Reading the headline articles can be interesting and often times difficult to tell if it’s a legitimate item or if someone is pulling your leg. Take this next item which came via the Associated Press for example; at first I thought it was a spoof piece like you’d find over at The Onion, it’s not…
The opening line of Michael Virtanen’s article reads: “New York’s attorney general is examining statements by Exxon Mobil and Peabody Energy to determine whether they deceived investors about the causes and impacts of climate change, an official familiar with the investigations said Thursday.”
Where does reality end and fantasy take over when the topic involves Climate Change?
Exxon Mobil apparently had been mandated to warn investors about financial risks involved due to government regulations which may or may not be adversely affected because of government reports and subsequent regulations on the oil and gas industry. Even so, the article included the company policy which showed they were at least in partial compliance if not complete subjugation to the powers that be.
“ExxonMobil’s nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Let’s get this right; wouldn’t want to mislead anyone…The United Nations IPCC report, a report which has been proven to be based on fraudulent data gathered and edited in such a way as to intentionally mislead for the sole purpose of political power and redistribution of wealth on a planetary scale that rivals any con game…that report used by our own government to empower the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) into implementing Draconian measures which have nearly crippled the energy industry and have, for all intent and purpose declared that it will put the Coal Industry out of business…along with the Department of Energy and paid academics on the dole from the very same administration…these are the trusted folks with all the facts? (Every now and then a good run on sentence makes more sense than following the rules)
It would seem Exxon Mobil is between a rock and a hard place, pardon the geological pun… They’ve made efforts to get along with the self appointed ‘high priests’ in charge of the Church of Man Made Global Warming, implemented extreme measures to go along with mandates which were put in place for the sole purpose of putting Exxon Mobil and other oil exploration companies out of business and yet continue to exist and convince investors that the odds of making a return on those investments was/is worth the risk.
So who is being taken for a ride? If the State of New York wants to investigate deceptive practices, “…to determine whether they deceived *investors (*substitute “the general public”) about the causes and impacts of climate change…”, shouldn’t they be looking at someone other than the oil companies who are only trying to stay in business and turn a profit?
Don’t take my word for it; recognized scientist and Professor John Christy, who was at one time on the Climate Alarmist Bandwagon, and former lead author of the IPCCwrote:
“Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.”
In lay terms, the IPCC Report is a fabrication, a fraudulent script intended to deceive in order to provide a means of redistributing power and money…in short, a lie!
Lamar Smith wrote in his article, The EPA’s Game of Secret Science, as originally found in the Wall Street Journal on July 30, 2013 and linked via the internet site JunkScience dot Com:
“As the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward with some of the most costly regulations in history, there needs to be greater transparency about the claimed benefits from these actions. Unfortunately, President Obama and the EPA have been unwilling to reveal to the American people the data they use to justify their multibillion-dollar regulatory agenda.”
“To cite a few examples of where the EPA would like to take the country, the agency is moving forward with strict new limits on ozone that by its own estimates will cost taxpayers $90 billion per year, which would make the regulation the most costly in history. Other examples include a Mercury and Air Toxics Standard for power plants (previously known as “Utility MACT”) that the EPA estimates could cost up to $10 billion a year. Yet more than 99% of the EPA’s health-based justifications for the rule are derived from scientific research that the EPA won’t reveal. Taxpayers are supposed to take on faith that EPA policy is backed by good science.”
But, hey, what’s a few billion dollars among friends? It’s only the energy industry being destroyed and let’s face it, our ancestors lived comfortably in caves without electricity for a very long time.
“Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.”
Those Big Bad Oil companies making a profit, all the while killing Mother Earth; polluting the water, the air and endangering our children’s future…shame on them for misleading investors, not telling them our government was trying to put them out of business, that the EPA and the United Nation’s band of thugs would lie in order to bring about a total collapse of capitalism.
The Moral Liberal’s Senior Editor, T.F. Stern,is a retired City of Houston police officer, self-employed locksmith, and gifted political and social commentator. His popular and insightful blog, T.F. Sterns Rantings, has been up and at it since January of 2005.
Stephen Colbert, Facebook Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, were among those appearing at the Global Citizen Festival on September 26, broadcast by cable channel MSNBC.
Incredibly, despite the left-wing slant of the event, Republican Senators Thad Cochran (MS) and Bob Corker (TN) lent their names to the Honorary Congressional Host Committee for the gathering, while Republican Rep. Charlie Dent (PA) was listed as a participant.
Labeled as an effort to eradicate poverty by 2030, the movement to create “global citizens” is actually designed to make the U.N. into a world government to manage a transition to a new worldwide economic system. It’s being called “sustainable development” but amounts to a system of global socialism—redistributing wealth from the United States to the rest of the world.
By the standards of this group, ordinary American citizens are considered greedy consumers, who, according to socialist presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), have too many choices of deodorant and sneakers. He believes a central government should decide on what should be produced and for whom.
The Global Citizen Festival takes this theory of centralized planning to the international level.
In an Orwellian version of “Uncle Sam Wants You,” MSNBC had announced that “MSNBC wants YOU to become a Global Citizen.” Their live coverage of the event, which was held in New York City’s Central Park, was hosted by Alex Wagner, Willie Geist and Janet Mock, and included performances by Pearl Jam and Beyoncé.
Officially, the Global Citizen Festival was supposed to promote 17 Global Goals, also known as Sustainable Development Goals, including that of taking “climate action” to address “climate change.” This was not defined in specific terms, but in December the U.N. holds a climate conference intended to produce a new treaty, which Obama supporters say he plans to implement through executive action, bypassing Congress.
When Pope Francis spoke to the United Nations on Friday, member countries officially “adopted” these Global Goals, which are supposed to be implemented by 2030.
However, the U.S. Congress has not been consulted or asked for a vote on the global agenda, and Republican leaders have been silent about the United Nations attempting to implement on a global basis what Congress has not passed in the form of legislation.
Republican Congressional leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, gave Pope Francis a chance to promote aspects of the global agenda when he spoke to the Congress on Thursday. In his address, the pope referred to his encyclical on climate change, “Laudato Si’,” and urged action “to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.” He added, “I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States—and this Congress—have an important role to play.”
Yet Congress has not been called upon to accept, or reject, the “global goals” adopted by the Obama administration at the U.N.
