The UN's $7 Trillion Socialist Scam

Here we go again. The UN should be cleaning up itself first.

The U.N. has degenerated to the equivalent of a crack whore --- with no chance of becoming anything of value to society..

Semper Fi

The UN should be compressed and carved into logs.

It's cold in the Northern states, you know.

Yeah, too bad we continue to "enable"

I LOVE IT!!!

"...may sometimes have to achieve its objectives through income redistribution and transfer payments..." -- The U.N.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."-- Hillary Clinton

--no doubt while pocketing a hefty "maintenance fee" for yourself. -- grey_whiskers

that's some scary stuff.

ping

Where is Ted Turner on this I am sure he will give them millions of dollars he earned here and bad mouth this country in the process!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574836/posts
The UN Plan for Your Mental Health (UNESCO)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010

There is only one solution:

We need to withdraw from the UN and throw them out of our country. We can announce that we are starting a new organization for nations to meet and discuss differences; however, membership will be limited to nations that have legitimately elected democratic governments that follow the rule of law. And each member's national sovereignty must be held inviolate.

The Earth Charter

In the late 1990's, a document called the "Earth Charter" was drafted by a group of prominent Humanist-Socialists including:

Steven Rockefeller:

Philosophy professor. Nephew of billionaire globalist David Rockefeller. Chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Scholar on the works of Humanist patriarch John Dewey.

Maurice Strong:

Canadian billionaire and energy industry executive. Long-time U.N. officer and "assistant" U.N. Secretary-General. Organizer of the U.N. Rio Earth Summit and promoter of subsequent "environmental" programs for global management.

Mikhail Gorbachev:

Former premier of the Soviet Union and chairman of the Russian Communist Party. Head of the Gorbachev Foundation and the "environmental" group Green Cross International.

In place of the simple elegance of the rules for self-government and social stability expressed above, the Earth Charter calls for the imposition of a global tyranny over every aspect of human activity which becomes evident once you strip away the rhetorical devices and eco-socialist jargon.

We must join together to bring forth a sustainable global society founded on respect for nature, universal human rights, economic justice, and a culture of peace... An unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems... Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living. We must realize that when basic needs have been met, human development is primarily about being more, not having more. We affirm the following interdependent principles for a sustainable way of life as a common standard by which the conduct of all individuals, organizations, businesses, governments, and transnational institutions is to be guided and assessed...

In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.

These assertions are self-evident conclusions in the minds of the authors, not subject to question or debate. The program calls for all individuals to be "guided and assessed" by an unspecifed group of managers and to accept a subsistence level existence, regardless of their individual aspirations. The hypocrisy of these billionaire globalists preaching about the virtues of universal poverty is mind boggling!

In almost every statement in this manifesto, there is at least one vague term that lacks specific definition. What is "sustainable" and what isn't? What is "economic justice"? These so-called principles are so loosely defined that no one in their right mind would support them, except for those who intend to use them as a cover to justify a dictatorship. Let's examine some of the specific proposals.

3.a. Ensure that communities at all levels guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms and provide everyone an opportunity to realize his or her full potential.

3.b. Promote social and economic justice, enabling all to achieve a secure and meaningful livelihood that is ecologically responsible.

The problem with vague catch phrases like "fundamental freedoms" and "social and economic justice" is that they sound good but have no meaning until they are defined. Perhaps it is assumed that the global citizens are either so conditioned or so ignorant that definitions are no longer required.

The "fundamental freedoms" in this system do not (and cannot) include liberty, property or privacy; they conflict with the requirements for implementing "economic and social justice". The only individual freedom in this system is an Orwellian "freedom to conform".

5.a. Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations

5.b. Establish and safeguard viable nature and biosphere reserves

5.c. Promote the recovery of endangered species and ecosystems.

5.d. Control and eradicate non-native organisms harmful to native species and the environment.

5.e. Manage the use of renewable resources such as water, soil, forest products, and marine life.

5.f. Manage the extraction and use of non-renewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels.

6.a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive.

More vagueness. Who decides what is sustainable, viable, and/or endangered? Who is going to manage all the world's resources? What would prevent humans from being classified as "organisms harmful to the environment" which need to be eradicated? Who decides when there is a possibility of "harm", especially in the absence of scientific evidence?

