Category Archives: Communist Connections

The United Nations 2030 Agenda. A Blueprint For The global Enslavement Of Humanity.

What Is Agenda 21/2030 Sustainable Development? Source: Corbett Report.

download2

Click Here – 2030 Agenda For Sustainable Development.

The United Nations 2030 Agenda decoded: It’s a blueprint for the global enslavement of humanity under the boot of corporate masters.

Friday, September 04, 2015

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Tags: 2030 AgendaUnited Nationsglobal enslavement

(NaturalNews) This week, Michael Snyder published an important article entitled The 2030 Agenda: This Month The UN Launches A Blueprint For A New World Order With The Help Of The Pope.

That article references this UN “2030 Agenda” document that pushes a blueprint for so-called “sustainable development” around the world.

This document describes nothing less than a global government takeover of every nation across the planet. The “goals” of this document are nothing more than code words for a corporate-government fascist agenda that will imprison humanity in a devastating cycle of poverty while enriching the world’s most powerful globalist corporations like Monsanto and DuPont.

In the interests of helping wake up humanity, I’ve decided to translate the 17 points of this 2030 agenda so that readers everywhere can understand what this document is really calling for. To perform this translation, you have to understand how globalists disguise their monopolistic agendas in “feel good” language.

Here’s the point-by-point translation. Notice carefully that nowhere does this document state that “achieving human freedom” is one of its goals. Nor does it explain HOW these goals are to be achieved. As you’ll see here, every single point in this UN agenda is to be achieved through centralized government control and totalitarian mandates that resemble communism.

Translation of the UN’s “2030 Agenda blueprint for globalist government” (controlled by corporate interests)

Goal 1) End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Translation: Put everyone on government welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies and handouts that make them obedient slaves to global government. Never allow people upward mobility to help themselves. Instead, teach mass victimization and obedience to a government that provides monthly “allowance” money for basic essentials like food and medicine. Label it “ending poverty.”

Goal 2) End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

Translation: Invade the entire planet with GMOs and Monsanto’s patented seeds while increasing the use of deadly herbicides under the false claim of “increased output” of food crops. Engineer genetically modified plants to boost specific vitamin chemicals while having no idea of the long-term consequences of genetic pollution or cross-species genetic experiments carried out openly in a fragile ecosystem.

Goal 3) Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

Translation: Mandate 100+ vaccines for all children and adults at gunpoint, threatening parents with arrest and imprisonment if they refuse to cooperate. Push heavy medication use on children and teens while rolling out “screening” programs. Call mass medication “prevention” programs and claim they improve the health of citizens.

Goal 4) Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Translation: Push a false history and a dumbed-down education under “Common Core” education standards that produce obedient workers rather than independent thinkers. Never let people learn real history, or else they might realize they don’t want to repeat it.

Goal 5) Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

Translation: Criminalize Christianity, marginalize heterosexuality, demonize males and promote the LGBT agenda everywhere. The real goal is never “equality” but rather the marginalization and shaming of anyone who expresses any male characteristics whatsoever. The ultimate goal is to feminize society, creating widespread acceptance of “gentle obedience” along with the self-weakening ideas of communal property and “sharing” everything. Because only male energy has the strength to rise up against oppression and fight for human rights, the suppression of male energy is key to keeping the population in a state of eternal acquiescence.

Goal 6) Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

Translation: Allow powerful corporations to seize control of the world’s water supplies and charge monopoly prices to “build new water delivery infrastructure” that “ensures availability.”

Goal 7) Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.

Translation: Penalize coal, gas and oil while pushing doomed-to-fail “green” energy subsidies to brain-dead startups headed by friends of the White House who all go bankrupt in five years or less. The green startups make for impressive speeches and media coverage, but because these companies are led by corrupt idiots rather than capable entrepreneurs, they always go broke. (And the media hopes you don’t remember all the fanfare surrounding their original launch.)

Goal 8) Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

Translation: Regulate small business out of existence with government-mandated minimum wages that bankrupt entire sectors of the economy. Force employers to meet hiring quotas of LGBT workers while mandating wage tiers under a centrally planned work economy dictated by the government. Destroy free market economics and deny permits and licenses to those companies that don’t obey government dictates.

Goal 9) Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.

Translation: Put nations into extreme debt with the World Bank, spending debt money to hire corrupt American corporations to build large-scale infrastructure projects that trap developing nations in an endless spiral of debt. See the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins to understand the details of how this scheme has been repeated countless times over the last several decades.

Goal 10) Reduce inequality within and among countries.

Translation: Punish the rich, the entrepreneurs and the innovators, confiscating nearly all gains by those who choose to work and excel. Redistribute the confiscated wealth to the masses of non-working human parasites that feed off a productive economy while contributing nothing to it… all while screaming about “equality!”

Goal 11) Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

Translation: Ban all gun ownership by private citizens, concentrating guns into the hands of obedient government enforcers who rule over an unarmed, enslaved class of impoverished workers. Criminalize living in most rural areas by instituting Hunger Games-style “protected areas” which the government will claim are owned by “the People” even though no people are allowed to live there. Force all humans into densely packed, tightly controlled cities where they are under 24/7 surveillance and subject to easy manipulation by government.

Goal 12) Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Translation: Begin levying punitive taxes on the consumption of fossil fuels and electricity, forcing people to live under conditions of worsening standards of living that increasingly resemble Third World conditions. Use social influence campaigns in TV, movies and social media to shame people who use gasoline, water or electricity, establishing a social construct of ninnies and tattlers who rat out their neighbors in exchange for food credit rewards.

Goal 13) Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

Translation: Set energy consumption quotas on each human being and start punishing or even criminalizing “lifestyle decisions” that exceed energy usage limits set by governments. Institute total surveillance of individuals in order to track and calculate their energy consumption. Penalize private vehicle ownership and force the masses onto public transit, where TSA grunts and facial recognition cameras can monitor and record the movement of every person in society, like a scene ripped right out of Minority Report.

