Patriotic Pulpit
Global Government on the Way for America
This is the patriotic pulpit. I am Bill Lockwood. Two things I would like to cover this evening. Number one, I want to talk about the debate between Tim Walz and JD Vance. And I want to have a couple of reflections upon it. There have been many professional reflections, but there's something that's really missing in some of the broadcasts and some of the assessments of that debate. I want to talk about that. But then number two, I think it's important that we focus upon this, and that is what's going on at the United Nations. Alex Newman, who's just a great reporter, has an article in the Epic Times that just recently published, and this article deals with what the United Nations is about as far as making a pact for the future. The pact for the future, have you heard about this? But it is, once again, surrendering U.S. sovereignty over to a world body. So let's think about those two different issues for just a moment this evening. Number one, let's talk about the debate. I thought the debate was, it was, it was so good. JD Vance was actually so polished and he was friendly. He was magnanimous. He smiled. He actually had sympathy and empathy for Tim Walz over his son witnessing a shooting and so good and so clean and so precise. There are not a lot of wasted words. I really appreciated JD Vance. I thought he just did an excellent job in presenting. And by the way, it seemed like this is, this is what debate is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be an arguing match. It's not supposed to be talking over top of one another. It's supposed to be presenting ideas. And I thought they both of them, Tim Walz and JD Vance treated one another, I think so gentlemanly and perfectly well. And I just really appreciated that. And I think that really inspires people that this is what debate should be about. But it's not about being personal enemies. It's about the clash of ideas. Just as in Congress, they debate all these issues. And that is because in order to get it truth, it's good to have both sides of it. And so that's exactly what it was. So JD Vance was, I thought he was absolutely polished. He redirected the questions. He answered the questions. Then he redirected, got right to the issue. I didn't hear any question that JD Vance said, you know what? I'm not going to even talk about that. I'm going to go talk about what I want to talk about. We didn't have anything like that with JD Vance, or Tim Walz really much either. But really, that's what a debate should be about. So I wanted to make mention of that because everybody else has commented about the different issues that they've brought up. But there is one particular issue that I think both of them, both candidates actually are the Achilles heel of both parties, Democrat and Republican. And that is, how many times did you hear the Constitution brought up? Now you heard about the Second Amendment, and there was almost this, oh, I'm so sorry that we have a Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, and that we have, that we have gun rights. And that's kind of sad. We got to figure out how we're going to get around that. It was almost that, that sense in the debate. But we didn't hear anything about the Constitution. JD Vance didn't bring it up. Tim Walz certainly is not going to bring it up. So let's just think about the Constitution in, in reviewing some of the issues that were brought up. Just for example, how about this one on clean energy? Clean energy. They're acting as if this is a federal problem in the sense that is a federal government overseeing, federal government mandate that the federal government should have the laws and the regulatory power over clean energy. But, and even though we've given to the federal government all this power, there is nothing in the Constitution. There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to oversee everything regarding the energy. You've thought about that. The founding fathers left the federal government so weak, but we have empowered it through the years. Not only that, but think about this. China is the number one polluter. I had a friend recently, actually a relative had been over in China and had been in the major cities of Chinese said, you know what? You can't even breathe in the major cities of China. Their industry is pounding away. They don't care about polluting the air. Your eyes water when you walk outside. They don't care about pollution. They don't care about destroying the environment. That's not what they're about. They're about hamstringing US production and manufacturing and causing us to be hamstrung along the way that we can't do any manufacturing. That's what this is all about. But we didn't hear anything about that in the debate, but certainly we didn't hear anything about the Constitution, whether the federal government has the authority constitutionally to oversee these kinds of things. And how about this one? How about immigration? You know, we had the immigration ringing the hands on immigration. For example, Tim Walz wrung his hands. He said, okay, well, here's the problem. James Langford, a conservative from Oklahoma, sponsored a bill and the Trump people shot it down. So much misinformation, disinformation, so much warping of the truth, so much hiding of the truth. What actually happened here was simple. And that is that the bill that was passed or the bill that was not passed, but the bill that was drafted allowed up to 5,000 illegals into the country per day. And it didn't even make it to the house. The