The UN's $7 Trillion Socialist Scam

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | February 10, 2006 | Joseph Klein

[hedgetrimmer]

What does entering partnership with the UN mean?

It means that those involved in the "partnership" are participating in a communitarian 'civil governance' system. In former days, this would be considered treason against the US constitution and the American people. People have been so inoculated against constitutional government in schools and in the media, and by our own politicians, many don't realize they are killing off our traditional government systems by participating in global governance systems and ignoring their duty as citizens to maintain their republic. The Fabian socialists have made participation in our government so distasteful to the average citizen, with their name calling and smear tactics, that most citizens avoid interacting with their government officials. Rather than petitioning the government or even running for office, they render their citizenship powerless by 'marching' and demonstrations. Thats my opinion.

[Calpernia]

Can you ping?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576827/posts?page=41#41

[Calpernia]

>>>Rather than petitioning the government or even running for office

Many that have signed on with the Healthy People 2010 ARE politicians.

That NGO foundation funding WTO partnership is even embedded in some of our federal level offices. (as well as local from state to towns)

How is this possible?

And how can Class C felony laws be pushed to enforce these initiatives?

[hosepipe]

[ The Fabian socialists have made participation in our government so distasteful to the average citizen, with their name calling and smear tactics, that most citizens avoid interacting with their government officials. Rather than petitioning the government or even running for office, they render their citizenship powerless by 'marching' and demonstrations. Thats my opinion. ]

And they refuse to revolt.. which is what the 2nd amendment is included in the Bill of Rights.. for in the first place..

[William Terrell]

* Enhanced risk management to reduce the cost of response to international crises;

Extortion

* Increased public-private partnership to leverage private finance;

Theft

* An emphasis on incentive-based international cooperation;

Bribery

* The development of new products for trading on international markets, similar to those for carbon emissions; and

Misfeasance

* The promotion of a more productive use of public revenue, focusing on social returns on investment, locally or globally, rather than expenditures.

Fraud

[hedgetrimmer]

The internationalists pioneered the re-engineering of our government system with Agenda 21. President GHW Bush signed the Rio accord, a UN document that got the ball rolling. Then Clinton created the Presidents council on sustainable development. They developed the 'framework' for the United States to participate in the global plan. A 'framework' is simply another name for government. The government structure they formed was a series of councils. The councils consisted of people of power in a community, the businessmen, elected politicians, bureaucrats and citizen advocates. Working with a facilitator, these groups created Agenda 21 plans for each county of each state. They intentionally regionalized the membership of the councils, that is included members from more than one county, as a means to break down the constitutional system. Finding a willing partner with the media the councils became the active governing group, with the constitutional governmental officials and agencies sidelined in the decision making process.

This method, creating a council system that eventually usurps the authority of the legal government structure, is a method used by the Soviets to take over the Ukrainian government in the 1930s. In fact, soviet is the Russian word for council, so it isn't coincidental that the method to undermine our constitutional government has its origins in the soviet council system. Furthermore 'working groups' were created to develop policy, which is effectively law. 'Working groups' are appointed by international institutions, therefore they are hand picked to further the agenda. Councils have some seats that community activists can take, that is the difference, I think.

How does language supporting NGOs and global agendas get into our laws? It seems our lawmakers have forgotten that they are supposed to defend individual rights and that our laws are to be derived from the people. Instead, activist NGOs write sample versions of the legislation,for example illegal alien drivers licenses, and our politicians simply cut and paste it into the bill making process. I am sure, these sample bills are accompanied with perks or contributions. A recent example would be the Cornyn bill that was to create the internationalists institution, the North American Development bank, a concept that Robert Pastor, architect of the Panama Canal giveaway, was promoting. Only when this plan was revealed by Dr. Jerome Corsi, and it subsequent airing on some talk radio stations and on the Internet, was this legislation pulled by its sponsor.

Does this help?

[Calpernia]

>>>>Does this help?

No, it makes me sick to my stomach.

[piasa]

Indeed, the overview section of The New Public Finance says it all: “The equity or distribution branch of public finance, seen to support society in realizing its goals of fairness and justice, may sometimes have to achieve its objectives through income redistribution and transfer payments.” ...

[Cindy]

straight out socialism

[piasa]

Also included in the UNDP financing inventory is a disguised internet tax, known as the Digital Solidarity Fund, whose financing mechanism relies in large part on mandatory surcharges imposed on high tech companies as a condition to having their contract bids accepted by participating local governments. Taxing the Internet to raise money for UN programs is not a new proposal either. It is just being dressed up differently. Indeed, back in 1999, the UNDP advocated an internet usage tax that it believed could raise as much as $70 billion dollars for the UN to spend as it saw fit. That would come to more than $150 billion dollars a year today in light of the growth of Internet traffic since 1999.

Also: UN AGENCY EYES CURBS ON INTERNET ANONYMITY

The better to tax you with...

[onyx]

Did you have this saved, piasa?

I must ping KarlinOhio to his magnificent post!

[onyx]

PING to your great post from 2 years ago!