Goal 14) Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

Translation: Ban most ocean fishing, plunging the food supply into an extreme shortage and causing runaway food price inflation that puts even more people into economic desperation. Criminalize the operation of private fishing vessels and place all ocean fishing operations under the control of government central planning. Only allow favored corporations to conduct ocean fishing operations (and make this decision based entirely on which corporations give the most campaign contributions to corrupt lawmakers).

Goal 15) Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

Translation: Roll out Agenda 21 and force humans off the land and into controlled cities. Criminalize private land ownership, including ranches and agricultural tracts. Tightly control all agriculture through a corporate-corrupted government bureaucracy whose policies are determined almost entirely by Monsanto while being rubber-stamped by the USDA. Ban woodstoves, rainwater collection and home gardening in order to criminalize self-reliance and force total dependence on government.

Goal 16) Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.

Translation: Grant legal immunity to illegal aliens and “protected” minority groups, which will be free to engage in any illegal activity — including openly calling for the mass murder of police officers — because they are the new protected class in society. “Inclusive institutions” means granting favorable tax structures and government grants to corporations that hire LGBT workers or whatever groups are currently in favor with the central planners in government. Use the IRS and other federal agencies to selectively punish unfavorable groups with punitive audits and regulatory harassment, all while ignoring the criminal activities of favored corporations that are friends of the political elite.

Goal 17) Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

Translation: Enact global trade mandates that override national laws while granting unrestricted imperialism powers to companies like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, RJ Reynolds, Coca-Cola and Merck. Pass global trade pacts that bypass a nation’s lawmakers and override intellectual property laws to make sure the world’s most powerful corporations maintain total monopolies over drugs, seeds, chemicals and technology. Nullify national laws and demand total global obedience to trade agreements authored by powerful corporations and rubber-stamped by the UN.

Total enslavement of the planet by 2030. As the UN document says, “We commit ourselves to working tirelessly for the full implementation of this Agenda by 2030.”

If you read the full document and can read beyond the fluffery and public relations phrases, you’ll quickly realize that this UN agenda is going to be forced upon all the citizens of the world through the invocation of government coercion. Nowhere does this document state that the rights of the individual will be protected. Nor does it even acknowledge the existence of human rights granted to individuals by the Creator. Even the so-called “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” utterly denies individuals the right to self defense, the right to medical choice and the right to parental control over their own children.

The UN is planning nothing less than a global government tyranny that enslaves all of humanity while calling the scheme “sustainable development” and “equality.”

1984 has finally arrived. And of course it’s all being rolled out under the fraudulent label of “progress.”

Three Communists From The USSR Authored The United Nations Charter In 1945. Hiss, Pasvolsky And Molotov.

download1

Click Here For UN Charter.

Click Here For UN – Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The United Nations: Peace Dove Unmasked

The Plan to Have the UN Rule

by John F. McManus
President, The John Birch Society

The very first purpose claimed for the United Nations in Article 1 of the UN Charter reads as follows: “To maintain international peace and security.” The UN has always promoted itself as a champion of peace. The word “peace” (or “peaceful”) appears five times in the very first sentence of Article 1. And the UN’s claim that it stands only for “peace” has been repeated by journalists and government officials throughout the world ever since the organization was founded.

In 1945, however, at the very moment the world organization was being created, former U.S. State Department official J. Reuben Clark read the United Nations Charter and immediately stated:

… there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war…. The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace…. The Charter is a war document, not a peace document.

Not only does the Charter organization not prevent future wars, it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose on which side we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.

J. Reuben Clark’s assessment of the UN Charter was correct in every detail. But so great was the horror of the still uncompleted World War II (it did not end in the Pacific until several weeks after the UN Charter was approved) that only two of the 96 senators then serving in the U.S. Congress opposed our nation’s entry into the United Nations. The conspirators seeking world government and tyrannical rule had failed in 1919 to get the United States entangled in their League of Nations web. But they succeeded in 1945 when America joined the United Nations.

The U.S. Senate debated the matter of joining the League of Nations for nine months in 1919 and rejected the proposal. But the Senate in 1945 devoted a mere six days to deliberations about the UN Charter and approved it. During those six days, Senator Burton Wheeler of Montana presented his grave concerns. He told his Senate colleagues:

If we enter into this treaty, we take the power away from the Congress, and the President can send troops all over the world to fight battles everywhere.

That very correct assessment of what joining the United Nations would mean didn’t impress many senators. Amazingly, even Senator Wheeler himself voted in favor of U.S. membership in the world body a few days later. The pressure to “do something, do anything to prevent future war” was immense.

Another person who understood the war-making purpose of the United Nations was Lebanon’s Charles Malik. A delegate to the San Francisco founding conference from his nation, Malik eventually served as the President of the General Assembly in 1959. In his 1963 book entitled Man In the Struggle for Peace, he wrote:

When responsible representatives deliberated the United Nations Charter at San Francisco in 1945, nobody thought for one moment that the new world organization was going to abolish war for all time…. the whole organization is predicated on the distinct possibility of war.

But few Americans, and I expect few Europeans or anyone else, have ever read the UN Charter. Yet it must be understood because it is such a grave threat to freedom. And it is being promoted by powerful forces in America as the world’s only hope for peace.

No one can understand the reasoning behind self-defeating policies of the United States government without an awareness of the enormously harmful influence of the Council on Foreign Relations. This organization has worked to destroy America’s national sovereignty and create a tyrannical world government ever since its inception in 1921. It members are the leaders in government, the mass media, the wealthy foundations, the military, religion, education, the corporate world, and other important segments of our nation’s life. They are betrayers from within, and their influence has spread to numerous other parts of the world.

