Guatemala Takes a Stand that Others Should Follow
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Early last December, the Supreme Court of Guatemala, in a very important and welcome decision, dealt a deserved rebuke to domestic and worldwide pro-abortion forces and to the United Nations.
Having discovered that a pro-abortion manual was being circulated through the country, opponents of abortion went to court to have it banned. The small Central American nation’s laws bar abortion from the moment of conception. Its pro-life forces pointed to the manual’s promotion of abortion as a “right,” and its employment of such phrases as the “right to safe abortion” and “pregnancy termination” as clear evidence of what the manual countenanced.
In its ruling, the high court refused to be swayed by arguments based on the widespread and growing liberalization of abortion laws in other nations. Guatemala’s judges insisted that pointing to abortion being practiced elsewhere shouldn’t matter when “annihilating the life of the innocent” is the issue. Calling the pro-abortion attitude a “perversion,” the jurists suggested that real progress could be made by helping women in pregnancies, not assisting them to abort infants in the womb.
Attorney Astrid Rios of the Associacion la Familia Importa that instituted the challenge before the Court jubilantly stated that the ruling “surpassed all our expectations in defending the protection of life from conception.”
As reported by the American Center for Family and Human Rights, a leading pro-life group, the judges further contended that abortion “fundamentally transforms society, in the sense of making it progressively insensitive to human suffering and the piecemeal destruction of human life.” Also, they claimed that countenancing abortion “leads to the exclusion of those most needy of protection, such as the unborn, the sick, and the elderly.” The judges then pointed to “assisted suicide and euthanasia, even for children” as a logical next step in countries where abortion has been legalized.
In its decision, the Court pointed to Article 3 of Guatemala’s Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights that Guatemala has signed. The Inter-American Convention clearly supports protection of life from the moment of conception.
Unsurprisingly, what the Manual found unlawful by the Court was brought into existence with help from the United Nations Population Fund. Sandra Moran, a proud lesbian advocate of abortion and a member of the Guatemala congress, has instituted a challenge to the high court’s ruling. MTM Guatemala, a woman’s group favoring abortion that is a foe of the Court’s ruling receives financial assistance from the Open Society Foundation led by America-based George Soros and the pro-abortion giant Planned Parenthood. No surprises there!
The Court’s reliance on the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its decision likely occurred without realization that every right mentioned in the UN document can easily be cancelled via the provisions contained in its Article 29. This portion of the UN Declaration states: “In the exercise of rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law….” That means that the UN retains power to cancel any right, even those listed in its Declaration. According to the UN, rights are granted by law (see the Declaration’s Article 3). Further, the Declaration’s Article 8 tells us that God is not the granter of rights government is. A right granted by the UN or any law can easily be voided.
What the Guatemala court has done, however, is strike a blow for infants in the womb while exposing George Soros, his Open Society Foundation, and the United Nations as the enemies of innocent unborn infants. For that all pro-life partisans should be very grateful.
US Ambassador Haley at the UN
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was a surprise. During the 2016 race for the GOP nomination, she publicly backed Florida Senator Marco Rubio and urged Republicans to shun Donald Trump. As for foreign policy experience customarily found in whoever holds the post at the UN, she had none. But President Trump must have known more about Haley than many others because she has performed rather well in a job she seemed highly unqualified to fill.
In mid-December, she demonstrated some moxie by excoriating Iran for supplying the missile aimed by Yemen’s rebels at Saudi Arabia’s international airport. Haley noted that particular outrage wasn’t the only instance of Iran’s involvement in Middle East terrorism, when she added: “It’s hard to find a conflict or a terrorist group in the Middle East that doesn’t have Iran’s fingerprints all over it.” When Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif claimed that his country should be credited with putting out fires in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, Haley pointed to a UN report containing a completely opposite assessment. Which prompted Haley to challenge Zarif while insisting that Iran wasn’t putting out fires, it was the region’s “arsonist.”
After Mr. Trump announced his plan to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, she vetoed a Security Council resolution demanding a reversal. Then she told America’s critics at the world body to cease presuming “to tell America where to put our embassy.” She also followed that with a plan “to be taking names” of the countries that America has helped but now support condemnation of the embassy decision.
