Tag Archives: The United Nations

TOM DEWEESE: Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21

by Tom DeWeese

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!

For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals.  They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Of course, such harsh terms had to be hidden from the American people if the plan was to be successfully imposed. They called it a “suggestion” for “voluntary” action –  just in case a nation or community wanted to do something positive for mankind! However, while using such innocent-sounding language, the Agenda 21 shock troops lost no time pushing it into government policy. In 1992, just after its introduction at the Earth Summit, Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan into Congress. It’s interesting to note that she boldly called it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In 1993, new President, Bill Clinton ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land. Then the American Planning Association issued a newsletter in 1994, supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning. So much for a voluntary idea!

However, as we, the opponents started to gain some ground in exposing its true purpose and citizens began to storm city halls protesting local implementation, suddenly the once proud proponents lost their collective memories about Agenda 21. Never heard of it! “There are no blue-helmeted troops at city hall,” said one proponent, meaning policies being used to impose it were not UN driven, but just “local, local, local”. “Oh, you mean that innocuous 20 year-old document that has no enforcement capability? This isn’t that!” These were the excuses that rained down on us from the planners, NGOs and government agents as they scrambled to hide their true intentions.

I was attacked on the front page of the New York Times Sunday paper under the headline, “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) produced four separate reports on my efforts to stop it, calling our efforts an “Antigovernment Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory.” The Atlantic magazine ran a story entitled, “Is the UN Using Bike Paths to Achieve World Domination?” Attack articles appeared in the Washington PostEsquire magazine, Wingnut WatchMother Jones, and Tree Hugger.com to name a few. All focused on labeling our opposition as tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs. Meanwhile, an alarmed American Planning Association (APA) created an “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts page on its web site to supposedly counter our claims. APA then organized a “Boot Camp” to retrain its planners to deal with us, using a “Glossary for the Public,” teaching them new ways to talk about planning. Said the opening line of the Glossary, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” The Glossary went on to list words not to use like “Public Visioning,” “Stakeholders,” “Density,” and “Smart Growth,” because such words make the “Critics see red”.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

Local elected officials, backed by NGO groups and planners, began to deride local activists – sometimes denying them access to speak at public meetings, telling them that Agenda 21 conspiracy theory has “been debunked”. Most recently an irate city councilman answered a citizen who claimed local planning was part of Agenda 21 by saying “this is what’s “trending.” So, of course, if everyone is doing it is must be right!

Such has been our fight to stop this assault on our culture and Constitutional rights.

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

Take a good look, those of you who have heard my warnings about Agenda 21 over the years. Do you see the plan I have warned about being fully in place in this Green New Deal?

  • I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and were we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export and even breathe.
  • In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Stay alert. The next step will be to put a ban on the sale of new combustion engines by a specific date and then limiting the number of new vehicles to be sold. Bans on commercial truck shipping will follow. Then they will turn to airplanes, reducing their use. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
  • I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on carbon heating systems, mandating they be turned off during certain hours. Heating oil devises will become illegal. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
  • I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Those in the cities will be ordered to convert their gardens into food producers. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
  • I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.

The Green New Deal will destroy the very concept of our Constitutional Republic, eliminating private property, locally elected representative government, free markets and individual freedom. All decisions in our lives will be made for us by the government – just to protect the environment of course. They haven’t forgotten how well that scheme works to keep the masses under control.

Though the label “Green New Deal” has been passing around globalist circles for a while, it’s interesting that its leaders have now handed it to a naïve, inexperienced little girl from New York who suddenly found herself rise from bartending to a national media sensation, almost over nigh. That doesn’t just happen and there is no miracle here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a created product. They probably needed her inexperienced enthusiasm to deliver the Green New Deal because no established politician would touch it. Now that it’s been introduced and she is set up to take the heat, the gates have swung open allowing forty-five members of Congress to co-sponsor it in the House of Representatives as established Senator Ed. Markey (D-MA) has sponsored it in the Senate. That doesn’t just happen either. Nothing has been left to chance.

Behind the sudden excitement and rush to support it are three radical groups each having direct ties to George Soros, including the Sunrise Movement – which markets itself as an “army of young people” seeking to make climate change a major priority.   Justice Democrats – which finds and recruits progressive candidates, and New Consensus – organized to change how we think about issues. Leaders of these groups have connections with other Soros-backed movements including Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. According to The New Yorker magazine, the plan was written over a single weekend in December, 2018. Ocasio-Cortez was included in the effort, chosen to introduce it. This may be the single reason why she was able to appear out of nowhere to become the new darling of the radical left.

