Saturday, July 23, 2016


Massachusetts Attorney General Issues Diktat Banning “Assault Rifles”
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

 Displaying contempt for the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald, and the rule of law, Massachusetts’ Attorney General Maura Healey (shown) issued a diktat Wednesday banning the sale of virtually anything that looks like it might be termed an “assault rifle.” Her directive applied immediately not only to every gun manufacturer in the state but also to every gun dealer as well.
Knowing that it is, on its face, unconstitutional, Healey even admitted that her order would be challenged in court, but issued it anyway:
Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons  [i.e., semi-automatic rifles that often look like fully-automatic military firearms] were sold just in the last year.... In the week after the Pulse [LGBT] nightclub massacre, sales of [such] weapons jumped as high as 450 percent over the previous week — just in Massachusetts....
They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands....
That will end now.
She broadened the definition of “assault weapon” to fit her agenda and then issued her “directive”: “On Wednesday we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is [now] illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure [that] we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban [18 years ago], not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.”
She issued the new definition of “assault weapon”: if a gun’s operating system is the same as that of a banned weapon under present law, or has components that are interchangeable with those in a banned weapon, that gun becomes, by definition, illegal to sell in Massachusetts.
She threw a bone to citizens already in possession of such a firearm: Wednesday’s ukase won’t apply to them, at least not yet:
We anticipate our directive may be ... challenged ... but our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe.
This directive does both.
It does neither. It has nothing to do with enforcing an existing law which has been in force for nearly two decades. It has everything to do with expanding it to fit her anti-gun agenda stoked by the attack at the Pulse nightclub. And it won’t have any impact on violence committed by “assault rifles” in Massachusetts. In 2014, the latest year for which data from the FBI is available, there were no murders committed using an “assault rifle” or a rifle of any kind in her state. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Healey decided unilaterally, on her own, to issue the directive with no legislative input, no concern about due process and certainly no opportunity for public input. There was no vote, no passage of amending legislation, no due process by which citizens are protected from such autocratic decrees from would-be tyrants. It is, according to Healey, now the law of the state:
In the face of inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence. If Washington won’t use its power to get these guns off the streets, we will. Not only do we have the legal authority to do so, we have the moral obligation to do so.
Virginia’s state attorney general Mark Herring no doubt thought the same thing when he unilaterally tried to change his state’s laws regarding reciprocity for concealed carry permits. His decree not only wound up being negated, but the law on reciprocity was actually expanded while barring Herring from issuing such sweeping illegal mandates in the future.
A similar fate is likely in store for Healey. In the meantime, while she is busy defining things she doesn’t like out of existence, she might investigate the term “tyrant”. Originally a Greek term, in modern English “tyrant” refers to an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution. The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d’Alembert defines the term even more precisely:
[By] tyrant, the Greeks referred to a citizen who had seized the sovereign authority of a free state ... today [the term refers to] not only a usurper of sovereign powers, but even a legitimate sovereign who abuses his [or her] power in order to violate the law, to oppress his [or her] people, and to make his [or her] subjects the victims of his [or her] passions and unjust desires, which he [or she] substitutes for laws.

Assault weapons ban leads to buyers flocking to gun shops

Friday, July 22, 2016


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

By Kelleigh Nelson July 22, 2016
“Under the First Amendment, the pastor has the right to determine what is said from the pulpit, not the IRS.” —David Fiorazo
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." —Thomas Jefferson
Trump says “No More Restrictions on free speech for clergy!” Here’s the latest from Donald John Trump.
Trump to Overturn The Johnson Amendment
In the following Trump rally of 16 July 16, where Mr. Trump introduced Gov. Pence as his running mate, he also talked about the 1954 Johnson Amendment. This is the law which restricted American clergy’s ability to speak about political candidates from their pulpits. It was an amendment to the tax-exempt status (501c3) which stated that if clergy preached politics from the pulpit, they could lose their 501c3 exempt status.
