Freedom First Society

The UN’s IPCC Climate Fraud

“As the world battles historic droughts, landscape-altering wildfires and deadly floods, a landmark report from global scientists says the window is rapidly closing to cut our reliance on fossil fuels and avoid catastrophic changes that would transform life as we know it….

“Only by making deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, while also removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, can we halt the precipitous trend.” — “Earth is warming faster than previously thought, scientists say, and the window is closing to avoid catastrophic outcomes,” CNN.com (8-9-21)

“The UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the Working Group’s report was nothing less than ‘a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk. Global heating is affecting every region on Earth, with many of the changes becoming irreversible.’” — “Secretary-General’s statement on the IPCC Working Group 1 Report on the Physical Science Basis of the Sixth Assessment,” www.UN.org, August 9, 2021

Note: Guterres is a member of the Portuguese Socialist Party and former president of the Socialist International.

“We can’t solve the climate crisis without getting out of our cars and onto buses and trains.” — Opinion, MarketWatch.com (updated August 10, 2021).

It’s About Power
Seven years after its last report, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a new report in early August. As usual, it was alarmist and postured as reflecting scientific consensus. Naturally, the Establishment media quickly echoed the alarm.

However, the UN’s game plan is clear, once one understands the forces that created and control the UN and also control the environmental revolutionary movement. The objective of those forces is to control us by creating pretexts for unaccountable government power, and those forces use revolutionaries to create pressure from below to justify their power grabs.

The UN’s game plan is not new. It was clearly revealed at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. After attending the event and witnessing the political realities, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray wrote an authoritative expose, Environmental Overkill — Whatever Happened to Common Sense? Dr. Ray was the former governor of the state of Washington and chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.

On page 10, Dr. Ray summarized: “The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED [UN Conference on Environment and Development — the Earth Summit], is to bring about a change in the present system of nations. The future is to be world government, with central planning by the UN. Fear of environmental crises, whether real or not, is expected to lead to compliance.”

Revolutionaries need crises to propel those power grabs. The climate change crisis hype serves the same purpose as the government’s use of a COVID pandemic — to expand the power of government. The climate change “crisis,” in particular, is designed to limit our access to energy by forcing reliance on expensive and inadequate alternative energy sources, leading to government managed rationing.

Cloaked as “Science”
To support its wild claims, the IPCC makes use of computer climate models, which are designed to be alarmist. The IPCC’s climate models are notoriously deficient in predicting reality.

Anticipating the Report’s release, Science Magazine (July 30, 2021) questioned the IPCC projections — see “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming.”

To achieve credibility for its forecast, the UN touts the fact that representatives of 195 member countries have signed off on the report. But this just shows the IPCC’s desperation, since the unanimous consensus of corrupted member governments does not reflect either overwhelming scientific agreement or truth.

Indeed, many competent, uncorrupted scientists dispute the thesis that manmade CO₂ is responsible for global warming. One such is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, now retired. In June of last year, he wrote:

Climate science didn’t used to be alarmist prior to the late 1980s. That changed during the years 1988-1994, when climate research centered on CO2 and global warming received a 15-fold increase in funding in the US alone. Suddenly there was a great financial incentive to propel alarming global warming scenarios.¹ (See also his comments in our 2018 post “UN Climate-Change Hysteria.”)

Another noteworthy dissenter was the late great Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson. Dyson performed pioneering work in areas such as quantum field theory and astrophysics. In 2018, Dyson argued: “If they did not scare the public they wouldn’t get support from the government.”²

In response to the widespread hype that the science was settled, and efforts to demonize dissenters, the Global Warming Petition Project was created in 1998 (following the Kyoto treaty). The Project shows that many scientists rejected the UN enforced orthodoxy. The petition states in part:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The petition was introduced with a letter form Physicist Frederick Seitz, former President of the U.S. Academy of Sciences. In response, the petition was signed by over 30,000 Americans with university degrees in science including 9,000 with PhDs. Just one of many notable signers: the late Dr. Edward Teller, known colloquially as “the father of the hydrogen bomb.”

Of course, if the media mentions such dissent at all, it demonizes the dissent out of hand.

The climate change scare serves several totalitarian objectives. The scarcity and rationing objective was cited above. But another one that has emerged is the result of the government’s highly successful regimentation of society using the COVID scare. Climate activists are jealous of that success. For example, former Secretary of State John Kerry suggested: “You could just as easily replace the words climate change with COVID-19; it is truly the tale of two pandemics deferred, denied, and distorted, one with catastrophic consequences, the other with even greater risk if we don’t reverse course.”³ Kerry is now the 1st United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the Biden administration.

Please share this post with the people you know who will likely be interested.

Notes:

Richard S. Lindzen, “An Oversimplified Picture of Climate Behavior Based on a Single Process Can Lead to Distorted Conclusions,” European Physical Journal Plus 135, no. 6 (June 2020): 462, https://doi.org/10.11.40/epip/s13360-020-471-z..]
Freeman Dyson in “The Uncertainty Has Settled (Full film),” Marijn Poels, November 7, 2018, YouTube video, 1:09:35–1:14:15, https://youtu.be/GuoxLggqI_g.
Rachel Koning Beals, “Covid-19 and Climate Change: ‘The Parallels Are Screaming at Us,’ Says John Kerry,” Market-Watch, April 22, 2020, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/covid-19-and-climate-change-the-parallels-are-screaming-at-us-says-john-kerry-2020-04-22.

The W.H.O. Cover-up

President Donald Trump announced Tuesday [4-15] he is halting funding to the World Health Organization while a review is conducted.

Trump said the review would cover the WHO’s “role in severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of coronavirus.” [Emphasis added.] — CNN.com (4-15-20)

President Trump’s announcement unleashed a firestorm of media and partisan controversy. As so often, the controversy mimicked the entertaining hype for a professional wrestling match, an exaggerated conflict between two sides, while covering up the reality that freedom is the loser regardless of the outcome. (A month later, on May 29 (left), he announced a decision to terminate funding unconditionally.)

On the one side, the President’s supporters piled on with the complaints about W.H.O. and how it needed to be reformed. Fox News analyst Gordon C. Chiang argued:

The president’s action is the first step needed to spark meaningful reform of the United Nations organization and the global health architecture. — “Trump right to stop funding World Health Organization over its botched coronavirus response,” foxnews.com, 4-14-20

On the other side, the President’s opponents claimed that the timing in the middle of a pandemic was irresponsible, as the world depended so much on the great work of W.H.O. This criticism by Nicholas Kristof, a member of the world-government promoting Council on Foreign Relations, is hardly surprising:

Trump’s announcement that he is halting American funding for the W.H.O. just as the world is facing a raging pandemic is a dangerous attempt to find a scapegoat for his own failings. It is like taking away a fire department’s trucks in the middle of a blaze. — “Trump’s Deadly Search for a Scapegoat,” New York Times, 4-15-20

But both the pro- and anti-W.H.O. positions serve to keep Americans unaware of the real looming Internationalist threat of which W.H.O. is just one part. Indeed, W.H.O.’s overriding mission, as one of the UN’s system of agencies, is to convince the world that the solution to global problems lies in giving more power to Insider-controlled institutions.

The President’s criticism, however, is the most damaging because he enjoys an undeserved conservative image. His criticism reinforces the deadly deception regarding the positive purpose of these institutions, while ignoring their subversive designs by those with a grip on Washington. It is, therefore, horribly misleading.

Moreover, calls for reform of the World Health Organization serve to cover up its subversive origins and purpose. Indeed, the demand for reforms has long been a useful Internationalist Establishment tactic for deflecting serious opposition. In particular, conservative demands for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN have repeatedly been deflected by Establishment calls for reform — which go nowhere, of course.

W.H.O.’s Subversive Origins and Purpose
So what is being covered up about the origins and purpose of the UN and its agencies?

Let’s start by recalling that the leading figure at the UN’s founding conference was secret Soviet agent Alger Hiss, later convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison. We recorded the media-suppressed background to these organizations in Masters of Deception – The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]:

Alger Hiss (1950)

In April of 1945, the founding conference for the UN began in San Francisco, lasting into June (Japan did not surrender until August). Alger Hiss served as the acting secretary-general of the conference, helping to finalize the UN Charter. Time magazine commented in advance of the conference: “As secretary-general, managing the agenda, [Hiss] will have a lot to say behind the scenes about who gets the breaks.”…

Alger Hiss became a member of the CFR in 1945….

We do not mean to suggest that the CFR leaders were in any way snookered, or even surprised, by the Soviet agents in their midst. The San Francisco conference was almost entirely a CFR show. More than 40 of the American delegates to the San Francisco conference were or would later become CFR members, only a portion of whom would subsequently be identified as Communists. Among the Establishment CFR members present were Isaiah Bowman (founding CFR member); Nelson Rockefeller; future Secretary of State John Foster Dulles (founding CFR member); and John J. McCloy (future chairman of the CFR).

The UN purchased land for its headquarters in New York with a $8.5 million gift from John D. Rockefeller, Jr. — pp. 56, 57.

A few years later, in 1952, Senator James O. Eastland, the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, would charge: “[T]here is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this Committee has ever encountered.” And, of course the employees from the Communist bloc nations were Communist. So, it shouldn’t have been surprising to find the UN and its agencies working an anti-freedom agenda.

And now, Republican voices, such as Nikki Haley, President Trump’s former ambassador to the UN, are conveniently directing attention away from the continuing role of US Insiders, claiming that we need to curtail Communist China’s influence. And many GOP congressmen have adopted the focus on China as a useful reelection strategy.

