COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS PUSHES END TO SOVEREIGNTY AT UNITED NATION’S DOHA CLIMATE SUMMIT
December 25, 2012 Leave a comment
The UN Climate Summit in Doha, Qatar, (see here and here) is in its second week, headed for completion on Friday, December 7. Most analysts and observers expect little in the way of major developments or breakthrough agreements to come out of it. With the world economy in shambles, and nearly all national governments awash in debt, there is diminishing incentive for politicians to spend scarce public funds on the much-hyped hypothetical future “threats” posed by global warming — especially when there are very real, tangible issues demanding immediate attention and funding.
However, the climate change lobby is not rolling over and calling it quits; they have too much invested to back away now. A tabulation of funding in 2007 by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, found that the climate alarmists had received over $50 billion since 1990. That was five years ago; naturally, the price tag has gone up considerably since then.
Most of this enormous funding avalanche came from governments, with the biggest chunk coming from the U.S. federal government. State governments have also been big funders, along with foreign national governments, the European Union, United Nations agencies, the World Bank, the big tax-exempt foundations, and major Wall Street banks and corporations. This money infusion has launched a huge climate industry, with universities, institutions, think tanks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), professors, scientists, researchers, and activists all dependent on maintaining the flow of funds. The major banks and investors that have jumped on board the climate change wagon see a great deal of green to be made from the global sale of carbon credits. Trillions of dollars could change hands, but only if a carbon trading regime is forced on consumers by governments.
Foremost among the groups that have been driving the global warming alarm bandwagon is the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). There are many think tanks affecting national policies, but the CFR, long ranked as the premier brain trust, is still the most influential. The UN Climate Summit in Doha will carry the CFR imprint in many ways, as have virtually all previous global conferences. Representing the U.S. government in Doha is President Obama’s Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern. Stern, who was previously a White House assistant to President Bill Clinton, played a role in U.S. negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. He was selected as Climate Envoy by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Todd Stern is a longtime member of the CFR.
Stern’s boss, Hillary Clinton, has explicitly confirmed what critics of the CFR have often charged: that the Council unofficially runs the U.S. State Department, and has virtually taken control of the entire executive branch of the federal government, regardless of which party may occupy the White House. In a famous speech at the Council on Foreign Relations’ Washington, D.C., office in 2009, Secretary Clinton referred to the CFR’s Pratt House headquarters in New York City as the “mother ship” and said she had been there often. She was glad, she said, that the CFR’s new Washington headquarters is so close to the State Department, making it easier to be “told what we should be doing and how we should think.”
Here is the opening paragraph of her address, after being introduced by CFR President Richard Haass:
Thank you very much, Richard, and I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.
(A video of Secretary Clinton’s remarks may be viewed at the bottom of this page.)
CFR “Mother Ship” Guiding U.S. at Doha
So, what is the CFR telling Hillary Clinton and her lieutenants about “what they should be doing and how they should think” at the Doha Summit? We are not privy to any of the private consultations between Pratt House and Foggy Bottom, but there is plenty to go on from the public pronouncements of the CFR’s spokesmen and members.
In “A Transitional Climate Summit in Doha,” a November 28, 2012 CFR “Expert Brief” by Michael A. Levi, director of the council’s Program on Energy Security and Climate Change, we are told that global climate change “threatens intensifying damages primarily in the future but requires strong action to curb emissions now.” Levi warns that there are dire “reputational” consequences for U.S. failure to support a more robust and restrictive climate agenda:
If the United States is isolated in its stance on financial or process issues, then it will suffer internationally. To prevent that, U.S. strategy will need to focus as much on keeping partners like Europe and Japan on a similar page as it does on the substance of any outcome. The United States will also come under fire for failing to cut its emissions sufficiently.