At about 13:20, in the video, Mr. Trump speaks about this first amendment right and how it was muzzled by the Johnson Law of 1954. Trump stated that he told evangelicals, “We’re going to do something that no one has even tried to do.” He goes on to say the platform of the Republican party now contains the plan to repeal this first amendment muzzle on America’s clergy.
In the video, Mr. Trump says that he had many great religious leaders up to his Trump Tower office to speak with him many times. He asked these leaders, “Why is it that you’re so powerful as an individual and yet when you get out there, you are rather timid?” He said they didn’t know how to answer the question. Trump stated it took two or three meetings before he figured it out. He said the following:
“One great, great gentleman who everybody knows, but whose name I will not reveal, said, ‘Mr. Trump, we live in fear in our churches and our synagogues, we live in fear that we’re going to lose our tax-exempt status if we say anything that’s even slightly political.’ And I looked out the window. I was in Trump Tower, and I pointed to people walking down the street. I said, well they have the right to speak and you don’t, but that means they’re more powerful than you are. We have to do something about it.”
Trump asked this gentleman, “How did it start? How did it start? And he said it started with Lyndon Johnson, and he actually had a problem in Texas with a certain religious leader, and he did this, and he got it done. And we’re going to undo it, so that religious leaders in this country, and those unbelievable people, and not because they backed me in unbelievable numbers, but so that religion can again have a voice, because religion’s voice has been taken away. And we’re going to change that, okay!”
The Agenda to Silence Christians
The 1954 Johnson Amendment, passed by Congress, stated that non-profits, Christian churches and organizations, could not speak in favor of any political candidate despite the prohibition stated in the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights.
This event paved the way for the increased squelching of free speech, and because of the confusion and misinformation about the law, many religious leaders have been unnecessarily self-censoring for over six decades. They are not only censoring on political candidates, but on any political subject matter. Because of their fear of the IRS, and their misunderstanding of the actual amendment, the pulpits have literally shut down their comments on anything happening in society via state or government politics. They are absolutely frozen in fear when it comes to talking about the Bible as it relates to cultural, political, fiscal, and social issues, which all fall under the category of moral issues.
In Radio Host, David Fiorazo’s book, The Cost of Our Silence, he explains what happened:
“Texas Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson, was a powerful politician running for reelection as Senator, but two anti-communist, tax-exempt groups were opposing him and passing out literature during the campaigns. He contacted the IRS and found the group’s activity was legal, so he sought other options to fight them.
Johnson shrewdly appeared on the Senate floor on July 2, 1954, and offered his amendment to a pending, massive, tax code overhaul bill. The bill was supposed to modernize the tax code. Records indicate an absence of committee hearings on the amendment. No legislative analysis took place to examine the effect the bill and the amendment would have, particularly on churches and religious organizations. The amendment was simply created to protect Johnson.
The Johnson Amendment was passed by Congress as an amendment to section 501c3 of the federal tax code… stating entities that are exempt from federal income tax cannot “Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office.”
So, this corrupt Texas Senator succeeded in silencing his enemies, and in doing so, silenced the pulpits of America with fear tactics. I’ve often spoken of LBJ as a vile and corrupt politician, and the two anti-communist groups opposing him were right to do so. To reinforce that perception, one need only read Roger Stone’s well researched, referenced, and indexed book, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ.
Worse yet, the Johnson amendment succeeded in turning the churches into agents of the state. Leftist and liberal organizations and unions have all been allowed to promote, endorse and fund candidates of their liking. This is the failure of our justice system, and has resulted in silencing and neutering our pulpits. I know so many sound doctrine Christians who no longer attend services, and it is because they feel their pulpits are like those described in Jeremiah 23:1.
Trump Phones Falwell
On the morning of 13 July 16, Donald J. Trump called Jerry Falwell, Jr. and woke him up with news he’s long waited to hear. The new Republican platform, the GOP nominee told Falwell, calls for the repeal of a half-century-old tax law prohibiting churches and tax-exempt institutions from political organizing.
