Argentina President Javier Milei declared war on the global Left during a rousing speech at the United Nations this week where he announced that his country would no longer remain neutral and on the sidelines.

The 53-year-old libertarian economist — whose policies have started to rapidly reverse Argentina’s decline with inflation rates falling, rental housing becoming more available and affordable, and economic growth outpacing forecasts — said that he became a politician “following the resounding failure of more than a century of collectivist policies that destroyed our country.”

He warned that the U.N. has veered off course in recent decades from its original charter of ensuring major global war did not erupt again by adopting principles centered around the belief that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Milei said that the organization changed from being “a shield to protect” mankind to “a leviathan with various tentacles purporting to decide not only what each nation state should do, but also how all the citizens in the world should live.”

He warned that the 2030 Agenda that the U.N. was pushing was nothing more than “a supranational government program that is socialist in shape.”

Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!

“It purports to resolve the problems of modernity with solutions that afflict the sovereignty of nation states and violate the right to life, right to freedom, and property of persons,” he said. “It’s an agenda that purports to resolve poverty, inequality, discrimination with legislation that simply furthers these issues, because the history of the world has shown that the only way of guaranteeing prosperity is by limiting the power of the monarch, by guaranteeing equality before the law, defending the right to life, to freedom, and to the property ownership of individuals.”

He said that the U.N. committed “crimes against humanity” by advocating for lockdowns around the world in response to the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.

“In this same house, we that purport to defend human rights, we have also included bloody dictatorships in the Human Rights Council, including Cuba and Venezuela, without reproach,” he said. “In this same house, which purports to defend the rights of women, we’ve allowed on CEDAW, the CEDAW Committee, countries that punish their women just for showing their skin. In this same house that had voted against the State of Israel, which is the only country in the Middle East to defend a liberal democracy, we have simultaneously shown a total inability to respond to the scourge of terrorism.”

“On the economic level, we have promoted collectivist policies that undermine economic growth, violate property rights and disrupt a natural economic process in preventing the most left behind countries to freely enjoy their own resources,” he continued. “[The U.N. has] imposed regulations and prohibitions specifically because of countries that wish to develop themselves. We have further established toxic relationship between global governance and international credit bodies demanding that those countries that are most left behind commit resources that they don’t have to programs that they don’t need, making them perpetual debtors.”

“We have also seen ridiculous policies with Malthusian stances, such as zero emissions policies that harm all poor countries, policies related to sexual and reproductive rights when birth rates in Western countries are plummeting, announcing a somber future for all of us,” he continued. “We have also seen that the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council has begun to be used in the defense of the specific interests of a certain few. That’s where we are today, with a powerless organization, powerless to provide solutions to the true global conflicts.”

He said that the U.N. should be focused on Russia’s criminal war against Ukraine, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being killed, instead of wasting time and money “imposing on poor countries how they should and how much they should produce, who they should do relations with, what they should eat, and what they should believe in.”

“I’d like to issue a warning here,” he said. “We are coming to the end of a cycle, collectivism and the moral posturing and the woke agenda is coming up against reality. There are no further credible solutions to the real problems of the world. If the 2030 agenda fails, as recognized by its own promoters, the response should be to wonder whether or not this was an ill-conceived program from the outset, and we should accept this reality and change what we’re doing.”

“The same thing always happens with ideas that come from the Left,” he continued, noting that leftists “design a model in line with what human beings should do, and when individuals freely decide to act otherwise, they have no better solution than to restrict, repress, or cut off their freedom.”

“In Argentina, we’ve seen with our own eyes what they have done at the end of this path of envy and sad passion: poverty, anarchy, and a total lack of liberty,” he continued. “We still have time to choose another direction. I want to be clear so that there’s no poor misunderstanding here. Argentina is going through a profound process of change currently and has decided to embrace the ideas of freedom. These are ideas that say that all citizens are born free and equal before the law, that we have inalienable rights granted by our Creator to life, to freedom, and to property.”

He said that these new principles the country is adopting will guide its international conduct moving forward.

“We believe in the defense of life for all,” he said. “We believe in the defense of property for all. We believe in freedom of expression for all. We believe in freedom of worship for all. We believe in freedom of trade for all. And we believe in limited government for all. And in these times, what happens in one country has a swift impact on others, and we believe that peoples should be able to live free of tyranny and oppression, be it political oppression, economic slavery, or religious fanaticism. This fundamental idea shouldn’t be mere words. It should be supported by our acts, diplomatically, economically and materially, through the joint force of all of the countries that stand up for freedom.”

He warned that Argentina will no longer support “any policy that implies restricting individual or trade freedoms, nor the violation of natural rights of individuals, regardless of who promotes these or how big the consensus is in this institution.”

“For this reason, I’d like to officially express our dissent on the Pact For The Future that was signed on Sunday, and I invite all nations of the free world to support us, not only in relation to this pact, but also in the establishment of a new agenda for this noble institution,” he concluded. “That is the agenda for freedom. From this day on, you should know that Argentina, the Republic of Argentina, will abandon its policy of historic neutrality, and will be on the vanguard in the struggle for the defense of freedom, because, as Thomas Paine said, ‘Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.’ Long live freedom, dammit!”

WATCH:

 Kamala Harris is making one of the most dangerous proclamations in modern American politics.

On Tuesday, Harris made clear her most radical proposition. She was asked about killing the filibuster, and she replied:

I’ve been very clear, I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe, and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom and for the ability of every person and every woman to make decisions about their own body and not have their government tell them what to do.

It’s not even clear whether Congress has the authority to do that. If you’re talking about an interstate crime, then perhaps. However, if you’re talking about an intrastate crime — which is, for example, what criminalizing late-term abortion in many states does — it’s not clear that the federal government has the authority to simply reinstate Roe v. Wade by fiat of Congress.

But that’s not the salient point. The salient point is that she wants to kill the filibuster.

For those who are unfamiliar with the legal jargon, the filibuster is, effectively, a 60-vote threshold to pass controversial legislation in Congress. There are some work-arounds; there are some financial work-arounds. For example, with a budget bill, a process called budget sequestration exists in which 51 votes can be used to trump the filibuster. But the filibuster tries to guarantee there is widespread agreement about a policy before it passes.

It made a big difference with Obamacare. The Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate thanks to a rigged race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman in Minnesota that achieved a 60th vote for them and allowed Obamacare to pass with 60 votes. The Democrats overcame the filibuster.

The filibuster has usually been applied to a wide variety of circumstances, and Democrats have played around with it. For a while, they used the filibuster against judicial nominees.

But that turned out not to be a good idea. So then they killed the filibuster for judicial nominees when it was on their side. That allowed Mitch McConnell to put in place a bunch of federal justices and federal judges who are on the conservative side of the aisle in terms of originalism.

The bottom line is this: The filibuster is the slow-down process available in Congress to maintain the constitutional idea there ought to be broad-scale agreement on major shifts in American policy that require 60 votes in order to move forward.

WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show

The filibuster can be changed. It’s a rule, not a constitutional provision, but it has become somewhat of a last resort of bipartisanship in Congress. As the administrative state has grown, we’ve changed the constitutional rules, and the scope of the federal government has grown. There have been all sorts of checks and balances in the original constitutional structure against Congress moving rapidly in really broad ways; we have had a Congress of delegated powers. If you weren’t acting within the delegated powers, the states wouldn’t pay attention to you or the Supreme Court would strike it down.

And then over the course of the 20th century, the executive branch started to assume extraordinary functions that really belonged to the legislature. They would make massive moves through regulation.

Congress expanded its purview to include pretty much everything that “affected interstate commerce.” And the Supreme Court, backed by the Left, effectively decided it was going to allow Congress to usurp all of that authority. As the authority of the federal Congress increased, the filibuster became the brake on that process.

You could overcome it. There was an attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act and that failed. There have been many attempts to filibuster particular acts of Congress, and those filibusters have failed.

However, the general standard has been that for a big change in American public life, you had to at least overcome a filibuster; you had to show that the American people writ large have elected people who, broadly speaking, agreed with one another.

That has been a provision that has kept the United States in a state of semi-solidity with regard to its politics for a long time. Incrementalism is one of the effects of the filibuster. You have to move slower than you otherwise would. Otherwise, this government would look very much like the parliamentary government that you see in Europe, where if one side takes the majority, they simply put in place everything they want.

Then, the other side comes back in and puts in place everything they want, and policy swivels wildly from side to side.

The United States is not built for that. It was built for gridlock. The filibuster is an element of that gridlock. But Harris wanting to kill the filibuster with regard to Roe v. Wade basically means she wants to kill the filibuster with regard to everything.

If Democrats take the House, the Senate, and the presidency, and they kill the filibuster, America will end up with a permanent rigging of the American government on behalf of Democrats.

That is the goal. That is why this is so radical.

Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!

I promise you, with 51 votes, Democrats will kill the filibuster, and then they will attempt to create two new states through congressional fiat. They’ll create a state of Washington, D.C., which will have two permanent Democratic senators, thus permanently shifting the balance of power in the Senate on behalf of Democrats. They’ll also presumably add Puerto Rico, which would also likely have two Democratic senators, as a state represented in the United States Senate.

Historically speaking, when states were added to the federal government, to the federal Senate, typically a state was added that was a Democrat state and one that was a Republican state. Alaska and Hawaii entered the union at about the same time because Alaska was a Democrat state and Hawaii was a Republican state. Now, of course, they have switched places.

But what Democrats want to do is add four seats to the Senate and thereby guarantee themselves a permanent working majority. And having killed the filibuster, they could then do whatever they want.

They could pack the Supreme Court. They could limit jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They could run roughshod over all the checks and balances.

This has been a progressive Democratic goal since the beginning of the 20th century. Woodrow Wilson openly talked about how the Constitution was basically a document written by befuddled, dead white men in order to stop the march of progress, when what was really needed was a powerful centralized government located in the presidency in order to ram through the change needed.

That’s what Democrats want. Democrats want to get rid of the checks and balances. That is their goal. 

When people say that this election really, really matters, it wouldn’t matter so much if Democrats weren’t screwing around with the mechanisms of government itself. 

If the rules of the game are permanently rigged in favor of one side, the Republic is over.

It sounds dull and dry when Harris says, “I’ll ditch the filibuster.” Tense, dull, and dry.

But it is not dull and dry.

If Democrats get rid of the Senate filibuster, if Democrats have a majority in the House and the Senate, and if Harris becomes the president, it means the end of the current functioning of the United States government and the entry into an imperial period of complete Democratic dominance.

* * *

WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI