Category Archives: World Government

FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor Investigating Hunter Biden. Biden Admits He Works For Globalist Richard Haass Also.

FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor


Posted By Tim Hains
On Date September 27, 2019

In this clip from a January 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Vice President Joe Biden seems to brag about threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine as a pressure tactic to force the firing of a prosecutor he did not like.

In September 2019, House Democrats launched a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump over a whistleblower’s accusation that he threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine as a pressure tactic to force the Ukrainian government to investigate allegations that Joe Biden’s son Hunter benefited financially from the firing of that same Ukrainian prosecutor.

And that is I’m desperately concerned about the backsliding on the part of Kiev in terms of corruption. They made—I mean, I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t.

So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him.


I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.

Well, there’s still—so they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But one of the three institutions, there’s now some backsliding.

Joe Biden Unmasked As A Pro United Nations World Government Villain. “The Irish Joker.”


“Build Back Better”: Biden Rips Off Orwellian UN Slogan.

by Alex Newman September 5, 2020 ( September 16, 2020 )

With the new “Build Back Better” campaign slogan, 2020 presidential hopeful Joe Biden has been caught plagiarizing yet again. However, compounding the seriousness of this “faux pas,” this particular instance of plagiarism, which was ripped off from the United Nations, has enormous implications for the American people and their liberties.

The slogan is now a catch-all phrase to push every Deep State policy prescription ranging from globalism and Big Government to “climate” schemes and “sustainable development” that would crush whole sectors of the economy. It goes hand in hand with the UN-backed “Great Reset” and the totalitarian “Green New Deal.”

Perhaps hoping nobody but globalists and Deep State bigwigs would notice the obvious connection, the former vice-president’s campaign for president has been touting its “Build Back Better” scheme all over its website and beyond for weeks. However, there was no mention of the UN’s own “Build Back Better” scheme upon which it seems to be based — and that is not surprising, since American voters would likely be horrified. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is using the same phrase, too, as are authorities in Canada and multiple other nations. The World Economic Forum, which is pushing the “Great Reset” alongside the UN and the IMF, is also peddling “Build Back Better” as a slogan to “reinvent capitalism.”

In all cases reviewed by The New American magazine, the goal of the “Build Back Better” campaigns is to promote a “rebuild” of society or different elements of it based on progressive, globalist values in response to some sort of crisis. Originally, it was about “building back” in a UN-desired way after natural disasters. But COVID19 did not destroy any buildings or infrastructure. Now, then, the phrase is being applied to rebuilding the economy and governance — and hence, the framework of society — following the economic devastation wrought by governments over coronavirus hysteria and other ongoing crises. It appears to have much in common with the radical Green New Deal promoted by communists in the United States and other nations.

First approved by the UN General Assembly in 2015, the UN’s “Build Back Better” machinations were originally promoted by the Japanese government as part of the UN “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.” Among other points, the UN scheme called for building better infrastructure following disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis. However, the plan was openly globalist in nature, also promoting “international cooperation” as well as “psycho-social support and mental health services” amid the aftermath of disasters. Before the UN adopted it, Bill Clinton used the slogan in 2006 while serving as UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery.

Today, the UN’s use of the phrase has now morphed into something much broader, with the UN peddling the “Build Back Better” concept across a wide array of policies. In line with the UN, national governments and even the Democrat presidential candidate are using the slogan as cover for restructuring their societies and nations following the devastation unleashed by government responses to COVID19, as well as the Deep State-backed riots that plagued Democrat-controlled American cities in recent months.

“Make no mistake: America has been knocked down,” Biden’s campaign website says, pointing to massive unemployment and destruction of businesses amid coronavirus lockdowns (ironically engineered mostly by totalitarian-minded Democrat mayors and governors). “And, Black and Latino Americans, Native Americans, immigrants, and women have never been welcomed as full participants in the economy.”

The chaos and destruction now offers a perfect opportunity to “Build Back Better,” the campaign explains on its website. “Biden believes this is no time to just build back to the way things were before, with the old economy’s structural weaknesses and inequalities still in place,” the campaign states online, again echoing the UN in terms of strategy. “This is the moment to imagine and build a new American economy for our families and the next generation.”

Among the key policy prescriptions offered by Biden’s handlers as part of the “Build Back Better” scheme are massive wealth redistribution schemes. Basically, the federal government would seize more money from taxpayers (or steal it surreptitiously by printing it, thereby diminishing the purchasing power of the dollar) to hand out to those same Americans, corporations, state and local governments, and others. Of course, Congress is actually responsible for all appropriations, but the Biden campaign never mentioned that complication.

The Biden campaign’s “Build Back Better” schemes also called for creating a “Public Health Jobs Corps” that would supposedly “fight the pandemic.” While the campaign was short on details about this massive new “corps,” presumably this would including hiring massive numbers of snoops for Orwellian “contact tracing” programs that have been backed by George Soros, Bill Gates, the Clintons, various socialist schemers, and other insiders. Biden’s campaign wants to create a New Deal-style “Environmental Conservation Corps,” too.

Biden will also “mobilize the American people in service of four bold, national efforts” outlined on the site. These schemes include boosting “sustainable” projects, helping Big Labor bosses acquire more dues-paying union members, handing out more corporate welfare, fighting the supposed “climate crisis,” having government take more responsibility over the raising of children under the guise of easing the “burden” on parents (and especially mothers), and much more. All of this will be paid for with higher taxes, Biden’s campaign admitted. The “climate” schemes alone would cost $2 trillion over his first term.

Finally, the “Build Back Better” plan seeks to “mobilize across the board” to fight against what the Biden camp called the “systemic racism” of America — the nation that literally elected his half-black former boss to the highest office in the land, twice. This mobilization against racism would include federal wealth transfers from Americans with lighter skin tones to those with darker skin tones, federal funding for “entrepreneurs” with the correct skin color, police and “criminal justice reform,” and much more.

Nowhere does Biden give credit to the UN for the “Build Back Better” slogan, despite its well-documented origins. But this is no surprise. In 1988, the New York Times reported that Biden “quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock, the British Labor Party leader at the time.” Incidentally, the same Times reporters also noted that Biden “was found to have suffered two aneurysms” shortly after withdrawing. According to media reports, Biden also plagiarized while in law school, and even stole material from a Bobby Kennedy speech. The media has remained largely silent.

Of course, it is not just Biden or Democrats who are hopping in bed with the UN to re-build society based on new values while using UN slogans to market the schemes. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is also leading the way. “If we are to defeat COVID19, achieve a global recovery, and avoid a future pandemic, we must work together across borders,” he said. “Our national efforts will count for little unless they are fortified by international cooperation…. Once we move beyond the emergency phase, we owe it to future generations to Build Back Better.” Building back better, according to Johnson, means enforcing a “fairer, greener and more resilient global economy.”

