Friday, January 11, 2019


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
STRASBOURG — The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously ruled that a German couple’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights were not violated when authorities temporarily removed their children from their home due to concerns that they were being homeschooled rather than sent to public school.
“The court finds that the enforcement of compulsory school attendance, to prevent social isolation of the applicants’ children and ensure their integration into society, was a relevant reason for justifying the partial withdrawal of parental authority,” it wrote on Thursday.
“It further finds that the domestic authorities reasonably assumed—based on the information available to them—that children were endangered by the applicants by not sending them to school and keeping them in a ‘symbiotic’ family system.”
The court concluded that “there were ‘relevant and sufficient’ reasons for the withdrawal of some parts of the parents’ authority and the temporary removal of the children from their family home,” and that the “domestic authorities struck a proportionate balance between the best interests of the children and those of the applicants, which did not fall outside the margin of appreciation granted to the domestic authorities.”
As previously reported, in 2013, approximately 20 social workers, police officers and special agents swarmed the Darmstadt home of Dirk and Petra Wunderlich and forcefully removed all their children. A family court judge had signed an order that day authorizing officials to immediately seize the Wunderlich’s children for failing to cooperate “with the authorities to send the children to [public] school.”
“I looked through a window and saw many people, police, and special agents, all armed,” Dirk Wunderlich recalled. “They told me they wanted to come in to speak with me. I tried to ask questions, but within seconds, three police officers brought a battering ram and were about to break the door in, so I opened it.”
A month later, following a court hearing about the matter, the Wunderlich children were returned to their parents after it was agreed to send them to a state school. However, they were still considered to be in the custody of the government as Judge Marcus Malkmus characterized homeschooling as a “straightjacket” for children.
“The children would grow up in a parallel society without having learned to be integrated or to have a dialogue with those who think differently and facing them in the sense of practicing tolerance,” Malkmus wrote. “[Homeschooling presents] concrete endangerment to the wellbeing of the child.”
An appeals court later overturned the ruling, opining that it was improper for the judge to withhold legal custody from the parents.
But as Germany considers homeschooling a criminal act, and as the Wunderlich family remained uncertain about its legal situation, it took its case to the European Court of Human Rights. The couple had hoped for a positive outcome, but the court unanimously ruled that the German government acted reasonably when it took the children away for a time out of concern for their educational and social well-being.
“[T]he German courts justified the partial withdrawal of parental authority by citing the risk of danger to the children. The courts assessed the risk on the persistent refusal of the applicants to send their children to school, where the children would not only acquire knowledge but also learn social skills, such as tolerance or assertiveness, and have contact with persons other than their family, in particular children of their own age,” the court wrote.
“[T]he children were returned to their parents after the learning assessment had been conducted and the applicants had agreed to send their children to school. The court therefore concludes that the actual removal of the children did not last any longer than necessary in the children’s best interest and was also not implemented in a way which was particularly harsh or exceptional,” it opined.
The court also found that “the authorities—both medical and social—have a duty to protect children and cannot be held liable every time genuine and reasonably-held concerns about the safety of children vis-à-vis members of their families are proved, retrospectively, to have been misguided.”
Read the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in full here.
Dirk Wunderlich expressed disappointment with the court’s ruling.
“It is a very disheartening day for our family and the many families affected by this in Germany,” he said in a statement. “After years of legal struggles, this is extremely frustrating for us and our children. It is upsetting that the European Court of Human Rights has not recognized the injustices we have suffered at the hands of the German authorities.”
Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADF), which had represented the family in court, likewise was saddened by decision.
“Petra and Dirk Wunderlich simply wanted to educate their children consistent with their convictions and decided their home environment would be the best place for this,” remarked ADF International Director of European Advocacy Robert Clarke in a statement.
“Children deserve this loving care from their parents. We are now advising the Wunderlichs of their options, including taking the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban “has welcomed the creation of an anti-immigration “axis” in Europe” that would “team up with countries like Italy and Poland to change the bloc’s direction.”
The focus of the “anti-immigrant” drive is opposition to mass Muslim migration.
Orban stated that “he believed there would be ‘two civilizations’ in the EU: ‘one mixed Muslim-Christian in the west and one traditional, in central Europe.’”
Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini is also calling for a “Rome-Warsaw axis to build ‘a new Europe’ that was against migration.”
During his election campaign last year, Salvini stated that “Islam is incompatible with the constitution,” and in response to Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz closing down seven mosques last summer, “Salvini hailed the decision and called for a meeting to discuss common strategies.”
The UN Migration Pact, intended to legitimize economic migrants across the board, is instead consolidating resistance to the EU’s plans for mass migration.

“Far-right European governments launch plan to take over EU with anti-immigration ‘axis,’” by Jon Stone, Independent, January 10, 2019:
Hungary’s prime minister has welcomed the creation of an anti-immigration “axis” in Europe that could see like-minded far-right EU leaders join forces to run the union.
Viktor Orban said he wanted to see an anti-immigration majority in the EU institutions and that he would team up with countries like Italy and Poland to change the bloc’s direction.
The far-right leader said there could be no “compromise” on the migration issue and that he would have to “fight” leaders such as Emmanuel Macron to “respect Hungarians’ decision not to become an immigrant nation”.
“I wish for Europe to have a political force that is to the right of the European People’s Party [the transnational centre-right party that dominates the European Commission], a Rome-Warsaw axis that is capable of governing, capable of taking responsibility and opposed to immigration,” he said in a speech on Thursday.
Mr Orban also said he believed there would be “two civilizations” in the EU: “one mixed Muslim-Christian in the west and one traditional, in central Europe”.
Matteo Salvini, the far-right interior minister in the Italian government, earlier today called for a Rome-Warsaw axis to build “a new Europe” that was against migration.
“I’d like to create a pact, an alliance for everyone who wants to save Europe, the more of us, the better,” Mr Salvini had said.
Poland’s right-wing populist prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki said earlier this week that “with Mr Salvini we are on the same page with regards to many European matters”. He cited alleged “discrimination” against Poland by Brussels.
Austria’s right-wing chancellor Sebastian Kurz last year called for an anti-immigration “axis” using the same language….

 Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Amazon Removes ‘Offensive’ Qur’an Doormats at CAIR’s Demand
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
How long before it removes all products CAIR deems offensive to Islam? My latest in PJ Media:

Amazon has moved quickly to protect the delicate sensibilities of Muslims from blasphemy. According to the New York Post, “the Council on American-Islamic Relations complained to Amazon on Thursday about more than a dozen bathroom and outdoor mats, which carried verses and the word Allah in Islamic calligraphy,” and the offensive products were “promptly removed from Amazon on Friday.” And so everyone was happy, except those who are concerned about the increasing threats to the freedom of speech in American society.
Amazon moved swiftly to assure CAIR that it was complying with its demands:
A spokesman for CAIR, Ibrahim Hooper, said the retailer assured him that the links to those products had been removed and that Amazon was conducting an audit of its site. … A spot check by The Post showed that the items CAIR flagged were indeed gone.
CAIR, however, was still not satisfied. Emboldened by Amazon’s ready compliance, CAIR made more demands:
CAIR forwarded other questionable items to Amazon on Friday, including a toilet seat with an image of the Quran as well as a bathroom floor rug and a towel set with an image of the holy book.
Amazon was ready to do anything CAIR asked it to do. An Amazon spokesperson said:
All sellers must follow our selling guidelines and those who do not will be subject to action. The products in question are being removed from our store.
The Amazon listing for this doormat is indeed gone, but you can still see it cached here. Clearly this product was not intended to be offensive; it wasn’t the creation of some “Islamophobes” trying to show their contempt for the Qur’an. It was marketed as “Holy Quran Door Mat Floor Mat Rug Indoor/Outdoor/Front Door/Bathroom Mats.”
Yes, “Holy.” And the image of this doormat makes it clear that this was presented as an affirmation of Islam, not an insult to it. But Hamas-linked CAIR said that it “received complaints about the items, which are offensive to Muslims because the Quranic verses would be stepped on or otherwise disrespected by customers.” And it’s true: in Islamic cultures, to show someone the bottom of one’s shoes or to walk on something is considered a supreme insult.
There is a very different sensibility in the West; for example, Amazon is still selling doormats featuring Bible verses, and as far as I know no Jews or Christians are complaining.
The worst part of this, however, is that Amazon readily complied with Hamas-linked CAIR’s demand. There is nothing intrinsically offensive about this doormat: it doesn’t feature any insult to Islam, or the Qur’an, or Muhammad. But Hamas-linked CAIR claims it’s offensive, and that’s that.
Yet even if it were intended to be disrespectful to Islam, Amazon should have remembered the freedom of speech and kept it on sale. After all, Amazon sells numerous products that are offensive to Christians; see, for example, here and here and here. It is doubtful that they would remove them from sale if Christian groups complained — nor should they do so. We live in a free society and don’t have blasphemy laws.
At least not yet. But now a precedent has been set: if Hamas-linked CAIR thinks something is “offensive” to Muslims, Amazon will remove it.
How long will it be before Hamas-linked CAIR starts demanding that books that criticize jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others also be dropped by Amazon? Remember that last summer, then-Representative and current Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a Muslim, wrote to Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, demanding that he drop from sale at Amazon material by people that the Southern Poverty Law Center had defamed as “hate group leaders.”
How long will it be before Amazon complies? How long before it will be nearly impossible to obtain material that is considered to contravene Islam’s blasphemy laws, including honest and accurate analysis of the motives and goals of jihad terrorists? Get it while you can….
Read the rest here.
 First Amazon removed doormats Hamas-linked 
CAIR claimed were offensive to Muslims, 
now it’s toilet seat covers

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Muhammad was a human rights activist?
Do Jews count as humans? The Qur’an depicts the Jews as fabricating things and falsely ascribing them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181, 5:64); loving to listen to lies (5:41); disobeying Allah and never observing his commands (5:13); disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); and more. It tells Muslims that Jews will be their worst enemies (5:82) and that they’re under Allah’s curse (9:30), and that Muslims must wage war against and subjugate them under the hegemony of Sharia, denying them basic rights (9:29).
Do women count as humans? The Qur’an teaches that men are superior to women and should beat those from whom they “fear disobedience”: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34
Muhammad’s child bride, Aisha, says in a hadith that Muhammad “struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: ‘Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?’” — Sahih Muslim 2127
The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth as you will” — Qur’an 2:223
It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” — Qur’an 2:282
It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one, or one that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” — Qur’an 4:3
It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” — Qur’an 4:11
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” — Qur’an 65:4
Islamic law stipulates that a man’s prayer is annulled if a dog or a woman passes in front of him as he is praying. “Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, ‘You have made us (i.e. women) dogs.’ I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.” — Sahih Bukhari 1.9.490
Another hadith depicts Muhammad saying that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women:
“I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.” — Sahih Bukhari 3241; Sahih Muslim 2737
When asked about this, he explained:
“I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” — Sahih Bukhari 1052
And in another hadith:
The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) went out to the musalla (prayer place) on the day of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is deficient in our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.’” — Sahih Bukhari 304
Another statement attributed to Muhammad: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” — Sahih Bukhari 4.54.460
And how about non-Muslims? Are they humans? Here are some more quotes attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith:
“I have been made victorious through terror.” — Sahih Bukhari 4:52.220
“Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.” — Sahih Muslim 4294
“I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.” — Sahih Muslim 30
“May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” — Sahih Bukhari 1.8.427
Well, Sarsour may have this quote from Muhammad in mind: “War is deceit” (Bukhari 4.52.268).