The United Nations Charter

As certainly should be expected, the UN Charter briefly mentions the importance of national independence. If it had failed to do so, few nations would have accepted it because all nations want to remain independent. A careful reading of the Charter, however, shows that even though Article 2 pledges to maintain “the sovereign equality of all its Members,” the Charter violates that pledge in the very same Article.

The Charter’s main authors were Americans Alger Hiss and Leo Pasvolsky and the Soviet Union’s Vyacheslav Molotov. Hiss was a secret communist and a member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. Pasvolsky was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. And Molotov was an official of the murderous Soviet Union whose criminal leaders expected the United Nations to bring about a communist-controlled world.

These men surely did not want the nations of the world to remain independent. Instead, they wanted all to become subject to the authority of the United Nations, an organization they expected to control. And they wrote the UN Charter to accomplish that goal.

The Charter’s attack on national independence begins in Article 1, paragraph 7. But it hides its ultimate goal by stating: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state, or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter….”

Anyone who reads only that statement will likely conclude that the UN intends to protect a nation’s right to govern within its borders, a major ingredient of sovereignty. But the sentence in Article 1, paragraph 7 does not end there. It continues: “… but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.” So the UN Charter does not prevent the organization from meddling in the affairs of nations. What then are these “enforcement measures under Chapter VII” of the UN Charter? And how might they be employed?

Chapter VII of the Charter begins with Article 39 by proclaiming that “the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression… and shall decide what measures shall be taken….” So the UN shall make the decision as to whether and when it shall act militarily. Then, in Article 42, the UN Security Council is authorized to –

… take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and operations by land, sea, or air forces of Members of the United Nations.

That’s no guarantee of peace, it’s a blueprint for war. Clearly, a nation that balks at being controlled by the UN will be deemed to be a threat to the UN’s definition of peace. And the UN has authority under this section of its Charter to wage war to accomplish its idea of peace.

But nowhere in the Charter is there a definition of peace. Yet it is obvious that peace, according to Molotov, Hiss, all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, and all communists and socialists, has always meant the absence of opposition, not the absence of war. This, I contend, is what the authors of the Charter intended.

Among the numerous routes to gain world dominance, UN-style peace will begin to reign after the UN employs “action by air, sea, or land forces” to completely destroy all who oppose the UN. Of course, this is “enforced” peace which isn’t real peace. Enforced peace exists when opposition is crushed as it was in the former Soviet Union, in the former Nazi Germany, and today in the vast Communist-controlled prison known as the People’s Republic of China. This isn’t peace; it’s tyranny.

As J. Reuben Clark said in 1945, the UN Charter “is a war document, not a peace document.” And so is the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is also falsely portrayed as a peace document.

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

My country was born in 1776 with our Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. This document presents the philosophical base upon which the United States of America has been built. Its most important point states as a “self-evident” truth that “Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” In other words, the rights that are so often taken for granted (to life, speech, assembly, religion, ownership of a weapon, etc.) aren’t granted by a government and cannot justly be taken away by a government. They are God-given and cannot be limited. These rights were then mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

But the UN never mentions God and never asserts that rights are granted by God. Its lavishly praised 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states instead that rights are “granted … by the constitution or by law.” If a law grants rights, another law can cancel them. And this is precisely what the UN intends. It even says so in this same Universal Declaration where it states: “In the exercise of his rights and responsibilities, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law.” In other words, a UN law, or a law approved by the UN, can be enacted to cancel whatever rights are granted by the UN.

This totalitarian attitude is then amplified in Article 29 of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights where one can read the following: “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” No one, therefore, shall have any rights if the enjoyment of them conflicts with the UN’s desires.

Then in 1966, the UN produced its International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. Again, various rights are mentioned but the power of the UN to cancel or modify them appears as each is mentioned. This is a blueprint for tyranny.

Anyone who has ever seen the Constitution of the former Soviet Union would recognize that the UN has followed the USSR’s lead in mentioning rights and canceling them out in the very act of their being mentioned. In the Soviet Union, all persons were guaranteed freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc. by the Soviet Constitution. But no one in the USSR was allowed to exercise those rights because the Constitution gave government the power to create laws suspending them. And these laws were indeed created. This is precisely what should be expected if the UN should ever become dominant.

The parallel between the United Nations and the totalitarian Soviet Union cannot be denied.

The UN and Military Force

For the United Nations to become totally dominant, three powers would have to be added. These are taxing power that would make it independent of the nations of the world, judicial power which the already created International Criminal Court will supply, and its own military power to enforce its will.

There will be a conference in Mexico in 2002 to address the UN’s desire to have taxing power. The International Criminal Court was created in Rome only a few years ago and will soon be functioning. It claims power to arrest and try any person on earth for a series of broadly defined crimes. But I have been asked to address the “militarization” of the United Nations.

Let me begin by noting that the United Nations has never had a military arm of its own. The UN would prefer to have its own blue-helmeted force, but it has to date been satisfied if UN control over one or more nation’s armed forces can be accomplished. It has always relied on member nations to supply forces for its military campaigns.

One such UN campaign took place in 1961 in Belgium’s former colony in Africa known as the Belgian Congo. This example of the UN acting militarily occurred after Belgium had granted independence to its colony, and after a Moscow-trained communist named Patrice Lumumba gained control of the newly formed government.

Lumumba and his communist allies immediately began a brutal consolidation of power. In response, Moise Tshombe, the pro-Western, anti-communist, black leader of the Congo’s province known as Katanga, seceded and declared his region an independent nation. The United Nations immediately sent a military force into Katanga that bombed hospitals and schools, murdered civilians indiscriminately, and did everything possible to force the breakaway province to submit to the rule of the communist-led central government.

So horrifying were the atrocities committed by the UN forces that the 46 civilian doctors of Elizabethville, Katanga’s capital city, sent an urgent appeal to the International Red Cross and elsewhere documenting the atrocities and asking the world to force the United Nations to cease its vicious attack on their land. Their appeal was endorsed by Belgium’s Senate and published in the United States by The John Birch Society. Entitled 46 Angry Men, it presented convincing evidence of the intent of the United Nations to use military force to have its way, and its way in this instance was to force a free and productive people under communist rule.

