Trump Condemns Pro-Abortion UN Response Plan

“The United States stands with nations that have pledged to protect the unborn.”

The Trump administration is demanding that the United Nations remove references to abortion from their COVID-19 response plan and accusing the international body of using the pandemic to justify politically motivated goals.

To use the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification to pressure governments to change their laws is an affront to the autonomy of each society to determine its own national policies on health care. 

In a letter from John Barsa, the acting Administrator of USAID, the UN was asked to “avoid creating controversy” by removing the reference to “abortion as an essential component of the UN’s priorities to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Therefore, the UN should not use this crisis as an opportunity to advance access to abortion as an “essential service.” Unfortunately, the Global HRP does just this, by cynically placing the provision of “sexual and reproductive health services” on the same level of importance as food-insecurity, essential health care, malnutrition, shelter, and sanitation. Most egregious is that the Global HRP calls for the widespread distribution of abortion-inducing drugs and abortion supplies, and for the promotion of abortion in local country settings.

Barsa continues by pointing out that President Trump has made it a priority to defend the unborn saying, “we will never tire of defending innocent life.”

The perverted inclusion of a life-taking procedure in a plan published by the United Nations is an astounding misstep that can only provoke and antagonize nations that respect the sanctity of life. Not only that, but if the UN were to seek to coerce member states into agreeing to this plan, the sovereignty of all free peoples is put at risk.

The entirety of the message can be read below:

The Honorable
António Guterres
The United Nations Secretary-General
United Nations Headquarters
New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

Thank you for your continued efforts to advance the purposes and principles of the United Nations (UN), including the sovereign equality of all its Member States, which the UN Charter established decades ago.

As the largest donor of global health and humanitarian assistance, the United States always has led the world through times of strife, turmoil, and uncertainty. The current pandemic of COVID-19 is no different. Thus far, of the $650.7 million allocated from supplemental funding by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to combat the pandemic globally, we have provided $45.3 million to UN agencies. This is a fraction of USAID’s overall financial support for the UN’s activities, which in Fiscal Year 2019 totaled more than $3.5 billion in funds disbursed.

As the UN and Member States around the world work to address the pandemic of COVID-19, I urge you, your staff, and the UN’s funds, programs, and specialized and technical agencies to stay focused on life-saving interventions. The delivery of essential health care is the first priority around the globe during this time. In addition, severe food shortages could represent a second, deadly impact of the pandemic in many countries. The UN’s Global Humanitarian Response Plan (Global HRP), and its $6.71 billion coordinated appeal, must remain focused on addressing the most urgent, concrete needs that are arising out of the pandemic.

Therefore, the UN should not use this crisis as an opportunity to advance access to abortion as an “essential service.” Unfortunately, the Global HRP does just this, by cynically placing the provision of “sexual and reproductive health services” on the same level of importance as food-insecurity, essential health care, malnutrition, shelter, and sanitation. Most egregious is that the Global HRP calls for the widespread distribution of abortion-inducing drugs and abortion supplies, and for the promotion of abortion in local country settings.

Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the United States has made clear that we will “never tire of defending innocent life.” President Trump said in his address to the 74th UN General Assembly that the UN simply has “no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life.” Indeed, the UN should not intimidate or coerce Member States that are committed to the right to life. To use the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification to pressure governments to change their laws is an affront to the autonomy of each society to determine its own national policies on health care. The United States stands with nations that have pledged to protect the unborn.

To achieve global unity toward this goal, it is essential that the UN’s response to the pandemic avoid creating controversy. Therefore, I ask that you remove references to “sexual and reproductive health,” and its derivatives from the Global HRP, and drop the provision of abortion as an essential component of the UN’s priorities to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Member States are deeply divided over the use of the term “sexual and reproductive health” and its derivatives, and it is among the most polarizing issues raised in UN negotiations. The Global HRP, and the activities of UN agencies and bodies moving forward, should use clear language and take clear action to address the real needs of vulnerable people around the world without promoting abortion. Now is not the time to add unnecessary discord to the COVID-19 response.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. The United States remains committed to working with you to preserve human life and defeat the pandemic of COVID-19. I wish you good health and safety during these challenging days.

Sincerely yours,
John Barsa

Part III: The tweets UN Employees sent on your dime, and what you can do to stop them

“Trump is pathetic. If he wins the US will need boots on the ground. Is he constipated? There aren’t enough white men to elect Trump.” – Various UN Employees on record

This is part III, continuing from part II here.