Levi, who is the CFR’s top guru on climate change, is surely aware by now of the overwhelming evidence, including admissions by some of the top alarmists, that there has been no measurable global warming for the past 16 years, all of the media horror stories and Al Gore pronouncements about impending Climate Armageddon notwithstanding. And he must surely be aware that no evidence supports the contention that a government-forced reduction of emissions by the United States would have any impact whatsoever on global temperatures. However, the financial, social, and political costs would be horrendous. As critics point out, it is a prescription for “all pain and no gain” — except for the politically connected, who stand to gain immense wealth and power under the proposed UN global climate regime.
Levi ignores the steadily mounting evidence to promote the CFR’s ongoing globalist line. “International climate diplomacy provides the United States with opportunities to leverage domestic action for greater impact abroad,” says Levi. “But the United States still falls well short of what it must do at home to reduce its emissions to ever lower levels.”
The CFR’s Levi was also a lead voice in the “extreme weather” catastrophe choir claiming that the deaths and damage from Tropical Storm Sandy could be laid at the feet of human-caused global warming. In a November 5 column, “Hurricane Sandy and Climate Change: Three Things to Know,” Levi hymned a predictable refrain. “Increased human emissions of greenhouse gases are leading to more risk of dangerous weather extremes,” he said. “Reducing this risk requires cutting U.S. and global greenhouse gas emissions.”
Levi and the CFR ignore completely the numerous climate experts, including many well-known alarmists who point out that not only did Sandy and other recent “extreme weather” have nothing to do with global warming, but that contrary to many recent media stories, there is no evidence of any increase in recent decades in either the number or magnitude of hurricanes and other extreme weather incidents.
Unburdened by any adherence to science and facts, the CFR pushes its same one-world agenda. “In Sandy’s aftermath,” says the CFR, we should work for “increasing global cooperation” on climate change. “At the international level, the United States should similarly seize on opportunities to work collaboratively with other countries on climate change challenges,” says Levi. Translated from global-speak: Exploit every possible tragedy and weather anomaly as an opportunity to establish, empower, and enrich the UN and related global institutions.
Do we exaggerate? You be the judge. In a July 5, 2012 CFR Issue Brief entitled, “The Global Climate Change Regime,” we are warned that “Climate change is one of the most significant threats facing the world today.” Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), says the CFR, threatens us all with “widespread disasters in the form of rising sea levels, violent and volatile weather patterns, desertification, famine, water shortages, and other secondary effects including conflict.”
Haass: World Government or Anarchy
What must we do to avert these calamities? Among other things, says the CFR, we must “create a global consensus regarding the creation of major greenhouse gas emissions targets and isolating intransigent countries.” What, exactly, the CFR means by targeting and isolating “intransigent” countries is not spelled out in that piece. But anyone who studies CFR programs, policies, and publications quickly realizes that the organization favors a world government — run by “wise men” and “eminent persons” such as themselves. And their envisioned world government — their new world order — does not contemplate tolerance for “intransigence” by sovereign nations. In fact, national sovereignty, according to the CFR, is the bane of world order.
CFR President Richard Haass (pictured above) says “states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.”
In a February 21, 2006 column entitled, “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era,” Haass states:
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits.
“All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization,” Haass avers. “At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows — within and across borders — of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction.”
According to Haass and the CFR, the only answer to this predicament is a progressive weakening of national sovereignty and a steady move to global government. “Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker,” says Haass. “States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.”
Haass opines that “Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute.” Which, of course, means that our Constitution, which specifically defines and limits the powers of the U.S. federal government, would be completely conditional, at the whim of those who are defining of what our sovereignty consists.
“The goal,” says Haass “should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”
World government or anarchy — those are our only options, according to the Pratt House luminaries. During the decades of the 1960s through the 1990s, the internationalists muted their calls for world government, preferring fuzzier labels, such as “international law,” “the rule of law,” and “interdependence” to avoid generating the popular alarm that a transparent attempt to subject U.S. citizens to UN rule would engender.