However, US Insiders played a key role in betraying our former ally the Republic of China (Taiwan) and bringing Mao Tse Tung to power in China. In consolidating his tyranny, Mao would liquidate millions of Chinese. Trilateralist and David Rockefeller protégé President Jimmy Carter would abrogate our treaty with Taiwan and recognize and support instead Communist China. And US Insiders, such as President Trump’s friend Henry Kissinger, would work to build Red China into a World Power.

So it’s really no surprise that Communist China has had great influence in the W.H.O. Indeed, China’s influence is by design and addressing the resulting problems is a distraction. The real focus should be on the designers — the global tyranny-promoting Internationalists who created the UN and have solidified their grip on our government.

And that is also the focus of this post. But for those readers who would like more of the story of the perfidy surrounding this incredible deception, please read on.

W.H.O.’s Communist-Socialist Beginnings

W.H.O. got underway in 1948. On its 10th anniversary, J.B. Matthews, a former research director for congressional committees investigating communism in America, surveyed W.H.O.’s beginnings in an article for the May 1958 issue of American Opinion magazine:

WHO’s Constitution opens with a statement that nine “principles are basic to the happiness, harmonious relations and security of all peoples.” They are listed as follows:

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

“The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

“The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent upon the fullest co-operation of individuals and States.

“The achievement of any State in the promotion and protection of health is of value to all.

“Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of disease, especially communicable disease, is a common danger.

“Healthy development of the child is of basic importance; the ability to live harmoniously in a changing total environment is essential to such development.

“The extension to all peoples of the benefits of medical, psychological and related knowledge is essential to the fullest attainment of health.

“Informed opinion and active cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.

“Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.”

Before commenting on the extraordinary nature of this set of basic principles, it will be pertinent to call attention to a booklet of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which praised the World Health Organization. Published on the eve of the formal launching of WHO, this booklet’s preface, written by none other than Mr. Alger Hiss, contained the following statement: “The new specialized agency carries on one of the most successful parts of the work of the League of Nations. The Constitution of the World Health Organization, however, has a far wider basis than that established for the League organization, and embodies in its provisions the broadest principles in public health service to day. Defining health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’, it includes not only the more conventional fields of activity but also mental health, housing, nutrition, economic or working conditions, and administrative and social techniques affecting public health.”

It would be difficult to imagine any area of human thought or activity— private or public, individual or collective—not covered by the definition of health set forth in WHO’s Constitution….

Brock Chisholm (R) — 1st Director-General of W.H.O

Brock Chisholm [the first Director-General of the World Health Organization (1948–1953) and later awarded “Humanist of the Year,” (1959) by the American Humanist Association] … wrote as follows: “History is studded with critical dates —wars, invasions, revolutions, discoveries, peace treaties—that are firmly implanted in our minds…. This document [WHO’s Constitution] may well go down in history as one of the most far-reaching of all international agreements…. The World Health Organization is a positive creative force with broad objectives, reaching forward to embrace nearly all levels of human activity.”

The powers of the World Health Assembly, as set forth in Chapter IV of WHO’s Constitution, were shrewdly defined. In Article 19, we read: “The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization.” As we have seen, there is no matter which is not within the competence of WHO.

In Article 20, we read: “Each Member [State] undertakes that it will, within eighteen months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention or agreement within the time limit it will furnish a statement of the reasons for non-acceptance.” The power of enforcement of the Health Assembly’s decisions lies in the stigma of non-compliance on the part of a Member State.

Dr. Brock Chisholm, who had more than anyone else to do with the writing of WHO’s Constitution, has explained that the aforementioned provisions of Chapter IV incorporated a “new principle of international law” by circumventing the usual procedures for the ratification of international conventions or agreements. The Member States, in ratifying WHO’s Constitution at the beginning of their membership in the organization, signed a blank check to be bound by such regulations as should be adopted by the World Health Assembly in the future unless they formally notified the Director-General of non-compliance. “The long, slow, and usually never completed process of ratification by each government of an international convention is thus avoided,” says Dr. Chisholm.

Gro Harlem Brundtland

To conclude review of the development of W.H.O., we take a look at one of W.H.O.’s later director-generals, Gro Harlem Brundtland. Brundtlandt, the former socialist prime minister of Norway, was elected 1st Vice President of the Socialist International in 1992. In 1998, W.H.O.’s governing body elected her as the director-general of W.H.O. for a five-year term. But let’s back up.

In 1983, UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar appointed Brundtland to chair the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), the UN’s agency pushing the economically advanced nations to adopt “sustainable development.” WCED subsequently became known as the Brundtland Commission.

Gro Harlem Brundtland has championed expanded UN authority in virtually all areas. At the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, she argued that “the nation state is too small an arena for addressing regional and global challenges related to the environment and development.”

UN socialists, such as Brundtland, work comfortably with CFR leaders (e.g., Brundtland with Jeffrey Sachs (CFR)). CFR leaders, the real architects of the UN, comfortably control their creation, while on the surface the UN pretends to be a democracy of nations. But that is another story.

Reinforcing the World Government Ruse

In the January/February 2020 Foreign Affairs, Fareed Zakaria, Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) heavyweight and former editor of its Foreign Affairs, argues against a policy of active confrontation with Communist China. His lengthy article concludes with:

China presents a new and large challenge. But if Washington can keep its cool and patiently continue to pursue a policy of engagement plus deterrence, forcing China to adjust while itself adjusting to make space for it, some scholar decades from now might write about the United States’ not-so-secret plan to expand the zone of peace, prosperity, openness, and decent governance across the globe — a marathon strategy that worked. [Emphasis added.]

In support of his conclusion, Zakaria brazenly distorts history — largely through deceptive omission and by relying on Establishment sources pushing the same distortions. As an aside, promoting “decent governance across the globe” has never been a CFR objective!

Since the CFR has achieved dominant influence over our government, it is worth examining what Foreign Affairs covers up in Zakaria’s “The New China Scare — Why America Shouldn’t Panic About Its Latest Challenger.” Actually, America should panic about the influence of the CFR!

Cover-up #1: How China Fell Under Communism

Zakaria’s analysis cleverly ignores the fact that U.S. policymakers, combined with CFR influence, enabled the Communists to take over China, turning China into an adversary. Why did they do so? Major reasons: The CFR’s drive to establish world government needs conflict as a pretext for change, and a Communist government, already dominating its population, would, at some point, be easier to integrate.

We documented that history in Masters of Deception — The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations. Here is an excerpt:

[I[n early 1946 the Nationalist forces [under U.S. ally Chiang Kai-shek] had Mao’s Reds on the run. However, Truman had sent General George C. Marshall to China to mediate the fighting, and Marshall forced Chiang to accept a cease-fire (one of several). As recorded by Freda Utley:

“In the interval that followed, General Marshall and President Truman took steps to prevent the Nationalist forces from obtaining arms and ammunition. At the end of July 1946 General Marshall clamped an embargo on the sale of arms and ammunition to China….”

Marshall would boast: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions, now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them.” Stockpiles of arms on their way to Chiang were actually destroyed in India. The Soviets, meanwhile, equipped Mao with vast stores of U.S. military supplies Truman had provided Stalin for the assault on Japan….

On January 25, 1949, John F. Kennedy, a young second-term congressman from Massachusetts, rose on the floor of the House of Representatives to protest the actions of his party’s president:

“Mr. Speaker, over this weekend we have learned the extent of the disaster that has befallen China and the United States. The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State. The continued insistence that aid would not be forthcoming, unless a coalition government with the Communists were formed, was a crippling blow to the National Government.”

A few days later, he would summarize his protest in words that could be applied to the future handling of Vietnam: “What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away.”

But the policies that betrayed the Chinese people had a much more subversive intent — world tyranny through world government.

In his opening sentence, Zakaria harkens back to 1947 and how President Truman would exaggerate a threat of Communist insurgency in Greece to sell what was to be called the Marshall Plan. And he draws a parallel to stoking exaggerated fears of China today. However, the real deception in the Marshall Plan were its objects — socializing European governments and European unification. As we recorded in Masters of Deception:

At the end of World War II, Congress approved the European Recovery Program (ERP) — a program of massive aid to Europe, popularly known as the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was actually developed by a CFR study group — headed by Charles M. Spofford with David Rockefeller as secretary. Marshall’s name was used to elicit bipartisan support….

Recognizing American political sentiments, however, President Truman cleverly sold the foreign aid as a means to help stop the spread of Communism.

In general, American Insiders have used foreign aid to saddle recipient nations with socialist policies and governments. The ERP certainly followed that pattern. But in Europe the aid was also used to promote European unification. [Regional governments were to be steppingstones to world government, accomplished by masquerading the early steps as mere trade agreements. NAFTA and the USMCA would follow the pattern in this hemisphere. See Chapter 7 Progressive Regionalization.]

Cover-up #2: How Communist China Became a World Power

Zakaria: “Formulating an effective response requires starting with a clear understanding of the United States’ China strategy up to this point. What the new [ostensible, public] consensus misses is that in the almost five decades since U.S. President Richard Nixon’s opening to Beijing, U.S. policy toward China has never been purely one of engagement; it has been a combination of engagement and deterrence.

“In the late 1970s, U.S. policymakers concluded that integrating China into the global economic and political system was better than having it sit outside it, resentful and disruptive. But Washington coupled that effort with consistent support for other Asian powers—including, of course, continued arms sales to Taiwan. That approach, sometimes described as a “hedging strategy,” ensured that as China rose, its power was checked and its neighbors felt secure.”

Obviously, a much stronger check would have been not to have enabled the Communist takeover of China in the first place! But beyond that, Washington, in line with the policy of CFR elites, has enabled Communist China to become an economic powerhouse and a credible military threat.

