Spygate: Tables Get Turned on Vicious Anti-Trump Lawfare Hitman Jack Smith
It turns out that Biden administration hatchet-man Jack Smith wasn’t just abusing his power to go after Trump and his associates; he was also spying on nine U.S. legislators, all of them Republicans, according to FBI sources. In a stunning new scandal that is already being compared to Watergate, it was revealed Monday afternoon that special counsel Smith’s thugs, operating as team “Arctic Frost” tasked with investigating J6, were tracking the phone calls of Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), as well as Representative Mike Kelly (R-Pa.). The information was found on a recently discovered document called “CAST Assistance,” which has reference to cellular analysis. According to a Fox report:
An FBI official told Fox News Digital that Smith and his team tracking the senators were able to see which phone numbers they called, the location the phone call originated and the location where it was received.
A source said the calls were likely in reference to the vote to certify the 2020 election.
Reaction from the senators has been swift and recriminatory. Senator Blackburn posted on
X: “This is an abomination. I was just briefed by @FBIDDBongino about this appalling weaponization of the FBI under Jack Smith. I will not let it stand.” Senator Josh Hawley posted:
The truth comes out. Biden’s Stasi who claimed to be saving “our sacred democracy” in fact worked overtime to destroy it — all for power. They spied on Catholic churches, prosecuted pro-lifers, deployed the FBI against parents at school board meetings — and tried to tap the phones of their political enemies. Including mine. This is an abuse of power beyond Watergate, beyond J. Edgar Hoover, one that directly strikes at the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the First Amendment. We need a full investigation of all involved: who knew about it, who ordered it, and who approved it. Anyone and everyone who violated the law must be prosecuted. The way to save the country is to restore the rule of law.
And noted Hagerty:
Jack Smith tracked my private communications and those of my colleagues during his witch hunt to investigate @POTUS. This is exactly the type of political weaponization of the federal government under Presidents Obama and Biden that Republicans and President Trump have been calling out for years. We will get to the bottom of this, but every American should be shocked to see what happened here.
One possible fruit of the inevitable coming investigation would be the end of the special counsel. For decades, unaccountable special counsels have been used, like attack dogs, to harry and harass political opponents, instead of Congress directly and publicly carrying out investigations. Jack Smith is the most extreme, but by no means the only, abusive special counsel in recent history. Prosecutorial abuses, and the incentives to commit them, are an ugly feature of modern American jurisprudence, and continuing the practice of appointing special counsels to do political dirty work guarantees for our political leadership the same sort of malfeasance and harassment familiar to any ordinary American who has ended up on the wrong side of some grandstanding local DA padding his prosecutorial resume. — Steve Bonta
UN’s ICJ and ILO Overreach Invent a “Right to Strike”
The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) has weighed in on whether an alleged “human right” to labor strikes exists under the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 87 during World Court hearings earlier this week.
As reported by UN News, the ICJ advisory proceedings were requested by the ILO in 2023. The case argues against employers in interpreting the 1948 ILO treaty that allegedly guarantees freedom of association but does not explicitly include strikes.
International Trade Union Confederation (ITU) representative Paapa Danquah argued strikes are a “vital tool” for workers, telling the court, “Strike action has been our vital tool … to improve labour conditions and to defend our human dignities.” Roberto Suárez Santos, a representative with the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), argued that Convention No. 87 does not include the right to strike, and stated it would impose a “prescriptive regime” and disrupt national labor systems.
These ongoing “World Court” proceedings exemplify how the UN’s dangerous overreach fabricates “rights” in order to erode national sovereignty. The ICJ, an arm of the UN, has no legitimate authority to dictate labor policy to sovereign nations. While these advisory opinions are not enforceable, they serve as tools for globalists to pressure and coerce compliance to advance their one-world-government agenda that undermines America’s founding principles.
The U.S. Constitution vests authority in “We the People of the United States,” not foreign bureaucrats. Article VI declares the Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land” — no treaty or international ruling can override it. Americans must protect our sovereign Republic and withdraw from the UN, exit entangling treaties, and defund the organization. — David DeRidder
Trump Administration Initiates USMCA “Joint Review” Process
On September 16, the Trump administration’s Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced that it had initiated “a public consultation” regarding the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) ahead of a pending joint review of the agreement next year. (The USMCA requires its member nations to review it every six years, and the Trump administration has pledged to renegotiate the treaty.) As part of this review, the USTR is seeking public comments (due November 3), and will hold an in-person public hearing in Washington, D.C., on November 17.