Despite congressional silence, or acquiescence in the cases of Republican Senators Cochran and Corker and Rep. Dent, the U.N.’s goal of global socialism is out in the open, although few in the media even mention it. However, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has said publicly that the plan is to begin “the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, [changing] the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” The period 2015 to 2030 is when this transition from oil and gas is supposed to occur. The plan is nothing less than the overthrow of the global capitalist system that is powered by the use of energy and resources for the benefit of humankind.
Veering off into another cause dear to the hearts of the far-left, among the individuals providing on-stage video messages and commitments, was Juan Manuel Santos, the President of Colombia who just signed a “peace deal” in Havana with the Colombian narco-terrorists known as the FARC, who have been waging war on his country for 40 years.
Former Colombian president Alvaro Uribe called the deal a surrender to terrorism and says it gives Marxist guerrillas an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and infiltrate the political system.
With “peace” breaking out all over without a peep from Republicans in Congress, those using Google Chrome as a search engine on September 25 found a notice on the bottom of the Internet page urging people to click on a link to learn more about the U.N.’s global goals to “end poverty, climate change, and injustice.” That link led to the U.N.’s “sustainable development goals.”
As the channel leading the effort, MSNBC declared that through its partnership with the Global Citizen Festival it was “committed to connecting our audience with the stories and values that bring purpose and action to our global community.” This clearly means more media manipulation and liberal bias, in order to make the U.N., a body always plagued by corruption, appear to be worthwhile.
In addition to MSNBC, other media properties sponsoring or broadcasting the event included NBC News and CNBC.
Additional corporate partners include The Huffington Post, Yahoo!, YouTube, and Wikipedia, which together have the ability to influence and propagandize the American people with pro-U.N. messages.
Not to be outdone, movie theaters around the country and the world promoted the so-called “Global Goals Campaign” through a 60-second ad narrated by Liam Neeson (as the voice of God), and featuring animated creatures (as U.N. officials) calling on the nations of the world to “defeat climate change.”
But that’s not all. “We’re working to get the Global Goals onto every website and billboard, broadcast on every TV station and radio station, in every cinema and classroom, pinned to every community noticeboard and sent to every mobile phone,” the movement announced.
So look for America’s young people to get indoctrinated about the “global goals,” perhaps through Common Core.
We are truly witnessing a massive international campaign, using most major organs of the media, to “fundamentally transform” the world.
But there’s more. While socialist Bernie Sanders has been quick to attack the “billionaire class” on the campaign trail, those behind this new global citizen movement being put at the service of the U.N. proudly insisted that a grand total of 137 billionaires had “pledged to use their money for good” in the future, undoubtedly by giving more money to far-left and pro-U.N. causes.
It was announced that something called the “Giving Pledge,” defined as “a campaign that encourages the wealthiest people in the world to give most of their wealth to philanthropic causes,” had “been signed by 137 billionaire or former billionaire individuals or couples.” It was originally announced in 2010 by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was among the “notable younger pledgers.”
Zuckerberg was also among the attendees at Friday night’s White House state dinner for Xi Jingping, the President of Communist China.
This crowd has apparently decided to ignore the lack of human freedom in China, and regards the communist regime as a trustworthy player to bring about a new global state.
Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is ecstatic over the pope’s address to Congress. In a message to his supporters, titled, “Why we must listen to Pope Francis,” he was particularly pleased with the fact that in his address to Congress, “Pope Francis spoke of Dorothy Day, who was a tireless advocate for the impoverished and working people in America. I think it was extraordinary that he cited her as one of the most important people in recent American history.” Day was a Marxist apologist for socialism and communist regimes. We covered this territory in my column, “With Pope’s Help, U.N. Bypasses Congress on Global Socialism.”
With Republican congressional leaders under fire from conservatives for cowering in the face of a Democratic Party onslaught, all that they needed was to roll out the welcome mat for a Marxist pope who would put them further on the defensive. But that’s exactly what happened.
Phyllis Bennis of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies was right: “Pope Francis’ address to Congress was almost certainly not what John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and other congressional leaders had in mind when they invited the pope to speak.” Speaking for many on the left, including the pro-abortion lobby,she said, “His clear call to end the death penalty was the only example he gave of protecting the sanctity of life: Even amid a raging congressional debate over Planned Parenthood, he never mentioned abortion.”
The list of left-wing causes in the pope’s address was extensive. Bennis noted “his calls to protect the rights of immigrants and refugees, end the death penalty, preserve the planet from the ravages of climate change, and defend the poor and dispossessed.” And then there was the attack on the policies of peace through strength, which keep us free. “Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world,” the pope said. He then asked, “Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?”
He should ask that of Vladimir Putin.
Most Americans understand the rationale for legal immigrants. But illegal aliens who commit crimes are something else. The pope seems not to recognize a difference.
The death penalty is a punishment reserved for heinous killers. But he doesn’t mention abortion, which has taken tens of millions of innocent lives. This seemed strange to conservative Catholics, who are starting to come to grips with the fact that this is a “progressive” pope, who is not hostile toward what anti-communist Pope John Paul II called the “culture of death” through population control and reduction.
Francis’s answer on the arms control issue was to challenge the United States alone and blame its spending on national defense on monetary motives. “Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood,” said the pope. “In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.”
That’s a slander of our brave fighting men and women, many of whom have given their lives or sacrificed their limbs to bring freedom to people around the word, especially Muslims in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Against the global Jihad, what does the pope expect the U.S. to do? Disarm?
Praising “his uniquely progressive papal perspective,” far-left radio host Amy Goodman noted that “The pope has been frank in his criticism of much of the core of U.S. society: capitalism, consumerism, war and the failure to confront climate change.” This is a fraud, of course. They used to warn us against global cooling. It then became global warming and now climate change. The cause always changes until they find something to lure people into schemes for bigger government and higher taxes.
Recognizing the socialism of the pope, Al Jazeera posted an article, “Bernie Sanders, the pope and the moral imperative of systemic change,” by Gar Alperovitz, the co-chair with James Gustave Speth of The Next System Project. Speth, former administrator of the United Nations Development Program, put his name on its 1994 “Human Development Report,” which openly promoted global taxes for world government.
The “Next System” is another name for the replacement of global capitalism by global socialism.
