WorldNetDaily reports today that the UN has drafted a proposal to abolish all nation-states in the world. Though the WND article appears in the news section of the website, the author's personal opinion about the plan shows up in his word choices.
All it will take, says the draft of a visionary proposal by the U.N. Development Program, is to getting (sic) rid of all the pesky nations of the world.
In fact, the plan endorsed by prominent world figures including Nobel laureates, bankers, politicians and economists to end nation-states as we know them is also designed to end health pandemics, poverty and "global warming." So far, the U.N. hasn't mentioned whether the proposal will do anything for obesity.
The goals of this program concern me, especially the goal of ending poverty. Didn't Lyndon Johnson fight a War on Poverty? And how successful was he?
And how will abolishing nations end health pandemics? Short of using the neutron bomb on everybody but me, health pandemics will come because that's the nature of, well, Nature.
Don't even get me started on global warming. I'm coming to the belief that global warming is a figment of some commie-socialist's imagination as a means of alarming the world's population enough that they'd be willing to abandon national sovereignty in favor of a Great Global Savior (GGS, aka UN). Remember (gasp!) the Ozone Hole? Nobody hears about it anymore, because it morphed into global warming, which is ever so much more alarming and worthy of UN control over everything.
Most of the focus of the U.N. plan is on global warming – a climate change phenomenon some consider to be more theory than reality. But it seems to be the central component in the U.N.'s globalization scheme for the future – the very organizing principal behind the push to eliminate borders, sovereign governments and autonomous nation-states.
If the scheme seems far-fetched, consider that it already has the backing of the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, according to the London Independent.
Of course the nations of France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Bill Gates (no doubt his foundation has a higher net worth than many of the countries currently in the UN) would approve of the UN taking over the world, because their leaders would have a better chance of running things than they do now. For them, it's all all about hamstringing and eventually decapitating (with a few other choice mutilations thrown in) the US on the world stage. The UK surprises me a little, though.
To justify the sweeping changes proposed by the commission, a new concept of "security" was offered. The U.N.'s mission under its present charter is to provide "security" to its member nations through "collective" action. The new concept expands the mission of the U.N. to be the security of the people – and the security of the planet.
Thus, in their speeches to the U.N.'s Millennium Assembly in 2000, both Secretary General Kofi Annan and President Bill Clinton made reference to this new concept, saying national sovereignty could no longer be used as an excuse to prevent the intervention by the U.N. to provide "security" for people inside national boundaries.
To provide security for the planet, the plan called for authorizing the U.N. Trusteeship Council to have "trusteeship" over the "global commons," which the plan defines to be: " ... the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."
The UN wants to control our air, water, atmosphere, and everything beyond that, in the interest of protecting our health. It would eventually look like this:
No smoking, because it's bad for you. No popping popcorn in the microwaves at places of employment, because somebody might find the smell offensive. No drinking coffee, because it contributes to stress. You have to eat oatmeal, even if it makes you puke, because it lowers cholesterol. They will never stop.
The managed economy of the former Soviet Union will look like Disneyland (and Stalin will look like Walt Disney) by the time the UN gets done setting its controls in place.
Isn't anybody listening (or reading, whichever they do best)!?! Does the Bush administration want to keep supporting this organization that is hell-bent on destroying our nation one little piece at a time? God forbid the UN should succeed in getting their program established. I just pray the Lord will smack President Bush upside the head and wake him up to what's going on just down the road at the UN. We need to yank all funding to the UN and throw the bums out on their collective (pun intended) ear.
3 comments:
This has actually been in the works for several years in committes. The UN is SOOOooo INEPT, you can just imagine how they would govern all the countries of the world...And they would have to bring military action here because Americans would not stand for it. I would die fighting it before I would live through the collectivist tribal mentalities that govern the UN. I say good riddance to bad rubbish...Quit paying them and kick their asses out...
For some reason this concept of global unity reminds me of the Catholic Church of the middle ages. It had a far reaching religious and military influence... just as the UN has secular humanism and peace-keeping troops. And when the Church's authority was questioned there was the inquisition.
It's pretty scary to think of handing our lives over to the UN. But it may sound like a good thing to those to whom America is nothing special... which in many ways describes the Left.
Larry,
The UN is both inept and corrupt. They'd govern the way Mugabe does in Zimbabwe: Keep whatever money comes their way, reward their cronies and toadies, and leave everyone else to suffer.
Chris,
Your statement, "those to whom America is nothing special" is so insightful. One of the things that makes us special (and I agree that we are) is that we won't let ourselves be ruled by people who think they're "elite" and know better than the rest of us (that would be the Left).
Rule by strongman is the Third World way of governing. Rule by elite is the European way of governing. Rule by the Average Joe is the American way of governing.
With the UN plan, we'd probably get rule by elite with regional strongmen, and the Average Joe would be the loser.
Post a Comment