As we have repeatedly warned, the USMCA, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020, is a major step toward a full-blown EU-style North American Union. To learn more about the agreement’s threat to national sovereignty, read the TNA reprint “USMCA and the Quest for a North American Union.”
The solution is to Get US Out! of the USMCA, as well as the World Trade Organization. Especially as the United States, Canada, and Mexico prepare to review and potentially renegotiate the USMCA next year — increasing the risk of further regional integration — urge your U.S. representative and senators to enact legislation completely withdrawing the United States from this dangerous agreement.
To submit comments opposing the USMCA to the USTR, click here. If you are able to attend the public hearing in D.C. and wish to request to testify, click here. Finally, for an easy way to contact your members of Congress, use our nationwide legislative alert. — Peter Rykowski
UN-led Net-zero Scheme Shuts Down
The Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), a UN-led initiative that requires participating banks to set net-zero emissions targets and realign their activities to comply with the far-left climate agenda, has shut down after four years of seeking to weaponize the banking industry.
Reuters reports:
The alliance, set up in 2021, was the banking industry’s main body leading the sector’s global effort to cut carbon emissions. An overhaul was proposed in August after many big banks left, to create a “framework initiative” rather than a membership-based organisation.
“As a result of this decision (vote), NZBA will cease operations immediately,” a spokesperson for the group said.
Its resources, developed over several years, will remain accessible to banks seeking guidance on how to set decarbonisation targets….
The decision follows a similar move by a climate group for the insurance industry in 2024. Another climate-focused organisation for the asset management industry is also considering its next steps after facing similar political pressure.
The New American previously reported how state governments helped pressure the six American banks that participated in the NZBA to leave the group:
In October 2022, attorneys general from 19 states, led by then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, responded by launching an investigation of the six banks — Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo — for potential consumer-protection violations. Accusing the banks of “ceding authority to the U.N.,” Schmitt noted in a statement that “these banks are accountable to American laws — we don’t let international bodies set the standards for our businesses.” The attorneys general also subpoenaed the banks for information related to their participation in the NZBA.
Agricultural commissioners from 12 states followed suit. In a January 2024 letter to the six banks, they highlighted “troubling environmental commitments by your banks that target our farmers, ranchers, and agriculture producers.” They continued, “We are deeply troubled that your banks have given the [United Nations Environment Programme, or UNEP] authority to ‘review’ and ‘monitor’ your banks’ climate targets for ‘consistency’ with UN criteria, especially given the UNEP’s leading role in inciting Sri Lanka to adopt its disastrous fertilizer ban.” The commissioners then requested that the banks provide “information regarding your NZBA commitments and their effects.” Other state officials, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, launched their own, separate investigations.
This pressure paid off: In December 2024 and January 2025, all six banks withdrew from the NZBA. Although several banks claimed they would seek to implement their own net-zero goals, this marked a major victory against the UN’s organized, global effort to impose its net-zero agenda on Americans.
Although the NZBA is now gone, the globalist climate agenda is still alive. As the now-defunct group itself noted, its members “voted … to establish its guidance as a framework.” In other words, its former member banks will work to implement the same agenda on their own rather than through a larger organization. Nonetheless, the NZBA’s dissolution shows how defenders of liberty can make an impact via organization. — Peter Rykowski
Populists Win Czech Elections
The Czech political party ANO, led by former Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, won a plurality in the Czech Republic’s Chamber of Deputies (lower house) following nationwide elections last weekend. Together with the conservative Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) and Motorists for Themselves (AUTO) parties, Babiš has potential majority support for returning as prime minister.
Now that the elections are over, the most challenging part of the European political cycle begins: forming a government. Although Babiš has stated he wishes to form a minority government with external SPD and AUTO support, the two smaller parties are seeking to fully join his pending government. Negotiations could potentially take months — not an unusual prospect for a European country.
What will Babiš do as prime minister? An ally of euroskeptical populists such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and France’s Marine Le Pen, he campaigned on ending funding for Ukraine, and is expected to take a tougher stance on migration. A populist, he also has pledged to increase government pensions.