Not everybody is buying the catchy but Orwellian slogans, though. In May of 2020, the brilliant British commentator and climate-hysteria-destroyer James Delingpole argued that the Build Back Better terminology was merely the latest “code phrase” for “green global tyranny.” Pointing to the slogan as employed by Johnson and the UN, Delingpole explained in Breitbart that “what it actually means is more world government, more green taxes and regulation, more expensive energy, more identity politics, more corporatism — and, of course, less freedom and entrepreneurialism.”

Delingpole is right. And the U.K. “Build Back Better” campaign, backed by a dizzying array of fringe left-wing and environmental extremist groups, was literally initiated by “Green New Deal UK.” As Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explained to The New American, the Green New Deal is a “recipe for mass suicide” that, if implemented, would decimate humanity and the natural environment.

Deep State Insider Mark Carney, former head of the U.K. and Canadian central banks and a Bilderberg attendee, has also been peddling the “Build Back Better” scheme. Speaking of the ongoing economic devastation, Carney said the “sustainable” so-called “new economy” that is emerging will require a “massive re-allocation of capital.” The former Goldman Sachs banker suggested who industries would be wiped out as part of this transformation.

“Every financial decision will have to take climate change into account,” he said, adding that Big Government would force these dramatic changes under the guise of stopping supposed man-made “climate change.”

Building on that, Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and the radical left-wing administration of Justin Trudeau are promising to “Build Back Better” in Canada. Even the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is urging nations to adopt “Build Back Better” as a tool for achieving a more “sustainable” future after COVID19.

While plagiarism is bad, that particular Biden scandal pales in comparison with the devastation to freedom and prosperity that would result from allowing him to implement the plagiarized UN-OECD-WEF-globalist-Deep State plan to “Build Back Better” and use a “Great Reset” to transform life on the planet. Biden, who recently boasted of working for Council on Foreign Relations boss Richard Haass, should acknowledge where he gets his dangerous ideas and slogans from. But more importantly, he should either respect the oath he took to the U.S. Constitution, work to amend it using constitutional procedures, or withdraw from politics completely.

U.S. Federal Reserve And U.S. Government To Use Corona Virus For Excuse To Get Rid Of Cash.

download (31)

Digital Dollar And Digital Wallet Bill Surfaces In The U.S. Senate.


By Jason Brett

Updated 3/24/20 11:35pm: New bill text inserted at the bottom with press release from the bill sponsor.

A bill has surfaced in the Senate called the ‘Banking For All Act’, sponsored by the Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH). In the press release, Senator Brown lays out the details of his bill as well as how he looks forward to urging his colleagues to include it as part of the coronavirus economic stimulus package.

‘At the height of this pandemic we must do more to protect the financial wellbeing of hardworking Americans and consumers. They are on the front lines of this crisis and are already feeling the effects of the economic fallout. My legislation would allow every American to set up a free bank account so they don’t have to rely on expensive check cashers to access their hard-earned money.’

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

This bill offers a definition for digital dollars as well as for a digital dollar wallet, and provides the provision for a pass-through digital dollar wallet with the mandate for all member banks to open and maintain digital dollar wallets for all persons, including those eligible to receive the stimulus.

Member Vs. Non-Member Banks In The United States

In the United States, the vast majority of banks, with the exception of the big banks such as Wells Fargo that are supervised by the OCC, have the option to be members of the Federal Reserve and to buy shares in the Reserve as a way of becoming a ‘member bank.’ These banks are then supervised and regulated by the Federal Reserve. A ‘non-member bank’ is a bank that chooses not to be a ‘member’ of the Federal Reserve and is regulated by the FDIC.

For large banks, there is a provision in the bill that online applications for pass-through digital wallets must be made available. The pass-through digital wallet contains consumer protection terms where it notes the wallet ‘shall not be subject to any account fees, minimum balances, or maximum balances and shall pay interest at a rate not below the greater of the rate of interest on required reserves and the rate of interest on excess reserves’.

Federal Reserve Banks and the U.S. Postal ‘Banking’ Service

From one institution that likely most Americans have never even entered, the Federal Reserve, to the Post Office, where sometimes daily visits can be part of a person’s routine, this bill includes mandates for each agency to assist in the supply of digital dollar wallets for all. The Federal Reserve may maintain digital dollar wallets. And for low-income areas where the Federal Reserve may not be able to have a branch, the Fed will partner with postal retail facilities to carry out this mandate. For access to the digital cash, ATMs will be provided at U.S. Post Offices.

Now that both Chambers – the House and the Senate – have legislation introduced within both the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, it does appear that the concept of digital dollars is one that Congress realizes reaches beyond the current coronavirus crisis, and may become a bi-partisan issue. With concerns over China and other countries developing a CBDC, the U.S. might be using this bill to introduce its own digital currency – and also be looking to solve one of the oldest policy issues of all in reaching out to offering banking services to the unbanked and underbanked.

Fed Just Revealed Plans for Digital Dollar Replacement.


Thanks to the Federal Reserve, the idea that you can go into a store and anonymously purchase something with cash might soon be obsolete.

Why? Because they’re developing something called Fedcoin, which would be based on blockchain technology.

If you’re unfamiliar with blockchain technology, you’re not alone. Here’s how a piece on Motley Fool describes it:

The digital and decentralized ledger that records all transactions. Every time someone buys digital coins on a decentralized exchange, sells coins, transfers coins, or buys a good or service with virtual coins, a ledger records that transaction, often in an encrypted fashion, to protect it from cybercriminals. These transactions are also recorded and processed without a third-party provider, which is usually a bank.

Right now, Bitcoin is a popular form of cryptocurrency that operates using blockchain technology. Like the description above, Bitcoin is decentralized, its transactions are anonymous, and no central bank is involved.

But the irony is, the blockchain tech behind the Fed’s idea isn’t likely to be used the way Bitcoin uses it. Not even close.

Originally, the “Fedcoin” idea appeared to be a security enhancement to a century-old system used for clearing checks and cash transactions called Fedwire. According to NASDAQ in 2017:

This technology will bring Fedwire into the 21st Century. Tentatively called Fedcoin, this Federal Reserve cryptocurrency could replace the dollar as we know it.

The idea didn’t seem to move very much three years ago, but now the idea of a central bank-controlled “Fedcoin” seems like it could be moving closer to reality, according to a Reuters report from February 5.

According to the report, “Dozens of central banks globally are also doing such work,” including China.

Of course, there is risk, according to Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard. For example, there is the potential for a country-wide run on banks if panic ensued while the Fed “flipped a switch” and made Fedcoin the primary currency for the United States.

But blogger Robert Wenzel warns the risks of the Federal Reserve issuing its own cyber currency may run even deeper than that.

“This is not good.”

Lawmakers try to package and sell whatever ideas they come up with, no matter how intrusive or ineffective they might be.

According to Brainard, Fedcoin has the potential to provide “greater value at a lower cost” for monetary transactions. Sounds reasonable, if taken at face value.

But no matter how the Fed may try to “sell” the idea of utilizing Fedcoin in the future, Wenzel’s warning is pretty clear:

A Federal Reserve created digital coin could be one of the most dangerous steps ever taken by a government agency. It would put in the hands of the government the potential to create a digital currency with the ability to track all transactions in an economy—and prohibit transactions for any reason. In terms of future individual freedom, this would be a nightmare.

If you use cash at a grocery store, no one will know who you are or what you bought unless it was caught on video or you use a reward card. In the rare instance a store accepts Bitcoin, the same would be true.

But if you were to use a centrally-controlled digital currency like Fedcoin, who knows what the Fed will decide to track now or in the future? Or what meddling they could come up with to deny your transaction?

If the Federal Reserve wanted to outlaw cash, and your only choice was to use Fedcoin to make purchases, then your financial life would be tracked under their watchful eye.

“Not good” indeed.

Protect your retirement by maintaining your financial freedom

Who knows if the Federal Reserve will move closer to making cash a thing of the past? Perhaps Fedcoin will add to the number of ways the Fed can meddle with your retirement?

Until that gets sorted out, you can consider other options to protect your retirement with a tangible asset that can’t be converted into digital form.

Precious metals like gold and silver continue to hold value, and have for thousands of years. And because they are physical assets, you can’t be tracked as you could if Fedcoin moves from being a bad idea to reality.

Bill Gates & World Economic Forum (U.N.) Ran Coronavirus Outbreak Simulation Just 6 Weeks Before The Real Outbreak Started In China. United Nations Released Biological Weapon On World.

download (30)


In this report we take an inside look at Event 201, which took place in NYC on October 18 2019.

Event 201 is a high-level pandemic exercise hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

This is extremely fascinating because this pandemic simulation exercise of coronavirus took place about 6 weeks before the first illness from the coronavirus was actually reported in Wuhan, China.

That is one hell of a coincidence if you believe in that sort of thing.

Another fascinating connection is the fact that not only did the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation participate in and help set up the pandemic simulation of a coronavirus outbreak, but they just so happen to fund the group who owns the patent to the deadly coronavirus and are already working on a vaccine to solve the current crisis.

Again, an incredible coincidence…

In this report you will see footage from inside the event from the members of the emergency epidemic board in this simulation consisting of representatives from major banks, the UN, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Johnson and Johnson, logistical powerhouses, the media as well as officials from China and America’s CDC just to name a few.

This simulation also includes news reports that were fabricated just for this exercise — please keep that in mind because they are eerily similar to reports we are currently seeing regarding this real-world coronavirus outbreak.

Communist Factions United Nations And Chinese Government Release Biological Weapon On the World In Response To President Trump’s Defunding Of U.N. And U.S. Trade War With China.

download (28)

CONFIRMED: CoVid-19 coronavirus found to contain unique “gain-of-function” property “for efficient spreading in the human population” … exact quote from science paper just published in Antiviral Research.



02/19/2020 / By Mike Adams

We now have bombshell, smoking gun evidence that the CoVid-19 “Wuhan” coronavirus was specifically engineered as an offensive biological warfare weapon, designed to target to exterminate human beings.

A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Antiviral Research (Vol. 16, April 2020) is entitled, “The spike glycoprotein of the new coronavirus 2019-nCoV contains a furin-like cleavage site absent in CoV of the same clade.”

It reveals that the CoVid-19 coronavirus contains unique features that allow it to function as a more efficient weapon system for human-to-human transmission, which helps explain why the virus has been impossible to contain (even under “quarantine” conditions, which have universally failed in China, Japan, Korea and elsewhere).

As the science authors of the paper explain in the full text, “This furin-like cleavage site… may provide a gain-of-function to the 2019-nCoV for efficient spreading in the human population.” (Emphasis added)

Further, the science paper finds that there is no known viral ancestry to the CoVid-19 coronavirus, meaning it did not evolve from nature. It was engineered, and the science paper authors also state that the virus contains elements from MERS, stating, “Before the emergence of the 2019-nCoV, this important feature was not observed in the lineage b of betacoronaviruses.”

The abstract and full PDF (paid) of the study are available through this link at


The “smoking gun” aspects of this research were brought to light earlier today by Prof. Frances Boyle who appeared on the Alex Jones Show (2nd broadcast hour, Feb. 19th, 2020, to reveal his findings that confirm the Wuhan coronavirus was an engineered biological weapon.

The following graphic from the published study shows some of the S-protein sequences found in the CoVid-19 “Wuhan” coronavirus which share a nearly identical pattern with MERS-CoV, but not with any previous ancestry of “lineage b” type coronavirus:


The new feature engineered into the Wuhan coronavirus has, “the potential to cleave specifically viral envelope glycoproteins, thereby enhancing viral fusion with host cell membranes,” conclude study authors.

This feature results in, “higher pathogenicity, pronounced neural symptoms and neurotropism in infected chickens,” according to the paper. That means, essentially, it kills more easily and causes nervous system damage while infecting nerve cells. Note that many of the human victims in China appear to suffer seizures and a total, almost instantaneous nervous system shutdown, literally collapsing in seconds.


Furthermore, this enhanced property of the virus results in, “a widening of the cell tropism of the virus,” meaning it allows the virus to live and thrive in a much wider variety of human cells, including respiratory system cells. This means the virus lives in both respiratory cells and nerve cells.

Interestingly, the study further confirms that “ACE2” receptors are the vector of opportunity for the virus to infect human beings, stating, “ACE2 is also the receptor of the newly emerged nCoV.”

Additionally, the study finds that another element of the CoVid-19 virus appears to have been assembled from the SARS coronavirus, further confirming Frances Boyle’s claim that the engineered weapon is a “chimera” of multiple strains of biological weapons, including SARS, MERS and HIV. From the study: “Notably, the IFPs of the 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV are identical, displaying characteristics of viral fusion peptides (Fig. 2).”

Engineered to attack the human respiratory system, but there may be a defense… (you won’t like it)

The CoVid-19 coronavirus is specifically engineered to exploit the biology of the human respiratory system. Again, from the paper text:

Since furin is highly expressed in lungs, an enveloped virus that infects the respiratory tract may successfully exploit this convertase to activate its surface glycoprotein (Bassi et al., 2017; Mbikay et al., 1997). Before the emergence of the 2019-nCoV, this important feature was not observed in the lineage b of betacoronaviruses.

Finally, study authors explain that people who have already been exposed to other viral infections may have enhanced immunity against the coronavirus. From the study:

…it was recently shown that in an effort to limit viral infections, host cells that are infected by a number of viruses provoke an interferon response to inhibit the enzymatic activity of furin-like enzymes.

Although we caution that this supposition is just theory (so far), it may turn out that one way to boost defenses against the coronavirus could be to get infected with a weaker respiratory virus first. Stated another way, people who routinely interact with the public and are exposed to a wide variety of in-the-wild circulating viruses may be automatically building improved defenses by overcoming other viral infections first.

