Get Out of the OAS As Well As the UN! They Are Looking to Raid Our Empty Treasury for Climate Reparations of Some Sort.
JoNova put up another revealing post yesterday about how we, the United States, are funding an outrageous entity known as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which is setting the stage for international climate lawfare against. She recounts part of a story from the extremely left-wing Guardian.
Here is the heart of the latter article, which is a sop to the efforts of this rogue court financed by us:
The IACHR’s founding purpose is to interpret and apply the American convention on human rights, a treaty ratified by members of the Organization of American States (OAS). But its newly published opinion takes into account a broad range of national, regional and international laws and principles. And it affirms that the findings not just apply only to signatories of the convention but to all 35 members of the OAS, which includes the US and Canada.
The court affirmed the right to a healthy environment, and said for the first time that this includes the right to a stable climate.
This means states have legal obligations to regulate emissions from public and private organisations.
The court says all businesses have a responsibility not to harm human rights but those that have emitted huge volumes of greenhouse gas emissions in the past or present have a particular responsibility “due to the risk created by their activities”. It singles out the exploration, extraction, transportation and processing of fossil fuels, cement manufacturing and agro-industry.
States must set tougher requirements for such sectors, it says, suggesting changes to business operating conditions, taxation, contributions to just transition plans and strategies, investment in education, adaptation measures and addressing loss and damage. If companies do not comply, it suggests the polluting activities should stop and states consider demanding compensation for the harm caused to the climate.
It adds that states should pass laws so that transnational corporations and conglomerates can be fully held to account for the emissions of their subsidiaries.
States also have a duty to ensure a fair transition to a cleaner society, and must ensure that this does not in itself involve breaching human rights, for example, when mining for critical minerals needed for electric vehicles.
“This is not just about the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy,” said Marcella Ribeiro, a senior human rights and environment attorney for the Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente (Aida), an environmental law organisation that works in Latin America. “This is an opportunity for a structural transformation that will correct historical inequality and protect people and ecosystems.”
The IACHR also recognised the rights of nature and states have a duty to restore damage to ecosystems caused by climate change.
Luisa Gómez, senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, said the court made a “critical connection” between the effects of the climate crisis on the rights of people and ecosystems, and how those responsible for guaranteeing those rights should react. “It sends a clear message that impunity in climate matters can no longer be tolerated.”
The inter-American court of human rights is the second of four top courts to publish an advisory opinion on climate change.
The first court to publish its opinion, the international tribunal for the law of the sea, concluded last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants that are wrecking the marine environment, and states have a legal responsibility to control them.
The international court of justice held hearings on its own opinion last December and is expected to publish in the coming months. Meanwhile, the African court on human and people’s rights has only just begun the process.
These documents are technically nonbinding but are considered authoritative because they summarise existing law. And they are expected to be used in future litigation and political negotiations.
What we see here is a coordinated effort by the left to initiate climate lawfare from every direction. The idea is, clearly, to lay a groundwork for climate reparations to be paid by us to the third world, which will be administered by leftist ideologues for their use in remaking the world in their image, while feeding the hungry grifters who will return the favor by tossing them some greenbacks.
Interestingly, the Guardian posted its article before the English release of Advisory Opinion 32 of 2025, which tells us they’re part of the lawfare strategy in yet another demonstration of leftist collusion between their big media and a supposedly independent court. It’s further reflected in this video:
No true court, of course, does videos to promote its opinions. It’s political propaganda to the hilt — a raid on our empty treasury. The IACHR is a creation of the Organization of American States, 59% of the budget of which is paid by us with borrowed dollars. And, who are the judges? Well, Grok tells us:
The judges of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) are elected by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS). Each member state party to the American Convention on Human Rights may propose up to three candidates, and the judges are chosen by secret ballot with an absolute majority of votes. They serve six-year terms and may be re-elected once.
As of July 5, 2025, the parties to the American Convention on Human Rights are the following 25 member states of the Organization of American States (OAS):
Argentina
Barbados
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Suriname
Uruguay
Notice that neither Canada nor the United States are included, which means the judges primarily serve the interests of countries, Argentina and El Salvador possibly excepted, who are looking to gain from climate reparations. And, here is the President of the court:
Note the President is also a university professor. So is the Vice-President. Four of the seven, in fact, are professors. What more do we need to know?
It’s time the U.S. got out of the OAS, which has allowed this outrage to take place and funds it with some portion of our money. Get out now!
#IACHR #OAS #Climate #Reparations #JoNova #Guardian
We should make sure we don’t spend any money with this organization gone goofball.
This is the craziest bullshit I have ever heard from an international mutual benefit organization:
“ The court says all businesses have a responsibility not to harm human rights but those that have emitted huge volumes of greenhouse gas emissions in the past or present have a particular responsibility “due to the risk created by their activities”.”. And this alone is a declaration of war against commerce in any of the member organizations. When these activists establish a cancer like this in any organization they must be halted by strength not accommodated by head nods around a round table. Excise them from the organization or just dissolve the organization. For sure the USA should cease all financial support and place them on a watchlist. These kinds of organizations need to be eliminated from lobbying Congress.