However, Babiš is unlikely to challenge the Czech Republic’s membership in the European Union or NATO. Although the SPD strongly opposes EU and NATO membership, both ANO and AUTO support continued membership in both blocs. Sadly, most European populists, including Le Pen, have long abandoned their previous support for terminating their countries’ membership in the EU, Schengen Area, and euro currency, partly due to electoral pressures and a desire to focus on more captivating issues such as migration. Additionally, Czech President Petr Pavel has pledged to use his powers to ensure that a Babiš government supports EU and NATO membership.
Nonetheless, it is worth monitoring the Czech Republic, one of the most pro-limited-government countries in Europe, under Babiš. The country amended its constitution in 2021 to protect the right to keep and bear arms, and TNA has interviewed former president Václav Klaus about his opposition to the globalist climate agenda. Despite his shortcomings, Babiš looks set to direct his country toward upholding (albeit very tepidly) national sovereignty. — Peter Rykowski
Central Banks Hoard Gold, Signaling Accelerating De-dollarization
Central banks around the globe ramped up their gold reserves in August, as reported by the World Gold Council. Buyers included Kazakhstan with eight tonnes, Bulgaria adding two tonnes, China purchasing two tonnes (increasing its total holdings to over 2,300 tonnes), and the Czech Republic adding two tonnes towards its 100-tonne target by 2028.
The surging spot price of gold aligns with central bank demand, climbing to more than $4,000 per ounce this week. Analysts say the shift toward gold is a hedge against trade wars and geopolitical risks, with Goldman Sachs recently raising its December 2026 gold forecast to $4,900 per ounce — citing a weakening dollar and expected central bank purchases averaging 80 tonnes in 2025 and 70 tonnes in 2026.
This gold-rush increase highlights the trend of de-dollarization, and is part of the globalist plan to collapse the U.S. dollar in order to replace it with something else as the world’s reserve currency. Central banks around the globe are stockpiling gold to reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and erode America’s economic leverage. This shift diminishes U.S. influence abroad, as foreign powers such as China and Russia weaponize reserves against sanctions.
As gold soars and the dollar weakens, de-dollarization threatens hyperinflation and American sovereignty. The collapse of the U.S. dollar exposes the damage caused by the Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars, eroding our nation’s prosperity. Americans must sound the alarm on the de-dollarization sabotage. America should strengthen the dollar through sound monetary policy, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and reinstating a gold standard. — David DeRidder
BlackRock & Blackstone Are Buying Local Power Companies
Equity firms are buying up local energy companies across the country, reportedly to invest in artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure.
“Private equity giants like BlackRock and Blackstone are buying local utilities to power AI-driven data centers, sparking ratepayer and regulator concerns,” reports The Associated Press (AP).
Those AI centers threaten to drive up utility costs. AP also reported that “Tricia Pridemore, who sits on Georgia’s Public Service Commission and is president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, pointed to an already tightened electricity supply and increasing costs for power lines, utility poles, transformers and generators as utilities replace aging equipment or harden it against extreme weather.”
Along with massive return on investment potential, the draw of AI for globalist firms such as BlackRock is evident: unprecedented potential for surveillance, manipulation, and outright control. We’ve already seen the effects of their monetary might in promoting causes such as climate alarmism and the “trans” agenda.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has bragged multiple times that he has no problem with forcing “behavioral changes.” He said during a 2017 discussion hosted by The New York Times, “Behaviors are going to have to change, and this is one thing that we are asking companies. You have to force behaviors, and at BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors.”
Together, BlackRock and Blackstone manage more than $13 trillion in assets, and now the two behemoths are picking off utilities around the country.
In January 2024, Blackstone bought a 20-percent stake in Northern Indiana Public Service Company for $2.1 billion. Afterward, the utility announced plans to boost green energy production.
One year later, Blackstone bought Potomac Energy Center, a natural-gas power plant in Loudoun County, Virginia. It announced the $1 billion deal as “supporting data centers and AI revolution.”
To its portfolio of recent acquisitions, Blackstone has also added Hill Top Energy Center, a natural-gas power plant in Pennsylvania, which came with a $1 billion price tag. Again, executives gushed that their investment is intended “to power the AI revolution.”
The company is also in negotiations to buy utilities in New Mexico and Texas.
BlackRock is majority owner of Superior Water, Light and Power in Wisconsin. Its co-owner is the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, controlled by that country’s socialist government. Superior City Councilor Ruth Ludwig objected, pointing out that “Lake Superior, the largest freshwater lake in the world by surface area, is a gift to the state of Wisconsin. I do not want a multinational corporation whose board members know nothing about the community of Superior, Wisconsin, nor the people of the state of Wisconsin, and whose main interest is making a profit for their stockholders, to have control over my community’s drinking water system.”
The duo is also attempting to purchase a Minnesota utility, but there’s pushback. The AP reports: “A fight has erupted in Minnesota over the buyout of the parent of Duluth-based Minnesota Power and the outcome could determine how such firms expand their holdings in an industry that’s a nexus between regular people, gargantuan data centers and the power sources they share.” Administrative law judge Megan J. McKenzie wrote in a report that the buyout may raise rates, reduce reliability, and jeopardize compliance with Minnesota’s carbon-free power standard. However, Minnesota utility, labor unions, and clean-energy groups support the sale, arguing that wealthy investors ensure massive investments in new energy generation and infrastructure.
Supporters of the takeover may not be aware that BlackRock CEO Larry Fink is a globalist caricature. He sits on the board of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and is a member of its internationalist cousin, the Trilateral Commission. He is also the new CEO of the World Economic Forum, an organization that envisions oppressive world government.
The New American has reported extensively on the dangers these companies pose through their massive investments in real estate, AI, and now power companies. Read more here. — Paul Dragu
French Socialists See Opportunity as Macron Government Collapses
France is once again plunged into political chaos, following the abrupt resignation of “centrist” Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu — the seventh head of government to serve under President Emmanuel Macron. Lecornu’s brief, 27-day tenure marks the shortest of any French prime minister since the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958.
The resignation leaves Macron scrambling to assemble yet another cabinet amid growing calls across the political spectrum for new elections — or even for Macron himself to step down.
Macron, who has been in office since May 2017, has presided over a steadily weakening presidency. While France’s constitution grants the president broad executive powers — including the authority to appoint and dismiss the prime minister — those powers depend on maintaining a working majority in the National Assembly. Since the 2024 legislative elections, however, the chamber has been deadlocked among three major blocs: Macron’s “centrist” Ensemble pour la République, Marine Le Pen’s right-leaning National Rally (RN), and the far-left Popular Front alliance.
None commands a majority of the 577-seat National Assembly, effectively paralyzing Macron’s government, and turning each new prime minister into a short-lived political experiment doomed by coalition infighting. Lecornu’s resignation further underscores that instability.
On Wednesday, Lecornu said Macron would appoint a new prime minister within 48 hours. If he does, it would make eight prime ministers under Macron, which is more than any other French president in the Fifth Republic’s 67-year history.
Opposition parties wasted no time in demanding that Macron dissolve Parliament and call new elections. Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally and a member of the European Parliament, accused Macron of clinging to power through “backroom deals” (auto-translated by Grok):
Macron’s supporters are deliberately willing to resort to all sorts of contortions to stay in power. Nothing viable can come out of these backroom deals between parties in the kitchens of Matignon.
The only solution is a return to the ballot boxes. Stop the negotiations, make way for elections and the dissolution of the National Assembly.
Hours later, he reiterated his position, declaring:
Nothing healthy can emerge from these backroom dealings.
We must put an end to the negotiations and allow the French to have their say: While the political class discusses, the French are suffering.
We call for a return to the ballot boxes!
Éric Ciotti, president of the right-leaning UDR group in the National Assembly, went further, warning that Macron’s efforts to stitch together a centrist coalition risked becoming a “Frankenstein” alliance.
“The fear of the certain victory of the UDR-RN union cannot be the glue holding together a Frankenstein coalition of ecologists, LR, and Macronists,” Ciotti said on X. “The French people are being scorned and held hostage. We will censure any government until there is either a dissolution or the resignation of the President.”
While conservatives demand Macron’s departure, the far-left socialists and communists see opportunity amid the turmoil. Mathilde Panot and Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the democratic-socialist La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) both urged Macron to “resign and leave.” But leaders of the Socialist and Green parties are pressing for power for themselves.
Boris Vallaud, president of the Socialist group in the National Assembly, posted on X: “We must now draw the consequences from this and let the left govern.” And Johanna Rolland, Socialist mayor of Nantes, echoed that demand: “We demand a left-wing Prime Minister.”
French Communist Party leader Fabien Roussel likewise told reporters, “We are asking for a left-wing Prime Minister to be appointed and for it to be up to him to build the coalitions that will allow for a change in policy.”
