Friday, April 20, 2012

United Nations - Global Socialism

When an organization doesn't support American values and laws, the United States ought not to support it.  Would we be part of an organization that supported eliminating gun rights, freedom of speech, or democracy?  Of course not.  Why, then, do we continue to participate in the socialist, anti-American musings of the United Nations? 


Karl Marx (1818-1883) - Fervent socialist and author of The Communist Manifesto, and Capital.

Not only do we participate, but we are the top financial contributor to the U.N.  We are basically hosting a perpetual, socialist organization in New York City, giving them more money than anyone else, and playing ball with their agenda of bringing down the West in the name of global equality.  It's socialism on a global scale.

The upcoming United Nations environmental conference on sustainable development in Brazil will formally put forth several initiatives concerned with environmental protection and preservation.  It's a thinly veiled plot to impose redistribution of wealth and assets on the entire world, forcing the wealthier nations to give away their wealth and power to the poorer nations, all in the name of saving the planet.  It's just another example in a never-ending line of socialist initiatives that do nothing but harm our great nation.  When nine out of ten nations are poor, of course they will vote to take the wealth away from number one.  Here are some of the policies the U.N. is proposing:

(1)  More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure, ”  “climate adaptation,” and other “green economy” measures.  Redistribution of wealth - the cornerstone of every good socialist agenda.

(2)  New carbon taxes for industrialized countries that could cost about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of Gross Domestic Product, by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified.  Taxing the rich to help the poor.

(3)  Further unspecified price hikes that extend beyond fossil fuels to anything derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use, all of which would be radically reorganized. These cost changes would “contribute to a more level playing field between established, 'brown' technologies and newer, greener ones."  More equality engineering.

(4)  Major global social spending programs, including a "social protection floor" and "social safety nets" for the world's most vulnerable social groups  for reasons of “equity.”  Global welfare, funded by us.

(5)  Even more social benefits for those displaced by the green economy revolution - including those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,”  would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits."  More welfare programs for the poorer nations, again funded by us.

(6)  A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted. As one of the U.N. documents puts it:  “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided."  There is no doubt the U.N. will have much, much more of this in the future.  It's just another in a long line of socialist initiatives the U.N. is well-known for (to those who care to look).

Nearly every initiative the U.N. undertakes is in the name of socialism and levelling the playing field for the poorer, less-developed nations.  The United States is expected to ship our wealth off to poorer nations and voluntarily cripple our own economy and society in the name of equality - because it's just not fair that we are well off while other nations are struggling.  The U.N. is like a global Obama, plying the rich vs. poor class warfare fire to ignite an agenda of redistribution of wealth.  There is nothing in this agenda that is good for our country, and everything that is damaging to it.

We shouldn't be financially supporting the U.N., hosting it at our expense in New York City, or dignifying it's socialist agenda with continuing membership and discourse.  If it were up to the U.N., the United States would be just another mundane, non-wealthy nation needing the permission of a centralized global government to leave the dinner table. 

No comments:

Post a Comment