Calls for a “Green New Deal” are rapidly building on the U.S. left. Promoted by openly socialist congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the proposal calls for mass wealth redistribution, a federal jobs program, socialized health care, guaranteed minimum incomes, and the elimination of all fossil fuels from the U.S. economy by 2030, all in the name of fighting “climate change.”
n reality the Green New Deal is a deeply socialist plan formulated and promoted by bona fide communist groups.
The Green New Deal, which only a few years ago would have been labelled as crackpot utopianism, is heralded on the left as a serious program for addressing environmental issues and social inequalities.
So far, more than 45 leftist Democrats in Congress have endorsed the project, including likely 2020 presidential candidates Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and declared presidential candidates Sens. Kamala Harris (D.-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Former presidential candidate Al Gore has called the Green New Deal “part of the answer to global inequality.”
So far House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has balked at Ocasio-Cortez’s call for a Congressional Select Committee on the Green New Deal—but the idea still has momentum.
Christy Goldfuss, who was the managing director of the Council on Environmental Quality under President Barack Obama and now leads the energy and environmental team at the Democratic Party’s think tank the Center for American Progress, told the New Yorker that she had noticed the Green New Deal’s influence on senior Democrats.
“People are asking how are we going to address climate change at scale, not what’s our building-block approach,” Goldfuss said. “For me, that is a huge, huge shift, and it would not have happened if the Green New Deal had not come along.”
The Green New Deal, which “has come to define the progressive cause in Washington,” according to the New Yorker, has existed in several forms for years. The proposal echoes a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report from October 2008, when UNEP’s Executive Director Achim Steiner unveiled the Global Green New Deal initiative, which aimed at transforming the world’s economy and combating climate change through creating jobs in “green” industries. The Green Party USA has also promoted a Green New Deal, which includes massive defense cuts, for several years.
Significantly, the Manhattan-based Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung (RLS) has discussed the concept since at least 2013.
“A Green New Deal is concerned with a just transition to a more sustainable economy, with improved provision of public services, and with strict regulation of polluters and financial speculators. While there is much promise in this approach, it contains unresolved contradictions and has been blocked by hostile forces. Moreover, it is unclear whether this agenda is adequate to the challenge posed by climate change,” stated the introduction to an RLS report.
“Building green socialism may be the only way to emerge from this time of crisis with a society that treads lightly on the earth while enabling a full range of human flourishing.”
descendant of the former Stalinist East German Communist Party. The RLS works closely with the United States’ largest Marxist organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the pro-China Freedom Road Socialist Organization (FRSO), as well as the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), all of which are fully behind the Green New Deal.
Who’s Behind the Green New Deal?
The current Green New Deal exists in its “most authoritative form” as an 11-page Google Doc, according to the New Yorker: “The document was written over a single December 2018 weekend by the staff of the freshman representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and three like-minded progressive groups: the Sunrise Movement, a grassroots climate organization; the Justice Democrats, which recruits and supports progressive candidates; and an upstart policy shop called the New Consensus.”
All three of these groups are spin-offs of a New York City-based revolutionary training organization called “Momentum.”
According to Momentum’s website: “>We see two dominant traditions of organizing in the United States: structure-based organizing and mass protest. In the structure-based tradition, developed by Saul Alinsky and others, organizers start with one-on-one relationships to develop leadership and build a base that can advocate for the needs of particular constituencies. Structure-based organizations, such as community organizations and labor unions, make instrumental demands, using the base’s leverage over policymakers to win concrete reforms for their members. By contrast, in the mass protest tradition, autonomous groups of individuals create polarizing moments that inspire thousands of unaffiliated people to take to the streets around symbolic, popular social issues.
“The Momentum model fuses the strengths of the structure-based organizing and mass protest to seed a new tradition of organizing in the United States. Momentum synthesizes the lessons of various 20th century movements, including the Color Revolutions of Eastern Europe and the Arab Spring in North Africa.”
Momentum boasts of training activists from groups “doing some of the most important movement-building” in the United States, including “Black Lives Matter, Dream Defenders, BYP100, United We Dream, Showing Up For Racial Justice, 350.org, National People’s Action, PICO, and more.” All of these groups are front groups or close affiliates of the FRSO.
The Sunrise Movement, with established groups in several major cities, is the main cheerleader for the Green New Deal. Sunrise has heavily recruited activists from the DSA- and FRSO-affiliated groups, such as the Pennsylvania Student Power Network.