This finding has huge implications for individuals who take vaccines, given that vaccines expose the human body to weakened viral strains that often fail to provoke the full response of “in-the-wild” viruses such as seasonal influenza. Although the research did not focus on this point, it might also turn out that people who routinely take seasonal flu shots could theoretically demonstrate a weakened immune response against the coronavirus, while those who avoid flu shots and allow their own bodies to naturally fight the flu each year will show enhanced immunity against CoVid-19 coronavirus.

Or, arguably, it might work the other way around, where people who routinely take more vaccines and are exposed to a wider variety of weaker strains therefore have more capacity to produce an “interferon response.” It’s too early to tell, but it certainly seems to be the case that people who are rarely or never exposed to other viral pathogens may be far more vulnerable to this one.

Refer to the “Hygiene Hypothesis” for more ideas on the ramifications of this research


US, China Sign Historic Phase One Trade Deal Six Days Before First Case Of Corona Virus Hits U.S.

Click Here: CDC Confirms First U.S. Case Of Coronavirus From China





Articles Around Internet That Support Covid-19 Is Man Made.




President Trumps Record Against the U.N. And Putting America First Better Than Any U.S. President Ever In History.

download (24)

CantonTruth: Public protests burning the Communist United Nations flag sounds better and better. Want to ban a flag start with this one.


Articles Below Supporting the video: Click Article to view.

Trump said set to halt funding for UN agencies, other groups that give PA, PLO full membership.

Trump’s UN Budget Cuts Funding; Some Agencies Would Get Zero.

Trump Tells Bankrupt UN to Find Money Elsewhere.


U.S. Independence Attacked As Never Before By U.N. Interdependence.

download (56)


Tuesday, 28 June 2016

By Alex Newman

download (22)
On this July 4, as Americans celebrate the birth of the United States and the sacrifices of the founding generation to secure the blessings of liberty, U.S. independence is under threat like never before. The implications of the threat are enormous. As long as the United States retains its independence and the U.S. Constitution is preserved, the American people still possess the means to chart the nation’s destiny. But if the United States is submerged into an “interdependent world” under the control of international “authorities,” all of that — and much more — will be lost. Yet the threat is growing.
The United Nations already has its own courts, bureaucracies, “international law,” and even “peacekeeping” armies under its command in over a dozen nations, and on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the UN last year, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took it a step further. Speaking at the “lighting ceremony” when the Empire State Building was lit up in “UN Blue” in commemoration of “UN Day” on October 24, he boasted that the UN was in fact the “Parliament of Humanity.” In the months after that, he referred on multiple occasions to Agenda 2030 — the UN plan for the planet — as a “Declaration of Interdependence.”The theme of the UN’s 70th anniversary festivities was also about as blunt as could be: “Strong UN. Better World.” All over the world, hundreds of monuments — ranging from the Empire State Building to the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro to the Great Wall of China — were lit up blue as part of the “turn the world UN Blue” campaign. The “Stronger UN. Better World.” slogan was unfurled on banners worldwide. So was the UN flag.

“There is only one flag that belongs to all of us,” Ban said in a UN Day 2015 message, referring to the blue UN flag. “The United Nations works for the entire human family of seven billion people, and cares for the earth, our one and only home,” he continued, claiming the UN brings hope, peace, security, and sustenance to the world. “The timeless values of the UN Charter must remain our guide. Our shared duty is to ‘unite our strength’ to serve ‘we the peoples.’”

A “Parliament for Humanity” that will unite humanity under a shared flag to serve “We The Peoples”: That is, in a nutshell, the globalist agenda, at least as promulgated for public consumption — a monopoly of power at the international level, supposedly for humanity’s own good.

Even the White House got involved with the 70th anniversary celebrations last year. Obama, a staunch UN proponent, issued a “presidential proclamation” urging all 50 governors and “officials of all other areas under the flag of the United States” to “observe United Nations Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.” He also called on everyone to “summon the spirit of unity and cooperation at the heart of the United Nations Charter.”

A few years earlier, in a 2012 speech at the UN General Assembly, Obama told assembled dictators and representatives of government from around the world that we live in “an interdependent world” where “all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens.” Conflicts, meanwhile, arise from “difficulties of reconciling tradition and faith with the diversity and interdependence of the modern world.”

Clearly, “interdependence” is a major theme of the Obama White House. It is also a key marketing slogan being used by the UN chief. Just a few months after first declaring the UN to be the “Parliament of Humanity,” Ban was at it again. “This General Assembly has truly become the Parliament for all people,” Ban declared on January 11, 2016, noting that presidents and prime ministers were increasingly being joined “by individual activists, business executives, superstar entertainers and major religious leaders” in speaking to the UN body.

The UN boss also pointed out that last September the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as UN Agenda 2030. “This 21st century Declaration of Interdependence is our collective promise to deliver a life of dignity for all,” Ban explained. The “interdependence” theme is not new, of course, but it is now being pushed with increasing regularity.

The media mostly missed the UN chief’s rhetoric about building a stronger UN and even transforming the outfit, often ridiculed as the “dictators club” by critics, into what he called a “Parliament” for all mankind. But it was a big deal — no, a huge deal. Words have meaning. And you can be sure that words as important as those do not just slip out of the mouth of the UN boss, repeatedly, without a great deal of thought, preparation, and approval from the powers behind the curtain.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “parliament” as “the group of people who are responsible for making the laws in some kinds of government.” That definition, combined with Ban’s explosive claim, leads to a number of questions. Is the UN already a government? And if it is a government — it has basically all of the attributes of one, as we shall show — who are these people who imagine that they get to make “the laws” that would govern all of humanity? Who, if anyone, voted for this, or gave their consent to be ruled by this global government? What checks and balances are in place to prevent abuses? How does the UN system compare to the American system, and would Americans be better or worse off if they gave up American independence for UN interdependence? Let’s take a look.

The American System

The Founders of the United States were very clear on what the purpose of government is, and who was to make the laws in America. Laws governing domestic affairs were to be created, primarily, by state legislatures and local legislative bodies such as county commissions, city councils, and so on. All legislative powers at the federal level dealing with the few powers specified in the Constitution — foreign affairs and war, for example — were vested in a Congress composed of a House of Representatives to represent the people, and a Senate to represent the states.

But neither Congress nor the state legislatures were to be seen as supreme. As influential founding-era jurist Sir William Blackstone explained so eloquently, all human laws must necessarily be subject to the laws of man’s Creator to be valid. “This will of his Maker is called the law of nature,” Blackstone explained, adding that the law of nature was “of course” superior to any other. “No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force … from this original.”

The ideas outlined by Blackstone were all widely understood in America’s founding era. So was the purpose of government, as the Founders explained in the Declaration of Independence adopted by the Second Continental Congress in 1776. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” reads the Declaration, pointing to a higher power while outlining timeless principles that were to serve as the foundation for the new nation then being birthed. “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The purpose of government, then, is the protection of God-given rights.

Yet on its own, the historic document was just a piece of paper. After realizing that the government created under the Articles of Confederation was not adequate for the task, America’s Founders developed the U.S. Constitution. Essentially, the document was an effort to put the principles enshrined in the Declaration into practice — creating a national government that would help “We The People” to, among other goals, “establish Justice” and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

The governmental system established under the Constitution, while building on thousands of years of tradition and Western Civilization, was unique in many respects. One of its chief attributes was that it limited government by granting it certain powers. If there was no specific delegation of authority over some area, that power was retained by the states or the people, as was later explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution also enshrined the separation of powers. First of all, it divided power vertically, leaving the sovereign states to stand as a bulwark against abuses of power from the federal government. Next, the Constitution divided power horizontally by dispersing it across three branches of government — judicial, legislative, and executive. The idea was that the God-given rights of the people would be best protected if power was divided. If one of the three federal branches abused its power, the others would rein it in. And if either the feds or the states abused their power, the other level of government would rein it in.

The UN System

Unlike the American system, which is based on the principle that rights come from God, the UN acknowledges no higher power than the UN itself.

The UN “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which according to the UN is supreme over all the Earth, assumes that “rights” are bestowed by governments and treaties. The problem is that, if government is the originator of rights, then government may properly limit and abridge rights.

Consider Article 29 of the UN “human rights” declaration, which claims that “rights” can be limited “by law” under the guise of everything from “public order” to “the general welfare.” Separately, the same article claims that everyone has “duties to the community” and that “rights and freedoms” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” Already, as this magazine documented in the January 6, 2015, article headlined “United Nations Exploits Pseudo-‘Human Rights’ to Attack U.S.,” the UN and its top officials have claimed that “human rights” and “international law” require that governments outlaw and punish certain speech, impose more gun control, ignore due-process protections, overturn state self-defense laws, eliminate constitutional limitations on federal power, prohibit spanking of children as a disciplinary tool, regulate private schools, provide more welfare and subsidized housing, and much, much more.

Further evidence of the UN’s view on “human rights” can be gleaned from the composition of its UN “Human Rights Council,” created 10 years ago after Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s regime was elected to chair the UN “Human Rights Commission.” Among the rights-violating regimes serving on the current UN “human rights” body are the communist and socialist autocracies oppressing Cuba, mainland China, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Namibia, South Africa, Venezuela, and Vietnam. Plenty of Islamist dictatorships serve on the council, too, including, among others, those ruling Algeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and more. Also on the outfit are the rulers of Russia, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Ivory Coast, Congo, Burundi, and more. Just a handful of governments in what could be properly considered truly “free” countries serve on the UN Council.

Then there is the membership of this global parliament that must be considered. Most of the UN’s member states are oppressive or worse. Many are outright dictatorships controlled by mass-murderers and genocidal maniacs. Even according to Freedom House, an establishment-minded organization that ranks governments based on its definition of freedom and democratic credentials, less than half of the world’s governments qualify as “free.” Yet these are the very same UN member states that are currently in the process of becoming the “Parliament of Humanity.” In the UN General Assembly, a vote by mass-murderers such as Raúl Castro, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-un, or Omar Bashir is worth the same as a vote by the U.S. government. Will those governments protect your God-given rights? Of course not, as history amply shows.

Another problem is the nearly clichéd truism by Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The UN does not have a U.S. Constitution limiting government to a few specified powers, nor does a 10th Amendment reserve all other powers to the member nations or people. If absolute power were concentrated in the hands of the UN, it is guaranteed to attract the most dangerous elements, with the most ruthless and cunning rising to the top.

Agenda 2030: Global Socialism

It should therefore deeply concern anyone who values freedom that there are already big plans to replace American independence with global interdependence.

At the center of the new order will be the UN, of course, and what’s known as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or Agenda 2030, a sort of outline for global governance agreed to by the UN and Obama last September, along with virtually every national government on Earth. “Sustainable development” may sound like a good thing, but the UN uses this euphemism as a rationale for its vision of global totalitarianism.

As already noted, Secretary-General Ban has referred to Agenda 2030 as the “21st century Declaration of Interdependence.” So too has UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson, who said in January, “Let us make the 2030 Agenda a living and lasting Declaration of Interdependence for the 21st century.”

Just what is this Agenda 2030, or “Declaration of Interdependence,” which received so little coverage in the establishment media, but which purports to be the master plan that must guide all nations and every last person on the planet? In brief, it is a comprehensive plan to govern virtually every element of human existence, comprised of 17 “Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals” with 169 specific “targets.” The scheme dovetails nicely with the deeply controversial UN Agenda 21, even including much of the same rhetoric and agenda. But it’s even bigger than that. “This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity,” reads the preamble. “All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan.”

Among the many elements of the plan is an undisguised demand for national socialism — and even global socialism. Goal 10 calls on the UN, national governments, and every person on Earth to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” That, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.” But national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is not enough, with the Agenda calling for international socialism to battle inequality even “among” countries.

Socialist rhetoric is found throughout the scheme. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources,” the document demands. “We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services.” In short, what remains of free markets must go, with wealth redistribution and central technocratic planning of the economy to take its place.

Education is another key component of the global agenda, with an entire goal dedicated to ensuring that young people everywhere are indoctrinated into supporting the plan and its overseers. “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity.” Euphemisms such as “sustainable lifestyles” (read: getting by with less), “gender equality” (read: the LGBT agenda), and “global citizenship” should telegraph to the discerning reader the UN’s interest in indoctrination in the name of education.

Of course, a plan as grandiose as Agenda 2030 won’t be cheap — it will all cost trillions of dollars. One official propagandist for the agenda, Thomson Reuters Foundation editor-in-chief Belinda Goldsmith, cited unnamed “experts” putting the price tag as high as $172.5 trillion. For perspective, that is more than 10 times more than the annual economic output of the United States. Western taxpayers will be the primary financiers of the scheme.

Step by Step

In many respects, the UN is already behaving as if it were a global government. In Agenda 2030, the UN claims that no person can be left out of the new system, and therefore, the population and territory of the entire globe are under its jurisdiction. In other words, everyone must be subject to UN rule, even if the specifics are administered, for now, by member states. Despite the fact that many governments have refused to ratify the relevant treaties, the UN has its own courts, such as the International Criminal Court, that purport to have jurisdiction over every person on the planet for vaguely defined crimes of “aggression” and more. The late Dr. Charles Rice, who served as professor at Notre Dame Law School, called the ICC “a monster” that essentially “repudiates the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence and cancels the 4th of July.” He is right.

Despite these obvious concerns, the UN continues to accumulate and usurp more and more power. It has an environmental agency that purports to have global powers over the environment. It has an education agency that boasts of using schools to create “global citizens” with UN-approved values, attitudes, and beliefs. It has “peacekeeping” armies that currently occupy some 16 nations, often raping and brutalizing the most vulnerable civilians it is ostensibly sent to protect. It has a world health organization that purports to have awesome powers over humanity, including the ability to quarantine entire nations. It has an agricultural agency, an aviation agency, a terrorism agency, a postal agency, a drugs and crime agency, a world trade agency with “tribunals” that already overrule the U.S. Congress, an Internet agency led by a Chinese communist, and much, much more. The architecture of global government, then, is already in place.

