The RED flags waving over Justin Michal, a Northern Michigan “Republican” Candidate for US Congress in the 1st Congressional District.

To begin, I would like to share my simple observations.  If you enjoy the notion of being embroiled within the anti-American open borders United Nations, Justin Michal is your guy.  If you believe Islam is largely “a religion of peace”, Justin is your guy.  If you believe we need to sit down and shut up about the 2020 election, vote for Justin.  If you want a guy who pays zero attention to the US Constitution aside from the low-hanging fruit of the 2A, yep, you guessed it… Justin is your dude.

Change for the sake of change is a dangerous proposition.  Yes, Bush was bad – by design.  It solidified Obama’s chances.  Obama was progressively worse.  Be careful what you wish for.

I am writing in hopes of convincing you that a young globalist challenger who is working hard to supplant the status quo, is indelibly more dangerous.  I perceive that there will be a huge change in the focus of Justin’s effort in DC if he happens to win.  Since Justin has no track record of local leadership or activism – I have taken the time to put together what is publicly available.  That being the substance of his degree, his blog, his claims on his campaign site, and his campaign spending.  I also note the obvious lack of depth in his policy.  So you don’t have to, there has been a need to “poke the bear” on social media to ascertain his reactions on specific topics.

Justin is hard working.  But I strongly doubt his stated motives.  I don’t think I desire his brand of “change” any more than I did from Obama.

The 1CD grassroots is rightfully desperate for a new congressional leader.

The grassroots support for Justin Michal is a testament to the desperate state of the political landscape within Michigan’s First Congressional District.  So many good and intelligent people are driven by an ardent desire for a different congressional representative.  Trust me, I understand.  Our “representation” is far less than ideal.  But I implore you to not outright ignore ostentatiously ginormous red flags in the hardest working challenger of this cycle.  If you examine the full gamut of evidence, it is easy to discern that Justin Michal is not a constitutional conservative candidate.  Truly, he doesn’t even try to be because he knows he needs many Democrat votes to win.

Given what we can learn from his background and from what he has said – he is not likely to support an America First agenda.  He will not likely fight for constitutional values. He is not MAGA.

I will provide evidence to corroborate the notion that he is a globalist Democrat who is smart enough to know he cannot get elected in the 1CD running as a globalist Democrat.  If you believe in the 1CD and are in love with true American values as our founding fathers were, I urge you to spend the time to read this to completion.

When people tell us who they are, we need to listen!

When a candidate is obvious and shows condescension when challenged – and does not even attempt to hide their globalist tilted beliefs – it is unwise to ignore what they are flat out telling us.  I am here to show you what I have researched and observed in the time since I met Justin over a year ago.  Justin is not shy about his liberal ideologies in his monologues despite his attempts to obfuscate it.

This candidate is often contradictory.  He is very willing to talk about himself and his “credentials”.  I do not perceive any depth to policy choices he would advocate as a member of the US Congress.  As voters and leaders in our communities, we have a duty to be cognizant of the consequences of voting for someone in their 40’s simply because their name is not Jack Bergman.  Michal’s time in office, if elected, would stand to outlive the vast majority of current voters and Republican leadership within Michigan’s 1^st Congressional District.

If we are not certain that the policy direction of this younger man is wholly America First, Constitutionally sound, and focused entirely on conservative Christian values… Then I urge you to think of the future and vote for the lesser of two evils.  I can hear it now: “How can you state that Jack Bergman is the lesser of two evils?”  I can state this for one reason:

It is likely that I will not spend the rest of my human life trying to replace a nearly 80-year-old Jack Bergman.

How much harm can an old man do when compared to a younger man with an agenda driven by globalist policy?

We must consider the notion of “infiltration from within”.  Infiltration in such a manner is straight out of the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” playbook.  Many of the narratives and methodologies track with this, in fact.  His choice of educational path notwithstanding.

Does Justin have a long history of leadership and activism in Northern Michigan?

No?

Aside from his youth, he has seems to have spent little time here.

Let’s examine what we do know.

Given the state of politics and the provable difficulty in unseating incumbents, it is among the worst political stratagem possible to make this young man an incumbent.  He has a background in globalist liberal education that he brags about. He openly voices support for globalist ideals.  The only mention of the Constitution on his website platform is the low hanging fruit of the 2^nd amendment.  He talks way more about the globalist UN and why we need to be a part of it than preserving our God-given rights under the Constitution of the United States.  I cannot overlook this and you shouldn’t either.