France’s Fifth Republic, established by Charles de Gaulle in 1958, was founded with the desire to bring stability after years of fragile coalition governments under the Fourth Republic. But Macron’s presidency increasingly resembles the very type of instability that the Fifth Republic sought to end.
After losing his parliamentary majority in 2022 and again failing to secure one in 2024, Macron has attempted to govern through the use of Article 49.3 of the French Constitution. This authoritarian “emergency” measure enables a ruling government to enact legislation without a vote. Not surprisingly, this has been vastly unpopular with the French electorate, fueling mass protests against Macron and his various governments. He has also governed by appointing “centrist” prime ministers, who’ve attempted to bridge the left and right — a balancing act that has repeatedly failed. His reliance on presidential decrees and political maneuvering has only eroded his legitimacy among voters.
With new elections likely to deliver additional losses for his party, Macron faces a stark choice: Embrace the radical far Left and form a coalition government with them, or risk outright paralysis.
Appointing a Socialist Party prime minister could buy him a few more months of survival, perhaps until the upcoming highly contentious budget negotiations in November. If he does, it would represent an open admission that his “centrist” experiment has failed.
Regardless of whatever decision he makes, Macron’s prospects of remaining president until the 2027 presidential election are appearing increasingly less certain. — Christian Gomez
Slovakia Defies EU, Amends Constitution to Protect Sovereignty
In a victory for national sovereignty, Slovakia has passed a constitutional amendment protecting its sovereignty “in matters of national identity,” effectively overriding EU or international law.
The amendment declares, in part:
The Slovak Republic retains sovereignty primarily in matters of national identity, consisting mainly of fundamental cultural and ethical issues relating to the protection of life and human dignity, private and family life, marriage, parenthood and family, public morality, personal status, culture and language, as well as decision-making on related matters in the areas of healthcare, science, upbringing, education, personal status and inheritance.
Nothing in this Constitution and constitutional laws may be interpreted as consent of the Slovak Republic to the transfer of the exercise of part of its rights in matters forming national identity….
An agreement to bear a child for another person is prohibited….
The parents of a child are the mother and the father; the mother of the child is a woman and the father of the child is a man….
The Slovak Republic recognizes only the biologically determined sex of man and woman.
The amendment also guarantees equal pay for men and women, clarifies adoption procedures, and requires parental consent for child sex education. Except for the provision about “equal pay” for women, which plays into the hands of cultural-Marxist social engineers, the amendment reasserts national sovereignty and traditional morality.
The Slovak National Council (parliament) passed the constitutional amendment on September 26 with 90 lawmakers voting in favor — the bare minimum needed. Twelve opposition lawmakers joined Prime Minister Robert Fico’s governing coalition to pass it. Slovak President Peter Pellegrini signed the amendment on September 30. It will take effect on November 1.
Not surprisingly, Eurocrats and other globalists reacted negatively to the amendment. As BBC reported, its provision “enshrining the primacy of the Slovak constitution over EU law is a direct challenge to the European Union, and will lead to legal battles and potentially sanctions.”
The EU is one of the greatest threats to national sovereignty today. Its creation was backed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency with the intention of creating a European superstate, and it continues accumulating power at the expense of its member nations. Additionally, the EU is at the forefront of violating individuals’ God-given freedoms, with its judiciary ruling in favor of forced vaccination and against homeschooling, for example.
If Europe’s nations and citizens wish to preserve what’s left of their freedom and sovereignty, they must take immediate action to counter — and ultimately leave — the EU. Slovakia’s constitutional amendment is a good start.
The above is part of an article by Peter Rykowski. To see the entire article at TheNewAmerican.com, click here.
FDR’s “Four Policemen”: The Globalist Blueprint for Endless War and American Subjugation
It is time to expose the truth about Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s so-called Four Policemen plan — a sinister scheme concocted by the globalist cabal surrounding the 32nd president to permanently shackle the United States to a role of international enforcer in a world government order. Far from being a noble vision for peace, FDR’s “Four Policemen” was the original blueprint for what would become the United Nations — an unelected, unaccountable body of internationalists dedicated not to liberty, but to global control.
In the midst of the Second World War, even before the guns fell silent, Roosevelt and his cadre of globalist advisors — including Soviet sympathizers such as Alger Hiss — were laying the foundation for a postwar “New World Order.” The heart of this plan was what FDR euphemistically called the “Four Policemen”: the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China. These four powers, according to Roosevelt, would act as the guardians of peace, responsible for policing the globe and suppressing any acts of aggression through military might.
