Tag Archives: The United Nations

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

William F. Jasper: Exposed: Media Collusion for Greta Thunberg and UN Climate Hysteria 0 (0)

by William F. Jasper

The Fake News Media has been caught again with pants down. The Daily Callerbroke the story on November 18, revealing that more than 250 U.S. news outlets and journalists had colluded in an effort to promote the idea that the planet faces a “climate crisis,” and to build support for the United Nations Climate Action Summit of world leaders held in New York City, September 15-23. Not that there was any paucity of lurid global warming propaganda; anyone who hasn’t assumed room temperature knows that we have been marinated in “news” stories proclaiming climate apocalypse for decades now.

However, there are still too many skeptical Americans who haven’t bought the over-heated hype and are not quite ready to accept the draconian government controls and pay the trillions of dollars we are told will be necessary to save the planet from man-made global warming. So “the good and the great” of the Fourth Estate decided they need to kick it up a few notches and really saturate the American public with intense fright peddling to drive home the new meme that we are facing a truly dire “climate emergency.”

Thus was launched Covering Climate Now, a massive effort to shape and coordinate an advocacy campaign camouflaged as news.  According to the organization’s own website, “Covering Climate Now is a joint initiative of The Nation and Columbia Journalism Review.” The Nation prides itself in being the oldest socialist magazine in America, and Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), flagship publication of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, postures as a model of professionalism and journalistic ethics.

The Covering Climate Now website boasts: “Our initiative includes more than 350 outlets worldwide, and dozens of institutional and independent partners, with a combined audience of more than 1 billion people. We’re growing every day.”

“Covering Climate Now’s founders kicked off the project in April and announced in May that they would ask partners to devote a week to climate-related news, starting in September,” the Daily Caller reported. “The Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard co-founded the project under the assumption that the news outlets don’t cover climate change as urgently as he thinks they should.”

“We believe that every news organization in America, and many around the world, can play a part,” CJR stated in May. ”Sometimes that will mean committing your newsroom to important and high-impact stories. Other times it will mean sharing your content, engaging your community, or adding a few lines of climate information to stories that wouldn’t otherwise have them.”

“Much of the group’s coverage leading up to the U.S. climate summit,” notes the Daily Caller, “focused on Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old girl who traveled to the U.S. in August on a racing yacht. Her visit was designed to galvanize American support for policies that seek to tackle climate change.”

That the tsunami of Thunberg stories was a completely orchestrated affair comes as no surprise to anyone who glimpsed even a fraction of the staged “news” events for the bratty, self-righteous teen, who delivered her venomous “How dare you!” speech to world leaders at the UN. Her apotheosis from pigtailed schoolgirl to beyond-rock-star, messiah status was obviously a contrived, concerted effort that went beyond the usual “Leftward Ho!” herd mentality of the “mainstream” media pack.

Among the media “partners” listed on the Covering Climate Now website are: BuzzFeed News, Bloomberg, Scientific American, Slate, Vanity Fair, Variety, VICE Media, Vox, The Weather Channel Digital, The Weather Channel, Al Jazeera, CBS News, PBS NewsHour, Huffington Post, The New Republic, Newsweek, and Harvard Business Review. In addition to these liberal-left/globalist organs, the climate propaganda cabal also includes such extreme-left Marxist outfits as Mother Jones, In These Times, Democracy Now!, The Intercept, and The Young Turks.

Collectively, the cabal succeeded wildly in drenching the planet with a suffocating blanket of global warming hype. As one example, take BuzzFeed. The Daily Caller reports: “BuzzFeed News reached more than 27 million unique views between September and October, according to Quantcast, a website measuring audience size. BuzzFeed is owned by Jonah Peretti, an internet entrepreneur who founded the outlet in 2006 to track viral online content, and the left-leaning HuffPo is owned by Verizon Communications. Media tycoon Arianna Huffington originally founded HuffPo in 2005 with the help of Peretti.”

This not the first time the media mavens have been caught in flagrante delicto. Remember the JournoList scandal of 2008, the scheme by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein that recruited hundreds of reporters and news organizations to promote and defend then-candidate Barack Obama?

Then there was the Gamechanger Salon scandal, in which lesbian “community organizer,” CNN commentator and Obama/Clinton crony Sally Kohn was ringleader to more than 1,000 activists from Planned Parenthood, Big Media, Big Labor, and other “progressive” centers of power.

Then, last year there was the very open collusion scandal of more than 100 newspapers agreeing to simultaneously run anti-Trump editorials.

The media collusion exposed in the Covering Climate Now scandal is but the latest revelation proving that most of the “legacy media,” as well as much of the newer “alternative media” are indeed Fake News, as President Trump has charged.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/34107-exposed-media-collusion-for-greta-thunberg-and-un-climate-hysteria


William F. Jasper is an American journalist and author, and a senior editor of The New American, and long-time member of the John Birch Society.

 

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/

Alex Newman: Trump Tells Bankrupt UN to Find Money Elsewhere 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Tom DeWeese: NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION’S BETRAYAL OF ITS OWN INDUSTRY 0 (0)

by Tom DeWeese

MY ADDRESS TO THE COLORADO INDEPENDENT CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION

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

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

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

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

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

If you doubt that then let me share this quote from Christina Stewart, the former Canadian Minister of the Environment: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” That “justice and equality” she speaks of is redistribution of wealth – which means socialism. Sustainable Development is not just a conservation policy to assure we are good stewards of the land: rather, it affects every corner of our lives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Tom Deweese: GROWING GOVERNMENT TYRANNY – DEMOCRATS EMPOWER IT. REPUBLICANS ARE CLUELESS. 0 (0)

by Tom DeWeese

Where is the Republican Party? As insanity spews out of the Democrat Party, the long-time overseer of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty has no response, no unified plan to counter the Democrats, and, indeed, seems confused by the Socialist antics. The only part of the long-lost Republican cause that seems to be functioning is their near hysterics over the massive funds the Democrats are raising. Said a recent such Republican fund letter, “I’m hoping you have the courage and determination to fight for what we believe in.”

Of course, if the Republicans had the courage and determination to fight over the past two years for “what we believe in,” their fund-raising would be soaring. Instead they run candidates with nothing to say, seemingly clueless to the massive assault on our liberties. Now they wonder why they are being ignored in the elections.

Earlier this year I addressed the leadership of the Constitution Party. I presented them with the real agenda of the Democrats and I asked this question, “Do you want to be the majority party?” They answered with a resounding YES! I then gave them a strategy to win. It occurs to me that all freedom-loving Americas, no matter what party, can benefit from this strategy to use in their own local elections.

So, here is the speech I presented to the Constitution Party. Now, understand your true enemy, take these ideas, drain the swamp in your city or state, and take American back!

My Address to the Constitution Party Leadership

There has always been some kind of force loose in the world seeking domination over others. They built armies to invade, break things and kill people in order to grab resources, build wealth and power, enslave people and conquer.

We’ve lived through such threats from megalomaniacs like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin.   Secret societies have plotted to gain power in different ways.

In every case the efforts have failed. No one has ever managed to rule the entire world. In some cases they just pushed too far, too fast. Or they miscalculated the weather conditions in the lands they intended to control. It’s incredible to note that both Napoleon and Hitler failed to remember that Russia has a severe winter which ultimately led to their downfall and defeat.

However, what if such power mongers could find a way to keep their aggression under wraps and out of sight from those they intended to conquer – until it was too late.

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

What if there was a way for a small, dedicated group to rule the world by simply organizing under a single unifying plan, accepted by everyone as fact and necessary?

Acceptance of the plan would see every nation voluntarily surrendering its independence and sovereignty to the aggressors!

What could possibly be such a powerful message that some of the world’s oldest and proudest nations would do that? What could get the world’s strongest religions to turn their back on their most fundamental beliefs? What would get the freest nation on earth to join in and agree?

How about the threat of Environmental Armageddon! Who could oppose saving the planet? Only selfish zealots who refuse to give up their creature comforts would oppose efforts to save Mother Earth!         It doesn’t matter how many rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on.

The truth it, that’s exactly the force you and I are facing today as it drives, almost unopposed to change our life style, economic system, and system of government.

