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, and Oregon. The subject was the Columbia River Basin.

I was living in Helena, Montana. The meeting was held in a school or some building like a school on a Saturday morning. The room had about a dozen round tables with six chairs each, and we all watched the presentation on a screen. In attendance were the press, people from farming and Ag organizations, local officials and others like me – wanting to know what was afoot.  After the viewing, we had one of those infamous consensus meetings.

The major point of that meeting was that the Columbia River Basin needed to be returned to the state it was before Columbus. In unspoken words, NO WHITE MAN. But a lot more was presented to drown that in political gobbledygook.

Understandably, the global elite want that area to be re-wilded, to be part of the Wildlands Project. But at this meeting/Charrette, they let us know that they would start by removing only the non-indigenous peoples. Plus dams – dams gotta go.

Now, some 25 years later, we are seeing exactly how this is being accomplished via the western Montana portion of the Columbia River Basin Project – the proposed Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Montana water compact.

The fact is, the CSKT Compact has nothing to do with water rights, Indians, culture, fish, or the environment.  It is all about money for a small group of tribal elite and state officials who covet more power, political positions, and power over others. It seeks revenge for spiteCatherine Vandemoer, Ph.D., Sovereign Nation

I have been trying  to put together a short-ish synopsis of the machinations over the CSKT compact. But the backstory is that the feds are using the treaty to bring about the unlawful expansion of the tribal government authority over Non-Indians. “This compact proposes that the State of Montana expand the authority and jurisdiction of tribal governments over non-members and non-Indians where federal law has specifically prohibited it. People, the Montana legislature does not have the authority to remove constitutional provisions and statutory protections from its citizens,  . . .” [1] ,  On top of this, the CSKT Compact, is an attempt to create a new type of federal water right “ . . .using the wording from the Hellgate Treaty that states that the tribes have a right to take fish. And from those simple words that even a horse trainer can understand, the proponents of this compact would like us to believe that the right to take fish, equates to an aboriginal, time immemorial, tribal reserved, federal water right. Again, they are asking the Montana State legislature to conjure up…and I do mean conjure up… a federal water right where currently one does not exist. We simply do not have that authority.” [2]

The compact between Montana, the federal government, and the tribes is so complicated that the fur has been flying for well over a hundred years, and recently, another 1,000+-page compact has been written. I suggest you go to Western Water Rights and watch the video of the Perfect Storm for the full story from the first tribal agreement. It is extremely well laid out.

But here is the dirty, rotten, nasty underbelly of this whole Machiavellian plot. Remember how Agenda 21 was signed in Rio by President George H.W. Bush, but never ratified by Congress? Actually, never even brought up in Congress. Yet, instead, President Clinton put V.P. Al Gore in charge of using the President’s Commission on Sustainable Development to embed all the aspects of Sustainable Development into every department of the federal government.

That same tactic is being used here. Catherine Vandemoer, Ph.D.  Chair, Montana Land and Water Alliance, out of Polson, Montana, wrote me that, “ . . . the state is implementing the CSKT Compact without Congressional approval both on and off the reservation by:

On Reservation—State, BIA, and Tribes implementing CSKT Compact in a federal irrigation project without Congressional approval

State and BIA participating in planning, possible design, funding of projects associated with compact water management plans, including measuring devices, headgate operations,

Tribes aggressively implementing and directing a compliant BIA  how to manage storage and reservoir levels, instream flows, and canal deliveries  according to plans specified in the CSKT Compact appendices which affects water delivery to irrigation and stock,  and violates US-irrigation district contracts.

There is an existing federal operations plan that has not been followed since 2014 because they have been implementing

Off-reservation—State implementing Milltown Dam water right

The compact calls for CSKT “co-ownership” of the water flow from the Milltown Dam water right on the Clark Fork River, and thus “splits” the water right between two tributaries to protect instream flow.

The state had planned to implement this with or without the Compact, but with the Compact they didn’t have to go through their regular permitting process to achieve that transfer of use and point of diversion.

Congress has not approved the compact yet the state water right abstract for Milltown dam listed the co-ownership and compact-related conditions

In 2017 our organization wrote to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) to point out that the compact hadn’t been approved and the abstract was in error, and to inquire as to whether the state was going to go through its regular process

After getting a nasty response, the state changed the abstract to list them as full owner, but indicated as soon as compact passed would be co-ownership.

However, they are implementing that right now without having completed the state process for a change in the use and place of use of the water, which was required without the compact.

You don’t have to understand all those terms, you just need to understand that this project is be embedded into state, tribal, and local governments without Congressional approval, and probably without Congress knowing it is being done. Plus, this is not just about Montana waters, it will have a most destructive affect on all western waters.

The furthest west hatched lines designate the Flathead Indian Reservation Article II Treaty of Hellgate. The green area is what this new compact is turning over to that small reservation to have full control over the waters.

The compact begins with an incorrect definition of the reservation that paves the way for the expansive taking of water within reservation boundaries:  all land within the exterior boundaries of the Indian Reservation established under the July 16, 1855 Treaty of Hellgate, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the Reservation.”   

This flawed premise is used to rationalize giving all water running through and under the reservation to the CSKT.

Additionally the compact gives the federal government time immemorial water rights for every drop of water in Flathead Lake, and concedes significant instream flows with various priority dates throughout 11 counties in western Montana in the Clark Fork and Kootenai River basins.

This is a water grab (which becomes a land grab, because you can’t use land that doesn’t have water) the size no one has seen before outside the USSR. Those Americans who think that this has no relevance to them, better think twice – at least. This is not the beginning of the taking of water rights in this country; it is happening all over in various tactics and schemes. But it is the biggest. And it has been in the works for at least 30 years.

You can think, oh well, that’s in Montana; it won’t bother me. I am in Ohio, or Arizona. Understand, this is just the first place – sort of a testing ground. And, no, they don’t need Indian reservations to stage the take-over of water rights. We cannot survive without water so, if you haven’t stood up for your rights before, start now. Whiskey may be for drinking, but let’s see you survive long without water.

[1] Theresa Manzella, member of Montana State House of Representatives, “My testimony to the Montana House on the CSKT Water Compact.

[2] Ibid.


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/11/25/whiskey-is-for-drinking-and-water-is-for-fighting/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: STAND FOR SOVEREIGNTY – RON PAUL AND TOM DEWEESE 0 (0)

by Tom DeWeese

In September of 2000 the UN held its Millennium Summit in New York City to announce its 8 goals to impose the transformation of the world under Sustainable Development.

In response, on September 7, 2000, as nearly every head of state and world leader gathered at the United Nations headquarters, the American Policy Center (APC) held a news conference on Capital Hill calling for an end to the United States membership in the UN. To back up its demands, APC delivered more than 500,000 petitions in support of Rep. Ron Paul’s National Sovereignty Restoration Act (HR 1146).

The petitions, weighing more than 1.5 tons, served as the backdrop for the news conference as Rep. Paul and the late Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage spoke to reporters about the threat of the UN to the United States. More leaders who spoke at the event, Hosted by APC president Tom DeWeese, included the late Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International, Constitutional expert Herb Titus, the late Kent Snyder of the Liberty Study Committee and Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival.

The News Conference was aired to millions over the CSPAN cable network and helped APC launch a renewed war against the UN’s relentless drive for global governance.

This video of that 2000 news conference is especially significant as Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Ala) has now introduced his bill, called the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204), to again call for the United States to Exit the United Nations. It’s time to renew the fight to stop the UN’s drive for global governance.


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/10/24/stand-for-sovereignty-ron-paul-and-tom-deweese/

« Older Entries