So there you have it — Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal. Progress in the world of Progressives! They warned us from the beginning that their plan was the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”. And so it is to be the total destruction of our way of life.

To all of those elected officials, local, state and federal, who have smirked at we who have tried to sound the alarm, look around you now, hot shots! You have denied, ignored, and yet, helped put these very plans into place. Are you prepared to accept what you have done? Will you allow your own homes and offices to be torn down – or will you be exempt as part of the elite or just useful idiots? Will you have to give up your car and ride your bike to work? Or is that just for we peasants?

Over these years you have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured you their plans were just environmental protection, just good policy for future generations. They have been lying to you to fulfill their own agenda!  Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.

Now, our elected leaders have to ask real questions. As the Green New Deal is implemented, and all energy except worthless, unworkable wind and solar are put into place, are you ready for the energy curfews that you will be forced to impose, perhaps each night as the sun fades, forcing factories, restaurants, hospitals, and stores to close at dusk? How about all those folks forced to live in the stack and pack high-rises when the elevators don’t operate? What if they have an emergency?

How much energy will it take to rebuild those buildings that must be destroyed or retrofitted to maker them environmentally correct for your brave new world? Where will it come from after you have banned and destroyed all the workable sources of real energy? What are you counting on to provide you with food, shelter, and the ability to travel so you can continue to push this poison? Because – this is what’s trending — now! And how is it going to be financed when the entire economy crashes under its weight? Is it really the future you want for you, your family, and your constituents who elected you?

Every industry under attack by this lunacy should now join our efforts to stop it.  Cattlemen, farmers, airlines, the auto industry, realtors, tourist industry, and many more, all will be put out of business – all should now take bold action to immediately kill this plan before it kills your industry. Stomp it so deeply into the ground that no politician will ever dare think about resurrecting it.

For years I’ve watched politicians smirk, roll their eyes, and sigh whenever the words Agenda 21 were uttered. As George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it”. Today I stand vindicated in my warnings of where Agenda 21 was truly headed, because it’s not longer me having to reveal the threat. They are telling you themselves. Here’s the naked truth – Socialism is for the stupid. The Green New Deal is pure Socialism. How far its perpetrators get in enforcing it depends entirely on how hard you are willing to fight for freedom. Kill it now or watch it die.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/02/25/green-new-deal-reveals-the-naked-truth-of-agenda-21/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

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: Why Property Rights Matter Prosperity – Stability – Freedom

by Tom DeWeese

There is an all out assault taking place in nearly every community against private property ownership. It’s being perpetrated at every level of government and funded by taxpayer grants. Yet few property owners raise objections, mainly because today most don’t have the basic understanding of the right of property ownership and its vital place in preserving our nation’s prosperity, economic stability and foundation of freedom.

Most Americans tend to think of private property simply as a home — the place where the family resides, store their belongings and find shelter and safety from the elements. It’s where you live. It’s yours because you pay the mortgage and the taxes. That’s about the extent of thought given to property ownership in today’s America.

There was a time when property ownership was considered to be much more. Property, and the ability to own and control it, was life itself. The great economist, John Locke, whose writings and ideas had major influence on the nation’s founders, believed that “life and liberty are secure only so long as the right of property is secure.”

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

Locke advocated that if property rights protection did not exist then the incentive for an industrious person to develop and improve property would be destroyed; depriving that person of the fruits of his labor; that marauding bands would confiscate by force the goods produced by others; and that mankind would be impelled to remain on a bare subsistence level of hand to mouth survival from fear that the accumulation of anything of value would invite attack.

Homeownership, and the equity it creates, has been the main source of wealth for millions of Americans. It’s the reason the United States was able to build incredible wealth and rise above much older nations. Sixty percent of American businesses were created by homeowners using the equity from their homes. Where private property is disallowed teeming and unrelenting poverty is the result.

Locke’s fears have become reality today through the innocent sounding term called “Sustainable Development. Under that banner, the very concept of property rights is being targeted as unrealistic in a drive to reorganize our communities through strict planning regulations.

Proponents define Sustainable Development as: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  According to its advocates, to achieve that goal requires massive amounts of land and natural resources to be permanently locked away from use; which translates to control, not conservation, as many perceive it to mean.

Sustainable Development requires a complete transformation of American society that will affect our system of justice, our economic system, and our ability to make individual life choices such as careers, family size, and the location of our homes.

