The Left, a broad term for Liberal Socialist Democrats that can only be explained fully by using the Bible explanation of the human race is as follows. A servant of Satan, because you are either saved or lost. This election has brought out the true nature of who you serve. Simply put, it’s Donald Trump, Conservatives, and Christians against the rest of the world. The Left’s Love applies only to those who believe as they do. They Love evil and commit Anarchy against those who love good. They are governed by lies and never tell the truth…..
With the UN now acting as if America must submit to its whims and decrees, it is more important than ever to understand how significant the implications of allowing this to continue would be. The whole notion that the UN was scheming to become a global government-style institution with centralized coercive powers was once dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” for “kooks.” Today, it is obvious to anyone willing to pay attention to the news. As we reported in the companion article “UN to America: We’re the Boss,” the UN now regularly makes demands on America that fly in the face of traditional Americanism, across a broad range of crucial policy fields. And if left unchecked, this is only the start.
Ultimately, liberty, self-government, nation-states, and God-given rights will give way to the total government if this is not stopped. And this is plain to see from the UN’s own documents, statements, and agreements. Liberty is literally on the line, with globalists and the Deep State seeking to replace it with a fraud that sounds similar, at least at the most superficial level, but could not be more different in reality.
The UN’s ActNow program goes into detail about the individual sacrifices the UN wants everyday Americans to make — and to pressure legislators to make it happen.
The phrase “American dream” should probably be re-termed the “American ideal” to make better sense. That ideal is based upon using the freedom and opportunity provided to Americans through the U.S. Constitution to achieve prosperity, success, and fulfillment for themselves and their children through hard work — in short, the opportunity for each person to pursue his or her own happiness.
But what does “happiness” entail? For some people, that means eating a brat-burger with cheese and ketchup at a table with family members, swapping the day’s stories. For others, it’s about having a shiny car that goes 200 miles per hour or weekends at the lake reading books, staying in one’s condo or on a houseboat. For some, it’s about trips to Rome, Paris, or Miami — visiting Australia, Africa, or South America — or about farming or ranching or hiking or skiing or fishing or hunting or praying or playing video games or something else. For a relative few, happiness means “doing without,” having as little impact on Earth’s environment as possible so as to not interfere with “nature.”
One of the things that make America great is that we can live most of the lifestyle we earn.
But if political elites and some well-meaning, if misguided, followers have their way, that will no longer be the case. In the future of their dreams, only a small number of people will be able to “do what they want,” following their own paths to achieve happiness. Others will need to learn to love having less and doing less.
Want to travel to Florida for Christmas to escape another brutal winter for awhile? Sorry, airplane travel is for emergencies and dignitaries, and public transportation for that week is full. Want steak for dinner? Sorry, meat is strictly restricted because of cow flatulence (which supposedly rivals CO2 in its ability to catastrophically warm the Earth) and land-usage laws. Want a heated swimming pool in your backyard? Sorry, that is a frivolous waste of energy, water, and building materials.
Using the global campaign to combat alleged man-made climate change, they plan to reduce the standards of living of most of Earth’s population, deeming the changes necessary for “sustainability.” The people at the top know that this so-called environmental effort is really the method by which power will be centralized under global governance through the UN, while most of their followers probably think they are truly saving the Earth.
Transportation: For decades, the environmental movement has arrayed itself against virtually all forms of modern transportation, save for those conveyances necessary to commute to Earth Day celebrations and political rallies. “Gas guzzlers,” both wheeled and winged, have long incurred the wrath of those anxious to eliminate highway and air travel. Now the United Nations is reminding us that travel on foot, on horseback, in the buggy, or on a bicycle — transportation of ages past — deserves rehabilitation. Although alternative fuel sources such as hydrogen and solar cells show no signs of replacing gasoline and other petroleum-derived products as the propellants of choice, the push is on to rid the world of polluting, fossil-fuel combustibles to protect the air we breathe and the climate we love. Such is the conventional wisdom peddled by environmental extremists.
The UN’s latest campaign on behalf of the climate, ActNow, lays out in lavish detail the globalists’ intention to exert control over nearly every aspect of our daily lives, from the food we eat to the clothes we wear — and all, supposedly, in the name of saving the climate. Touted as “a critical part of the UN’s coordinated effort to raise awareness, ambition, and action for climate change and accelerate the implementation of the Paris Agreement,” the new campaign highlights 10 things that the environmentally “woke” must do to serve as a good example for the rest of us. Some of them are familiar territory, while others represent uncharted lunatic terrain. For example, ActNow’s “Drive Less” campaign is nothing new.
Sounds far-fetched, doesn’t it? But despite the slow start to such an effort — being decades in the making — there are now enough people on board socialist efforts to “save the Earth” through “doing without” (though many may not have thought through the ramifications of what they are pushing) that it likely has a good chance of coming about.
But returning to a world with 19th-century modes of transportation is unthinkable — unless we are willing to let hundreds of millions of people perish of starvation when our modern trucks, ships, and planes (all of them powered by polluting petroleum products) stop running.