Here are examples of that assistance, using excerpts from Masters of Deception:

In 1967, presidential candidate Richard Nixon wrote “Asia After Vietnam” for Foreign Affairs, in which he advocated opening diplomatic relations with Communist China. After his election victory the following year, Nixon tapped numerous CFR members to fill key positions in his administration — including Henry Kissinger, who would implement this next step in the continuing Insider betrayal of the Chinese people.
[Winston] Lord had accompanied Kissinger on his secret trip to Beijing in 1971. Lord would join the CFR in 1973 and serve as its president between 1977 and 1985.

Nixon thus began a U.S. policy spanning several administrations of building Red China into a modern world power. Favored U.S. firms were encouraged to invest in China, even relocating operations to China where they could operate more profitably, with their investments protected by the U.S. government.

The Insider-created policy toward China contributed to the de-industrialization of this country, while also providing a “carrot” (reinforced by U.S. regulatory “sticks”) to encourage manufacturing flight. The result has been a significant erosion of the American middle class. Cheaper goods in the stores haven’t offset declining opportunities for quality jobs.

Ever since Nixon opened trade relations with China, the CFR has promoted massive transfers of capital and technology to the Red regime, helping it to become a new “superpower,” while decimating America’s industrial and manufacturing capacity.

On August 30, 1982, President Reagan signed a determination that “it is in the national interest for the Export-Import Bank of the United States to extend a credit and guarantee in the aggregate amount of $68,425,000 to the People’s Republic of China in connection with its purchase of steel making equipment and related services.”

For decades, the U.S. government under a watchful American public had refused Communist demands to recognize Red China as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan.

However, the handwriting was on the wall. The ascendancy of Communist power in China had been supported from the beginning by CFR elites. In 1971, the ROC was forced out of the UN, and its seat as a permanent member of the Security Council was given to Communist China.

In December of 1978, President Carter announced on national television that the U.S. would be extending diplomatic recognition to the Communist Peking regime and withdrawing formal diplomatic recognition from our ally on Taiwan. President Carter proceeded unilaterally to cancel our treaties with Taiwan, including the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty.

When President Jimmy Carter severed all diplomatic ties with the Republic of China on Taiwan, Ronald Reagan correctly termed the action an “outright betrayal of a close friend and ally.” However, as president, Reagan made no effort to reverse the Carter betrayal, and U.S. trade with the Red regime continued to increase.

Moreover, in August 1982, Reagan issued a joint communiqué with Peking stating that the U.S. “does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan.” Adding insult to injury, in 1986, the Reagan administration got Congress to approve the sale of $560 million in advanced electronics to Red China, giving its fighters an all-weather capability superior to Taiwan’s.

Cover-up #3: Communist Genocide in China

Zakaria: “Let’s be clear: China is a repressive regime that engages in thoroughly illiberal policies, from banning free speech to interning religious minorities. Over the last five years, it has intensified its political control and economic statism at home. Abroad, it has become a competitor and in some places a rival of the United States. But the essential strategic question for Americans today is, Do these facts make China a vital threat, and to the extent that they do, how should that threat be addressed?”

Let’s really be clear. Let’s not cover up mass murder and genocide with weak phrases such as “illiberal policies” and “intensified its political control and economic statism.” The estimates of the death toll from Communist genocide in China in consolidating Communist control have varied widely. But Professor R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii provided a conservative estimate — more than 35 million deaths — approximately one of every 20 Chinese!

Zakaria: “As far as China’s political development is concerned, the verdict is unambiguous. China has not opened up its politics to the extent that many anticipated; it has in fact moved toward greater repression and control. Beijing’s gruesome treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, a region in northwestern China, has created a human rights crisis. The state has also begun to use new technologies, such as facial recognition software and artificial intelligence, to create an Orwellian system of social control. These realities are a tragedy for the Chinese people and an obstacle to the country’s participation in global leadership. It would be an exaggeration, however, to adduce them as proof of the failure of U.S. policy.”

But China fell under Communist dictatorship precisely because of U.S. policy! Actually, that was not a “failure” of policy as the policy accomplished its subversive purpose.

Cover-up #4: Creation of a Soviet Threat and Cold-War Management

Zakaria: “The consequences of exaggerating the Soviet threat were vast: gross domestic abuses during the McCarthy era; a dangerous nuclear arms race; a long, futile, and unsuccessful war in Vietnam; and countless other military interventions in various so-called Third World countries. The consequences of not getting the Chinese challenge right today will be vaster still. The United States risks squandering the hard-won gains [???] from four decades of engagement with China, encouraging Beijing to adopt confrontational policies of its own, and leading the world’s two largest economies into a treacherous conflict of unknown scale and scope that will inevitably cause decades of instability and insecurity. A cold war with China is likely to be much longer and more costly than the one with the Soviet Union, with an uncertain outcome.”

There are so many false claims in those statements that cry out to be challenged. We will focus on one: “a long, futile, and unsuccessful war in Vietnam.”

In our war with North Vietnam, CFR elites ensured that victory was never the goal. From Masters of Deception: “[McGeorge] Bundy’s older brother, William P. Bundy, also CFR, would serve in the Johnson administration as assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs (1964–1969), playing a major role in “mismanaging” the war in Vietnam. William would later become a director of the CFR and the editor of Foreign Affairs.”

Also from Masters:

Throughout the Vietnam War, [President] Johnson met periodically with an advisory group of 14 he himself called “the Wise Men.” Twelve of the fourteen were CFR members. Dean Acheson was perhaps most influential. John J. McCloy, Robert Lovett, and Averell Harriman were also included.

• No-Win War.  The War in Vietnam was not a project of anti-Communist “hawks,” but of CFR “wise men,” who had helped and would continue to help Communism….

In Vietnam, McNamara and company hobbled our Armed Forces with a defensive strategy that could not win, while preventing a strategy that could.   Americans have been repeatedly told that winning was not feasible. Yet few are aware of counterclaims by America’s top military leaders….

In late 1966, former Air Force Chief of Staff, General Curtis LeMay, fed up with the Administration’s “nibbling around the edges” strategy, which was unnecessarily sacrificing thousands of lives and scores of billions of dollars, published an outspoken article in U.S. News & World Report, offering a blueprint of the Air Force-sea power strategy for victory….

But such an objective was contrary to the firm intentions of the Insiders running the war.   Even worse, the McNamara team invoked an insidious micromanagement of the war from Washington and imposed Rules of Engagement that ensured our forces could not have victory. They would win every major battle, but were not allowed to win the war.

Cover-up #5: The UN is a CFR Creation for World Domination

Zakaria: “In the early 1970s, before Nixon’s opening to China, Beijing was the world’s greatest rogue regime….

“By comparison, today’s China is a remarkably responsible nation on the geopolitical and military front. It has not gone to war since 1979. It has not used lethal military force abroad since 1988. Nor has it funded or supported proxies or armed insurgents anywhere in the world since the early 1980s. That record of nonintervention is unique among the world’s great powers. All the other permanent members of the UN Security Council have used force many times in many places over the last few decades — a list led, of course, by the United States.

“China has also gone from seeking to undermine the international system to spending large sums to bolster it. Beijing is now the second-largest funder of the United Nations and the UN peacekeeping program. It has deployed 2,500 peacekeepers, more than all the other permanent members of the Security Council combined. Between 2000 and 2018, it supported 182 of 190 Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on nations deemed to have violated international rules or norms.” [Emphasis added.]

Here Zakaria esteems the decisions of the CFR’s emerging UN tyranny, a collection of largely despotic governments, as “international rules or norms.”

Zakaria also implies that a regime willing to use lethal force at home (e.g., the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre) may somehow be unwilling to use it abroad. And he conveniently ignores the continued brutal occupation of Tibet.

In his newspaper column, CFR-heavyweight Henry Kissinger described the Tiananmen Square massacre as “inevitable,” insisting that “[n]o government in the world would have tolerated having the main square of its capital occupied for eight weeks by tens of thousands of demonstrators….”

Within a few weeks of that massacre, U.S. officials Lawrence Eagleburger (formerly of Kissinger Associates) and Brent Scowcroft (former chairman of the CFR’s membership committee) would travel to China to reassure the Chinese leaders of continued U.S.-Chinese relations.

The fact that Red China has embraced the CFR’s international system and its plan for world subjugation is no joy, as the following excerpts from Masters of Deception illustrate:

The original proposal for a specific United Nations was developed under the leadership of Secretary of State Cordell Hull. In January 1943, Hull formed a “secret steering committee,” later known as the Informal Agenda Group, to come up with a specific proposal. In addition to Hull, the steering committee included Leo Pasvolsky, Isaiah Bowman, Sumner Welles, Norman Davis, and Myron Taylor — all but Hull CFR members.

The UN’s trappings of democracy are merely a sham to deceive the public. In reality, the UN is controlled by a hidden oligarchy relying heavily on the CFR.

The hierarchical structure of the UN facilitates that control. The UN and its agencies are structured so that controlling a number of key spots at the top is sufficient to control the entire beast. And the CFR and its Communist children have made sure that their agents occupy key posts in the apparatus.

In summary, Zakaria’s article gives support to liberal sophistry regarding the moral equivalence of governments. More significantly, it helps justify relying on the UN’s handpicked tyrannies to police the world. But his article, with our critique, can also be used by our readers to help others understand the ruthless masters of deception who would steal our freedom.

The Only Responsible Option

(adapted from Freedom First Society’s June 2019 Action Report)

“[T]here is no secret about how [China] plans to destroy American aircraft carriers if rivalry becomes war….

“China’s military is now making giant strides toward replacing the United States as the supreme power in Asia. With the Pentagon distracted by almost two decades of costly war in the Middle East and Afghanistan, the Chinese military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), has exploited a period of sustained budget increases and rapid technical improvement to build and deploy an arsenal of advanced missiles.