Let that sink in: Roosevelt — hailed by modern progressives as a champion of democracy — openly proposed that a small clique of global superpowers should wield exclusive authority to intervene in the affairs of nations, impose sanctions, deploy military force, and determine which conflicts were worthy of attention. Sovereignty? An outdated relic. Consent of the governed? Irrelevant. In FDR’s globalist gospel, only the self-anointed “policemen” mattered. Here’s a reference to the scheme, in FDR’s own handwriting:
This plan, born in the minds of men who detested the founding principles of the American Republic, was not some harmless idealism. It was an outright rejection of George Washington’s warnings against foreign entanglements. It was the antithesis of the Jeffersonian vision of a free and independent republic, trading with all and entangling with none. And it was the seed that would blossom into the tangled, tyrannical bureaucracy of the United Nations.
Roosevelt’s vision wasn’t merely theoretical. He and his secretary of state, Cordell Hull — another globalist in the fold — actively lobbied for the creation of a permanent international institution that would enshrine the “Four Policemen” as the enforcement arm of global governance. The result? The United Nations Charter, drafted in no small part by Alger Hiss himself, and signed in 1945 in San Francisco.
The consequences of FDR’s scheme have been catastrophic. Since the founding of the UN, the United States has acted as the world’s chief enforcer — not of liberty, but of the ever-changing dictates of the so-called international community. Our troops have been sent to Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and dozens of other countries — under the pretext of “maintaining peace” or “protecting human rights.” But who gave these international busybodies the authority to override our Constitution and commit our sons and daughters to die for causes that serve neither our security nor our liberty?
Roosevelt’s “Four Policemen” doctrine was nothing less than an attempt to impose a permanent global garrison state — with America footing the bill and bleeding the lives. The Founding Fathers would have recoiled at the idea that the United States should play global cop, judge, and executioner. They believed in national independence, not international entanglement; in self-government, not supranational global government.
Yet thanks to FDR and the internationalists who followed in his footsteps, we now live in a world where American foreign policy is dictated not by constitutional mandates, but by international treaties, UN resolutions, and NGO pressure. We’ve traded Lexington and Concord for Kabul and Kyiv. And we’ve sacrificed the wisdom of Washington for the hubris of Wilson and Roosevelt.
The American people must awaken to this betrayal. FDR’s “Four Policemen” was not a plan for peace — it was the framework of perpetual war. It was the beginning of the end of American sovereignty. And if we are ever to reclaim our Republic, we must sever our ties to globalist institutions and reject forever the role of the world’s policeman.
Let the United Nations crumble. Fire the Four Policemen. And let America once again be a free and independent country — at peace with most countries, but entangled with none.
If you agree that the United States should withdraw from the UN, go to jbs.org/un/ and join us in persuading the president to end our monetary and military support of the New World Order. — Joe Wolverton II, J.D.
Does Capital Punishment = Abortion?
Pope Leo XIV recently criticized supporters of capital punishment, saying they cannot claim to be pro-life.
“Someone who says, ‘I’m against abortion,’ but says, ‘I’m in favor of the death penalty,’ is not really pro-life,” the pontiff told reporters September 30.
It’s a novel stance for a Catholic pontiff to take. In its essay on capital punishment, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia quotes Genesis 9:6: “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God.” The book of Exodus, Chapter 21, records the death penalty for murder, kidnapping, and even for an adult child cursing a parent. “Down to their latest days the Kingdoms of Israel and Juda preserved capital punishment as a feature of their criminal code.”
The article goes on to explain that the death penalty was also upheld as punishment in ancient Greece for capital crimes, and Roman law incorporated it as well. Likewise, the “infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians.”
Nevertheless, contrary to centuries of precedent in his own church, Pope Leo is now equating the death penalty with abortion (i.e., murder). In other words, he is comparing vicious criminals, guilty of unspeakable crimes, to innocent unborn children.
In taking this modernist stance, Leo is reflecting “the emergence of conservative opposition … [which] has played an increasingly important role in efforts to repeal and replace the death penalty with non-capital punishments.” That’s according to the Death Penalty Information Center, which notes a “dramatic rise in Republican sponsorship of bills to end the death penalty.”
The national group Conservatives Concerned openly opposes capital punishment with bleeding-heart appeals. The website of its Tennessee chapter claims that capital punishment does not make society safer, yet costs more than life sentences, “creates a roller coaster for family members of murder victims,” and “contradicts our values about protecting life.”
