You don’t have to be a climate scientist to know the ringleaders of the “climate change” bandwagon don’t truly believe the narrative they’re selling.

And it’s not just because they jet around the world in private jets to lecture you about your car and your hamburgers.

In fact, if the people at the top bought into the notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are really “pollution” producing a “climate crisis,” they would be doing exactly the opposite of what they’re actually doing.

Examining climate policy and communist China proves the point.

Consider the UN Paris Agreement. Negotiated at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in 2015, the global deal calls on national governments to make their own national pledges about what they force on their populations to combat the alleged “climate crisis.”

Under the deal, the Obama administration unilaterally pledged to slash CO2 emissions in the United States by more than 25 percent by 2025. This was to be imposed on Americans through executive orders and federal regulations to avoid involving Congress. Other Western governments made similar promises.

The Chinese communist regime, by contrast, was already emitting far more CO2 than the United States and now spews more than the entire Western world combined by far—and yet it pledged only to keep increasing its emissions for the next 15 years. Seriously.

In its submission to the UN (pdf), the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) agreed “to achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030.”

In other words, the regime proudly announced to the world that its CO2 output would continue to grow for at least 15 years, at which point nobody will even remember the Paris pledges.

When I asked members of the Chinese delegation for comment at the UN summit, instead of responding, they sent one of their minions to follow me around the conference and take pictures of me, something I promptly reported to UN security and the French police.

It’s a good thing for the CCP that nobody will remember its promises by 2030, because virtually every analyst who has looked at the regime’s coal-fired power-plant construction binge has acknowledged there’s no way its emissions will “peak” by 2030. Communist promises have never been worth the paper they’re printed on anyway, as history has shown.

The CCP wasn’t kidding about increasing its emissions, though: Beijing is currently bringing more coal-fired power plants online just between now and 2025 than the United States has in total.

According to Global Energy Monitor’s February 2021 briefing (pdf), the CCP built more than three times as much coal-power capacity as the rest of the world combined in 2020. And it already has about half of all the world’s coal power capacity, according to Global Energy Monitor’s “Boom and Bust 2020: Tracking the Global Coal Plant Pipeline.”

Already, China emits more than twice as much CO2 as the United States, according to data from the Global Carbon Project. Its emissions are rising meteorically even as U.S. emissions and emissions from other Western nations continue to plunge.

In 2021, Americans released about 5 billion tons of CO2, while China released about 11.5 billion. If current trends continue, the CCP may release more CO2 than the rest of the world combined in the not-too-distant future.

Think about this. If one was truly concerned about CO2 emissions producing “climate hell,” as world leaders claimed at the latest UN “climate” summit in Egypt that I attended, they would be panicking, not celebrating.

Moving Production

Again, all of the production being moved out of the West and into China will result in vastly more CO2 entering the atmosphere than if that production had remained in the United States, Canada, or Europe.

And yet, Western governments, tax-funded climate activists, UN leaders, and their media allies all celebrated and continue to celebrate the Paris Agreement and subsequent follow-ups as a huge success in saving the climate. Perhaps Donald Trump was on to something when, in 2012, he wrote on Twitter,

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

That’s exactly what happened, of course, as electricity rates got pushed higher and higher over time. In 1975, electricity was averaging around 3 cents per kilowatt hour, helping U.S. industry remain competitive globally. By 2010, thanks in part to Obama’s policies, it had tripled. And by 2021, it was approaching 15 cents.

For perspective, electricity prices in China are about half that.

There are many reasons for the shifting of production from the United States to China—many of them directly related to U.S. policy—but one key factor has been the cost of energy.

Yet higher energy prices were openly touted as a policy objective by Obama. As he made clear in a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, “under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Later that year, he expressed similar sentiments as gas prices soared to around $4, saying only that he would have “preferred” a “gradual adjustment” instead.

Faced with higher labor costs and a tougher regulatory environment, American companies and entrepreneurs were already struggling to keep production in the United States amid a rigged global trading regime benefiting the CCP at America’s expense.

Soaring energy costs in many cases pushed firms over the edge, forcing them to shift production to China or shut down in the face of Chinese competition.

Again, if you truly believe CO2 is pollution, the worst possible outcome of “climate” negotiations would be to transfer even more production to China, where CO2 emissions per unit of economic production are massively higher.

But this is precisely the result of the much-celebrated UN “climate” process.

The shift into so-called “renewable energy” being engineered by the Biden administration and federal policymakers has been and will continue to be a huge boon to the CCP, too—and not just because it will force prices higher while making the U.S. energy grid more unstable.

Almost 80 percent of solar cells produced in 2019 were made in China, according to Bloomberg data (pdf). The CCP dominates production in the wind sector and battery industries as well. It also controls the supply chain for rare-earth materials needed to produce all of these “green energy” products.

The U.S. government, for its part, is offering massive subsidies to these CCP-dominated industrial sectors while forcing Americans into dependence on them through regulations, mandates, subsidies, and other policies. How this is supposed to help the environment is never made clear.

For some perspective on the economic carnage inflicted on America by Obama’s Paris scheme, which he claimed was an “executive agreement” and thus not subject to Senate ratification as required by the Constitution, the Heritage Foundation crunched the numbers in a 2016 study.

Among other findings, the conservative-leaning think tank said Obama’s Paris pledges would increase electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually while vaporizing almost half a million jobs, including around 200,000 in manufacturing.

That damage translates to about $20,000 in lost income for American families by 2035 and a reduction in GDP of over $2.5 trillion.

Who Benefits?

Who benefits from all this? Certainly not the “climate.” Again, shipping U.S. industry to China will result in more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less. And in any case, based on the UN’s own debunked “models,” complete elimination of all U.S. CO2 emissions would result in virtually no reduction in global temperatures.

According to a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy Journal, even if all the significant pledges made in Paris were fulfilled, global temperatures would be just 0.05 degrees C (0.086 degrees F) cooler by 2100—a statistically insignificant rounding error.

The big winner, of course, was the CCP, which has been laughing all the way to the bank as it absorbs the factories, jobs, and wealth production that U.S. and other Western authorities are shutting down to “save the climate.”

This appears to be deliberate, as statements by leading officials in the Obama administration and the UN have made clear.

Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren openly advocated a de-industrialization of the United States in his 1973 book “Human Ecology.”

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren and his co-authors wrote. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology.”

Then consider seemingly bizarre comments made by then-UN Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres.

Speaking to Bloomberg a few months after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed his unsettling admiration for the CCP, Figueres claimed that the regime in Beijing—overseeing about one third of global CO2 output—was “doing it right” on climate policy.

In separate comments while pushing for major climate policies, Figueres also suggested the goal of “climate” policy was really economic transformation.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said on Feb. 4, 2015.

Five years before those comments, one of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s top officials, Ottmar Edenhofer, revealed a similar agenda in comments to Germany’s NZZ Online.

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” he said. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

Wealth redistribution? Changing the economic model of the world? De-developing the United States? And here Americans are being told this is about “saving the climate.”

Remember, too, that when Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement, climate alarmists from around the world declared that Beijing was the new global “leader” of the effort to save the climate—the same regime that oversees the most CO2 emissions, is building coal plants faster than they can be counted, and that promised to keep increasing CO2 emissions until 2030.

If this is really about saving the climate from CO2, how can the CCP be the new leader? It’s beyond absurd.

Despite all this, the Biden administration continues to intensify “cooperation” on “climate action” and the Paris Agreement with Beijing, no doubt causing amusement and joy among members of the CCP’s Politburo.

It’s not just China that benefits. In fact, congressional researchers discovered that state-backed Russian energy interests were funding U.S. “green” groups opposed to U.S. energy via a shell company in Bermuda called Klein Ltd.

The regime in Venezuela, too, is laughing all the way to the bank as the Biden administration sabotages U.S. energy and begs the Maduro dictatorship to send oil to America.

To be clear, I don’t begrudge the CO2 emissions of China or anyone else. In fact, many scientists have told me that more of this “gas of life” would be enormously beneficial for the planet and humanity.

Retired Princeton physics professor Dr. William Happer, who served as Trump’s climate adviser, told me years ago at a climate conference we both spoke at that the planet needed more CO2 and that plants were designed to live in an atmosphere with quite a bit more CO2 than the planet currently has.

Plus, human emissions of CO2 make up a fraction of 1 percent of all the so-called “greenhouse gases” present naturally in the atmosphere.

To summarize, if one truly believes that CO2 is bad for the climate, shipping U.S. production and industry to China is the worst possible way to deal with it. Logically, then, the policymakers behind this must have an ulterior motive.

Of course, the CCP loves the Paris deal: They do nothing but build more coal plants to power the industries and factories fleeing America for China as the U.S. government forces the United States to commit economic suicide.

This isn’t just an economic or “climate” issue, either. As the United States is “de-developed,” the economic destruction produces a major threat to national security. A strong military can’t be funded without a strong economy, obviously.

It’s time for lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives to shut down the administration’s “climate” policies that do nothing but expand CCP CO2 emissions and harm the United States.

---

** Urgent: Please click HERE to communicate directly with your federal legislators. **

Under the leadership of a Communist Chinese-backed “former” Marxist terror leader, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) and the Biden administration are plotting an unprecedented power grab to build a planetary bio-medical police state. Think Shanghai during lockdown, but worldwide. Leading experts argue that this is truly the emergence of the “New World Order” discussed by Biden and others.

Already, the WHO claims all sorts of draconian authorities, including powers to work with UN member states in quarantining villages or nations, locking down societies, forcing medical “treatments” such as vaccines, and generally crushing medical freedom. When Ebola was spreading, for instance, the Obama administration sent thousands of U.S. troops to help the UN enforce medical martial law in the Ivory Coast.

Now, under changes proposed to the WHO’s “International Health Regulations” by the Biden administration, the dictator-friendly global “health” body would gain the power to carry out its wishes without even the approval or consent of the targeted nation. Not surprisingly, neither the WHO nor the Biden administration plan to consult the U.S. Senate on the matter.

Despite the enormity of the ongoing usurpation, and the drastic implications for freedom and self-government around the world, the establishment media have been largely silent on the issue. Still, concern is growing quickly as more and more experts and activists speak out. Word is starting to spread. But the first major deadline to stop it will arrive in a matter of weeks at a WHO meeting in Geneva starting May 22.

There are two key routes of attack being pursued by the WHO and its allies. In June, a dangerous “pandemic treaty” is set to be considered giving the WHO new “teeth” to enforce its dictates. But the first and most urgent assault on liberty and self-government involves a series of 13 controversial amendments being proposed to the WHO’s so-called International Health Regulations (IHR). The details of the amendments were only released publicly — and very quietly — about a month ago.

The health regime created under the IHR, which was first approved by the World Health Assembly in 2005, is already draconian in its current state. Indeed, these regulations are what supposedly empowered the disgraced global organization to “recommend” the totalitarian policies it deployed worldwide in response to COVID. Much of the leadership in the global war on freedom over the last two years came from the WHO.

But under the new amendments proposed by the Biden administration last month, it would go from bad to catastrophic. Among other concerns, the WHO would acquire new powers to impose its will on nations and peoples against their will. Indeed, the WHO would be able to declare a “health emergency” in any nation, with virtually no limits, going far beyond even actual pandemics, as long as it “could present significant harm to humans.”

One of the most significant changes would remove language from the WHO’s international health agreement requiring a government to consent to the WHO’s determinations before action is taken. Under the new language, all that would be necessary is for the WHO boss to claim there is “a public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC). Even a claimed suspicion of such an “emergency” would be enough to get the gears turning.

Once it declares an emergency, the WHO would be authorized to partner with a dizzying array of global agencies and organizations such as the UN and more under the guise of protecting “health.” That includes UN agencies overseeing food, agriculture, aviation, the environment, and much more. In short, a full-on assault on a nation by a range of would-be global government agencies is in the cards for defiance of the WHO.

The amendments would accelerate the process of turning the head of the WHO into a global health dictator, numerous critics say. That is especially troubling considering that WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, installed by the regime in Beijing, is a former politburo member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, an ethno-Marxist terror group designated a terrorist organization by governments around the world. Countless critics have called for him to be prosecuted for ghastly crimes perpetrated by the terror group he helped lead, and later the brutal Ethiopian regime he served at a high level.

“If passed, the Biden administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States,” warned Dr. Peter Breggin, one of the leading medical voices sounding the alarm about this power grab and author of the best-selling new book Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey.

According to Dr. Breggin, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, the same threat applies to the sovereignty and self-government of all of the UN’s 193 member states, representing virtually the entire global population. In an interview with The New American, Dr. Breggin suggested this was a major step in the direction of global government, led by a global “predator class.” The proposed changes would put “enormous new powers” in the hands of “unelected technocrats” — powers that “would be exercised whether the target nation agreed or not,” he explained.

“The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes,” warned Dr. Breggin, adding that these measures could include economic and financial attacks orchestrated by the WHO and its partners.

These attacks would hardly be limited to genuine pandemics. “Under WHO’s approach, it would be difficult to find any important national issue that was not a potential health problem,” warned Dr. Breggin, pointing out that the Communist Chinese regime and Bill Gates were the largest influences at the WHO. “With the imminent passage of the American-sponsored amendments to the International Health Regulations, WHO will have free reign for using these expansive definitions of health to call a crisis over anything it wishes in any nation it desires.”

If the WHO succeeds in advancing its agenda, he added, the most important use of these arbitrary authorities would be against the United States — at least if the American people were ever to elect another anti-globalist government such as the Trump administration. Under Trump, the U.S. government exited and defunded the WHO, though the Biden promptly reversed that upon taking office.

“We need to face that these American-sponsored amendments are a great step toward America voluntarily forfeiting its sovereignty to the New World Order or Great Reset — and that without strong opposition, the ratification of the amendments is a foregone conclusion,” added Dr. Breggin. “Our success or failure in stopping the ratification of these amendments will establish the pattern for the future, including WHO’s ongoing effort to make legally-binding treaties that rob nations of their sovereignty.”

But it is even worse than a loss of sovereignty. Instead, it amounts to handing power over all of humanity to a global class of predatory elites interested not in health, but in power and money, he said.

“In reality; they will be forfeiting their sovereign powers to the global predators who rule the UN and WHO, including the Chinese Communist Party and supporters of the Great Reset, like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and giant foundations and corporations — all of whom benefit from weakening or destroying the sovereignty of the Western nations,” continued Breggin. “Western civilization, and mainly the United States, is all that stands in strong opposition to the globalist takeover of the world, called the New World Order or the Great Reset.”

Already, the WHO and its allies — and the global predators behind the whole machine — have shown their awesome powers. During the COVID crisis, the global agency was the key mechanism for unleashing and coordinating the unprecedented assaults on freedom around the world.

“WHO was highly effective during COVID-19 in implementing the aims of the global predators, led by the groups around Bill Gates and the Chinese Communist Party, in their organized assault and terror campaign against the Western democracies,” Dr. Breggin said. “This purposely resulted in the vast weakening of any potentially anti-globalist, freedom-oriented, patriotic nations, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and others. That success may explain why the global predators chose WHO to now deliver a major and potentially lethal death blow to the sovereignty of the world’s nations.”

If not stopped, the ongoing power grabs would make all of it orders of magnitude worse, he said.

WHO Insider Speaks Out 

In an interview with The New American, Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, a prominent epidemiologist and international health scientist in Geneva and a former WHO official turned whistleblower, also warned that the WHO was the leading force behind the tyranny that enveloped the globe during COVID. Already, the situation is dire.

In defiance of its own IHR, which Dr. Stuckelberger taught at the university level, the WHO used fear-mongering to “issue directives that were totally not commensurate to the situation,” she said. If the amendments are passed, it would get even worse. It all shows that the WHO and its backers such as Bill Gates “have moved now, clearly, into global governance,” Dr. Stuckelberger said. “The way they are handling WHO is not like coordinating member states that can decide for themselves.”

The global model truly came into view over the last two years. “Before, in the IHR, we trained [students] that everything should be customized to countries,” she said. But now, “they have brought everybody to obey one governance, to obey a single standard.” “WHO is now more and more taking power of the world together as the only organization to be able … to direct any epidemic preparedness plan or pandemic intervention plan,” she added.

The dystopian developments are moving from rhetoric to reality. At the WHO’s extraordinary World Health Assembly meeting late last year, member governments were given a document headlined “A Guide to a Pandemic Treaty.” Member states voted to accept the procedures to develop that treaty, which is now underway. “They are so sneaky,” she said. “They are going to take the instrument that will be adopted the quickest, and the instrument likely to be adopted the quickest is the International Health Regulations.”

The WHO “Constitution” — something governments have — is likely in place to help turn the agency into a true global authority with governmental powers, Stuckelberger said. And the outfit’s constitution purports to enshrine a “fundamental right” to the “highest attainable standard of health.” It also calls for the “fullest cooperation of individuals and States.” This is basically a blank check for intervention in people’s lives.

In Article 21 of the WHO Constitution, the World Health Assembly is empowered to “adopt regulations” on everything from “sanitary and quarantine requirements” to “standards” for diagnosing diseases. This is what made possible the global tyranny that enveloped the world in early 2020, as well as the unreliable PCR COVID tests that fed the narrative, said Dr. Stuckelberger, who served as president of the WHO’s Geneva International Network on Ageing.

“We have to be liberated from the United Nations,” said Stuckelberger before urging everyone to contact their elected officials, attorneys, and others in a bid to derail the WHO power grab.

Seeking Even MORE Powers 

Another significant WHO threat to medical freedom, national sovereignty, and self-government comes from the proposed “International Pandemic Treaty” being worked on now behind the scenes. Under the guise of controlling future pandemics, this global agreement would also hand vast new powers to the global “health” organization. Advocates of the treaty are proposing to turn the WHO into a global health ministry with vast powers over every person and government on Earth.

Even actual sanctions on nations whose governments defy their would-be WHO overlords are now being peddled. For instance, WHO boss Tedros claimed that “maybe exploring the sanctions may be important.” Meanwhile, German Health Minister Jens Spahn argued “that countries that fail to follow up on their commitments to the WHO should face sanctions.” This sentiment is widespread among global elites.

Indeed, less than a year ago, an “independent” UN panel of high-level globalists convened by the WHO chief claimed the health agency “needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.” This empowering should include making the WHO more independent, creating new “capacities” (powers) at the global level, and establishing a “new international system for surveillance.”

The UN report, which suggests COVID damage could have been mitigated with more global tyranny, also seeks to bring in the “precautionary principle.” Similar to the “climate” narrative, the precautionary principle involves implementing policies — in this case medical tyranny — as a precaution in response to potential dangers rather than in response to a proven threat.

Offering broad insight into the objectives, the report celebrated regimes such as the Communist Chinese dictatorship for their authoritarian response to COVID. Numerous globalist bigwigs working with the WHO and Beijing such as Gates and Schwab have repeatedly praised the barbaric COVID response by Beijing while condemning jurisdictions that respected individual rights and the rule of law. This was all foreseen as far back as 2010 in the Rockefeller Foundation’s “scenario” dubbed Lockstep involving a hypothetical pandemic.

Even as these battles are raging, totalitarians are already scheming on even more draconian powers over basic rights such as free speech. The WHO itself has been working to silence what it considers “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “conspiracy theories” for years. “We’re not just battling the virus,” said WHO Director-General Tedros in the summer of 2020. “We’re also battling the trolls and conspiracy theorists that push misinformation and undermine the outbreak response.” The WHO was “working closely” with Big Tech firms to censor the web, it boasted. Ironically, the WHO has urged health professionals to lie to parents in order to peddle vaccines.

Opposition Grows as Legal Questions Swirl 

In a memo to the WHO, U.S. Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs Loyce Pace cited almost 50 other governments that support the Biden administration’s proposal. Those include the member governments of the European Union, along with numerous other governments including those in India, Australia, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and more.

Normally, governments would have 18 months to withdraw from the UN WHO scheme. However, in this case, the time period has been shortened to a mere six months. According to experts on WHO processes, if a majority of member governments consent to the amendments, then they will be considered to be part of “international law.” The amendments to the WHO’s regulations are set to be approved by May 28 of this year if not stopped.

Because of the existing international agreement adopted by member WHO member states almost two decades ago, the UN WHO considers any updates to its International Health Regulations to be binding on all nations and all of humanity, legal experts say. Similar machinations were used to impose UN “climate” schemes on the planet without ratification by the U.S. Senate.

However, there are several constitutional issues at hand as far as the United States is concerned. For one, the states that created the U.S. government never delegated these sorts of powers over “health” to the government they established. If the U.S. government lacks a specific authority or power, it certainly cannot hand a power it does not rightfully possess over to another body — at least not without a constitutional amendment.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed as recently as 1957 in the case Reid v. Covert that the U.S. government could not grant new powers to itself — or delegate those powers to other bodies — merely by adopting international agreements. Thomas Jefferson, a key architect of America’s constitutional system, understood that as well. “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless,” he explained in 1803. “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

Neither the WHO nor the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services responded to requests for comment.

In an interview with The New American, journalist and commentator James Rogusky, among the first to sound the alarm on these amendments, called on people to resist while it was still possible. “The time to speak out and stand for your rights is now,” he explained, calling on Americans to share the warnings with those in their sphere of influence and to contact their elected representatives.

In an effort to derail the WHO’s power grab, The John Birch Society recently launched a grassroots effort encouraging lawmakers to nullify the schemes at the state level. “Rather than sitting back and being complacent, state legislators must take bold action to nullify any WHO agreement,” the Society said in a mass email to its national membership.

“Nullification of the WHO’s pandemic treaty wouldn’t be the first time the states have taken such bold action,” the organization’s alert continued. “Among multiple other examples, Alabama in 2012 enacted a strong law banning the implementation of the UN’s Agenda 21 (now Agenda 2030) in the state. Multiple other state legislative chambers passed similar bans.”

Urging activists to contact their lawmakers, the group, which has chapters nationwide, called for strong laws to prohibit implementation and enforcement of the WHO scheme. This could include ensuring that no state or local officials can participate in the enforcement of any actions originating from the WHO or under the authority of its illegitimate agreements.

In an interview with The New American magazine, U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) expressed support for getting out of the UN entirely. “It’s full of dictators, and it’s also something that I don’t think our sovereign government should defer to,” he explained. Legislation to do just that, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, has been regularly introduced in Congress for decades.

Derailing the WHO’s draconian power grab would be a good step in the direction of neutralizing the ever-increasing threat of globalism and international tyranny. However, over the long term, small victories in battles such as this one will not be enough. A full restoration of sovereignty must be the ultimate objective — and this massive attack on humanity by the WHO may be the perfect catalyst to supercharge the movement to stop globalism for good.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your federal representative in the U.S. House and urge them to oppose these dangerous amendments and urge them to enact strong legislation fully preventing the implementation and/or enforcement of the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty.

Read more:

WHO & Global Predators Plot Global “Health” Tyranny

UN Whistleblower: WHO is Tip of the Spear for Global Tyranny

Marxist UN WHO Boss Must Be Put on Trial, Critics Say

Citing Ebola, Obama Boosts UN and Sends Troops to Africa

---

This article was originally published at TheNewAmerican.com.

When it comes to education policy, the Biden administration is making the radicalism of the Obama years look mild by comparison.

The goal is to ultimately replace parents with bureaucrats and “experts” to facilitate the indoctrination of America’s youth. That transformation is accelerating.

Not only are the education system and America’s children being weaponized against America, federal law enforcement is now being weaponized against parents who speak out about it.

If left unchecked, catastrophe awaits. However, the more monstrous the federally directed abuses in schools become, the more outraged Americans join the fight.

The future of the nation is literally on the line in this issue. The outcome of the battle between who will raise children—government or parents—will determine the fate of America.

Parents, Get Out of the Way

The attitude toward parents in Washington has long been hostile. Hillary Clinton famously claimed in 1996 that it “takes a village” to raise children. What she really meant, of course, was a government village.

In fact, during the Obama years, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan publicly called for some children to be in government “boarding schools” 24 hours per day, seven days a week. Others should remain in school, including “after school programming,” for 12 to 14 hours each day, he declared.

A policy document (pdf) drafted by the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services called for home visits by government officials and argued that parents could be “equal partners” with government in the rearing of their children.

But as fringe as those totalitarian views may sound to normal people, the extremism has now been taken to a whole new level under the current administration.

When Republican U.S. Senator Mike Braun of Indiana asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona if parents should be the “primary stakeholder” in the education of their children, it would have been easy to spit one’s coffee on the floor.

“Stakeholder”?! What?

Of course, parents should never be viewed as mere “stakeholders” in the education of their children, “primary” or otherwise. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “stakeholder” is defined as “one that has a stake in an enterprise” or “one who is involved in or affected by a course of action.”

To call a mother or father a “stakeholder” in one of the most important facets of their child’s life is like calling a pilot of a private plane a “stakeholder” in whether his plane will land successfully or not. Technically it’s true. But it’s an outrage nonetheless.

Mothers and fathers should be in charge of their children’s education—not bystanders or “stakeholders.” This has been the case in virtually every human society for millennia. It’s also what the Bible clearly prescribes.

But the Biden administration, by contrast, does not believe parents should have any say in the “education” of children.

Cardona could not even bring himself to concede that parents should be the “primary stakeholders” in their children’s education.

“I believe parents are important stakeholders,” Cardona responded to Braun’s question, adding that “educators” also “have a role in determining educational programming.”

Indeed. That’s a nice way of saying: Parents, get out of the way, the Biden administration and its “experts” know better what and how your child should learn. More on that later.

Democrat Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAullife, who wisely sent his children to private school, famously put it this way in a debate in September: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

Targeting Concerned Parents as ‘Terrorists’

As if matters could not get any worse, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, responding to an outrageous letter from the National Association of School Boards (NASB) painting concerned parents as possible “domestic terrorists,” decided to sic the FBI on moms and dads.

Among other concerns, Garland cited (pdf) “harassment” and “intimidation” by parents against the people brainwashing their kids with critical race theory (CRT), Marxist ideology, gender confusion, hyper-sexualized propaganda, and more. No examples of actual, legitimate threats were cited.

One of the examples of the supposed “threat” cited by the NASB was Scott Smith. What sort of dangerous domestic terrorist was Smith? Well, he was arrested for “disorderly conduct” while trying to tell the school board about his daughter being allegedly sodomized by a male pretending to be a girl in the girls’ restroom under the federally supported “transgender” dictates on bathrooms.

The other examples are equally outlandish: a ticket for “trespassing,” a nasty letter, a “Nazi salute” to protest mandatory face masks, somebody describing the school board as “Marxist,” and similar horrors requiring the might of the federal beast.

This is, of course, not about actual threats or violence, however. It’s naked intimidation of parents who are struggling to make their voices heard.

It’s also the political weaponization of federal law-enforcement in a way that’s unprecedented in American history. In fact, most parallels involve totalitarian dictatorships rather than civilized and free societies.

Fortunately, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and other state and local leaders are working to protect children in their jurisdictions from this outrageous abuse by the Biden administration. But it’s not enough to stop the freight train of evil being pumped into local schools by Washington.

The irony of treating desperate moms and dads as terrorists after pretending not to see months on end of actual domestic terrorism from rioters and looters burning down major American cities and even police precincts defies belief. Welcome to the “new normal.”

Even the former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, Kevin Brock, has warned that the FBI should ignore Garland’s Orwellian directive.

After sparking a firestorm of criticism and alarming Americans across the political spectrum—and after being rebuked by state and local school boards nationwide—the NASB reluctantly apologized.

But nobody with a brain believes for a second that the education establishment would not sic the FBI and Homeland Security on angry parents if it thought it could get away with it.

Targeting State and Local Leaders, Too

Not long before announcing that the FBI and the Department of Justice would be employed to bully and intimidate parents, the Biden administration announced “civil rights” investigations into state leaders that refused to force children to wear masks at school against their parents’ wishes.

The threat, made by Cardona, invoked the communist understanding of “rights” to claim that everyone has a “right” to a government “education.” As such, states that do not force all children to wear face masks are somehow violating the supposed “rights” of some children to an education.

Yes, seriously. This is the so-called logic of the people who have usurped control over “educating” your children for you.

When Florida and other states sought to limit the ability of local school boards to force masks on children against their parents’ wishes, the Biden administration also vowed to send COVID stimulus money to local officials who defied their state government and state law.

Before that, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a video urging children confused about their gender to report their local communities to the feds if government schools did not fully bow down to the “transgenderism” madness being pushed on America from D.C. and Hollywood.

The video, which featured transgender Health and Human Services bigwig Dr. Rachel Levine and senior officials from the Department of Education and the DOJ, gave multiple websites for children to get the feds involved in protecting their “rights” to use opposite-sex bathrooms, play on opposite-sex sports teams, and more.

The message was clear: Trust Biden, not your family or your community. And if anyone interferes with your supposed “right” to shower or relieve yourself or wrestle with members of the opposite sex, team Biden will unleash the fury of the weaponized federal machine.

So far there has been no federal intervention to protect the rights of Scott Smith’s daughter, though.

The Biden Agenda: CRT

At the top of Biden’s “education” agenda is using the education system to further divide parents and children, as well as the nation, while weaponizing impressionable youngsters in the war against their own country and its institutions.

Earlier this year, for example, the Department of Education proposed a “regulation” to inject even more Marxist race-mongering and CRT into public schools nationwide.

Under the scheme, the feds are bribing schools with “grants” and “incentives” paid with U.S. taxpayer money.

Among other elements, the administrative edict creates “American History and Civics Education programs” designed to radically change the teaching of history and civics. Between statements on “systemic racism” and “anti-racist practices,” the nature of the changes being sought is easy to discern.

Indeed, the Department of Education actually cited the debunked “1619 Project,” a fake history narrative addressed in part 17 of this series, as one of the inspirations for the effort.

The New York Times’ propaganda version of history, which has been ridiculed even by left-wing historians for its errors, turns U.S. history on its head. It paints the first nation in history founded on the premise that all are created equal—the first nation where abolition of slavery took root—into a uniquely evil nation with racism and slavery supposedly in its very “DNA.”

Also cited by the Education Department for the proposed regulation was the work of Ibram X. Kendi, one of the premier proponents of CRT and author of books such as “Anti-Racist Baby.”

Among other ideas, Kendi advocates a “Department of Antiracism” that would serve as an unelected racial dictatorship with power to overturn any law or rule it dislikes.

To qualify for the Education Department funding, state and local “education” officials would have to incorporate the administration’s extremist ideologies into the classroom—evil ideologies that divide children by “race” for sinister purposes while teaching a twisted (and false) version of American history and government.

Almost 40 U.S. senators and tens of thousands of citizens in official comments blasted the scheme’s overtly anti-American extremism.

Only after that massive outcry did the administration backtrack even slightly and remove some of the most outrageous language and references. But the somewhat scaled-back rule was still implemented, and the vision remains clear despite the attempted obfuscation.

To illustrate just how committed the administration is to this poison, in early October they appointed political activist Precious McKesson to a senior post at the Education Department. McKesson is a strong advocate of CRT, and she even recently expressed her support for teaching all children about the alleged “systemic racism” of America.

Ironically, perhaps, Garland’s son-in-law’s company reportedly supports CRT teaching in government schools, sparking concerns about a potential conflict of interest in the decision to sic the feds on parents.

The O’Biden Agenda: Centralize and Get Them Young!

The proposed $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” abomination that Biden and congressional Democrats are trying to ram through Congress without the support of a single Republican is packed with “education” gimmicks, too. If approved, the descent into collective madness will accelerate.

One of the major schemes Biden and his handlers are trying to get through, this time with the “Reconciliation” bill, is a $200 billion program for universal pre-kindergarten. The goal: Get all of America’s children into government indoctrination programs even earlier.

Under the proposed plan, which may be rammed through Congress on a partisan vote with no filibusters allowed, all children in America ages 3 and 4 would receive federally directed, tax-funded “pre-K” through government schools.

None of this should be surprising. During the Obama years, the same warped view of “education” and parents reigned in Washington and throughout the monstrosity improperly referred to as the nation’s “public education” system.

Common Core, for example, was used to cement national standards into place using bullying and bribes from the stimulus slush fund.

And lest anyone think this was actually about “improving” education, the federal government funded a study showing “significant negative effects” on grade 4 reading after the standards were put in place. Less than one third of the victims of government school at grade 8 are proficient in core subjects, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveals.

But academic achievement was never really the goal. Under Obama and Common Core, parents and elected school boards were out, while D.C. bureaucrats and special-interest groups funded by billionaire profiteers were in.

The plan succeeded wildly, with parents nationwide unable to help their children with “Common Core” math while states and school districts struggle for breathing room in the straitjacket of the national standards.

Also under Obama, federally funded so-called Full-Service Community Schools revealed perhaps the most brazen attempt to sideline parents in American history. These federally backed institutions, which are now scattered across the nation, promise to handle the dental health, mental health, nutritional needs, and much more for every child in their “care.”

It would be more honest to refer to these institutions as “parental replacement centers,” but of course those behind the agenda would never be so honest.

As explored in part 10 of this series, this federal usurpation of authority over families and schools accelerated rapidly under Obama. It’s now reaching a climax under Biden. And it has resulted in the absolute decimation of whatever may have once been decent in America’s disastrous “education” system.

From the 1960s’ U.S. Supreme Court opinions imposing humanism and ousting Christianity to the federal funding that eventually paved the way for control over standards and so much else, Washington’s influence over schools has been toxic from the start.

Under Obama and now Biden, the globalization of the indoctrination system described in part 9 of this series also came out of the closet, with Obama’s Education Secretary referring to the U.N. education agency as his “global partner” in the process.

Indeed, Common Core’s own architects and proponents bragged that the controversial standards were aligned with “international standards” even as training for “global citizenship” became ubiquitous.

This is about more than the government simply brainwashing your children. This is about removing you from the picture almost entirely so that the forces of wickedness, perversion, and tyranny can poison your children’s minds and souls unimpeded by pesky parents.

As this series has documented extensively, this was always the goal of the “education” establishment going back to the Utopian and even socialist architects of the system: communist Robert Owen, collectivist Utopian Horace Mann, and socialist–humanist luminary John Dewey.

Obviously, attending school board meetings to express concerns is not a viable strategy for protecting children. In fact, it may even lead to harassment and intimidation from the politicized and disgraced FBI. It may be worth doing, but it will not save your children.

While it’s critical for parents to be involved and for state and local government to resist the Biden administration’s escalating attacks, the only true long-term solution is an exodus from the government’s indoctrination system.

---

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.

The New York Times reached a new low in silliness, ignorance, and alarmism—or would that be new high—with this headline on Sunday: “‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration.” What this silly, ignorant, alarmist headline is referring to is the Trump Administration’s reasonable and increasingly necessary decision to make clear that when Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 refers to “sex,” it meant and still means biological sex. Ever-cunning, slippery-as-eels “progressives” at the NYTimes said this:

The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people under federal civil rights law.

A series of decisions by the Obama administration loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth. The policy prompted fights over bathrooms, dormitories, single-sex programs and other arenas where gender was once seen as a simple concept. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians, were incensed.

…

The department argued in its memo that key government agencies needed to adopt an explicit and uniform definition of gender as determined “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.” The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times. Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.

Do you see the cunning rhetorical slipperiness? In the good old days when everyone acknowledged the difference between girls and boys, and women and men, “sex” and “gender” were used interchangeably. But no more. “Progressives” relentlessly pontificate that “sex” and “gender” denote wholly different ontological realities, and yet, in this article, the authors keep slipping between the two definitions.

According to “trans” activists and their “progressive” disciples, “sex” refers to an objective, immutable biological reality determined by genes and revealed in anatomy and reproductive processes—pretty much the same as the Trump Administration is proposing to do. In contrast, in our brave new sexually ambiguous, socially constructed, phantasmagorical world, Leftists preach that “gender” denotes the socially constructed roles, conventions, behaviors, and expectations arbitrarily associated with males and females. “Gender identity” denotes the subjective, internal feelings one has about one’s maleness or femaleness, some combination thereof, or rejection of both.

The NYTimes falsely claimed that the Obama Administration “loosened the legal concept of gender in federal programs, including in education and health care, recognizing gender largely as an individual’s choice and not determined by the sex assigned at birth.”

First, a baby’s sex is not assigned at birth. A baby’s sex—which never changes—is identified at birth.

Second, the Obama Administration did not loosen the legal concept of “gender.” The Obama Administration attempted to circumvent Federal law by redefining the term “sex” by edict, proclaiming that in Title IX the term “sex” includes the subjective, internal, non-material experience referred to as “gender identity.” It is long past time that this brazen usurpation of legislative authority be administratively refuted.

Obama’s presumptuous “gender identity” edicts to multiple government agencies, including the departments of Education, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; and General Administration Services, are based on the subjective beliefs of “progressives” that biological sex has no meaning or importance relative to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy that derive from sexual differentiation.

These edicts are based on the non-factual, quasi-religious belief that in private spaces shared by persons unrelated by blood or marriage—including strangers—subjective feelings about one’s maleness or femaleness should supersede objective, immutable biological sex. No explanation is ever provided, however, as to why exactly subjective feelings should trump objective biological sex in determining private space-usage policies.

And these edicts depend on the incoherent belief that, while it’s reasonable and legitimate for women to oppose performing bodily functions or undressing in the near vicinity of objectively male strangers, it’s not reasonable or legitimate for women to oppose performing bodily functions or undressing in the near vicinity of male strangers who seek to pass as women.

Leftists argue that the disguises of some passers are so convincing that their presence in the private spaces of same-sex persons will be disturbing. They’re right. If, for example, a woman has transformed her appearance through body-mutilating surgery, cross-sex-hormone-doping and cross-dressing, her presence in women’s facilities will be disturbing. But this raises several issues:

1.) It is a tacit acknowledgement by Leftists that biological sex matters. They base their justification of the use of opposite-sex facilities by “trans”-identifying men and women on their appearance as the sex they wish they were. So, if a man has used surgery and chemicals to create the verisimilitude of a female body, he believes his superficial, medically-constructed material self matters. But if women think biological sex as revealed in unaltered bodily materiality matters and, therefore, don’t want persons who are objectively male in their private spaces, they are deemed hateful, exclusionary, bigoted “transphobes.”

2.) At the same time, arguing that elaborate disguises should grant passers access to opposite-sex private spaces reinforces the very gender stereotypes “progressives” claim are arbitrary and socially constructed. While arguing out of one side of their mouths that “gender” is an arbitrary social construct, they argue out of the other side that these arbitrary social constructs (e.g., liking stereotypical female activities and wearing dresses) are definitive signs of essential femaleness that should grant them carte blanche access to women’s private spaces.

3.) Passing raises the question of whether deceit justifies or legitimizes unethical behavior. In other words, if it’s legitimate, reasonable, and justifiable for men and women to oppose changing clothes or performing bodily functions in the near vicinity of opposite-sex strangers, does disguising one’s biological sex through dress, chemicals, and/or surgery make invasion of someone else’s privacy legitimate, reasonable, and justifiable? If so, is voyeurism ethically justifiable so long as no one knows it’s happening? To be clear, I’m not equating voyeurism to sexual passing. Rather, I’m suggesting that if concealing one’s sex justifies otherwise unethical invasion of privacy, does concealing one’s presence justify otherwise unethical peeping?

4.) Finally, the problem of which facilities passers in really convincing disguises should use is a problem of the Left’s making. It is they who are attempting to socially construct a bizarre alternate reality that pretends the human species is not sexually dimorphic and that men’s and women’s non-material essences can be trapped in opposite-sex bodies. It is they who then exploit the government to try to impose this unreality on everyone, falsely claiming that the sexual integration of private spaces is required by commitments to equality, inclusivity, and compassion. (One foolish devotee of the “trans” superstition recently told me that equality demands that “transwomen” be treated exactly like women. She means that men who pretend to be women should be treated exactly like women, which is the inverse of what equality demands. Equality demands that like things be treated alike.)

Back to the title “‘Transgender’ Could Be Defined Out of Existence Under Trump Administration.” In case the writers haven’t noticed, it was Obama and his accomplices who tried to define “sex” out of existence in Title IX. In making explicit that Title IX says nothing about either “transgender” or  “gender identity,” the Trump Administration does not define out of existence persons who choose to identify as “trans.” What it does is make clear that the term “sex” refers to, denotes, and corresponds to objective, immutable biological sex. Only a leftist could believe that phenomena that have objective existence can be “defined out of existence”—you know, like claiming “women can have penises” or that “transwomen are women.”

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Trump-Administration-Stands-for-Biological-Reality-and-Sexual-Sanity.mp3

Read more:

Stuff You Should Know About “Trans”-Cultism

55 Members of American Academy of Pediatrics Devise Destructive “Trans” Policy

Leftists Redefine Bullying

---

 

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-