The best known form of the Sustainable transformation is called Smart Growth. We’re told this policy is necessary to create the community of the future, to guarantee effective planning, and, most importantly, to protect the environment by reducing our carbon footprint to combat climate change.

Attending a local public meeting where the community‘s new “visioning” plan is being promoted, citizens will be assured that everything has been prepared by local leaders simply to address unique problems and well-laid plan for the future. However, a little research will show, ironically, that almost every community in every state has a nearly identical plan in process, usually ending with numbers like 2030 or 2050. One can also search the Internet and find such plans as Jamaica 2050 and Dubai 2050. They cover the world and most importantly – they are all the same basic plan no matter where they are, nationally or globally. One thing they all have in common – none of them are LOCAL!… CONTINUE READING ON OUR WEBSITE

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/30/why-property-rights-matter-prosperity-stability-freedom/?mc_cid=64f875b2fd&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: Universal Basic Income: Roaring Back to Slavery

Universal Basic Income: Roaring Back to Slavery-“So, who are the slaves?”

by Bill Lockwood

Much is being said today about a “universal basic income.” The concept is that every person ought to enjoy as a “human right” a minimum living wage—no work required. Former President Obama touted this in his recent South Africa speech honoring communist Nelson Mandela.  He explained that the world needs to “’re-image’ our social and political arrangements” in order to provide “universal income.” That is Obamaspeak for finishing off the change of the structure of our government. Make it a dictatorship. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO, suggests that “we explore the idea of universal basic income.” Other socialists have begun to openly champion this communistic philosophy—but it is nothing more than slavery.

How is it slavery? Let’s back up for a moment. To begin, in thinking about “universal basic income” we are setting the Bible aside. God’s Word is ignored and ridiculed by major power-brokers and community-organizers of politics. Inspired testimony requires “if a man does not work, neither let him eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). God’s order from the beginning has been “By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread” (Gen. 3:19). But this concept is ruled out of court before we begin.

Secondly, we are setting aside the Constitution. Issues like basic income are normally discussed in terms of economics and political effects, not the Constitution. Besides, apart from skirmishing over miniscule issues such as “how many terms may a President serve?” or “how often must elections be held?”—the Constitution is defunct. We no longer have a Constitution nor anything that can be accurately described as constitutional law. To test this thesis, consider the issues of the day—government run health care; welfare; education, environmental concerns, etc. Each of these is debated in terms practical costs—can we afford it? Rarely, if ever, is the Constitution brought to bear on the subjects.

Back to our question. How is “universal basic income” a “roaring back to slavery?” Slavery, for all practical purposes is the process by which one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. When a slave produces, that production does not belong to that slave, but to another—his or her owner. This is the basic assumption of the Democrat Party—those who favor slavery.

For example, not long ago, Donald Calloway, Jr., a political advocate for the Democrat Party, objected to “drug testing” those who are recipients of welfare. His objection stated that those who are given a “tax break” by President Trump’s new plan ought also be tested if we are to be equal. Get it. He believes if my taxes decrease from 40% to 20% that is the same thing as the government handing me a welfare check. Keeping my own money is a “government benefit.”

Why? Because in theory Calloway believes all you earn and all of your potential production belongs to the government. Government decides what of your hard-earned money you can keep. It decides how much you must cough up to the “common good.”

This is the bare-bones definition of slavery. All of my production does not belong to me but to another—this time the government. This is slavery.

Government

So, how is the government going to guarantee a basic income of anything for anyone? Look at the definition of government. Govern is “To exercise authority over; direct; control; rule; manage.” Government is the system by which this is accomplished. It is to control the affairs of a state or group of people. Or, as George Washington put it succinctly, “Government is force.”

By definition there is no possible method by which the “system” of organization can provide or guarantee any person anything at all except opportunity for fair play. Government has no money of its own—theoretically.

But how can a weak, small and limited by design government actually provide any person an income? This is impossible. By design its force is negligible. But that is not where we are, is it? Our government now has become so large, unmanageable and confiscatory that it strides like a leviathan over every natural boundary that exists. It therefore pilfers from the producers to give to the non-producers. All things are now possible.

So, who are the slaves? The workers. The producers. The laborers. You and me. Who owns them/us? The government, as seen by the Obama and Calloway-type statements above. Our production is considered government property. Therefore, to provide one person a “minimum living income” that government must confiscate even more from the workers such as myself to redistribute to another. This it readily does and promises to increase that taking at will, or as the mobs demand.