Those endorsing this project, in addition to Alperovitz and Speth, include:
Jane Mansbridge, Harvard University
Gerald Hudson, Service Employees International Union
Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA
Robert B. Reich, University of California at Berkeley
Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Barbara Ehrenreich, Author
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University
Gerald Torres, Cornell University Law School
Larry Cohen, Communications Workers of America
Julie Matthaei, Cornerstone Cohousing
Leo Gerard, United Steelworkers
John James Conyers, Jr., 13th District, Michigan
Bill McKibben, 350.org
Saskia Sassen, Columbia University
Frances Fox Piven, City University of New York
Manuel Pastor, University of Southern California
Phillip Thompson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Oliver Stone, Academy Award-winning Filmmaker
Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK
Timothy E. Wirth, United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund
Sarita Gupta, Jobs With Justice
Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Van Jones, The Dream Corps & Rebuild The Dream
Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, California State University
Daniel Ellsberg, Author
Herman E. Daly, University of Maryland
Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, Author, Former Presidential Candidate
Ai-jen Poo, National Domestic Workers Alliance
Anna Galland, MoveOn.org Civic Action
Danny Glover, Actor, Social Activist
Tom Morello, Musician, Activist
Jill Stein, 2012 Green Party Presidential Nominee
Nancy Fraser, New School for Social Research
“We have fundamental problems because of fundamental flaws in our economic and political system,” the New Project proclaims. “The crisis now unfolding in so many ways across our country amounts to a systemic crisis. Today’s political economic system is not programmed to secure the wellbeing of people, place and planet. Instead, its priorities are corporate profits, the growth of GDP, and the projection of national power.”
The group goes on, “Large-scale system change is needed but has until recently been constrained by a continuing lack of imagination concerning social, economic and political alternatives. There are alternatives that can lead to the systemic change we need.”
Yes there are. They are called socialism and communism. But they would rather call it “sustainable development,” in order to confuse people about how the American way of life is being targeted for extinction.
Having been bamboozled into passing a mere bill to thwart the Iran deal, rather than treating the agreement as a treaty, the Republican-controlled Congress is on the verge of being taken to the cleaners again. This time, President Obama is maneuvering to authorize U.S. participation in a United Nations climate change treaty through an executive agreement. The treaty is expected to come out of the December meeting in Paris of parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Rather than submit the agreement to the Senate as an Article II Treaty, it is anticipated that the Obama administration will simply accept the treaty on the basis of what it claims to be “existing” presidential authority.
The agreement could establish or propose legally binding limits on carbon emissions, crippling what’s left of our industrial economy, along with new legally binding financial commitments that could run into the trillions of dollars to be “redistributed” from the U.S. and other “rich” nations. Obama has told the U.N. that the United States will meet a pledge of 26 to 28 percent emissions reduction by 2025.
Eleven top Senate Republicans, led by Senator James Inhofe (OK), had asked for “robust and transparent communication between the Executive and Legislative branches, particularly with respect to the Senate and its Constitutional advise and consent responsibilities.” But such requests are typically treated with disdain by the administration, which is determined to get its way no matter what Congress believes.
In order to provide a basis of some kind for Obama to take this questionable approach, our media trumpeted the “news” that July 2015 was supposedly the warmest month on record for the earth dating back to January 1880—with humans the culprits, of course. The source of this sensational claim was the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance noted that CNN, USA Today, the BBC “and lots of other mainstream media lapdogs all obediently reported” the claim from NOAA. But the Heartland Institute points out that NOAA is using land-based temperature recording stations which “artificially skew the temperatures recorded upward,” and that according to the satellite system data, June 2015 was actually warmer than July. The group says, “When one understands what government scientists are doing in an effort to promote climate alarmism, rather than to record and report accurate data for analysis, one must despair whether accurate data can be obtained from ‘official sources.’”
Rather than expose how the government is manipulating data, 25 media members of a “Climate Publishers Alliance” are moving forward to “collaborate on their coverage of climate change” and promote the U.N. agenda. The initiative will conclude on December 11, the final day of the U.N. conference in Paris. The media organizations include The Guardian (United Kingdom), India Today (India), La Presse (Canada), La Repubblica (Italy), Le Monde (France), Politiken (Denmark), The Seattle Times (United States), The Straits Times (Singapore), The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) and To Vima (Greece).
This initiative is in addition to major liberal foundation funding of pro-U.N. propaganda and the training of journalists to toe the U.N. line, as documented by Accuracy in Media.
Meanwhile, a “Week of Moral Action for Climate Justice” has been announced for September 21 through September 25 to coincide with the visit by Pope Francis to the United States and the United Nations.
Here are the basics about the pope’s visit:
September 22. The Pope arrives in the U.S. from Cuba.
September 23. Pope meets with Obama at White House.
September 24. Pope gives an address to Congress.
September 25. Pope gives an address to U.N. General Assembly.
September 26. Pope visits Independence Hall in Philadelphia.
September 27. Pope visits World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia.
Left-wing activist Naomi Klein, author of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, was invited by the Vatican to address the issue in Rome. She now predicts the pope will put Republicans on the defensive because most of them are opposed to the theory of man-made climate change. She says, “…I think the timing of this trip is obviously going to be very awkward for several Republican candidates who are Catholic and understand that this is a very, very popular pope. He’s particularly popular among Latinos, and that’s a really coveted voting bloc. So, you know, picking a fight with this pope is not a very smart political move if you’re running for office right now.”
At the same time, Klein said that when she was at the Vatican, she talked to “a fairly prominent Catholic” from the United States who told her, “The holy father isn’t doing us any favors by going to Cuba first.” Klein said that “he meant that there are a lot of people talking about how this pope is sort of a closet socialist, and by going to Cuba first, he was reinforcing that narrative.”
The pope secretly collaborated with the Obama administration to begin the process that resulted in U.S. recognition of Castro’s Cuba and the opening of a Cuban Communist embassy in the U.S.
It would be well-advised for the pope to take a look at Cuba’s mismanaged socialist paradise. The Washington Post ran a recent story by Nick Miroff about how the island prison camp is developing a reputation for pursuing “sustainable” development policies, but it acknowledged that the system is still characterized by shortages of food and agricultural equipment. In a previous dispatch, “In an online world, Cuba remains a stand-in-line society,” Miroff noted how Cubans continue to have to stand in line for various products, when they are in fact available.
The concept of “sustainable development,” as endorsed by the U.N. and the pope, could actually make things worse.
Indeed, the Cuban communists insist they have been following this model of development for years. “Cuba is a world leader in ecologically sustainable practices,” says Marce Cameron of the Cuba’s Socialist Renewal blog. It seems socialism always has to be “renewed,” until it finally begins to work.
Years ago, the U.N. Development Program’s Choices magazine published an article touting “Pig Power” as a way to run the economy of the future. It was an article about an experimental energy project in Cuba that involves feeding pigs and using their gasses and excrement to produce energy. In a story datelined Havana, the magazine said, “At a research institute in the suburbs of Cuba’s capital, pigs are pampered with meals prepared by the city’s finest chefs.”
Letting the pigs live “High off the hog” produces the energy for the human population, which seems to have a much lower standard of living.
Will this fact of communist life be noted by Pope Francis when he travels to Cuba, where he will presumably dispense communion to the communist atheists running the island nation?
Equally important, will U.S. political figures have the guts to take on the pope’s pro-Marxist view of the world before the Vatican and the Obama administration prepare to use the U.N. as a means by which to impose their anti-capitalist vision on the U.S. and the world?
If not, consider “pig power” the wave of the future. It will be our future under the U.N.
A CNN story blared, “The American stock market has surrendered a stunning $2.1 trillion of value in just the last six days of market chaos.” The ups and downs of the stock market have been seized upon by those leading a global campaign to steal trillions of dollars from the American people in the name of “sustainable development.”
One aspect of the campaign is a so-called “financial transaction tax,” endorsed by socialist and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT), which would even affect the stock trades of small investors. The proposal has a global component.
However, the odds are that you will only be treated to positive coverage of this unfolding scheme to “redistribute the wealth” on a global basis. George Russell of Fox News broke the story of how a branch of media giant Thomson Reuters and the United Nations Foundation are training journalists and paying for stories to “popularize” the U.N.-sponsored Sustainable Development Goals and make them attractive to news consumers.
The SDGs, such as “End poverty in all its forms everywhere,” sound positive. However, in reality, the concept of “sustainable development” is a Marxist scheme that researcher Michael Hichborn of the Lepanto Institute calls “a United Nations plan for the creation of a global socialist utopia thinly disguised as a poverty reduction program.”
Thomson-Reuters says, “The intensive training program aims to provide professionals from 33 countries with information, tools and strategies to understand the complex issues surrounding the next set of UN global development goals. The program will enable reporters, editors and spokespeople to better understand, report and communicate around some of the issues related to two crucial upcoming UN conferences: the UN Summit in New York in September that will see the adoption of the new Global Goals, and the UN Climate Change Conference in December in Paris, which is aimed at reaching a universal climate agreement.”
Marta Machado, who’s in charge of the Thomson-Reuters initiative, has worked for the Muslim Brotherhood channel, Al Jazeera, and CNN.
The United Nations Foundation, started by CNN founder Ted Turner, claims the effort is designed to “increase, enhance and influence global communications and media reporting” on the campaign.
However, in a press release that carried the subheadline, “Why communications matter in 2015,” the United Nations Foundation said the campaign will include media training, financial grants and “a sustained surge in targeted digital media,” designed to “help increase the volume and animate a global public conversation about the new goals, creating the environment to help us achieve success by 2030” (emphasis added).
Hence, the coverage will be slanted in favor of the United Nations.
Another “partner” in the global media campaign on behalf of the U.N. is the Jynwel Foundation, described as the philanthropic initiative of Jynwel Capital, an international investment and advisory firm based in Hong Kong.
As this campaign unfolds, it is a virtual certainty that the real purpose of the SDGs—to punish Americans and other “rich” people—will be carefully concealed.
As amazing as it seems, a report on foreign aid from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is actually titled, “From Billions to Trillions: Transforming Development Finance.” A United Nations General Assembly report, dated August 14, 2015, calls for “several trillion dollars per year” to be spent to implement “sustainable development” on a global level.
But don’t call it theft; call it “sharing.” Indeed, a report titled, “Financing the Global Sharing Economy,” proposes global taxes on financial transactions, energy and other measures to bring in over $2.8 trillion. The founder of Share the World’s Resources (STWR), Mohammed Mesbahi, has outlined a “strategy for world transformation” that condemns “the materialistic and self-seeking idea of the American Dream.”
In order to acquire these resources, new taxes on the national and global level are being pushed in the name of stabilizing the stock market.
After the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted more than 1,000 points at the open on Monday, the “progressives” in favor of financial transaction taxes went into action. James Henry, senior fellow at the Columbia University Center for Sustainable International Investment, was quoted as saying the stock turbulence is “a great example of why we need a Financial Transaction Tax,” a proposal that he says would raise hundreds of billions of dollars.
Almost on cue, socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) endorsed the idea. Sanders, who backs a 90 percent top marginal tax rate, says his proposed financial transaction tax will reduce “risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation…” In order to make it attractive, he says the proceeds “would be used to provide debt-free public college education.”
Jared Bernstein, the economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. from 2009 to 2011, says in a New York Times column that Sanders is right. “A financial transaction tax is a smart, fair way to raise urgently needed revenues while reducing unnecessary trading that makes our markets more volatile,” he wrote.
The council of the Socialist International convened on July 6 and 7 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, and endorsed the Millennium Development Goals and the “post-2015 development agenda.”
Sanders is reported to be a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, the U.S. affiliate of the SI.
Such a tax could be applied on a global basis as well. Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes, says in his book, The Confidence Game, that a global financial transactions tax “might net some $13 trillion a year…”
Calls for global taxes and more foreign aid are not new. The difference this time around is that the Vatican has endorsed the SDGs. Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Apostolic Nuncio and Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, gave a formal statement to the world body endorsing the “sustainable development” agenda.
Pope Francis will formally address the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on Thursday, September 25.
The huge crowds greeting socialist Bernie Sanders in his run for the Democratic presidential nomination cannot just be attributed to large numbers of left-wingers. There is a hard-core left-wing element to the Sanders candidacy, of course. But Sanders has tapped into what used to be one of Hillary Clinton’s key constituencies, the New Age Movement. A top Sanders adviser is the influential “spiritual teacher” Marianne Williamson, whose self-help books have been heavily promoted by Oprah Winfrey and sold millions.
The New Age Movement is a growing group of people in America who have broken with the Judeo-Christian tradition to instead endorse the notion of God as a mystical force inhabiting humans, the earth, or spiritual “masters.” Oprah’s website describes it somewhat differently: “For 20 years, Marianne Williamson has been a pioneer on the front lines of a worldwide spiritual movement aimed at creating a global shift in collective consciousness.”
Taking this perspective into the political realm, Williamson has advocated a Department of Peacebuilding and has created a group called the Peace Alliance to bring this about.
Constance Cumbey has written two books on the New Age Movement and says its “toolbox is mysticism,” or “altered states of consciousness,” which are said to draw people into a relationship with spiritual forces in the world that are part of a “New World Order” and global religion to be headed by an anticipated “messianic figure” of some kind.
Whatever this mean for the world as a whole, it appears that Williamson sees Sanders as the savior of the American political system.
Williamson, who writes on the Sanders-for-president website about the need for “revolutionary power,” has used her vast influence to mobilize her followers on behalf of the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party. She says the Marxist presidency of Barack Obama hasn’t been radical enough. “Having invested so much hope in 2008 in a candidate who turned out in many ways to disappoint, it’s not easy to summon our internal forces for another big wave of revolutionary fervor,” she says. But Sanders, the “independent” socialist senator from Vermont, is a true revolutionary, she says. “If we all show up and exercise our power as citizens, Senator Sanders can win the presidency in 2016,” she adds.
Analyst Trevor Loudon has documented that Sanders, the only Senate member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is actually a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), an organization that backed Obama’s political career and works with openly communist groups. “DSA works very closely with three of America’s leading communist groups—the Maoist leaning Freedom Road Socialist Organization, the ‘old guard’ Communist Party USA, and the CPUSA spin-off Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism,” notes Loudon. “The four groups have even seriously considered merging in recent years.”
We have noted Sanders’ history of involvement with Communist Party-controlled groups such as the U.S. Peace Council. In the 1980s, he was part of the Soviets’ “nuclear freeze” campaign to undercut President Ronald Reagan’s military build-up.
A former nightclub singer, Williamson herself ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2014 on a platform that included abortion rights, gay rights, socialized medicine, and the need to combat what she perceives as man-made global warming, nowadays called climate change. “While a lifelong Democrat herself, Marianne ran the congressional race as an Independent, making the statement that she was not beholden to either party,” noted writer Tabby Biddle.
“While America has some serious enemies—and it’s certainly our responsibility to protect our country and our children—I believe our country’s way of dealing with security issues is increasingly obsolete,” Williamson declared. “We cannot simply rely on brute force to rid ourselves of enemies. In so doing, we overburden our military by asking them to compensate for the work that we ourselves are not doing. The only way to make peace with your neighbors is to make peace with your neighbors.”
She added that, if she won, she would co-sponsor the bill to establish a U.S. Department of Peacebuilding that would examine “non-violent problem-solving options” to global conflict. The department was to be paid for out of the defense budget.
Labeled by The Hollywood Reporter as “Hollywood’s favorite New Age Guru” because of her influence with movie producers, directors, and actors, Williamson hosted Sanders at her own feminist-oriented “Sister Giant” conference earlier this year. Described personally as a “radical feminist mother,” Williamson has a daughter whose father is not known and whom she refuses to name.
While some of the New Age rhetoric and books can be dismissed as expensive but harmless fun, it’s when these “spiritual teachers” exert political influence and address global issues that we can see a tendency that seems even more radical than the usual Marxist drivel emanating from Democratic Party politicians such as Obama.
However, there is overlap. Williamson’s proposed Department of Peacebuilding, which was to be headed by a Secretary of Peacebuilding, was introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), one of Fidel Castro’s closest friends in the U.S. Congress.
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who also works with Williamson, had introduced a similar bill. “The intention is to develop an organized approach, tapping the intellectual and spiritual power of America to develop programs that would include teaching children the principles of peace: teaching them peace giving, peace sharing, mutuality, seeing the other person as an aspect of oneself, of teaching the inner equality of all people,” Kucinich said in a post on Williamson’s Peace Alliance website.
Like Sanders, Williamson is considered by some to be pro-Israel. But in her book,The Healing of America, she discussed how Egypt’s highest Muslim cleric had once approached her “to make sure you understand that Islam is a religion of peace.” She didn’t say whether the Muslim leader condemned and rejected the passages in the Koran that call for killing the “Infidels” who resist Islam.
She also wrote, “The creative challenge of spiritual life is to know enough about God to be hopeful. From Jesus to Buddha to Moses to Mohammed, wayshowers have risen out of the timeline of history to draw maps and pave roads to a more perfect world.” The comparison of Jesus—who led a perfect life and preached love—to the Muslim Prophet Mohammad, is offensive on its face. Islam began in violence and Mohammad himself was a violent warrior.
The term “wayshowers” is common in New Age circles and refers to spiritual beings supposedly leading us into a new world of community and harmony.
When Keith Ellison became the first Congressman to take the oath of office with his hand on the Koran, Williamson commented, “Fantastic story.” Ellison, a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, endorsed Williamson in her run for Congress.
For a time, Williamson and her associate Jean Houston of the Foundation for Mind Research were considered to be in Hillary Clinton’s political camp. Houston had tried to help Mrs. Clinton, when she was First Lady, “communicate” with Eleanor Roosevelt during a mystical “channeling” session. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward wrote about these sessions in a book on the 1996 presidential election.
At some point, however, Cumbey says Houston and Williamson abandoned Hillary. Williamson said in 2008 that she was supporting Barack Obama and not Hillary because “I am not going to vote with my vagina.”
This was a dramatic turnaround, since Mrs. Clinton in her memoir Living Historyhad discussed hosting Williamson and Houston and other New Agers at Camp David. “You were wonderful to me back in 1994 when you invited me to the White House. It’s a memory I will treasure always, and you gave it to me,” Williamsonwrote back to Hillary in a Huffington Post article.
But the 2014 Williamson article, “An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton,” was actually prompted by Williamson’s revelation that the former First Lady was getting too close to powerful interests in society. Williamson pleaded with Clinton to, “Stop cozying up to the banks, to the chemical companies, to the military-industrial complex, to the party machine, and to all the various financiers who make up the plutocracy now ruining this country.”
The pleas apparently went unheeded, since Williamson eventually broke completely with Hillary and now promotes Sanders for president and writes for his website. Through Sanders and other such candidates, she insists, America can experience a revolution “of light, of consciousness, and love” and “break out of this ridiculous corporate straightjacket that imperils us the way it does now.”
Whatever this means, it has occurred to some on the far-left that while Sanders is taking on “corporate power and oligarchy” and calling for vast federal spending increases for social welfare programs, the “issues” section of his presidential website says absolutely nothing about foreign policy. The group called RootsAction complains that his stump speech hardly mentions the “huge military budget” and says he must challenge “militarism and ongoing war.”
Perhaps Williamson’s proposed Department of Peacebuilding will be the focus of one of Sanders’ next speeches, a development that will make the socialist senator not only look like a pawn of Williamson and the New Age Movement, but the true leader of the Loony Left.