As for countries voting in the UN against the interests of the United States, Haley joined President Trump in denouncing 128 General Assembly members, almost all of them beneficiaries of U.S. aid, for believing it was their place to tell America how to conduct its foreign affairs. “We will no longer let the generosity of the America people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” she announced. Evidently, her past disinclination to support Mr. Trump has completely evaporated.
Haley even helped to secure 15-0 Security Council approval of sanctions against North Korea, a vote that counted even Russia and China, North Korea’s patrons, as supporters. Then she won plaudits from some quarters for having a hand in cutting the UN’s budget by $285 million. But the world body’s plan to spend $5.4 billion (almost 20 times the reduction) will see the U.S. continue to be saddled with 22 percent of the world body’s funding.
While these and other performances of our nation’s ambassador to the UN are welcome, they are far from what should be America’s policy toward the world body. Americans should know that our nation began with the magnificent statement in the Declaration of Independence telling the world that God bestows rights and no man-made government can justly cancel any of them. The UN, on the other hand, acknowledges the existence of rights, but after ignoring God’s very existence, claims power to negate every right and become mankind’s supreme boss.
Last September, President Trump went to the UN where, in his widely lauded speech, he never mentioned this fundamental difference. Nor did he condemn the UN’s steady advancement toward total power over the inhabitants of the planet we inhabit. He praised the world body as guarantor of sovereignty for all nations when the erosion of such a precious element of nationhood is a far advanced reality. Saluting the UN Charter for its supposed advocacy of peace, he skipped over the several portions of the document calling for UN military action.
Donald Trump’s speech at the UN was precisely what all promoters of a UN-led world government wanted to hear. If honesty were in vogue, supporters of the UN would admit seeking a New World Order complete with dictatorial power over mankind. America should withdraw completely from the trap laid by the numerous communists and fellow travelers who created the world body. And Nikki Haley and her boss – Donald Trump – should lead the charge in the needed withdraw.
Want to help? Continue to support H.R. 193, the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act” to terminate U.S. funding and participation in the United Nations!
Shouldn’t Ex-Communists Be Held Accountable?
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Recently, when an United Nations affiliated international tribunal convicted former Serbian General Ratko Mladic of genocide and sentenced him to life in prison, the New York Times commented with obvious glee: “No crime against humanity, no matter how long ago it occurred, should be immune to cries for justice.”
If that’s the case, how come there are no international tribunals putting ex-Communists on trial? Why is it that men like Mladic can be held accountable and not the leaders of China and the former Soviet Union? Over recent years, several ex-Nazi corporals have been hunted down, tried, and convicted of having a role in hounding and killing Jews during World War II. But putting ex-Communists on trial hasn’t happened and there surely are plenty still alive.
Twenty years ago, Europeans who lived under Communist rule published The Black Book of Communism. A review of the murder, imprisonment, and brutality inflicted on people who resided in what were termed “the captive nations.” The book points to a staggering total of 94 million deaths at the hands of Communist rulers. Many of these instances of brutality occurred during the very time period that Nazis were rounding up and killing Jews. But only ex-Nazis are prosecuted.
Stephane Courtois, the Black Book’s editor, claims 65 million victims of Communism met death in China and close to 20 million perished in the former Soviet Union. He noted that Communist regimes are responsible for far more deaths “than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism.” These deaths did not result from war. Communists deliberately killed millions through organized programs involving executions, man-created starvation, forced labor, and more. A major reason for the bloody rampages was the terror forced on those who remained in silence and became totally unwilling to oppose their oppressors.
On July 16, 1971, the 92nd Congress of the United States published a 33-page document entitled “The Human Cost of Soviet Communism.” Issued by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, the report relied on the work of the highly regarded British historian Robert Conquest for its statistics. Conquest concluded that the number of deaths caused by Soviet authorities in Russia and other captive nations numbered 45 million. While many of these victims of Soviet terror met death in the first half of the 20th Century, millions perished at the hands of still-living Communist leaders and their subordinates.
Similarly, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee published “The Human Cost of Communism in China” on July 29, 1971. It concluded that China’s leaders had ordered the slaughter of at least 34 million and possibly as many as 64 million innocent persons. A huge portion of these victims were slain during the reign of Mao Tse-tung. Many who carried out his death-mandating orders are alive today. And so are those who suppressed the student revolt at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square almost 30 years ago.
