|
|
AMERICA GET OUT OF THE UN!
If the US
leaves... it, all, rapidly falls apart. Besides, there's no quicker way to find
out who your allies really are, than to see who will lock arms with you in
support-- the old fashioned way. America would gain more by supporting those
who demonstrate their friendship by their deeds, rather than their words.
The UN is nothing more than a farce, propped up by US taxpayers' Dollars. The smartest thing America can do is to get out of the UN, and retire the UN to Geneva. UN resolutions only effect those who are a party to them. It's very clear that the UN is moving away from American ideology, and it's foolish for America to pursue that which she is not. Is America's financial contribution to the UN worth borrowing money from China to sustain our involvement in it? |
NOT WORKING SO WELL FOR THE FAR LEFT RADICALS!
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton had previously committed the United States to provide $105 billion annually, based on our $15 trillion GNP. World Bank data for 2010 put U.S. per capita GNP at $47,340 - meaning each American family of four would pay $1,325 a year. That may seem like chump change compared to Obamacare or the Obama stimulus. But over a decade, U.S. citizens would be required to contribute well over $1 trillion to U.N. sustainability schemes.
To oversee this unprecedented wealth transfer to U.N. bureaucrats and NGO activists, architects of “The FutureWeWant” would establish “an intergovernmental process” to assess financial needs; consider the effectiveness, consistency and synergies of existing instruments and frameworks; evaluate additional initiatives; and prepare reports on financing strategies. Implementation of this grand scheme would be handled by an intergovernmental committee of 30 “experts” who would be accountable to no one, except perhaps the U.N. secretary-general.
The document reassuringly suggests that “aid architecture has significantly changed in the current decade,” and “fighting corruption and illicit financial flows [has become] a priority.” Diogenes would search in vain for evidence of this.
Indeed, the very idea of still more aid must be questioned. “Has more than $1 trillion in development assistance over the last several decades made African people better off?” economist Dambisa Moyo asks in her book, “Dead Aid.” Her answer is an emphatic no.
(Editor's Note - What has the United Nations done with all the money the United States has given them except to line the pockets of the UN officials? The countries we were supposed to be helping at the start almost 67 years ago, are still just as poor, backward, disease ridden and un-educated as they were when we first went into the agreement forming the UN. Why is Congress not questioning this and getting the United States out of this crooked association?)
To oversee this unprecedented wealth transfer to U.N. bureaucrats and NGO activists, architects of “The FutureWeWant” would establish “an intergovernmental process” to assess financial needs; consider the effectiveness, consistency and synergies of existing instruments and frameworks; evaluate additional initiatives; and prepare reports on financing strategies. Implementation of this grand scheme would be handled by an intergovernmental committee of 30 “experts” who would be accountable to no one, except perhaps the U.N. secretary-general.
The document reassuringly suggests that “aid architecture has significantly changed in the current decade,” and “fighting corruption and illicit financial flows [has become] a priority.” Diogenes would search in vain for evidence of this.
Indeed, the very idea of still more aid must be questioned. “Has more than $1 trillion in development assistance over the last several decades made African people better off?” economist Dambisa Moyo asks in her book, “Dead Aid.” Her answer is an emphatic no.
(Editor's Note - What has the United Nations done with all the money the United States has given them except to line the pockets of the UN officials? The countries we were supposed to be helping at the start almost 67 years ago, are still just as poor, backward, disease ridden and un-educated as they were when we first went into the agreement forming the UN. Why is Congress not questioning this and getting the United States out of this crooked association?)
THEY SAY, "COME READY TO COMMIT!"
LORD MONKTON REPORTS - - - - -
RIO DE JANEIRO — Amid the thousands of people assembled at the United Nations Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development calling for global government and anti-market “solutions” to alleged planetary “sustainability” and “biodiversity” problems, a vocal coalition of environmental realists who refuse to buy the UN-backed agenda are calling for some sanity — market solutions, real science, and national sovereignty. Some have even proposed abolishing the controversial global institution altogether.
While the international press has largely ignored the stinging criticism so far, the small cadre of liberty minded environmental experts, activists, and lawmakers seemed optimistic. The climate alarmism of a few years ago, for example, is virtually “dead” despite overwhelming media support.
On Thursday, following the stunning implosion of the science behind global-warming theories, the whole
topic has largely taken a back seat to new UN allegations --overpopulation, decreasing biodiversity, and a lack of “sustainability.” Global warming seems to have taken a back seat since scientists have come "out of the closet" and reported the truth - now the NWO junkies are reversing courses.
Citing the growing worldwide awareness about the true nature of the UN’s dangerous schemes, the crumbling of
the supposed “science” underpinning the agenda, and the increasing irrelevancy of the mainstream media, all of the critics who spoke to The New American said there is cause for hope. They were surprisingly upbeat, too.
Among the most prominent opponents lambasting the UN and its lavish Rio+20“sustainability” conference was U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment Committee. Appearing at a conference via video, the well-known skeptic of “global-warming” alarmism blasted the worldwide “far-left” agenda to impose carbon taxes and redistribute wealth.“Whatever happened to sovereignty?” he asked.
Among the most prominent opponents lambasting the UN and its lavish Rio+20“sustainability” conference was U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment Committee. Appearing at a conference via video, the well-known skeptic of “global-warming” alarmism blasted the worldwide “far-left” agenda to impose carbon taxes and redistribute wealth.“Whatever happened to sovereignty?” he asked.
Other critics of the global body’s agenda offered even harsher criticism during the conference. Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science policy advisor to U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a well-known advocate for real science and human liberty, slammed the entire UN summit and declared that its dangerous agenda should fail.
While the international press has largely ignored the stinging criticism so far, the small cadre of liberty minded environmental experts, activists, and lawmakers seemed optimistic. The climate alarmism of a few years ago, for example, is virtually “dead” despite overwhelming media support.
On Thursday, following the stunning implosion of the science behind global-warming theories, the whole
topic has largely taken a back seat to new UN allegations --overpopulation, decreasing biodiversity, and a lack of “sustainability.” Global warming seems to have taken a back seat since scientists have come "out of the closet" and reported the truth - now the NWO junkies are reversing courses.
Citing the growing worldwide awareness about the true nature of the UN’s dangerous schemes, the crumbling of
the supposed “science” underpinning the agenda, and the increasing irrelevancy of the mainstream media, all of the critics who spoke to The New American said there is cause for hope. They were surprisingly upbeat, too.
Among the most prominent opponents lambasting the UN and its lavish Rio+20“sustainability” conference was U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment Committee. Appearing at a conference via video, the well-known skeptic of “global-warming” alarmism blasted the worldwide “far-left” agenda to impose carbon taxes and redistribute wealth.“Whatever happened to sovereignty?” he asked.
Among the most prominent opponents lambasting the UN and its lavish Rio+20“sustainability” conference was U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment Committee. Appearing at a conference via video, the well-known skeptic of “global-warming” alarmism blasted the worldwide “far-left” agenda to impose carbon taxes and redistribute wealth.“Whatever happened to sovereignty?” he asked.
Other critics of the global body’s agenda offered even harsher criticism during the conference. Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science policy advisor to U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a well-known advocate for real science and human liberty, slammed the entire UN summit and declared that its dangerous agenda should fail.