“U.S. Political Activist Linda Sarsour: The Prophet Muhammad Was a Human Rights Activist; We Don’t Need the West to Teach Us about Feminism,” MEMRI
December 13, 2018:
On December 2, 2018, American political activist Linda Sarsour spoke at the 2018 Salam Annual Banquet, which was held at the Salam Community Center in Sacramento, CA. She criticized President Trump for moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, saying: “I declare to all of you here today in Sacramento that Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Palestine.” She said that the Trump administration is fascist and encouraged Muslims to become involved in politics even if their mosques usually avoid politics, because simply being Muslim is a political act. She said that the Prophet Muhammad was a human rights activist, and that there is no need for workers’ rights movements, environmental justice movements, Black Lives Matter movements, anti-racism, or feminism because Islam has taught these values long before they were hashtags or movements. She added: “I don’t need people in the West, people in Europe, or people in the United States… to teach me what feminism is.” The video of Sarsour’s speech was uploaded to the Salam Center’s YouTube channel on December 13, 2018.
Following are excerpts:
Linda Sarsour: This administration also went against the international community and thought it was a good idea to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. This President stood up and declared, and thought it was just about words, [and] that he has so much power that he can stand up and declare that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Since he thinks it’s as easy as words, I will declare to all of you here in Sacramento that Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Palestine.
This administration is not like any other administration. We are talking about a time in the United States of America when we are living under fascism. These are fascists.
I go to a lot of mosques or community centers and this is what they say to me. They say: “Sister Linda, we know that you’re very political, but in my mosque, we try not to be too political. We don’t like politics here.” This is what I want you to tell anybody who says to you: “I’m not political, I don’t know about politics, I don’t know if I want to engage in politics, at my mosque that I go to they aren’t really political…” Here’s my answer to these people. If you woke up this morning, and you are breathing and you are Muslim, [then] you’re political.
I tell people all the time that I went to public school. My parents couldn’t afford to send seven children to Islamic school. But on the weekends, we went on Saturdays and Sundays to Islamic school. As I grew older, I realized that I got cheated out of my Islamic education.
You know what I feel like I got cheated out of? Nobody told me that my beloved Prophet Muhammad was an activist. He was a human rights activist.
We don’t need a workers’ rights movement or an environmental justice movement. We don’t even need a Black Lives Matter movement, because our religion has taught us that black lives mattered way before there was ever a hashtag, or a movement, or people protesting outside on these streets. Our religion has always been an anti-racist, feminist, and empowering religion. I don’t need people in the West, or people in Europe, or people in the United States of America to teach me what feminism is.

  Breaks silence to say a wall works
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Mainstream media pundits and Democrats claiming the crisis at the U.S. southern border has been “manufactured” by President Trump are “misleading” the public, says former Border Patrol Chief Mark Morgan.
Morgan, who served as head of the agency under President Obama before being replaced by the Trump administration, tore apart leftist talking points regarding the status of the U.S.-Mexico frontier during an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight.

“When you hear the term ‘manufactured crisis’ from politicians and their lackeys in the press, what’s your response?” Carlson asked. “Anybody that says that is misinformed and they’re misleading the American people,” Morgan replied, detailing his time spent as an FBI agent handling cases involving gangs, drugs and human trafficking while stationed in El Paso, Texas.
“As Chief, every single day I was briefed about the men and women who are risking their lives every day apprehending murderers, rapists, pedophiles, other violent offenders and gang members — that’s not manufactured. That is real and that’s a fact.”
“And I would also say — 127 Border Patrol agents have died,” Morgan continued. “They didn’t die playing Monopoly. They died being the front-line defenders of our borders, trying to apprehend those 17,000 bad people Secretary Nielsen mentioned. I wonder if they asked their families if this is a manufactured crisis.”
Morgan slammed “completely disingenuous” claims regarding the proportion of drugs being smuggled in through ports of entry, saying “millions and millions of pounds” are being brought into the US between official entry points.
He also asserted that he has never seen data to support allegations that illegal aliens commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens.
Morgan has emerged as a staunch proponent of the border wall being demanded by President Trump and millions of Americans.
“I’m here today breaking my silence to tell the American people that the president is correct in what he’s doing,” Morgan announced in a recent interview with the Law & Crime Network.  “The wall works.”
“I’m doing this on my own for one reason. I’m a patriot.”


 COP24 di Katowice: i risultati e i nodi del summit sul clima
The New American attended that latest U.N. climate change conference in Poland and documented the future plans that globalists will use to transform the world.

Come along with Foreign Correspondent Alex Newman as he exposes plans for wealth distribution, climate change lies, and fear-mongering at the United Nations COP24 Climate Summit.

Learn about these plans, so you can help stop them. Magazines are available in physical copies and as a digital download. Be sure to share these with others to help expose these globalists and build the pressure needed to stop them in their tracks!