Why haven’t current leaders in China been prosecuted? Many played a role in China’s murderous past. The same question needs to be asked about Soviet leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev, a lifelong Communist who has never renounced Communism and, instead of being held accountable for his crimes, is given the privilege of addressing the U.S. Congress and being treated as if he were a reliable ally.
If Communists who are guilty of high crimes aren’t held accountable (ostracism at least would certainly be in order), the reason can only be that they are winning. Winning what? Winning control over mankind under the name of “socialism” rather than under the banner of “communism.” Gorbachev has written of his insistence that he will never cease being a Communist. He should be held accountable for his role in enforcing Communist rule with death-dealing gulags, crackdowns on dissenters, and creating terror throughout his nation and others where Soviet forces ruled for decades.
In 2007, a Victims of Communism Memorial statue was erected in Washington, DC. That’s a welcome gesture, but more is needed. Punishing ex-Nazis who are virtual nobodies and ignoring the crimes of many high-ranking Communists is hypocrisy gone wild. It surely does indicate who is winning in the battle that pits freedom under just law against dictatorial slavery.
The Truth About NATO
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
A former New York Times station chief in Germany, Stephen Kinzer currently is a senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Affairs. Occasionally, his thoughts appear in the op-ed pages of the Boston Globe.
In his most recent Globe piece, Kinzer worries that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is about to disintegrate. He focuses initially on the new anti-Western leanings obviously gaining prevalence in Turkey, a NATO member. Current Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan is hard at work reversing the cultural and political westernization introduced into his nation by Kemal Ataturk in the 1920s. Then Kinzer points to Turkey’s opposition to U.S.-led and NATO directed actions in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Erdogan makes it clear that he prefers the Russian stance in each of these confrontations, not the actions taken by NATO and the U.S.
But Kinzer seems to have no awareness why the alliance has existed for more than 60 years. Instead, he repeats the attitude instilled into almost all Americans that “NATO was created to confront a single threat: the Soviet Union.” By 1949 when the pact was created, the USSR had swallowed up numerous countries in Eastern and Central Europe. The very existence of NATO is customarily credited with halting further Soviet advances into France, Italy, West Germany, and other still-free nations. But the underlying truth is that the building of NATO and the UN was always intended, and the erosion of national sovereignty everywhere was the long-range goal.
In the late 1940s according to then-Secretary of States Dean Acheson, NATO’s chief U.S. promoter, NATO was created to be “an essential measure for strengthening the United Nations.” That’s what Acheson stressed to senators when he encouraged them to vote for the pact in 1949. In his speech to the Senate published by the Washington Star on March 19, 1949, Acheson said that the pact’s brief introductory paragraph and 14 articles were all “subject to the overriding provisions of the United Nations Charter.” Indeed, the United Nations is mentioned six times in this briefly worded treaty. It won senate approval with only 13 dissenting votes on July 12, 1949. There can be no doubt that NATO has always been a division of the UN. Later, the 368-page NATO Handbook issued by the alliance in 1995 states very clearly that the alliance was “created within the framework of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”
How has NATO been employed? President Harry Truman cited it when he sent U.S. forces into Korea in 1950. Asked at a press conference whether our nation was now at war, Truman responded, “We are not at war; this is a police action.” He added that if he could send troops to NATO, he could send troops to Korea. The Korean “police action” constituted the first abandonment of the need for a congressional declaration of war. The last time that portion of the Constitution was employed occurred in the days immediately following the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor in 1941. America went to war on two fronts for almost four years. It should interest all to note that World War II was the last war won by U.S. forces. All struggles since then have been authorized and directed by obvious UN direction or by NATO and its SEATO clone. There have been no more victories.
In the June 1996 issue of the pro-world government Atlantic Monthly, Benjamin Schwarz of the World Policy Institute gleefully noted that objections about U.S. involvement in NATO led by Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio) had been building when NATO was being proposed. But the resistance had been defused when, according to Dean Acheson, the crisis in Korea “came along and saved us.” It didn’t save the more than 50,000 American dead from the Korean War, a conflict that never has been settled and could break out again at any time. But it did save steady progress toward watering down U.S. independence and “strengthening the UN,” Acheson’s stated goals.
Today, U.S. forces in Afghanistan are under NATO’s control. So are our military contingents in Germany, Turkey, and scores of other nations. The struggle in Vietnam was fought under SEATO, a copy of NATO no longer in existence. Vietnam cost America additional tens of thousands who died while serving under a UN command.
If Stephen Kinzer knows all of this and refuses to include it when writing about NATO, shame on him. If he doesn’t know it and would care to examine what we have stated, we shall be happy to help him. Claiming that NATO was created only to “confront” the threat posed by the Soviet Union is wrong. It was created to override the U.S. Constitution, build the power of the United Nations, and create a tyrannical new world order under UN control.
Our nation needs leaders who will restore undiluted U.S. independence. The clear way to accomplish this sorely needed restoration involves quitting NATO and withdrawing from the United Nations. Support H.R. 193 to Get US Out! of the UN before it’s too late.
Withdraw Completely from UNESCO
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
The birth of the United Nations took place in mid-1945. Before the year ended, its leaders created the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization known as UNESCO. With their huge headquarters in Paris, this single branch of the UN has grown to fill 56 regional offices throughout the world, including an enormous presence in Washington. To put it mildly, UNESCO has become a powerful force for spreading UN propaganda and undermining political, religious, and educational standards virtually everywhere.
One can get an inkling of UNESCO’s overall goals through awareness of the thinking of its first leader, Britain’s Julian Huxley. A proud signer of The Humanist Manifesto, he never sought to hide his denial of God’s existence or any afterlife, or to cover up his endorsement of situational ethics, abortion, sexual license, highly questionable education programs, and world government. UNESCO promotes all of this.
Since 2009, Bulgarian Communist Irina Bokova has served as UNESCO’s top official. It is, therefore, no surprise that she has favored the same goals promoted by Huxley. She has recently been forced to spend a good deal of effort trying to diffuse charges that she has used her prominent UNESCO perch to purchase several luxury properties around the globe and to direct some of the organization’s funds to promote her own candidacy for the post of UN Secretary General. She failed in the attempt to become Ban ki-Moon’s successor when the post was given to Portugal’s Antonio Guterres, a like-minded socialist whose leadership of the subversive Socialist International indicates his antipathy to national sovereignty and personal freedom. Bokova will soon leave her UNESCO post and undoubtedly be replaced by another like-advocate of the Humanism’s goals.
The UNESCO education agenda has long drawn objections from defenders of responsible freedom, religious-based ethics, common sense, and national sovereignty. The organization produces or recommends textbooks aimed at the world’s youth that promote globalism, LGBT propaganda, highly questionable environmental claims, and more. Its program for teaching sex education to children as young as four is downright abominable. Here in America, UNESCO’s hand can be found in creating such educational disasters as Race To The Top, No Child Left Behind, and Common Core.
Another of UNESCO’s goals seeks to reduce the world’s population to protect the planet. From approximately 7 billion these world planners would prefer only 1 billion. Famed oceanographer Jacques Cousteau stated this goal in an article he penned for the Paris-based UNESCO Courier in November 1991. He called for the elimination of “350,000 people per day.” Admitting this to be a “horrible thing to say,” he nevertheless said it and UNESCO approved the grisly notion by publishing it.
No leader of our nation should tolerate membership in UNESCO. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan temporarily suspended membership and refused to have the U.S. fund it. But America’s tie to UNESCO wasn’t severed completely, and President George W. Bush put the U.S. back in the organization in 2002.
President Trump has followed the lead set by President Reagan and suspended U.S. membership while cutting off some funding. He did so, he said, because of UNESCO’s mounting financial difficulties, a need for reform of the organization, and its anti-Israel attitude. Mr. Trump’s break with this UN monster is welcome but not complete. A repeat of the Bush restoration is likely. What is urgently needed is complete withdrawal not only from UNESCO but from the UN itself.
Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) has introduced H.R. 193 calling for complete withdrawal of the United States from the world body. His measure deserves the support of all who love freedom and want our nation completely untangled from the UN. Patriotic Americans should urge their member of Congress to support this much-needed bill.
Saudi Arabia on UN’s Status of Women Panel
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
Guess who won a seat on the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women? This is the Commission dedicated exclusively “to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.” Does the answer leap out at you when you find that the new appointee ranks 141st of the 144 nations rated by the World Economic Forum in its 2016 Global Gender Gap report? OK, quiz over. The answer is Saudi Arabia.).
The Saudi Kingdom is so dismissive of the rights of women that it’s the only country worldwide where woman can’t drive an automobile. In addition, every woman must have a male guardian who alone can approve her schooling, career, and travel, even to obtain health care. Her guardian is typically her father or her husband, but it could even be her underage son.
Only last month, a 24-year-old Saudi woman sought to flee a forced marriage by going to the Philippines in hopes of getting to Australia. She was held and then turned over to two male relatives for the trip back to Saudi Arabia where she will be dealt with. In the recent past, a Saudi princess won asylum in England when a British court granted her immigration status because she had produced a child with a man outside the reach of Saudi detectives. She was very fortunate.
UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer commented, “Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist the town fire chief.” He called the election “a black day for women’s rights and for all human rights.” Add to all of this the fact that the vote to welcome the Saudi Kingdom for a seat on this UN panel was done in secrecy. Few know who approved such an appointment. Saudi Arabia will begin its four-year membership on the Commission in 2018.
One has to wonder what’s going on here. Has the UN lost its collective sanity? Why choose a country so obviously at odds with the stated purpose of the Commission?
We don’t know the answers to these questions. But consider the UN’s steady growth in power over all nations and all humans. None of this buildup toward world government is affected by the appointment. It may even cause many to dismiss the UN as a major global power that is not to be taken seriously. Critics of the world body’s powerful commissions, departments, offices, and missions will easily be led to believe that this appointment of an obvious abuser of women’s rights shows how inept the entire UN truly is.
If that’s why Saudi Arabia will get a place on this UN Commission, the UN has won by painting itself as a bumbling entity that threatens no one. Meanwhile, UN progress toward its goal of unchallenged rule over all of mankind continues.
Sensible lovers of freedom in America and elsewhere must continue to call for breaking the UN’s tightening grip on the planet. Americans who want the U.S. out of the UN are encouraged to continue spreading the whole truth about the world body. Let the cry to Get US out! grow louder and reach many more. Let an abuser of women’s rights proceed to have a seat on the Women’s Rights Commission. But don’t anyone forget what else must become more widely known about the United Nations itself. Educational tools telling the whole truth about the UN are available at shopjbs.org or call 1-800-342-6491.
An Opponent of the IMF
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus
The 1944 creation of the International Monetary Fund occurred even before the formation of the United Nations in 1945. But the IMF has long appeared on the organizational chart published by the UN and is without doubt one of the many UN divisions.
Tasks of this money lending UN agency include keeping tyrannical and profligate nations afloat while financing questionable business ventures. Its chief creator, American Communist Harry Dexter White, didn’t have the best interests of U.S. taxpayers in mind. Neither has the UN. Over the years, IMF funds have bailed out Poland, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, and others. There is hardly a deadbeat nation that hasn’t received IMF funds to keep it going.
Maybe some of this is about to change. President Trump has nominated Adam Lerrick for an undersecretary post within the Treasury Department. The post oversees U.S. involvement in international finance. His credentials as an opponent of bailouts for countries, banks, and investors are well known. In recent years while holding down a post at the American Enterprise Institute, he has sharply criticized the IMF for throwing money at the likes of South Korea, Brazil, Argentina, and Greece.
According to a report in The New York Times, Lerrick’s outspokenness endeared him to Reagan administration economist Allan Metzger. The two even coauthored a study in 2000 which critiqued the IMF and World Bank. They want countries to suffer the consequences of disastrous monetary policies. Metzger, now a professor at Carnegie Mellon’s business school, expressed the following welcome view of flawed IMF policy, an opinion obviously shared by his friend and fellow IMF critic.
It’s corrupting to give money to countries like Greece that never reform; those are taxpayer monies…. If we bail out countries that do things that are not in the interests of their citizens, then we just get more of the same. Adam [Lerrick] is the right man for this job.
At a Senate hearing in 2000, however, Lerrick was asked if there is any need for an IMF. His answer was guardedly positive. He believed then that the IMF is useful as a lender to emerging markets. “But reforms must be instituted to make sure costs are minimized, if not eliminated.”
Lerrick registered his somewhat positive attitude about IMF almost two decades ago. Have the more recent outrageous bailouts of European nations sharpened his view? Time will tell, of course. But there appears to be hope that American taxpayers will be paying less – and maybe nothing – to rescue deadbeat governments. Credit President Trump for reaching out to find someone who believes that America’s financing of reckless policies among some countries has to stop.