The UN's plans for Global Socialist Rule

Status
Not open for further replies.

steelheart

Moderator
From the website www.freedom.org comes a warning about the most anti-freedom organization ever devised by man - the United Nations. If we ignore this warning, we aid in the forging of our own chains.



The U.N.'s plans for Global Socialist Rule
By Henry Lamb

February 2006

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week, the United Nations Development Program promoted its plan to rule the world through a global socialist economic system. The plan is detailed in a book entitled "The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges", published by Oxford University Press.

The U.N. plan identifies seven trillion dollars – that's $7,000,000,000,000 – to be taken from developed nations for use by the U.N. to solve all the world's problems.

At the heart of the program is a global pollution-permit trading scheme that would produce $3.64 trillion, according to the U.N. This is a glorified version of the emissions trading scheme envisioned in the Kyoto Protocol.

Here is a simplified example of how such a scheme would work. The U.N. would establish arbitrary limits on the quantity of pollution each nation could produce. If a nation exceeded the limit, it would have to pay substantial penalties. Or, the polluting nation could purchase "credits" from developing nations that produce less pollution than allowed by the U.N. Either way, money from developed nations is redistributed to developing nations – through the U.N., of course.

The U.N. claims that another $2.9 trillion could be realized for developing countries by reducing their borrowing costs, and another $600 billion by linking loan repayments to their economic output. The plan also recommends the creation of a "Chapter 11 bankruptcy" procedure for nations, overseen by the U.N.

The plan would impose the "Tobin Tax," a global tax on foreign currency exchange. When first proposed two decades ago, the estimated yield was $1.5 trillion. Now, the estimate is $2.9 trillion. The U.N. has lusted after this tax for years. Opposition by the United States has, so far, prevented its adoption.

The U.N. plan has devised another creative way to generate money: Tax the income of immigrants so the nations from which the immigrants departed could be pledged against loans to build infrastructure in poor nations. The plan also includes taxes on international travel, and forcing wealthy nations to give .07 percent of their annual economic output to international aid, as well as an array of other potential income sources.

Most of these tax schemes have been proposed many times by various U.N. agencies, but this is the first time there has been a comprehensive plan developed, published, and presented as the official program of the United Nations. Most of the world's nations support this plan, or some variation of it. Most nations, of course, would be recipients. But many European nations also support the plan, including such dignitaries as Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate. The U.K., France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have publicly endorsed a part of the scheme, the creation of an International Finance Facility, to increase aid for disease control to $100 billion.

For years, individuals and organizations in the United States have warned that the United Nations is ultimately working to implement some form of world government. These warnings have largely gone unheeded, and were often ridiculed by the so-called, "well informed" on both sides of the political spectrum.

Even a cursory reading of "Our Global Neighborhood," published by the Commission on Global Governance, or the UNDP's latest plan, can produce no other conclusion: The United Nations is, indeed, working diligently to install global, socialist rule.

Proponents of this scheme realize that the American people would overwhelmingly reject this proposal, if given an opportunity to vote on the decision to subject the United States to U.N. global rule. That's why the mechanism for global governance is being constructed in small steps taken by a multitude of different U.N. agencies and organizations, all coordinated, all working toward the same goal.

The solution is an orderly withdrawal from the United Nations. The United States must continue to be engaged in security and commerce around the world, but it must be neither constrained by, nor subject to, the United Nations. The U.N. has proven to be a cesspool of unaccountable corruption. Every American should study the documents referenced above, published or endorsed by the United Nations, and then insist that their elected Representatives remove the United States from the grasp of the global body.

Rest assured that the proponents of global governance are working daily to advance their goals. The apathy, indifference, and ignorance of ordinary Americans are among the primary weapons relied upon by the U.N. People who do nothing to stop global governance are actually helping to implement it.
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall
 
The UN is toothless. Those to be concerned with are those you don't see who turn out missives like North American Community proposal and llike majic presidents of 3 countries fall over themselves implementing it ALL IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY AUTHORIZATION BY ANY LEGISLATOR. Those are the ones to be concerned with. The UN is merely an attractive annoyance.
 
And they want to be able to tax U.S. citizens in order to pay for their half-baked schemes, corrupt leadership and America bashing edicts.

Yeah, right:barf: :barf: :barf:

How 'bout we withdraw, cut off all funding, boot their asses out of the U.S. and then see how well they fare?:D
 
I think the issue of staying in the UN should be on the ballot for the people to vote on. I think the public would overwhelmingly vote for us to withdraw. And kick the UN out of the US too.
 