“He was so excited,” Falwell says. “After 30 years of the so-called conservative leaders who have been elected by evangelicals, none of them thought to advocate for the repeal of the Johnson amendment, giving evangelical leaders political free speech. … He thinks it is going to be a revolution in the Christian world.”
The Trump campaign move to include this in the Republican platform has been hailed as a major call to all religious and tax exempt institutions to get out the vote for Trump.
“This is something that could make a difference with Christian voters in the fall,” Falwell says. “It is almost as important for Christians as the appointment of Supreme Court justices.”
It should make a huge difference with all religious faiths.
We Need Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office
Every American should fear an IRS that uses its vast power to target, threaten, and punish political opponents. Churches have succumbed to this regime of fear for the last 60 years under the Johnson Amendment, which was added to the tax code specifically to silence speech a politician didn’t like.
Donald J. Trump has seen unbelievable inequality and injustice in many areas in our country, all of which are starkly unconstitutional.
Remember Mr. Trump’s speech in Alabama where he spoke about reversing the 1964 liberal Warren Supreme Court decision? This decision allowed media to lie with impunity about public figures. For the full story, see my article Supreme Court Ruled the Media Can Lie With Impunity. The lies and twists of media against Mr. Trump and any true conservative political candidate cannot be challenged in court unless one can prove “actual malice.” This is near impossible. America’s people need to be fed truth, not the liberal media’s lies, prevarications and distortions. When a public figure is slandered or libeled, they should have the recourse of suing in the courts.
Justice needs to prevail for the 501c3 groups. Rip the muzzles off the mouths of the religious leaders in our pulpits. We have Louis Farrakhan calling for the murder of police and 10,000 black congregants to kill white Americans from the pulpit, and nothing is done to stop him.
The media needs to be muzzled from lying, calling evil good and good evil. And, the pulpits of America need to be set free to speak the truth.
Elect Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of this United States and hold his feet to the fire, because these are changes the American people need and changes Donald Trump believes in 100%.
"Trump’s Acceptance Speech
There are two powerful globalist groups – liberals and neoconservatives – in control of our federal government today. They are understandably petrified in face of Donald Trump’s chutzpa and scathing campaign approach because they know what will happen if this maverick becomes President. Trump will clean house. He will indict Hillary. He will lower taxes. He will force the illegals to self-deport. He will scorn the nefarious U.N. He will pull out of NAFTA and the TPP. He will slash the godzilla bureaucracies. He will junk Common Core and send schooling back to the states. He will check Muslim terrorists at the border. He will organize a coalition to destroy ISIS.
Patriots of America are rejoicing. Leftists of America are trembling. Their power-trip of treason and anti-Americanism is going to end. And Donald Trump’s acceptance speech Thursday night in Cleveland was a ringing declaration of how and why. Here are some of the salient points:
It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation. I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore. So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully crafted lies, and the media myths the Democrats are holding their convention next week. But here, at our convention, there will be no lies. We will honor the American people with the truth, and nothing else. These are the facts.
He then lists fact after fact about domestic violence, death and destruction in our cities, that 14 million people have left the workforce, that household incomes are down more than $4,000 since the year 2000, and that our manufacturing trade deficit has reached an all-time high – nearly $800 billion in a single year.
In the realm of foreign policy, the record is as bad if not worse."


Philippines Rejects “Stupid” UN Climate Deal; Globalists Freak
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Internationalists and climate alarmists are freaking out after the new president of the Philippines, firebrand Rodrigo Duterte (shown), blasted the controversial United Nations “climate” regime and vowed to ignore its restrictions on his nation. Now there is a full-blown global campaign to beat him into submission. Duterte's explosive statements this week vowing not to honor what he called the UN's “stupid” emissions demands, which he said were designed to “stifle us,” sparked major concerns among pro-UN types around the world that other governments might follow the island nation's lead. Those concerns about a mass “Clexit” — national exits from the UN “climate” scheme — are probably justified.
Indeed, Duterte's comments follow similar statements from GOP presidential contender Donald Trump, another anti-establishment political leader who promised to “cancel” the UN deal upon taking office. According to even notoriously unreliable polls, Trump, who has previously referred to the global-warming theory as a “hoax,” is basically tied with pro-UN Democrat Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House. America should never give “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use,” the GOP contender declared, promising to eliminate all U.S. taxpayer funding for UN “global warming” schemes and the “draconian” climate rules. Trump's comments sounded very similar those made by Duterte.
Ironically, perhaps, federal law now officially prohibits the U.S. government from funding the UN bureaucracy in charge of overseeing the “climate” regime and its international wealth redistribution schemes. So even under a potential President Hillary Clinton, unless Congress changes the law, there will be no legal way to funnel U.S. taxpayer wealth into the UN regime — essentially killing the agreement, which was contingent on huge bribes offered by Obama to Third World governments. And even without a President Trump, the chance that two thirds of the U.S. Senate will vote to ratify the economy-crippling, sovereignty-smashing UN agreement is close to zero, according to high-ranking senators who have also called the global-warming theory a “hoax.”
Speaking on July 18 at the Malacanang Palace, Duterte said the government of the Philippines would not ratify the UN pseudo-treaty despite his predecessors signature on the scheme. The previous government had agreed to slash emissions of CO2 — also known to scientists as the gas of life — by 70 percent from 2000 levels by the year 2030. In exchange for the economy-retarding restrictions on energy use, the government in Manila was supposed to receive massive amounts of funding extracted from middle-class Western taxpayers. But now, Duterte, who took office last month, has blown it all up.
“I will not honor that,” he said.
Formally known as the “Paris Agreement,” the deal, negotiated last year, purports to mandate massive cuts in CO2 emissions to be determined by national governments, along with draconian powers for international and regional institutions to allocate carbon dioxide rations to humanity. The UN scheme is also dependent on trillions in wealth redistribution, with globalist-controlled Western governments promising governments of poorer nations huge bribes if they signed on. However, the Paris Agreement appears to be imploding even before it comes into force, with the Duterte's pledge and the Brexit vote representing only the most recent devastating blows to the UN plan.      
Pointing at the 800-pound gorilla in the room that everybody sees but nobody wants to talk about, Duterte also argued that those pushing the UN “climate” regime were trying to control and stifle poorer nations. Governments of industrialized nations are “dictating the destiny” of developing nations by trying to bribe and bludgeon them into slashing the CO2 emissions of those they rule. While developed nations enjoyed a “booming” economy and got “rich because of coal and industrialization, we are being asked to cut emission and limit our activities,” he said. "That is stupid.”
Now that developing countries are starting to develop, the UN and other governments want to stop it by limiting poorer nations' prospects, the president argued. “We have not reached the age of industrialization. We are going into it. But you are trying to [cite the UN] agreement that will impose limitations on us. We maintain the present emissions,” he declared, calling the globalist effort to shackle poor nations “stupid” and “absurd.” “Now that we are about to develop, you will set limits... So that is how very constricted our lives are now. It’s being controlled by the world. It’s being imposed upon us by the industrialized countries. They think that they can dictate the destiny of the rest of the nations.”
When an ambassador told the Filipino president that the previous government had agreed to the UN regime, Duterte recalled speaking unambiguously. “That was not my signature,” he pointed out. “Somebody else's, not mine.” Indeed, the leader had harsh words for the official. “I’m mad at this ambassador,” he said, blasting as “nonsense” the UN-demanded limits on CO2 emissions for his country. “I want to kick him.” Duterte, who is hardly diplomatic in his criticism, previously accused the UN of being “hypocrites” for trying to limit energy production and consumption by poorer nations. More recently, he blasted richer governments as “oligarchs” trying to oppress others and live at their expense.  
Globalists and climate alarmists were not amused, and promptly scrambled to put pressure on Duterte to reconsider his position. Either way though, in the Philippines, Congress must vote to ratify the deal, something that media outlets reported was uncertain — especially in light of Duterte's pledge to ignore it. Indeed, even in dictatorships, the “legislatures” are mostly required to approve the deal, despite Obama's outlandish claim that in the United States the pseudo-treaty does not need to be ratified by the Senate, as required for all treaties by the U.S. Constitution. News reports have suggested Obama is planning to issue an “executive order” in place of actual ratification.    
