One Step Too Far


un-agenda-2030

The United Nations (UN) has been unjustifiably harsh to the Jewish State of Israel for decades. The UN has taken up the cause of Muslim nations that are closer than despotism than a democratic republic process of governing. As most Americans I am a supporter of Israel’s existence unlike most Muslims, especially the Muslim Arabs that have adopted the name Palestinian.

 

The UN hatred of Israel is good enough for me for America to pull out of the UN and defund our support for that now very crooked international body. AND YET there are many more reasons for the USA to leave the UN. Justin Smith goes over some of those reasons in which the UN has an agenda to fray the sovereign borders of all nations.

 

JRH 11/18/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

One Step Too Far

Repeal the United Nations Participation Act 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/16/2017 7:17 AM

 

One more day should not pass before the United States Congress votes to immediately halt all funding to the United Nations and end our membership in the U.N., largely comprised of our enemies, which falsely presents itself as an organization dedicated to worldwide freedom, liberty and “social justice” for all. Not only does the U.N. support terrorism, it is anti-American and anti-Israeli, and through U.N. schemes, like Agenda 2030 and “sustainable development”, the U.N. promotes tyranny and the subversion of any mechanism for freedom, such as our U.S. Constitution, thus promoting the suppression of the unalienable rights of all mankind.

 

The U.N. claims that it seeks to create a peaceful world and protect human rights, and yet, many of the world’s most troublesome and violent nations and human rights violators — Russia, China, Indonesia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Cuba — sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council. One should recall that the United States was removed from the U.N. Human Rights High Commission in 2001, in retaliation for the U.S.’s defense of Israel, an all-time high point for U.N. hostility towards the U.S.

 

U.S. taxpayers’ money far too often is placed against American values and interests, whenever the United States gives it to the U.N. This occurs because the U.N. majority of votes is held by the undemocratic 57 member nations of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the 120 member Non-Aligned Movement, chaired by Iran from 2012 to 2015. And so, the U.N.’s World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, heavily funded by the U.S., was able to pass dual-use nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, without batting an eye.

 

Did this promote peace? And does arming and supplying Hamas terrorists promote peace?

 

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees has embedded itself with Hamas terrorists, who have formed close ties with the Islamic State over the past two years, and rocket arsenals have been found numerous times in UNRWA’s U.S. funded schools. UNRWA-provided construction materials are used in Hamas tunnels, which are staging areas for terrorist attacks that kill innocent Israeli citizens; and, the Leftist Obama administration must tacitly approve of this Palestinian initiative, since it has sent $380 million annually to the UNRWA.

 

In 2011, did the Durban III Conference in New York and the U.N. legitimization of the Palestinian recognition initiative promote peace or an OIC agenda?

 

Shortly after Durban III, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton noted: “You just don’t read about it, you just don’t hear about it in the media. But the pervasiveness of the anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism is there as an undercurrent — all the time.”

 

And if the December 23rd, 2016 UN Resolution 2334 is not one step too far for the American people, just how far will we go with the U.N.’s madness? Not much further, I suspect, especially once one looks at the U.N. Resolution 16/18, the Small Arms Treaty and Agenda 2030.

 

With the treason gene dancing nimbly through her mind daily in December 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton colluded with the 57 Islamic nations of the OIC to abrogate the First Amendment. They met in New York City to formulate a strategy that would convince the U.S. Senate to ratify U.N. Resolution 16/18, which criminalizes any criticism of Islam, essentially criminalizing free speech and a bedrock of our U.S. Constitution and our American heritage.

 

The Small Arms Treaty, adopted in April 2013, is another anti-American U.N. initiative aimed at the Second Amendment. It prohibits exporting conventional weapons, including personal firearms, to nations with poor human rights records. Since U.N. officials regularly fabricate “human rights abuses” against the U.S., this “treaty” would be a strong nuisance, if applied against us. Registration of all firearm imports down to the final purchaser is also demanded, which would be used as the next step towards private firearms confiscation and heavily resisted in America.