The bottom line is that the workers in America, owned by the world plantation at the United Nations headquarters in New York, or the Washington, D.C. plantation crowd in the nation’s capital, are being used by the slave masters to produce. The slave masters become popular to the non-producers who are now marching in mass on the streets with placards to demand more. President Trump’s efforts to roll back the size and scope of the plantation owners is being met with fierce opposition—by the plantation owners and the beneficiaries of their theft—the welfare class. Only one group has become slaves—the working middle class.

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth

NATO is Operating as Designed—to Siphon Off American Wealth“The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.”

by Bill Lockwood

President Trump this week once more rocked the globalists and internationalists with his renewed criticism of what has been considered one of the cornerstones of American foreign policy: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump’s criticism focused upon the fact that the United States continues to pay the lion’s share of operating costs of the organization, while other member nations pay pittance by comparison.

For 2017, NATO’s military budget is $1.38 billion, the civilian budget is $252 million and its NATO Security Investment Program is $704 million. In this budget the U.S. contributes over 22 percent followed by Germany with a little over 14.65 percent, France at 10.6 percent and Britain 9.84 percent. There are 13 more members of NATO that pay less than 1 percent of their GDP to its budget.

Why Does America Pay the Lion’s Share?

Established in 1949 in the aftermath of WWII, NATO was sold to the American public as well as to the Senate as a necessity to keep the Soviet Union out of Western Europe. But as informed citizens are aware, NATO was specifically structured to be one of those “entangling alliances” to siphon off American wealth, as well as a stepping-stone to World Government. This is easily understood when one considers the roots of NATO.

The blueprint for NATO was drawn by Nikolai Lenin, the Soviet dictator, and expanded by his successor Joseph Stalin.  The basic 5-point plan for communistic global conquest is summarized in the following four points.

  1. Confuse, disorganize, and destroy the forces of capitalism around the world.
  2. Bring all nations together into a single world system of economy. [The United Nations’ International Monetary Fund as well as the World Bank helped achieve this goal. So also have the so-called “Free Trade Agreements.” BL]
  3. Force the advanced countries [read, United States] to pour prolonged financial aid into the underdeveloped countries.
  4. Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to total world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regionals [such as NATO] can be brought all the way into a single world dictatorship of the proletariat. (Joseph Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, 1942, as quoted by G. Edward Griffin, The Fearful Master, A Second Look at the United Nations, 1964, p. 68)

One can readily see that the entire design or “regional” organizations was to be “transitional” to world government. More importantly, “regional governments”—or treaties—were necessary to bleed the American taxpayer to bankroll the entire scheme. This is exactly what is occurring and the frequent mantra that today’s world is a “new global community” plays directly into the orientation of Stalinist Russia.

Globalist Founders

Alger Hiss was one of FDR’s top advisors and was an ardent Soviet spy, having been convicted and sent to prison in 1950 for perjury involving statements relating to his communist activities. He was directly involved in the creation of The United Nations. His good friend, and advisor to later presidents, was John Foster Dulles. Dulles also was an avid globalist, pushing the United States towards Lenin’s world dictatorship. When Harry Truman signed America into the UN’s NATO alliance Dulles was enthusiastic. The “treaty” was part of the regional strategy towards globalism.

NATO involves first, a military “entangling alliance.” Article 5 of the NATO treaty binds the United States in an “agreement” that in the case of an “armed attack” against any NATO member other members of NATO, such as the United States, would consider it “as an attack against them all.” This contravenes the U.S. Constitution which assigns to Congress the power to declare war.

But NATO is not simply a military alliance. It is political as well (Steve Byas, article on John Foster Dulles, The New American, 3-5-2018). Dulles told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the treaty should be ratified “not as a military instrument but as a step in a political evolution that has behind it a long and honorable history, and before, it a great and peaceful future.” Note the language. NATO was considered by insiders to be a transitional stage toward a more solid global government.

The treaty itself states that member-states “will encourage economic collaboration between any and all of them.” Clarence Streit, Dulles’ fellow globalist, wrote in 1939 that he recommended the creation of regional groupings with the eventual goal of putting them together into a functioning world government. Streit pushed for the creation of NATO as a regional government within the framework of the United Nations. This is why Articles 51 and 52 of the UN Charter encourage the forging of “regional groupings” and cooperation.