The day after Duterte's comments, which sparked headlines around the world, UN boss Ban Ki Moon called for a “special event” at which governments and dictators worldwide would formally approve the shackling of their peoples to the UN's “climate” regime. “I urge you to accelerate your country’s domestic process for ratification of the Agreement this year,” said Ban, who has started referring to the dictators club he leads as the “Parliament of Humanity.” Globalists are claiming that if enough governments and dictators “ratify” the scheme, it will be impossible to stop. That is, of course, ridiculous, despite the claims of tax-funded “green” groups, UN bosses, and bureaucrats.   
While globalists were freaking out, opponents of the UN's scheming and of “climate” alarmism celebrated the news. Prominent climate realist Marc Morano, for example, who produced the movie Climate Hustle, was quoted in media reports saying that some countries were waking up to the fact that the UN scheme was not in their best interests. “More and more nations are realizing that the UN climate treaty is nothing more than an effort to empower the UN and attack national sovereignty while doing absolutely nothing for the climate,” he said, adding that the “time has come for a U.S.-led ‘Clexit’ from ... the climate treaty.”
Indeed, with the UN global-warming regime threatening to empower internationalist extremists over every aspect of life, it is urgent that Americans get to work. Fortunately, though, the entire foundation of the scheme is built on quicksand: The global-warming theory underpinning the effort is now a global laughingstock, the deal will not be ratified by the U.S. Senate, federal law bars U.S. funding of the scheme, and even if the discredited theory were true (it's not), the UN deal would do practically nothing to stop “climate change.” Crushing the dangerous UN “climate” regime can and must be done. Americans can thank Duterte for helping lead the way.   
Related articles:

Thursday, July 21, 2016


Zuckerberg, Gates Launch Anti-Trump Website



Facebook will benefit from illegal immigration

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, and Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, have teamed up to launch a website targeting Donald Trump.
“Mark Zuckerberg-backed is escalating its attacks on Donald Trump’s immigration policies as the candidate prepares to accept the Republican party’s presidential nomination in Cleveland,” Recode reported on Monday.
Bill Gates is also a founder of
The site will provide propaganda in favor of illegal immigration. Todd Schulte, of president, told Recode Trump365 will serve as a “messaging hub” where supporters can download graphics to post on Twitter and Facebook as part of an effort to “amplify the message” and defeat Trump.
“Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly promised that if he is elected he will mass deport 11.3 million undocumented immigrants plus an additional 4.5 million children with U.S. citizenship,” the website claims.
The Trump campaign website does not advocate mass deportation. It does, however, call for deporting criminals.
“All criminal aliens must be returned to their home countries, a process which can be aided by canceling any visas to foreign countries which will not accept their own criminals, and making it a separate and additional crime to commit an offense while here illegally,” the site explains.
It should be noted that Zuckerberg’s support for “comprehensive immigration reform” has an upside for the tech industry. He supports S.744, legislation that would jack up the annual cap on H-1B non-immigrant (temporary) guest workers from 65,000 to 180,000 and would eliminate the ceiling on green cards for foreign STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) workers. So-called guest workers are routinely paid less than their American counterparts.
“The obstacle to passing a stand-alone STEM bill is that the Democratic Party will only agree to vote for it if it is combined with blanket amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens,” notes the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “This is the real motivation guiding Mark Zuckerberg’s ‘selfless’ pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform.”


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Under the guise of fighting “violence against children,” the Obama administration has joined forces with socialist foreign regimes and various United Nations agencies in a “global partnership” to wage war on parental rights. The controversial worldwide initiative, which aims to criminalize spanking and smacking as disciplinary tools, among other things, is part of the UN's Agenda 2030, also known as the “Sustainable Development Goals.”