While mass transit such as subways and high-speed electric trains may move masses of people about with less pollution than cars and buses, the fact is that our modern civilization depends crucially on rapid, gasoline-powered modes of individual transportation. Petroleum-derived fuels have been the default method of powering every form of non-rail transportation for more than a century, and with good reason: Gasoline and other fuels are by far the cheapest, most convenient, and most energetic fuel sources ever developed for transportation, especially at the individual level. Modern electric cars are comfortable, quiet, and relatively non-polluting (if we ignore the resources devoted to building and charging them), but they have two huge drawbacks: They require a significant amount of time (usually over an hour) to recharge, and they have relatively limited ranges. Add to this the fact that recharging stations are almost impossible to find outside urban areas, and we have in electric cars a technological curiosity that works well enough in urban areas with suitable infrastructure but is utterly inadequate for long-distance travel in less-trafficked regions.
So until someone invents some entirely new method of propulsion, gasoline-powered cars, trucks, buses, vans, and motorcycles will continue to crowd our roadways. Take them away, and the consequences will be calamitous. As for their alleged threat to the climate, the vast array of unalloyed benefits modern transportation has conferred on the human race more than offset the very manageable problem of air pollution.
Diet restrictions: Far less familiar is the new environmentalist hostility for meat consumption, as retailed in ActNow’s “Meat-free Meals” talking point. According to ActNow’s blurb:
What we eat has major implications for climate change. The destruction of rainforests to create land for agriculture, along with growing demand for meat, are major contributors to the increasing greenhouse gases which are taking a significant toll on climate and global food security…. More and more chefs and other food suppliers are focusing on local and organic produce and shifting away from meat-heavy meals and fast food. They are joined by a growing movement of people changing the way they cook and eat.
… The Challenge: cooking up dishes that are not only delicious but also good for the planet and good for us — reducing meat and emphasizing diverse vegetarian ingredients instead.
Interest in vegetarian and even vegan lifestyles is not new, but the UN’s interest in promoting them is. For decades, vegetarianism has been a minority lifestyle choice in most Western nations — although, in many Buddhist and Hindu countries, vegetarianism is the dominant culinary preference. Lately, though, vegetarianism in the West has seen a dramatic increase in popularity, as much for its alleged health benefits as for the perceived moral imperative of avoiding killing animals for food. But the UN’s (and environmentalists’) interest in eliminating meat consumption is not motivated by either health or concern for the well-being of the world’s cow, pig, and poultry population. Instead, “Meat-free Meals,” as ActNow’s rhetoric makes clear, are intended to suppress meat production — because ranching and similar activities are supposedly extremely destructive of the environment.
In this connection, the recent media hullabaloo about the burning Amazon (and, less conspicuously, about the burning forests in Borneo, another major rainforest area) was very conveniently timed. Much of the clearing of forests in the Amazon region, the adjacent Mato Grosso, and tropical forest areas worldwide have been driven by the cattle industry or so goes the argument. This is true to an extent — but it is also undeniably true that much of the American continent today is under cultivation or grazing rights of one kind or another. No longer are the Great Plains a sea of virgin grassland brimming with vast herds of buffalo. No longer are the sagebrush-covered high plains and cactus-studded deserts trackless wildernesses. But that is the price to be paid for progress. The American West and Midwest are no longer the “Great American Desert,” because of animal husbandry and other types of agriculture.
Modern environmentalists want to deny developing countries such as Brazil and Indonesia the same opportunities that America enjoyed in transitioning from a trackless, lawless frontier to a modern, prosperous, developed country. It is easy to forget that, before modern technology, communications, and transportation infrastructure, and the other luxuries that define the modern age, there was agricultural progress. Before the first railroads and telegraph lines opened up the American West, the farmers and cattlemen were already there, because people must eat before all else.
Globally, countries are developing in the same way America developed. Readers over 50 will recall the great African famines of the ’80s and earlier. Within living memory, famines and food shortages were still significant problems in many parts of the world. Today, famine is all but unknown because of the enormous advances in food production. In the United States, ranching and farming have become so productive and so efficient that the United States can produce enough meat and staples such as wheat to feed not only her own 330 million inhabitants but also to ship enormous quantities of meat and other foodstuffs abroad (including our rival China, which depends in large measure on American beef and pork to feed its own meat-craving masses).
But this doesn’t signify environmental devastation. With more efficient and productive methods of ranching and farming, pressures on American forests and other natural habitats have receded. In recent decades, the United States has enjoyed reforestation and dramatic growth in natural habitats continent-wide. And the same will come to pass in countries such as Brazil as technology and standards of living continue to rise. The miracle of modern capitalism is that it has enabled greater and greater prosperity and productivity with less and less intensive use of the land.
Related to the UN’s anti-meat campaign is a drive to consume local produce, to reduce demand for mass-grown fruits and vegetables on huge truck farms and plantations (banana plantations, which have gobbled up large swaths of rainforest in the American tropics, come to mind). But of course, this would mean denying oneself the considerable benefits of fruits from different climates. Thus New Englanders would no longer consume oranges, grapefruits, or kiwi fruit; Floridians would no longer enjoy apples; and Americans, in general, would no longer eat bananas, mangoes, guavas, papayas, or any number of other fruits that will not grow in the continental United States. Nor would we be able to consume grapes, lettuce, and other such fruits and vegetables out of season, because they are often shipped from the Southern Hemisphere during the Northern winter months. A dictum to consume only local produce might make farmer’s market habitués happy, but it would entail returning to the eating habits of the 19th century before modern transportation began to make the shipping of exotic foodstuffs a possibility.
Not only is the food we eat to be curtailed, so are the clothes we wear.
