Big League National Security
United Nations Website Still Touts The Need For ‘Replacement Migration’ In The United States
The United Nations website continues to promote a 2000 UN study on the need for “replacement migration” in eight countries including the United States.
Some of the countries cited in the paper from 18 years ago are now experiencing the reality of replacement migration, including France, Germany, Great Britain, and even the United States of America.
The globalist push for “replacement migration” was not a conspiracy theory in 2000, and it is not a conspiracy theory now. In fact, you can check UN.org yourself to read the paper, which concludes that replacement migration is necessary.
“United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration,” according to the report introduction published on the UN website.
“Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates,” according to the UN website.
“Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future,” according to one of the conclusions of the report.
Look no further than the United Kingdom to see the effects of the UN-supportred “replacement migration” plan.
Big League Politics reported this week on the bureaucratic plot to block the Brexit vote from actually being realized in policy:
The Mayor of London is calling for a second vote on Brexit after the British people already decided to exit the European Union in democratic vote during June of 2016.
“The British people should get the final say on Brexit. Retweet if you agree,” said Sadiq Khan who is politically liberal and part of Britain’s Labour Party.
The British people should get the final say on Brexit. Retweet if you agree. pic.twitter.com/naHVcw0BKB
— Mayor of London (@MayorofLondon) October 7, 2018
But the people already had the final say, and they voted “Leave.” It was the same type of right-wing populism in Britain that voted to exit the bureaucratic EU in favor of a more “Britain-first” approach to governance that would later propel President Donald J. Trump to victory in November of 2016. Indeed, populism and nationalism are trending worldwide.
Khan echoed his call for a second referendum only weeks after publicly announcing this position in an op-ed, and winning enough support within his party to run for re-election in 2020.
“People didn’t vote to leave the EU to make themselves poorer, to watch their businesses suffer, to have NHS wards understaffed, to see the police preparing for civil unrest or for our national security to be put at risk if our cooperation with the EU in the fight against terrorism is weakened,” Khan said in the piece.
But none of that has actually happened. All of the negative externalities listed by Khan are pure speculation, considering that the British government has yet to give in to the demands of the people and actually leave the European Union. Instead, they have stalled at every turn, hoping to force a second referendum.
And Khan is dutifully playing his part in ignoring the will of the “Leave” voters.
“Another public vote on Brexit was never inevitable, or something I ever thought I’d have to call for. But the government’s abject failure – and the huge risk we face of a bad deal or a ‘no deal’ Brexit – means that giving people a fresh say is now the right – and only – approach left for our country,” he said…”
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/1037017222152118273?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1037017222152118273&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fblp.flywheelsites.com%2Fvideo-raheem-kassam-takes-on-london-mayor-sadiq-khan-in-new-series-on-terrorism%2F
Big League National Security
NEW: Joe Biden Bashes Incoming Trump Administration In Leaked 2016 Call to President of Ukraine
Completely inappropriate.
Joe Biden speaks in critical and partisan terms of the incoming Trump administration in a new leaked call to the President of Ukraine unveiled Wednesday.
In the call, conducted in November 2016 a week after then-candidate Trump’s election victory, Biden bashes the incoming administration to the foreign leader, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Biden assails the Trump transition team as incompetent, turning down the idea of visiting the country before the January transition before Trump is “fully briefed” on matters related to Ukraine.
In a second call, Biden asks for Poroshenko to describe his conversations with incoming President Trump, going to to speak of Trump in more dismissive terms. He describes Trump as a “dog who caught the car, and who doesn’t know what to do.” Not quite a “dog-faced pony soldier,” but definitely not an appropriate way for an outgoing vice president to describe an incoming president to a foreign leader.
A Ukrainian comedian originally released the calls, suggesting questionable operational security within the conversations of Joe Biden and Poroshenko. Biden has a lengthy history of ethical questions regarding his relationship with Ukraine, including looking the other way as his son Hunter secured an extremely lucrative position at a Ukrainian oil company without any experience whatsoever in the energy industry.
Biden himself would later go on to demand the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating corruption allegations against the younger Biden, a clear conflict of interest Biden merely dismissed when he spoke openly of securing the prosecutor’s firing at a Council on Foreign Relations public event.
This is a totally inappropriate way for a Vice President to speak to a foreign leader, and the public should be concerned about how Biden plans to conduct diplomacy should he be elected President.
-
Tech3 days agoMeet the Alternative to the Drudge Report
-
Campaign 20204 days agoRomney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski Emerge as Republican Red Flags in Potential SCOTUS Confirmation
-
Violent Left2 days agoBLM Activist Wearing “Justice for Breonna Taylor” T-Shirt Shoots, Kills Three People in Bar Owned by Louisville Ex-Cop
-
Congress3 days agoFLASHBACK: Three Recent Supreme Court Justices Were Confirmed Within 45 Days
-
Deplorables1 day agoNebraska Small Business Owner Commits Suicide After Being Railroaded With Manslaughter For Defending His Bar From Criminal Rioters
-
Campaign 20203 days agoSLEEPY: Joe Biden Campaign Team Pulls Joe from Daily Activities at 8:35AM, Months Before Election
-
Congress4 days agoChuck Schumer Calls For Blocking SCOTUS Vacancy “Until We Have a New President”
-
Campaign 20202 days agoWATCH: Joe Biden Waves to Absolutely No One As He Disembarks Private Plane in Florida