Essentially, the UN is betting that framing the assault on families as a bid to end “violence against children” — something nobody in their right mind would oppose — will make it easier to pursue the sidelining of parents. The plan also calls for vast new data-gathering capabilities to ensure children are being raised in accordance with extreme UN standards that were unthinkable even a few years ago. But opponents of the UN agenda argue that the global organization itself is among the lead violators of children's rights — and parents, by contrast, are the primary protectors of children.
The UN-led attack on parental rights is being marketed as a crucial component of the UN Agenda 2030, a road map to “global governance” and international wealth redistribution that supporters promise will ensnare literally every person on the planet. The global scheme, approved by UN member governments and dictators from around the world last year but not ratified by the U.S. Senate, includes 17 “Sustainable Development Goals,” or SDGs, with 169 specific targets. Among other points, the document, which is being touted as the global “Declaration of Interdependence” by top UN officials, calls for national and global wealth transfers, planet-wide indoctrination of children, and much more. SDG 16.2, meanwhile, calls for ending “all forms of violence against children.”
Ending violence against children sounds like a great goal — at least to people unfamiliar with UN-speak and how deceptive language and terminology are used to advance radical agendas that would get nowhere if explained honestly. And of course, there is real violence against children. Indeed, examples of depravity of all sorts against children by UN “peace” troops abounds all around the world. In just one UN-occupied town in the Ivory Coast, for example, a 2008 survey revealed that eight out of 10 underage girls admitted to be sexually abused and exploited by UN “peace” troops. When whistle blowers expose it, they are mercilessly persecuted by UN bosses. In the case of the UN's SDGs, though, rather than stopping real violence, the UN is more specifically targeting old-fashioned discipline used by parents, including even mild spankings and smacks.
An analogy might help make sense of the scheming. What the UN is doing, in essence, is the equivalent of starting an organization to combat “marriage (loving discipline of children by parents) and terrorism (real violence and abuse against children).” Terrorism is already a crime everywhere, so there is no need for a global partnership to fight it. But by adding in terrorism to the mission statement, the UN can gain legitimacy for its war on marriage, and attack opponents of the scheme as supporters of terrorism. It might be a good strategy — if humanity was made up of imbeciles. But the scheme is far too transparent to dupe many people, even with the establishment media playing the role of pro-UN propagandist
The UN- and Obama-backed “End Violence Against Children” partnership declares right on the front page of its website that “almost one billion children are subjected to physical punishment on a regular basis.” That means hundreds of millions of parents, maybe billions, are in the UN's cross-hairs to be criminalized and have their families crushed. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others are all in the UN's sights. Indeed, many Christians and Jews view the Judeo-Christian Scriptures — “He that spareth his rod hateth his son,” in Proverbs, for example — as an obligation to use mild physical discipline to correct disobedient children in a loving way. The UN partnership wants to stamp that out, and openly admits that changing views, behaviors, and traditions — particularly of children — is part of its extremist agenda.
The global alliance of governments, UN agencies, and largely tax-funded “non-governmental organizations” also boasts that it intends to “stop bullying,” and to “end these threats everywhere — in homes, schools, streets and online.” This has become an increasingly frequent theme: The UN and governments need access to your home, the school, and every other place, under some guise or another. Indeed, the UN goes even further, saying in its official press release about the scheme that the agenda includes “tackling behaviors and traditions that further violence, making schools and institutions safe for all children, and strengthening data collection about violence and children, among other efforts.”
In his remarks at the launching of the “Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children,” UN boss Ban Ki Moon, who now describes the outfit he leads as the “Parliament of Humanity,” said “there could be no more meaningful way to help realize the vision of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” And he is right. A crucial component of the UN agenda involves indoctrinating all children with the UN's radical views and tracking the results. “Children and young women and men are critical agents of change and will find in the new Goals a platform to channel their infinite capacities for activism into the creation of a better world,” explains the UN agreement, which the brutal Communist Chinese dictatorship boasted of playing a “crucial role” in creating.