Ironically, it was another pope who answered these objections. In 1952, Pope Pius XII penned an address in which he explained that government does not “take away the ‘right’ of the individual to life.” Instead, it “deprive[s] the condemned person of the ‘benefit’ of life in expiation for his guilt,” explaining that by his crime, it is the criminal who has deprived himself of his right to life.
This is the idea behind retributive justice, a concept which specifies that punishment must be directed at the offense and not vengefully or sadistically carried out as personal vendetta against the offender. Its purpose is to restore the balance of justice and moral order.
Retribution is one of the four primary purposes of punishment acknowledged in classical teaching (both sacred and pagan), but ignored by groups such as Conservatives Concerned and, obviously, the current pope.
Two other purposes of punishment are deterrence and defense, meaning that punishment is intended to protect society by discouraging would-be offenders. As Adam Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.”
Last but not least is rehabilitation, which aims for the repentance of the criminal. Rehabilitation is the reason prisons are called “penitentiaries”; they are places in which criminals can perform penance for their sins.
As for so-called conservatives who persist in objecting to the death penalty on the basis of the Fifth Commandment — “Thou shalt not kill” — Pope Leo’s church addressed that complaint more than 500 years ago in its compendium of Catholic doctrine known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It reads: “The use of the civil sword, when wielded by the hand of justice, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this commandment, which prohibits murder. The end of the commandment is the preservation and sanctity of human life,” and capital punishment gives “security to life by repressing outrage and violence.”
Therefore, far from being equivalent to abortion, capital punishment actually defends the right to life. — Rebecca Terrell
Far-left House Trio Tries to Save U.S. Adjunct to UN’s International Criminal Court
In a September 29 press release, Representative James P. McGovern (D-Mass., Freedom Index score 23 percent) announced that he and Representatives Sara Jacobs (D-Calif., Freedom Index score six percent) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn., Freedom Index score 18 percent) had sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio “expressing concern over the State Department’s decision to eliminate the Office of Global Criminal Justice (GCJ).” The GCJ was created in 1997 by Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (born Marie Jana Körbelová in Czechoslovakia) as a vehicle to advance the development of the United Nations’ International Criminal Court (ICC). Albright, who died in 2022, was a longtime globalist and Deep State actor, serving as a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and chair of the advisory council of the Hague Institute for Global Justice. She began her climb into the higher echelons of power in the National Security Council under the tutelage of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor and David Rockefeller’s advisor on forming the Trilateral Commission.
Thanks in great part to The John Birch Society and The New American, the ICC scheme was exposed as a massive grab for global judicial power and a deadly attack on our national sovereignty. (See here and here.) The United States has thus far refused to join this UN monstrosity, but that hasn’t stopped the globalists from building a support infrastructure of offices, think tanks, NGOs, publications, and conferences to push for eventual U.S. accession to the ICC treaty. The GCJ is one of the most important instruments aiding this subversive effort, since it is an official arm of the federal government and as such assists, abets, coordinates, and cooperates with the ICC.
“The activities of the Office of Global Criminal Justice, led by the Ambassador-at-Large, have played a critical role in advancing U.S. foreign policy interests, including promoting accountability for mass atrocities, supporting international and transitional justice, raising the voices of survivors of atrocities, and reinforcing the rule of law globally,” wrote the three lawmakers in their letter.
“Reinforcing the rule of law globally”? What is the global rule of law except world law as determined by the United Nations and international criminal bodies? We can get some idea of the trio’s “rule of law” mentality by their abysmal Freedom Index ratings noted above, which demonstrate that they completely repudiate their oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” We can surmise much more from the fact that all three of these GCJ defenders are ardent devotees of the communist regime of Fidel Castro and his successors in Cuba.
At the beginning of Donald Trump’s first presidential term in 2017, the globalist Insiders went into a tizzy over rumblings that the State Department was planning to terminate the GCJ. Unfortunately, that termination didn’t happen, and the GCJ apparatus was up and ready for Team Biden to again push the UN/ICC agenda. This time around, Team Trump should ignore the appeals to save the GCJ and end this office once and for all.
The battle to end the ICC and the threat it poses to American citizens continues. For the background story on this treacherous institution and the JBS/TNA battle to expose it, see our articles here, here, here, here, and here. — William F. Jasper
[END]