Just because he is working hard (and he is busting his butt) does not mean that this effort will be made on behalf of We the People if he is elected.  In fact, his choice of degree, the limited actual policy he does discuss, and his focus on both earning leftist votes and support for leftist globalist tilted narratives suggest that he is wholly in this for his own long-term personal gain.  You do not go for a PhD in a liberal globalist career path because you are a Constitutional Conservative.  Just ask Democrat Ilhan Omar – who holds a similar educational study path…

TLDR: If it speaks like a liberal globalist, it is probably a liberal globalist.

We all know how difficult it is to unseat an incumbent.  When someone tell us who they are, we must listen.  As for me, I ardently do not wish to spend the rest of my life trying to unseat an open globalist who overtly espouses the following:

• • • Our deeper involvement within the United Nations. Never forget:  The UN and its proxies want to strip us of our guns, force us to take vaccines, embroil us within a Central Bank Digital Currency, Open Our Borders, and usurp our constitutional sovereignty.  He literally believes that Biden was better than Trump but, still not good enough.
      • “In 2018, and again in 2025, the U.S. withdrew from the council under the Trump administration, citing alleged bias against Israel and the council’s failure to implement meaningful reforms. Bias in the United Nations (UN) – the world’s largest intergovernmental institution – often stems from the political interests of powerful member states, geopolitical alliances, funding influences and the structure of voting blocs that shape resolutions and policy decisions. Though the Biden administration re-engaged in 2021, this renewed participation was often tepid, more reactive than proactive.” Source.
    • We should shut up and move on from the fraud of the 2020 election.
  • • That Islam is largely “a religion of peace” and that Sharia Law is not Islamic Doctrine. I would like Justin to explain how many MILLIONS of people have been slaughtered pursuant to Islamic Law and belief, yet we are to simply forget about that and trust that he knows best because he went to college and lived in a rich Islamic nation for a minute.  Maybe he should talk to those who are related to those who died and those who are presently persecuted.  I do not see anywhere he has stood up for Christianity.  But, he sure will try to throw it in the face of opposition in typical leftist gaslighting tactics.  No Justin, we don’t “need your help”.  This definition below is straight out of the UN narrative, and is not reflective of truth.
  • • A “local only” narrative while being straight up contradictory in spending inordinate amounts of money on companies in Tennessee. Source.
      • One disbursement for a $5000.00 TV ad that spends zero time on substance or policy (this lack of attention on substance is a trend).
      • A $20,000.00 website that anyone half decent web developer in Michigan could have put together. There are literally thousands of web devs in Michigan. I guess his “local first/local only” mantra doesn’t apply to anything he wants put out. It is simply a talking point that he knows resonates with those he is trying to reach.
    • A lurid social media past in which he explicitly tells us “who he is”.  Source.
  • • Actual NGO work within UN Frameworks (USAID anyone?) Source.
  • An overtly globalist leftist online learning PhD program that he is not shy about…

Laying the foundation: Educational background.

Let’s dig in. We will begin with the last point first.  Nova Southeastern University is a mid-tier institution located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  They’re ranked #257 nationally.  And the program Justin is enrolled in is largely online.

This program posits the following liberal values and describes its focus as:  “the study of human behavior in societies, and methods whereby parties achieve constructive agreements based on the principles of nonviolence, equity, dignity, and appreciation for human diversity”.

Conservatives who have been paying attention for the past few years MUST recognize the non-neutral academic descriptors above.  I will draw your attention to the following three words in particular: “equity, diversity, nonviolence”.  This is precisely the organizing vocabulary of PROGRESSIVE social theory.  Furthermore, they signal the framework through which the curriculum of Justin Michal’s doctorate is focused upon.  This is not a constitutional conservative learning program.

Now, let’s take a look at the organizations and/or “working groups” that this program works with.  You will note that not only are they globalist, but they are also very ultra-left in their verbiage and ideology.  Common theme?  Not a single one focuses on the USA.

• • An Africa Working Group
  • A Latin American Working Group
  • The Caribbean Working Group
  • A Peace and Conflict Resolution Education Working Group
  • A Social Justice Roundtable
  • A Sustainable Development Working Group

Note that none of these are extracurricular.  This is literal formal academic life for every single doctoral student in this program.  Every. Single. One.  Source.

Does any of this sound familiar?  Does any of it remotely sound conservative, constitutional, or America First to you?  Does someone who chooses a doctorate in liberal policy seem like they will fight for Americans? No?  It gets better…

So, let’s dig deeper.