During this incredibly brutal UN campaign, American military transports were pressed into service to bring the UN’s murderers to Katanga. What happened in that freedom-loving portion of Africa showed the UN’s true intentions and exposed the falsehood claiming that the UN stands for peace.

UN Dominance Over U.S. Armed Forces

In numerous instances, the United States has experienced the effect of UN authority over its own military forces. In 1950, Communist North Korea invaded anti-Communist South Korea. American forces were immediately sent to the area under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. But the entire operation was turned over to the United Nations. Also, there was no declaration of war as required by the U.S. Constitution. MacArthur’s forces actually won the war but the Chinese Communists then entered it and, even then, the U.S. forces could have ended the struggle in triumph but the UN would not allow them to proceed to victory.

A completely frustrated General MacArthur protested the restrictions given him and he was removed from his command by President Truman and sent home. The war continued until 1953. It has never been concluded and the state of war still exists in that part of the world.

It was eventually learned that everything the American forces did in Korea was first sent to the UN for authorization. Years later, Chinese General Lin Piao revealed to his fellow Chinese: “I would never have made the attack and risked my men and military reputation if I had not been assured that Washington would restrain General MacArthur from taking adequate retaliatory measures against my lines of supply and communication.”

It was the United Nations that gave the Chinese general that assurance. And it was traitorous influences within the U.S. government that permitted this betrayal. Over 50,000 Americans died in the Korean War that was called merely a “police action” by President Truman.

In 1949, one year before the Korean War, 12 nations formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Its Charter containing a short introduction and 14 brief articles mentions the United Nations five times. In a speech urging the U.S. Senate to approve the treaty, Secretary of State Dean Acheson (of the CFR) said that the treaty “is designed to fit precisely into the framework of the United Nations” and that “it is an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.” From its creation in 1949, NATO has always been a part of the United Nations. It derives its right to exist under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter entitled “Regional Arrangements.” Anyone who has ever served under NATO’s command, no matter what country’s uniform he wore, has always been serving the United Nations.

In 1954, eight nations formed the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization known as SEATO. It was under SEATO that U.S. forces went to Vietnam to fight in another undeclared, UN-directed, no-win war. The brain behind the creation of SEATO was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, one of the disciples of CFR founder Edward Mandell House and himself a prominent member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The conclusion we have reached in The John Birch Society is that the U.S. military is being delivered to the United Nations. At times, it is delivered directly and obviously, and at other times through the UN stepchildren known as NATO or SEATO. SEATO did its work well and the U.S. forces were actually defeated in Vietnam when numerous field commanders stated that they could have won the war any time the restrictions on their activity were removed. Another 50,000 Americans died in that conflict and countless more Vietnamese. It never should have happened. Once SEATO had done its job, it was abolished. But NATO still exists and its control of U.S. forces, and the forces of other nations, is obvious. That control is ultimately UN control.

One certain effect of these undeclared wars is that our nation’s military leaders, and their counterparts in other nations, have been trained to accept jurisdiction from other than their own countrymen. They have become NATO’s forces and hardly any understand that they have become part of the UN’s military arm.

In 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait and U.S. President George Bush (the elder) went to the United Nations for authorization to defend Kuwait and oppose Iraq’s move. Mr. Bush repeatedly stated that his goal was to “reinvigorate” the United Nations and build a “new world order.” He succeeded, but the UN-directed war against Iraq has never ended. American-led actions against Iraq have caused the deaths of approximately one million Iraqi civilians over the past ten years. And some Americans wonder why our nation is hated in the Arab world, and why fanatical Moslems would convert passenger planes into suicide bombs to destroy life and property in our country.

In 1992, American forces numbering many thousands were sent to Somalia under UN authorization. In 1994, tens of thousands of U.S. troops were sent to Haiti to enforce another UN resolution.

President Bill Clinton, another member of the Council on Foreign Relations, sent American forces into the former Yugoslavia. These Americans were directed by NATO from the outset. American generals had to go to Brussels to ask for permission to engage in whatever military action they wanted to undertake. Mr. Clinton promised an early exit date that came and went, but the American forces are still there. Eventually, Sir Michael Rose of England wearing a UN blue helmet joined with UN diplomat Yasushi Akashi of Japan to order U.S. fighter planes from NATO to attack positions in Bosnia. These two men didn’t bother to contact President Clinton and the American commanders in the field did not hesitate to follow these orders.

And now, American forces are warring against Afghanistan. One day after the attack on New York and Washington, the UN Security Council gave the U.S. permission to launch military action against Afghanistan. On that same day, NATO invoked Article 5 of its Charter which states that an attack on any NATO member is an attack on all. This was the first time this portion of the NATO Charter has ever been invoked.

On September 28th, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 sponsored by the United States. It obliges the 189 member nations to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. Secretary of State Powell (CFR) explained that the U.S. action in Afghanistan was authorized by Article 51 of the UN Charter. He had earlier explained that “when it comes to our role as a member of the Security Council, we are obviously bound by UN resolutions.” And great numbers of Americans either see no problem with that attitude or have no awareness of it.

On October 8th, President Bush requested NATO to supply surveillance aircraft to patrol airspace over the United States, the first time since our War for Independence in the 1780s that foreign forces have been used to defend the United States.

The point I wish to make here is that either the UN  itself or its NATO subsidiary directs what the U.S. military does. The armed forces of the United States have become an arm of the United Nations.

Plans Created 40 Years Ago

In September 1961, President John Kennedy delivered a speech at UN headquarters in New York in which he presented the United States program for complete disarmament of the entire world – except for the United Nations which would become the only military power on earth. Entitled “Freedom From War,” the Kennedy three-stage plan was designed to be implemented over many years. It called for all nations to give up their military power while arming the United Nations. The final step stated: “progressive controlled disarmament … would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened UN Peace Force.”