The UN also already has its own means, albeit limited thus far, of raising revenues independently of member states. The UN World Intellectual Property Organization, for example, charges “fees” to inventors who seek protection for intellectual property. If globalists get their way, though, they have plans to radically expand the UN’s ability to raise its own funding. From a slew of proposed new global taxes to power-grabs such as the UN Law of the Sea Treaty that would grant the “dictators club” control over the resources of the world’s oceans and the revenue they generate, the outfit has major plans to extract wealth from humanity without member states acting as intermediaries.

And the International Monetary Fund, part of the “UN system,” has plans to become the would-be global government’s own central bank. If the agenda is not stopped, as has been documented many times in the pages of this magazine, the IMF would be to the UN what the banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve is to the U.S. federal government — an out-of-control currency-printing machine that funds the welfare-warfare state while trapping the people into a cycle of perpetually expanding debt.

American Collaboration

Of course, without collaboration and support from the United States and its leadership, the UN would be mostly a joke — a gaggle of dictators who get together to praise each other and make demands for more money. The notion that U.S. independence is outdated and that it is time for “global interdependence,” though, has existed among U.S. leaders for generations.

One such leader, John Foster Dulles, approvingly acknowledged that world governance was the goal behind the United Nations from the get-go. And he was in a position to know, having participated in the San Francisco Conference that led to the creation of the United Nations in 1945, before becoming U.S. secretary of state in the 1950s. “The United Nations represents not a final stage in the development of world order, but only a primitive stage,” he wrote in his book War or Peace. “Therefore its primary task is to create the conditions which will make possible a more highly developed organization.” Dulles also observed in his book, “I have never seen any proposal made for collective security with ‘teeth’ in it, or for ‘world government’ or for ‘world federation,’ which could not be carried out either by the United Nations or under the United Nations Charter.”

Since the 1940s, dozens of “declarations of interdependence” have been proposed by various groups and individuals. One of the most notable was written by liberal historian and Columbia University Professor Henry Steele Commager for the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia. Dated October 24, 1975 (UN Day), this undisguised call for global government was endorsed by well over 100 members of Congress. “When in the course of history the threat of extinction confronts mankind, it is necessary for the people of the United States to declare their interdependence with the people of all nations,” the declaration stated. “Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order.”

The declaration includes this brazen call for UN empowerment: “A world without law is a world without order, and we call upon all nations to strengthen and to sustain the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and other institutions of world order, and to broaden the jurisdiction of the World Court, that these may preside over a reign of law.” Who would make this global law? The “Parliament of Humanity.”

Even as far back as 1962, a U.S. president made the case for a “Declaration of Interdependence” rather than independence — on July 4, America’s Independence Day, no less. That president was John F. Kennedy, whose administration actually took some of the boldest steps toward surrendering U.S. sovereignty to the UN. In an official 1961 State Department publication entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, the Kennedy administration outlined how the United States would disarm as the UN’s military forces were progressively strengthened to the point where no nation would be able to challenge the UN’s monopoly on force.

In his July 4 speech, Kennedy put it all out there. “I will say here and now, on this Day of Independence, that the United States will be ready for a Declaration of Interdependence, that we will be prepared to discuss with a united Europe the ways and means of forming a concrete Atlantic partnership, a mutually beneficial partnership between the new union now emerging in Europe and the old American Union founded here 175 years ago,” he declared at Independence Hall. “For the Atlantic partnership of which I speak would not look inward only, preoccupied with its own welfare and advancement. It must look outward to cooperate with all nations in meeting their common concern. It would serve as a nucleus for the eventual union of all free men — those who are now free and those who are vowing that some day they will be free.” In other words, a global government.

In 1991, President George H. W. Bush, in his address to the American people announcing U.S. military action in the Persian Gulf, said that “we have a real chance” at bringing about a “new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role [war-making powers] to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.” And in 2002, President George W. Bush, in his address to the UN General Assembly, asked regarding UN resolutions relating to Iraq: “Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” He went on to say that “we want the resolutions of the world’s most important multilateral body to be enforced.”

Get US Out!

Americans must resist the siren calls for surrendering their right to self-government.

One organization, The John Birch Society, which publishes this magazine, has been working to “Get US out of the United Nations” for some 50 years. And it is still possible to do exactly that. In fact, right now, legislation sitting in the House Foreign Affairs Committee would end U.S. membership in and funding of the UN, and evict it from American soil. Dubbed the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act,” or H.R. 1205, the bill could set the globalist agenda back decades in one fell swoop. But Americans must act to make that happen.

“The reason that we declared and fought for our independence in 1776 was that we could no longer decide for ourselves as a people our economic future and we saw that we would never be allowed to do so again,” JBS CEO Art Thompson said. “Now our leaders are involving us in international schemes that will do the same thing our Founders fought against. Without independence, we will not only be hindered in our economic affairs, but military, environment, etc. It will become more harsh than the patriots who died for us ever imagined. Their sacrifice will mean nothing if we proceed down the road to internationalism.”

Fortunately for Americans, it is not too late to stop the agenda. In fact, the foundation of the plot is built on quicksand. The UN Agenda 2030, or the “Declaration of Interdependence,” as top UN officials call it, has not even been ratified by the U.S. Senate, as required under the Constitution. Obama does not plan on even asking for ratification, because he knows it will flop. Plus, it is all built on lies and false assumptions. With truth and organized action, activated and educated Americans can kill the agenda with relative ease, especially when compared with what the earliest American Patriots were prepared to sacrifice when they issued the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, and defied the most powerful empire then in existence.

If liberty and self-government are to survive, Americans must firmly resist the dangerous push for global government and expose the soothing rhetoric of “interdependence.” It can be done — and for the sake of our posterity, it must be.

Vision Zero Planned For Nashville, TN As Local Media Sells It To Public As Mayor’s Plan Not Mentioning Its A United Nations Plan.


New crosswalk underway on Charlotte Pike one day after pedestrian death.


by: Stassy OlmosPosted: Jan 25, 2020 / 10:00 PM CST / Updated: Jan 25, 2020 / 10:14 PM CST

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – Following a record 32 pedestrian deaths in Nashville last year, one person has died just about every week in the first month of 2020.

The most recent was on Charlotte Pike and Watts Lane Thursday, where a 38-year-old woman was struck and died at the hospital.

“Any time somebody’s trying to get somewhere for food or for shelter, you want them to get there safe and alive, so it’s pretty sad that someone had to lose their life to trying to get across the street,” said resident Christian Crawford.

While all three deaths were outside of crosswalks, residents in West Nashville say the lack of crosswalks on Charlotte Pike contributes to the problem.