United States Independence has always been in the crosshairs of the globalists behind NATO. In 1960, just 11 years after NATO’s founding, Elmo Roper of the Atlantic Union Committee stated:

For it becomes clear that the first step toward world government cannot be completed until we have advanced on the four fronts: the economic, the military, the political, and the social … the Atlantic Pact [NATO] need not be our last effort toward greater unity. It can be converted into one more sound and important step in working toward world peace. It can be one of the most positive moves in the direction of the One World. (Quoted by John McManus, in Changing Commands, The Betrayal of America’s Military, p. 20).

Jumping ahead to the Bush Administration of 1991, NATO was “reorganized.” Thousands of American soldiers were for the first time placed under German, British, and other blue-helmeted foreign commanders. Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary for the Administration, termed the move “an important milestone in the transformation of the alliance.” The transformation continues. Republican or Democrat, the goal is a world organization overriding the US Constitution.

Another precedent was established in during the Clinton Administration in 1994 when a British UN troop commander ordered US fighter planes from NATO to attack positions in Bosnia. Neither the British general, nor Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN Secretary-General, bothered to contact President Clinton nor our own Congress. The UN had already been given authority to employ US forces serving in NATO, a UN subsidiary, to utilize American military and money.

Now one can clearly see why Trump’s pressure on European countries to pay equivalent payments to NATO rattles socialist cages. Republican or Democrat, both sides of the aisle are grieved at the hindrance of their globalist designs. But the American people love President Trump, who has been the first president with backbone enough to lay it out for the American public by telling negotiators at the Brussels table that enough is enough.

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

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

by Alex Newman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Tom DeWeese: A Challenge to The American Planning Association

A Challenge to The American Planning Association- 

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

by Tom DeWeese

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tactics used by the American Planning Association

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

Here’s a recent example:

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

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

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

First the survey:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THESE questions in their next survey:

10 Real Questions Planners Should Ask the Public

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

The Christian and Politics

The Christian and Politics“Politics in America are a part of religion.”

by Bill Lockwood

Charles G. Finney was an old-school Presbyterian preacher revivalist who flourished in the pulpits of America during the period of 1825-1835. His leadership in what has been called the “Second Great Awakening” reminds American citizens today that what is needed is another awakening and that it is our Christian duty to influence the direction of our country. Seeing that many preachers and worshippers alike are avoiding the conflicts of our culture, listen to what Finney he has to say regarding confronting sin and the political arena:

The church must take right ground in regard to politics … the time has come that Christians must vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics, or the Lord will curse them. They must be honest men themselves, and instead of voting for a man because he belongs to their party … they must find out whether he is honest and upright, and fit to be trusted….And if he will give his vote only for honest men, the country will be obliged to have upright rulers … God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, … unless the church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God.

Exactly. Politics in America are a part of religion. According to Webster’s 1828 original dictionary definition of “Politics,” it is a “the Science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state …”

One cannot logically separate religion and politics. Politics is the extension of our ethical beliefs, which in turn are founded upon religious concepts. If Christians abandon the political arena, irreligious humanists lay the planks of secular godless government.

Regarding the foundations of our political system, Finney went on to say:

It seems sometimes as if the foundations of the nation were becoming rotten, and Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you, he does see it, and he will bless or curse this nation, according to the course they take.

But our ethics in America are so weak and anemic that some wish to belong to a political party whose Party Platform includes the murder of unborn children (abortion) and the enshrining of sodomite marriages (homosexuality) as some kind of “right.” Yet, these wish to be known as “Christians.” God will not so tolerate the prostitution of the name of Christ by such ungodliness.

That Christians need to participate in the political arena, consider something else.

The Bedrock of Family

America is a “family-oriented” culture. “Mom, Dad and the kids” has been the hallmark of community life since America’s inception. From whence comes this cultural norm? It is solely due to the influence of one book—The Bible.

First, the woman is honored only by biblical teaching. “Honor thy father and mother” (Exod. 20:12) demands equal respect from children to the female partner in a marriage as well as to the male. “Ye shall fear every man his mother and father” Moses warned in Lev. 19:13. The New Testament is just as clear. “Children, obey your parents” (Eph. 6:1).

For those who long for “other cultures”—just which one honors the woman as does holy Scripture? Islam? Go to Muslim countries and witness the woman who cannot be seen on the streets except four paces behind her husband, or whose word, by Muhammed’s edict, is not counted as worthy as a man’s in a court of law.

Christianity’s elevation of womanhood is particularly noteworthy due to the fact that this week the world celebrated International Woman’s Day. The United Nation website has the following pertaining to this:

Over the years, the UN and its technical agencies have promoted the participation of women as equal partners with men in achieving sustainable development, peace, security, and full respect for human rights. The empowerment of women continues to be a central feature of the UN’s efforts to address social, economic and political challenges across the globe.

