"This is the United, not Diverse, States of America."
There's no contradiction between being united and being diverse. There's always _some_ kind of diversity in any group, but lots of groups manage to be united nonetheless.
The word "United" as it appears in the phrase "United States of America" is used in contrast to "Separate" or "Independent" as antonyms and in contrast to "Associated" or "Aligned" as weaker adjectives.
To get a contrast with "diverse" this would have to be the "Uniform States of America" or the "Homogenous States of America or something along those lines. And to contrast with ethnic, racial or religious diversity this would have to be the "WASP States of America" or the "Christian States of America" or something like that. But of course, that isn't who we are and it isn't something we'll ever so much as pretend we want to be.
Sigs are often emotive, not descriptive. But if you're going to use your sig to state a claim you might reconsider and pick a true claim in place of the one you're using now.
Peace.
Sorry. The Left encourages "diversity" because they know full well it pits groups against one another, fomenting a situation they can exploit for votes and dollars.
"Diversity" has always been a scam.
Capitalism recognizes one sort of diversity that has actual value: Specialization. We can all be good at different things, and trade our services.
Otherwise, diversity has aescetic purposes. We don't all like Pink Floyd. Some of us prefer Barry Manilow (gag). Some of us like Ann Coulter, others prefer a somewhat more buxom brunette. So, diversity does have value in some regards, but has little or no marginal value in other regards (an Italian fireman versus an Irish one, for example).
Good advice!