If we ignore this warning, we aid in the forging of our own chains.

We don't need the U.N. for that to happen. People are already busy voting away their liberties in the name of fighting the War on Drugs/Terror.
 
The UN is only toothless in the sense they can not come to your door personally and do unto you. Yet. But the UN and the money behind it, like Soros, is the source of things like watershed issues, NAIS, international gun control efforts, things like the World Court and the desire for taxing authority over US Citizens...

The UN is toothless for the time being, but its entire agenda can be summarized in one simple phrase: The desire to grow teeth. Everything the UN does is centered on the goal of gaining money, centralizing authority and establishing their own enforcement arm(a standing UN military). While living in immediate fear of them is pointless, ignoring them and failing to see them as the source of so much of the crap invading our lives is eventually suicidal.
 
Let a Democrat win the White House in 2008 with Democrat control of the House and Senate and they will give the UN all the teeth it has ever longed for.

Next they will hand over our Bill of rights as the UN's first meal with its new teeth.
 
We are neither "constrained" nor "subject to" the UN. We defy the UN all the time. I seem to recall a country we invaded and occuppied recently completely ignoring UN protests.

Some things the UN does are good, and in line with our policies. If UN pressure doesn't affect us, and we get something out of it, why would we quit?


On the other side, if you are actually worried about the growing power of the UN, why would you quit and give up your Security Council veto? Wouldn't that be a dumb move?

All the recent presidential candidates and incumbants have been complete nincompoops, but I still vote. Should I quit voting, too?
 
This kinda stuff really scares me. The UN wants to be the world government. If it gets the power to levy a tax, it'll be there.

We DO NOT want this to happen. Remember the UN Council on Small Arms? They really wanted to bad private ownership of small arms. The US kept vetoing (a rep appointed by GWB right after the 2000 election. What would've happened had Gore appointed the rep??) and the end result was a resolution "deploring" illegal use of small arms, but not depolring ownership of small arms.

We are neither "constrained" nor "subject to" the UN.
That can change with the stroke of a pen.
+1!!!
 
Hey, while we're voting about what to do in the U.N., can we discuss all the pro-israeli veto votes and just generally strange things we've done in their favor? (not trying to get all anti-semetic on anyone, it's just that...c'mon. Some of the things we've done wouldn't make a whole lotta sense unless there's some jewish hands pulling some very big strings, to say nothing of who actually owns EACH and EVERY major tv network. (look it up))
 
With the stroke of who's pen?

Are you suggesting that if we don't voluntarily leave, we will voluntarily sign away our rights as a country?


If that is the logic, how does leaving the UN actually change anything? The same stroke of a pen could sign us back up AND agree to whatever. It isn't like we would become invisible to the UN after we left, or vice versa.


Could someone please spell out for us slow folk how leaving the UN would actually prevent us from losing our autonomy? What connection does membership have to our ability to choose our destiny? The UN holds nothing over us that they wouldn't still have if we left. We just lose our vote.


Seriously. I don't understand the logic and would appreciate a clarification.
 
Hey, while we're voting about what to do in the U.N., can we discuss all the pro-israeli veto votes and just generally strange things we've done in their favor? (not trying to get all anti-semetic on anyone, it's just that...c'mon. Some of the things we've done wouldn't make a whole lotta sense unless there's some jewish hands pulling some very big strings, to say nothing of who actually owns EACH and EVERY major tv network. (look it up))
Pro Israeli votes? You must be joking. With the exception of the U.S. the whole U.N. is anti-Israel.
They strike back at a Palestinian rocket site, they're condemned, they fire on someone who refuses to stop at a checkpoint, they're condemned, they build a wall so they no longer have to hang pig guts in a bus to keep the bombers away, they're condemned. Give me a break.
 
MX, I think NedReck was talking about the US voting record in support of Israel. And sorry NR, but your opinion does smack of anti-semitic propaganda points :barf: I'll stop at that, but I believe the topic was the UN's plan for global socialism, not Israel's right to defend itself....
 
You know a thread has run its course if it contains the terms "socialist", "U.N.control", and "Jewish media monopoly".

Discussions on the subject are welcome, as long as they're conducted in a mature fashion that doesn't make this board look like a bunch of Jew-hating Reynolds beanie wearers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top