Clothing: According to ActNow’s website:
Making clothes has a huge impact on climate change. The textile industry contributes around ten percent of global greenhouse gas emissions — it uses more energy than the aviation and shipping industry combined, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The industry’s impact is not limited to global carbon emissions. It also produces about 20 percent of global wastewater and 85 percent of textiles end up in landfills or are incinerated when most of these materials could be reused.
Accordingly, ActNow participants are encouraged to move toward “zero-waste fashion” by “upcycl[ing] your old clothes for new looks and shar[ing] your creations on social media.” Translation: Avoid buying new clothes by patching up old ones, and refrain from buying any high-end clothing. Not only are we encouraged to return to pre-industrial eating standards, but we are also supposed to go back to the time-honored tradition of our ancestors of dressing in rags and threadbare clothing to bring about a massive downsizing of the evil textile industry.
Taken together, the attacks on modern transportation, food, and clothing amount to a repudiation of the modern age.
Other areas covered: And there’s more. ActNow also urges its adherents to take five-minute showers, recycle, turn out the lights, unplug electric appliances and devices when not in use, refill and reuse plastic containers, and bring their own bags for shopping rather than relying on bags doled out at the checkout counter. Some of these are fairly innocuous and even make sense for those wishing to reduce monthly bills. Recycling, however, is a longstanding conceit of environmentalism that continues to be on very shaky ground. Recycling is costly and energy-intensive, and it is by no means clear that the time, money, and energy spent on recycling glass and plastic are any less wasteful of resources than simple, old-fashioned disposal. In fact, cities across the country have quietly begun sending recyclables to landfills, instead of recycling centers, because it has become too costly. But they keep requiring you to fill your recycling bins each week in the hopes that the costs will eventually come down enough that the program can be restarted.
All of these agenda items are intended to combat that great bugbear of socialism, “wicked” consumerism. So-called consumerism, the alleged popular addiction to excessive consumption and the “throw-away” culture, has all but replaced capitalism as the archfiend of the Left. Where once the myth of “overproduction” animated the radical fringe, now the greatly exaggerated trope of overconsumption has the Left in a lather. Instead of enjoying the fruits of modern progress — abundant food, efficient production, convenient transportation and communication, and all of the other benefits of modern life — it is incumbent on all of us to live lives of renunciation and penury. The ideal is to roll back several centuries of progress and return to the Arcadian bliss our ancestors enjoyed — without modern plumbing, heating, medicine, dentistry, transportation, sanitation, communication, food production, or entertainment. Sure, that was a world in which dodos and passenger pigeons still flourished, and in which tropical rainforests and coral reefs maintained they are pristine. But it was also a world of very few human inhabitants, whose lives were, in comparison with ours, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and often very short.
For the Poor
Noticeably lacking in the UN effort is a long look at the consequences of such actions, if the masses get on board. For starters, the effort would be costly beyond almost all reckoning, with just the Green New Deal adding up to trillions of dollars per year for the foreseeable future when considering the costs of mandating that all power be generated by renewable sources. In fact, the costs of the UN effort would entail impoverishing most people across the planet.
Residents of Third World countries would be prevented from developing modern lifestyles, and in First World countries, middle-class taxpayers would be bled dry to pay for the changes, while jobs would disappear in droves.
As for jobs, consider what makes a First World country different from a Third World one. Both types of countries usually have plentiful rich people, but in Third World countries, the middle class is small and the lower classes (the poor) are numerous, while First World countries have many middle-class members. A large middle class happens in countries that allow people the freedom to do as they wish with their money, possessions, and time. After a while, the numbers of poor people dwindle as more and more people devise ways to provide services to others who have money — from car mechanics to engineers, landscapers to home decorators, chefs to fast-food providers, spa workers to fitness coaches. Under the UN plan, luxuries would be hard to afford for most people, devastating the jobs of tens of millions of Americans who work in service-related sectors, tearing apart the lives of many.
Except for the politically well connected.
Like now, when the world’s leaders in the climate-change movement hypocritically spew loads of CO2 into the atmosphere as they jet around the world to exotic locales while chastising the common man for taking a car to the grocery store instead of walking, the UN’s plans are not meant to apply to everyone.
First, most of the rich would stay rich under the UN plans because, like Al Gore, who made many millions through insider CO2 dealings, the politically well connected will know in advance exactly where to invest their monies to stay rich.
Second, in the future, the rich, like now, will continue their CO2-releasing lifestyles. Everyone has probably heard about the fact that climate-change prophet of doom Al Gore’s Nashville mansion uses 21 times the amount of energy as a typical U.S. household uses in a year (just one of his several houses). And that Leonardo DiCaprio who, as noted by Investor’s Business Daily, “while accepting his Oscar, called climate change ‘the most urgent threat facing our entire species,’ and told viewers that ‘we need to work collectively and stop procrastinating’” also “famously celebrated New Year’s Eve on a yacht in the Sydney Harbor, then flew with his pals to Las Vegas to ring in the New Year a second time.” But many probably don’t know that this is typical of our environmental betters.
The New American online related on August 1 about a major climate-change gathering:
The event, dubbed “Google Camp,” is being hosted by Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and many of the world’s “finest” people have been invited.
Among the rumored guests are former president Barack Obama, Great Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. Also expected to be on hand are such world-renowned climate experts as Bradley Cooper, Orlando Bloom, Katy Perry, Tom Cruise, and Leonardo DiCaprio.
