Tag Archives: United States

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

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: CFR: U.S. Needs More Mass Migration, Bigger Welfare State

by Alex Newman

Under the guise of keeping America “competitive” in the looming high-tech future, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations is urging policymakers at all levels to dramatically expand the size and scope of government. The bloated welfare states in Sweden and Denmark are cited as examples of the “advantages” of massive government programs to take care for people. Without the sort of fundamental transformation of America envisioned by the CFR, the nation will supposedly be left behind in the emerging new paradigm, the organization claimed. Critics, though, blasted that idea.

In its new report, dubbed “The Work Ahead: Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century,” the CFR Task Force offered a broad array of policy recommendations for federal, state, and local officials. These range from ever more immigration and a greater role for government in various facets of the economy, to a dramatic expansion of the welfare state modeled on Big Government schemes from Northern Europe. The CFR’s demands regarding education, which are a key component of the report, will be covered in an upcoming article.

Some of the leaders involved in creating the CFR report told The New American that without implementing the sought-after changes, America would be left behind as the world moves toward a globalized future of fast-moving technological progress. But experts and legislators invited to participate in the scheme who spoke to The New American sounded the alarm about the CFR’s vision. Among other concerns, they warned that the controversial CFR report and outreach efforts selling it to policymakers reveal a hidden plan to push a dangerous agenda and bring state and local officials into the establishment’s globalist orbit.

One reason why the CFR’s pronouncements are so important is because of the key role they play setting policy. Indeed, looking at its membership and influence, many analysts consider the CFR to be a key Deep State hub in America. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, explained that this enormous power is used for neferious purposes. In fact, Ward said, the main objective of the organization is to undermine U.S. sovereignty and facilitate the merger of the United States into what he described as an “all-powerful one-world government.”

The way it advances its objectives was explained by Admiral Ward, too. “Once the ruling members of CFR have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition,” he said. “The most articulate theoreticians and ideologists prepare related articles, aided by the research, to sell the new policy and to make it appear inevitable and irresistible.”

“By following the evolution of this propaganda in the most prestigious scholarly journal in the world, [CFR mouthpiece] Foreign Affairs, anyone can determine years in advance what the future defense and foreign policies of the United States will be,” the respected admiral warned after ditching his membership at the CFR. “If a certain proposition is repeated often enough in that journal, then the U.S. Administration in power — be it Republican or Democratic — begins to act as if that proposition or assumption were an established fact.”

While that may not be true in the Trump era, when voters and their president have openly rejected globalism, it certainly has been true for decades, if not generations, regardless of the party formally in power. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted publicly that the CFR told her what she should be doing and how she should be thinking about the future. Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, joked that he worked for CFR boss Richard Haass. Even many top “Republicans” are involved.

Of course, the latest CFR agenda starts with a kernel of truth. As anybody with common sense can see, the economy is changing and will be undergoing further changes in the years ahead. As a result of technological developments, the future of work will look very different in 30 or 40 years than it does today. Many Americans will lose their jobs. All that is true. Of course, it would be difficult to sell enormous policy changes if the entire premise behind them was nothing but fiction, obviously.

But the agenda being pushed is another matter. Under the pretext of responding to the obvious changes coming in the years ahead, the CFR — a leading Deep State institution in America that has dominated foreign policy for generations — is pushing what critics warned was a dangerous scheme to expand the power of government. The plan also advances globalism at every level of society, a key goal of the CFR dating back to its founding. In short, it is a massive and dangerous power grab that should be resisted, critics told The New American.

Policy Proposals

Globalist notions of “free trade” and mass migration are at the heart of the agenda. “Openness to trade and immigration are vital for maintaining U.S. technological leadership,” the CFR report says. Indeed, there are over 60 references to “trade” and more than 60 mentions of immigration, especially the alleged need to expand the already-massive immigration numbers coming to America.

As readers of this magazine know well, though, when the CFR advocates “trade,” it is generally referring not to genuine free trade, but to sovereignty-shredding “free trade” agreements that strip nations and peoples of the right to govern themselves. Mass migration, meanwhile, also helps smash national identities, culture, and eventually, the nation-state itself, as Europe is learning the hard way right now.

On the government’s role in the economy and the welfare state, the CFR report also seeks major changes. “U.S. efforts to help displaced workers are inadequate,” the report says, ignoring the U.S. Constitution’s limits on federal power and insinuating that it is the federal government’s role to train and help workers. “Unemployment insurance is too rigid and covers too few workers, and retraining programs are not based on the best global models,” the report continued, without giving many details on what these “global models” demand of America.

The report also includes seven specific recommendations for policymakers at all levels. These mostly revolve around the supposed need for much larger and more intrusive government across the board. Among other recommendations, the CFR claims:

• Government should be involved in “creating better jobs and career paths for Americans,” as if the real problem facing America was a lack of central planning, government-created “jobs,” and government-directed careers.

• Another recommendation calls for more immigration, including “highly skilled” migrants who would help drive down wages for America’s embattled middle class even as the CFR warns that countless people will lose jobs due to automation.

• Also supposedly needed is more government funding for “research,” as if the state, rather than the private sector, knows better what ought to be researched and what projects would be worthwhile to fund.

• Putting college and university “education” within “reach” of all Americans is important, too, the report said, implicitly advocating even more tax funding for bloated “educational” institutions that are churning out ignorant socialists with worthless “degrees” literally by the millions.

• America should also adopt the “best features” of what the CFR report describes as the European “flexicurity” models. As examples of the supposed “advantages” of these models, the Task Force pointed to the bloated welfare states of Sweden and Denmark, where tax rates (including VAT, income taxes, energy taxes, and more) can consume three-fourths of individuals’ earnings, and where individual freedom is severely limited.

• Finally, the report calls for the U.S. government to “create portable systems of employment benefits tied to individual employees rather than to jobs themselves.” This government-created system should be “universal,” as the report puts it — or in other words, mandatory for everyone.

There are many other recommendations woven throughout the 162-page report. Some make sense, such as scaling back the enormous growth in state licensing schemes that inhibit consumer choice and do nothing to protect the health and safety of consumers. But the overwhelming majority call for larger and more intrusive government: Creating a “National Commission on the U.S. Workforce,” offering more tax-funded subsidies for “affordable” housing, spending more money on government-controlled “public transportation” systems, and more.

As part of the initiative, CFR Vice President for National Programs and Outreach Irina Faskianos organized a conference call for state and local officials to promote the policy recommendations. On that call, CFR term member Chike Aguh, a member of the CFR Task Force behind the report and a former teacher who now works at the McChrystal Group, condensed the subject matter into four “buckets,” as he described it. Phrased as questions, he put it this way: “What is the work of the future? How do we make sure that we have the workers who have the skills to do that work? How do we make sure that those workers can find that work, and vice-versa? And lastly, how do we make sure that there’s a safety net to support them the entire way?”