In view of the fact that the UN is primarily controlled by Muslim nations wherein women have no rights as compared to a man, this is a blatant propaganda statement. Perhaps people should once again turn to the God of the Bible.

Second, men and women are equal before God. “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, no male or female, for we are all one man in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Equal access to God for men and women. Paul may here be alluding to Genesis 1:27 wherein it is stated that God made mankind “male and female.” Note in the Genesis passage that both man and woman were created “in God’s image” (1:26).

Third, God provides honor to the woman as well as the man by arranging a monogamous marriage relationship and rejecting polygamy. When Jesus was asked pertaining to marriage and divorce (Matt. 19:3-9) our Lord answered by recalling to our minds God’s original plan wherein God brought the woman unto the man and it was written, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” One man and one woman. The duty of husbands therefore is to “love his wife” (Eph. 5:25) and the wife is to honor her husband (Eph. 5:22).

The bedrock of family life is squarely rooted in the God’s Word and the true honoring of womanhood is rooted in biblical concepts. It is no accident that inimical forces in America such as the ACLU have as their agenda not only the institutionalizing of homosexual marriage, but polygamy as well. It is an all-out assault on our God-inspired biblical foundations. To save what is left of our Godly heritage, Christians need to engage in the cultural war.

What we need is another “Great Awakening” in America in which the family is honored and Christians participate in the political arena in accordance with their creed, the Bible.

Tom DeWeeese: Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society

Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society 

by Tom DeWeese

It’s in every community in the nation. We hear it talked about in county commission meetings and state legislatures. It’s even used in advertising as a positive practice for food processing and auto sales. It’s used as the model for building materials, power sources and transportation policy. It’s sold as the bold visionary plan for the future. The nation is being transformed under the banner of “Sustainable Development.”

We are assured by elected officials that Sustainable Development is simply a tool or a guideline to help direct the carefully-planned growth of our cities and rural areas while protecting our natural resources for future generations. “We must guard against a chaotic, unregulated growth in our cities,” say its earnest proponents as they sell the concept through familiar, non-threatening words and beautiful pictures.

Citizens are assured by their community leaders that all such plans are just local, local, local, created with the participation of the whole community. Sustainable Development policy, they say, is just an environmental land conservation policy, a sensible development policy. Sustainable…what’s wrong with that?

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

As usual, the answers are hidden in the details. Are we hearing the truth? What are the consequences of the policy that has taken over every level of government? Are there hidden dangers most just can’t see? Or, as its proponents claim, is opposition to Sustainable Development really just a silly, overblown conspiracy theory found in a twenty-year-old meaningless document called Agenda 21?

The UN’s Brundtland Commission on Global Governance described Sustainable Development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future.” It’s just common sense to assure we don’t overuse our resources, say proponents. If everyone will do their part, we can achieve total sustainability.

A couple of years later, in 1992, at the UN’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates approved a plan describing in great detail how to meet those future needs. They issued a document called Agenda 21, which the UN labeled as a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The UN sold Agenda 21 as a “soft law” policy, meaning it was an idea that nations would need to take up and impose through their own mechanisms.

To that end, in 1993, newly elected President Bill Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Serving on the Council were the representative of nearly every federal agency, along with representatives of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) who had helped to write Agenda 21 on the international level. Also on the Council were representatives of major global corporations. Their task was to create the policies to turn the Agenda 21 goals into official government policy and provide the means to fund it.

The President’s Council released a report describing its Sustainable Development goals, saying, “Sustainable communities encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural resources and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care is accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives.”    

It all sounds pretty neat. Nothing to fear here! It sounds like Utopia is truly ours for the taking. Again, what are the details? How do we put such ideas into action? What are the consequences? Is the environment better off? Are we better off? Well, let’s take each of these glowing ideas one at a time and just see where it all leads! CONTINUE READING

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2017/07/10/barbarians-at-the-school-house-door/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: How the Media Twists Facts To Enforce its Propaganda Bias

How the Media Twists Facts To Enforce its Propaganda Bias- 

“There has always been some kind of force loose in the world seeking domination over others.

by Tom DeWeese

It’s become obvious that our fight against Agenda 21/2030 is beginning to have an affect when a reporter writes not one, but two attack articles about the same event. That’s what happened as a result of my recent talk in Rexburg, Idaho.