None of these tweets are screaming death to America and the most extreme ones have stopped since President Trump assumed office.  But consider the following before reading these tweets:

For every dollar that these people make, roughly 25 cents comes from US tax dollars. There are 166 other countries that sign on to this organization, yet we foot a quarter of the bill. When they tweet from their UN Twitter accounts, 25% of their livelihood is thanks to your hard work.  Their income is not taxed by the federal government.

The UN has no choice but to respect us since most of their programs would be financially unstable without our voluntary contributions. This can stop at any time but it takes you raising your voice and alerting politicians and American bureaucrats to this madness. Don’t pay the salaries of people that want you to destroy your culture with a smile on your face. That much, at least, should be common sense.

If you enjoy what you’ve read, please consider supporting my work.  The easiest way to do so is via my paypal link.  I’ll be sure to thank you publicly. If you are unable to help fund my work, please consider sharing it on your social platforms. Exposure is invaluable.

Have you followed my social media accounts? Find them here:
(FB) The American Nationalist
(FB) Deplorable Digest
(TWITTER) TweetBrettMac
(Gab) BrettMac

“If Trump wins, I think an intervention might become relevant, boots on the ground even…” and other Tweets from UN employees in the IOM

Christine Petre works for the IOM in Libya. She’s Swedish, so you can understand how she thinks:

Farah Sater Ferraton, is a career international bureaucrat. She’s worked at the ILO and World Bank previously.

The Press officer wrote this bizarre poem…and repeatedly discussed the white men he wants to replace

Naturally many respond to his tweets:

There were a few Drumpfs along the way, too. Here’s Marzia Rango, migration data researcher with IOM. 

Itayi Viriri, he’s the IOM head of online communications and possibly responsible for the IOM twitter, referenced a Fresh Prince of Bell Air clip where a girl screams that Donald Trump ruined her life:

He hates PB&J and therefore America:

And like any adult professional enjoys potty jokes:

Jean-Philippe Chauzy, IOMs Chief of Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo took things hard too:

There were some fair takes few and far between:

PART II: Why are we paying supposedly impartial UN employees to trash our president?

This story is a continuation from PART ONE where we discussed the odd existence of a subdivision of the United Nations known as the International Organization for Migrants. You can read that here.

IOM receives over 1 Billion in funding. 25% of that comes from the United States. Your tax dollars are going to statements like this:

We began last time by highlighting the tweet that shamelessly declared the globalist, pro-migrant agenda of the United Nations. This sounds like an alarmist statement, one that Alex Jones might utter, but take a quick look at these scare-caps:

Any sensible person would wonder why their tax dollars are going to an organization that seems to solely exist to pacify their concerns about economic migrants.  It would be rather normal to wonder who these employees are as well since these tax funded agenda pushers are unelected.

With that in mind, let’s take a look by starting with the simplest lie they told.

IOM claims they have only existed for the past two years. They were founded in 1951.

It seems like an odd thing to lie about but here it is:

Whatever, but for what it is worth, this isn’t remotely true:

IOM, or as it was first known, the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (PICMME), was born in 1951 out of the chaos and displacement of Western Europe following the Second World War. Mandated to help European governments to identify resettlement countries for the estimated 11 million people uprooted by the war, it arranged transport for nearly a million migrants during the 1950s.
And reading the history page from the organization’s website, it is somewhat clear why they would lie about their organization and why they might think they could get away with it.
OIM has been reconstituted multiple times. But by changing the initialism, more than just its name was transformed.  Subtle mission changes evolved over time.  Rather than settling the resettlement of people returning to their homelands in a post-war world, the organization sought a new purpose for existing as the cold war thawed.
By this point, many hundreds of millions of dollars were on the line and a justification for that expenditure would be needed. With that it mind, OIM, which had previously been called PICMME and then ICEM, and then ICM, has become an advocacy group:
Its credo that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society has steadily gained international acceptance.
But, even then, the change to “IOM” took place in 1989. That’s not a few years but a few decades ago, and since the original mission has been departed, their rather deceitful response about their age makes a bit of sense.  And boy! If their mission has changed, so has their income:
The broader scope of activities has been matched by rapid expansion from a relatively small agency into one with an annual operating budget of an estimated $1.3 billion and some 8,400 staff working in over 150 countries worldwide. IOM currently has 157 Member States and a further 10 states holding Observer status.
What on God’s green Earth are we doing paying for this?  It is easy to forget that the money funding these programs is coming from the countries migrants are headed towards and not from the nations they are fleeing. Its a self-financed destruction.