The Club of Rome, one of the main forces behind this hidden plan to rule the world openly explained their tactic and goal saying, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Diabolical! Turn man against himself so that he voluntarily submits to subjugation. The threat of global warming became the weapon of choice.

And it doesn’t matter if true science refuses 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 scaremongers.

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.”

Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change told us outright what the real goal of the threat of Environmental Armageddon truly is. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” Of course, she means free enterprise.     

The blueprint for the implementation of this grand plan was revealed in 1992 at the UN’s Earth Summit. It was called the Agenda for the 21st century – or just Agenda 21.

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.

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.”

The policy of Agenda 21 is called Sustainable Development. You hear the term used in every part of our society, from community development to production of our food supplies, to manufacturing of nearly every product.

While sold as a means to secure a happy, healthy future of equality for all as it protects the environment, sustainable development policy, as it is enforced in every single community in the nation, has proven to be a direct attack on free enterprise, private property, and individual choice in our lives. It is the epitome of tyrannical, out of control government.

Ironically, its perpetrators were quite open and honest in their plans. We just didn’t want to listen.

The official report from the UN’s Habitat 1 Conference explained the reasons for the attack on private property. It said, “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subjected to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”        That is a direct attack on the entire American economic system

But it gets even clearer. Peter Berle of the National Audubon Society said, “We reject the Idea of Private Property.”

Thomas Lovejoy, science advisor to the Department of Interior admitted, “We will map the whole nation…determine development for the whole nation, and regulate it all.”

Harvey Ruvin, the Vice Chairman of ICLEI said, “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.”

That is Agenda 21!

For over 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 it’s policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

Now, the Sustainable forces have taken their plans to the ultimate, inevitable point. No longer are they trying to hide its true goal – global domination. Now we have the 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. 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 energy use, mandating power be turned off during certain hours.  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. 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.

In short, the Green New Deal represents the largest step ever taken by the Socialists/ Sustainablists forces that have been pushing Agenda 21 for 27 years.

But just as I was met with scoffing and charges of being a conspiracy scaremonger, the Green New Deal has now been met with scoffing and lack of concern. When I said the Green New Deal was the most radical step to enforce Agenda 21, many of my own supporters sent me snarky emails laughingly telling me that, “This is too nuts to ever be made into law!” Ha Ha!!!!

Then the laughing really started when the Republican-controlled Senate brought the Green New Deal up for a vote and the tally was 57-0. They didn’t even vote for it themselves, went the joke. Such a silly, stupid little girl, they said with great hilarity!

Leaders of many establishment conservative organizations in Washington, DC laughed too.

Well, the fools are the Republicans, and the establishment Conservative Movement in Washington, DC, which have failed to understand the determination of these forces behind that “silly little girl.” They set a trap and the Republicans marched right into it.

What really occurred is that this Green New Deal pushes the radical agenda way beyond anything ever imagined by Republicans and conservative leadership. In short, the Socialist Democrats made a classic negotiating tactic. They came to the table and delivered the most radical, complete, all-inclusive agenda for the total take-down of the American Republic, our free enterprise system, our property rights, and our way of life.

The Republicans were completely unprepared for it. Since they have ignored my warnings for 27 year, the Green New Deal sounded too nuts. Too far out. No one would fall for it. They laughed and dismissed it without a thought. The Senate vote showed them!

But watch what has happened since the Senate vote and the laughing began. One hundred Democrat Members of Congress have signed on to the House bill. Almost every one of the 20+ Democrat presidential candidates is talking about it. The news media is filled with stories on pieces and parts of the Green New Deal.  The discussion is growing.

But here’s the kicker – here’s where the laughing stops as the Republicans fall into the trap!!! Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz announced that he is working on the Green REAL Deal!!!  Says Gaetz – his bill will be more reasonable. In the Senate, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander is countering with his “Manhattan Project for Clean Energy.” The difference? Almost nothing! Senator Lindsey Graham said “We owe it to the country to have an alternative to the Green New Deal.” He said he was frustrated because large parts of the Republican Party still resist the idea of climate change legislation.