The document also calls for the disarming of citizens.

It immediately became unavailable for examination by the general public. But The John Birch Society obtained a copy and has reprinted it in its entirety many times. It is an incredible betrayal of our nation that most Americans have never seen and those who are shown a copy find it hard to comprehend. This plan was produced by the staffs of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, both of whom were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. And it was delivered to the UN by President John F. Kennedy, also a CFR member.

On numerous occasions, we have contacted federal officials to ask the status of this plan to disarm America and provide the UN with unchallengeable military power. The response has always been that it is the fixed and determined policy of the government of the United States. Anyone who examines it will see that many of the interim steps it contains have already been accomplished.

The year 1961 also saw the U.S. State Department finance the creation of a document entitled “A World Effectively Controlled By the United Nations.” Written by Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, it lists the many steps needed to bring about a UN-controlled world. Completed in 1962, this document was originally classified as secret and kept from public view. It is, therefore, written in very clear language. Once declassified, we obtained a copy and have circulated it widely.

In order to establish a world controlled by the United Nations, the Bloomfield report called for UN taxing power, a UN military arm of approximately 500,000 men, compulsory jurisdiction of a UN court, and unrestricted power to carry out inspection any place on earth.

Professor Bloomfield, another member of the Council on Foreign Relations, expected that the goal could not be reached completely for many years. But, he wrote, “a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply rooted attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken” could lead more quickly to the desired goal. The recent terrorist attacks have given our nation’s leaders the type of crisis they want in order to complete the sellout of America to a world government.

Six months ago, before the destruction of New York’s World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon in Washington, I spoke to a group of Americans about what was happening to our nation’s military forces. I reported portions of what I have just stated today. But some of what I said then actually forecast the horrors occurring on September 11th. Here is what I said in April 2001, five months before the terrorists converted those civilian airliners into terrorist bombs.

One of the logical consequences of our forces being sent into the middle of local disputes is hatred for our country. It seems true that our bombs have destroyed electrical service, water supplies, medical capability and more in the nations we have targeted. Certainly this is the case in Iraq. Is there any surprise that retaliation has been forthcoming?

1993: World Trade Center bombing (6 Americans dead); 1995: U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia bombed (7 dead); 1996: another U.S. military barracks blown up (19 dead); 1998: U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed (224 dead); 2000: USS Cole attacked in Yemen (17 dead).

And now in the year 2001, President George W. Bush unleashes bombers on Iraq as did his father. The adventurism of several presidents has made all Americans vulnerable.

Let me add now to what I said then. The distinct possibility that my nation’s armed forces are already under UN control must be considered. And the terrorist crisis has given our leaders the opportunity, as Professor Bloomfield indicated, to lead the United States into formal control by the UN as the major step in bringing about a world effectively controlled by the world body.

What Must Be Done

The only sensible response to all of this treachery is to force our leaders to withdraw from the United Nations and to bring our military forces home from the four corners of the earth. To give a brief idea of where America’s armed forces are stationed, we have 69,000 in Germany, 40,000 in Japan, 36,000 in South Korea, 11,000 in Italy, 11,000 in England, 7,000 in Bosnia, 5,000 in Kuwait, 5,000 in Serbia-Kosovo, 5,000 in Saudi Arabia, and more thousands in Spain, Turkey, Iceland, Belgium, Bahrain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Greece, Diego Garcia, and even in Cuba where the U.S. has actually maintained a naval base during all the years since Fidel Castro took control of that nation in 1959.

The John Birch Society has advocated withdrawing from the UN for 40 years. Just recently, however, we have revitalized this effort with new books, new pamphlets, new video programs, and other new tools that we are working to share with fellow Americans. It is our single most important project.

In 1997, largely as a result of our many years of effort, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on a measure to have our nation withdraw from the UN. Only 54 of the 435 members of the House voted yes. But this was the first time since 1945 that such a measure had even been considered.

Then, in 1999, a similar vote was taken and 74 members of the House voted yes. In 2001, other votes have been taken and the numbers are similar. Now, pressure from the people across the nation, generated by members of The John Birch Society, is causing many members of Congress to rethink America’s involvement in the UN.

We are making progress. But we still have much work ahead of us if we are to succeed. We believe that U.S. withdrawal from the UN will alter much that is happening in the world. National sovereignty of all nations will be protected if the U.S. will quit the United Nations. And the world conspiracy will have been dealt a severe blow.

I expect that all of you here wish us great success. And for that I thank you on behalf of our organization, its tens of thousands of members, and the millions of sleeping Americans we are working to awaken in this time of great peril.

Myron Fagan’s 1967 Complete Audio Of Vinyl Record The Illuminati And Council On Foreign Relations.

download (33)

download

wikipedia.org

Myron Coureval Fagan (31 October 1887 – 12 May 1972) was an American writer, producer and director for film and theatre and a red scare figure in the late 1940s and 50s. Fagan was an ardent anti-communist and influential conspiracy theorist.

Between 1967 and 1968 Myron Fagan recorded a set of three spoken-word LP records titled The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations. Produced by Anthony Hilder, the records presented the Bavarian Illuminati, the Protocols of Zion, and internationalist politics as faces of a single grand “Luciferian” conspiracy directed by the Rothschild family.

U.S. Common Core Education System Would Make Any Communist Regime Proud.

A Chinese immigrant shares her thoughts on Common Core and her Chinese education. Please like and share. http://www.lily4liberty.com

Common Core Would Make Any Communist Regime Proud.

renewamerica.com

By Gina Miller

October 21, 2013

Let’s just jump right in here to the crux of the Common Core “State” Standards with an excerpt from the paper, “History of Education in Communist Countries,” by Hae Yoon Jeong, 2009, Korean Minjok Leadership Academy:

The communist revolutions in the 20th century had their goal at creating total revolutions and establishing a new society different from the capitalist society. This new society required people with new loyalties, new motivations, and new concepts of individual and group life. Education was acknowledged to have a strategic role in achieving this revolution and development. Specifically, education was used to produce ardent revolutionaries ready to rebel against the old society and establish a new order and also to bring up a new generation of dexterous laborers to take up the various tasks of development and modernization.