The seventh annual Google Camp is being held at the luxurious Verdura Resort in Sicily, where individual rooms start at over $900 per night. The resort features three golf courses (don’t they use up a lot of water, especially on a dry Mediterranean island?), a 60-meter infinity pool, four thalassotherapy pools, and multiple steam baths. Brin and Page are expected to shell out over $20 million for the three-day event.
… The Duke of Sussex (Prince Harry) himself was reported to have given an impassioned speech, while barefoot, about the moral imperative of fighting climate change to the billionaires and opinion-shapers at the event. At least Prince Harry caught some flak about his climate hypocrisy when British television host Piers Morgan tweeted, “Is this the same Harry who uses helicopters to go from London to Birmingham and whose wife uses celebrity mates’ private jets to cross the Atlantic?”
… Most of these “concerned” celebrities came in on carbon-spewing private jets. At least 114 of those dastardly transportation devices were expected to fly to the airport at nearby Palermo. In addition to the planes were several mega-yachts belonging to people such as designer Diane von Furstenburg, German pharmaceutical magnate Udo J. Vetter, New Zealand tycoon Graeme Hart, and American showbiz mogul David Geffen.
… Yachts such as the ones owned by von Furstenburg, Vetter, Hart, and Geffen can use up to 530 gallons of fuel per hour when on the move. The average American auto uses approximately 500 gallons of gasoline per year.
The UN guidelines about CO2 emissions would call for the bulk of Americans to eat, dress, and move as if they were in an earlier era, while the rich would be unburdened — in much the same manner that kings of the past forbade commoners from food and lifestyle extravagances through sumptuary laws. Talk about going back to a different era!
But It’s Voluntary, Isn’t It?
While the UN’s ActNow campaign has no binding force, it is a good reminder of the mind-set of the globalist Left, including the UN-centered international socialist establishment. Just as governments everywhere, and at every level, are adopting the radical environmentalist platform (including, increasingly, once-unthinkable measures such as banning plastic cups, fatty foods, and sugary drinks), there can be no doubt that a fully empowered United Nations would leave no aspect of our personal lives unregulated and free of controls. An organization willing to impose dietary and clothing restrictions in the name of saving the climate is capable of literally any rationalization for amassing power.
And that, in a nutshell, is what both the UN and socialism are all about.
To many Americans, the United Nations appears remote and impotent, a forum for the world’s political elites to air their grievances and, occasionally, to pass resolutions that may or may not be respected. The UN has been with us for 74 years, yet to the casual observer, it has played at most a bystander’s role in most of the world’s seismic political events.
No doubt the men who founded the United Nations a lifetime ago envisioned the organization to have a larger role, and much greater power than it has so far been able to amass. It is easy to forget that the UN, from its inception, as well as affiliated global institutions such as the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, and the World Court, was intended to be the scaffolding for a socialist world government, to be strengthened and reinforced gradually, by consent of member states and as political conditions permitted. The eventual transformation of the United Nations into a worldwide government would, of course, mean an end to sovereign nation-states. It would mean an end to the challenges associated with a world of independent, often warring states — and their replacement by a set of much graver problems: the end of individual rights and liberties, and the elevation of a ruthless, all-powerful socialist group to unassailable planetary authority.
If this seems doubtful given the UN’s comparatively muted role in the personal affairs of most Americans, consider this: The United Nations and its affiliates can usually be found leading the charge in almost every Big Government initiative, from gun control to environmental policy, that bedevils the American public. Most such issues are perceived as schemes hatched by homegrown leftist radicals, but in truth, all of them are global initiatives, like as not incubated in the cozy conclaves of the UN and its myriad NGO affiliates.
The ActNow campaign is a textbook case of what internationalists like to call “soft governance,” that is, the use of persuasion, public awareness campaigns, non-binding resolutions and agreements, propaganda, and other non-coercive methods of policymaking calculated to exert pressure on governments by changing public opinion. As a consensual international body with aspirations of eventually transforming into a real-world government, the United Nations relies heavily on soft governance to advance its agenda. It is no accident that the ActNow campaign has appeared precisely at a time when the Paris Agreement is threatened by American intransigence.
The hope nurtured by globalists is that the “soft law” entailed by UN resolutions, opinion-molding campaigns, and non-binding protocols will eventually be transformed into “hard law,” with real binding effect on member states and their citizenries (a case in point would be the push for the Green New Deal, which would accomplish many of the UN goals). In this connection, the UN and its many global affiliates, like the IMF, have issued volumes of “soft law” on matters ranging from gun control and financial regulations to environmental standards, all of which become “harder” in proportion to member states’ willingness to pass laws codifying such standards and protocols.
The pseudoscience of “anthropogenic” (man-made) climate change has proven the most effective environmentalist propaganda ploy ever devised by globalists. Despite three decades of failed predictions and an avalanche of discrediting climate data, government and foundation grant money continues to pour into climate research, and the mainstream media, along with the environmentalist fringe, remain as committed as ever to their pet dogma — this in stark contrast to numerous other environmentalist scare tactics that have come and gone as flashes in the pan over the years (Anyone remember Silent Spring? DDT? Acid rain? The ozone hole? The obliteration of the rainforests by the mid-’90s?). ActNow is but the latest act in the global warming-turned-climate-change theater, intended to shore up support at a time when environmentalist globaloney is on the shakier political and evidentiary ground than ever before.