“Many of these missiles are specifically designed to attack the aircraft carriers and bases that form the backbone of U.S. military dominance in the region….” [Emphasis added.] — “Special Report: New missile gap leaves U.S. scrambling to counter China”— Reuters, 4-25-19

Even More Serious!
We must not forget that China is a threat today only because American Insiders enabled the Communists to take over China and nurtured Red China to become a world power. Those same forces dominate our media and government today and are using the China threat as part of their plan to enslave us all.

The Reuters’ claim that the Pentagon was “distracted” is simply distraction. The “Special Report” continues:

“For more than half a century since China’s ruling Communist Party took power in 1949, a vast but technologically backward PLA [People’s Liberation Army] was largely confined to the Asian mainland and coastal waters.”

Obviously, no backward socialist economy develops economic and military prowess without outside help.

So what enabled China’s “sustained budget increases”? Arch-Insider Henry Kissinger owns major responsibility for building Communist China into a world economic power. His secret diplomacy with China under President Nixon opened up diplomatic relations. (See nearby photo of Kissinger with Chinese butcher Mao.) Later, his firm, Kissinger Associates, helped transfer U.S. manufacturing and industry to China, sabotaging American middle class opportunity.

After the Red regime massacred the Chinese demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, Kissinger would defend the brutality. According to the Wall Street Journal, Kissinger Associates had a $7 million contract with the Chinese government. Yet when Nikki Haley was appointed as U.S. Ambassador to the UN in 2017, she sought out Henry Kissinger as her personal foreign policy mentor. And, in September of last year, Haley misled conservatives with this assurance on Fox & Friends: “And Dr. Kissinger, you never have to worry that he’s not on America’s side.”

The Internationalists must also be pleased that China has leverage over the U.S. through China’s ownership of over $1 trillion of our national debt. A May 21 report on the Internationalists’ ForeignPolicy.com, “China Raises Threat of Rare-Earths Cutoff to U.S.,” points to further leverage: “Beijing could slam every corner of the American economy, from oil refineries to wind turbines to jet engines, by banning exports of crucial minerals.” Thank you, Dr. Kissinger!

How about China’s “rapid technological improvement”? President Bill Clinton should have been impeached over the Chinagate revelations — the corrupt transfer of U.S. military technology and industry to Communist China. On August 25, 1988, House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) responded to the revelations: “The more you look into this business of the transfer of advanced, sophisticated technology to the Chinese military, which seems to be clearly for campaign contributions, the harder it is to stay away from words like treason.”

Managed News
Yet an irresponsible House of Representatives, under Establishment pressure, ignored these revelations in its articles of impeachment and, with media help, led the public to believe that President Clinton was impeached (but not convicted by the Senate) merely for “lying about sex.” Our Establishment media has insured that the public forgets about the Chinagate revelations. Even during the recent investigations into Russian interference in the U.S. presidential elections, the documented evidence of China’s previous interference was ignored. The American people are not victims of biased news, they are subjected daily to managed news serving totalitarian power grabs.

One facet of that managed news is to ensure that Americans forget the history of Internationalist betrayal. Consider the following “conveniently forgotten” history, supported by several extensively documented books:

In early 1946, the Nationalist Chinese forces had Mao’s Reds on the run. However, President Truman had sent General George C. Marshall to China to mediate the fighting, and Marshall forced Chiang to accept a cease-fire (one of several). Marshall would boast: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions, now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them.”… The Soviets, meanwhile, equipped Mao with vast stores of U.S. military supplies Truman had provided Stalin for the assault on Japan.

In early 1949, John F. Kennedy, a young second-term congressman from Massachusetts, protested the betrayal: “What our young men had saved, our diplomats and our President have frittered away.” Later, as Secretary of Defense, Marshall would also prevent General MacArthur from winning the Korean War.

Orwell’s 1984 at Work
The Insider China perfidy was not limited to economic and technology transfers. As National Security Advisor under Nixon, Kissinger also implemented the one-China policy that betrayed our Nationalist Chinese ally on Taiwan. In 1971, Red China took over Taiwan’s “permanent” seat on the UN Security Council, joining the Soviets in out-voting the U.S.

With the U.S. outvoted by design, the Insiders continue to promote the CFR-created UN as essential for world peace. But it’s really a set-up to dazzle the world with endless conflict and justify the progressive seizure of power, in the pattern of George Orwell’s 1984.

The January/February issue of the CFR’s Foreign Affairs hyped that strategy. The cover headline asks: “Who Will Run the World?” with sub headline: “America, China, and Global Order” (see graphic, right).

Lesson: Insider-supported regimes murdered more than 100 million human beings during the last century to consolidate their power. We must not expect the Internationalist Conspiracy to fade way or give up its bloodthirsty ambition on its own. It will only be stopped and routed if there is informed pressure from the American people to do so.

Creating that informed pressure requires an organized campaign by a growing segment of the American people responding to sound leadership and immune to tangents. That’s Freedom First Society’s mission.

Realistically, building and supporting Freedom First Society is the only responsible option for Americans to stop the approaching nightmare. To be sure, success will require a breakthrough in finding dedicated, discerning volunteers among the too-busy and complacent. After decades of culture war and Establishment attacks on the middle class, finding those patriots willing and able to lead by example is no easy task.

However, the alternative should be unthinkable: Do nothing, or nothing constructive, and watch as our fellow Americans are slaughtered and starved to wipe out resistance to Internationalist tyranny. Think of all the patriots who gave their lives and fortunes to enable future generations of Americans to enjoy unprecedented liberty. God forgive us, if we betray their sacrifice!

Repeat a Lie Often Enough …

“Former Secretary of State John Kerry swiped at President Trump while voicing concerns about the effects of global climate change on U.S. national security during an appearance Wednesday on Capitol Hill…. [Kerry told lawmakers:] ‘Each day that we fail to act on climate change, we are risking the health and security of future generations.’

“The former Obama Cabinet members [Kerry and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel] also took aim at Trump’s plan to form a committee to re-evaluate the scientific consensus surrounding climate change, with Kerry referring to the plan as ‘a scheme to pretend there are two sides to an issue long since settled.’” — The Hill, 4-9-19

Climate “scientist” John Kerry was following in the footsteps of “Internet inventor” Al Gore, whose claims about man-made global warming were portrayed in the film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Scam on Display at 1992 Earth Summit
While we don’t claim to be experts on weather and climate factors, we do understand the power grab the alarmists are seeking to justify. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio (officially the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development – UNCED) provided a great window into that deception.

Former Washington Governor and former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Dr. Dixy Lee Ray attended the conference, as did Al Gore. In her subsequent book, Environmental Overkill (1993), Dr. Ray argued:

“First, we must recognize that the environmental movement is not about facts or logic. More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so-called ‘New World Order’ or World Government under the United Nations have adopted global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power.”

A Common Revolutionary Tactic
The incessant climate change warnings also follow the tactic famously used by totalitarians — repeat a lie often enough so that the people accept it as the truth.

One of the environmentalist lies is that there is a consensus among knowledgeable scientists that man-made climate change is a serious threat to mankind. Dr. Richard Lindzen, now retired from MIT, is one renowned environmental scientist who doesn’t agree. Last year, he debunked the hysteria in a lecture: “Global Warming and the Two Cultures.” (A link to his lecture, can be found in our website post “UN Climate Change Hysteria.”)

You don’t have to look far to find repetitions of the alarm. For example, during the April 8th House “debate” over the “Local Water Protection Act,” Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee stated:

“As an Energy and Environment Task Force Co-Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I understand the necessity of this bill and its funding to managing sources of water pollution…. The strain on the marine life is not the only adverse effect to nature, global warming is also worsened when we turn a cheek to decreasing the pollution of our waterways…. Mr. Speaker, we must not wait to take action when the health of our marine life, the state of Global Warming, and the health of our people are being affected.” [Emphasis added.]

The “New NAFTA” Power Grab

Following an agreement with Canada, President Trump claimed victory in the negotiations to replace NAFTA:

The president said it fulfills his campaign pledge to replace NAFTA, which he called “perhaps the worst trade deal ever made,” and claimed it will transform the U.S. back into a “manufacturing powerhouse.”

“Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA and today we have kept that promise,” he said during a news conference, calling it “truly historic news for our nation and indeed the world.” — The Hill, 10-1-18

The reality, however, is greatly different. NAFTA was much more than a “trade deal.” And so is its proposed replacement — “The United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement” (USMCA).

Progressive Regionalization
Both are merely disguised as “trade pacts.” Their real purpose is to evolve into an Internationalist-controlled regional government, à la the European Union. And eventually into an Internationalist-controlled world government, while hiding that objective from the American people.

In their excellent 2003 book, The Great Deception: A Secret History of the European Union, British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North (a former research director for an agency of the European Parliament) described how the British people were deceived into joining the European Union:

[Prime Minister Edward] Heath’s own bid to join the Common Market began what for the British people was to be the greatest deception of all…. Heath persistently misrepresented Britain’s membership of the Common Market as no more than a trading issue….

Only 30 years later would it come to light from the Foreign Office’s confidential papers just how conscious were its officials of the extent to which Britain was about to surrender its powers of self-government. None of this was publicly admitted at the time, although the author of the FCO’s internal memorandum on “Sovereignty” justified the concealment by suggesting that the British people would not notice what was happening until the end of the century, by which time it would be too late to protest because the process would have become irreversible.

Edward Heath was not alone, even among British politicians, in perpetrating the deception. “For 40 years,” says Booker, “British politicians have consistently tried to portray it [the Common Market and EU] to their fellow-citizens as little more than an economic arrangement: a kind of free-trading area primarily concerned with creating jobs and prosperity, which incidentally can help preserve the peace.”