Among other topics, Aguh argued that new systems were needed to help people who need work to find work that needs to be done. Using an example of a casino that could not find enough workers, he claimed there was “a lack of matching between people who could do the work and the work that needed to be done.” “And the question is,” he continued, “how do we solve that?” In a free-market system, those problems generally work themselves out. If there are not enough workers to fill job openings, then the employers may need to pay higher wages, or offer more benefits, or advertise better. But in the CFR’s view, it seems more bureaucracy and government programs are the answer.

Another topic on the call was establishing a “social safety net” that will “support the worker through this whole process.” According to Aguh, the existing welfare state is not enough. Complaining that the current regime was established in the 1950s and has not changed much since then, Aguh argued that the government should play a much more active role in providing economic “security” for people. For instance, he said some people might stay in their job simply because of the benefits it provides, whereas if the government created programs for health and welfare, that worker could move to another job more easily.

In a phone interview with The New American, Aguh noted that there were major changes when the economy went from primarily an agricultural system to a more industrial system. “As we look at this new economy, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we argue that we need a change,” he explained, adding that the system would have to change to keep pace with the changes happening in the economy such as automation, job losses, and so on. But in the end, there is “no silver bullet,” he said. “There’s a myriad of things that have to happen.”

Separately, CFR Task Force Project Director Ted Alden acknowledged to The New American in a phone interview that the report seeks to tackle an enormous range of issues. “The danger of this is that it becomes a report about everything,” he said, chuckling. Then he provided an overview of some of the many areas where the CFR group believes policymakers should make changes.

Asked about “global models” for unemployment insurance, Alden said there were two big pieces. One is to make the system more “effective.” “Europeans do better than we do here; Denmark and Sweden do this better than we do,” he said. “That doesn’t mean we necessarily need to follow them — they have different systems — but they do a lot right. For example, their unemployment systems. The U.S. is an enormous laggard in re-training and in spending.”

In America, the unemployment system was designed for cyclical downturns as people were laid off in bad times. “We argue for a move toward more of an affordable benefits program, recognizing the emergence of the gig economy,” he said, citing issues such as California’s recent scheme to force Uber and other similar companies to treat all their drivers as actual employees. “We have to have a social-benefit system that makes this kind of model work.”

While saying that did not necessarily mean a government takeover of health insurance, retirement, and other benefits people often obtain from their jobs, Alden and the Task Force report made clear that the federal government has a significant role to play. “What we’re talking about is allowing people to move more easily between jobs and retain benefits,” said Alden, who described his role as “working to try to fashion a consensus from the smart and visionary people” involved in the Task Force. “We need greater flexibility. The gap in economic security between full-time workers and part-time workers is enormous.” The Task Force did not get down to the “very granular level,” but there are many different models worth looking at, he said.

On immigration, Alden said he did not want to speak for the group on how to design an immigration system. “What I can say with confidence about the position of the group is we were trying to deal with a conundrum,” he said. “How does U.S. remain most competitive and innovative economy in the world? Our prosperity depends on us maintaining a technological lead. We don’t want to see government throwing wrenches that slow down technological progress. But if you look at evidence on high-skilled immigration to U.S., it’s a tremendous benefit to the U.S. economy and innovation.”

When pressed about the views of critics, Alden said the “notion of immigrants as competition for American workers” was actually “short sighted.” But of course, it is an established fact that an increased supply of labor will have the immediate effect of driving down wages, compounding the looming job losses and relocation that purport to justify the entire CFR Task Force’s agenda.

In the end, Alden portrayed the CFR’s efforts as a benevolent plan to help America succeed in a complex and globalized world. “Americans feel very uncertain right now,” he said. “They don’t know their place. If we don’t help Americans succeed, the future of the country is going to be very much in question. The U.S. is pulling back in global leadership, but we believe U.S. leadership has been an important force in the world. So there is a very important duality: How do we remain competitive and innovate, while making sure the benefits spread out to all of America, so they can embrace the future rather than be scared of it?”

Different Agenda

Lawmakers who spoke with The New American, though, had a different take on it all. Senator Regina Bayer, an Idaho Republican who was invited to join the CFR’s conference call for state officials, warned of a nefarious agenda hidden just below the surface. “My take on this conference call and task force is the CFR is attempting to establish a new, direct form of communication; new ways to disseminate information,” she explained. “They need to establish themselves as dedicated and honorable so that their information will be accepted as good and truthful.”

Part of the agenda, Senator Bayer continued, was to establish a sort of “open door” communication between the CFR and state and local officials, as the “federal and international approaches are not as successful as they would like to see.” She cited the implementation of the totalitarian United Nations Agenda 2030 as an example. “It is working better now as it is being implemented at the local and state levels rather than just a power push from the top,” she explained. Part of the strategy seems to be to “wow” state and local politicians into feeling important because a well-known organization like the CFR is interested in connecting with them. Interestingly, before Trump’s election, a CFR member was calling for abolishing U.S. state governments entirely.

But the underlying goals are clear. “Both the conference call and the Independent Task Force report are full of global-government ideologies,” she explained. “Most of it reads like Keynesian mumble-jumble. The true remedy would be a return to Austrian economics.” Keynesian economists typically believe government ought to intervene in the economy to deal with all manner of real and imagined “market failures.” Austrian-school economists, by contrast, generally believe the free market without unnecessary government intervention is the best system in terms of creating and distributing wealth.

“There seems to be the same old pitch that government can solve all problems from higher wages to lower home prices,” continued Senator Bayer, warning that government cannot do better than markets and freedom at solving problems. Plus, the CFR’s internationalist agenda is not difficult to discern. “When looking at information discussing the dangers of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the global goals of the CFR become obvious,” the senator warned, citing the “free trade” scheme negotiated by CFR member Robert Lighthizer and strongly endorsed by CFR boss Richard Haass.

Especially among Republicans and grassroots conservatives, thanks largely to the efforts of Americanist organizations such as The John Birch Society and Eagle Forum, even establishment types have long recognized that a public association with the CFR can be politically toxic among voters. That is why, for instance, former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as a director of CFR, boasted in a speech at the CFR of concealing his ties to the globalist organization while campaigning for reelection in Wyoming. But the CFR appears to be working to create ties with lawmakers and policymakers on both sides of the aisle nonetheless.

The CFR is a powerful organization with a well-documented track-record of promoting globalism, undeclared war, unconstitutional Big Government policies, and more. This report will perpetuate that history. So far, the Task Force and “The Work Ahead” report have received very little attention by the establishment press, much of which is openly in bed with the CFR — including many outlets that are corporate members of the group. However, a push to advance the CFR Task Force’s agenda is almost certainly coming, after the groundwork has been properly laid.