To fully comprehend the mind-set behind the ActNow campaign, and environmental extremism in general, it is necessary to understand what is meant by the catchphrase “sustainable development.” That, after all, was the official overarching objective of the historic 2015 UN conference from which emerged the “17 Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) and the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” both of which were adopted by world leaders, including President Obama. “Sustainable development” is defined by its promoters as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” In practice, it means levels of development acceptable to those who, in their self-importance, believe themselves qualified to plan the future of the entire planet, and which will inevitably entail leveling, whereby prosperous societies are required to surrender their standards of living in order to sustain poorer countries.
Sustainable development is a government goal, not a private-sector goal — because the private sector has always sought to reduce waste and reuse materials, hence lowering costs. The private sector has become more and more sustainable, not less. It is the private sector, not the government, that has led the revolution in information technology, transportation, medicine, and myriad other modern miracles that have allowed more and more people to live more and more comfortably, with less and less destructive impact on the environment. While there are certainly environmental issues of concern both at home and abroad, overall, the Earth remains a wonderful place of abundance for humans and other living things.
Contrary to decades of dire forecasts, the world’s oceans have not risen to engulf our coastal cities, the polar ice caps and glaciers have not melted away, the world’s biodiversity has not been consumed by a holocaust of man-made extinctions, overpopulation has not dragged humanity into some Malthusian dystopia, climate change has not turned the planet into an oven, the air remains breathable, and the water remains drinkable. Development, in other words, has been nothing if not sustainable — at least to the extent that it is driven by the private sector and by free-market incentives.
In general, it is societies that limit the power of government and promote a significant degree of individual freedom, including a flourishing private sector, that have achieved robust development coupled with steadily improving environmental conditions. Socialist and communist planned economies — of which the UN plan envisions the most all-encompassing iteration — inevitably engender scarcity and the kind of sustainability issues that the sustainable development goals purport to address.
Socialism operates on assumptions of scarcity, not abundance, on the notion that humans are mere consumers, never producers or creators, in a zero-sum game with finite global resources at stake. The doctrine of “sustainable development” provides ideological cover for this belief system on a global scale, and will require future generation’s “sustainable lifestyles” of poverty, devoid of both progress and freedom. Photo credit: AP Images Source: The New American
At the core of the UN’s ongoing attacks against America is the drive to replace self-government under God and the God-given rights enshrined in America’s founding documents with “global governance” and UN-granted revocable privileges described by the UN as “human rights.” And it is not exactly a secret. In fact, as The New American has documented extensively over a period of many years, the UN now brazenly and routinely claims that Americans’ inalienable rights are actually violations of “international human rights law,” and as such, must be drastically curtailed to comply with UN demands.
Indeed, in the January 6, 2015 article headlined “United Nations Exploits Pseudo-‘Human Rights’ to Attack U.S.,” The New American magazine documented this clearly with an array of examples. Among other concerns, the article gave multiple examples of the UN and its top officials publicly claiming that “human rights” and “international law” require that governments outlaw and punish certain speech, impose more gun control, ignore due-process protections, overturn state self-defense laws, eliminate constitutional limitations on federal power, prohibit spanking of children as a disciplinary tool, fund abortion with tax money, regulate private schools to comply with UN demands, provide more welfare and subsidized housing, and much, much more.
The recent addition of Venezuela to the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) is yet another reminder about how ineffective and morally bankrupt the world body has become. The leftist dictatorship has jailed thousands and persecuted thousands more for not blindly following the regime of President Nicolas Maduro, who has turned down economic aid from other nations, presumably to teach his upstart populace a lesson.
Maduro’s government is no longer recognized as legitimate by the United States and close to 50 other countries. With this large and international group aligned against it, it seems hard to believe that Venezuela would win a seat on the HRC. But Libya and Sudan also received enough votes to join the Council this go-round, so it appears anything is possible — except common sense.
Venezuela received heavy support from Russia, China, and Cuba in its HRC bid, partly because it’s a fellow socialist state that is allied against the United States. Venezuela is also in deep to these countries to keep it on life support — they’re all taking discounted oil from Venezuela in exchange for medical supplies and food.
While on the HRC, Venezuela can be counted on to do everything it can to hide its government’s abuses of human rights. Venezuela, Sudan, and Libya all have horrible human-rights records. If the UN were even remotely a respectable organization, it would be completely against the rules for such a nation to sit on the Human Rights Council. It’s this hypocrisy that led President Donald Trump to withdraw America from the HRC last year. It’s also why the same group of rogue states prove themselves a menace year in, year out.
Another way to clean up the HRC is to change the voting procedure to an open ballot. Members of the UN General Assembly voted by secret ballot in this most recent HRC election, meaning no nation is accountable or answerable for its vote. When choosing the members of a world body that is tasked with protecting those who cannot protect themselves, voting parties should be required to vote publicly.
Yet finding support for even these basic reforms is next to impossible. Venezuela is one of a group of developing nations called the Non-Aligned Movement, which comprises a comfortable majority of the total UN membership. They may be called “non-aligned,” but these nations definitely act with a single voice when it comes to advancing their own causes, no matter how undemocratic they may be.