In mid-October I traveled to three cities in Idaho (including Rexburg) and to Spokane, Washington, speaking about Agenda 21 and the growing assault on private property and individual choice. Below is one of two reports on the Rexburg event, as reported by reporter Bryan Clark. I’ve inserted my remarks in the body of his article to show what I actually said in contrast to his innuendos and lack of facts.

Conspiracist warns of plot for global domination

Posted: October 19, 2017 5:31 p.m.

By BRYAN CLARK, Post Register

His original article is in blue

REXBURG — Most people don’t think concentration camps and bike paths have much in common, but Tom DeWeese sees a connection. He sees lots of connections. Everywhere.

Of course, I never mentioned concentration camps in my talk. For that matter I didn’t mention FEMA camps or chemtrails either.

DeWeese is one of the nation’s most prominent exponents of the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, which has gained increasing traction among Idaho’s far right, being recently invoked in the debate over proposed wildlife overpasses near Island Park.

Of course, using terms like “conspiracy theory” and “far right” are a direct attempt to bias the reader from the start. It’s a common tactic in political advocacy, but has no place in legitimate journalism. In truth, I actually spent considerable time at the beginning of my talk producing official government documents showing that specific government programs clearly claimed to be implementation of Agenda 21. Each of these documents used the exact same description for the purpose of Agenda 21 as a “comprehensive blueprint” with the intention of reorganizing human society.

Here are my exact words as I held up each document:

In 1994, the American Planning Association (one of the largest and most respected planning groups in the nation) put out a newsletter calling Agenda 21 a Comprehensive Blueprint for Sustainable Development that was adopted at the recent UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro (the Earth Summit).

In 1997 the United States issued a 70-page report to the United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, detailing the progress the US was making to implement Agenda 21. The second chapter of that report is titled “International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies.”

In 1998, the Federal Register issued a report on the EPA’s Challenge Grant Program. That report says, “The EPA’s Challenge Grant Program is also implementation of Agenda 21.”

In 2011, the EPA issued a revised report entitled “History of Sustainability.” It details how EPA policy on Sustainability was developed. The Fifth item on that report is Agenda 21, calling it a “comprehensive process of planning and action to attain sustainability.”

And on and on it went, about Agenda 21. The blueprint. The plan. The consensus. The direction for changing how people live. Here was the plan for the 21st Century!

Of course, my point in bringing out these official documents was to show their excitement, support, and determination to impose this “plan to reorganize human society” domestically and worldwide. Again – that was the entire point of my presentation.

DeWeese, who bills himself as an expert on property rights (though he claims only a degree in journalism), gave an extended lecture on his theory Wednesday night at the Romance Theater in Rexburg. The event was put on by the John Birch Society and local activists. Conservative activist Maria Nate emceed the proceedings, and several government officials, including state Rep. Ron Nate and Rexburg Mayor Jerry Merrill, were in attendance.

First, I do not have a degree in journalism and never claimed to. I simply worked for two small newspapers in my younger days. Second, I have been involved in the property rights issued for over thirty years. My organization has been invited to testify before Congressional committees on the subject several times. I have met with legislators in several states, including Maine, Michigan and Virginia. I regularly work directly with elected officials at many levels, helping them to craft property rights legislation. I was even invited to debate the UN issue before a 200-year-old debating society at England’s Cambridge University. In fact, that night in Cambridge I debated the former UK Ambassador to the UN, the head of the UN’s Millennium Project, along with a member of the British Parliament. Those people apparently thought I was an expert or they wouldn’t have gone to the expense of flying me to England.

It’s in things such as zoning, bike paths and conservation easements that DeWeese sees the advent of global totalitarianism. DeWeese invoked Hitler and Stalin, Mussolini and Napoleon, saying this time things would be much worse. He warned that unspecified “secret societies” sought to organize the entire world under a single “diabolical plan,” which he variously characterized as communist and fascist.

I only “invoked” Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon in saying there have always been those who have sought to rule the world. In fact, here’s what I actually said:

“There has always been some kind of force loose in the world seeking domination over others.

Usually it’s a drive for power for power’s sake. Conquer other tribes, kingdoms or nations. Grab their resources. Enslave their people. Build wealth and power. Rule the World!

Kings saw it as their duty. Megalomaniacs like Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin lusted for the control and power to satisfy their hatred, mistrust, and insecurities. Secret societies have plotted global control for their causes, however demented it might be.”

I was pointing out that these forces used war and violence to try to take over the world.