As Admiral Ward explained, when the CFR’s leadership decides to pursue a policy, the incredibly powerful propaganda and lobbying apparatus at its disposal represents a force to be reckoned with. That day is likely coming on this agenda, too. For right now, globalism is on defense. But over the long term, only an educated and informed electorate will be able to defend freedom and resist these growing assaults.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/33828-cfr-u-s-needs-more-mass-migration-bigger-welfare-state


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: Trump Tells Bankrupt UN to Find Money Elsewhere

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

Alex Newman: Collusion? Deep State CFR Takes HUGE “Donation” From Putin Crony

by Alex Newman

Perhaps there really has been some Russia collusion. The globalist Deep State organization known as the Council on Foreign Relations is under fire after it was exposed taking a massive “donation” from Soviet-born oligarch Len Blavatnik (shown), a close crony of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and his corrupt minions. The shady billionaire has also been showering money on U.S. politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The $12 million “gift” to the CFR, reported publicly by the New York Post and other publications, was described as “influence buying” by critics. Beyond that, it appears to highlight the broader problem of systemic corruption within the U.S. foreign-policy establishment, which will gladly take “donations” to its foundations in exchange for favors. The Clinton Foundation, for instance, has long been accused of serving as an influence-buying machine for foreign governments. It seems the CFR has a similar problem.

The explosive revelation led to dozens of high-profile figures calling on the controversial “think tank” to return the money. In a letter dated September 18, the coalition of 56 critics noted that Blavatnik “acquired his initial wealth by way of highly questionable transactions in tandem with the regimes of [ex-Kazakhstan president] Nursultan Nazarbayev and Vladimir Putin.”

Then, he used shady tactics to keep and expand his fortune. “Blavatnik protected that wealth in part through strategic alliances with security personnel and practices that would surely be considered criminal in any democracy,” the letter continued, calling on the CFR to return the money to avoid “reputational damage” from associating with somebody like Blavatnik with “close ties to the Kremlin and its kleptocratic network.”

After citing some of the ultra-shady deals Blavatnik has been involved with, the coalition also highlighted his ties to Putin’s circle of cronies. “Blavatnik’s connections to corrupt Putin-supported oligarchs and officials are longstanding and well known,” they wrote. “For example, Blavatnik’s business partners include several individuals who are sanctioned by the United States government, such as Viktor Vekselberg, Oleg Deripaska, and Alexander Makhonov.” Citing Spanish wiretaps, the critics also suggested he had ties to the mafia.

“It is our considered view that Blavatnik uses his ‘philanthropy’— funds obtained by and with the consent of the Kremlin, at the expense of the state budget and the Russian people — at leading western academic and cultural institutions to advance his access to political circles,” the letter blasting the CFR explained. “Such ‘philanthropic’ capital enables the infiltration of the US and UK political and economic establishments at the highest levels.”

But CFR boss Richard Haass, a leading globalist architect, defended the donation and said the response from other CFR members to it had been overwhelmingly “positive.” In fact, the CFR’s website still has a glowing biography of Blavatnik, himself a CFR member, posted online, along with information touting the “Blavatnik internship program,” his giant donation will fund.

The gift by Blavatnik “will further CFR’s efforts to develop the next generation of leaders in government, academia and the private sector,” continued Haass, an anti-Trump globalist who has worked for many years to undermine U.S. national sovereignty. “We are proud to find our selves in such distinguished company,” he added.

On the CFR website, the deep state outfit touted the donation, too. “Blavatnik interns gain new insights into critical foreign policy issues and interact directly with leading experts and practitioners,” it said. “They are offered professional development training to complement their substantive work with a series of skill-based workshops, trainings, and career advice sessions as a foundation for future work in the field of foreign policy and international affairs, and beyond.”

Critics, though, were furious. A leading anti-corruption campaigner in the United States, Sarah Chayes, told the publication Bellingcat that the CFR’s willingness to accept the donation from Blavatnik’s foundation was a case study in the “soft enabling of kleptocracy.” In particular, she said it fit with Blavatnik’s history of working with “image launderers” to help him fix his reputation. Beyond that, “it broadcasts to the Kremlin that if you just disguise your money a little bit, the U.S. system is still fully penetrable.”

Other critics were outraged, too. “It is more than disappointing to see the Council on Foreign Relations take millions of dollars from a shady billionaire like Leonid Blavatnik, and excuse it by claiming the money will help interns,” former chief counsel Elise Bean with the U.S. Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was quoted as saying. “The CFR is helping to neutralize Mr. Blavatnik’s notoriety and extend his influence by enabling him to hitch a ride on its once sterling reputation [sic]. It is painful to see how money talks and the odor of corruption is ignored by CFR leadership when it comes to the Blavatnik millions.”

Another critic who signed the letter, former assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights David Kramer, lambasted the CFR as well. “All organizations should feel an extra burden to perform due diligence, especially in light of the Epstein scandal with MIT,” Kramer told The New York Post. “We object to Blavatnik’s ties to the Putin regime and how he made his money. I’m sure there are CFR members who are happy to receive a $12 million donation, but if they did some further research, they might raise some questions.”

To understand just how influential the CFR is, consider then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments when it opened an office in Washington. “I have been often to the mother ship in New York City, but it is good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department,” she said. “We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”

But far from being a club just for left-wing Democrats, countless leading Republicans are involved too. In a now-infamous video at the CFR’s headquarters, Vice President Dick Cheney bragged that he used to be a director at the organization. “But I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming.” The reason why he would seek to conceal his affiliation with the radical think tank is no surprise — thanks to its relentless support for tearing down U.S. independence, it has become politically toxic, especially with conservative voters.

Its anti-American agenda has been known for decades, too. The late U.S. Admiral Chester Ward, a CFR member for almost 20 years before defecting and blowing the whistle, exposed their schemes for all to see. “The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government,” warned the widely respected U.S. admiral. “This lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership.”

Ward also hinted at the reason why the CFR’s members would be so violently hostile to Trump’s campaign promises. “In the entire CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as ‘America First,’” he said.

Blavatnik has also poured huge sums into the political coffers of American politicians, ranging from President Donald Trump’s inauguration committee and globalist Republican senators to the campaigns of fringe left-wing Democrats Kamala Harris and Ron Wyden. Top recipients among GOP lawmakers include Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and neoconservative Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

 

Blavatnik, a billionaire, maintains U.S. and British citizenship, but was born in Soviet Ukraine. Far from being a self-made businessman, the oligarch made his fortune during the post-Soviet “privatization” of resources — in particular, in his case, aluminum and energy. Following the ostensible collapse of communism, which defectors such as Anatoly Golitsyn warned was a ruse to deceive the West, numerous communist bigwigs connected to the mass-murdering regime re-invented themselves as “businessmen.” And they benefited enormously from the corrupt “privatization” programs that basically handed over vast wealth to “former” communist bosses.

In one especially bizarre “deal” orchestrated by Putin, Blavatnik reportedly earned $7 billion from the sale of an oil company to the state-owned Russian energy giant Rosneft. According to investigations cited in the letter, the Russian government mysteriously overpaid by as much as $3 billion. “Such unexplained sums can then be used by Putin-linked private-sector individuals to further Putin’s interests in foreign countries, including by making donations,” the letter said.

As the scandal surrounding donations made to various institutions by pedophile (and CFR member) Jeffrey Epstein continues to grow, critics of the donation to the CFR warned that the elitist outfit would suffer “reputation damage.” Indeed, Epstein, the elite pedophile who regularly flew prominent CFR-linked people such as President Bill Clinton to his “orgy island,” donated a large sum of money to the CFR, as well. He was a member of the organization, in addition to his membership in the CFR-linked Trilateral Commission and other Deep State fronts.

Another shady figure whose name recently surfaced in connection with establishment circles in Washington, D.C., is Bulgarian-born operative Alexander Vasilev Mirchev. Among other concerns, critics have seized on Mirchev’s well-documented links to the murderous “former” communist regime in Bulgaria, which slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The Bulgarian “consultant” also has close ties to the regime in Kazakhstan as well as to Putin cronies. According to Bulgarian media reports, Mirchev has been on the radar of U.S. law enforcement for some time, and even came to the attention of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

While it is encouraging to see the growing backlash against Deep State organizations, the outrage needs to go much deeper. For example, amid all the hysteria about alleged “Russian collusion” involving Trump, almost nobody has discussed CFR luminary Henry Kissinger’s close ties to Putin. Indeed, the Russian strongman has publicly referred to Kissinger — a leading proponent of a globalist “New World Order” — as a “trusted adviser” and a “friend.” The two even go to each other’s houses for meals. And yet, the establishment media has said virtually nothing, and Muller is nowhere to be found.

Americans should use this opportunity to demand a proper congressional investigation of the CFR. Late John Birch Society Chairman Larry McDonald, a liberty-minded congressman from Georgia whose plane was shot down by a Soviet fighter jet in 1983, tried to get Congress to investigate the group decades ago. With Putin’s cronies stuffing the CFR’s coffers with suspect cash, a formal investigation into the group — its agenda, its funding, its ties to Russia, and more — is desperately needed. Perhaps Mueller and House Democrats might find some real Russian collusion, after all.

TNA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/33676-collusion-deep-state-cfr-takes-huge-donation-from-putin-crony


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: China Seeks to Run UN “Crime” Agency

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

Kathleen Marquardt: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, REDISTRIBUTING OUR WEALTH BY THE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS.

by Kathleen Marquardt

We have been railing against Public/Private Partnerships for many years. This is not a new issue. Many times in the past we’ve tried to inform the public of the dangers of PPPs, but they are complicated and most people today don’t want to take the time to delve deeply into anything that isn’t giving them pleasure. But now is the time to become educated on just one of the ways that we are being bled dry, that our money is being sucked off with huge vacuums and given to those conspiring to destroy America and the great American dream. They are winning because we are too busy, too lazy, too involved in other pursuits to stop them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.(Note Randy Salzman’s article below.)

And Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. State legislatures across the nation are passing legislation, which calls for the implementation of PPPs.

Beware. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience. Cute little jingles or emotional commercials can be very useful tools to sell a government program.

It is one thing to spell this out. At least it gives you a foundation for what Public/Private Partnerships are. But until you are exposed to an actual project (or rather the ‘conceived’ project), you cannot fathom the intricacies of deceit, collusion, and theft of taxpayer money with which these entities are swindling us, the people.

In a must-read article from Thinking HighwaysRandy Salzman’s “A ‘Model’ Scheme? is enlightening and frightening. As the lead-in says, “Salzman’s work is most comprehensive look at the dangers of P3s to date. It’s a must read for citizens and policymakers alike.” Please take the time to read it. I offer some key points from his article:

In the media, congress and across the political world, promoters pushing design-build public-private partnerships (P3s) are still claiming that private innovation is saving taxpayer money, creating good jobs and easing congestion.

In wanting to institute an “Infrastructure Bank” to address America’s “crumbling highway infrastructure,” even President Obama, using New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge as a backdrop, recently encouraged P3 construction with a US$302 billion plan. The president had apparently not read Congressional Budget Office research into P3s, nor heard the Tappan Zee contractor speak at a congressional hearing.

In March, Fluor’s senior vice president Richard Fierce bragged that his company was saving taxpayers US$1.7 billion on the new bridge across the Hudson until one congressman offhandedly remarked that he’d heard the Tappan Zee project would cost US$5 billion, not US$3.1 billion as the contractor had claimed.

Salzman points out that the ‘private’ entities “put up tiny bits of equity, though they impy more becaue they borrow dollars from Uncle Sam that they likey will not repay”; that the state and federal taxpayers are ponying up the 95+% of the bill, and we are also stuck with the cost of the bonds when “the P3 goes bankrupt – as they almost inevitably do – about 15 years down the road.”

Media coverage of P3s over the past decade, furthermore, has been overwhelmingly positive, consistently following the contractor line that private innovation is offsetting significant amounts of expense, improving projects and freeing public dollars for other activities. However, the Congressional Budget Office indicates P3s provide little, if any, financial benefit to taxpayers.

“The cost of financing a highway project privately is roughly equal to the cost of financing it publicly after factoring in the costs associated with the risk of losses from the project, which taxpayers ultimately bear, and the financial transfers made by the federal government to states and localities,” the CBO’s Microeconomic Studies director told congress in March. “Any remaining difference between the costs of public versus private financing for a project will stem from the effects of incentives and conditions established in the contracts that govern public-private partnerships.”

In that congressional hearing, Boston’s Michael Capuano reminded congressmen that “people stole money” in prior equivalents of design-build P3s, and that’s why the highway construction paradigm became “inefficiency intended to avoid malfeasance.”

Read the article – it is eye-opening even for those who understand the concept of PPPs. We the taxpayers are having our wealth redistributed in so many ways, but this is one of the most egregious.

Back to Tom’s speech on Public/Private Partnerships and our Republic:

Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market. Witness the drive for solar and wind power, even though the technology doesn’t exist for these alternative energies to actually make a difference.

Yet, the corporations, in partnership with government to impose these polices, have convinced the American public that this is the future of energy. Rest assured that if any one of these companies had to sell such products on the free market controlled by consumers, there would be very little talk about them.