Both the late David Rockefeller (former chairman of the Internationalists’ Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]) and CFR heavyweight Henry Kissinger (whom President Trump now calls his “friend”) lobbied in the nation’s press for NAFTA. Both candidly supported NAFTA as a steppingstone to something larger. In a 1993 column that appeared in the July 18 Los Angeles Times, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared:

It [NAFTA] will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere…. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.

A few months later, David Rockefeller championed the agreement in the Wall Street Journal: “Everything is in place — after 500 years — to build a true ‘new world’ in the Western Hemisphere,” Rockefeller enthused, adding “I don’t think that ‘criminal’ would be too strong a word to describe … rejecting NAFTA.” (See our earlier post: “Renegotiate NAFTA? — No Way! Get US out!”)

“Free Trade” Deception
As with NAFTA, the new agreement establishes a regional bureaucracy to “manage” trade in minute detail. The total number of pages for the treaty, its annexes, and side letters amounts to more than 1,800 pages.

At first, the proposal might seem more honest without “free trade” in the name — less doublespeak. Not so. Article 1.1 of the agreement, titled “Establishment of a Free Trade Area” states:

The Parties, consistent with Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS, hereby establish a free trade area.

And the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative website (ustr.gov) lists the USMCA as a Free Trade Agreement.

And so, the agreement still postures as something that “free trade conservatives” would support. But there is little “free” in a regional bureaucracy that would manage trade. And, as with the old NAFTA, the USMCA is an unconstitutional alienation of U.S. sovereignty. Its Free Trade Commission, for example, can modify the agreement without the approval of Congress.

Internationalist Support for USMCA
Just as Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller both championed NAFTA, so Richard N. Haass, the current President of the Council on Foreign Relations, endorses the proposed USMCA. In an October 2 tweet, Haass stated:

USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever…if @real Donald Trump and the Congress are now prepared to embrace a pro-trade agenda, it is all to the good. Ideally, US participation in TPP by another name would be next; failing that, a US-Japan FTA would be second best.

And what else would we expect from an agreement negotiated by Robert Lighthizer? The U.S. Trade Representative (left) is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which has long championed Internationalist-run world government. When tapped by Trump, Lighthizer was a partner at a CFR corporate-member law firm.

The USMCA agreement clearly supports the Internationalist agenda. The text demands compliance with rules of the World Trade Organization, the International Labor Organization (ILO) (now a specialized agency of the UN system), and other international agreements, some never ratified by the U.S., such as the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty.

As just one example of the Internationalist ties, Article 23.2 states: “The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the ILO, including those stated in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work and the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).” (See here for full text of the agreement.)

Trump supporters should ask themselves why Trump is supporting this subversion. Is he really being taken in by his advisors or has he been on board with the Insider agenda all along?

Before the USMCA can take effect, Congress must pass an implementing bill, which could be addressed in the Lame Duck session after the November midterm elections. If Congress approves the USMCA, not only will the U.S. move another step toward totalitarian world government, but the approval will also neutralize much of the needed future opposition from conservatives and conservative lawmakers, as it will be regarded as the product of an “outsider,” conservative president.

Recommended action: 1) Urge your representative and senators to oppose implementation of the USMCA; 2) Alert others to this deceptive attack on our independence as a nation by sharing this post widely.

UN Climate-Change Hysteria

The world stands on the brink of failure when it comes to holding global warming to moderate levels, and nations will need to take “unprecedented” actions to cut their carbon emissions over the next decade, according to a landmark report by the top scientific body studying climate change….

“There is no documented historic precedent” for the sweeping change to energy, transportation and other systems required to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote in a report requested as part of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. — “The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say,” — Washington Post, 10-8-18

The UN’s IPCC is constantly challenged to ramp up its climate-change hysteria, while the Establishment’s Washington Post is all too ready to report the Internationalist propaganda at face value.

Let’s look first at what some experts have to say regarding the reliability of the claims. And then we’ll examine the subversive agenda that is driving the hysteria.

Don’t Trust the UN’s IPCC
The UN, in cooperation with the Establishment media, regularly promotes the fiction that there is a “scientific consensus” re man-made global warming due to the release of greenhouse gases. And of course, the media refuses to report the mountains of scientific evidence disputing those claims. Instead, when forced to mention “the deniers” at all, it characterizes such objective contradictory science as industry-financed or even as a criminal threat to life on the planet.

One authority, who has tried to shine the light of day on the topic, is Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, now retired. In 2015, he wrote in Climate Change: The Facts:

Global warming is about politics and power rather than science. In science, there is an attempt to clarify, in global warming, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public….

Advocates of policies allegedly addressing global warming use models not to predict but rather to justify the claim that catastrophe is possible.

On the same day as the above Washington Post story, Professor Lindzen delivered a lecture for the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London. His lecture, entitled “Global Warming for the Two Cultures,” attempted to explain what really drives climate change and how non-scientists and non-specialists were being bamboozled by the “carbon dioxide” is the enemy propaganda. In conclusion, he says:

So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays.

A number of such experts are incensed by the Establishment’s media line supporting the global warming scare, but they don’t get coverage in most media outlets. However, the Investor’s Business Daily, a business alternative to the Establishment’s Wall Street Journal, has reported the opposition to the UN climate-change propaganda. On June 2, 2015, the Investor’s Business Daily provided a commentary: “Isn’t It About Time Climate Scientists Confessed?”:

We’ve mentioned before that the climate models the United Nations and others use to claim that the planet is becoming dangerously hot are flawed. In fact, they’re just plain wrong. We base our belief in part on the work of Roy Spencer, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who has said that 95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979….

Given that there’s so much evidence contrary to the global warming narrative, climate scientist Patrick J. Michaels justifiably wants to know when other climate scientists will finally admit they’ve been wrong.

“Day after day, year after year, the hole that climate scientists have buried themselves in gets deeper and deeper,” Michaels writes on the Cato Institute blog. “The longer that they wait to admit their overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of science.”

What’s Driving the Misleading Forecasts?
Unfortunately, the misleading forecasts are not just mistakes or even self-serving science. The climate change hysteria is designed, with major financial backing, to support the Internationalist power grab and its attack on the independence of nations. Here we draw from one of many authoritative exposés.

In 2009, Regnery published Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, by Steve Milloy, which exposed a great deal of the agenda (see our 2009 review, “A Masterful Wake-up Call”). Milloy provided extensive documentation of how the environmental movement was created, its high-level funding, and what its agenda is. As Milloy expresses it:

Make no mistake: living green is really about someone else microregulating you — downsizing your dreams and plugging each one of us into a brand new social order for which we never bargained. It’s about … having the boundaries of your life drawn by others.

The central concept of this book is that there is hardly any area of your life that the greens consider off limits to intrusion. There is almost no personal behavior of yours that they consider too trivial or sacrosanct to regulate.

Milloy documents that a primary green objective is to create scarcity, which then provides the pretext for government regulation and rationing. And what better way to bring a modern industrial economy to its knees than to starve it of energy? The current tactic to achieve energy scarcity is to emphasize the development of “renewable” energy, while attaching burdensome strings to the development of resources that can supply our immediate energy needs. Colorado, as Milloy points out, is the Saudi Arabia of shale oil. Yet this resource has been off limits to development.

Milloy concludes: “But if the government were to use an energy crisis as a pretext to tighten its grip on the energy supply, it would vastly expand the state’s ability to dictate the everyday parameters of how we live our lives….. [E]nergy — the very thing that has enabled the American way of life — can also be used to quash it.”

Milloy’s book also touches on the broader internationalist agenda that threatens the sovereignty of nations. He titles one section: “National Sovereignty: It Was Nice While It Lasted” and notes: “[T]he greens aim to use the specter of a global warming catastrophe to subjugate America to global governance.” And he explains the dangers of global governance to our system of government and the constitutional protections for our rights.

Remember that Milloy wrote this in 2009. With that background the current UN alarm can be seen for the truly dangerous threat it is:

“It’s like a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen. We have to put out the fire,” said Erik Solheim, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program. — Washington Post, 10-8-18

The hidden, subversive agenda must be exposed!

Lou Dobbs Pumps Trump

“Does it ever seem to you that President Trump has done more than any president in modern history in just 16 months? Yep, me too. He’s not only done more in that short time than any president since FDR, but he’s also rolled back almost all of his predecessor’s two-term, so-called legacy legislation, executive orders, and regulations. 16 months [of Trump] … and 8 years of Obama is just about gone.” — Lou Dobbs, Fox Business Network video clip, June 1, 2018

What a stretch of the facts! But the problem here is not Dobb’s blatantly unjustified assessment. The problem is that Lou Dobbs betrays his conservative audience with his assurance that everything is moving nicely under the current president — so just sit back and watch the president perform.

Before we examine the betrayal issue, however, let’s take a look at Dobb’s claim. Among his examples of Obama administration rollbacks, Dobbs lists “executive orders and regulations.” He seems to be referring to the disapproval by Congress of several administrative rules issued by the outgoing Obama administration in its waning days — hardly a major roll back of eight years of Obama.

But how about other key areas? Let’s take a brief look at the lack of progress in three — the Culture War, energy independence, and “trade” — that contradicts Dobb’s claim.

The “Culture War”

Revolutionary forces have waged a Culture War in America for decades — a ubiquitous assault upon America’s moral, spiritual, and cultural underpinnings. They have drawn support from the writings of Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, who argued that the road to power in the developed countries was “to capture the culture.” Gramsci focused particularly on undermining what George Washington regarded as necessary for the support of a free society — religion and morality. And President Obama certainly picked up the Gramscian torch:

“Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced an end to the military’s longstanding ban on openly transgender service members on Thursday, fulfilling a key piece of the Obama administration’s historic legacy on LGBT rights.” — NBC News. June 30, 2016

The Obama administration’s decision to force our military to cope with multiple aspired non-biological genders was a clear subversion of military effectiveness and morale. And so, President Trump’s March 2018 order was popular in conservative quarters:

“President Trump released an order Friday night banning most transgender troops from serving in the military except under ‘limited circumstances,’ following up on his calls last year to ban transgender individuals from serving.” — CBS News, March 24, 2018

However, the President’s order was quickly blocked by several court challenges, and four federal courts quickly ruled against the ban. The matter is now working its way through the courts.