Then I said: “However, what if such power-mongers could find a way to keep their aggression under wraps, out of sight from those they intend to conquer – until it was too late?

Better yet, what if they could actually get their targeted victims to help them achieve that goal to control them? No armies in the field. No shots fired. Instead, they quietly pull in the Trojan Horse and celebrate its arrival.

What if there was a way to organize the world under a single unifying plan, accepted by nearly everyone as fact and necessary?

Everyone would be convinced that to oppose such a plan would be a direct threat to humanity. Acceptance of that plan would see every nation voluntarily surrendering its independence and sovereignty — to the aggressors. They would even raise money to pay for the aggressor’s system of control.

These new rulers would issue exact orders to be followed by all, gaining more and more power with each dictate. People would voluntarily forget their history, reject their culture, and never ask questions about it. Was it not always so, they would later ask?

What could be such a threat, so powerful that the entire world would lie down to accept such global servitude?  How about the threat of Environmental Armageddon? Who could be opposed to saving the planet?

“There is such a plan for world domination,” DeWeese said, his voice rising in volume and urgency as he went on. “It is rapidly taking over with a pace and scope that no force or power ever experienced in history. Hitler would be so envious watching what is being done, so powerful and controlling is this force.” Continue Reading

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

A mishmash of the mess the world is in thanks to technocrats, communitarians, and an uneducated electorate

A Mishmash of the Mess the World is in Thanks to Technocrats, Communitarians, and an Uneducated Electorate 

by Kathleen Marquardt

“Save the planet” by herding us into “EcoCities”

Summiteers seek to address “the way humanity builds its home” and focus on “key actions that cities and citizens can take to rebuild our human habitat in balance with living systems.”  Concerns include slowing down and reversing “global heating, biodiversity collapse, loss of wilderness habitat, agricultural lands and open space, and social and environmental injustices.”

At the ECOCITY session “Priorities and strategies for mobilizing the finance needed to create zero-carbon ECOCITIES” solutions included things like a vehicle mile travel tax, carbon tax, government subsidies, and dipping into pensions.  This is eerily similar to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI.org) where retirement system investors use Environmental Social Governance (ESG) as their “fiduciary responsibility” excuse to implement the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and force industrial and societal behavior change.

What is an ECOCITY?  According to those gathered in Melbourne:
An ECOCITY is a human settlement modeled on the self sustaining resilient structure and function of natural ecosystems. The ecocity provides healthy abundance to its inhabitants without consuming more (renewable) resources than it produces, without producing more waste than it can assimilate, and without being toxic to itself or neighboring ecosystems. Its inhabitants’ ecological impact reflect planetary supportive lifestyles; its social order reflects fundamental principles of fairness, justice and reasonable equity.
[Read more]

Left Blames Global Warming For Enormous Iceberg Breaking. There’s Just One Problem.

Talk about burying the lede. “An iceberg roughly the size of Delaware and 600 feet thick is about to break off from one of the largest floating ice shelves in Antarctica, and the prospect is precipitating fierce debate as to whether global warming is the cause. The iceberg is part of the Larsen C ice shelf in the Weddell Sea, south of the tip of South America. The calving has been expected; a crack in the ice shelf had grown to be over 100 miles long in recent months.”
[Read more]

UN Reports Urge Tackling Water Source Problems, WWC Publishes Annual Report

In its annual report, the WWC describes actions undertaken to make water a global priority. For instance, the Council has engaged with various international processes, including contributing as an observer in the UNFCCC, providing recommendations to the New Urban Agenda adopted at the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) and convening a one-day seminar on financing water infrastructure at World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden, in August 2017.

It has also undertaken preparations for the 8th World Water Forum, which will be held in Brasilia, Brazil, in March 2018. The WWC also describes its work with the High-Level Panel on Water (HLPW) to help deliver on the Sustainable Development Goal on clean water and sanitation (SDG 6). To this end, it has supported increased investment in water-related services and a globally-coordinated approach to water issues.”
[Read more]

Elon Musk: The World’s Population is Accelerating Toward Collapse and Nobody Cares

Demographic implosion has been well-known by sociologists for decades, but the Technocrats are just now acknowledging the facts. Contrary to statements by over-population alarmists, world population could literally be cut in half within 50 years. Sustainable Developers should be thrilled with the attendant reduction of resource usage.” Patrick Wood, Technocracy News & Trends
[Read more]

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

United Nations Healthcare v. The Bible

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

by Bill Lockwood

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

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

Back to Basics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

« Older Entries