For instance, Stephen O’Hanlon is a former member of the Pennsylvania Student Power Network and founder and national field director of the Sunrise Movement.
The Sunrise Movement is openly endorsed by the DSA and several FRSO-affiliated groups, including Bay Area-based Green For All, which was founded by one-time Maoist and former Obama administration “green jobs czar” Van Jones.
The Justice Democrats, then co-run by Ocasio-Cortez (before she decided to run for Congress and join the DSA), backed dozens of far-left Democrats in the last election cycle, electing seven of them. Over 40 percent of their 78 endorsed candidates were either DSA members or endorsees. Several more were from the FRSO or CPUSA orbits.
The Justice Democrats also partnered closely with Brand New Congress, which is governed largely by DSA members.
New Consensus provides the theoretical backbone for the Green New Deal.
According to E&E News: “A policy group is being formed to support an energized progressive movement that’s taken Capitol Hill by storm under the leadership of Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
“It’s called the New Consensus.
“The 501c(3) nonprofit is in the process of being formed to provide a policy platform that will underpin the ambitious—and increasingly politically popular—Green New Deal aimed at weaning the United States off fossil fuels, boosting renewables and clean energy jobs, and building a ‘smart’ grid.
“Front and center will be Rhiana Gunn-Wright, a 29-year-old Yale graduate and Rhodes scholar who will serve as the group’s policy director working to flesh out details of the plan.“
Gunn-Wright was a policy team intern for former first lady Michelle Obama. In 2018, she served as policy director for the far-left Abdul El-Sayed in his unsuccessful gubernatorial run in Michigan. Gunn-Wright put together a “uniquely comprehensive suite of policy proposals, including a commitment to establishing a $15 minimum wage; tuition-free college for Michiganders with family income under $150,000; aggressive criminal justice reform; and the most detailed state-level single-payer health care plan ever,” according to The Intercept.
El-Sayed’s Deputy Campaign Manager Claire Sandberg traveled to Germany in September 2018 with DSA member and RLS staffer Winnie Wong. The pair held a meeting in the German Bundestag with members of the crypto-communist organization Die Linke.
Sandberg was also a founder of another short-lived Momentum spinoff, “We Will Replace You,” which aimed to target “centrist” Democrats not on board with the far-left’s agenda. One of her fellow co-founders, Waleed Shahid, was a Momentum leader, spokesman for the Justice Democrats, and served as policy director on Cynthia Nixon’s DSA-endorsed campaign for governor of New York.
FRSO General Secretary Sendolo Diaminah served as an official “adviser” to We Will Replace You.
The Green New Deal is a thoroughly socialist program conceived of and promoted by communists.
The DSA, FRSO, and CPUSA are all behind the Green New Deal. Even the Stalinist League of Revolutionaries for a New America, which supports North Korea, Iran, and the Russian annexation of part of the Ukraine, has backed the plan
It’s not surprising that communists are behind the Green New Deal. What is shocking is how many Democrats are willing to run with it. Some are even saying it will feature heavily in their 2020 campaign.
Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.
A Chinese naval officer communicates with his French counterparts during a joint exercise 16 March 2004, in the East China Sea STR/AFP/Getty Images
By Trevor Loudon | The Epoch Times | January 22, 2019 Updated: February 4, 2019
This article is Part 1 of a two-part series on the “Green New Deal.” Part 2 will address the organizations promoting this massive socialist proposal.
The “Green New Deal” currently being promoted by socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will halve the U.S. military budget. The proposal, which enjoys support of more than 40 other Democratic representatives, is a plan to re-organize the U.S. economy along what is deemed to be ecologically sound lines.
If fully implemented, the Green New Deal will at best plunge the world into a massive war or, at worst, into an unprecedented permanent tyranny.
Unsurprisingly, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) supports Ocasio-Cortez’s plan. After all, she is a member of the United States’ largest Marxist organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which is formally allied to the CPUSA through the Left Inside/Outside Project.
Cuts to Defense
The Green New Deal, described euphemistically by The New York Times as “a call to reimagine an environment-first economy that would phase out fossil fuels,” promotes massive government jobs programs, guaranteed incomes for all, and a whole raft of hugely socialist proposals.
These huge programs will be paid for out of the U.S. defense budget. The Green New Deal calls for cutting U.S. “military spending by at least half” and to close “800 [U.S. military] bases worldwide.”
Right now, the neo-“Evil Axis” of China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are re-arming at breakneck speed.
Beijing, for example, is openly threatening Taiwan, which is creating grave concern in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, the Pacific micro-states, Australia, and this author’s country of New Zealand. China is building around 60 military vessels a year right now. The United States is building less than 10 military vessels per year and, thanks to former President Obama, has the weakest Navy in decades.
The commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Philip S. Davidson, stated in April 2018 that “China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States,” during his Senate confirmation process.
If U.S. military spending was halved and all U.S. bases west of Pearl Harbor (maybe even including Pearl Harbor) were abolished, what would stop China from dominating the whole Asia-Pacific region? What would that do to U.S. trade relationships and national security capabilities?
Halving U.S. military spending almost guarantees an invasion of Taiwan and the extension of Chinese power right across the Asia-Pacific region. As China already has huge influence in South America and Africa, it would effectively deliver the Southern Hemisphere to China. Russia may not take advantage of U.S. impotence and re-conquer Europe, Iran may not attack Israel and Saudi Arabia, and North Korea may not join in the fun, but this author would not bet on it.
The Green New Deal may not give us World War III—but only because America will be too weak to fight back.
Communist Party USA Support
As mentioned previously, the neo-Evil Axis’s most reliable ally in the United States, the CPUSA, is heavily promoting the Green New Deal.
In a recent presentation to the CPUSA National Board, published online Jan. 7, party chairman John Bachtell urged comrades to get behind the Green New Deal. Bachtell told his comrades: “We have to be seen as being all in on this [Green New Deal] and publicly associated with it.”
Bachtell continued: “We have to think about the Peace New Deal [as well]. … This whole thing has to be connected with the demilitarization of the economy as well.”
Bachtell told the comrades that DSA member Joe Uehlein of the far-left Labor Network for Sustainability, a major backer of the Green New Deal project, estimated the cost of eliminating fossil fuels and implementing a sustainable-energy-only policy would cost up to $10 trillion, which Bachtell explained would come from the “demilitarization of the economy.”
$10 trillion would cover all current U.S. military spending for a decade. As the Green New Deal is supposed to be implemented by 2030, this proposal would mean that the U.S. military budget would be virtually eliminated. That doesn’t even account for the colossal drop in industrial production and trade that would inevitably occur. <
The Green New Deal would effectively end the U.S. military as an effective fighting force and spell the end of NATO and all other Western military alliances.
Would China and its neo-Evil Axis partners sit back while all this unfolded, or would they take advantage of the opportunity to expand their economic and military influence at the United States’ expense?
Considering that the CPUSA is loyal to China, and not to the United States, their support for the Green New Deal is a given. Consider the words from a CPUSA advertisement for a meeting at the Niebyl-Proctor Marxist Library in Oakland, California, held on Dec. 4, 2010:
“The United States government has been committing direct acts of provocation against China’s economy, and other aspects of its society, including its military. …If these confrontations are allowed to become full-blown, it … will demand from all of us new energies on yet another—perhaps the biggest—domestic front against U.S. Imperialism.”
In other words, if the United States gets into a shooting war with China, the CPUSA will work on U.S. soil to help America’s enemy. Of course, this is the very definition of treason.
If the CPUSA is willing to work for China during war-time, why would they not work in peace-time to sabotage the U.S. economy, or to destroy the U.S. military to the benefit of their masters in Beijing?
Bachtell also told the CPUSA National Committee earlier this month that the Green New Deal is “potentially the embarking point for our path to a sustainable socialist society.”
Bachtell claimed that the idea could “frame the entire debate for the 2020 elections.” Also, that it could “isolate the right-wing” and that this, according to Ocasio-Cortez, could “spell the doom of the Republican Party.”
If the DSA and the CPUSA succeed in forcing the Democrats into implementing the Green New Deal, the ramifications are inconceivable. America would cease to be America and would become ripe fruit to be picked by China, Russia, Iran, and/or North Korea.
The Green New Deal is a national suicide pact.
Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.
Bolivian President Evo Morales presents Pope Francis with a crucifix incorporating the hammer and sickle symbol during a meeting at the presidential palace in La Paz. Photo: Juan Carlos Usnayo/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
To my Catholic friends, while I am loathe to criticize that which they hold dear, there comes a time when silence is the wrong answer. When Pope Francis first surfaced, I thought he had the potential to be a great Pope. But with the potential of greatness, also comes the opportunity of infamy. Pope Francis is a Marxist and embodies many, many principles that I stand against, not only as a Constitutional Conservative, but as a Christian. This last week just solidified my uneasiness concerning this Pope.