house said it's, we're not going to have this. It was not simply Donald Trump, but that's even beside the point. The point is we already have constitutional laws to oversee the border. And the fact of the matter is our federal government refuses under the Biden administration to enforce the border laws. That's the point. And I would have liked to heard J.D. Vance say, point out, we have laws on the books and the federal government's responsibility, the Biden administration, is to keep the laws that are on the books passed by the people's representative Congress. We already have those laws. Incidentally, it is such a sad thing that James Langford was drawn into this. He's now been used as a hammering, a battering post against every Republican. James Langford. Just, I thought, how ridiculous and short-sighted he has been to be drawn into their little scheme, because we already have laws. How about keeping the laws that are on the books? That's what I want to say. But we didn't hear anything about that, did we? No, we didn't hear about that in the debate at all. How about Roe versus Wade? Unconstitutional once again, but here we have it already though. Tim Walz is talking about Kamala Harris. We've got to get Roe versus Wade back in there. Isn't it interesting that the Affordable Care Act, they said, well, that's constitutional, even though it is really not. They said, well, that's constitutional. By virtue of the fact that it was that was stamped with approval by the Supreme Court. All right. Well, Roe versus Wade was shown to be by the Supreme Court unconstitutional. And by the way, where in the Constitution is there about abortion that we can actually look at it and say, okay, this is what it means about abortion. There is nothing constitutional about it and so much smoke, so much covering the truth, so much misinformation, misleading statements such as a woman's right over her own body. I would have loved to have heard J.D. Vance point out what others have pointed out and that is that it's not a woman's own body. It's another person that's own DNA, its own blood type in the womb. The Bible shows us in Psalms 139. This is David speaking that I am fearfully and wonderfully made that God wove me together, knit me together in my mother's womb. That is life in the womb. It's a person in the womb and we just absolutely color over that and we give so much misinformation by saying it's a woman's right over her own body. Science shows it's not her own body. The left doesn't love science. The left, excuse science, particularly on this particular point, but we didn't hear anything about the Constitution on that one either, did we? How about this one? How about the gun violence? We've already talked about that. They mentioned red flag laws. What are red flag laws? They are the snitch system of one neighbor snitching on another that I think they have something going on next door and I want the sheriff's office to come and check it out. That is a public snitch system. It is a way to erode the second amendment, the rights that we have. How about health care? Is health care a part of the Constitution? Isn't it sad that we have Republicans and Democrats accepted where we've got to have health care for everybody? Obamacare is there. If you're here to stay. I just, I stand back and I'm absolutely stunned at the shortsightedness of the American people on this one because Obama just outsmarted everybody. He said, "You know what? We're going to cram it in there because I know they'll never be able to get rid of it." That's exactly what's happened. Now all this said, it's just assumed that the government has responsibility over health care. Can you lay your finger on one item in the Constitution that gives the authority to the federal government to oversee anything about someone's health care? It is simply not there. I don't care what the Supreme Court says on it. They actually rewrote the laws for Obama on that one, but simply because about the taxation, but be that as it may. There's nothing about the health care of a person in the Constitution. Same thing with family child care. Family child care. What does the federal government going to do? Where do we find the authority for this in the Constitution? How about misinformation? Disinformation. Do we find anything like that in the Constitution? No. This is one of those important issues. So when we talk about China, and we'll talk about that, this UN pact for the future, a lot of it has to do with misinformation, and that's what the left is all a stir about misinformation on the internet and on social media. Therefore, the government has to step in and do something about the misinformation. That absolutely is Hitlerian to control the information, the flow of information to human people. But we didn't hear anything about the Constitution on that either. So those are some of the thoughts regarding the debate. I do think that J.D. Vance did a great job, and it was just generally on tone a great debate. But I did want to point that out because no one seemingly has pointed that out even all the pundits on television. They don't point out, how about the Constitution in this one? How about our law? What does it say? Does it give us authority to do this as a federal government? No, it does not. But we didn't hear anything like that. And what the federal government is to be doing, protecting the border, the Democrat party has absolutely destroyed. So they don't care about the Constitution at all. And if indeed Americans are interested in having a governing law of this country, we better