 

The U.N. currently strives to implement Agenda 2030, with its expected $3 to $5 trillion annual price-tag, and its undisguised plan for global socialism and fascism [i.e. corporatism]. Goal Ten calls on U.N. members and every single person worldwide to “reduce inequality within and among countries”, which can only be made possible, according to the U.N., “if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed”. Basically, this confiscates Western wealth, shrinks their economies through Big Government policies and “redistributes” [gives] their money to authoritarian/ totalitarian Third World regimes, rather than their impoverished victims, keeping the tyrants in power.

 

Agenda 2030’s premise that the world’s current rate of consumption is “unsustainable” is based on fallacies straight out of Malthusian philosophy. The West does not have to reduce their consumption of everything — meat, cars, electrical appliances, convenience foods, air-conditioning, or expansive and modest housing — as suggest by U.N. globalists, in order that poor countries can have more and the world can achieve a “sustainable” balance. All that is required is keeping the independent spirit of freedom alive that opens the creative and innovative minds of men, which has always led to a prosperous reality.

 

Agenda 2030 will be forced on all the citizens of nations willing to use government coercion. Nowhere does it protect individual rights and the unalienable rights granted to all men by our Creator. Its ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ absolutely denies individuals parental control over their children and the right to self-defense.

 

Thankfully, U.N. treaties, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed by any U.S. President do not hold any enforceable weight of law, even through “customary international law”, without the U.S. Senate’s imprimatur and a two-thirds majority vote, contrary to assertions by globalists, American leftists and Obama’s State Department. And even then, the U.S. Constitution cannot be superseded by international law.

 

Is it any wonder that former U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced legislation every year he was in Congress to withdraw our membership in the U.N.?

 

All Americans, who wish to preserve freedom and liberty for their children’s children and beyond, must eradicate the U.N.’s clear and present danger to the sovereignty and survival of the United States. We must fervently urge President Donald Trump and the 115th Congress to totally repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and expel the U.N. from the United States completely, releasing the $7.7 billion wasted on the U.N.’s validation of tyrants for better uses in America. And from this day ’til the end of time, let America stand only with those nations that are willing to bear any burden and fight the good fight against any foe to assure that future generations live in Freedom and Liberty.

 

By Justin O Smith

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

The Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination Exposed


All Seeing Eye Genocide

 

John R. Houk

© June 23, 2011

 

This exposé demonstrates the thinking of the Obama Administration with his thoughts of “change”.

 

To those that are unfamiliar with anti-population terms of the early to middle 20th century here is a micro-primer that is in this post.

 

Malthusianism

 

The origin of apocalyptic overpopulation theory

 

In his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Malthus argued that the growth in the food supply is linear, whereas the growth in the population rate is exponential. Whenever the population exceeds the food supply, social turmoil erupts until drastic checks such as famines, wars, and epidemics lowered populations down to sustainable levels. The only way to avoid periodic disaster is to implement strict population controls, which have historically included both voluntary restraints, as well as coercive measures such as limits on family size and mass sterilization of “undesirable groups.”

 

Malthus was wrong

 

Malthus predicted a population crash by the middle of the 19th century. In reality, living standards have increased over sixty times since 1820 despite a tripling of the European population in the 18th century.1 Meanwhile, family sizes fell naturally without the need for coercive measures.

Nevertheless, modern Malthusians perpetually extend the date of the inevitable apocalypse to the near future. Faced with the astounding growth of agricultural yields which virtually eliminated hunger in the West, environmentalists are continually discovering new resources to run out of, whether fossil fuels, metals, land, or water.

The discrepancy is explained by two errors in the Malthusian model: the population growth rate is not exponential, while the potential growth in human productivity is.

 

Read More at the Malthusianism Link.

 

 

Neo-Malthusianism

 

Ehrlich, one of the prominent thinkers in the neo-Malthusian tradition, argues that ‘…civilization is in imminent serious jeopardy.’ [6] The roots of the problems are mainly to be found in Asia and Africa where populations are growing the fastest. He continues by saying that population growth at current levels is a relatively new phenomenon, and has particularly occurred from the 1950s onwards, but has roots back to the industrial revolution. Despite this, the problem, he argues, lies in the fact that population does not grow so fast that it is perceived by individuals, and hence not regarded as a problem. If we do not end the population increase, he predicts, there is a real chance that nature will do it for us. [7] This reasoning stems from a view that environmental degradation is caused by how many people there are, and not how many resources they use, a criticism that will explored below.