Indeed, much of the public perception regarding President Trump’s accomplishments is due to the Left’s reaction to his threats or orders (such as his order temporarily banning Syrian refugees). But Trump generally allowed his orders to be blocked by radical courts or neutered. We are reminded of Andrew Jackson’s famous alleged response to a 1832 decision of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

That’s the story, in a nutshell, of the ongoing Culture War. Although it was the Supreme Court, not the Obama administration, that legitimized same-sex marriage, President Obama and a sympathetic Establishment media supported an agenda that undermined public resistance to the decision. And President Trump has accepted the decision as okay.

The inroads of the Culture War are still in place, and the war is still raging unchallenged, with the public being hammered into submission. Indeed, that war will continue until the public is informed as to its real aim — to make freedom unsustainable — and the sponsors of the groups promoting the clever, but phony pretext of tolerance are exposed for their real agenda.

Energy Independence

As another example of lack of progress, where is the substance from Trump’s announced “intention” to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords, which were signed by President Obama? The earliest the U.S. withdrawal might take place would be November 2020, (unless, as Trump demands, the U.S. could get more favorable terms)?

In the meantime, we have not seen any progress toward putting the U.S. on the road to energy independence. For example, where are the new nuclear power plants being built to increase U.S. reliance on nuclear power (as of 2015, France generated 40 percent of its electricity with this American technology, now blocked from use in the U.S.)? Or when will American companies be allowed to tap our vast reserves of shale oil?

A more fundamental weakness is the failure of the Trump administration to enlighten the public, even with tweets, as to the agenda and fundamental deception of the environmental movement. In particular, the administration is not telling the public that high-level Insiders have promoted the fiction of catastrophic man-made climate change as a pretext for a power grab. And the battle for sufficient energy at an affordable cost cannot be won without the support of an informed public.

Trade

Or how about the misplaced focus in the president’s plan to renegotiate NAFTA to get a better deal? NAFTA is a deceptive Internationalist attack on the freedom and independence of the United States. It is designed to imitate the similar deception of the European Common Market, which led to the European Union. NAFTA is much more than a trade agreement. And the U.S. needs leadership to get us out of the trap. “Fair trade” is not the issue. (See our web post, “Renegotiate NAFTA? No Way! — Get US out!”)

“This President Is a Marvel”

Much of President Trump’s real accomplishment has been to energize the Left while putting many conservatives to sleep. Both Lou Dobbs and Fox News are major forces helping to achieve the latter. They are promoting the great American swindle that a president is supposed to run our nation and that the job of a responsible public is merely to choose every four years between the GOP and Democratic contenders, as vetted by the Establishment.

In a portion of his three-minute video commentary, Dobbs “marvel[s] at President Trump’s abundant, even endless energy,” and lists the following examples:

Trump made two flights to give speeches;
he signed the “Right to Try Act”;
he pardoned the late Jack Johnson and Dinesh D’Souza;
he might soon pardon Martha Stewart.

“And now he’s slapping tariffs on Mexico and Canada because they won’t negotiate on NAFTA and the European Union because, well, just because they deserve it.

“Negotiating to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and undeterred by the massive odds against success, an unlikely success, admittedly, but one that would cause the world to catch its breath — just the kind of odds that President Trump has overcome in his extraordinary life.”

If we were seeking to pump Trump, we could easily list more credible actions. For example, we were surprised that Dobbs didn’t mention the tax cut or President Trump’s court appointees.

Instead, Dobbs mentions that Trump signed the “The Right to Try Act.” The Senate passed the Act last year by “unanimous consent” without a recorded vote. The Act changes the FDA procedures to allow critically ill patients to “try” experimental, potentially live-saving drugs. While this may deliver on one of Trump’s promises, the Dobbs and Fox focus camouflages the very real danger threating our nation (see below).

Dobbs concludes his endorsement with these words:

“And all the president is doing is leading, and as, he promised, winning. And, yes, he keeps tweeting as well.

“And if you’re confused about what he’s doing about the massive trade deficit with China, bringing 323 actions and 301s as well, tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and the European Union tomorrow, well, just read the most succinct policy statement that a president has ever written. It reads, here’s his tweet: ‘Fair trade, explanation point.’

“Like I said, this president is a marvel.”

Covering Up the Real Threat

Lou Dobb’s endorsement will certainly gain him approval from Trump fans, and help keep them hooked on Fox. But Lou Dobbs is not a “watchman on the tower” blowing a trumpet to warn of impending danger.

Instead, Lou Dobbs and Fox are playing a flute to put their viewers to sleep.

Both the conservative and Leftist wings of the CFR-controlled media serve the Internationalist Conspiracy by covering up its existence, influence, and agenda, while entertaining their audiences with relatively minor conflicts (see, for example, our web post, “The John Bolton Charade”).

Indeed, our web post, “The John Bolton Charade,”also demonstrates how the Establishment media hype phony leaders to conservatives. John Bolton, President Trump’s choice for National Security Advisor and most recently a Fox News analyst, is no real foe of the UN. While both complain about the UN, they also accept the legitimacy of the UN. But the Internationalists created the UN through deception as a step to an unaccountable world order run by them (see our web post, “The UN — Freedom’s Enemy”).

And the most prominent front group for this cabal in the U.S. is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), of which John Bolton has been a veteran member since 2000. For many years, Rupert Murdoch, the founder and current CEO of Fox News, was also a member. So perhaps it is not surprising that Fox News and its voices do not expose this group and its subversive agenda.

Most viewers of Lou Dobbs would regard him as a “conservative,” although he describes himself as an “independent populist.” Independent? The notion that the major media conglomerates have no agenda other than making money is a myth. They do not just hire anyone whom they believe can deliver exceptional ratings, and then give them a free rein. And let’s be careful of the not so well understood term “populist.” Jimmy Carter also described himself as a “populist.”

Like so many of his popular “conservative” colleagues, Dobbs provides doses of commonsense based on a seriously deficient view of what is driving America’s problems.

Indeed, the accolades Lou Dobbs paid to President Trump say a lot more about Dobbs and Fox than they do about the president.

The John Bolton Charade

“‘Maybe one of the worst mistakes that President Trump has made since he’s been in office is his employment of John Bolton, who has been advocating a war with North Korea for a long time and even an attack on Iran, and who has been one of the leading figures on orchestrating the decision to invade Iraq,” [former President Jimmy Carter, CFR, Trilateralist] said. He called the appointment, announced last week, ‘a disaster for our country.’” —, USA Today, 3-26-18

“To [J.P.] Morgan all political parties were simply organizations to be used, and the firm always was careful to keep a foot in all camps.” — Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time(New York: Macmillan, 1966), p, 950

Promotion 101 — Hype Conflict

Establishment strategists have long hyped conflict in which they pick, control, or influence both sides. In this, they follow the practice of the promoters of professional wrestling matches. Several purposes are served. Foremost is to direct conservative public attention into “safe” channels, thereby hampering the development of any serious opposition to the goal of an Insider Conspiracy — unaccountable world power.

Establishment strategists also use conflict and their dominance of the media of communications to promote “safe” leaders who will appeal to different public factions. For the conservative faction, they provide phony “conservative” leaders.

Opposition to Bolton

A clever way to convince conservatives to adopt an Establishment figure as one of theirs is to have that figure attacked by the Left. Leftist voices also need causes to maintain their loyal support. Opposing political figures who have a conservative image, even if it’s a phony image, helps fill that need.

This played out recently with the extensive criticism from the Left of President Trump’s selection of former UN ambassador John Bolton as his National Security Advisor, effective April 9, 2018.

Liberal attacks on Bolton started as far back as 2005. When President George W. Bush nominated Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Senate liberals attacked Bolton for being too conservative and anti-UN. In one Senate exchange, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) told Bolton: “You have nothing but disdain for the U.N.”

The attacks helped both Bush and Bolton shore up their images as conservatives. Following repeated Senate stalling in processing the nomination, President Bush made a recess appointment of Bolton, who served as UN ambassador for a little more than a year (August 2, 2005 – December 31, 2006).

Following the announcement of President Trump’s appointment of Bolton, much of the previous criticism from the Left was recycled.

Newsweek, now managed by a former editor of the liberal Huffington Post, published an opinion piece, “John Bolton is a Threat at Home and Abroad,” by Patrick Eddington:

“In Bolton, Trump will have a kindred spirit who sees enemies everywhere and who does not hesitate to attack them, at home or abroad.” — Newsweek, 4-8-18

Much of the Establishment media also highlighted criticism of Bolton:

“Bolton, probably the most divisive foreign policy expert ever to serve as U.N. ambassador, has served as a hawkish voice in Republican foreign policy circles for decades.” — AP (3-22-18)

Bolton Endorsements

But the media reaction was not all negative. The Trump White House was able to trumpet a bunch of favorable headlines and reactions from the national press. Here are several:

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD: John Bolton for National Security

“President Trump has said he is at last assembling a Cabinet team to his liking, and late Thursday he announced that John Bolton will replace General H.R. McMaster as his National Security Adviser. It is a solid and experienced choice….”

[FFS: but note that the Wall Street Journal is now owned by Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.]

FORMER SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK) IN USA TODAY: Bolton Right Choice on National Security

“The president’s decision to appoint John Bolton as his national security adviser reflects an understanding of the critical lessons of history, and the Bolton designation will greatly reduce the grave risks now faced by America during today’s increasingly troubled times.”

[FFS: We don’t trust Tom Coburn. He has dedicated himself to the well financed effort to mislead state legislatures into calling for an uncontrollable constitutional convention. In March of 2015, he appeared on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News promoting a Convention of the States to eliminate “waste, fraud, or duplication.” Coburn repeated a clever deception of proponents: “It’s an Article V convention of states. It’s not a constitutional convention.” He also falsely claimed that the Founders wrote Article V so we could put limits on government. No, they gave us the Constitution to do that.]

NATIONAL REVIEW’S DAVID FRENCH: John Bolton isn’t Dangerous. The World is.

“He’s a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He’s on the board of trustees of the National Review Institute. He’s a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He’s a conservative hawk, yes, but he’s squarely in the mainstream of conservative foreign-policy thought.”

[FFS: What National Review would have us believe is “mainstream” is an outrageous audacity. National Review has served as an Establishment tool to mislead and neutralize conservatives since the days of William F. Buckley, Jr.]

THE NEW YORK TIMES’ BRET STEPHENS: John Bolton is Right About the U.N.

“I agree with Bolton about some things and disagree about others. But on the U.N. he’s been right all along. If his presence in the White House helps to scare the organization into real reform, so much the better.”

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE’S MICHAEL RUBIN IN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Enough with the John Bolton Smears — He’ll be the Best National Security Adviser in a Generation

“But Bolton is a formidable intellect, a clear thinker, organized, and a team player. The purpose of the National Security Council is to coordinate the interagency process.”

HUGH HEWITT IN THE WASHINGTON POST: John Bolton is a Great Addition to the White House

“As the president’s top security aide, Bolton will be an honest broker and someone who can drive decisions through molasses-thick resistance. These qualities, plus his top-shelf intellect, make Bolton the best national security player to join Trump’s West Wing team so far.”

The Real John Bolton

John Bolton has solid Establishment credentials ignored by the media. Instead, media stories highlighted the fact that Trump was recruiting again from the “conservative” Fox News, where Bolton had most recently been serving as an analyst:

“President Donald Trump’s favorite TV network is increasingly serving as a West Wing casting call, as the president reshapes his administration with camera-ready personalities.

“Trump’s new national security adviser, John Bolton, is a former U.N. ambassador, a White House veteran — and perhaps most importantly a Fox News channel talking head…. ‘He’s looking for people who are ready to be part of that television White House,’ said Kendall Phillips, a communication and rhetorical studies professor at Syracuse University. ‘This is the Fox television presidency all the way up and down.’” [Emphasis added.], AP, 3-25-18

The misleading superficial news reports did not mention Bolton’s Establishment credentials as a veteran member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or those of Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch (CFR).

Indeed, Bolton was invited to join the CFR has far back as 2000. Bolton could even boast earlier articles in the Council’s magazine, Foreign Affairs. For the January/February 1999 issue he wrote: “The Global Prosecutors: Hunting War Criminals in the Name of Utopia.” The article spelled out Bolton’s criticism of the UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC) and why he objected to U.S. membership.

In its 2000 Annual Report, the Council on Foreign Relations revealed an even closer relationship:

“Through the National Program, the Council sponsored debates in key cities nationwide on the Council Policy Initiative ‘Toward an International Criminal Court?’ CPI authors Ruth Wedgwood, John R. Bolton, Anne-Marie Slaughter [a Clinton appointee and former CFR Director], and Kenneth Roth [Executive Director of the left-wing Human Rights Watch] examined whether the United States should endorse, reject, or revise the proposal to create an international criminal court.”

Bolton’s opposition to the ICC, while serving in the Bush State Department, helped establish his “conservative” credentials. However, in a November 14, 2002 speech to the Federalist Society, he explained that the Bush administration only objected to the ICC in is present form, but would like to see “ad hoc tribunals … overseen by the UN Security Council [and] under a UN Charter to which virtually all nations have agreed.”

John Bolton has associated with many organizations, particularly those that have a conservative image and are dominated by the Establishment. A noteworthy example is the CFR-dominated “Project for the New American Century” [PNAC]. PNAC was formed in 1997 by a team that included former CFR Director Dick Cheney and William Kristol, who became its chairman. Kristol had vehemently opposed the nomination of Donald Trump, now enthusiastically embraced by Fox News. Yet in 1995, Kristol had helped found and edit the neo-con Weekly Standard magazine financed by Rupert Murdoch (CFR), who would later found Fox News. Establishment strategists undoubtedly regard apparent conflict as necessary to gain a following and therefore useful, if kept within bounds.

John Bolton has attended the exclusive, invitation-only Bilderberg Conferences of high-level Insiders, such as Henry Kissinger and Richard Haass (the current President of the CFR).

On January 21, 2003, Bolton was invited to address the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham House, the British counterpart to the CFR.

The Real Bolton and the UN

At a presidential press conference held on April 28, 2005, a journalist asked President George W. Bush about the controversy surrounding his nomination of John Bolton as UN Ambassador. The president’s reply included this story:

“See, the U.N. needs reform. If you’re interested in reforming the U.N., like I’m interested in reforming the U.N., it makes sense to put somebody who’s skilled and who is not afraid to speak his mind at the United Nations.

“Now, I asked John during the interview process in the Oval Office, I said, before I send you up there to the Senate, let me ask you something: do you think the United Nations is important? See, I didn’t want to send somebody up there who said, it’s not — it’s not worth a darn; I don’t think I need to go. He said, no, it’s important. But it needs to be reformed.”

What a charade! For many decades, calls to reform the UN have been used to shield the increasingly unpopular UN from demands to get the U.S. out! and thereby abolish it altogether. Indeed, U.S. withdrawal would be totally unacceptable to the Insiders at the CFR.

Recall that CFR Insiders saw World War II as an opportunity to overcome the U.S. Senate refusal to join the Internationalists’ League of Nations following World War I. Within two weeks of the outbreak of new war in Europe, and a full two-years before Pearl Harbor, trusted CFR members were allowed to take over postwar planning for the U.S. State Department. Absorbed into the State Department, they designed the UN and orchestrated the cry for U.S. membership in the UN as “mankind’s last best hope for peace.”

We don’t know what John Bolton might recommend re North Korea, but one thing we know for sure — he won’t push for the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations. “Reform” sure. Criticize yes. But withdraw no.

Indeed, in hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations committee in April 2005, John Bolton stated:

“Walking away from the United Nations is not an option…. The United States is committed to the success of the United Nations, and we view the UN as an important component of our diplomacy…. Now more than ever the UN must play a critical role, as it strives to fulfill the aspirations of its original promise….”

The Insiders of the Internationalist Conspiracy have done a good job in misleading busy conservatives by creating phony “conservative” media that promote media personalities and political leaders who posture as conservative but cooperate with the subversive agenda of the Internationalists.

In an April 2005 interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, Condoleezza Rice (CFR), President Bush’s Secretary of State, echoed John Bolton’s commitment to strengthening the United Nations:

“There’s no doubt that this is an organization that needs updating and reforming in order to be effective…. And, we’re a founding member of the United Nations. We shouldn’t abandon it. We should make it a stronger instrument.”

Deception abounds! John Bolton has long played a part in advancing the CFR agenda.

Gun Grab Cover-up

“Gun control advocates and Democratic lawmakers are keeping the pressure on President Trump and Republicans to act on gun reform even as other controversies threaten to consume the spotlight nearly three weeks after a school shooting that left 17 people dead in South Florida.” — The Hill, 3-4-18

Much of the media and numerous politicians would have us believe that the easy availability of guns is responsible for the recent mass murder of 17 Florida high school students, i.e., the weapon caused the crime. The media would also have us believe that the survivors of the mass shooting are now unanimous advocates of more gun control as the solution. At the same time, the media covers up the revolutionary organization and totalitarian objectives driving the gun-control agenda, while retailing the fiction that the gun-control movement is only interested in promoting “gun safety.”

In her February 28th column, Ann Coulter gave us good reason to question the media-created impression that all the school’s shooting survivors are now passionate gun control advocates. Coulter pointed out how the perpetrator, Nicolas Cruz, had repeatedly and openly threatened to kill students, but that school and law enforcement officials had refused to act. The reason: an official Broward County policy on school discipline ostensibly intended to end the “school-to-prison pipeline”:

“If Cruz had taken out full-page ads in the local newspapers, he could not have demonstrated more clearly that he was a dangerous psychotic. He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other ‘red flags.’…

“At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., ‘I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,’ ‘I’m going to watch you bleed,’ ‘I am going to shoot you dead’ — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

“Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.”
Coulter concludes: “When it comes to spectacular crimes, it’s usually hard to say how it could have been prevented. But in this case, we have a paper trail.”

The Cover-up

Yet there is much more to this story and its fallout than intolerable law enforcement “failure.” Ann attributes the refusal of Broward County officials “to report, arrest or prosecute dangerous students” to their “pursuit of a demented ideology.” With this focus, Coulter insulates her readers from a much more sinister, decades-long agenda — the drive for civilian disarmament as a precursor to totalitarian control.

Establishment Insiders have pursued this agenda, domestically and through the United Nations for decades, but a corrupted media ensures that the public has zero awareness of the supporting organization and its real objectives. It’s not “demented ideology” driving the disarmament agenda; it’s a deceptive, unscrupulous power grab.

And so Ann, along with most of her controlled-media colleagues, ignores the critical reason why the horrible Florida crime has been so extensively adopted as a new convenient emotional pretext to drive the civilian disarmament agenda.

Americans who listen only to the major channels of Establishment opinion regularly hear about the monsters that have targeted defenseless school children and civilians. But they are not told about another monster in the wings — uncontrolled government, which so animated our founding fathers long before Professor R. J. Rummel documented the totalitarian record of the 20th Century in his Death By Government. Nor are they reminded of the Rwanda genocide resulting from UN-supported civilian disarmament.

And naturally, Americans are not told of the organized forces behind the deadly gun-control deception. For example, in the their 1958 classic, World Peace Through World Law, Grenville Clark, head of the United World Federalists, and Louis P. Sohn, later a member of the Establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations, spelled out an agenda for a “world police force” and called for rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition possessed by police and private citizens.

A clever propaganda piece, “Jefferson’s ‘tree of liberty’ and the blood of schoolchildren,” published by a Senior Editor for Yahoo News (2-15-18) illustrates the media-created ignorance of the gun-control threat:

“The idea that Americans should arm themselves to fight ‘state overreach’ is a staple of gun-rights groups and politicians occupying the political terrain that runs rightward roughly from the NRA to the edge of the earth. It goes back at least to Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that ‘the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood of patriots and tyrants.’

“And — call me naïve — but I would much sooner entrust my freedom to America’s justice system, which is also part of the Constitution, than to a bunch of middle-aged guys running around the woods in camo pants, no matter what kinds of guns they have.”

Of course, the preferred value of an armed citizenry is as one deterrent against a blatant assault on our liberties or form of government. Nobody should imagine that a minority of unsupported civilians could prevail in battle with the state. If the deterrent failed, universal support for action by an informed public, including even members of the military, would be necessary to reestablish “the tree of liberty.”

But many defenders of the Second Amendment make the mistake of relying solely on gun ownership for safety against tyranny. Would-be totalitarians do not depend on a single campaign such as gun-control to secure their aims — they seek to manipulate public opinion through control of the mass media, to create dependence on government for basic necessities, such as health care, and to create a submissive culture, among many other initiatives.

Other Ignored Factors

On October 11, 1798, President John Adams, while addressing the officers of the Militia of Massachusetts, explained: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We often find that Insider-controlled government is concocting a dangerous antidote to the poison it has itself created. In light of Adams’ admonition, consider the Federal government’s role in the culture war: the attack on the traditional family, the disrespect for religion, and the denigration of traditional moral standards.

Almost a century ago, Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, a prime strategist in the culture war, argued that in the developed Western democracies, the quick seizure of state power was doomed to failure. Instead, he insisted that for a revolution to be successful the supporting culture first had to be changed. The altered culture would then prepare the people, intellectually and morally, to accept the revolution.

In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, concluded:

“Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.”

And the home has been the target of the Insiders and the liberal agenda for decades.

Revolutionary Parliamentarianism

An internal Czechoslovak Communist Party strategy paper, discovered following the post-World War II takeover of Czechoslovakia, documented the deceptive practice known as “revolutionary parliamentarianism.” The tactic seeks to create the appearance of widespread popular pressure for revolutionary action.

Sympathizers in parliament (Congress) can then advance the revolutionary measure as though they were just responding to overwhelming public demand. Others congressmen, finding it difficult to stand up to the illusion, are pulled along.

Let’s look at several current examples of how the media, sympathetic politicians, and revolutionary organization create the illusion of genuine mass support for the gun-control agenda:

“Congress is under intense pressure to take action following the shooting, which reopened a national debate on guns.” [Emphasis added] — The Hill (2-27-18)

What debate? What the media calls a national debate is merely a media-orchestrated propaganda assault, masquerading as a debate. The voices put forth in the “debate” are carefully selected to keep the message within “acceptable” bounds and with an “acceptable” impact.

And how is the pressure organized, by whom, and for what purpose?

“Teenaged survivors of the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting have amassed huge followings on social media in the weeks since a gunman attacked their school, assembling powerful social media tools in the national debate over guns and mass shootings….

“The survivors’ emergence as pro-gun control voices on social media is a new development in the response to mass shootings.” — The Hill (3-3-18)

No one should doubt the initiative of teenagers to make use of social media and the new tools of technology. But somewhere the activists among them were mentored or encouraged by unmentioned adult forces. Nor should we accept that several hundred teenagers all have the same mind or speak with one voice.

Earlier, AP (2-20-18) reported:

“Students who survived the Florida school shooting began a journey Tuesday to the state Capitol to urge lawmakers to prevent another massacre….”

“Three buses carried 100 students who, in the aftermath of the attack that killed 17 people, want to revive the gun-control movement.”

Are we really supposed to believe that the teens organized this all by themselves? Consider this report in The Hill (2-20-18):

“Lawmakers say they are feeling more pressure than ever to act on gun control after the latest deadly mass shooting at a public high school.

“A large reason, aides and lawmakers alike say, is the emotional pleas from students who survived the shooting — and who have expressed horror at the idea that nothing will be done in response to the killings of their schoolmates.

“The grass-roots movement, dubbed ‘Never Again,’ has kept an extra layer of pressure on members to enact stricter gun laws and take other steps to prevent future massacres….

“Still, the public outcry that followed last week’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., has fueled some hope among gun reformers that the political winds are shifting in their favor.

“Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said the protests in recent days constitute ‘a new type of organic outcry,’ one even more prominent than the demonstrations that followed a similar shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012.

“But after the latest deadly shooting rampage in Florida, high school students are taking the fight into their own hands — a powerful shift that appears to be having an impact on the national conversation surrounding the emotional and heated gun control debate….

“Young activists have been making impassioned pleas on national television, demanding action from their elected officials and organizing rallies, walkouts and marches — including one planned for Washington, D.C., on March 24.” [Emphasis added.]

The Hill and Democratic Representative Mike Thompson would have us believe that the teens planned this all by themselves. AFP (2-18-18) reveals more of the extensive planning:

“The ‘March for our Lives’ will take place on March 24, with sister marches planned across the country, a group of students told ABC News, vowing to make Wednesday’s shooting a turning point in America’s deadlocked debate on gun control.”

And Fox News (3-5-18) also reported the advertised planning, while cooperating with the revolutionaries to hide the “rest of the story” and keep the public in the dark:

“So along with 16-year-old Madeline Paterna, Giancola began to arrange for her school to participate in the National School Walkout, a protest led by students demanding action against gun violence, on March 14 – one month after the Parkland school shooting….

“For 17 minutes at 10 a.m. across each time zone on March 14, students, school faculty and supporters around the world will walk out of their schools to honor those killed in the massacre at the Parkland high school earlier this year and to protest gun violence.

“More than 185,000 students are expected to participate in the walkout, according to the latest numbers provided by a Women’s March spokesperson. And a map of participating schools on the event’s website shows the walkout has gone international – with schools in Ireland, Israel and Mexico participating.”

Fox News did point to a https://www.womensmarch.com/empower/coalition group calling itself Women’s March Youth EMPOWER, sporting a clenched fist in its website logo, as the organizers of the March 14 demonstration. But the Fox story supported the protest by pointing students to another website where students could find out if their school is participating and the story recited the group’s objective to “protest Congress’ inaction” at face value.

Good Morning America (2-27-18) reported on a Rhode Island executive order to “establish a new ‘red flag’ policy” to “help keep guns away from people who ‘could pose significant threats to public safety.’”

“‘The executive order I signed today is an immediate step we can take to make residents safer. It sets the table for a complementary legislative effort,” Gov. Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, said in a statement Monday. ‘We cannot wait a minute longer for Washington to take action to prevent gun violence.’” [Emphasis added.]

And for “authoritative” input to the public “debate,” Good Morning America gave us this:

“‘Today is a major victory for Rhode Islanders and an encouraging sign for people throughout the country as they demand lawmakers take concrete action to prevent gun violence,’ Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said in a statement.” [Emphasis added.]

Leadership Betrayal

As usual, we see political leaders in both parties eagerly supporting the orchestrated Insider media spin that what the Florida mass shootings demonstrate is the need for government to give us more “gun safety.” Here are a few examples:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

“Propose something, Mr. President. And I think Republicans have an obligation to work with Democrats to make it law if we can,” Graham said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” — The Hill (3-4-18)

Ohio Governor John Kasich (R):

“Ohio Gov. John Kasich commended young Americans for demanding that their elected officials take decisive actions to reduce gun violence in the aftermath of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla…..

“According to Kasich, their idealism may actually succeed in ushering in new gun measures to protect Americans.

“‘And the more they push, the better chance we have of getting something done — to have greater gun safety and better protection for everybody in our country,’ he said.” — Yahoo (3-4-18)

House Minority Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.):

“‘Yesterday, we were encouraged by what President Trump had to say, our members who attended the meeting,’ Pelosi said.

“The minority leader was also encouraged by Trump pushing for legislation that would institute background checks for firearms purchased online or at gun shows. A bipartisan measure from Reps. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., and Mike Thompson, D-Calif., that would do just that has reached 200 co-sponsors in the House.

“‘We’ve never had anything like 200 names on a gun safety bill. This is remarkable,’ Pelosi said. The King-Thompson bill is something Democrats have long pushed for in the wake of mass shootings like the one February 14 at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 dead….

“‘I know if the comprehensive bill on background checks came to the floor, it would win,’ Pelosi said.” — Roll Call (3-1-18)

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas):

“Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), who is leading the GOP response to gun violence in the upper chamber, told reporters after the meeting with Trump at the White House that he still favors a limited approach….

“‘For me the most obvious place to start is the Fix NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] bill that has 46 cosponsors,’ Cornyn said of the bill he’s co-sponsored with Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.).” [Emphasis added.] — The Hill (3-1-18)

A Final Word: The Wisdom of James Madison

From his deep study of history, James Madison warned of the dangers of ignorance, deception, and betrayal:

“Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant — they have been cheated; asleep — they have been surprised; divided — the yoke has been forced upon them.

“But what is the lesson? That because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up, blindfolded, to those who have an interest in betraying them? Rather conclude that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it.”

Please share this perspective widely!

Default title

Receive Alerts