… Marxist-Leninist philosophy was the basis of the Communist education system. It emphasized the role of schools and youth organizations in educating students by indoctrination. For this the Communist societies paid a lot of attention to schooling. There had been great confidence that schools would be a major instrument for building the “New Communist Man.” Such a person would work diligently, would have a clear insight into the dynamics of social change, would understand and be skilled in modern technology, and follow the tenets of Marxism-Leninism.

According to Communist educational philosophy, a good, modern education is one that is polytechnic. Central to such an education is teaching about production and providing labor training and work experience to youngsters while they are in secondary and higher education. Marxist interpretations of the duty of the school include the job of teaching young people the leading role of material conditions of production in shaping social and political events (2). Young people should be given an understanding and some experience of the way production processes are organized; the social consequences of different ways of organizing production; and the importance of technological change.

Marxism-Leninism also stresses atheist education and anti-religious propaganda in the schools. The main approach taken is to emphasize the superior quality of the answers which science, as opposed to religion, can give to the basic questions of human existence.

All authoritarian regimes must necessarily commandeer their country’s education system. They must own and mold the minds of the children to make the kids into pliable, group-thinking serfs of the state – “good citizens.” Freedom of thought and wealth of real knowledge are anathema to communist leaders.

For those who are paying attention, it is quite clear that the United States of America has been taken over by hardcore communists, which is the culmination of a hundred years of communist termites chewing away at the foundations of our once-free Republic. Naturally, they don’t call themselves communists, but they are doing the very things communists do. I need not give you, educated reader, the laundry list of anti-freedom, anti-American lawlessness that has poured forth from Barack Obama (or whatever his name is), his administration and Congress, all of which has dragged America toward tyrannical, centralized control of our nation, which is the definition of communism.

Centralized control of America’s education system is of paramount importance to these lawless degenerates. The problem they face here in the United States is that our nation, from its founding, has forbidden the federal government from dictating education standards and curriculum to the states. The communist central planners have found a way around this. It’s called the Common Core “State” Standards. As with all communist programs, the name is misleading. In fact, it’s a damnable lie. The Common Core is not a set of state-created standards. To the contrary, they were developed by a leftist, Washington-based think tank, Achieve, endorsed by two Washington-based trade groups, and funded, in part, with millions of dollars from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, among others, like the Sandler Foundation (of Herb and Marion Sandler, hard Left allies of George Soros, ACORN, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, and of course, so many more).

Pushers of the Common Core have been very careful to create the illusion that this is a state-led effort. To this end, they partnered with Washington’s National Governors Association (which does not represent all the states) and Washington’s Council of Chief State School Officers. Neither of these groups was tasked by any state or state board of education to create the new standards. In fact, state legislators, teachers and parents were left out of their development.

Common Core proponents also claim that the standards are voluntary, which is also misleading. In 2009, the Obama administration created a funding carrot for the states, Race to the Top grants, as well as waivers for provisions of No Child Left Behind. States could applies for these, but in order to qualify for the grants and waivers, states were required to adopt the Common Core standards and related national tests, sight unseen, because the standards were not even presented until 2010. Currently 45 states and the District of Columbia have taken the bribes and adopted Common Core, but a number of them are now working to get rid of it.

At present, the standards, which you can read online, only cover math and English language “arts.” Naturally, the communists were not going to go overboard by initially including history, science and social studies in their standards, subjects that would reveal the leftist ideological agenda behind the standards. But science standards are on the way, and the rest will follow (as will nationalized curriculum based on the Common Core).

From a Concerned Women for America pamphlet:

Proponents claim that the Common Core standards are “rigorous,” “evidenced-based,” and will make students “college-ready.” (8) However, curriculum experts believe the Common Core standards are below average and only prepare students for a community college rather than a four-year university. (9)

Dr. Sandra Stotsky, Professor Emerita at the University of Arkansas served on the Common Core Validation Committee and refused to sign off on the English language arts standards. She cited poor quality, empty skill sets, the de-emphasis on literature and low reading levels. She is concerned that the reading level that will assume students “college ready” will be seventh grade level. (10)

Equally disturbing is the prominence of nonfiction “informational texts” such as technical manuals, government documents, brochures and menus rather than highly regarded classic literature.

Dr. James Milgram of Stanford University, the only mathematician on the Common Core Validation Committee, refused to sign off on the math standards. Dr. Milgram maintains that the math standards will, by eighth grade, leave American students two years behind their peers in high performing countries. (11) [Endnotes available at source link]

But the quality of the standards is not really the point, is it? No. This is about central command and control of our nation’s education system, about ripping the authority from states, local communities and most importantly parents, none of whom have any say whatsoever in what the standards entail, nor can they change them at all.

It is also about tracking and data-mining our kids from cradle to career to grave (Obamacare tracking also covers cradle to kindergarten and beyond, of course). Oh, yes! Tied to the adoption of the standards, states are required – in violation of privacy laws – to collect information on all students – detailed, invasive information – to be shared with the federal government and other “interested” third parties.

From the Concerned Women pamphlet:

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a June 8, 2009, speech, “Hopefully, someday, we can track children from preschool to high school and from high school to college and college to career.” (5) This should send a chill down the spine of every parent.

States that chose to take federal money via the 2009 Stimulus bill had to agree to build expensive high-tech systems to track student performance and other personal data.