Sen. Graham and other faltering Republicans seem to not understand that any attempt to provide “an alternative to the Green New Deal” means an automatic endorsement of the radical and wrong-headed leftist environmental movement.

This is exactly what the Democrats where counting on. They made an outrageously radical proposal that moves the agenda miles down the road and then – to be more “reasonable” the stupid Republicans join right in with just a little smaller proposal. That’s how we lose our nation – by being “reasonable” to tyrants.

The fact is, almost 50% of the Green New Deal is already in the works. California has set a deadline to force homeowners to install wind and solar power as traditional energy sources of oil and gas will be phased out within ten years.

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the City Council is moving to eliminate zoning protections for single-family homes, calling such protections “racist.” That same attack on single-family homes is taking place in the Oregon state legislature, the Chicago city council, and the Baltimore city council, to name just a few. This marks the drive to abolish private property rights.

Smart Growth programs are in every city in the nation – targeting the elimination of private cars for transportation, in favor of public buses, trains, and bikes — just as called for in the Green New Deal.

Landlords are being targeted as the drive is on for rent controls – even as government is piling on the costs through higher taxes and more and more controls on energy use. How long can the landlords hold out?

And now comes this news. As the Congress, news media, and presidential candidates debate the “good ideas” of Green New Deal, New York City Mayor William De Blasio has rushed to introduce his own version. It’s a bundle of  ten bills designed to meet the massive reduction of energy use called for in the UN’s Paris Climate Agreement which President Trump refused to join. Among its provisions are a ban on glass skyscrapers, hot dogs, and massive cut backs in energy use. Just as called for in the Green New Deal, the legislation seeks to eliminate more than one million cars from the road.

State by state, city by city, the radical provisions of the Green New Deal are being put into force – or at least openly considered. Controls on what we eat, how we live, and how we move about. Call it Agenda 21 or the Green New Deal –  it’s a disaster to our economy and our way of life. It’s happening at a rapid rate. So who is laughing now?

The challenge to us is, what do we do about it? The fact is, every political party is talking about taxes, healthcare, immigration, and gun control. But no party is addressing the pain of the ranchers who are under siege of the federal government that is taking their land and their water.

No political party is talking about the attack on our food supply such as the World Wildlife Fund’s take over of the beef industry. Yet we are getting reports daily now of dangers found in diseased beef.

No political party is talking about the over-taxing, and destruction of single-family homes and neighborhoods.

No political party is even discussing the destruction of our local system of government through the establishment of non-elected regional councils. These councils are eliminating political boundaries and the power of locally-elected representatives. The American system is disappearing in silence.

No political party is talking about the massive influence and control of the private, non-governmental organizations and planners that have invaded every single level of government, pushing these insane policies we now recognize in the Green New Deal.

NGOs are deeply entrenched in Congress, every state legislature and every county commission and city council.  There they lobby, push, demand, and intimidate to get your elected officials to make their private agendas law. The fact is they are not government agencies and they have no power unless your elected officials give it to them. And they have no intention of giving up their power.

The only way we can toss them into the street is to elect people who understand their tyrannical agenda and will take strong action to remove them from the halls of government.

Democrats empower them. Republicans are clueless. Libertarians are pathetically confused by the whole process, continuing to believe that Public/Private Partnerships are free enterprise.

The Constitution Party is the only party that understands what needs to be done.  You’ve never had a better opportunity to grow and change things and achieve your mission to restore the Constitution.

Do you, as a political party, want to get the attention of millions of Americans who are suffering from this government over-reach? Do you want to defeat the socialist democrats and the ‘Me Too’ Republicans?  Do you want to restore the American Republic?

Then get mad and be the party that takes on these issues. Thousands of victims are desperate to hear any elected official, any party, even mention these policies that are overrunning every single city, county, and state.

They are losing everything. They have been shut out of the American dream. And if they hear you take on these issues in upcoming campaigns at every level of government – they will flock to you. Americans are starting to wake up to these dangers and they desperately want a new voice that stands for freedom!

Run candidates for city council, county commission, and the state legislatures, who will articulate these issues. Make it your mission to run these enemies of freedom out of town on a rail.