Why are Americans paying the United Nations millions to fund this garbage?

Keep reading to see the much awaited tweets from employees themselves.

If you enjoy what you’ve read, please consider supporting my work.  The easiest way to do so is via my paypal link.  I’ll be sure to thank you publicly.

Have you followed my social media accounts? Find them here:
(FB) The American Nationalist
(FB) Deplorable Digest
(TWITTER) TweetBrettMac
(Gab) BrettMac

Part I: United Nations targets President Trump on Twitter… Read these statements!

The United Nations has grown a tumor.  That is not a reference to the member nations that comprise the deliberative body, though there’s hardly anything good to be said about them either.

Instead, this criticism is directed to a precise bureaucratic element of the United Nations: the United Nations office of Migration.  More specifically, the International Organization for Migration. 

Most probably don’t know this organization exists, which is a shame since it is sure set on changing their lives and their homelands.

This tweet was a major red flag:

Now, you might at this point be wondering about a few things, such as why and where.

Why does this organization even exist? Where does this institution get this money from?

Or at least that seemed like a rational train of thought.  To the first question, the answer remains a bit of a mystery.  To the second, the answer is simply from your pocket as well as the pocket of the global taxpayer.

The ‘negligible’ million dollars or two here and there goes to a number of elements within the United Nations that operate with a degree of autonomy.  You could call this the deep state of the United Nations if you must, but they don’t necessarily operate with an agenda in consensus.

Setting these questions aside for a moment and returning to the tweet above there’s another curious notion to ponder.

Who is this UN-funded organization speaking to and on whose behalf?

Consider the language and format the poster, who isn’t an intern but rather the head of media, chose to use when addressing his audience.  It’s a bit Orwellian isn’t it?

“Migration is INEVITABLE because of demographic, economic and environmental factors.”

The implication, the only possible impetus or motive that could have provoked this tweet, is that an international opposition to migration exists.  These anti-globalists or anti-internationalists are now threatening the newly established order and the ideals thereof.

Broadly speaking, if you don’t accept that millions of Mexicans are going to seek jobs in the United States and compete with you by migrating here, you can count yourself among the anti-globalist coalition and the tweet is directed at you. Especially if you are white:

“Migration is NECESSARY to meet labour demands and ensure the vibrancy of economies.”

Migration is DESIRABLE for migrants and host populations alike – when governed humanely and fairly.

If these things were true, the manipulative tweet wouldn’t be necessary nor would the insane block caps INEVITABLE, NECESSARY, DESIRABLE, be screaming at you to stop resisting your rational notion to preserve your homeland for your own people and progeny.

Understandably, there was a lot of push-back to the United Nations telling the citizens of the world that they were powerless. What was surprising was how the account continued to respond!

One of the consistent retorts the International Organization for Migrants used is that they do not support “irregular” migration. But they never really define what that means and that left users with a lot of questions:

And when they were pressed on a definition, well, the UN agency decided to play dumb. “We don’t understand,” they smugly said. “We only support regular migration.”

Fine, you support this thing you won’t define, we get it. Then tell us about the opposite of this thing instead, you can do that? Great thanks. “There is no clear or universally accepted definition of irregular migration.” Oh, uh…

Must be nice to call everything regular since irregular is impossible to identify.  Is it regular for people to leave their homeland, uproot, travel to distant cultures where strange tongues speak unfamiliar languages and alien customs prevail? Is that ever regular or normal? Probably not.

https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/1040690149796052992

After a bit of interaction with this account, curiosity led to an investigation into the staffers that fill the agencies role–and what exactly is that role, still alludes this author–and the discovery was unsurprising.

These men and women had a lot to say about President Trump, often from behind their verified Twitter accounts. Some tweeted the typical smug content about how he could never win, others mixed race into their tweets with the obvious implication being that he was a racist. One even suggested that America should be invaded!  These are all people who have a salary because your tax dollars go to their wallets.  Oh, and their income is left un-taxed. 

Now, it’s important to point out that while there were many examples of this behavior, it was outside the norm.  While the entire existence of IOM is bizarre and worth questioning the value of, most of the employed staffers seem to conduct themselves professionally.

This story CONTINUES HERE.  There was a lot of information to parse through, so continue reading

If you enjoy what you’ve read, please consider supporting my work.  The easiest way to do so is via my paypal link.  I’ll be sure to thank you publicly.

Have you followed my social media accounts? Find them here:
(FB) The American Nationalist
(FB) Deplorable Digest
(TWITTER) TweetBrettMac
(Gab) BrettMac