But hurry, quantities are limited, so order today! 
 Using the Climate to Transform the World
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
KATOWICE, Poland — Just a few weeks before the United Nations “climate change” summit in Poland, where more than 30,000 globalists and global warmists met to plot your future, outrage over carbon taxes in France imposed under the UN “Paris Agreement” finally boiled over. Hundreds of thousands of protesters were involved in everything from blocking traffic to taking over fuel depots. Wearing bright yellow vests, furious French citizens crushed by high taxes on fuel and energy poured into the streets. Their target: carbon taxes.
They demanded, among other things, that the global-warming policies imposed under the UN “Paris Agreement” be repealed — permanently. They also called for the politically toxic French President Emmanuel Macron to resign immediately. Sometimes, as happens often in French protests, citizens went overboard. But their point was made loud and clear — and Macron eventually had to back down, at least temporarily. The government finally agreed to delay the tax and listen to public concerns.    
The timing could not have been more disastrous for Macron and the globalists hoping to use climate alarmism to reshape the world. Indeed, the protests were a frequent topic of conversation throughout the summit, even though the establishment media did their best to downplay the origin of the protests — the carbon tax imposed by French authorities. Not surprisingly, globalist PR experts put their own spin on the fiasco, claiming that the government should have offered more welfare to poorer citizens to bring them along. But virtually everybody, including the French government, recognized how bad the optics were.  
Naturally, President Donald Trump, who has called the man-made global-warming hypothesis a “hoax,” could not resist the opportunity to strike back at Macron and rub it in. “I am glad that my friend @EmmanuelMacron and the protestors in Paris have agreed with the conclusion I reached two years ago,” Trump wrote on social media on the first day of the UN summit. “The Paris Agreement is fatally flawed because it raises the price of energy for responsible countries while whitewashing some of the worst polluters.”