The Bolivian President, Evo Morales (who Trevor Loudon and I have long contended is a Marxist), presented the Pontiff with a crucifix depicting Jesus nailed to a hammer and sickle, which the Pope returned after a brief examination. What is under contention is what the Pope said when presented with the gift. His comments were pretty much drowned out by a flurry of camera clicks. While some have claimed he expressed irritation, muttering the words “eso no está bien” (“this is not right”), Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said the Pope more likely said “no sabía eso” (“I didn’t know that”) in bemusement at the origins of the present. Which would make sense as NewsBusters and the Wall Street Journal noted, President Morales also “draped a medallion over [the pope’s] neck that bore the hammer and sickle.”
Communism has murdered well over one hundred million people in the last century alone. Many, many of those were Christians. As Ann Barnhardt put it, “Our Blessed Lord and Savior shown crucified on a hammer and sickle is, by all metrics, worse than Our Lord shown crucified on a swastika.” This constitutes blasphemy for me – Pope or not.
I also disagree that the Pope is being manipulated for ideological reasons. I think he knows full well what he is doing. We seem to have a knee-jerk response now when a leader does something unspeakable, unforgivable or outright evil – he/she didn’t know what they were doing… they were incompetent… or they were being manipulated. Knock it off! These people are not stupid; they are not rubes or babes in the woods who are so easily misled. (That’s not to say that they weren’t misled in very early life, ref. Proverbs 22:6 “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” That is to say, if you can indoctrinate someone in his early youth, you won’t need to sway him later: he’s already in your groove, and his decisions and choices will reflect that, not some imagined confusion of the moment.)
As for the Bolivian government insisting there was no political motive behind the gift and the Communications Minister, Marianela Paco, saying that Morales had thought the “Pope of the poor” would appreciate the gesture… bull crap. It’s the melding of politics and religion into a nightmarish agenda that is apocalyptic in scope and intent.
José Ignacio Munilla, bishop of the Spanish city of San Sebastián, tweeted a picture of the encounter, with the words: “The height of pride is to manipulate God in the service of atheist ideologies.” That is exactly right – on all counts, concerning all parties involved. It’s hard to overstate how important that observation is.
The Pope, after arriving in Bolivia, stopped to pray at the death site of Luis Espinal, a Jesuit murdered by Bolivian paramilitary forces in 1980. Espinal is being painted in press reports as a reformer who stood against the military dictatorship in Bolivia. Pope Francis also reportedly received a medal, bearing a hammer and sickle from Morales that was issued in memory of Espinal’s death.
Father Albo showed a reporter a published photo of a crucified Christ attached to a homemade hammer and sickle, instead of a cross, that Father Espinal kept by his bed.
“He was of the left. This is certain. But he never belonged to any party or pretended to be part of one,” said Father Albo, who said he hopes to present a replica of the hammer and sickle crucifix to the pope.
Father Espinal “gave a lot of importance to the dialogue between Marxists and Christians,” he explained. “It was not pro-Soviet … (it was) the need for the church to be close to the popular sectors. Some understand this, others don’t. To me it is very clear.”
It was said that the Pope wasn’t offended by Morales’ gift. “You can dispute the significance and use of the symbol now, but the origin is from Espinal and the sense of it was about an open dialogue, not about a specific ideology,” Lombardi said. Nope, it was all about ideology. This Argentinian Pope has been roundly criticized by many Marxists for not protecting Leftist priests during the military dictatorship in his country. Since becoming Pope, he has made major strides in bringing Liberation Theology to the fore in the Vatican. Thus, his campaigning for massive social and political change. This is Christianized Marxism. The irony of that term has to be savored. Kind of like “therapeutic cancer.”
Although Liberation Theology has grown into an international and inter-denominational movement, it began as a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s–1960s. It is purported that Liberation Theology arose principally as a moral reaction to the poverty seen as having been caused by social injustice in that region. But its roots are solidly Marxist. The term was coined in 1971 by the Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutiérrez, who wrote one of the movement’s most famous books, A Theology of Liberation.
Latin American Liberation Theology met opposition from others in the US, who accused it of using “Marxist concepts” and that lead to admonishment by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in 1984 and 1986. The Vatican disliked certain forms of Latin American Liberation Theology for focusing on institutionalized or systemic sin; and for identifying Catholic Church hierarchy in South America as members of the same privileged class that had long been oppressing indigenous populations.