Further, in January 2012, the United States Department of Education, without Congressional approval, changed the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act to allow the transmission of students’ personally identifiable information “to any governmental or private entity designated by the Department and others as an ‘authorized representative,’ for the purpose of evaluating an education program.” (6)

This National Education Data Model recommends collecting data such as academic performance, disciplinary history, family income, religious affiliation, health history, etc. – over 400 data points in all (7) – without parental consent!

There is much more that can be said about the Common Core, like the ghastly price tag of it, which we can only guess at this point – a massively high price that will be borne by the states. There is also a whole book that could be written on the leftist revolutionaries who are behind the creation of the Common Core, and the billions, even trillions, of dollars that companies stand to make off of it – companies involved in its funding and development and the public relations push for it.

I have only touched on the surface of the communist education endgame of Common Core. Thankfully, millions of Americans are learning about this poison pill and are fighting back against it. It is essential that we learn all we can about the Common Core and that we tell our friends and family and let our state representatives and governors know that we want no part of this illegal federal takeover of our children’s education.

You will find a wealth of informational resources on the Internet to help you understand and combat the Common Core. I also highly recommend an excellent video series by Jane Robbins of the American Principles Project. The video is in five short parts that will give you a clear overview of the treacherous Common Core. Learn it, and fight it.

© Gina Miller

Jane Robbins of the American Principles Project. All Five Parts.


 

Atlanta Georgia Neighborhood Charter School Attempts To Remove Pledge Of Allegiance.

Education-in-United-States-Going-Communist-2

Atlanta Charter School Ditches Plan to Scrap Pledge of Allegiance

thenewamerican.com

Written by James Murphy

Monday, 27 August 2018

Less than a day after announcing its plan to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance during its morning meeting, the Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School reversed that decision.

Principal Lara Zelski announced the initial decision to scrap the pledge on the school’s website in early August. The school planned to replace the pledge with a student-created document, which was to be called the “Wolfpack Chant.” According to Zelski, the new chant was supposed to be “an effort to begin our day as a fully inclusive and connected community.”

The decision to remove the pledge from the morning meeting seems to have been a product of a growing number of students and faculty refusing to participate in the pledge, perhaps inspired by some NFL players’ decision to kneel during the playing of the National Anthem prior to games. “Over the past couple of years it has become increasingly obvious that more and more of our community were choosing not to stand and/or recite the pledge,” Zelski wrote.

“Teachers and the K-5 leadership team will be working with students to create a school pledge that we can say together at morning meeting,” Zelski’s announcement stated. She further stated that she hoped the new Wolfpack Chant would “focus on students’ civic responsibility to their school, family, community, country and our global society.”

Zelski added that students who wished to do so would be allowed to say the pledge voluntarily, later in the day.

Shortly after posting the announcement, the outrage began. Social media quickly spread the rage and parents began complaining. Soon, those complaints reached the ears of Georgia House Speaker David Ralston (R) and gubernatorial candidate Brian Kemp, among others, who quickly and loudly denounced the decision.

“I’m sure our House Education Committee will examine whether taxpayer funds should be used to instill such a divisive ideology in our students,” Ralston posted online. Later, Ralston told Fox 5 Atlanta, “If the school is going to accept public funding, then I think they have an obligation to, at least, have dialogue with the community.”

But another state legislator, David Drier (D), who is a parent with two children enrolled in the school, believes the uproar was much ado about nothing. “There was, probably, a poorly thought out policy that wasn’t communicated well,” Dryer told Fox 5 Atlanta. “I think there are a couple of administrators and a few teachers that thought they were trying to helpful by doing this. But it wasn’t discussed with the board of directors. No one knew about it.”

Within a day, Zelski’s announcement was taken off the school’s webpage and replaced with a statement from Lia Santos, the chairwoman of the school’s governing board.

“In the past, the Pledge of Allegiance was recited during our all-school morning meeting, but at the start of the school year, the daily practice was moved to classrooms. This change was done in compliance with state law … and aligned Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School with most other schools in the state who also say the Pledge of Allegiance in individual classrooms,” the statement of Santos read.

“However, it appears there was some miscommunication and inconsistency in the rollout. Starting next week, we will return to our original format and provide our students with the opportunity to recite the pledge during our all-school morning meeting.”

So, apparently, this was all a miscommunication, a mix-up. Maybe that’s true, or maybe this is a case of leftist school administrators testing the line, seeing how far they can go before there is pushback on their anti-American stances. The words of Principal Zelski offer some clues as to what she, at least, was thinking. A “fully inclusive and connected community,” she wrote. As noted above, she also intimated that the new “Wolfpack Chant” would “focus on students’ civic responsibility to their school, family, community, country and our global society.”

One school in Georgia sought to expunge the Pledge of Allegiance and replace it with something less patriotic, to say the least, was quickly rebuffed. So, what? one might ask.

But it’s impossible to believe that Zelski and the Atlanta Neighborhood Charter School are the only ones to have thought of doing something like this. In a red state such as Georgia, actions like these can be dispatched with a few angry phone calls and some media attention, but that won’t be the case everywhere. Parents and anyone else concerned with the education of our young need to be alert to every sneaky move that schools make in regard to dismissing our national traditions and fight them every single time.

Did you know that the ‘Gay-Pride’ Flag Actually Mocks God?


deonvsearth.com

June 26, 2014

In the 1950’s and 60’s there was a massive movement to defend homosexuals from the widespread ‘discrimination’ against individuals who did not conform to the commonly accepted sexual paradigm (men with women). But because the majority of the population conformed to generic Christian values, homosexuality was viewed negatively by many — but It was around this time that organizations emerged with the sole purpose of establishing a sense of pride among the gay community.

This lead to the creation of the ‘Gay Pride’ (or LGBT) parades that are held annually — along with the ‘Gay is Good’ marketing campaigns that helped promote the movement.

The “Gay Pride” Movement

NOTE: LGBTstands for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgenders.