get Trump back into office. All right, we'll be back in just a moment. Good food is just minutes away at Raptor J, barbecue in Iowa, Park, Texas. Jim and Jeremiah Stevens and their staff are ready to serve you great food and a great atmosphere. Ribs, pulled pork, Cajun cooking too. Oh boy, gumbo. And of course, hand-cut fries. Tuesday, Wednesday and Sunday, 11 to eight, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, 11 to nine. Flowsed on Monday, family owned, Raptor J, barbecue, 507, access road in Iowa, Park, Texas. Alex Newman, great reporter for the New American magazine. He has a website called Liberty Sentinel. And he writes also for the epic times. And he has a great piece on what is called the U and the United Nations, packed for the future. And it is drawing concern because of the CCP. There is a Chinese Communist Party backing over the pact for the future. So let's think about this particular, this particular pact. And I want to just share the article with you because Alex Newman has done such a fabulous job in it. He points out that the United Nations and his member governments with strong support from the Chinese Communist Party adopted a landmark agreement last week to bestow upon the UN more power and influence in global affairs as if they needed more power. They're already leveraging so much money out of the US taxpayer pocket and putting it overseas, but they are leveraging more power in global affairs. The controversial agreement is known as packed for the future and it outlines 56 actions for governments, international institutions to take over the coming years. Among the key provisions is transforming global governance and further empowering international institutions across a range of issues, including sustainable development, financing for development, as well as science, technology, innovation, and digital cooperation. When you hear the word governance, that is, that is, they're counting on the ignorance and the slowness of the American people to be flat-footed and understanding what's going on here, government, that is, they want global governance. And incidentally, this is what they have planned from the beginning. That's why we have Communist countries that were on the original board at the United Nations. But be that as it may, global governance means, of course, global government. There's government. There's not any difference between it. The pact includes a global digital compact to restrict misinformation and disinformation and a declaration on future generations that encompasses the 2030 agenda climate goals that includes phase out of all fossil fuels. All right, let's stop here for a moment. A couple of things that we need to note. Number one, regarding misinformation and disinformation, whose responsibility is it to guard against misinformation or disinformation? That's my responsibility as a citizen, as an individual, that's exactly, that is the very basis of our freedom, the concept of freedom and the freedom formula for the, for the American people has been freedom of speech, but not only freedom of speech, but freedom to discuss, to debate, to have differing opinions and to have these and to share these, that is freedom. But if one side government, which is socialistic in nature, takes the position, we're going to guard against misinformation, they are curtailing and censoring free speech. It is unbelievable to me that people like Barack Obama will suggest that we need the federal government involved through social media to block misinformation, disinformation, and yet no one bats an eye, people just kind of blindly go along with it and say that, that sounds great. We're willing to give up for freedom just like that, just because the UN says so. But here's something else. Kamala Harris has said, well, I, I've changed my mind on fracking. I think, you know, she's always been against it. We're going to stop it. We're going to, we're going to get off of fossil fuels. And, but now she says, well, the last couple of months, well, I think maybe we can do fracking. She is a UN operative herself, United Nations, and the United Nations right here tells us in their pact for the future, that is agenda 2030, that they're going to phase out fossil fuels. Now, who are the responsible parties in fossil fuels? Americans, you are, I am. That's what this is all about to curtail the fossil fuels or the energy and really the productivity and the wealth of American. That's what this is about. And this is about a transform in the UN into what the organization is touting as a promotional, and its promotional materials as UN 2.0. UN leaders and top officials from the CCP celebrated the pact as a historic effort to create a better future for humanity, increase global cooperation on international problems. We can't create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, "Antonio Guterres, by the way, is head of socialist international." At least he was head of socialist international. He's a socialist, and that is about, of course, that is a devil's lie. It is to siphon off money from those who are productive and give it to those who are unproductive. And that's what socialism is all about. And that's what he wants done. That's what America is doing. We're bleeding ourselves dry, and now they're putting it on steroids, UN 2.0. Despite opposition from various quarters, Newman writes, "The 193 member body adopted the pact by consensus September 22 on the summit of the future during the UN General Assembly after about nine months of negotiations." Now think about this for a moment. Pact for the