However, since they have been already wildly successful, over the past several decades, in building the superstructure of an UN-based world government (see our recent article and global maps in “The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government”), they are dropping much of the pretense and more boldly asserting true objectives.
We have more than a hint of the world government plan in the title of the aforementioned CFR Issue Brief, “The Global Climate Change Regime.”
“Regime” is a term the globalists would not likely have used even a couple of decades ago, since that would have been a dead giveaway as to where they planned to take us. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “regime” as: “mode of rule or management,” “a form of government (a socialist regime),” or “a government in power.”
We get another substantial hint from the CFR web page hosting the “The Global Climate Change Regime,” which notes that it is part of the CFR’s “multimedia Global Governance Monitor from the International Institutions and Global Governance program.”
When the UN-appointed Commission of Global Governance issued its 1995 report, Our Global Neighborhood, its authors went to great pains to (falsely) assure readers that in promoting “global governance” they were in no way promoting “global government.” This writer pointed out that their semantic dodge was a distinction without a difference, and that despite their dissimulation, everything they proposed screamed “global government,” with global legislative, executive, judicial, and policing powers.
As we have reported previously (Rooting for World Government) Jacques Attali, a committed world government proponent and an advisor to former President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, flatly stated in 2008: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” That is precisely what many critics (including this writer) had been saying for years.
Coordinating the Global-warming Charade
Over the past two decades, the CFR journal Foreign Affairs has published numerous articles hyping the global-warming non-crisis, and its fellows and members have fright-peddled the AGW scare stories in countless op-eds and interviews in the major (CFR-dominated) media. The Council’s many task forces, panels, and speaker programs have pumped the false alarms of melting polar caps and rising sea levels to influential opinion molders, policymakers, and legislators. On a global scale, the CFR influences an even wider audience of opinion molders, policymakers, and legislators through its Council of Councils, an important adjunct of the CFR’s International Institutions and Global Governance (IIGG) program. The Council of Councils is a formal association of 25 of the CFR’s “sister” organizations. These include: Canada’s Center for International Governance Innovation; the French Institute of International Relations; the German Institute for International and Security Affairs; Italy’s Institute of International Affairs; the Polish Institute of International Affairs; and, of course, Britain’s The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), also known as Chatham House.
The CFR-Pratt House/RIIA-Chatham House axis has proven to have been a potent propaganda transmission belt. Their climate-change alarm chorus gets considerable global heft from The Economist, which boasts an undeserved reputation as a journal of substance. The writers and editors of The Economist are regulars in the CFR/RIIA salons and reliably retail the one-world gospel. In a November 21 report prepping readers for Doha, entitled, “Warming up: What to Expect From the Next Big Report on Climate Change,” The Economist puts great stock in the UN’s thoroughly discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and suggests that our failure to secure a global climate regime is tantamount to “playing Russian roulette with the planet.”
In a December 1 piece entitled “Theatre of the Absurd,” the journal complained that “After three failures, this year’s UN climate summit has only modest aims.” The Economist article cites a new World Bank jeremiad that postulates calamitous planetary results from a projected 4-6 degree Centigrade global temperature rise. Oceans “would rise by 0.5-1 metres by 2100, devastating coastal cities and bearing especially heavily on East and South Asia.”
The frightening scenario — a repeat of numerous previous false alarms — continues:
Three-quarters of tropical forests could die, including many in Indonesia, India and the Philippines, adding further to global warming. Crop yields would fall overall and droughts would become more common and severe … “A 4°C world,” says the report, “can and must be avoided.”
Of course, the CFR/RIIA Insiders have learned that they cannot always rely on their propaganda organs to produce sufficient public support in a timely manner to accomplish their goals. They must also have their people on the inside. As noted previously, they have that inside track with Hillary Clinton and Todd Stern. Another key CFR advantage comes in the person of Jonathan Pershing, Mr. Stern’s assistant. Prior to joining the administration, Pershing, a scientist, was a top honcho at the World Resources Institute, (WRI) one of the Big Green think tank/lobby groups in the forefront of the push for world government, in the name of saving the environment. Mr. Pershing is not a CFR member, but for many years he answered to the WRI board of directors, which (like so many other organizations, corporations, and foundations) is saturated with CFR members.
The current WRI board of directors includes the following CFR members:
James A. Harmon, chairman
Harriet C. Babbitt, vice chair
Daniel L. Doctoroff
LORD MONCKTON EXPOSES GLOBALIST MASQUERADING AS EARTH SAVERS AT UN CLIMATE SUMMIT
UNITED NATIONS SUMMIT: TRANSFORMING YOUR KIDS INTO “CLIMATE CHANGE AGENTS”
Written by William F. Jasper
Do your children (or grandchildren) have nightmares about the Earth melting or exploding due to human-caused global warming? Do they believe they have no future because our planet is dying, the icecaps and glaciers are melting, the sea levels are rising, islands and coastal areas are disappearing, polar bears and children are drowning, plant and animal species are rapidly going extinct, and extreme weather will soon make human life unbearable, if not impossible?
Frightening, not Enlightening
Fear of an impending Climate Apocalypse apparently afflicts millions of children and adolescents worldwide, according to news stories in the mainstream media over the past few years (see here, here, here, and here).
Psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers, and parents report that many children are depressed and fearful, have difficulty sleeping, and believe it is pointless to study or plan a career, since there is little hope for a livable future. As a result, many are experiencing serious psychological and physical health issues. This should not surprise anyone, considering that hundreds of millions of students have been captive audiences for Al Gore’s “documentary,” An Inconvenient Truth, (with many of them being subjected to multiple classroom showings) and other similar fare. After being continuously marinated in climate-change K-12 indoctrination in almost every subject area, it is little wonder that many kids suffer from depression and anxiety.
Classroom Child Abuse for a “Higher Cause”
However, many children turn their global-warming angst into activism, becoming little climate warriors who will work tirelessly to convert their peers, their parents, and local and national political leaders into supporters of “sustainable development.” And this, clearly, is what the proponents of “climate change education” intend. Climate change education, they say, must be “transformative” and turn young children and adolescents into “climate change agents.”
That is the message being delivered by officials of UNICEF, UNESCO, and other UN agencies and NGOs at the UN Climate Conference currently underway (November 26-December 7) in Doha, Qatar. Stephanie Hodge, education program specialist for UNICEF, was interviewed at Doha by Climate Change TV, a UN-funded television network dedicated exclusively to propaganda about the global warming and the supposed solutions to this “crisis” that can only be attained through UN-directed global action.
According to Hodge, our current climate change education is “antiquated” and in dire need of renovation. We should be asking, she said, “What is global citizenship? What are some of the global values that need to be imparted through local content?” Climate change education, says UNICEF’s Hodge, is “really about a process of change, about starting transformation through education.”
To help bring about this change and transformation, UNICEF, with help from its sister agency, UNESCO, has come up with a new curriculum guide, entitled, Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in the Education Sector: Resource Manual, which Hodge held up for viewers to see.
The UNICEF Resource Manual opens with this paragraph, which is sure to intensify any climatic stress already being felt by students:
“I am the present and the future. A victim of climate change, I live in a region that is constantly affected by disasters. Hurricanes and floods are my reality.” — Walter, a 12-year-old boy from Belize
Of course, “Walter, a 12-year-old boy from Belize,” is almost certainly a fabrication of the curriculum developers at UNICEF. Or at least the words attributed to him have been crafted by adults. How many 12-year-old boys do you know who speak like that? Or 16-year-olds, for that matter? But in UN materials even 6-year-olds and illiterate aborigines speak profoundly and poignantly in perfect poetic cadence.
In an article entitled, “Forcing Global Warming Nightmares on Children,” Tom DeWeese, the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, reproduced an impassioned letter he received from an elementary school girl who was upset with him for not accepting the global-warming “consensus.” The letter dutifully regurgitated the UN/Al Gore talking points. It is unlikely that it was composed by the girl who sent it. However, even if she did actually cut-and-paste the text herself without the prompting and assistance of her teacher and/or “facilitator,” it is obvious that she did not arrive at her state of mental agitation by calmly and maturely evaluating a balanced menu of data and perspectives in the heated climate “debate.” She, as with millions of her peers, has been force-fed a steady diet of climate-change hysteria disguised as scientific fact.
The UNICEF Resource Manual makes frequent and reverential reference to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the authoritative scientific source on all things related to climate, notwithstanding the fact that the IPCC has suffered repeated scandals and has been exposed as a thoroughly politicized tool that has slaughtered science in the service of a politically-driven agenda.
Parroting the IPCC, the Manual declares:
Climate change will generally increase disaster risks — not only through the increased frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events and sea-level rise. As water becomes scarcer, agriculture is strained, ecosystems are degraded, and societies will become more vulnerable to hazards.
“Climate Change Agents”
A major (or the major) purpose of the Resource Manual, we are told on page 11, is “to help children become agents of change.” The term “agents of change” is used five times in the Manual. In addition, it twice refers to “adolescents as climate change agents,” and describes “the role of youth themselves as change agents in sustainable development.”
The glossary of the Manual provides this UN-approved definition of sustainable development: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Therein, of course, lies the rub. UN officials and bureaucrats will determine what “meets the needs of the present” and what level of consumption constitutes “compromising the ability of future generations.” And they have already stated, in numerous pronouncements and publications, that U.S. consumption and lifestyles — energy, automobiles, single-family homes, food, travel, etc. — are unsustainable. The even more extravagant lifestyles of the officials and their NGO choir that attend these profligate UN moveable feasts — such as the current Doha conference— however, are considered “sustainable.” Naturally.
The Manual declares:
Climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction seek to manage uncertainty, reduce vulnerabilities and build resilience for communities at risk (see annex 1.1). Adaptation, by definition, will need to be derived from local solutions. The process can be similar across the education sector, but the outcomes must be specific, emphasizing an inclusive, bottom-up approach. Adaptation and risk reduction fall within the overall framework of sustainable development and should be viewed holistically through that lens. [Emphasis in original.]
Larded with all of the usual catchphrases and banal bromides, the UNICEF publication continues:
In order to meet the rights of children and achieve sustainable development, we need systems led by young people and adults who think and act sustainably. We need these systems to permeate all levels of policy and planning, not just the national level. For quality education to be transformative, we need to see changes embedded in district, village and school development plans.
“The scaling up and mainstreaming of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction needs to be ensured throughout the education sector,” the Manual states. This will be done, it says, through:
• Sector planning and budgets
• Policies and legislation
• Governance and school leadership
• Learning and teaching processes
• Infrastructure and facilities
• Teacher capacity strengthening and pedagogical training.
That’s fairly all-inclusive, no? However, if the good folks at UNICEF have left anything out we can rest assured that it is covered elsewhere in the resource manuals and other materials produced by UNESCO, which we will be examining momentarily.
But, back to the UNICEF Resource Manual, which tells us:
The ultimate goal of the resource manual is to ensure that all children may equitably exercise their educational and environmental rights in totality, as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). This goal includes increasing the number of children who are reached by the education sector and cultivating the knowledge, skills, values and ways of thinking that contribute to more sustainable and equitable development.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child referred to above is, of course, the same controversial treaty that American parents and the U.S. Senate have been opposing for decades, pointing out that accepting the principles enshrined therein will negate parental rights and ratify the collectivization of our children as property of the global state.
There is an interesting, self-indicting paragraph in the Manual, which if accepted in any sensible reading of the text, would prohibit the very programs the Manual proposes. It states:
In a protective framework, acknowledging that since children’s capacities are still evolving, they have rights to protection on the part of both parents and the State from exposure to activities likely to cause them harm. This framework imposes obligations on States parties to protect these rights. [Emphasis in original.]
Very clearly, climate change indoctrination of the type being advocated by UNICEF is already doing immense harm to children. The articles we have linked to above quote a number of psychologists, psychotherapists, and counselors who attest to the unhealthy mental trauma children are experiencing as a result of global-warming propaganda overload. A much larger collection of sources, from studies and news reports worldwide can be accessed at Climate Lessons blogspot.
As the Manual states, children “have rights to protection on the part of both parents and the State from exposure to activities likely to cause them harm.” Unless those words are emptied of all sensible meaning and twisted into something completely fraudulent, they acknowledge that children must be protected from the very activities that the Manual advocates, since said activities not only are “likely to cause them harm,” but, manifestly, already are causing great harm.
The global-warming indoctrination frenzy of the past several years not only has caused psychological harm, but it has also negatively impacted academic achievement simply by robbing students of class time and study time that should be going to real science, as well as math, reading, history, etc.
A major study last year, “Globally Challenged: Are U.S. Students Ready to Compete?” by Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, added to the stack of reports that have been piling up for decades documenting the abysmal state of American education.
All this considered, climate change education is causing serious harm, and by the UNICEF Manual’s own words, children have a right to be protected from such abuse. But don’t expect the UN, UNICEF, or any of the other climate activists at Doha to extract any sensible meaning from the text; they are already emptying and twisting in order to fit the text around the preordained agenda.
UNICEF isn’t alone in this endeavor; as mentioned earlier, UNESCO is a senior partner on the project. And UNESCO, as the UN lead agency, oversees a vast program, which includes the Climate Change Education Clearinghouse (CCE).
The CCE is comprised of many UN agencies, including:
UN Climate Change Gateway
UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs)
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)
UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe)
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)?UN-HABITAT (The United Nations Human Settlements Programme)
UNHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights)
UNHCR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees)
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund)
UNITAR (United Nations Institute for Training and Research)
WHO (World Health Organization)
WMO (World Meteorological Organization)
Among the U.S. agencies participating in the UNESCO’s Climate Change Education Clearinghouse (CCE) are:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Climate Literacy Network
National Oceanic and Atmopsheric Administration (NOAA)
National Science Foundation
United States Global Change Research Program
US Department of Energy/ARM Climate Research Facility
US Geological Survey (USGS)
One of UNESCO’s latest efforts is the newly released video, “Learning to Address Climate Change,” a snappy, professional production which shows in four minutes “why climate change education is important to shape sustainable development and how it works in practice.” UNESCO is also zeroing in on high-school students and the high-school curriculum with YouthXchange-Climate Change and Lifestyles Guidebook.
In addition, it has also published The Climate Change Starter’s Guidebook. “The aim of this guide,” says UNESCO, “is to serve as a starting point for mainstreaming climate change education into curricula lesson plans and programs.”
Moreover, the Guide informs us:
The impacts of global warming are already apparent today in melting glaciers, increased frequency of extreme weather events such as droughts, cyclones or heavy rainfalls, sea level rise, and changes in plant growth affecting agriculture and food production. These and other observed changes are expected to intensify and inflict a significant impact on human societies and the environment around the world especially if no drastic efforts are undertaken to reduce the emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere. [Emphasis added.]
Yes, UNESCO, UNICEF and the other would-be saviors of the earth demand “drastic efforts” that inevitably involve the individual yielding his natural, God-given rights to self-government, while national governments yield their sovereignty and dissolve into a UN-run global government. Of course, the UN and its agencies have been able to propagate this long-running child-abuse scandal thanks to the massive funding they receive each year from the U.S. Congress and the executive branch agencies under the direction of the White House.
Photo of representatives at UN Climate Change Conference in Doha, Qatar: AP Images