The United Nations has understood since its inception that a chief obstacle to tuning your children into UN agenda-supporting “agents of change” is the family unit. And so, Agenda 2030 purports to have the remedy. “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 and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development,” reads the UN Agenda 2030 plan. To anyone familiar with UN speak, in which “human rights” are basically the opposite of God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, for example, and “global citizenship” means exactly what it sounds like, the UN scheme should be causing serious concern.
Top UN officials have made it abundantly clear that they are targeting parents who discipline their children. Even propaganda videos put out by the UN's Obama-backed “global partnership” make that clear. In one propaganda film posted on the official website for the initiative, Asa Regner, the Swedish “Minister for Children, the Elderly, and Gender Equality,” makes that plain. “Less than 10 percent of children in the world live in countries where laws protect them from all forms of violence,” Regner declares, disgracefully comparing a mild spanking used by loving parents as a disciplinary tool to the very real violence and abuse against children of the sort perpetrated by UN “peace” troops. Like the culturally imperialist government she serves, though, which imagines itself to be superior and wiser than others, Regner wants the whole world and all of the "noble savages" that inhabit it to adopt the extreme policies of Sweden.  
Another Swedish anti-spanking crusader featured in the same video declares that “there are other ways of raising children than beating them.” By using the emotionally charged term “beating,” she means to equate actual beating of children, which is and should be a crime in jurisdictions around the world, with the loving physical discipline offered by parents to correct their children, which has been omnipresent in virtually all cultures throughout all of human history. Why she thinks the “new and improved” experimental parenting strategies implemented for the first time in human history by the Swedish government in 1979 should be imposed on all of humanity was not clear, though bigotry against other cultures, religions, worldviews, races, and peoples is a likely factor.      
Revealingly, one of the key players behind the Obama- and UN-backed global partnership is actually the Swedish government, the first to destroy families and make loving parents into criminals for disciplining their children. Recently, UN “Violence Against Children” czarina Marta Santos Pais even touted Sweden's “fabulous initiative” to criminalize traditional parenting — the measure included a total ban on physical discipline and “other humiliating treatment,” along with a tax-funded propaganda campaign to promote government-approved parenting strategies — as a model for the world. Experts, though, have warned that the Swedish law has been an unmitigated disaster that should, in fact, serve as a cautionary tale for other nations around the world on what to avoid like the plague.
“The law ranks all physical punishment of children [such as] a slap on the hand, on the cheek or on the bottom, as assault and battery,” explained attorney Ruby Harrold-Claesson, the president of the Nordic Committee for Human Rights and a strong critic of Sweden's radical family policies. “Room-arrest is regarded as 'other humiliating treatment.'” Among other concerns, Harrold-Claesson noted that the law has “resulted in serious interference in people's family and private lives, and has damaged the relationship between parents and children,” to the detriment of the family as an institution. In the place of parents, government institutions have usurped responsibility over children, in many cases breaking up families, the prominent Swedish lawyer and human-rights activist warned. More than a few parents have also ended up behind bars, with the children dumped in government-run, abuse-prone facilities.
“The law was said to be 'primarily a valuable pedagogical support in the efforts to convince parents and others that no forms of violence are allowed to be tools in the raising of children,'” added Harrold-Claesson, who has traveled the world warning people about the dangers of Swedish-style attacks on parental rights. “Instead, the law has resulted in hundreds of normal parents being harassed by the police and the social authorities. Some parents have been prosecuted in the Courts, and sentenced and thus been criminalized, because they have smacked — or have allegedly smacked — their misbehaving children.” The internationally known Swedish jurist also said the role of families had been usurped, with government schools and social institutions being given a “monopoly over the children.” Parents are often terrified of their own children under the bizarre system.  
Another key player in the UN scheme is UNICEF and its scandal-plagued chief Anthony Lake, who almost took over the Central Intelligence Agency under Bill Clinton until his anti-American radicalism was exposed as a massive security risk by The New American's senior editor William F. Jasper and others. Lake famously helped overthrow some of America's most loyal allies so they could be replaced by mass-murdering communist and Islamist regimes — dictatorships that have gone on to murder countless innocent people and even, in the case of Marxist madman Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, perpetrate genocide.