Pope Francis used his trip to Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay to highlight problems faced by indigenous communities and to warn against “all totalitarian, ideological or sectarian schemes.” That sounds very good. However, it started to go off the rails when he urged the downtrodden to change the world economic order, denouncing a “new colonialism” by agencies that impose austerity programs and calling for the poor to have the “sacred rights” of labor, lodging and land. That’s sheer Marxism. And exactly what does he mean by ‘austerity programs?’ You mean the over taxing of the general populace in order that elitists can keep up their glutinous spending sprees? Or do you mean austerity as in cutting spending, sticking to a budget and reducing debts? It certainly makes a difference on how the term is being used here.
His speech was preceded by lengthy remarks from the Left-wing Bolivian President Evo Morales, who wore a jacket adorned with the face of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Che was executed in Bolivia in 1967 by CIA-backed Bolivian troops. That certainly set the stage for Pope Francis and his speech.
Then the Pope gave a magnanimous and historic speech asking for forgiveness for the sins committed by the Roman Catholic Church in its treatment of Native Americans during what he called the “so-called conquest of America.” This is highly offensive and revisionist – it is skewed history. It’s true that American Indians were slaughtered by evil men and eventually, after a length of time, the colonists took over America. It is also true that Indians slaughtered many of the settlers and in horrific ways. Conquest and war are facts of history by the way, something Europe and the Vatican are very familiar with. It is a human condition that is ongoing and never ending as populations replace each other and wars rage on. He’s apologizing as though the Catholic Church had set out to do those things… it didn’t. Men did those things in the name of governments and in the name of the church. Apologizing for the deeds of men who acted on their own volition, but in your name, is to presume responsibility and control of actions over which the church had neither. The colonists did not set out to ‘conquer’ America either. They fled persecution in Europe and wanted to build new lives for themselves. Conflict came with Native Americans and the rest is history. Yes, evil was done, but that evil was not the totality of the story or our history and it certainly was not one-sided. It is also not something we need to ‘apologize’ for.
Then Pope Francis uttered my favorite quote – he quoted a fourth century bishop and called the unfettered pursuit of money “the dung of the devil,” and said poor countries should not be reduced to being providers of raw material and cheap labor for developed countries. Actually, when I heard the original quote, it said ‘capitalism’ not ‘money.’ While seeking unlimited riches can be a sin, it is not always so and not all wealthy people are guilty of this sin. It is also true that poor countries should not be treated as merely sources of materials and labor, however, those countries also benefit from that part of the economy. Countries are free to prosper and if more lived under free capitalistic governments where free trade was the norm and people were allowed to innovate and work for themselves, then there would be far fewer impoverished countries. But first, you’d have to get rid of the Marxists and dictators. Kind of a conundrum.
For dessert, the Pope repeated some of his encyclical on climate change. That’s Marxism on a global scale and smacks of fascism as well. It’s a twofer. Climate change is a seductive lie wrapped in a green package, but it is rotten from the inside out.
The Pope closes with what sounds to me like the echoes of Barack Obama and communism:
“Let us not be afraid to say it: we want change, real change, structural change,” the pope said, decrying a system that “has imposed the mentality of profit at any price, with no concern for social exclusion or the destruction of nature.“
“This system is by now intolerable: farm workers find it intolerable, laborers find it intolerable, communities find it intolerable, peoples find it intolerable The Earth itself – our sister, Mother Earth, as Saint Francis would say – also finds it intolerable,” he said in an hour-long speech that was interrupted by applause and cheering dozens of times.
And the useful idiots cheered on even when they knew in their heart of hearts that all of the above is nothing more than a call to follow those that would rule over us, using Mother Earth as a handy excuse and targeting for blame the engines of free enterprise, using language meant to equate it with greed, while overlooking the primary source of real greed: corrupt totalitarian governments, born of Marxism.
Pope Francis was not finished by any means concerning ‘colonialism’:
“No actual or established power has the right to deprive peoples of the full exercise of their sovereignty. Whenever they do so, we see the rise of new forms of colonialism which seriously prejudice the possibility of peace and justice,” he said.
“The new colonialism takes on different faces. At times it appears as the anonymous influence of mammon: corporations, loan agencies, certain ‘free trade’ treaties, and the imposition of measures of ‘austerity’ which always tighten the belt of workers and the poor,” he said.
Last week, Francis called on European authorities to keep human dignity at the centre of debate for a solution to the economic crisis in Greece.
He defended labor unions and praised poor people who had formed cooperatives to create jobs where previously “there were only crumbs of an idolatrous economy”.
The Pope even went so far as to praise Bolivia’s social reforms to spread wealth under Morales. That’s wealth redistribution and again, Marxism. But that is only scratching the surface on this Pope – there is oh, so much more to be concerned about when it comes to Pope Francis.
My friend and colleague (and someone I truly admire) Cliff Kincaid has done excellent research into Pope Francis and his doings. Americans need to take note who has the ear of this Pope:
Top Vatican adviser Jeffrey Sachs says that when Pope Francis visits the United States in September, he will directly challenge the “American idea” of God-given rights embodied in the Declaration of Independence.
Sachs, a special advisor to the United Nations and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is a media superstar who can always be counted on to pontificate endlessly on such topics as income inequality and global health. This time, writing in a Catholic publication, he may have gone off his rocker, revealing the real global game plan.
The United States, Sachs writes in the Jesuit publication America, is “a society in thrall” to the idea of unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the “urgent core of Francis’ message” will be to challenge this “American idea” by “proclaiming that the path to happiness lies not solely or mainly through the defense of rights but through the exercise of virtues, most notably justice and charity.”
In these extraordinary comments, which constitute a frontal assault on the American idea of freedom and national sovereignty, Sachs has made it clear that he hopes to enlist the Vatican in a global campaign to increase the power of global or foreign-dominated organizations and movements.
Sachs takes aim at the phrase from America’s founding document, the United States Declaration of Independence, that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
These rights sound good, Sachs writes, but they’re not enough to guarantee the outcome the global elites have devised for us. Global government, he suggests, must make us live our lives according to international standards of development.
Sachs is putting forth that the UN should be in charge of all national and individual rights. That we have to sacrifice our individual rights for the greater, collective good. What hive mentality. He’s also for massive global taxation, population control and one world government. “We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes,” he wrote. “A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin. Even a very small tax, less than that which is needed to correct humanity’s climate-deforming overuse of fossil fuels, would finance a greatly enhanced supply of global public goods.” The bill he wants to stick the US with is $845 billion.
The Pope has not only aligned himself with Sachs, but with the UN’s Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, who told a Catholic Caritas International conference in Rome on May 12th that climate change is “the defining challenge of our time,” and that the solution lies in recognizing that “humankind is part of nature, not separate or above.” The pope’s encyclical on climate change is supposed to help mobilize the governments of the world in this crusade. This spells slavery for the world and an all-powerful tyrannical elite who will ruthlessly rule us through Marxist politics and a one world religion.
Sachs is not alone in his ideas. A short time ago, former President Shimon Peres met with the Pope at the Vatican and proposed that the Pope head up a UN for religions. I kid you not.
But the main topic of conversation was Peres’s idea to create a UN-like organization he called “the United Religions.”
Peres said the Argentina-born pontiff was the only world figure respected enough to bring an end to the wars raging in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world.
“In the past, most of the wars in the world were motivated by the idea of nationhood,” Peres said. “But today, wars are incited using religion as an excuse.”
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi confirmed to reporters that Peres had pitched his idea for “the United Religions” but said Francis did not commit to it.
“The pope listened, showing his interest, attention, and encouragement,” Lombardi said, adding that the pope pointed to the Pontifical Councils for Interreligious Dialogue and for Justice and Peace as existing agencies “suitable” for supporting interfaith peace initiatives.
The meeting in September was the third one inside of four months. In an interview in the Catholic Magazine Famiglia Cristiana, Peres also called for the Pope to lead the inter-religious organization in order to curb terrorism: “What we need is an organization of United Religions… as the best way to combat terrorists who kill in the name of faith.” I literally cannot believe what I am hearing. This could well be the birth of a one world religion. This looks suspiciously like a move to reclaim the lost glory of the Church, harking back to those centuries when it held sway ’round the world, commanding fealty from kings and nobility. This “progressive” innovation is really a reactionary repackaging of the most sweeping colonialism in history. With one tongue they “condemn” colonialism, while with the other tongue they offer global subservience as the “solution” to the demon du jour.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The Pope is offering the masses the opium of Marxism in his stances. The question is, will the world follow him down this path? So many these days just want someone to give them everything and take care of them… they hunger for a leader who will absolve them of their sins and promise them forgiveness and welcome them with open arms. Will people, in the name of peace, usher in a one world order and willingly give up their freedoms? I’m afraid history says they will, but I know Americans, Christians and others will not be assimilated so easily by Marxist musings and flowery articulation. Pontification will only carry you so far – if you follow this pied piper, you will find yourself in the loving embrace of the UN – that Democracy of Dictators – and all that entails.