The Peace and Conflict Resolution Education Working Group is succinct in its mission.  It is dedicated to creating and teaching “curriculum that challenges racism, sexism, classism and other prejudices”.  It also focuses on “working with young people as they advocate for more just and peaceful communities.”  This is integral to how this particular department describes its educational purpose.  Source.

It sounds nice.  But Marxist ideologues generally do know how to frame their social justice phraseology in a nice sounding way.  It is the implementation of such things that tend to rob freedom, stifle speech and individuality, and promote minorities at the detriment of the majority.  That isn’t equality that is equity.  They are not the same.

What does the program publish?

In its peer-reviewed journal, “Peace and Conflict Studies”, the program is committed to “interdisciplinary explorations on conflict resolution, peace building, humanitarian assistance… social change and nonviolence: sustainable development, ecological balance, community revitalization, reflective practice, action research, social justice, human rights, peace education, gender equality, intercultural relations, grassroots movements and organizational transformations.”.  Flat out: This is a list of progressive indoctrination policy preferences which are framed as academic curriculum and subject matter.  Source.

What about notable alumnus?

One of the program’s featured alumni which is highlighted on the department’s website authored a book titled “Stop Trying to Fix Policing: Lessons Learned from the Front Lines of Black Liberation”.  This was featured and promoted at the department’s “Social Justice Roundtable”.  So, this isn’t some fringe “underground” program event.  It is literally the department showcasing what they purport to be exemplary work from its own doctoral program.  Here is Tony Gaskey’s website and his first statement is that he is a Critical Race Theorist…

The program clearly thinks he is stellar.

Wild.

What would Justin try to “accomplish” in order to get on this list?

Would an obvious Democrat getting elected as a Republican in one of Michigan’s final conservative bulwarks qualify him? Perhaps.

Finally, the Nova dissertation archive features and confirms this pervasive leftist and globalist ideology which is rampant through this program.  Recent graduates have put forth such integral and world-changing dissertations on studies of “Food Change Advocates”, a phenomenological analysis of “Lesbian Mothers and the Sociopolitical Conflicts that shape their narratives”, a deconstruction of “public discourse on undocumented immigration” and a study of “environmental racism” which affects African Americans.

I do not see any constitutional conservative narratives here.  There’s nothing about freedom, either.  Only Democrat globalist narratives.

Why would a Constitutional Conservative, or even Moderate Republican spend inordinate amounts of time and money within the indoctrination of such a program?

I certainly cannot see any reason.  You are what you immerse yourself within.

What kind of work is available in this field?

Well, I’m glad to answer this.  All of the types of NGO organizations that USAID fed with your money are funding people who get hired from degree programs like this.  Each and every single one of them is a left-of-center organization.  Here’s a short list:

• • The United Nations
  • The United States Institute of Peace
  • Search for Common Ground
  • Various Soros led Open Society aligned foundations

You can largely expect to work in the corrupt UN NGO network when you graduate – and Justin has already admitted to doing so (albeit without proof).  More than 50% do.  The rest work in government (20%) and education (20%).  90% are jobs funded by We the People.  10% or less work in the private sector.  90% of people who engage in this liberal indoctrination program look to drive policy.  Justin is no outlier here. He is following the playbook.

Agencies such as UNDP/UNICEF/UNHCR, as well as CARE and Oxfam are common destinations for those who do not end up in public office.

Yikes! Source.

What kind of elected officials can we look to as an example of those who went through similar education or elected policy pathways?

I could not find a single solitary Republican who voluntarily subjected themselves to a degree like this and then got elected.  However, here are a few of the notable Democrats I found to have subjected themselves to liberal globalist indoctrination at the university level – or have driven policy of the same frameworks driven by the program focus.

• • Dennis Kucinich a Democrat from Ohio, was elected to the US house from 1997-2013 and ran for president in 2004 and 2008.  He does not carry a degree in this field.  However he has driven policy to this end and even if I agree with some of what he did – he did so openly and honestly as a Democrat.  The dangerous angle to Kucinich was that he was a two-time delegate to the UN Convention on Climate Change.  This is something that is near and dear to us here in Alcona County as we are faced with an onslaught of Consumers Energy globalist green energy attacks on our farmland right this moment.
  • Barbara Lee, a Democrat from California was elected to the House of Representatives from 1998-2025 and is currently the mayor of Oakland, California.  Her policy is driven by the core of curriculum values that Justin Michal has immersed himself within.
  • Ilhan Omar, the infamous Democrat from Minnesota. She has been a congresswoman from 2019 until present day and has enrolled in programs which share curriculum values which compare very closely to the PhD program Michal is enrolled in.
  • Senator Tim Kaine a Virginia Democrat and Clinton’s VP nominee in 2016. His path most closely aligns with what I have found from Justin’s verifiable record.  He also advocates for involvement in multilateral institutions – including the UN framework.
  • Senator Chris Coons the Democrat from Delaware, whose advocacy and study are also very globalist. Instead of the UN, he directly advocated NATO involvement which is very congruent to the curricula focus of conflict resolution programs.

I find it interesting how none of the examples I could find are Republican.  Not a single one.

Face value vs reality.

On face value, what these programs and curriculums espouse sound truly good.  That’s how these things are sold.  As we can see, the reality is far different.  What we have been openly shown in the last few years is that globalist policy is meant to typically do the precise opposite of what it claims.  Yet, sometimes, these organizations will quietly show or tell you what they truly mean…

• • “You will own nothing and like it.”
  • Agenda 2030
  • The WEF Central Bank Digital Currency.
  • Fake meat
  • Eat the bugs
  • Take the jab or get put into a camp.

(Sources for above at bottom of document – too much to put in-line.)

Conspiracy theories aside, there is plenty of empirically provable malfeasance on the part of the UN and the policy driven in its favor.  We’ll examine in more detail shortly.  But first let’s examine the pure folly of trying to reverse course and embroil ourselves with more involvement into the world’s most corrupt organization (while stating that government corruption is a focus of our campaign).

The broad inconsistency in supporting UN-HRC re-engagement while purporting to be an advocate for border security…

This is a hugely glaring contradiction.  In his article “The Silent Seat” Justin bluntly criticizes the Trump administration’s disengagement from this arm of the United Nations.

The OHCHR operates under HRC Resolution 57/14 on “the human rights of migrants” which directs it to explicitly study human rights monitoring at international borders.  This translates to non-sovereign scrutiny of the exact sort of enforcement that Michal purportedly advocates.  The HRC’s Special Rapporteur on migrant issues regularly calls on nation states to “step up efforts to protect migrants and stop shifting responsibilities”.  I’ll translate: “open your borders and take them on as your responsibility”.  We can look directly at Western Europe to see the results of this policy.  They are filled with no-go zones and crime has exponentially increased – and the economic burden is untold…

The Trump administration withdrew from this globalist organization for this specific reason:  This framework was viewed as imposing migration norms which are incompatible with U.S. sovereignty.

Befuddlingly hypocritical.

Justin criticizes the withdrawal but doesn’t address any policy-based reasoning for it.  As is Michal’s modus operandi, he bases his narratives on an emotive topical talking point designed to trigger your emotion but completely lacks any depth or substance.  An effective page out of the Democrat playbook.  It has won him broad globalist RINO support (outside of the Bergman camp), and a good amount of Democrat support, too.

Participation in these programs does not “help” people.  It strives to implement globalist policy at the nation state level which erodes national identity, integrates their destructive agenda 2030 green energy policy, subjugates us to both the WEF and the WHO, and does everything but put America First.

Re-engaging into the UN frameworks more than we already are is a HUGE step backwards and is an action that a Christian Constitutional Conservative should be fighting against.  I voted for Trump because he vowed to pull us out of the quagmire of globalist policy that put every other nation before us.  The last thing we need is to put someone in Congress who calls himself a Republican but will vote against Conservative policy for decades to come.

Justin constantly talks about supporting the local economy…  #localfirst #localonly… yet…

If local businesses deserve so much love, and he is such a local first guy, why did he not give the $20k website work to someone in Northern Michigan or, really, in Michigan at all?  Surely there must have been a company out there of the thousands of Michigan Website Developers who would have been able to put out the very basic website he has.

The same applies to the meaningless TV commercial he paid the same company $5k for.  Not only does the commercial put forth his age as the only thing worth voting for him for, he used the same Tennessee company to film and produce it.  That’s $25k that he could have put directly into Michigan pockets.  Yet, none of Michigan’s web or video teams were worth his time or money.  So much for #localfirst and #localonly.  Source.

Justin’s position on Islam is 100% out of the globalist playbook.

The religion of peace? Sharia Law?  Justin is wishy-washy as usual on this topic.  He fervently ignores what is written and outlined directly in Islamic doctrine and instead places his trust in ostensibly what must have been the political and/or UN related NGO contacts he met while overseas.  Islamic doctrine permits deception in order to do what is necessary.  Al-ḍarūrāt tubīḥ al-maḥẓūrā = “Necessity renders the forbidden permissible.”

Qur’an 2:173  “He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful.” (Yusuf Ali)

Necessity is highly subjective, of course.  So, deception within the political realms where Islam is concerned, is understandably rampant.  Especially amongst those who lack discernment and ignore reality.  In fact, deception is a political means where religion is not concerned.  So, to trust anything you see in cross-cultural dialogue is intensely naive.  This level of naivete is a patent disqualification to hold an office in which international geopolitics is likely to be an element in decision making.

If you want someone who will champion Christian values and fight against Jihad or the UN mantra of allowing it to spread uninhibited throughout the Western world, Justin will not be that guy.

Do you believe 2020 was stolen? Justin clearly does not.

While he dances around the issue like a seasoned professional career politician (his PhD program has taught him well), it is succinctly clear to me that Justin thinks “Biden won”.  Moreover, he thinks we need to simply forget about the 20 million PLUS anomalies that are both well documented and blatantly obvious – and sit down and shut up about it so we can “move forward”.

If you want a grassroots leader who will fight for YOUR ideals and what YOU believe in, Justin is not your guy.

But, relating to the two points above, Islam and the 2020 election… If you want someone who will gaslight you by calling you “negative” when you disagree with him, or condescend you when you point out the truth of Islamic doctrine – despite the fact that he tries to tell you he will listen and be the voice for the people – Justin is your guy.

Election integrity is not even mentioned on his website or platform.

Finally, why on earth do we want to rejoin the UN HRC or ANY arm of the UN??  What happened to AMERICA first?

I challenge anyone to name one empirical provable good that the United Nations has done for the people of the world or the United States that we would not have been able to accomplish without it.

Ask yourself: Do you like the Paris Climate Accord?  Do you enjoy our bad one-sided trade deals?  Do you want to give up your guns? Do you enjoy the concept of “you will own nothing and like it”?  Do you want to “eat ze bugs”? Do you enjoy the globalist Green New Deal attack of our farmlands manifesting right now with hundreds of square miles of industrial solar panels and wind turbines threatening every county in Northern Michigan?  Do you wish to have a Central Bank Digital Currency beast system implemented sooner rather than later?  Do you wish to be required to take vaccines?  Do you enjoy rampant money laundering and endless wars?

If you said yes to any of the above questions, the UN is your go-to organization to make it happen.

Despite my personal belief that it is the organization that will implement the One World Government Beast System mentioned in Daniel and Revelation in the Bible, there truly is no secular good that can be pointed out as coming from the United Nations.  Let me tell you flat out:  Justin is 100% all in on selling us out to the UN.  Back when he published his “Silent Seat” emotional slathering, this is when he and I parted ways as potential political allies.

He has vehemently pushed back every single time I have brought this up.  He cares more about the UN than anything.  It is the crux of his campaign and he has focused more of his platform on liberal ideologies than the Founding values of our nation.  In fact, I have never seen him discuss the Constitution.

Point blank: The United Nations is an enemy to the human race and to the United States and it seeks to usurp our Constitution.

Do you want to spend the next 40 years trying to get rid of a congressional candidate who supports all of which we have been fighting against since 2020?

I, for one, do not.  This is what a Justin Michal victory risks.

Choose wisely.

Further research and sourcing:

---

I did the homework so you didn’t have to.

The below amalgamation of sources is to corroborate the following:

1. The UN/WEF/WHO and their NGO networks and frameworks are all, in fact, interconnected.  (And this is barely scratching the surface, honestly.)
2. That billionaire “philanthropists” like Bill Gates are directly funding their anti-human, anti-American agendas.
3. That there is rampant corruption and outright evil within these frameworks.  So there is NO reason for a corrupt US government to be trusted to embroil itself into a shelter in which we can hide MORE corruption, evil, and malfeasance.
4. That globalist and anti-American policy has been at the core of our decline – with particular attention being drawn to trade “agreements” which favor other nations and not the USA.
5. These orgs are NOT the benevolent monoliths of humanitarian causes that their names would lead us to believe.  Any political candidate who seeks to sink us into their web of corruption, is not YOUR friend.

Research Source Focus: UN / WEF / Trade & Global Governance Topics

*Compiled July 2026. Primary sources prioritized; secondary/commentary sources labeled as such.*

—

1. Paris Agreement — Language, Funding, Organizational Sourcing

| Element | Source (link) | Key Fact |

|—|—|—|

| Treaty text & financial mechanism | https://unfccc.int/topics/introduction-to-climate-finance | Financial mechanism established under UNFCCC Article 11; entrusted to the Global Environment Facility (1994) and Green Climate Fund (designated 2011) |

| Green Climate Fund overview | https://www.greenclimate.fund/about | Established 2010 by the 194 UNFCCC parties; operating entity of the UNFCCC’s financial mechanism |

| Global climate finance scale | https://climatefundsupdate.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CFF2-2023-ENG-Global-Architecture.pdf | UNFCCC (2022) estimate: ~USD 803 billion/year in global climate finance flows |

| Post-Paris funding target (COP29, 2024) | https://climatefundsupdate.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CFF2-2025-ENG-Global-Architecture-DIGITAL.pdf | New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG): developed countries to lead on at least USD 300 billion/year by 2035; call to scale to USD 1.3 trillion/year from all sources |

| Full list of UNFCCC funds/entities | https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/bodies/funds-and-financial-entities | Official directory of GEF, GCF, Adaptation Fund, SCCF, LDCF |

—

2. NAFTA / TPP / USMCA — UN Institutional Involvement

| Element | Source (link) | Key Fact |

|—|—|—|

| ILO incorporation into TPP & USMCA | https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/protecting-labor-rights-and-environment-under-usmca | Both agreements formally adopted the ILO’s 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work |

| CRS summary: USMCA labor provisions | https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11308 | Requires parties to adopt/maintain ILO-standard worker rights in domestic statute, not just enforce existing law |

| NAFTA precedent (1994) | https://www.csis.org/analysis/labor-environment-and-gender-what-usmca-could-mean-inclusion-gender-future-us-trade | First U.S. FTA to reference environment (via NAAEC side agreement) and labor (via NAALC side agreement) |

| WTO defers labor standards to ILO | (same CSIS link above) | WTO maintains no independent labor standards; treatment of labor is left to the ILO, a UN specialized agency |

| Full USMCA/TPP legal comparison | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-trade-review/article/labour-rights-protection-and-its-enforcement-under-the-usmca-insights-from-a-comparative-legal-analysis/C24881E4D72CDEAD0A78463875C5CE8C | Article-by-article comparison of ILO references in both texts |

—

3. WEF “Eat the Bugs” / Alternative Protein & Anti-Meat Narratives

| Element | Source (link) | Notes |

|—|—|—|

| WEF “Meat: the Future” series (2019) | www.weforum.org | Primary WEF white paper discussing insect-, plant-, and lab-based proteins as emissions-reduction options | Download PDF: WEF_White_Paper_Alternative_Proteins

| WEF “Mainstreaming Food Innovation” (Sept 2024) | weforum.org/publications — search title directly | Roadmap report; frames insect protein as one “food innovation area” among several | Download PDF: WEF_Mainstreaming_Food_Innovation_2024

| WEF “50 Investible Opportunities for a New Nature Economy” | weforum.org | Lists alternative proteins (including insects) as one of 50 investment opportunities in a “nature economy” | Download PDF: WEF_50_Investible_Opportunities_for_a_New_Nature_Economy_2026

| Critical/academic treatment of the “eat the bugs” narrative | https://theconversation.com/i-will-not-eat-the-bugs-examining-a-right-wing-narrative-about-scarcity-and-insect-consumption-254112 | Academic (The Conversation) piece documenting how the claim of an EU/global “mandate” to eat bugs originated and spread; notes insect consumption remains marginal in the West |

| Secondary commentary treating this as a coordinated “agenda” | https://sociable.co/government-and-policy/wef-eat-bugs-fake-meat-agenda-phase/ ; https://www.todayville.com/wef-still-pushing-bug-diet-and-the-end-of-meat-eating/ | These directly quote WEF report language — useful as citation of primary text, but note the “agenda”/”phased plan” framing is the outlet’s interpretation, not WEF’s own stated framing |

Note in the above where there is a focus specifically on the inability of humanity to provide food for itself.

So then, please explain to me why on EARTH, these same organizations and their GREEN ENERGY policy are TAKING UP OUR FARMLAND WITH MILES UPON MILES OF SOLAR????  Make it make sense…

—

4. Bill Gates — UN / WEF Connections

| Element | Source (link) | Key Fact |

|—|—|—|

| Gavi (Vaccine Alliance) launched at WEF Davos | https://www.weforum.org/publications/lighthouses-for-a-perfect-storm/highlights/ | Gates Foundation pledged $750M over 5 years (Jan 2000), launching what became Gavi at the WEF annual meeting |

| Gates Foundation as formal WEF partner org | https://www.weforum.org/organizations/bill-melinda-gates-foundation/ | Official WEF partner-organization profile page |

| Gates Foundation–EU–UNFPA partnership (2024) | https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/european-union-and-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-partner-expand-contraceptive-and-health-access-2024-09-24_en | Joint mechanism with UN Population Fund (UNFPA), European Commission, and Gates Foundation on contraceptive/maternal health access |

| Gates Foundation UNGA commitments (2022) | https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2022/09/gates-foundation-unga-global-fund-replenishment-commitment | $1.27B announced during UN General Assembly week tied to UN Sustainable Development Goals |

| UN Foundation (comparison case: private philanthropy formally embedded in UN system) | https://press.un.org/en/2002/unfoundationpc.doc.htm | Ted Turner’s $1B pledge created the UN Foundation, which by 2002 had made 350+ grants and ~80 partnerships with UN agencies |

I don’t know about you… But I want NOTHING to do with anything that Bill or Melinda Gates are involved in.

—

5. Green New Deal — Sponsors & UN Linkage

| Element | Source (link) | Key Fact |

|—|—|—|

| Full resolution text (116th Congress) | https://hillheat.com/2019/02/07/full-text-rep-ocasio-cortez-and-sen-markey-release-green-new-deal-resolution | Resolution explicitly cites the IPCC’s Oct. 2018 “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C” as its scientific basis |

| Original sponsors/announcement | https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-markey-and-rep-ocasio-cortez-introduce-green-new-deal-resolution | Introduced Feb. 7, 2019 by Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez |

| 2021 re-introduction & endorsing orgs | https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-markey-reintroduce-green-new-deal-resolution-0 | Full list of co-sponsors and endorsing organizations (Sunrise Movement, Greenpeace USA, 350.org, etc.) |

| IPCC’s UN institutional status | (background note, not a single link) | The IPCC is jointly established by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) — direct traceable link from GND’s cited science to UN bodies |

—

6. CBDC — WEF / BIS / IMF Initiatives

| Element | Source (link) | Key Fact |

|—|—|—|

| WEF CBDC interoperability report (2023) | https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Central_Bank_Digital_Currency_Global_Interoperability_Principles_2023.pdf | Full PDF; principles include trust, financial inclusion, payment efficiency, regulatory compliance, privacy, cybersecurity |

| BIS/IMF/World Bank joint report (2021) | https://www.bis.org/publ/othp38.htm | Joint conclusion: CBDCs could improve cross-border payment efficiency if countries coordinate |

| BIS/IMF/World Bank follow-up (2022) | https://www.bis.org/publ/othp52.htm | Central banks must decide early on foreign access and cross-jurisdiction connection models |

| IMF technical paper (2025) | https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/pp/2025/english/ppea2025041.pdf | Discusses public-private coordination for interoperable platforms integrating tokenized central bank and commercial bank money; also flags AML/CFT risk considerations |

| IMF technical paper (2023, initial considerations) | https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/PP/2023/English/PPEA2023048.ashx | Foundational IMF framework paper on CBDC design tradeoffs |

—

7. WHO / Vaccine Passport — Global Digital Health Certificate Network

| Element | Source (link) | Key Fact |

|—|—|—|

| WHO’s own initiative page (primary) | https://www.who.int/initiatives/global-digital-health-certification-network | Official description of the Global Digital Health Certification Network (GDHCN) |

| EU–WHO partnership details (primary) | https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-europeans/eu-digital-covid-certificate_en | July 1, 2023: WHO adopted the EU’s Digital COVID Certificate framework as the technical basis for a global system; joining is **voluntary**; agreement is a **non-binding** administrative arrangement |

| Scope/data-access limits (primary) | https://www.who.int/initiatives/global-digital-health-certification-network | WHO does not hold underlying personal health data — that remains with national governments |

| 2024 IHR amendment (digitizing the “yellow card”) | https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/international-cooperation_en | Summer 2024: WHO member states agreed to allow digital versions of the International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis |

| WHO Q&A on the 2024 IHR amendments (primary) | https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/international-health-regulations-amendments | Official WHO explainer: adopted by consensus (no vote) on June 1, 2024 by the 77th World Health Assembly (resolution WHA77.17); in force Sept. 19, 2025 |

| Congressional Research Service summary | https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12139 | Neutral U.S. government summary of what changed and the sovereignty debate |

| KFF policy brief | https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/the-international-health-regulations-and-the-u-s-implications-of-an-amended-agreement/ | Table of specific revisions; useful for line-by-line comparison to pre-2024 IHR text |

—

8. UN / NGO / Agency — Documented Money Laundering & Corruption Cases

Case A: UN Oil-for-Food Programme (Iraq)

| Element | Source (link) |

|—|—|

| Final Volcker/IIC Report (full primary text, archived) | https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/iic_final-report_27oct2005.htm (chapter-by-chapter links) |

| Third Interim Report — conduct of Programme Director Benon Sevan (full PDF) | https://star.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/UN_Independent%20Inquiry%20Committee_Third_Interim_Report.pdf |

| UN Security Council briefing on findings (UN primary record) | https://press.un.org/en/2005/sc8492.doc.htm |

| CFR backgrounder (neutral summary) | https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/impact-un-oil-food-scandal |

| Heritage Foundation assessment | https://www.heritage.org/report/the-final-volcker-oil-food-report-assessment |

| Key fact | More than 2,200 companies/individuals (~half of program participants) paid kickbacks; Saddam Hussein diverted an estimated $1.8 billion. French prosecutors charged several officials; U.S. DOJ and Manhattan DA issued indictments. Australia ran a parallel domestic inquiry (the Cole Inquiry) into AWB Ltd.’s role — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Inquiry |

Case B: John Ashe (68th UN General Assembly President) — Bribery & Money Laundering

| Element | Source (link) |

|—|—|

| DOJ press release: co-conspirator convicted of money laundering | https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/chairman-macau-based-real-estate-development-company-convicted-trial-all-counts |

| DOJ press release: “Global Sustainability Foundation” head sentenced | https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-head-foundation-sentenced-20-months-prison-bribing-then-ambassador-and-president |

| Key fact | Ng Lap Seng convicted on six counts including **money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering** for bribing Ashe and a Dominican Republic deputy UN ambassador with over $1.3 million. Ashe died before his own trial; the case is the clearest instance of a top UN official (president of the General Assembly) at the center of a criminally adjudicated corruption scheme. |

—

9. UN Peacekeeping — Sexual Abuse & Trafficking of Minors

**Primary UN sources (official, self-reported data and policy documents):**

| Element | Source (link) |

|—|—|

| Official UN portal — Conduct in UN Field Missions | https://conduct.unmissions.org/sea-actions |

| Official UN system-wide allegation data | https://www.un.org/preventing-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse/content/data-allegations-un-system-wide |

| 2016 Secretary-General strategy report | https://conduct.unmissions.org/addressing (references the 2005 “Zeid Report,” the first comprehensive UN reform strategy) |

| Most recent Secretary-General report on Special Measures (A/76/702) | https://conduct.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/report_of_the_secretary-general_on_special_measures_for_protection_from_sexual_exploitation_and_abuse_a76702_1.pdf |  Download PDF: report_of_the_secretary-general_on_special_measures_for_protection_from_sexual_exploitation_and_abuse_a76702_1

| Country-specific allegation reporting began | A/71/729 (2016 Secretary-General report) — available via conduct.unmissions.org reports archive |

**Independent/press documentation of specific cases:**

| Case | Source (link) | Key Fact |

|—|—|—|

| DRC (MONUC), 2005 Congressional hearing | https://www.wcpinst.org/source/panel-examines-human-rights-abuses-by-un-peacekeepers/ | 150+ allegations, victims as young as 11–14, zero prosecutions of UN personnel at time of hearing |

| Central African Republic (MINUSCA), 2016 | https://amp.cbc.ca/news/world/un-peacekeepers-sexual-abuse-1.3881872 ; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/6/24/un-peacekeepers-face-new-sex-abuse-claims-in-car | UN investigation identified 41 alleged perpetrators (Gabon, Burundi) among 139 interviewed possible victims, 25 of them minors |

| Haiti (MINUSTAH) | Associated Press investigative reporting (search AP’s own archives directly for primary reporting — widely re-reported in secondary sources) | Documented pattern of sexual abuse/exploitation of minors post-2010 earthquake |

| Congo, 2006–2007 (leaked confidential UN document) | https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna28659467 | 217 allegations collected; UN could only substantiate proof against 1 of 75 accused peacekeepers |

| Overall accountability data (12-year span) | https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/un-peacekeepers-crimes-of-sexual-abuse-and-exploitation | 250+ substantiated cases over 12 years; only 105 resulted in jail time via national (troop-contributing) governments — the core structural accountability gap, since the UN itself has no prosecutorial jurisdiction over peacekeepers |