Watching the Obama administration trot out Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on the Sunday shows and in testimony to Congress following the consummation of what I believe will be a nuclear weapon-ensuring deal for not only the world’s leading state sponsor of jihad in Iran, but their Sunni counterparts, it should have been clear to all what a charade it was.
In this light, I am reminded of a quote from an expert in financial markets and economic history, Jim Grant, he of the legendary Wall Street newsletter Grant’s Interest Rate Observer.
During an address delivered on June 2, 2015 to the Manhattan Institute in connection with his winning of the Hayek Prize, Grant stated:
In the 1960s, John Cowperthwaite, British governor of Hong Kong, refused to allow the collection of economic statistics lest the bureaucrats misappropriate that information in the service of governmental macroeconomic manipulation (the very word “statistics” derives from “the state”).
Such an act would be heresy today in a world in which the state, governing according to scientific principles, is the church for our progressive elites.
Cowperthwaite knew that politicians would conflate science and public policy to justify their agendas and grow their power.
For it is science that legitimates the Iran deal.
It is science that legitimates the disruption of human activity, and with it trillions of dollars in wealth through global climate regulation.
Indeed, it is science that legitimates any number of government intrusions into our daily lives.
Science ought to be celebrated. But politicians can manipulate it towards destructive ends.
Winston Churchill saw this early on when he expressed fears about the power of mass weaponry. Of course it is not the weapons that are the problem in and of themselves, but the prospect of evil people obtaining them and using them towards genocidal ends that ought to keep us awake at night.
Today America is aiding, abetting and enabling just these types of people.
Pope Francis has applied his authority and the Catholic Church altering Catholic doctrine and message to high stakes politics. He has solicited high stakes policy wonks on the matter of Climate Change and his team is mobilized.
His shepherds, his Bishops, his Cardinals will install United Nations approved language and actions into all sermons, visits and religious message.
What a shame, there was such hope for renaissance of the Vatican yet it was short lived.
Note: Naomi Klein is a social activist who is against corporate capitalism, and has the DNA of peace activism and her grandparents were communists. She admits to being labeled a red-diaper baby where social justice and racial equality is her continued bent. Climate change is her mission. Klein is an acolyte of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky proven by the third book she authored titled The Shock Doctrine.
Hence, she successfully gained the attention of Pope Francis.
Social activist ‘surprised but delighted’ to join top cardinal in high-level environment conference at the Vatican
She is one of the world’s most high-profile social activists and a ferocious critic of 21st-century capitalism. He is one of the pope’s most senior aides and a professor of climate change economics. But this week the secular radical will join forces with the Catholic cardinal in the latest move by Pope Francis to shift the debate on global warming.
Naomi Klein and Cardinal Peter Turkson are to lead a high-level conference on the environment, bringing together churchmen, scientists and activists to debate climate change action. Klein, who campaigns for an overhaul of the global financial system to tackle climate change, told the Observer she was surprised but delighted to receive the invitation from Turkson’s office.
“The fact that they invited me indicates they’re not backing down from the fight. A lot of people have patted the pope on the head, but said he’s wrong on the economics. I think he’s right on the economics,” she said, referring to Pope Francis’s recent publication of an encyclical on the environment.
Release of the document earlier this month thrust the pontiff to the centre of the global debate on climate change, as he berated politicians for creating a system that serves wealthy countries at the expense of the poorest.
Activists and religious leaders will gather in Rome on Sunday, marching through the Eternal City before the Vatican welcomes campaigners to the conference, which will focus on the UN’s impending climate change summit.
Protesters have chosen the French embassy as their starting point – a Renaissance palace famed for its beautiful frescoes, but more significantly a symbol of the United Nations climate change conference, which will be hosted by Paris this December.
Nearly 500 years since Galileo was found guilty of heresy, the Holy See is leading the rallying cry for the world to wake up and listen to scientists on climate change. Multi-faith leaders will walk alongside scientists and campaigners, hailing from organisations including Greenpeace and Oxfam Italy, marching to the Vatican to celebrate the pope’s tough stance on environmental issues.
The imminent arrival of Klein within the Vatican walls has raised some eyebrows, but the involvement of lay people in church discussions is not without precedent.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, delivered the keynote address at a Vatican summit in April on climate change and poverty. Anticipating the encyclical, he said he was depending on the pope’s “moral voice and moral leadership” to speed up action.
When it came to the presentation of the document itself, the pontiff picked a five-strong panel, including a Rome school teacher and a leading scientist. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who heads the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, used the time to give churchmen a lesson in climate science.
The pope has upset some conservatives for drawing people from outside the clergy into the heart of the debate, while critics have also argued the Catholic church should not be involved in an issue that should be left to presidents and policy-makers.
But Klein said the pope’s position as a “moral voice” in the world – and leader of 1.2 billion Catholics – gives him the unique ability to unite campaigners fighting for a common goal. “The holistic view of the encyclical should be a catalyst to bring together the twin economic and climate crises, instead of treating them separately,” she said.
Much of the pope’s discourse focuses on the need to give developing countries a greater voice in climate change negotiations, a view that sits uncomfortably among some in developed nations. “There are a lot of people who are having a lot of trouble in realising there is a voice with such global authority from the global south. That’s why we’re getting this condescending view, of ‘leave the economics to us’,” said Klein.
She views the rise of Francis as an environmental campaigner as marking a welcome shift not only in the international sphere but also at the Holy See: “We’re seeing the power base within the Vatican shift, with a Ghanaian cardinal [Turkson] and an Argentine pope. They’re doing something very brave.”
While the upcoming conference is centred on the pope’s encyclical, delegates will also be looking ahead to decisive international meetings this year. Before the Paris talks comes a UN summit, where states are due to commit to sustainable development goals, which will inevitably affect the environment.
The pope will fly into New York on the first day of the meeting and address the UN general assembly, reinforcing his message and emboldening countries worst affected by climate change.
For Klein, the papal visit will mark a much-needed change in the way negotiators discuss the environment. “There’s a way in which UN discourse sanitises the extent to which this is a moral crisis,” she said. “It cries out for a moral voice.”
Bolivian President Evo Morales presents Pope Francis with a crucifix incorporating the hammer and sickle symbol during a meeting at the presidential palace in La Paz. Photo: Juan Carlos Usnayo/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
To my Catholic friends, while I am loathe to criticize that which they hold dear, there comes a time when silence is the wrong answer. When Pope Francis first surfaced, I thought he had the potential to be a great Pope. But with the potential of greatness, also comes the opportunity of infamy. Pope Francis is a Marxist and embodies many, many principles that I stand against, not only as a Constitutional Conservative, but as a Christian. This last week just solidified my uneasiness concerning this Pope.
The Bolivian President, Evo Morales (who Trevor Loudon and I have long contended is a Marxist), presented the Pontiff with a crucifix depicting Jesus nailed to a hammer and sickle, which the Pope returned after a brief examination. What is under contention is what the Pope said when presented with the gift. His comments were pretty much drowned out by a flurry of camera clicks. While some have claimed he expressed irritation, muttering the words “eso no está bien” (“this is not right”), Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said the Pope more likely said “no sabía eso” (“I didn’t know that”) in bemusement at the origins of the present. Which would make sense as NewsBusters and the Wall Street Journal noted, President Morales also “draped a medallion over [the pope’s] neck that bore the hammer and sickle.”
Communism has murdered well over one hundred million people in the last century alone. Many, many of those were Christians. As Ann Barnhardt put it, “Our Blessed Lord and Savior shown crucified on a hammer and sickle is, by all metrics, worse than Our Lord shown crucified on a swastika.” This constitutes blasphemy for me – Pope or not.
I also disagree that the Pope is being manipulated for ideological reasons. I think he knows full well what he is doing. We seem to have a knee-jerk response now when a leader does something unspeakable, unforgivable or outright evil – he/she didn’t know what they were doing… they were incompetent… or they were being manipulated. Knock it off! These people are not stupid; they are not rubes or babes in the woods who are so easily misled. (That’s not to say that they weren’t misled in very early life, ref. Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” That is to say, if you can indoctrinate someone in his early youth, you won’t need to sway him later: he’s already in your groove, and his decisions and choices will reflect that, not some imagined confusion of the moment.)
As for the Bolivian government insisting there was no political motive behind the gift and the Communications Minister, Marianela Paco, saying that Morales had thought the “Pope of the poor” would appreciate the gesture… bull crap. It’s the melding of politics and religion into a nightmarish agenda that is apocalyptic in scope and intent.
José Ignacio Munilla, bishop of the Spanish city of San Sebastián, tweeted a picture of the encounter, with the words: “The height of pride is to manipulate God in the service of atheist ideologies.” That is exactly right – on all counts, concerning all parties involved. It’s hard to overstate how important that observation is.
The Pope, after arriving in Bolivia, stopped to pray at the death site of Luis Espinal, a Jesuit murdered by Bolivian paramilitary forces in 1980. Espinal is being painted in press reports as a reformer who stood against the military dictatorship in Bolivia. Pope Francis also reportedly received a medal, bearing a hammer and sickle from Morales that was issued in memory of Espinal’s death.
Father Albo showed a reporter a published photo of a crucified Christ attached to a homemade hammer and sickle, instead of a cross, that Father Espinal kept by his bed.
“He was of the left. This is certain. But he never belonged to any party or pretended to be part of one,” said Father Albo, who said he hopes to present a replica of the hammer and sickle crucifix to the pope.
Father Espinal “gave a lot of importance to the dialogue between Marxists and Christians,” he explained. “It was not pro-Soviet … (it was) the need for the church to be close to the popular sectors. Some understand this, others don’t. To me it is very clear.”
It was said that the Pope wasn’t offended by Morales’ gift. “You can dispute the significance and use of the symbol now, but the origin is from Espinal and the sense of it was about an open dialogue, not about a specific ideology,” Lombardi said. Nope, it was all about ideology. This Argentinian Pope has been roundly criticized by many Marxists for not protecting Leftist priests during the military dictatorship in his country. Since becoming Pope, he has made major strides in bringing Liberation Theology to the fore in the Vatican. Thus, his campaigning for massive social and political change. This is Christianized Marxism. The irony of that term has to be savored. Kind of like “therapeutic cancer.”
Although Liberation Theology has grown into an international and inter-denominational movement, it began as a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s–1960s. It is purported that Liberation Theology arose principally as a moral reaction to the poverty seen as having been caused by social injustice in that region. But its roots are solidly Marxist. The term was coined in 1971 by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote one of the movement’s most famous books, A Theology of Liberation.
Latin American Liberation Theology met opposition from others in the US, who accused it of using “Marxist concepts” and that lead to admonishment by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1984 and 1986. The Vatican disliked certain forms of Latin American Liberation Theology for focusing on institutionalized or systemic sin; and for identifying Catholic Church hierarchy in South America as members of the same privileged class that had long been oppressing indigenous populations.
Pope Francis used his trip to Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay to highlight problems faced by indigenous communities and to warn against “all totalitarian, ideological or sectarian schemes.” That sounds very good. However, it started to go off the rails when he urged the downtrodden to change the world economic order, denouncing a “new colonialism” by agencies that impose austerity programs and calling for the poor to have the “sacred rights” of labor, lodging and land. That’s sheer Marxism. And exactly what does he mean by ‘austerity programs?’ You mean the over taxing of the general populace in order that elitists can keep up their glutinous spending sprees? Or do you mean austerity as in cutting spending, sticking to a budget and reducing debts? It certainly makes a difference on how the term is being used here.
His speech was preceded by lengthy remarks from the Left-wing Bolivian President Evo Morales, who wore a jacket adorned with the face of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Che was executed in Bolivia in 1967 by CIA-backed Bolivian troops. That certainly set the stage for Pope Francis and his speech.
Then the Pope gave a magnanimous and historic speech asking for forgiveness for the sins committed by the Roman Catholic Church in its treatment of Native Americans during what he called the “so-called conquest of America.” This is highly offensive and revisionist – it is skewed history. It’s true that American Indians were slaughtered by evil men and eventually, after a length of time, the colonists took over America. It is also true that Indians slaughtered many of the settlers and in horrific ways. Conquest and war are facts of history by the way, something Europe and the Vatican are very familiar with. It is a human condition that is ongoing and never ending as populations replace each other and wars rage on. He’s apologizing as though the Catholic Church had set out to do those things… it didn’t. Men did those things in the name of governments and in the name of the church. Apologizing for the deeds of men who acted on their own volition, but in your name, is to presume responsibility and control of actions over which the church had neither. The colonists did not set out to ‘conquer’ America either. They fled persecution in Europe and wanted to build new lives for themselves. Conflict came with Native Americans and the rest is history. Yes, evil was done, but that evil was not the totality of the story or our history and it certainly was not one-sided. It is also not something we need to ‘apologize’ for.
Then Pope Francis uttered my favorite quote – he quoted a fourth century bishop and called the unfettered pursuit of money “the dung of the devil,” and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labor for developed countries. Actually, when I heard the original quote, it said ‘capitalism’ not ‘money.’ While seeking unlimited riches can be a sin, it is not always so and not all wealthy people are guilty of this sin. It is also true that poor countries should not be treated as merely sources of materials and labor, however, those countries also benefit from that part of the economy. Countries are free to prosper and if more lived under free capitalistic governments where free trade was the norm and people were allowed to innovate and work for themselves, then there would be far fewer impoverished countries. But first, you’d have to get rid of the Marxists and dictators. Kind of a conundrum.
For dessert, the Pope repeated some of his encyclical on climate change. That’s Marxism on a global scale and smacks of fascism as well. It’s a twofer. Climate change is a seductive lie wrapped in a green package, but it is rotten from the inside out.
The Pope closes with what sounds to me like the echoes of Barack Obama and communism:
“Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change,” the pope said, decrying a system that “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature.“
“This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, laborers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable The Earth itself – our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable,” he said in an hour-long speech that was interrupted by applause and cheering dozens of times.
And the useful idiots cheered on even when they knew in their heart of hearts that all of the above is nothing more than a call to follow those that would rule over us, using Mother Earth as a handy excuse and targeting for blame the engines of free enterprise, using language meant to equate it with greed, while overlooking the primary source of real greed: corrupt totalitarian governments, born of Marxism.
Pope Francis was not finished by any means concerning ‘colonialism’:
“No actual or established power has the right to deprive peoples of the full exercise of their sovereignty. Whenever they do so, we see the rise of new forms of colonialism which seriously prejudice the possibility of peace and justice,” he said.
“The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain ‘free trade’ treaties, and the imposition of measures of ‘austerity’ which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor,” he said.
Last week, Francis called on European authorities to keep human dignity at the centre of debate for a solution to the economic crisis in Greece.
He defended labor unions and praised poor people who had formed cooperatives to create jobs where previously “there were only crumbs of an idolatrous economy”.
The Pope even went so far as to praise Bolivia’s social reforms to spread wealth under Morales. That’s wealth redistribution and again, Marxism. But that is only scratching the surface on this Pope – there is oh, so much more to be concerned about when it comes to Pope Francis.
My friend and colleague (and someone I truly admire) Cliff Kincaid has done excellent research into Pope Francis and his doings. Americans need to take note who has the ear of this Pope:
Top Vatican adviser Jeffrey Sachs says that when Pope Francis visits the United States in September, he will directly challenge the “American idea” of God-given rights embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
Sachs, a special advisor to the United Nations and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is a media superstar who can always be counted on to pontificate endlessly on such topics as income inequality and global health. This time, writing in a Catholic publication, he may have gone off his rocker, revealing the real global game plan.
The United States, Sachs writes in the Jesuit publication America, is “a society in thrall” to the idea of unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the “urgent core of Francis’ message” will be to challenge this “American idea” by “proclaiming that the path to happiness lies not solely or mainly through the defense of rights but through the exercise of virtues, most notably justice and charity.”
In these extraordinary comments, which constitute a frontal assault on the American idea of freedom and national sovereignty, Sachs has made it clear that he hopes to enlist the Vatican in a global campaign to increase the power of global or foreign-dominated organizations and movements.
Sachs takes aim at the phrase from America’s founding document, the United States Declaration of Independence, that “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.”
These rights sound good, Sachs writes, but they’re not enough to guarantee the outcome the global elites have devised for us. Global government, he suggests, must make us live our lives according to international standards of development.
Sachs is putting forth that the UN should be in charge of all national and individual rights. That we have to sacrifice our individual rights for the greater, collective good. What hive mentality. He’s also for massive global taxation, population control and one world government. “We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes,” he wrote. “A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin. Even a very small tax, less than that which is needed to correct humanity’s climate-deforming overuse of fossil fuels, would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods.” The bill he wants to stick the US with is $845 billion.
The Pope has not only aligned himself with Sachs, but with the UN’s Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, who told a Catholic Caritas International conference in Rome on May 12th that climate change is “the defining challenge of our time,” and that the solution lies in recognizing that “humankind is part of nature, not separate or above.” The pope’s encyclical on climate change is supposed to help mobilize the governments of the world in this crusade. This spells slavery for the world and an all-powerful tyrannical elite who will ruthlessly rule us through Marxist politics and a one world religion.
Sachs is not alone in his ideas. A short time ago, former President Shimon Peres met with the Pope at the Vatican and proposed that the Pope head up a UN for religions. I kid you not.
But the main topic of conversation was Peres’s idea to create a UN-like organization he called “the United Religions.”
Peres said the Argentina-born pontiff was the only world figure respected enough to bring an end to the wars raging in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.
“In the past, most of the wars in the world were motivated by the idea of nationhood,” Peres said. “But today, wars are incited using religion as an excuse.”
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi confirmed to reporters that Peres had pitched his idea for “the United Religions” but said Francis did not commit to it.
“The pope listened, showing his interest, attention, and encouragement,” Lombardi said, adding that the pope pointed to the Pontifical Councils for Interreligious Dialogue and for Justice and Peace as existing agencies “suitable” for supporting interfaith peace initiatives.
The meeting in September was the third one inside of four months. In an interview in the Catholic Magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Peres also called for the Pope to lead the inter-religious organization in order to curb terrorism: “What we need is an organization of United Religions… as the best way to combat terrorists who kill in the name of faith.” I literally cannot believe what I am hearing. This could well be the birth of a one world religion. This looks suspiciously like a move to reclaim the lost glory of the Church, harking back to those centuries when it held sway ’round the world, commanding fealty from kings and nobility. This “progressive” innovation is really a reactionary repackaging of the most sweeping colonialism in history. With one tongue they “condemn” colonialism, while with the other tongue they offer global subservience as the “solution” to the demon du jour.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The Pope is offering the masses the opium of Marxism in his stances. The question is, will the world follow him down this path? So many these days just want someone to give them everything and take care of them… they hunger for a leader who will absolve them of their sins and promise them forgiveness and welcome them with open arms. Will people, in the name of peace, usher in a one world order and willingly give up their freedoms? I’m afraid history says they will, but I know Americans, Christians and others will not be assimilated so easily by Marxist musings and flowery articulation. Pontification will only carry you so far – if you follow this pied piper, you will find yourself in the loving embrace of the UN – that Democracy of Dictators – and all that entails.
Donate to NoisyRoom.net
Support American Values...