The United Nations clearly does not represent the best interests of the world. This is evident in the fact that Israel is considered a perpetual threat to human rights, while nations that are a proven threat to their own people (and Israel) serve on the HRC. It is evident in the crimes committed by UN peacekeepers whose crimes against neighboring states are buried in the press. It is also evident in sweeping UN treaties like the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that seek to strip sovereign rights from U.S. citizens while turning a blind eye to the nations that actually are breaking international laws.
President Trump has refused to play along with the UN’s anti-American, anti-freedom agenda. He has pulled out of the ATT, and he has pulled out of the HRC, but what’s next? Could America pull out of the UN altogether? And what would happen if we did? It certainly wouldn’t make the UN a better organization. And it arguably wouldn’t make our country safer.
It seems that the only reason for staying in the UN is to provide a counterbalance of sanity to keep it from going completely down the drain. But is that argument really all that compelling? Source
Gregory Connor, a 46-year-old coordination specialist for the United Nations Development Program, was apprehended by police at 1:30 a.m. on Saturday and charged with forcible touching of intimate parts, police said. The victim is a 17-year-old boy, who was reportedly visiting New York City on a class trip from Italy.
According to police, Connor approached the teenager and asked if he could use his iPhone charger, then followed him up to his room at the Hilton Hotel in Midtown. Soon after, he allegedly undressed and began groping the victim, touching his chest and his crotch. Connor left a few minutes later, but briefly returned after forgetting his bag in the room, a police spokesperson added.
Sources told the Post that police were notified of the abuse by hotel security and school chaperones, and that Connor was still at the hotel when he was arrested hours after the incident.
In a statement to Gothamist, a spokesman for the United Nations Development Program said, “UNDP takes all allegations of sexual misconduct extremely seriously and has zero tolerance for this behavior. UNDP is aware of these allegations, has been in touch with the relevant U.S. authorities and is actively following up on the matter.”
Prior to working at the United Nations, Connors held a series of development jobs in New York City, Washington D.C., and Europe, according to his LinkedIn page. His resume includes senior-level positions at the World Bank, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the EastWest Institute. He currently resides on the Upper West Side.
The integrity of the United Nations (UN) has deteriorated, as it has become a kind of refuge for officials involved in serious corruption cases.
The body, which is the largest existing international organization, has allowed people to walk its corridors with impunity, who are now facing criminal investigations and who have even been accused of serious crimes such as money laundering.
In 2015 one of the greatest cases of corruption in the history of the UN was uncovered, as John Ashe, a diplomat from Antigua and Barbuda and former president of the General Assembly of the United Nations was arrested in New York after accepting bribes from Chinese businessmen
The frequency and severity of scandals lead one to believe that the international body has been discredited, to the point of doubting their true mission.
Bachelet: silence and corruption
One of the most recent examples is the appointment of the former president of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, as High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN.
Until a few months ago, Bachelet openly supported the regime of Nicolás Maduro; she never dared to describe him as a dictator or to strongly condemn the violations of human rights in Venezuela; on the contrary, she preferred to remain silent.
But it is not just a matter of the hypocrisy of having this ex-president as the official UN defender of human rights. It is also the fact that both she and her son were linked to corruption in Chile in relation to a millionaire real estate business.
Heredia: money laundering
But Bachelet’s case is not the only one that helps to further discredit the UN. In 2016 Nadine Heredia, the ex-first lady of Peru was appointed a UN official for Food and Agriculture (FAO).
Heredia would receive diplomatic immunity when working for the international organization, despite being deeply involved in the Lava Jato case, the largest corruption case in Latin America.
While Heredia was being investigated in Peru for money laundering and fraud, the UN-appointed her as an FAO liaison officer in Geneva.
In May of 2017, Heredia decided to resign this position “due to the rules of conduct” imposed by the Judicial Power of Peru, because of the investigation she faced into money laundering; meaning, it was not the UN who decided to dispense with their services when they heard about the scandal.
But as if this were not enough, the loss of credibility at the UN is compounded with cases such as that of Venezuelans María Gabriela Chávez and Rafael Ramírez.
The daughter of former President Hugo Chávez Frías was appointed alternate ambassador of Venezuela to the UN. She is the richest woman in the South American country, and one of the richest in the world. According to Forbes magazine, she has more than USD $4 billion in her accounts in Andorra and the United States.
The daughter of the former Venezuelan president is alleged to be involved in an international criminal organization that has links to money laundering activities.
In addition, she has been involved in a scandal related to the sale of overpriced rice in Argentina.
According to the newspaper Clarín, rice shipments were sent to Venezuela, under the auspices of a shadowy firm, which sells rice at inflated prices and whose owners have direct contact with Julio De Vido, former Argentine ambassador in Venezuela, and with María Gabriela Chávez.
Ramirez: money laundering
But the most blatant case of how the UN has become a refuge for serious corruption is that of Rafael Ramírez, who until 2017 was the representative of Venezuela at the UN and had diplomatic immunity.
Currently, Ramírez is being investigated in the United States and Venezuela for corruption in the state oil company PDVSA. In December he went underground after the Maduro regime let him escape.
The former UN official was heavily involved in money laundering in the United States and Europe. Ramírez’s guilt came to light after his brother, Fidel Ramírez Carreño, was accused of falsifying millions of dollars of invoices in order to further the scheme.
The organization also has a serious internal problem with sexual harassment. An extensive investigation by The Guardian accused the UN of having allowed the proliferation of sexual harassment and hostile work environments for its employees in UN offices around the world.