future was signed by a majority of nations, the 193 nations that were represented, and they were there at the summit of the future. Now, where have we heard some of the future? Pact for the future? Where have we heard that before? Oh, yeah, that's right. Kamala Harris is about for the future, for the future. Yeah, this is all about the future. The truth is there is nothing new in the future except old socialism. They're going back. That's how they go forward. Simply go back. And they hope that you don't know about what happened back here. Pact for the future simply is taking us all the way into communism, socialism. That's what it's about. So in the days before the pact was adopted, a coalition of U.S. lawmakers, grassroots leaders held a press conference on Capitol Hill criticizing the agreement as an effort to undermine national sovereignty and freedom. That's exactly what it is. Undermining sovereignty and freedom. We can't give up any more of our sovereignty, any more of our geopolitical integrity, or any more of our economic integrity to foreign actors who have no concerns for the United States of America other than to take our power money away. Representative Andy Biggs from Arizona stated that he was a former leader of the House Freedom Caucus. I think that quote is very, very telling. Listen carefully, once again to what he had to say, we can't give up any more of our sovereignty. He's confessing that we have already given up much of our sovereignty. That's exactly what has been occurring. Reaching all the way back into the 1960s where the sovereignty was actually eroding purposefully by communist actors, socialist actors from the Soviet Union at that time, Chinese Communist Party, and operatives within the United States, particularly in the Democratic Party. People such as Alger Hiss who brought it together, signed this agreement altogether for the United Nations in order that we might go into a global government and lose our sovereignty. And it has been eroded piece by piece. As a matter of fact, that is exactly the wording in 1974 from Council and Foreign Relations eroding our sovereignty piece by piece. It's already been done. They're already taking billions of dollars away from American taxpayers and sending it overseas. And we don't have money now to help the people from the hurricane that happened in the South. This is, this is absolutely an atrocity. Well, that's exactly what Andy Biggs is confessing. We can't give up any more of our sovereignty, any more of our geopolitical integrity. We've already given up a lot of it. It's time to put a stop to it, time to get out of the United Nations. Andy Biggs goes on to say, or this is, this actually is from Mike McCall from Texas. He told, he says the pact ignores the malign influence of the CCP within the global organization. The malign influence of the CCP has been there from the inception of the United Nations. Mike McCall has been there since the beginning. So has, so has the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, the communist nation. As a matter of fact, they had the rule in the initial phases of the United Nations that one nation in the Security Council, out of the five that were the original members, that one nation could veto anything that was going on. It wasn't, it wasn't a, okay, we have four votes to one and therefore it passes. No, one nation can veto it. Why did they put that in there because the founders of the UN wanted communists to be able to veto what the United States wanted to do? That's why, and that's what's going on. Mike McCall, you're about 50 years too late to understand what's actually happening here. I appreciate the statement that has made the malign influence of the CCP, but that's what it has always been about. He goes on to say, it calls for the dramatically increased public spending and vague action on countless left-wing priorities. Well, that's why it has always been. That's what it has been from the inception. We've been funneling billions of dollars to the UN, to foreign countries, through the international banks for all this time. I'm glad you pointed it out, Mike McCall, slow to get to the issue, slow to get to the point, but that's what's been happening. He goes on to say the pact also completely ignores the most urgent issues facing the United Nations today, like reforming the UN, RWA, and combating malign CCP influence. It does nothing to advance US interest. US interest, of course, is exactly what we should be about, but we've not been about that. The CCP, which plays an increasingly powerful role within the United Nations, boasted about its significant role in developing the pact, writes Alex Newman. Well, I wonder what that means. What does that mean? Chinese Communist Party writes the laws that we have the Democrats wanted to put ourselves under. That doesn't even sound fishy. It is openly treasonous. That's what's happening here. So, speaking at the UN headquarters, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the pact as an effort to galvanize the UN's collective efforts for world peace and development and to map out the future of humanity. The future of humanity, to map out for you, for me, for everybody, the future for humanity, and the CCP helps craft this pact for the future via the United Nations. Antonio Guterres, Socialist International, the UN Secretary General, they're all mapping it out for you and for me. That is simply slavery to a government. That's what's happening, and the Democratic Party and many Republicans have been on board with the United Nations from its beginning point, but this is the design. It is treasonous. It is past time to get out. Wang talked about advancing global governance, global governance. There it is again, governance. If we say global government, the American people might run away, so we're going to say global governance. Oh yeah, now we can go along with it. There's a book about the Chinese Communist Party written by two Chinese Communists, and it's about the propaganda war that they push upon Americans and upon the free world. And it tells us in that book that communism is about two things. Hatred and violence. Hatred and violence. But we're going to say, and this is how they put it. We're going to talk about love and peace, love and peace. Hatred and violence, but we're going to say love and peace. That's the propaganda that they have. That's how they manipulate public opinion. And that's exactly what he's saying. Global governance, advancing peace. You see how this works? Mapping out the peace for humanity, world peace development. No, they want to develop their nation on the backs of the US taxpayer. So Wang talked about advancing global governments. On the other side, the Argentine government officially distanced itself from the pact and the UN in general. Unlike our weekly democratic government, they're globalists. By the way, this is why Liz Cheney has endorsed Kamala Harris because Liz Cheney, like her father Dick Cheney, are globalists. Number one, first and foremost, they're international socialists, globalists. Number one, that's why Liz Cheney has to say one. Now I'm going to endorse Kamala Harris. Now she doesn't want freedom. She wants the United Nations international government. Dick Cheney wants the same thing. That's why, and that's why George Bush had them. So Argentina, back to Argentina, Argentina wants the freedom to develop itself. This is what the Argentine government officially stated. The Argentina in the president is Javier Malai. Malai says, Argentina wants the freedom to develop itself without being subjected to the undue weight of decisions that are alien to our goals. That's the foreign minister, Deanna Modino said, noting the Argentinian authorities are pursuing a policy of freedom. The president is Javier Malai in his address to the UN general assembly. He called the organization a multi-tenant gold Leviathan that seeks to decide what each nation state should do and how the citizens of the world should live. He also criticized the global organization's central role in prescribing what he called crimes against humanity and responding to the China originated coronavirus. He called the UN 2030 agenda, which features prominently in the pact, a Supra national that's overarching all the nations program of a socialist nature. Wouldn't it be great if our president would talk that, well, we did have a president who talked that way, Donald Trump, he talked that way when he went to the UN, but then we went back to a globalist, global socialist administration with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. And the first thing they did was jump right back into the parish climate accord, which says we're going to send billions of dollars overseas because of our climate sins. And we're going to advance global governance, global government. But the Argentine president, Javier Malai says, no, you know what, this is a global government and we're not going to be a part of it. So he says we, we will urgently accelerate progress towards achieving the goals, including through concrete political steps and mobilizing significant additional financing from all sources for sustainable development. That's the pact, how the pact reads actually, not when Malai says they're going to accelerate progress toward achieving sustainable development goals, including through concrete political steps, mobilizing significant additional financing from all sources for sustainable development. You know, when I read sustainable development, when you hear it, there's one word that should come to your mind, rationing, the big R word rationing, sustainable development means rationing government control over how much energy you use, how much gasoline you might use, how much food you might have intake, what you can eat, what you cannot eat, all these things, sustainable development. Rationing, we have to have a government in charge of it. So thanks to the United Nations. So the sustainable development goals, which the UN leaders described as the master plan for humanity when they were adopted in 2015 encompasses everything from education, agriculture, health care, the environment. And after they were adopted, the Chinese Communist Party owned propaganda outlets around the world boasted that Beijing played a crucial role in creating the 2030 agenda, but it's all hypocrisy in order that they might control America because they have one target. And that is America, an American freedom. The young man I told you about who had been over. The family member who had been over to China and Beijing tells very plainly, you can't even breathe the air over there. You can't because it's all so polluted. Make your eyes water, smoke everywhere. It looks like London fog in the old pictures, the old movies. That's what Beijing's about. Are they interested in clean air and clean energy and back for the future? No. No, they're interested in causing Americans to succumb. Be aware of the pact for the future now being produced by the United Nations and brought to you into your neighborhood by your unfriendly Democratic representative and senator. (dramatic music) (dramatic music)