“It’s becoming more and more frequent. I think a younger generation is kind of moving into this area and they like to walk. And restaurants benefit from that too, and commercial spaces so I definitely think that it’s increasing the traffic’s increasing and that it’s definitely a good idea to have crosswalks,” said Brooke Usher.

“I’ve had to hit the breaks a couple of times with people trying to get across the street almost every day, so it’s kind of scary,” Crawford added.

A crosswalk had been planned for one block over from where the woman was struck Thursday, but construction delayed due to fiber relocation.

The project started Friday.

Last weekend, Nashville’s mayor promised to make city streets safer to walk with his new “Vision Zero” initiative, identifying 14 priority spots.

But even with changes, rules will have to be followed by all modes of transportation.

“Crosswalks are really helpful and a great idea if everyone follows the rules. Drivers and pedestrians, if pedestrians stick to the crosswalks and if drivers respect the crosswalk,” said resident Sarah Amos.

Metro public works poured pole foundations for the new crosswalk on Charlotte Pike Friday.

This week, they plan to add road crossings and ramps.


Illustrated above are 32 pairs of shoes representing the 32 people who were killed while walking in Nashville during 2019.

Mayor commits to Vision Zero to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries in Nashville.


January 23, 2020 – Cover Stories

During remarks at the annual Walk Bike Nashville Pedestrian memorial Event last week on the steps of the courthouse, Mayor John Cooper announced his administration’s commitment to Vision Zero to help eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries in Nashville and Davidson County.

Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. First implemented in Sweden in the 1990s, Vision Zero is gaining momentum in major American cities including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Vision Zero starts with the ethical belief that everyone has the right to move safely in their communities and that system designers and policy makers share the responsibility to ensure safe systems for travel.

“This is an important commitment for our city – one made in honor of those who have lost their lives in traffic fatalities and to help protect future generations of Nashvillians,” said Mayor Cooper. “Nashville is currently ranked number one in the state for injury crashes, speed crashes, and crashes among young and senior drivers. We must do better, and our commitment to Vision Zero will play an important role in turning those numbers around.

A great city is a walkable city, a bike-friendly city – one that shapes its transportation plan and mobility infrastructure around the safety and well-being of all residents and all modes of travel.”

Committing to Vision Zero requires the following strategies:
1. Building and sustaining leadership, collaboration and accountability, especially among a diverse group of stakeholders to include transportation professionals, policymakers, public health officials, police, and community members;
2. Collecting, analyzing and using data to understand trends and potential disproportionate impacts of traffic deaths on certain populations;
3. Prioritizing equity and community engagement;
4. Managing speed to safe levels; and
5. Setting a timeline to achieve zero traffic deaths and serious injuries that brings urgency, accountability and ensuring transparency on progress and challenges.

Mayor Cooper also announced that 14 locations of concern for pedestrian and cyclist safety – identified by Walk Bike Nashville – have been added to his administration’s transportation plan for priority safety improvements.

These locations include Church Street between 15th Ave N and 16th Ave N, Clarksville Pike between Buena Vista Pike and Cliff Dr, and Gallatin Pike between Eastland Ave and Chickamauga Ave.

The administration is also examining dangerous vehicular intersections throughout Davidson County, such as Hickory Hollow Parkway and Mt View Rd, Bell Road and Cane Ridge Road, and Broadmoor Drive and Dickerson Pike.

Since 1998, Walk Bike Nashville has sought to make active transportation an option for Nashvillians, no matter where they live or where they’re trying to go. The group uses a mix of educational programs focused on safety and skills, encouragement events for all ages and abilities, and grassroots advocacy to achieve its goals.

The Vision Zero Network is a collaborative campaign helping communities reach their goals of Vision Zero – eliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries – while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. As a nonprofit project, the Vision Zero Network is committed to defining, building momentum and advancing Vision Zero in communities across the United States.


Vision Zero Exposed As United Nations Communist Plan To Restrict Travel By Vehicle. Plan Implemented In Name Of Safety By City Mayors Across United States.

download (21)

Vision Zero Isn’t Working

Source: The Antiplanner | December 2, 2019 Follow upTransportation

An article posted on the Atlantic‘s CityLab last week documented that many of the cities that have adopted “vision zero” policies have seen pedestrian fatalities sharply increase. These cities, notes the article, have “spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, rebuilding streets to calm traffic and reduce driving, lobbying for speed limit reductions, launching public awareness campaigns, and retraining police departments.” Yet Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, among others, saw sharp increases in pedestrian and/or bicycle fatalities after adopting Vision Zero policies.

This won’t be a surprise to Antiplanner readers. As described in Policy Brief #25, Vision Zero is an overly simplistic strategy that fails to solve the real problems that are causing pedestrian fatalities to rise.

Vision Zero is based on the observation that pedestrians hit by cars traveling at high speeds are more likely to die than if the cars are traveling at low speeds. So Vision Zero’s primary tactic is to reduce driving speeds. Vision Zero’s secondary goal is to reduce driving period by making auto travel slower and less desirable compared to the alternatives. Neither of these are working very well.

As Policy Brief #25 noted, the real problem isn’t speed but design. The fastest driving speeds are on urban freeways, yet they have the lowest pedestrian fatality rates because pedestrians are normally excluded from the freeways. Traffic on one-way streets tends to be faster than on two-way streets, yet pedestrians suffer fewer accidents on one-way streets because they only have to worry about traffic coming from one direction when crossing the streets.

Moreover, simply slowing daytime traffic doesn’t treat another major problem, which is unsafe behavior. More pedestrians die and the rise in fatalities is greater during the three-hour period between 3 am and 6 am than the nine-hour period between 9 am and 6 pm. Most fatalities are also away from intersections and a high percentage of nighttime pedestrians who died had alcohol in their bloodstreams. Presumably the same is true for the drivers, but the data don’t report driver alcohol levels for pedestrian accidents alone.

Better street lighting, better enforcement of driving under the influence laws, and policies aimed at discouraging people from crossing the streets outside of designated crosswalks, especially at night, would be more successful at reducing fatalities than increasing traffic congestion during rush hours, which is really what Vision Zero is all about.

We can say for certain that Vision Zero’s efforts to reduce driving have failed. Chicago and Los Angeles were the first major cities to adopt Vision Zero goals in 2012. Since then, per capita driving in Chicago has grown by more than 5 percent while in Los Angeles it has grown more than 2 percent.

For decades, traffic engineers followed a tried-and-true formula for reducing auto fatalities: improve roadway designs in ways that reduce the number and impact of accidents. Vision Zero has diverted cities from that formula in an overt anti-auto strategy that sometimes actually makes streets more dangerous (such as when one-way streets are converted to two-way operation). So it is no surprise that Vision Zero isn’t working.

What Happens When a City Tries to End Traffic Deaths.



NOVEMBER 21, 201

Several years into a ten-year “Vision Zero” target, some cities that took on a radical safety challenge are seeing traffic fatalities go up.