In his new role as self-styled defender of children at the scandal-plagued UN, Lake has been adamant in demanding globalist “solutions” to the alleged threat parents pose to their children. “Violence against children is a problem shared by every society — so the solution must also be shared,” said Lake, who serves as UNICEF boss and founding co-chair of the anti-spanking, anti-parental rights “Global Partnership Board.” “When we protect children from violence we not only prevent individual tragedies and support children's development and growth. In doing so, we also support the strength and stability of their societies.” By “protecting children from violence,” it must be understood that he means protecting children from their parents — the two people who love their children and care more about them than any other person on the planet.
The World Health Organization, led by Communist Chinese operative Margaret Chan, is also involved in the global attack on parental rights. In a July 12 press release, it boasted of its role, saying it was working to implement and enforce anti-spanking laws such as those imposed by a handful of radical European governments, “criminalizing the violent punishment of children by parents.” The WHO also said it would help “by changing beliefs and behaviours,” in the “provision of training in parenting,” and even by “improving children’s life and social skills.” Among the “collaborators” in the scheme listed in the press release are the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). How much tax funding Americans are providing was not immediately clear.    
Family Watch International President Sharon Slater warned about the UN agenda and how it misses the point, saying married biological parents are in fact the best protection children have against violence and other abuse. “Unfortunately, a lot of the initiatives to combat violence overlook the true causes of violence and where most of the violence happens. For example, they overlook that marriage is a strong protector of children,” she said, pointing to studies that show children are far more likely to die if they are not living with their parents. “Parents get a bad rap, they always talk about it happening in the home, but they don't say what type of home. One of the most dangerous places for a child is a single mother who is cohabiting with a male who is not the biological father. They aren't identifying the truly dangerous situations for children.”
Slater also warned that the UN and some of the governments involved in the alleged “anti-violence” scheme were actually among the leading threats to the rights of children and parents. “Our big issue — one of the biggest threats to children — is in the name of protecting children's health, privacy, and so on, you have the Obama administration funding through CDC and other agencies, and UN agencies also pushing, what is called comprehensive sexuality education,” she explained. “They are trying to establish this as a right for children that parents can't interfere in. They are trying to say that these supposed rights override well-established parental rights, such as the prior right parents have to guide the education of their children. Parental rights are being completely ignored.”
She cited, as just one example of the lunacy, World Health Organization “sexuality standards” used in Europe that recommend teaching children under the age of four that they can touch their bodies for sexual pleasure. The U.S. government and the Obama administration are also aggressively funding radical “sexuality” programs, some of which are guided by abortion giant Planned Parenthood. “These programs claim children have the right to sexual pleasure — even anal and oral sex — and that parents don't have a right to interfere," said Slater. "This is one of the greatest assaults on parental rights and the rights of children that we've ever seen, and yet it's being pushed by the UN and others who claim to be concerned about children's rights. We need to protect the rights of parents.”
Whether or not one agrees with physical discipline is not the real issue here. What is happening is that the UN is trying to destroy hundreds of millions or even billions of families by criminalizing and sidelining loving parents — and replacing them with government- and establishment-controlled actors as the primary influences over children's upbringing. The internationalists are also dishonestly trying to paint parents as the enemies of their children, and children in caring families as victims who supposedly need protection from their own families by governments and the UN. And the UN and its allies are doing that by equating the loving discipline provided by parents to their children with gross abuses inflicted on children — perhaps most infamously by ruthless UN “peace” troops themselves, repeatedly and systematically, in every country occupied by UN forces. That is an outrage. And it is being funded with U.S. tax dollars.
The UN charter does not authorize any interference in nations' domestic affairs, much less family affairs. And even if it did, it would be a terrible idea. The totalitarian UN Agenda 2030, meanwhile, has never been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution for all treaties. It is time for Congress to withdraw the U.S. government from the UN by passing the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 1205). With the UN now brazenly attacking parental rights, gun rights, and the Constitution, and even trying to commandeer parenting around the world, the time for an Amexit from the UN is now.  
Related articles: