After witnessing Congressman Paul Ryan's performance as speaker of the House, it's apparent that if he ever had an ounce of conservatism, he left it in his other pants when he flew to D.C.  Back in 2012, he could pass himself off as a conservative with a plan to balance the budget, but no more.  Reagan's adage, trust but verify, becomes more relevant every day, and after reading the details of the Global Food Security Act of 2016, it will be apparent that Speaker Ryan is not worthy of our trust.   

The media has conditioned voters to believe that bipartisan bills are good, and like former speaker John Boehner, Speaker Ryan uses "bipartisan branding" to quietly pass globalist legislation, like the Global Food Security Act of 2016 (GFSA).

First, you need a progressive Republican to introduce the GFSA into the House of Representatives, which was done in March 2015 by Congressmen Christopher Smith (N.J.).  (Is it a happy coincidence that six months later, in September 2015, President Obama appointed Congressman Smith to the United Nations General Assembly?)

The GFSA was then introduced into the Senate by Senator Robert Casey (Penn.), a devout progressive.  With the force of establishment Republicans and Democrats behind it, there was little congressional resistance to the GFSA, and it was signed into law on 07-20-2016. 

As is customary with terrible legislation, the GFSA has a noble title and purpose.  However, the GFSA is basically a "cut and paste" of the United Nation's 2015, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  The major differences between the GFSA and the U.N. SDGs are who will pay and who is responsible for achieving SDGs.  In both cases, it looks like it's America.  Speaker Ryan has arranged this bill to ensure that American taxpayers pay to achieve the globalist goals of the United Nations! 

Among the GFSA's troubling  provisions:

• "The UN Food Agriculture Origination has determined that 805,000,000 people worldwide suffer from chronic hunger."  Based upon that figure, it seems that in addition to feeding America, we will be feeding about 2.5 times more people.  How will we pay for that program when our debt is $19,400,000,000,000?  (Section 2[1])

• "Place food insecure countries on a path toward self-sufficiency and economic freedom through the coordination of United States foreign assistance programs."  This is nothing but propaganda!  When we put countries on their path towards self-sufficiency and economic freedom, are we going to use the same model we used for Iraq?  This provision seems as though it is setting up a transfer of wealth out of the U.S., to fund bureaucrats and dictators.  (Section 3[1])  (See "Clinton Cash" video for examples.)

• "Demonstrably meet, align with and leverage broader United States strategies and investments in trade, economic growth, national security, science and technology, agriculture research and extension, maternal and child health, nutrition, and water, sanitation, and hygiene."  This item seems to be in line with other proposals to transfer technology (for free) to undeveloped nation, and give them access to U.S. patents, to be used royalty free.  (Section 3[7])

• "Sense of Congress.  It is the sense of the Congress that the President, in providing assistance to implement the Global Food Security Strategy, should [c]oordinate, through a whole-of-government approach, the efforts of relevant Federal departments and agencies to implement the Global Food Security Strategy."  Does our federal government have the capacity to manage the worldwide distribution of food to three times as many people as we have in the U.S.?  This can only cause a massive expansion of the federal government.  (Section 3[b][1])

This brings us to a policy designed to transfer U.S. wealth to third-world counties: climate change.  Despite the fact that U.N. administrators working in their climate change group (IPCC) state that climate change is about the redistribution of wealth, and the destruction of capitalism, progressives and do-gooders ignore their admissions.

Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, a member of the U.N. IPCC, stated in 2010: "We [U.N. IPCC] redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy, one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

In 2015, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said: "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."

While the GFSA does not mention climate change, it provides $1 billion to USAID, which is an advocate of climate change.  In addition, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization lists climate change as an issue.  Therefore, in addition to the cash given (12-09-2014 budget, Title V) for the U.N. Environmental Program ($344,170,000), and for Climate Change ($10,000,000), some portion of the USAID money will be dedicated to sending more Ph.D.s to back to take more polar bear photos and travel to exotic locales to discuss grant acquisitions with their globalist brethren.

The GFSA advances globalist-progressive ideology and mandates increased government intervention as well as increased international funding.  Congressman Ryan is using the GFSA to provide additional funds to the international community, but isn't that imposing a hidden globalist tax on all Americans?

To run a quick and dirty evaluation of congressional bills, see who is sponsoring or voting for the bill.  One of the best to assess the GFSA would be Congressman David Brat, a conservative economics professor.  He was not a sponsor and did not vote for the GFSA, nor did other conservative congressmen like Ron DeSantis, Ken Buck, Justin Amash, and Gary Palmer.

If the Congress wanted to provide additional assistance to fight world hunger, why didn't they just increase cash payments to the U.N., or work through their own Feed the Future organization?

The Congressional Budget Office analysis stated: "In 2010, the Administration launched a global food security initiative called Feed the Future (FTF). On the basis of information from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) – the lead agency for that initiative – CBO believes that the act's requirements to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy for food security and agricultural development are being met through FTF."

The CBO also estimated that in 2017 and 2018, the GFSA will cost $3.8 billion per year.  However, after the president has compiled his list of goals (§5[c][1]), is there any doubt the budget will increase by orders of magnitude?

This smells like another setup.  President Obama will jack up the spending before he leaves, and next year, when Speaker Ryan increases the budget to meet the demands of the GFSA, the speaker will say it isn't his fault, because the president caused the increases.  Haven't we seen this act before (Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015), when Speaker Boehner made a budget deal with President Obama and then resigned?

Congressman Ryan has rejected traditional conservative principles such as limited government, fiscal responsibility, and security of the country, and he ignores party positions such as the rejection of the global warming and the protection and security of our borders.

While our veterans are getting the "bums' rush" at VA centers, Congressman Ryan is busy reauthorizing the Ex-Im crony bank (via Highway Bill 2015) and bailing out Puerto Rico.

While Americans want to stop the flow of refugees into American, Congressman Ryan refuses to defund the program, even as contractors seek an additional 200,000 Syrian refugees.

By orchestrating the passage of the Global Food Security Act, Speaker Ryan is broadcasting his new identity as a globalist-progressive.  Because he betrayed the trust of the voters, and Republicans in particular, Republicans should remove Congressman Ryan from office before he strikes up another globalist deal with our president.