When Globalists and Government Take Up Your Cause, Pay Close Attention.
Activists and advocates dedicate a lot of time and effort to getting their messages out. These are generally good-hearted people working hard to “be the change”. So when they finally manage to overcome the censors and get public attention and support, they’re usually exhausted and ready to breathe a sigh of relief... and celebrate.
Health freedom is now approaching this precipice.
And while we can celebrate our victories as this movement grows, it’s a good time to learn from history. Civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, children’s rights and environmental activism have all been embraced and subsequently exploited by government agencies, politicians and NGOs who use these causes as platforms to bring in “solutions” that often do far more harm than good.
Coasting on Your Cause
Politicians and pundits are always looking for a spot on the winning team. So if a high profile “influencer” or political figure suddenly becomes your ally and elevates your voice, proceed with caution.
I’m not saying that there aren’t good people out there who are willing to learn and do the right thing. Those people exist and I’m very grateful for them. But not everyone who waves your flag is supporting your values.
There’s a fine line between being supported and being exploited, manipulated or coopted. And, thanks to human nature, that line gets really wiggly sometimes. For now let’s stick to the big and powerful voices with ties to big agendas.
Unfortunately, political leaders and captured agencies have a habit of using your voice and your value system to manipulate beliefs, drive agenda and control behavior. It’s often very confusing, because ideas with merit that are rooted in compassion can be exploited to promote cultural shifts that can ultimately be harmful.
Here’s an example du jour:
Yesterday, NJ Governor Phil Murphy signed A4939/S3719 reaffirming the right to interracial marriage in New Jersey.
Sounds great!
But why does NJ need this? Is interracial marriage under threat? Is there anyone who is opposing interracial marriage?
In other words, what is the motive for this legislation?
According to the New Jersey Monitor:
Murphy’s action means interracial marriages will be protected by law in New Jersey even if the court’s conservative majority acts to overturn its 1967 landmark precedent, Loving v. Virginia, which prohibited states from outlawing marriages outside one’s race.
(emphasis mine)
That’s some pretty slick seed-planting… suggesting that a “conservative majority” might overturn a landmark precedent prohibiting states from outlawing interracial marriage.
Governor Murphy used this legislation, which faced zero opposition, to signal his concern for rights and freedom. But this is a very selective “enshrining” of rights and freedoms that is now being used in fuel divisive fires in the media, because ultimately it’s an opportunity for Governor Murphy to send this message:
“In June of 2022, the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority erased a woman’s long-held constitutional right to an abortion and made clear that they do not value the rights of women to make their own decisions about their bodies. As our country faces an era of uncertainty regarding the basic principles of equality and personal freedom, it is critical that we protect interracial marriage in New Jersey statutory law.”
What about parental rights, religious freedom or bodily autonomy with respect to vaccine mandates? Will NJ’s governor create legislation to codify those rights? I don’t think so.
Do it for the Children
Here are other examples that invoke concerns around children’s rights:
Children are being encouraged to sue their governments in the name of “climate change”. The United Nations is happy to assist with a ready-made propaganda campaign (complete with climate superheroes) as well as a 20-page Convention on the Rights of the Child that children won’t understand but can feel good about promoting.
Young people around the world are increasingly taking their governments to court for failing to reduce climate pollution, and on rare occasions, they are winning.
This week, their efforts received an endorsement from an independent panel of experts that interprets United Nations human rights law, the Committee on the Rights of the Child. In an expansive 20-page document released Monday, the committee said all countries have a legal obligation to protect children from environmental degradation — including by “regulating business enterprises” — and to allow their underage citizens to seek legal recourse.
So, children are encouraged to do the UN’s bidding by promoting assertions like this:
Article 4 of the Convention emphasizes that the implementation of the Convention is a cooperative exercise for the States of the world,[1] and the full realization of children’s rights under the Convention is in part contingent upon how States interact. Climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss clearly represent urgent examples of global threats to children’s rights that require States to work together, calling for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2FC%2FGC%2F26&Lang=en
What are the odds a child understands the implications of pushing global solutions by unelected officials on their own government? And if they are just being used to promote ideas they can’t understand, are they being empowered or exploited?
States have a due diligence obligation to take appropriate preventive measures to protect children against reasonably foreseeable environmental harm and violations of their rights, paying due regard to the precautionary principle. This includes assessing the environmental impacts of policies and projects, identifying and preventing foreseeable harm, mitigating such harm if it is not preventable and providing for timely and effective remedies to redress both foreseeable and actual harm.
What are the odds this Convention will honor this obligation with regards to harms posed by unsafe medical interventions or 5G?
Invoking children’s rights can also be used to undermine parental rights. This happens often.
In New Jersey, Attorney General Matt Platkin has sued three school districts for adopting policies to tell parents if their children show signs of changing their gender identity.
“We took these actions because it’s the right thing to do to protect these precious young people,” Murphy told interviewer Margaret Brennan. “Parents are always involved, certainly in our administration. They’re always at the table, and they always will be. But let’s be smart about this. Let’s protect the rights of these precious kids.”
…Supporters of the school districts’ policies have said that they’re necessary to protect parental rights, but Murphy countered yesterday that the rights of the children themselves are just as important.
“Let’s not violate the constitutional and civil rights of precious young folks, who in many cases are coming to grips with life as they grow up,” Murphy said. “Let’s be all in this together, as opposed to this us-versus-them, this demonizing. When that happens, invariably it’s the LGBT community, particularly trans folks, who get behind the eight ball.”
But the presumption that leaving parents/guardians out of the equation is in the best interest of a child is deeply flawed. And parents are having a very difficult time engaging in conversations about this without confronting accusations of being anti-LGBTQ+.
Here’s just one example of how that “privacy” can backfire.
Policies that exploit vulnerable populations and/or restrict our rights are often cloaked in pie-crust promises and rainbow flags. We all need to learn to read…beyond the headlines, between the lines and beyond the stated purpose of legislation and policy. Well-intentioned people have worked too hard to have their efforts hijacked.
Love your writing and perspectives. Glad I found your SubStack!