In 2012, Chicago ventured where no other big U.S. city had. Under then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the city set a mission of eliminating traffic fatalities and injuries in 10 years. The city didn’t mention “Vision Zero” by name, but its ambitious goal took inspiration from that road safety policy platform enacted 15 years prior in Sweden, leading to one of the lowest national traffic mortality rates in the world.
The basic logic of Vision Zero is that any traffic collision that results in death or serious injury—whether for a pedestrian, cyclist, motorist, or any other road user—isn’t an unavoidable “accident,” but a tragedy that could be prevented through smarter engineering, education, and enforcement.

Seven years later, dozens of U.S. cities have hopped on the Vision Zero bandwagon, pledging to stop traffic fatalities in ambitious time frames. They’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, rebuilding streets to calm traffic and reduce driving, lobbying for speed limit reductions, launching public awareness campaigns, and retraining police departments.

Yet while some places have managed to bend their traffic fatality curves, others have struggled to budge a transportation status quo that prioritizes the ease of driving over the safety of other people on the road. Since 2013, the numbers of deaths among U.S. pedestrians and cyclists have risen by nearly 30 percent and 14 percent respectively, nationwide.

That pattern is shared in several cities wearing the Vision Zero mantle, according to a CityLab analysis of traffic fatalities in five major cities that were among the first in the U.S. to establish Vision Zero targets. Three of the cities, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., have seen fatalities rise or remain relatively flat. Two others, San Francisco and New York City, have made headway towards zero, but are seeing pedestrian and cyclist fatalities creep up more recently.

Most of these cities have fatality rates below the national average, and it’s possible to see substantial, non-linear changes in the total number of fatalities from year to year. But based on their rate of change to date, none of these five cities are on pace to reach zero traffic fatalities for decades, let alone by their ten-year targets.

These five early adopter cities were selected by CityLab for analysis because of their size and geographic diversity. Other cities that were among the first to embrace the zero-casualties platform are also unlikely to meet their targets, including Austin and San Jose, which have seen an upturn in fatalities since launching their programs in late 2014 and mid-2015 respectively. The roadside death toll in Seattle, which announced its plan to end traffic deaths and injuries by 2030 in early 2015, has stayed flat for years.

Several factors are fueling this disconcerting trend, from low gas prices that make it easier to drive, rollbacks on state-level traffic safety laws, the ongoing prevalence of digital distractions, and the rising popularity of ride-hailing services and heavy-duty SUVs. Such factors are frustratingly beyond the control of local leaders. But mayors, city councilmembers, and safety advocates have often struggled with local politics and state preemptions to make as much headway as they hoped. What seemed like a universally unassailable goal, ending preventable deaths, has proven a sticky political quagmire in many cities—one that hardly moves until someone else dies.

Communist United Nations Convention On The Rights of the Child Makes World Government Your Childs New Parents. Loser President Bill Clinton Tried To Pass It Here In U.S.

UN flag burning

Source: Wikipedia

The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it. It has been claimed that American opposition to the Convention stems primarily from political and religious conservatives.[58] For example, The Heritage Foundation sees “a civil society in which moral authority is exercised by religious congregations, family, and other private associations is fundamental to the American order”.[59] and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) argues that the CRC threatens homeschooling.[60]

The United States had in the past permitted the execution and life imprisonment of juvenile offenders, in contravention of the Article 37 of the Convention.[1] The 2005 Supreme Court landmark decision in Roper v. Simmons declared juvenile executions to be unconstitutional as “cruel and unusual punishment“;[61][62][63] in 2012, the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.[64]

State laws regarding the practice of closed adoption may also require overhaul in light of the Convention’s position that children have a right to identity from birth.

During his 2008 campaign for President, Senator Barack Obama described the failure to ratify the Convention as “embarrassing” and promised to review the issue[65][66] but he never did. No President of the United States has submitted the treaty to the United States Senate requesting its advice and consent to ratification since the US signed it in 1995.[67]

The United States has ratified two of the optional protocols to the Convention,[9][10] the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.

Dana Gabriel
Borderfire Report
March 6, 2009

Through its various agencies and treaties, the United Nations seeks to undermine individual, as well as national sovereignty. It has been almost 15 years since President Clinton signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The U.S. remains one of the last holdouts as the treaty lies dormant, yet to be ratified. The UNCRC grants children new civil, social, cultural and economic rights that could override parental decisions. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), is pushing for a vote as there is a real sense that under an Obama presidency, the UNCRC could finally be ratified.

Under the guise of human rights, the UN agenda is to further breakup the family. 

If the UNCRC is ratified, parents could be prohibited from homeschooling and spanking their children. It undermines parental authority and gives more power to the state to further dictate how children are raised. It grants children dangerous new rights thus encouraging more rebellious behavior. The truth is that in many cases, children do not have the wisdom and maturity to make sound decisions. The treaty also gives children the mechanism by which they could dispute any parental judgment. The UNCRC transfers more parental authority to the state while granting children radical new rights.

Under the UNCRC, an 18-member committee has been established to review children’s rights and any other disputes that might arise. In many cases, we are already bound by international treaties and the UNCRC gives unaccountable UN bureaucrats the power to make decisions concerning our children’s well-being. Parents are being demoted to simple caregivers, while the state assumes the role of the prime authoritative figure. The UNCRC is an assault on parental authority and is essentially a blank check for governmental interference in family matters. It is meant to further promote child autonomy and freedom from parental guidance.

In the U.S., homeschooling numbers continue to rise as a growing number of parents look to better control their child’s moral instruction. Under the UNCRC, homeschooling could be interpreted as a violation of a child’s well being. Some states have tried to ban and outlaw homeschooling and the UNCRC could make it a UN-sponsored activity. Public school education is designed to correct any perceived errors in rearing and home training. The ideology of globalism and world government is at the very core of the educational system. The UN seeks to undermine parental authority, traditional values and biblical principles. They wish to gain more control over our children’s upbringing and education.

Under the guise of human rights, the UN agenda is to further breakup the family. At recent meetings held in Mexico City, United Nations Population Fund representative, Arie Hoekman, told participants that high divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births were not a social crisis, but instead a triumph for human rights. Traditional values and principles instilled by parents, are being manipulated and pushed aside. The breakdown of the family is bringing about a rise in new values. Children’s love and loyalty to their family and country is being systematically destroyed. Under a new global order, there is no room for nationalism or individuality and a strong family unit represents a threat to this system.

Being a parent is a huge responsibility and undertaking that should not be taken lightly. Parents are not always right and some may be unfit. The reality is that children thrive in an environment where there is love and structure which includes consequences for their behavior. The UNCRC infringes upon parental authority and represents a massive intrusion by the state into family affairs. It has the potential to radically alter parent-child relationships. The UN definitely has no business telling parents how to raise their children and neither does the government unless there is evidence of neglect or abuse. The UN is a morally bankrupt institution with a horrible record of protecting human rights around the world and the U.S ratifying the UNCRC will not change that.

« Older Entries