Speak to these victims – these desperate Americans. Name the names of the NGOs – challenge them. Challenge their policies and their funding sources. Show the pubic what a danger they are. And then challenge your opponents as to why they are giving these NGOs such power and influence.

Elected officials keep referring to these NGOs and planners who live off the federal grants as “stakeholders.” They are not stakeholders! You are the stakeholoders. They are carpetbaggers – there to grab everything they can.

Paint a clear picture as to what life in American will be like under these policies. Will every choice Americans make in their lives be like a visit to the DMV? Make your opponents responsible for their own policies. Put their names to them. Make them defend their plans.

Help the people see the truth! That’s how you drain the swamp and restore the United States of America!


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/09/19/growing-government-tyranny-democrats-empower-it-republicans-are-clueless/

Alex Newman: China Seeks to Run UN “Crime” Agency 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Alex Newman: Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your Kids 0 (0)

by Alex Newman

One of the most troubling aspects of the “education reforms” currently being advanced by the Obama administration and its allies is the unprecedented monitoring and tracking of students — invasions of privacy so pervasive George Orwell might blush. Everything from biometric data to information on children’s beliefs and families is already being vacuumed up. Opponents of the “reform” agenda have highlighted the cradle-to-grave accumulation of private and intimate data as among the most compelling reasons to kill the whole process.

Aside from data produced by the looming Common Core-aligned national testing regime, most of the data-mining schemes are not technically direct components of the plot to nationalize education standards. However, the vast collection of personal information and the accompanying data-mining are intricately linked to the federally backed standards in multiple ways, not to mention myriad other federal schemes. Despite protestations to the contrary, the new standards and the data collection go together hand in hand.

Efforts to portray the data gathering via Common Core-aligned testing as a “state-led” plot notwithstanding, the Obama administration is reportedly considering raising phone taxes by executive decree to help subsidize the necessary technology. Why federal tax increases would be needed to pay for education and data-mining schemes that the federal government is supposedly not involved in has not been explained by officials, but experts and analysts say the reason is obvious.

Implementing Intrusions

Already, there are numerous systems being used and deployed across America aimed at compiling unprecedented amounts of data on students. Some are run by private organizations with government assistance; others are operated by authorities directly. All of them are extremely controversial, however, with parents and privacy advocates outraged.

Among the data schemes that have received a great deal of attention in recent months is “inBloom.” As with the new national education standards called Common Core, it is also funded by Bill Gates and the Carnegie Corporation. With at least nine states participating in the $100 million program already, the non-profit entity, which shares data with whomever authorities choose, is quickly gobbling up vast quantities of information.

Respected experts such as attorney Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, pointed out that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child committee has repeatedly pressured governments to create similar national databases on children, albeit using different pretexts. Even liberals have expressed opposition. “Turning massive amounts of personal data about public school students to a private corporation without any public input is profoundly disturbing and irresponsible,” said New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman, slamming authorities for failing to disclose the scheme or offer parents an opt-out.

In conjunction with inBloom, other systems are being funded and largely directed by the federal government itself. Using the same unconstitutional process as the one used to foist Common Core on state governments — a combination of federal bribes, waivers, and more — the Obama administration all but forced cash-strapped states to start monitoring and tracking student information, or to expand their existing systems.

Previous administrations and U.S. lawmakers also contributed to the problem, with the foundations having been laid dec­ades ago. Before Obama, the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act, for instance, among myriad other demands, called on states seeking federal funds to create “unique statewide identifiers” for each student. Under Obama, the process has accelerated at an unprecedented rate.

The stimulus-funded “Race to the Top,” a so-called school improvement scheme demanded by Obama, only distributed taxpayer funds to states that agreed to build and expand data systems, with the secretary of education specifically requesting interoperable databases to facilitate the collection and transfer of data. Massive bribes to states from the $50 billion “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” conditioned on acceptance of Common Core and expanded data tracking, also part of the “stimulus” package, were critical in advancing the plot as well.

Boasting about the “stimulus”-funded coercion of state governments on data regimes during a speech to UNESCO, the deeply controversial UN “education” agency, Education Secretary Arne Duncan lauded the program.

“More robust data systems and a new generation of assessments can assist teachers and principals to improve their practices and tailor their instruction in ways that were largely unthinkable in the past,” Duncan continued. “We have advanced data systems that we are constantly improving.” Duncan wants other governments and the UN to follow the Obama administration’s lead on data gathering, he explained.

The administration helped pay for expanding “state” systems with an eye toward integrating them. Some $315 million in federal grants, for example, were used to bribe state governments and help them comply. However, the specific grant scheme, known as the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) program, actually began handing out taxpayer money in 2005.

As of 2009, the latest year for which figures are available on the Department of Education’s website, 41 states and Washington, D.C. had been awarded federal SLDS grants to expand their data systems on students. Experts say all 50 states now maintain or are capable of maintaining huge databases on the vast majority of American kids.

According to the Department of Education, the goal of the SLDS grants is to have states “expand their data systems to track students’ achievement from preschool through college.” The Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics offers slightly more detail about the SLDS scheme online: “Through grants and a growing range of services and resources, the program has helped propel the successful design, development, implementation, and expansion of K12 and P-20W (early learning through the workforce) longitudinal data systems,” it explains. “These systems are intended to enhance the ability of States to efficiently and accurately manage, analyze, and use education data, including individual student records.”

Cradle to Career Data Collection

Of course, all of the data collected must be shared with the U.S. Department of Education and other entities within and outside the federal government. Acting unilaterally, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan even purported to overrule federal privacy laws by promulgating new “regulations” gutting the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Some lawmakers expressed outrage, but the process continues.

“As part of what you described as a ‘cradle to career agenda,’ the Department of Education is aggressively moving to expand data systems that collect information on our nation’s students,” wrote Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), now chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in an early 2010 letter to Duncan. “The Department’s effort to shepherd states toward the creation of a de facto national student database raises serious legal and prudential questions.”

As Kline points out in the letter, there is good reason to believe that the administration is again flouting federal law. “Congress has never authorized the Department of Education to facilitate the creation of a national student database,” he explained. “To the contrary, Congress explicitly prohibited the ‘development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information’ … and barred the ‘development, implementation, or maintenance of a Federal database.” Despite no mention of the Constitution, multiple federal statutes are cited in the correspondence.

Apparently, the administration does not take kindly to having its alleged violations of the law exposed. While it couldn’t fire Rep. Kline, the Education Department did reportedly dismiss its top privacy official, then-Family Policy Compliance Office chief Paul Gammill. According to a 2010 report in Inside Higher Ed, Gammill was fired after he “argued in internal meetings and documents that the department’s approach to prodding states to expand their longitudinal student data systems violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.” The Education Department refused to comment on the case, though it openly admits that one of the long-term goals of the SLDS program is to “make education data transparent through Federal and public reporting.”

According to the Department of Education, grants awarded to states under the program are aimed at supporting the creation and implementation of systems “that have the capacity to link individual student data across time and across databases” and “promote the linking of data collected or held by various institutions, agencies, and States.” Among the data to be included are the yearly test records of individual students mandated under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. “States are encouraged to include additional information in their longitudinal data systems,” the department continued.

In another Education Department document offering “guidance” on the SLDS schemes, further insight is offered into what sort of information authorities are seeking and collecting. Among the “Personally Identifiable Information” outlined in the report: name, parents’ names, address, Social Security number, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name, and more.

Other private and protected data that might be collected, the document suggests, include the “political affiliations or beliefs of the student or parent; mental and psychological problems of the student or the student’s family, sex behavior or attitudes; illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships; legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent; or income.” While the collection of such data in surveys and questionnaires funded by federal tax dollars requires parental consent under federal law, state-level collection does not. Plus, experts say there are numerous other potential loopholes as well.

So Much for Student Privacy

Much of the information vacuumed up at all levels of government already makes its way into a national Department of Education scheme known as “EDFacts.” The department describes it online: “EDFacts is a U.S. Department of Education (ED) initiative to collect, analyze, report on and promote the use of high-quality, kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) performance data…. EDFacts centralizes data provided by state education agencies, local education agencies and schools.” Under EDFacts, state education agencies submit some 180 data groups. The federal National Center for Education Statistics, meanwhile, describes over 400 data points to be collected.