7.c. Promote the development, adoption, and equitable transfer of environmentally sound technologies.

7.d. Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price

7.e. Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction.

7.f. Adopt lifestyles that emphasize the quality of life and material sufficiency in a finite world.

What is an "equitable transfer"? Will social costs include the bloated and corrupt world government bureaucracy? Who will decide what is "responsible reproduction"? Is forced abortion an acceptable policy? How about genetic screening to eliminate undesirables? Who will decide what constitutes "material sufficiency" for you, comrade?

9.a. Guarantee the right to potable water, clean air, food security, uncontaminated soil, shelter, and safe sanitation, allocating the national and international resources required.

9.b. Empower every human being with the education and resources to secure a sustainable livelihood, and provide social security and safety nets for those who are unable to support themselves.

How will "food security" be guaranteed? Which resources will be allocated and who will be forced to provide them? What is a "sustainable livelihood"? Who controls access to the "social security" gravy train?

10.a. Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations.

10.b. Enhance the intellectual, financial, technical, and social resources of developing nations, and relieve them of onerous international debt.

10.d. Require multinational corporations and international financial organizations to act transparently in the public good, and hold them accountable for the consequences of their activities.

What is an "equitable distribution" and who will manage it? Is it "economic justice" to force one group to pay the debts of another? Which minority group gets to define the "public good"?

12. Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.

12.a. Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, language, and national, ethnic or social origin.

There can be no "social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being" without discrimination. Is every conceivable "sexual orientation" or perverse lifestyle acceptable? What about religions that advocate the extermination of all non-believers? Why should any "minority" be treated as a special case? Isn't that a form of discrimination?

13.c. Protect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly, association, and dissent.

13.e. Eliminate corruption in all public and private institutions.

13.f. Strengthen local communities, and assign environmental responsibilities to the levels of government where they can be carried out most effectively.

Does "freedom of opinion and dissent" include the right to actively oppose the collectivist dictatorship? Does "freedom of association" include the freedom to discriminate in one's choice of associates? How will corruption be removed from the global government bureaucracy? How is the local community strengthened by top-down "assignments"?

14.c. Enhance the role of the mass media in raising awareness of ecological and social challenges. 14.d. Recognize the importance of moral and spiritual education for sustainable living.

Which "social challenges" and pet projects will be advertised? What "spiritual education" is required for "sustainable living"? Will forced re-education camps be required for those with differing belief systems?

15. Treat all living beings with respect and consideration. 15.c. Avoid or eliminate to the full extent possible the taking or destruction of non-targeted species.

If all living beings deserve respect, then what is a "targeted" species? Who decides? Are humans exempt from that classification?

16.c. Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes

Who will enforce the "peace" and how? What defense will we have when the global security system becomes even more corrupt and oppresive than it already is? Ask the victims of any U.N. "peacekeeping" mission.

The Ark of Hope

The Earth Charter was inscribed on papyrus paper and enshrined in a wooden box called the "Ark of Hope" which was decorated with neo-pagan, politically correct artwork and paraded around the world by a troupe of believers. According to the official description, the carrying poles for the Ark are "unicorn horns" which ward off evil spirits. (I'm not making this up, see for yourself.)

In 2001, it was carried from Vermont to the "Interfaith Center" in New York City shortly after the World Trade Center incident. In 2002, on the the 10th anniversary of the U.N. Rio Earth Summit, it was taken to South Africa for the U.N. Johannesburg Conference on Sustainable Development, where it was presented to the delegates for adoption.

The real way to do this has been outlined by Hernando DeSoto in his work "The Mystery of Capital." It will take a long time, does not rely on topdown socialist claptrap, and it also is clear that the UN could never begin to do the job.

This is just the same-ol' same-ol' larceny on a grand scale.

The problem I'm seeing with that is, the American businesses seem to have become almost a monopoly of sorts that now fund the UN programs.

I'm wondering if the sudden incidences of people's data being made public by some error, companies suddently announcing 30,000 layoffs, and such have anything to do with protesting type activisms.

Thank God we have Bolton there instaead of Halfbright.

Bolton will call this turd a turd.

Let's see, we take money away from countries which don't run their farmers off the land, and give it to countries like Zimbabwe.

That's a special class of stupid.

In a new book launched with great fanfare at last month’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland

With a foreword by Friedrich Engels and margin notes by Karl Marx ...