But, today, an unworkable idea is making big bucks, not on the open market, but in a controlled economy for a select few like British Petroleum because of their partnerships with government.

Public/private partnerships can be used by international corporations to get a leg up on their competition by entering into contracts with government to obtain favors such as tax breaks and store locations not available to their competition, thereby creating an elite class of “connected” businesses.

A private developer, which has entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to its competitors.

The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common domain of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined common good.

The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work. The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities lose control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.

Using PPPs, power companies can obtain rights of way over private land, as is currently happening in Virginia where Dominion Power plans massive power towers over private property – against the strong objections of the property owners.

Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities across the nation, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the nation’s highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.

Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.

Of course, it’s not just American companies entering into PPPs with our government. Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, state and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.

As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, “On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years.”

In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a “no-compete” clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC. (note: the TCC is dead, but just recently I’ve heard it is going to be put forward again.)

So why do so many libertarians and conservatives support the concept of Public/Private Partnerships? By their words they profess to uphold the principles of freedom, limited government, individualism, private property and free enterprise. Yet they embrace a policy that eliminates competition, increases the size and power of government and stamps out the individual in the process.

A recent conference held in Virginia, just outside D.C. by such libertarians was titled “Restoring the Republic.” Yet, they called for open borders and “free trade.”

My question is this: What is the Republic? Is it just a notion floating on air? Something we can’t actually hold in our hand. Is the Republic just an idea? Or is it a thing? A place?

Only one nation was created by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: the United States. We were created as that Republic.” The Constitution defines a government that is supposed to have one purpose, the protection of rights we were born with.

It is true that every person on earth was born with those rights based on the principles of freedom. But only one nation was specifically designed to recognize and protect them: the United States.

If there are no borders, then what is the Republic they want to preserve? How can that be done? The Republic is the land of the United States. The laws of the United States. The judicial system of the United States. The sovereign states of the United States.

Our Constitution directs how we create laws by which we live, right down to the local level. It protects our ability to create a way of life we desire. Our resources, our economy, our wealth is all determined by the way of life we have chosen. And it’s all protected by the borders which define the nation – the Republic. And you can’t “harmonize” that with nations that reject those concepts! Canada is a commonwealth tied to the British Crown; Mexico is socialist.

So again, I ask, if you eliminate all of that by opening the borders and inviting nothing short of anarchy – then how do you preserve the Republic?


APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/09/09/public-private-partnerships-redistributing-our-wealth-by-the-millions-and-billions/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: POVERTY, THE COMPASSION CARTEL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM

 

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/

Bill Lockwood: Christianity in the Cross-hairs

by Bill Lockwood

The Democrats have Christianity in their cross-hairs. It must be eliminated. According to presidential candidate Joe Biden, his top priority in the Oval Office, should he be elected, will be to pass and enforce the “Equality Act”—a proposed bill that normalizes deviant sexual behavior while penalizing biblical Christianity.

Recently, Joe Biden honored the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for moving “the moral arc in this nation towards justice.” The HRC is a prominent homosexual advocacy group. He was referring to the so-called Equality Act, which passed the House Judiciary Committee in May. The Equality Act would effectively gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which has protected Americans with a Christian conscience from interference from Big Brother Government. As Bill Donohue, president and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, wrote in May:

The Equality Act is the most comprehensive assault on religious liberty, the right to life, and privacy ever packaged into one bill in the history of the United States. …this act is based on the idea that sexually challenged men and women—those who think they can transition to the other sex—should be treated as if hey were members of a minority race.

In short, the Equality Act takes “political correctness” and puts a statist government’s teeth into it. Let’s see the background.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The RFRA began as a reaction following a 1990 Supreme Court decision (Employment Division v. Smith) which concerned Christians that religious liberty might be threatened. In 1993 none other than Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced the RFRA, a bill which was intended to keep federal laws from burdening a person’s religious convictions. The bill passed and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

It is important to note that this resulted from a huge national movement of Christians to protect their First Amendment God-given rights. The Left, however, has never appreciated it, to say the least. For example, in 2014, the RFRA was used as a basis to challenge the ObamaCare mandate that required all for-profit companies to cover abortion-inducing drugs in their health-care plans. Hobby Lobby successfully challenged in Court Obama’s iron-fisted unconstitutional law.

The Left, therefore, has not only despised Christianity itself, but the basic protections that our Constitution has guaranteed them, including the First Amendment. After the 1993 RFRA, the war began to rage openly.

In 1997 the Supreme Court “ruled” that the RFRA could not apply to the states—only the federal government. This left the states open to irreligious assaults. The Christian communities around the country then began to pass at state levels their own religious freedom bills. Enough!, says the Left. We will eradicate Christian liberty once and for all—hence, the Equality Act.

The Equality Act

This historic proposal will take the 1964 Civil Rights Act and apply it to the Homosexual Network operating in the United States. It will therefore gut the RFRA by granting homosexuals and other deviant sexual behaviors preferential treatment in hiring; houses of worship would be turned into places of “public accommodations” where the Equality Act would rule; beginning in kindergarten children will be indoctrinated with the LGBTQ agenda; freedom of speech by Bible-oriented Christians would be endangered by law; privacy rights in bathrooms and gym locker rooms would be a thing of the past as would parental rights to teach children the sin of homosexuality. In short, liberty would be lost.

Bill Donohue adds,

If anyone thinks this is an exaggeration, check out what has happened to religious liberty in New Jersey and Ohio where Catholic hospitals have been targeted. Unless they agree to perform a hysterectomy on a woman who claims to be a man, they can be sued. The ACLU has been suing Catholic hospitals all over the nation trying to force them to adopt its anti-Catholic agenda. While it typically loses, this legislation will reverse that record.

In short, the Equality Act could put people out of work for their beliefs, according to the Heritage Foundation. Those who believe the Bible will be disallowed by law from expressing those beliefs in public. The biblical definition of marriage will be relegated to your closet. Your family will have been invaded by the federal mandates that favor homosexuality as a “protected class.”

What is occurring in Great Britain will be occurring here as well. There, the Muslim community is seeking protection from criticism by having Islam classified as a “race” via the United Nations. Those who criticize the teachings of Mohammed become “racists” with all that that word carries. No open dialogue, no open thought—just conformity. So here. No dialogue. No debate. No scientific proof—just a statist government enforcing its will.

Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, your sins have hid his face from you …therefore justice is far from us, neither does righteousness overtake us; we look for light, but behold, darkness; for brightness, but we walk in obscurity. – Isaiah 59:1,9

Bill Lockwood: Bart Lubow and Social Justice

by Bill Lockwood

Bart Lubow has been a left-wing radical for many years. Once a member of Students for Democratic Society (SDS), a front-group for communism which terrorist Bill Ayers helped to found, Lubow was even at one time deported from the Philippines for attempting to distribute communist anti-government literature. However, like the ascendency of other Marxist-oriented agitators during the current White House Administration, Lubow, having directed the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) for the Annie E. Casey foundation since 1994, is becoming influential in states such as Texas. The JDAI program is to “require states to work to reduce the disproportionate representation of minority juveniles in secured facilities.” Plainly, the goal of the JDAI is the revamp the detention and incarceration procedures in the United States along “social justice” lines.

Social Justice

Social Justice has little to do with actual “justice” but focuses attention upon “outcomes.” Decrying disparities in society, social justice advocates cry continually about unequal distribution of properties, of monies, of college degrees, and even jail sentences in America. As Walter Williams puts it, “Outcomes of human relationships are often seen as criteria for the presence or absence of justice or fairness. Outcomes frequently used as barometers of justice and fairness are: race and sex statistics on income and unemployment, income distribution in general, occupational distribution, wealth ownership, and other measures of socio-economic status.” In other words, no attention at all is paid to any underlying reason for differences, it is simply assumed that different outcomes among people is the result of crass prejudices or favoritism.

If, for example, wealth distribution is uneven among various races of people, “social justice” demands the assumption that foul play must be involved. So also, if as is the case, a greater percentage of a minority population is incarcerated than is the case with white America, the automatic conclusion among socialists is that injustices have been committed by “white society” against people of color. Differences among people or subcultures as a possible cause is never considered as that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do. The underlying assumption by Lubow is that the American system of justice is “profoundly racist” given the statistics. And for socialists on the rise, that is all that is required—show disparity in statistics. No examination of personal choices, no study of various cultural differences between races, no time wasted pondering divergent habits or pressures among minority populations—simply announce that America continues to be a “racist” state.

For obvious reasons Lubow does not seek to show that disparities between races in other areas are also caused by “white racism.” For example, the out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008 was just over 40%. The breakdown of that statistic shows that among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent while among Hispanics it was 52.5 percent and among blacks the figure jumps to a startling 72.3 percent. Consider abortion. In 2005 the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is almost 5 times that for white women. Similar “disparities” are found in almost every measurable statistic. It is clearly evident that minority cultures are fostering immoral lifestyles to an alarming degree. Yet, when it comes to discrepancies among incarceration rates, Lubow wishes us to believe that sub-culture has nothing to do with it, but that it is the result of “white racist attitudes.” That is what a good communist would do. Drive that “racist” wedge.

Lubow on “Structural Racism”

In a 2007 speech before the Chicago Council on Urban Affairs, Lubow laments the “grossly disproportionate representation of people of color” in the criminal or juvenile justice system. That 30% of African American males born “into this society will spend part of their lives in prison” should be reason enough to infuriate Americans, says he. “More than two-thirds of youth confined in secure detention nationally are youth of color” is demonstration to Lubow that our nation “mocks our claims to freedom and justice for all and, therefore, undermine[s] the very fabric upon which this society is supposedly founded.” “White people,” Lubow pontificates, “have been and still are the purveyors of racial injustice.” The blanket indictment against white society is that “white people accrue and rely upon” privileges “by virtue of skin color.”

To remedy racist America, JDAI has begun to implement core strategies “through racial equity lens.” In other words, force diverse population representation in incarceration facilities. Further, like the communist strategy of manipulating American citizens to their own demise, Lubow preaches that it is “white responsibility” to take on the issue with great fervor to change the system. We must create a “level playing field.”

So, for the citizen who thought that racial hiring quota’s were an assault on real fairness and individual responsibility, not to mention a vast overreach of federal government, much more seems in store regarding incarceration rates, if Lubow and the Annie E. Casey foundation have their way. And if Americans thought that the financial market fiasco, caused in part by federal officials leaning on lending institutions to provide loans to low-income persons who would not otherwise qualify, was a total disaster to the Housing Market, wait until our streets become more populated with criminal elements because of “racial quotas” that govern incarceration. Chaos in the streets is what socialists have always wanted. Old SDS members have not changed their stripes.

Bill Lockwood: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

by Bill Lockwood

With the recent shootings in America liberal politicians have proposed curtailing the God-given unalienable right to keep and bear arms as a method to stem the violence. From presidential hopeful Joe Biden recently telling Anderson Cooper, “Bingo” when asked about the government coming for “guns” to Kamala Harris’ proposal that if she is elected president she will enact “executive orders” to confiscate “assault weapons” when Congress fails to act, the Second Amendment needs to be re-asserted.

It is a historical fact that in nations where political leaders wish to remove properties and freedoms of the citizenry, they always begin by disarming the populace. This normally begins by requiring registration of firearms and imposing penalties when they do not. This is followed in many cases by federal governments deliberately provoking rioting and violence which is then used as an excuse to confiscate firearms.

The Second Amendment—A Prohibition

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The first thing to be noted is that the 2d Amendment is a strict prohibition against the federal government. It is not a declaration of rights, period. The right to keep arms was assumed to be God-given by the founders, but they added the Amendments to ensure that the national government would not touch these freedoms.

The Bill of Rights opens with this bold statement, “Congress shall make NO LAW …” What Joe Biden and his Democrat cohorts propose is unconstitutional on its very surface. Federal government has no say so in the matter. Making “no law” is pretty clear.

Second, there is a popular view today, though erroneous, that the 2d Amendment means that the National Guard should be able to keep and bear arms, but that the guarantee does not extend to ordinary citizens. Those who advance such an argument either have not read the Founders themselves who wrote the 2d Amendment, or hope you do not—or both.

The concern has always been, from the time of the creation of America until today, that a centralized federal government would evolve into a dictatorship or totalitarian state. The framers, with one voice, stated that the only counter measure to such gravitational pull over time was the populace itself. Alexander Hamilton, for example, in The Federalist Papers, asserted that liberty would always be ensured as long as the people were allowed to be “properly armed and equipped.”

James Madison, who authored the 2d Amendment, wrote that under the Constitution “the ultimate authority …resides in the people alone [due to the] advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” Joseph Story, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (8112-1845), a foremost Constitutional authority, wrote:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary powers of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

George Washington, commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, noted that

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence….From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.

Sam Adams, introduced in the Massachusetts convention the call to ratify the Constitution. In it he said that the “Constitution never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own guns.”

Sir William Blackstone (1725-80), though not a founder of this nation, was one of the top four quoted authorities on Common Law. Lawyers in America until the time of Abraham Lincoln normally carried Blackstone with them. Of the right to keep and bear arms, Blackstone said,

“Of the absolute rights of individuals: the fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject … is that of having arms for their defense …”

He explained that the basis for this right is the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression” (Alan Gottlieb, The Rights of Gun Owners, 1983, p. 6). It is as if Blackstone was mirroring current day America and the push of Democratic and Socialist lawmakers to open our borders to the entire third world, turning our streets into combat zones in some cases.

State Militia

Still, some cling to the wording of the 2d Amendment which states a “well-regulated militia” is necessary for the security of a free people to insist that this right to keep and bear arms be reserved for a specialized unit which one must join. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most Americans do not realize that they themselves belong to the state militia where they reside. Title 10, section 31 of the U.S. Code defines the militia of each state as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are or have [made] a declaration of intent to become citizens” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, p. 694).

The United States Congress has weighed in on this topic as well. In 1982 a Senate subcommittee on the Constitution carefully documented the 2d Amendment understanding in a public report. After lengthy pages of history, it noted that in various states after the War for Independence many proposals called it a general duty for all citizens to be armed. Richard Henry Lee, for instance, observed that “to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them …”

George Mason of Virginia, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted to “disarm the people—that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.” Patrick Henry said that the “great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.”

St. George Tucker, one of the earliest commentators on the Constitution and Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, published in 1803 his annotations. He followed Blackstone’s citations (noted above) and pointed out regarding the 2d Amendment that it is “without any qualification.” So also, William Rawle’s “View of the Constitution” published in 1825. He emphasized that,

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

The 1982 Congress summarized some of the above material. First, subsequent legislation in the Second Congress “supports the interpretation of the Second Amendment that creates an individual right. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States.”

They went on to add that these persons “were obligated by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.” “There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress … spoke of a ‘militia’, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard.” (Skousen, p. 699).

Second, the prohibition is strict and broad against the federal government or its officers from being able to address the issue of firearms or weaponry in the hands of its citizens. The reason is clear. As Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution put it this way: the right to keep and bear arms is “the palladium of the liberties of the republic.” This is a natural deterrent to tyranny.

So, whether it is Elizabeth Warren, who wants to have the federal government involve themselves in background checks, or Kamala Harris, who has dictatorship-style plans to move unilaterally on guns if elected president, or Joe Biden, who plans to implement bans on “assault weapons” at the federal level, or Bernie Sanders, who promises some type of executive action on firearms—all of these are theorizing in unconstitutional territory. If the federal government can step into this arena—no matter how small a role—history shows that this foot-in-the-door will expand to larger roles as Constitutionally illiterate people pouring out of the colleges demand more federal control. Voters, beware.

 

Alex Newman: Using Bribery and Threats, China Seizes Another UN Agency

by Alex Newman

Using bribery and threats, the Communist Chinese regime in Beijing just secured control over the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO), a key UN agency with a massive budget. Several Western governments tried unsuccessfully to stop the takeover by Communist Chinese operative Qu Dongyu (shown). Especially alarming to observers is the fact that the regime openly boasts that its nationals at international agencies must continue obeying orders from the Communist Party of China. Indeed, the Communist Chinese then-president of Interpol was arrested during a visit to China, with officials saying he was obligated to obey party orders.

But the latest victory for the most murderous dictatorship in human history represents only the most recent international organization to fall into China’s hands. Indeed, a fast-growing number of UN organs are already under Chinese control including the agency being groomed to control the Internet, the agency overseeing air travel, and other powerful UN bureaucracies. And if Beijing and its powerful Western allies get their way, this will not be the last UN outfit to come under Beijing’s control. The implications for freedom in light of Beijing’s growing role in what globalists describe as the “New World Order” are enormous.

The UN FAO selection process was hardly legitimate, sources in Rome and Washington told The New American and other publications. Indeed, a diplomatic source quoted by the French newspaper Le Monde said that Beijing had given African candidate Médi Moungui a multi-million dollar bribe in exchange for withdrawing from the race. Multiple UN FAO ambassadors sustained “intense Chinese pressure.” Various media outlets around the world even reported that Beijing had threatened at least several national governments, including those in Brazil and Uruguay, with a ban on agricultural exports to China if they failed to support Qu. Communist regimes such as the mass-murdering dictatorship enslaving Cuba openly backed Qu.

While the election is based on a secret ballot, it is known that Qu secured 108 votes in the first round of voting. The next closest candidate was Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle, a euro-socialist from France with the full backing of the European Union superstate who secured 71 votes. Coming in third place was Davit Kirvalidze from the nation of Georgia, who, despite backing by the Trump administration and some of its allies, barely got a dozen votes. The decision was made by the UN FAO’s 194 member governments and dictatorships, all of which get one vote. The agency has more than 11,000 employees and is one of the largest in the UN system.

Qu and his masters in the Communist Party of China could barely contain their glee. “I’m very grateful to my motherland,” the communist operative declared after winning the secretive selection process. “Without 40 years of successful reforms and open-door policy I would not have been where I am,” he said in his first speech, proudly sporting a lapel pin promoting the totalitarian UN Agenda 2030 that Beijing said it played a “crucial role” in developing. “Now the election is over and I will be committed to the original aspiration, mandate and mission of the organization.”

Among the various policies Qu has touted was a massive surge in what he called “Vitamin M,” or “money.” In a speech, he called for boosting the organization’s funding — already at almost $3 billion per year — by 10 percent annually for every year of his term. And in April, while campaigning for the post, Qu called for “changes” in the “production and consumption” of agricultural goods around the world under the guise of environmentalism. This comes directly out of the Agenda 2030 scheme, described by UN leaders as the “master plan for humanity” and a “global declaration of interdependence.”

Back in Beijing, Qu’s overlords were overjoyed, too. Qu’s victory was a “show of high appreciation of China’s support for multilateralism and advancing global development,” according to Communist Chinese “foreign ministry” spokesman Geng Shuang. Geng vowed that the dictatorship, which starved millions of people to death in the not-too-distant past, would “continue to work with other countries to promote the development of the global food and agriculture industries.” That should be highly troubling to advocates of freedom and private land ownership.

The new director-general, who served as “vice minister for agriculture and rural affairs,” will replace Brazilian communist Jose Graziano, whose term has been marked by seemingly never-ending scandal. Among other outrages, Graziano has worked to shut down honest reporting and criticism of his tenure. In one especially outrageous case, the Brazilian radical even sought to destroy the Italian Insider newspaper while having its editor jailed under arcane local laws. Graziano was outraged that the Rome-based publication was exposing various scandals and misdeeds among FAO leadership, and so, in totalitarian fashion, sought to crush his perceived enemies using the power of government.

Graziano is also a longtime ally of disgraced former Brazilian President Luis Inacio “Lula” da Silva, a Marxist revolutionary sitting in jail for corruption. The outgoing FAO boss has also used corruption and nepotism to try to advance the communist takeover of Latin America while trying to protect communist criminals from prosecution by granting them diplomatic immunity. Under Graziano, FAO even awarded honors to the imploding socialist dictatorship in Venezuela for its efforts to “fight hunger” — even as much of the population literally survived by eating garbage, pets, and zoo animals. Unsurprisingly, Graziano was fully behind Qu.

As The New American has been documenting for many years, the Communist Chinese dictatorship, with the full support of subversive Western globalists, has been busy accumulating more and more influence within the emerging “global governance” system. Indeed, there are more Chinese nationals in charge of UN bureaucracies than any other nation or government. Until recently, even the self-styled global “police” agency Interpol was under Communist Chinese control.

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.

Communist Chinese agents are also embedded all throughout the IMF, the World Bank, and beyond. Numerous UN agreements and conferences have featured Chinese Communists as leading players, including the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, which was chaired by a Chi-Com agent. The Party-controlled autocracy even opened a “School of Global Governance” at the Beijing Foreign Studies University to train legions of Communist Chinese agents to penetrate the institutions of the so-called New World Order, as Western and Chinese globalists refer to the emerging global regime.

Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokeswoman Joanne Ou warned that Beijing was “systematically deploying its officers to occupy high-ranking management positions in many important organizations, purporting to alter their policies and operations to serve its own national interests,” local media reported. Behind the scenes and increasingly out in the open, senior officials from Western governments are starting to wake up to the increasing threat of Communist Chinese influence operations.

Qu’s widely touted role as Beijing’s “vice minister for agriculture” should itself have been a giant red flag for governments around the world. Among the atrocities being perpetrated against the Chinese people under the guise of “agricultural reform,” for instance, is the wholesale uprooting of families and communities from their land. These rural people are currently being herded — often at gunpoint — into emerging new mega-cities being constructed by Beijing in accordance with UN “sustainability” schemes such as Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and more.

Qu has also worked on the dictatorship’s so-called Belt and Road scheme, whereby Beijing intends to expand its totalitarian tentacles across Eurasia. Numerous UN agencies — especially those under Beijing’s control — are hard at work helping China to promote and advance the Belt and Road project. And they do not even bother to hide it anymore.

Qu will take up his post on August 1, with his first term ending in 2023. His salary alone will be more than double President Donald Trump’s pay. With the UN’s agricultural department firmly under Beijing’s grasp, the regime is now working to install Andy Tsang Wai-hung as head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. The U.S. taxpayer funds about one third of the FAO’s bloated budget. And there is already talk in the White House about defunding or withdrawing from the FAO. But that is not enough. It is time for the United States and other civilized and free nations to abandon the corrupt UN and its Communist Chinese-controlled tentacles before the threat grows even more severe.


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

 

Jesse Lee Peterson: NOBODY LOVES AMERICA LIKE WHITE PEOPLE DO

Jesse Lee Peterson applauds those who support our country

by Jesse Lee Peterson

One man, President Donald Trump, is restoring America to its original greatness. God bless America, and God bless the Great White Hope, President Trump! With this year’s Salute to America on Independence Day in the nation’s capital, it’s finally clear that America is back!

I am 70 years old. I have not seen such an inspiring patriotic celebration since I was a kid. The president’s speech, and the event that he put together for the Fourth of July, expressed his pure love for our country.

I have noticed that no other group of people in the United States truly loves America as a whole like white people do. While growing up on the plantation, and throughout my life, I’ve watched white people proudly honor the country with visible displays of affection and respect. They support freedom, independence, true justice (not fake “social justice”), and adherence to our laws and Constitution like no one else. They work hard, create businesses, jobs and inventions, and – right or wrong – share these opportunities with others, and selflessly support others’ rights. President Trump is a perfect example of this love.

I wondered why it is that white people love the country so much, while blind people of color don’t share an appreciation for their opportunities. I realized that it’s because white men founded and built America, the greatest country on earth. Everybody and their mama want to come here – we can’t even keep the illegals out! But once they’re here, whether by choice or by force, they turn on the country and the white people who allowed them to be here. Nowadays, only whites have it in them to love and preserve America.

When I worked picking cotton as a boy with my grandparents, when blacks were moral and hard-working, we loved the country too. It only makes sense to love the place where you were born – especially the United States of America. But as blacks fell for the lies of socialism and communism, they also fell away from love. Blacks abandoned morals, fathers and real belief in God. Now they cling to false victimhood, government taking care of them, and insane hatred toward white people.

You can find some people of color who like the country. A few even really love the country, those who’ve awakened out of their fallen state. Thanks to the president, his courage and realness, many people of all races are awakening and finding that love.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

I’ve been working for over 29 years, telling the truth, encouraging blacks to wake up, drop anger, and return to their fathers and to God. People of all races have tuned into my radio show, church services, and my interviews with people on “the Fallen State.” Many of them call in to talk on-air about the issues they’re going through, or get private counseling through my nonprofit, BOND. They commit to prayer, get to know themselves, forgive their parents – and their lives return to order.

Last year, I declared July to be White History Month. Doesn’t July just feel white? It’s because of white people that we have Independence Day in America. In this country, we have the ridiculous “Black History Month” for so-called “African Americans” who don’t feel like they’re part of America. Homosexuals get two separate months! One celebrates so-called “Pride” and the other “LGBT history,” as if there’s anything good about homosexuality, transgenderism or any of that crap. Why not White History Month? Decent whites are hated – for no reason – by the people of color and children of the lie.

Disgracefully, we’ve allowed communism to take hold in America – an evil, anti-American, hate-based ideology that demonizes good white men like Trump. Some filthy communist scumbags burned an American flag in front of the White House, clashing with the Proud Boys and other normal patriotic people celebrating. But one man wearing a “Make America Great Again” T-shirt grabbed the tattered flag from America’s enemies as it burned. A U.S. Marine Corps veteran, he refused to step on the flag, but put out the fire with his bare hands. It’s beautiful that a veteran would show this love.

Unfortunately, the children of the lie have propped up a mixed-race black thug to falsely demonize our country, our flag, our military and police. You’ll recall Colin Kaepernick was the former NFL football player who refused to stand for our National Anthem, turning his back on America. Knowing that most blacks support evil, the shoe company Nike sponsored him with an advertisement promoting him as a hero.

On the first of July, Nike bowed again to the thug Colin Kaepernick, canceling the release of their patriotic shoes. Retail stores reportedly already received Nike shoes emblazoned with a “Betsy Ross Flag,” styled after the American flag from the time of the American Revolution. But because Kaepernick complained that America’s founding represents white people and “slavery,” Nike cancelled the release of the shoes!

This is why I want white people to marry and make white babies. I call on all people of good will to appreciate white people. If we lose whites as a majority, we lose America.


WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/07/nobody-loves-america-like-white-people-do/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

« Older Entries