The U.S. Department of Labor, separately, admits that it is working to “integrate workforce data and create linkages to education data.” According to the department’s “Workforce Data Quality Initiative,” the SLDS will “enable workforce data to be matched with education data to ultimately create longitudinal data systems with individual-level information beginning with pre-kindergarten through post-secondary schooling all the way through entry and sustained participation in the workforce and employment services system.” When combined with information from the IRS, ObamaCare, the NSA, and countless other federal data-collection schemes, the picture that emerges has critics very nervous.

As technology advances, the federal government’s Orwellian data gathering will — without action to stop it — almost certainly expand beyond most people’s wildest nightmares. In fact, it already has. Consider, for example, a February 2013 report by the Department of Education dubbed Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century. Included in the 100-page report is information about technology already being used in an Education Department-funded tutoring program.

“Researchers are exploring how to gather complex affective data and generate meaningful and usable information to feed back to learners, teachers, researchers, and the technology itself,” the report explains. “Connections to neuroscience are also beginning to emerge.” (Emphasis added.) The technological tools already being used by federally funded education schemes to probe students’ minds and “measure” the children include, as described in the report, “four parallel streams of affective sensors.”

Among the devices in use today through a federally funded tutoring scheme is a “facial expression camera” used to “detect emotion” and “capture facial expressions.” According to the report, the camera is linked to software that “extracts geometric properties on faces.” There is also a “posture analysis seat” and a “pressure mouse.” Finally, the report describes a “wireless skin conductance sensor” strapped to students’ wrists. The sensors collect “physiological response data from a biofeedback apparatus that measures blood volume, pulse, and galvanic skin response to examine student frustration.” Again, these systems are already being used in government-funded programs, and with technology racing ahead, developments are expected to become increasingly troubling.

Another Education Department report, entitled Enhancing, Teaching and Learning Through Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics, acknowledges similarly alarming schemes. “A student learning database (or other big data repository) stores time-stamped student input and behaviors captured as students work within the system,” it notes. “A predictive model combines demographic data (from an external student information system) and learning/behavior data from the student learning database to track a student’s progress and make predictions about his or her future behaviors or performance.” (Emphasis added.)

All across the country today, Big Brother-like technological developments in biometrics are also making schools increasingly Orwellian. Earlier this year in Polk County, Florida, for example, students’ irises were scanned without parental consent. “It simply takes a picture of the iris, which is unique to every individual,” wrote the school board’s “senior director of support services” in a letter to parents. “With this program, we will be able to identify when and where a student gets on the bus, when they arrive at their school location, when and what bus the student boards and disembarks in the afternoon. This is an effort to further enhance the safety of our students. The EyeSwipe-Nano is an ideal replacement for the card based system since your child will not have to be responsible for carrying an identification card.”

In San Antonio, Texas, meanwhile, a female student made national news — and exposed what was going on — when she got in a legal battle with school officials over her refusal to wear a mandatory radio-frequency identification (RFID) device. The same devices are already being implanted under people’s skin in America and abroad — albeit voluntarily. Also in the biometric field, since at least 2007, children in states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New Jersey have been fingerprinted at school under the guise of “school lunch” programs and other pretexts.

Despite fierce opposition, the trend toward using biometric data to identify and track students while collecting unimaginable amounts of information is accelerating. The federal government is helping lead the way toward abolishing any vestiges of privacy, and aside from NSA spying on virtually everyone, students appear to be among the primary targets. Without major resistance, experts predict that someday — perhaps even in the very near future — biometric identification will become ubiquitous. Combined with all of the other data being collected, the federal government may finally achieve what was sought by tyrants throughout history: detailed 24/7 information on everything, about everyone.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16193-orwellian-nightmare-data-mining-your-kids


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

 

Tom DeWeese: POVERTY, THE COMPASSION CARTEL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM 0 (0)

 

by Tom DeWeese

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

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

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

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

He said, “Yes, I know.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I answered, “No, it’s theft.”

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

I said, “Why should I?”

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

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

I wanted to scream “Economics 101!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

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

« Older Entries Recent Entries »