The British newspaper interviewed dozens of current and former employees of the organization, who described a “culture of silence” within its structure. According to the investigation, despite the complaints, all alleged aggressors continued in their jobs.
And, in theory, the UN was created to facilitate cooperation on issues such as international law, international peace and security, economic and social development, humanitarian affairs and human rights. However, these objectives have only been discussed in theory.
Today, this organization not only does not require minimum standards of integrity and experience for its officials, but its independent bodies also leave much to be desired. The Security Council, for example, has remained silent before the dictatorship in Venezuela and disregarded the need for humanitarian intervention in the South American country in the wake of the serious political and economic crises the country is facing.
UN Drafts Resolution: Abortions/Assisted Suicide Are Human Rights
The United Nations Human Rights Council recently declared that abortions are a universal human right in a move that one rabbi sees as a reenactment of drowning Hebrew babies in Egypt. The nascent Sanhedrin reacted by ruling that this is a clear violation of the Noahide laws incumbent upon all humanity, warranting a hearing before the International Court of the Sanhedrin.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) recently drafted a resolution placing the life of the mother ahead of that of the unborn child.
“Although states parties may adopt measures designed to regulate voluntary terminations of pregnancy, such measures must not result in a violation of the right to life of a pregnant woman or girl, or her other rights under the Covenant,” says the draft that passed before the committee last week.
The resolution went one step further, saying that countries should guarantee “safe, legal and effective” access to abortion. It also says that governments should guarantee “boys and girls access to a wide range of affordable contraceptive methods, and prevent the stigmatization of girls seeking an abortion.”
The new resolution from the UNHRC also establishes assisted suicide as a universal human right. The draft of the resolution calls on countries to allow medical professionals to provide treatment to “facilitate the termination of the life of afflicted adults, such as those who are terminally ill, who experience severe physical or mental pain and suffering and who wish to die with dignity.”
Dr. Eli Schussheim, a highly regarded Israeli surgeon who is the director of EFRAT-C.R.I.B, an organization that assists pregnant women who want to give birth but can’t afford to keep their baby.
“There is a trend in the world today to make an ideal out of things that are bad for people,” Dr. Schussheim told Breaking Israel News. “As a doctor, it is my experience that abortions are not for the benefit of women. They harm women. I have not spoken with a single woman who did not deeply regret having an abortion.
“Should a Christian be opposed to globalization?”
Answer: Globalization is “the act extending influence to all parts of the world.” It involves the emergence of a single world market or deregulation resulting in internationalization. At first blush, globalization doesn’t seem all that bad. Globalization seems to hold an answer to the world’s financial troubles, among other things. However, prayerful consideration and research reveal disturbing historical precedence.
The historical form of globalization is military conquest. The Assyrian Empire is an apt example. From the late 25th or early 24th century BC to 605 BC, the Assyrians controlled vast swaths of Babylonia, Egypt, and the Holy Land. While technologically advanced for their time, the Assyrians were also brutal warriors who murdered, tortured and enslaved their enemies. The Assyrians were globalists in that they were bent on world conquest. God used the Assyrians to punish and exile the ten northern tribes of Israel for the wicked things Israel did to provoke the Lord to anger (2 Kings 17).
Probably the most well-known example of historical globalization is the attempted construction of the Tower of Babel in the 21st century BC. Rather than filling the earth as God commanded (Genesis 9:1), mankind rebelled, deciding to centralize in one city and not be scattered over the earth (Genesis 11:4). This construction effort was spearheaded by Noah’s great-grandson, King Nimrod (whose name means “rebel”). God, in response, confused their languages, thus forcing the people to group together by dialect and settle elsewhere (Genesis 11:8-9).
All the empires presented in a dream to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia represent other attempts to institute the one-world government (Daniel 2). Daniel’s prophetic interpretation of the king’s dream is summarized in our article, What is the meaning of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2? It is notable that Nebuchadnezzar envisioned a fifth and final world empire, which is yet to come.
This final empire will be a true global government, ruled by the man known as the Antichrist, also called the beast and the lawless one (Revelation 13:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:8). He will have “authority over every tribe, people, language and nation,” and he, along with the False Prophet, will force all people to take his mark. This future global leader will control all financial transactions (Revelation 13:17) and all religious observance (Revelation 13:8). Refusal to worship the Antichrist means death; acquiescence means eternal punishment from God (Revelation 13:15; 14:9-11).
The Bible, therefore, shows that any time man attempts “globalization” it is ruled by wicked, ungodly empires. We should oppose globalization to the extent that we understand that it is implemented by Satan, currently the god of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4). It is interesting to note that man’s (and Satan’s) final attempt at globalization will include a resurgence of “Babylon,” which started the globalization effort so long ago (see Revelation 18).
Of course, we also know that the “whole world is a prisoner of sin” (Galatians 3:22) and that believers are to “hate evil” (Psalm 97:10). We must shine the light of righteousness into the darkness where we find it, via the gospel message (Matthew 5:16; cf. John 8:12). It is appropriate to rebuke wickedness, and there is much of that to be found in Satan’s version of globalization. However, 1 Peter 2:13 does tell us to “submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men,” and Jesus Himself warned us to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21), so it is required that we keep our opposition within the constraints of the law of the land.
God has a plan for globalization under the headship of the King and Redeemer, Jesus Christ (see Revelation 19–20). Evidently, there will still be individual nations under Christ’s rule (Zechariah 2:10-11). The Kingdom will be a time of righteousness and true justice (Isaiah 11:3-5).
How peaceful and joyful the days of Christ’s Kingdom will be! Isaiah 12:3-4 describes for us, “With joy, you will draw water from the wells of salvation. In that day you will say: ‘Give thanks to the Lord, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted.’” Source
Recommended Resource: The Illuminati by Larry Burkett
John Wesley who said that what we tolerate in our generation, will be embraced by the next. Wesley is 100% correct! We are living in sick times.
HNewsWire- “All political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” Just look at some of our modern-day examples: torture is “enhanced interrogation techniques”; murder is “collateral damage”; the aggression initiation of war is a “pre-emptive strike”; the theft of taxpayers’ money is a “bailout”, and the theft of depositors’ money in a bank is a “haircut” or “bail-in”.In a blatant example of Newspeak, the New World Order controllers (through the psychiatric DSM V) have tried to rename pedophiles as “minor-attracted persons” and redefine pedophilia as “sexual orientation”. This makes no sense since sexual orientation has to do with gender, not age, with whether you are attracted to males or females, not how old they are. There are even organizations (like B4UAct.org) which are claiming that pedophiles are being unfairly stigmatized for their feelings!
Justice is a word that stands alone, adding anything to it demeans it….
The Birth Pains Are Growing Stronger….
“Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of man and devils”…
My name is Steve Meyers and I need to share a vision and warning that the Lord showed me back in April 2007….
Many of you will ask why I waited so long to share the warning. I didn’t. I shared the story with everyone that would listen from pastors to friends to family to colleagues. Immediately following the initial vision, I called a close friend. I told him to sit down that I had something to tell him. I needed it documented as I knew this was supernatural and from God. As I witness events unfolding today, I need to share the vision again.
The risk of loss in trading futures and options on futures can be substantial. The author does not guarantee the accuracy of the above information, although it is believed that the sources are reliable and the information accurate. The author assumes no liability or responsibility for direct or indirect, special, consequential or incidental damages or for any other damages relating or arising out of any action taken as a result of any information or advice contained in this commentary. The author disclaims any express or implied liability or responsibility for any action taken, which is solely at the liability and responsibility of the user. Steve Meyers
The silencing of the American people before 2020?
“The human heart is an idol factory.”
The Un-Godly — Those That Suppress the Truth, the social media giants built multi-billion dollar empires by giving everyone a voice, but now that they have such a dominant position on the Internet they have decided that many prominent conservative voices should be completely silenced.
The Left, a broad term for Liberal Socialist Democrats that can only be explained fully by using the Bible explanation of the human race is as follows. A servant of Satan, because you are either saved or lost. This election has brought out the true nature of who you serve. Simply put, it’s Donald Trump, Conservatives, and Christians against the rest of the world. The Left’s Love applies only to those who believe as they do. They Love evil and commit Anarchy against those who love good. They are governed by lies and never tell the truth. On this Friday, Inaugural Day for the swearing-in of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States the Left wants to commit widespread Anarchy to shut down the swearing-in ceremony. Their goal of transforming America, which was founded in Judea Christian values into a Pagan Nation is almost complete. Their goal has always been the total removal of God from American society and the downfall of America. Donald Trump says he is a Presbyterian, but he left off the USA, an apostate church.
Tagged Under: Banks, hnewswire StevieRay Hansen, HNewsWire, antichrist,digital gulag, antichrists, Apple, Bible, Big Tech, bigotry, Christian baker, Christianity, Christians, Colorado, Colorado Civil Rights Commission, conservatives, deep state, demonic assault, end of days, end times, Facebook, First Amendment, free speech, Google, hate groups, Hate speech
Hunted by the Mob, Found by Christ
The gripping memoirs of the founder of HNewsWire. A binge-worthy afternoon read.
controllers are blood feasting pedophiles, parasitic monsters literally and predatorily feeding off the 8 million children gone missing each year around the world… “Pedophile” has reverberated throughout…Read More
PROTEST PATRIOT PRAYER… A “scoffer” is one who mocks Christ, ridicules the things of God, and opposes the gospel. Both Peter and Jude were writing…Read More
to “Save Lives & Save the Economy”… Several places in the Bible there are references to worthless persons (Deut. 13:13; Judg. 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam. 25:17; 1…Read More
Over Vaccine Side Effects and Will Not Agree That His Family Should Be First in Line for the Vaccines, Yet He Somehow Finds the Nerve…Read More
Never Be Restored, You Will Need Permission to Move From One State to Another State in the Near Future… Not many people realize the freedoms…Read More
and Congressmen in America Will Start Tested Positive for the “Pestilent“ God Speaking Not Many Listen… Rep. Rodney Davis Tests Positive for Coronavirus Taylorville Rep.…Read More
would have us believe, God is not a pacifist. The Bible is filled with examples of God taking bloody vengeance on His enemies (Isaiah 63:3–6; 65:12; Deuteronomy…Read More
Pushing The Envelope on Closing Down Christianity, Newsom’s ‘Tyrannical’ Order Closing California Churches… California Church Prepares to Face 1,000 Misdemeanor Citations for Worshipping During Lockdown…Read More