 

Ehrlich further argues that instead of having nature controlling the population for us, we have to do so ourselves, as this will be a more human way than having ‘nature wiping out the surplus’ of human population. Population growth is labelled a cancer-like disease that needs to be treated by lowering birth-rates to just under the human death rate, through the use of contraceptions. [8] He also believed that if policies of population control were not accepted willingly, they should be forced, like in India where he advocated that all men with more than 3 children should be forcibly sterilised. He has also glorified China’s one-child policy. It is such an attitude that has helped justify incidents of forces sterilisation that has taken place in Africa and other parts of the developing world. [9] [Full disclosure: two typos were corrected]

 

To read of the variations of Neo-Malthusianism read this rather tongue-in-cheek toned essay entitled, “The definitive guide to modern-day Malthusians”.

 

Anti-Human Ideology

 

The global warming dispute starts with a doctrine which claims that the rough coexistence of climate changes, of growing temperatures and of man-made increments of CO2 in the atmosphere — and what is more, only in a relatively short period of time — is a proof of a causal relationship between these phenomena. To the best of my knowledge there is no such relationship between them. It is, nevertheless, this claim that forms the basis for the doctrine of environmentalism.

 

It is not a new doctrine. It has existed under various headings and in various forms and manifestations for centuries, always based on the idea that the starting point of our thinking should be the Earth, the planet or nature, not man or mankind. It has always been accompanied by the plan that we have to come back to the original state of the Earth, unspoiled by us, humans. The adherents of this doctrine have always considered us, the people, a foreign element. They forget that it doesn’t make sense to speak about the world without people because there would be no one to speak. If we take the reasoning of the environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology. (Read the Rest …)

 

 

John P. Holdren

 

John P. Holdren has been named President Barack Obama’s ‘Science Czar.”

 

Holdren’s official titles are: Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (Kathy Shaidle)

 

 

In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative “to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth.” That same year, he and professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: “If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”

In 1971 Holdren and Ehrlich warned that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.”

Viewing capitalism as an economic system that is inherently harmful to the natural environment, Holdren and Ehrlich (in their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions) called for “a massive campaign … to de-develop the United States” and other Western nations in order to conserve energy and facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. “De-development,” they said, “means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” “By de-development,” they elaborated, “we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.” The authors added:

 

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

 

On another occasion, Holdren, when asked whether Americans would “need to reduce their living standards,” said:

 

“I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.”

 

… (Discover The Networks excerpt)

 

Paul Ehrlich

 

 

Ehrlich started his academic career as an entomologist, an expert on Lepidoptera – butterflies.  But in 1968 he wrote one of the biggest best-sellers in the history of pseudo-scientific literature, The Population Bomb.  In it, Ehrlich reprised the work of Thomas Malthus, arguing that population growth would eventually, inevitably lead mankind to three choices:  Stop making new humans, stop consuming resources, or starve to death.  The book started “The battle to feed all of humanity is over … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” He spent much of the next decade writing other books and articles in support of his thesis in Population Bomb, adding in a later article “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people.” The book and his body of “work” through the seventies proposed a number of radical solutions to the overpopulation crisis; dumping sterilizing agents into water supplies, allowing only selected people the privilege of reproduction, and performing mass “triage” of nations, the same way an emergency room triages patients – …

 

By the mid-seventies, though Ehrlich broadened his sights a bit, beyond overpopulation and into geopolitics.  In 1975′s The End of Affluence, Ehrlich predicted cataclysmic food riots in America, leading the President to declare martial law.  But it did no good – in Ehrlich’s narrative – because the world was driven to destroy the US in a combined nuclear assault, spurred by our use of…

 

…pesticides.

 

He broadened it further with 1978′s The Race Bomb, which was a paranoid melange on the dangers of racial diversity, followed by The Golden Door: International Migration, Mexico, and the United States, in which he called for sealing off the border long before it became Tom Tancredo’s issue.