A few days later, Trump had more to say on the subject. “The Paris Agreement isn’t working out so well for Paris. Protests and riots all over France,” Trump wrote on December 8, trolling the UN summit and Macron, who had recently used vicious language to attack the “nationalism” promoted by Trump. “People do not want to pay large sums of money, much to third world countries (that are questionably run), in order to maybe protect the environment. Chanting ‘We Want Trump!’ Love France.” But Trump’s rejection of the UN scheme and the French uprising against it were hardly the only blows that knocked the wind out of COP24’s sails.
In Brazil, voters had just elected, in a landslide, President-elect Jair Bolsonaro, who campaigned on getting his country out of the Paris Agreement. Shortly before the summit began, the new administration announced that Brazil was no longer willing to host next year’s UN climate summit. Bolsonaro’s new foreign minister has publicly ridiculed the warming hypothesis as pseudo-scientific “dogma” by “cultural Marxists” to aid Communist China and destroy the Western world. During COP24, The New American asked at the Brazil booth whether Bolsonaro believed in the man-made global-warming hypothesis. “No comment,” said the first man. The second said: “I don’t think so.”
All of this and more hung over the UN climate summit like a black cloud, putting a serious chill on the warming alarmism.  
Globalists Transforming the World
Despite the growing skepticism over “climate science” and “climate action” that threatened to upend the whole narrative, leading globalists doubled down. They also came out of the closet when it comes to the real agenda. As the summit kicked off, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared that “climate action” offers a “compelling path to transform our world.” Even your “mind” must be transformed, he said. Many other proud socialists, communists, and globalists also called for using the man-made global-warming hypothesis to transform the world. And they are not kidding.
Leaders at the UN summit worked to exploit alarmism over the climate to restructure every aspect of human life. The sought-after global transformation will also involve more government promotion of feminism, planetary taxes on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), and so much more, explained Guterres, a longtime socialist leader who led the Socialist International, an incredibly powerful global coalition of socialist and communist parties, before becoming UN boss. He also ludicrously claimed hurricanes that struck the Caribbean last year were “emergencies” that “are preventable,” as if hurricanes were caused by refusal to submit to carbon taxes quickly enough.
“It is hard to overstate the urgency of our situation,” Guterres continued in his speech. “Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption,” he said. “Nor are we doing enough to capitalize on the enormous social, economic, and environmental opportunities of climate action.” Again, “climate action” is the banner under which the UN and its member governments are hoping to transform society and the economy.
“Climate action offers a compelling path to transform our world for the better,” Guterres continued. “In short, we need a complete transformation of our global energy economy, as well as how we manage land and forest resources. We need to embrace low-carbon, climate-resilient sustainable development.” For those who are unfamiliar with UN-speak, “sustainable development” is code for government-directed development and global technocratic rule, and it encompasses everything from education and healthcare to land use and climate.  
This “transformation” is planned to be achieved through the mechanisms agreed to by Obama and other leaders in 2015 at the UN climate summit in France. “The Paris Agreement provides a framework for the transformation we need,” Guterres said, calling for “concerted resource mobilization” (i.e., spending Western tax money) and “transformative climate action in five key economic areas — energy, cities, land use, water and industry.” Of course, this summit was designed to “operationalize” the Paris Agreement for precisely that purpose.
According to the UN boss, all of this transformative action must be geared toward moving humanity into what is euphemistically dubbed the “green economy.” Reading the descriptions given of this “green” economy over the years, it becomes immediately apparent that it is a lot like the “red economy” of yesteryear. The difference: The justification is primarily environmental in nature, rather than relying on the discredited communist ideology so tainted in the public mind following the institutionalized mass murder of over 100 million people just in the last century and the impoverishment of hundreds of millions more.
The green economy “means embracing carbon pricing,” Guterres continued, arguing that the gas exhaled by every human being is “pollution” that must be taxed and regulated. This green economy also means vastly increasing the scope of the welfare state and the level of dependence on government by individuals. Those workers whose “sectors” face “disruption” must have “retraining” from government, as well as a “social safety net.” In other words, when you lose your job due to the green economy, the government will take care of you and your family — maybe — making you utterly dependent for your daily bread.
At least $100 billion of wealth redistribution from the West to Third World governments annually would be a “positive political signal,” Guterres continued. This money is supposed to go into the UN Green Climate (Slush) Fund to help bribe poorer governments into cooperating with the scheme. More will be required later, naturally. At the moment, the U.S. government is prohibited by law from providing money to this fund, but Obama did it anyway, and the next president may try to do it as well.  
Shortly after his initial speech, Guterres gave another, focusing on similar themes, including the “transformation of the real economy” that the UN and its member governments must oversee in energy, industry, nature, cities, and much more. “I count on multiple new transformational commitments from governments, business, finance and civil society in each of these areas,” he added. “To achieve genuine transformation in the real economy, we need national governments to play a crucial role in each of the robust coalitions which will deliver concrete transformative outcomes.”
Finally, the UN secretary-general made clear that even your mind was in the UN’s cross hairs. “The Paris Agreement is not a piece of paper. It is a historic compact among nations, a compact to ensure our survival,” he said, though the majority of the governments that got on board were totalitarian, including those led by mass murderers who enslave their nations — Kim Jong-un comes to mind. “This coming year we must put it to use to transform our economies, our minds, and our future.” This has been a recurring theme with the UN.
Of course, Guterres was not the first UN bigwig to let the proverbial cat out of the bag. Then-UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres dropped a bombshell during a 2012 press conference regarding the transformation UN bosses envision. “It must be understood that what is occurring here, not just in Doha, but in the whole climate change process is a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world,” she told the media — from sovereign states and capitalism to world government and socialism.
A few weeks before that, she told the U.K. Guardian that her job was to get governments, businesses, and society to make “the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken.” She compared the transformation to the Industrial Revolution. “But it [the Industrial Revolution] wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective,” she explained. “This is a centralized transformation that is taking place.... It’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.”
In America, socialists are using virtually the exact same rhetoric. Speaking in December alongside self-described Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, self-styled “democratic socialist” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for using the climate agenda to implement her fringe vision for America. “[We] can use the transition to 100 percent renewable energy as the vehicle to truly deliver and establish economic, social and racial justice in the United State of America,” she exclaimed as COP24 was happening.
Indeed, globalists and socialists have repeatedly made clear that they view the phony “climate crisis” as an “opportunity” to achieve their “social” and “economic” goals — namely, wealth redistribution, government controls over ever-larger swaths of human activity, social engineering, and more. And throughout the conference, that was clearly on display as every globalist special interest group came to link its totalitarian agenda to the climate bandwagon.
All sorts of companies, non-profit groups, “religious” leaders, “civil society” organizations, Big Oil, and others were tripping over themselves to sign on. At an event featuring Guterres and other top UN bosses, for example, a number of globalist mega-banks with trillions of dollars in combined lending vowed to “put their balance sheets to work” in advancing the warmist agenda. “It shows that banks are becoming increasingly ready to take the bold steps needed to play our part in achieving a low-carbon economy,” said ING CEO Ralph Hamers, one of many cronies jumping on the bandwagon.
 Wealth Redistribution and Globalism, for the Climate