The goal of the movement was to force those who once opposed homosexuality, to accept it as apart of life. Although they faced much opposition at the start of the movement, they eventually succeeded. As Church attendance declined, we noticed a drastic rise in the acceptance of homosexuality even amongst those who professed to be Christians.

The “Rainbow March”

Today we can literally see as thousands of people gather each year to celebrate their homosexuality. They can often be seen carrying their ‘Rainbow’ flags or “Marching with the Rainbow” as some call it.


But why do this? What significance can the rainbow possibly signify? 

According to several sources, the ‘gay pride’ flag (also called LGBT flag) was created to symbolize the diversity of the LGBT community. Originating in California but now being accepted worldwide as belonging to the ‘Gay Pride’ movement.

Although you may get a wide variety of answers if you go to one of these parades and ask one of the LGBT members what it means — very few people know the historical and biblical significance behind this flag being used by people to signify that they are ‘proud’ of their sexual immorality.

LGBT Flag: The Biblical History of the “Rainbow”

I am sure many of you are wondering how could the LGBT flag relate to the bible in any way. Let me show you…

In the book of Genesis, the bible speaks about how the people of the earth had become so evil, wicked, and perverse — that God was sorrowful that he had ever created mankind.

It was in this time that God decided to flood the earth, but there was 1 man on the planet who found favor in God’s eyes … Noah. (Gen 6:5-8)

(Genesis 6:5) And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

(Genesis 6:6) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

(Genesis 6:7) And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

(Genesis 6:8) But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

So because Noah found grace in his eyes — God instructed Noah to build an ark for him and his family. Once the ark was built Noah and his family entered the ark — thereby being saved from God’s judgement upon the earth.

God’s promise to NOAH 

When the time came for Noah and his family to leave the ark and return to land, Noah built an altar unto God and offered sacrifices to him. The bible tells us that when Noah offered these sacrifices — God smelled the sweet savor of Noah’s sacrifice and it touched his heart.

(Genesis 8:20) And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

(Genesis 8:21) And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

(Genesis 8:22) While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

After God had blessed Noah and his sons, and all the creatures of the earth — he then made a covenant (promise) with all living creatures. It was in this covenant that God promised that he would never again flood the earth — no matter how wicked mankind became.

God then decreed that whenever he causes much rain to come upon the earth, the rainbow will be seen. It was then that God created the rainbow, and placed it in the clouds as a visual reminder to all of creation that he will never forget his promise.


How does this Relate?

(In this section I’d like to tie all of the knots together by clearly and plainly depicting how the rainbow of the LGBT flag relates to the story of Noah.)If you will think back to the story of Noah, you will remember that God flooded the earth because the iniquity of humanity had gotten far too great. They were corrupt, hateful, and wicked in everything that they did — this includes sexual immorality.

Not only were men sleeping with men and women with women — but both men and women had begun sleeping with the ANIMALS (Beastiality). According to the Bible, the immorality in the Earth was so high that God gave them over to their vile affections. (Romans 1:23-32)

It was things such as this that forced God to judge the entire earth by sending a massive flood to cover the entire face of the earth.

But after God had flooded the earth, the Bible tells us that he remembered Noah and his family — he then caused the waters to subside and the rain to cease.

When Noah and his family were off the ark, God made them a promise that he would never again flood the earth — no matter HOW evil humanity became.So to ensure that all of humanity remembered his promise, God gave us a ‘Token’ (gift). The purpose of this token was to remind us of his promise whenever we see the rain fall upon the earth — and that gift was the Rainbow. (Gen 9:12-17)

The rainbow is a contract from God to mankind. In this contract, God gives humanity his Word that he will never again flood the entire earth — no matter what.

Therefore when we see Thousands of homosexuals marching in the streets with the Rainbow as their flag — they are essentially implying that they are proud of their sexual immorality whether God likes it or not — while simultaneously reminding God of the contract that he made with humanity never to flood the earth again.

Keeping in mind that sexual immorality was one of the very reasons God flooded the earth in the first place — We can clearly see how this is a provocative declaration towards The Most High.


Fortunately — I am certain that God knows that many of the people marching are not fully aware of the biblical significance of using the rainbow (contract) as their gay-pride flag, Which is why I believe he has been so merciful to them.

But whether they realize it or not — the masses who gather together to celebrate their sexual immorality, and those who carry these colorful flags are essentially provoking God to wrath in their Ignorance (Which is a big ‘no-no‘).

In the book of Deuteronomy, we can read about the children of Israel who provoked the Lord in the wilderness and were almost destroyed.

(Deuteronomy 9:7) Remember, and forget not, how you provoked the LORD thy God to wrath in the wilderness: from the day that thou didst depart out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against the LORD.

(Deuteronomy 9:8) Also in Horeb ye provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry with you to have destroyed you.

But despite what many may think, Ignorance is not bliss.
(Hosea 4:6)  My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge
So the next time you see someone proudly waving the ‘Rainbow’ flag of the LGBT — start the conversation by asking them…
“Hey, What do you think that ‘Rainbow’ Means?”

 

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Communist Plot To Impose The ‘New World Order’.

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Marxist Plot To Impose The ‘New World Order’

rightwingwatch.org

By Miranda Blue | June 27, 2014 11:41 am

In his keynote speech at the National Organization for Marriage’s March for Marriage gala last week, Dr. Ben Carson explained how Marxists are using LGBT rights to destroy American unity and impose the “New World Order.”
Carson said he knows about this plot from reading right-wing conspiracy theorist W. Cleon Skousen’sbook “The Naked Communist.”
Earlier in the speech, Carson told the audience that gay-rights opponents are the real victims of “injustice” because they just want to be “left alone.”
“When we talk about liberty and justice for all, doesn’t that mean that people can be left alone, that no-one else gets to change definitions on them and change life for them?” he asked.
“They have no right to say to me that I must change the way I think in order to accommodate what they believe,” he said. “That’s where the injustice comes from, and we have to understand that.”


« Older Entries