 

By the eighties, he’d joined with much of the left’s elite (who were, by the by, not busy participating in food riots or race wars, and were well-fed enough to go to protests) in warning about the danger of nuclear war, joining with Carl Sagan to write The Cold And The Dark, demanding the US disarm just in time for our generations of deterrence to render the point moot with the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

He was, of course, early on the Climate Change bandwagon, with Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environment Rhetoric Threatens Our Future, a 1998 book co-authored with his wife Anne, which basically served as a model for the left’s response to questions about Global Warming this past decade – he didn’t call for Nuremberg trials per se, but he wasn’t that far off, either.

 

 

He’s (sic) blamed Western Civilization – especially our economic freedom – for successive waves of self-caused, predicted catastrophes.

 

He’s (sic) prescription to deal with these catastrophes has been, in every case, for the individual to surrender his/her autonomy, and even future, to an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful central entity that’ll make all the hard, life and death choices for them.

 

… (Ehrlich’s lifetime of hot air; Mitch Berg; Hot Air, 3/7/2010)

 

 

Planetary Regime

 

White House science czar John Holdren has called for the United States to surrender sovereignty to a “Planetary Regime” armed with sufficient military power to enforce population limits on nations as a means of preventing a wide range of perceived dangers from global eco-disasters involving Earth’s natural resources, climate, atmosphere and oceans.

 

As previously reported, WND has obtained and reviewed a copy of the 1970s college textbook “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” that Holdren co-authored with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich’s wife, Anne. The authors argued that involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by “climate change.”

 

On page 943, the authors recommended the creation of a “Planetary Regime” created to act as an “international superagency for population, resources, and environment.”

 

The authors argued, “Such a Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist.” (Holdren sought ‘planetary regime’; Jerome Corsi; WND, 10/10/2009)

 

Climate Change

 

2007-03-21 — WDC Media News — WASH—Mar 20—DJNS– The President of the Czech Republic , Vaclav Klaus responded in a letter to questions from U.S. Congressmen about global warming. Klaus is a free market economist and has seen first hand the debate in Europe over global warming. He told Congressmen, “As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.” Klaus said that this ideology preaches earth and nature and wants a “central (now global) planning of the whole world.”

Klaus said, “The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making.” Klaus has revealed the spirit behind global warming, it is the spirit of communism by another name. (The Communist Influence Of Global Warming; Bill Wilson; PR with a Higher Purpose; 3-21-07)

 

JRH 6/22/11

*****************************

The Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination

Exposed by Dr. Webster Tarpley 1/4

 

Posted by Tomas Carter

Post on June 19, 2011

InChristNetwork (Registration and Approval Needed)

 

In this interview, Dr. Tarpley reviews the writings of John P. Holdren, the current White House science advisor. This interview conclusively exposes scientific elite’s true agenda: world-wide genocide and the formation of a global government to rule.

 

Historian and author Webster Tarpley exposes how White House science czar John P. Holdren, who infamously co-wrote a 1977 textbook in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children, is a Malthusian fanatic in the tradition of the arcane anti-human ideology that originated amongst British aristocracy in the 19th century.

 

Holdren calls himself a “neo-Malthusian” in his own book, and as Tarpley explains, is a historical pessimist who has rejected the idea that America and humanity as a whole can progress through ingenuity, industry and economic growth. Instead, Holdren sees humankind as a cancer upon the earth.

 

Holdren wants to set up a “Science Court,” where potential developments could be blocked by government decree if they don’t conform to the planned society necessary under Holdren’s “planetary regime”. He also seeks to institute “de-development” worldwide to prevent the third world from ever lifting itself out of poverty and roll things back to “pre-industrial civilization” where average life spans would not be much more than 30 years.

 

Holdren’s co-author, Paul Ehrlich, is a discredited crank who wrote books in the 70’s claiming that England would not exist as a land mass by the year 2000 because of climate change. As Tarpley explains, Ehrlich’s warning of a “population bomb” has proven incorrect, with population in Europe, Japan and the United States falling when immigration is removed from the equation.

 

Not a member? CLICK HERE https://prisonplanet.tv/amember/signup.php to subscribe now!

 

[SlantRight Editor: you can read the entire Prison Planet article HERE.]