U.N. Socialist Rule

[scribblet]

Does anyone else find this scary, giving the U.N. that kind money - just imagine what they would do with it really.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/lamb020606.htm

U.N. plans global socialist rule Henry Lamb

Monday, February 6, 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 U.N. 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

[Leafless]

scriblett

You wrote- " Does anyone else find this scary, giving the U.N. that kind of money"

I don't know about scary but it does sound ridiculous.

Sounds like it's time to withdraw from the U.N.

[betsy]

I repeat again: I don't trust the UN!

It's peopled by mostly dictators and corrupt governments.

We must untangle ourselves from it.

[Pliny]

I agree the UN should be abolished.

Obstacles that stand in the way of achieiving this global government are nationalism and religion. Both of which are constantly being eroded.

I don't say that to defend nationalism or religion I am just stating a fact that globally, the UN is working to centralize its power.

The father of the Kyoto Accord, our own Maurice Strong, stated that our only hope for the planet is that industrialized civilizations collapse and it is our responsibility to bring that about. Sound like good government?

[Montgomery Burns]

7 trillion?! There was a European scientist on Fox News' global warming special tonight--who said that the UN claimed that it could cure all of the world's ills (HIV, the poor in Africa, etc) for $75 billion per year. He asked if it made sense to spend $150 billion/yr on Kyoto, which he said would do little good, or $75 billion/yr on doing a whole helluva lot of good. The special also discussed the "credits" that Scriblett's link mentions. Some guy in Russia (I forget his name and title) said Kyoto was great for them economically. The limits posted on Russia (and the rest of Eastern European Soviet satellite states) have the level of Kyoto reduction rates at 1990 levels and that gives them an advantage over the rest of the industrialized world. Anyways, the guy said that Russia signed onto Kyoto because we (Russia) would make about $12 billion in the next 3 or 4 years selling credits from other countries. Russia is a vast country with many areas virtually uninhabited (eg, Siberia) and those areas emit little greenhouse emission gas. Some of their plants haven't been upgraded since 1950.

And like I suspected, the Euro-socialists have a political agenda when it comes to Kyoto. Some Euro official (I forget her name and exact title) said that the purpose of Kyoto was quote: To level the playing field economically. The Euro-socialists are getting their butts kicked economically by the capitalistic USA and they want to knock them down. They also quoted Jacques ChIraq saying that Kyoto was a step towards a one-world govt.

I should have posted about this FNC global warming special earlier today. Did anyone else see it? If so, do you remember that Euro official's name?

[TopHat]

oh yes. Fox new. Now they are a "perfectly good news group" </sarcasm>

I also disagree with leaving the UN. I tihnk by leaving the UN we would just repeat mor mistakes in history. We need to be united.

[geoffrey]

Like money has ever solved terrorism, human rights abuses and all those other things.

The UN should be dissolved. It's failures are more wideknown than successes.

[Pliny]

oh yes. Fox new. Now they are a "perfectly good news group" </sarcasm>

I also disagree with leaving the UN. I tihnk by leaving the UN we would just repeat mor mistakes in history. We need to be united.

Who iswe?

[Hicksey]

oh yes. Fox new. Now they are a "perfectly good news group" </sarcasm>

I also disagree with leaving the UN. I tihnk by leaving the UN we would just repeat mor mistakes in history. We need to be united.

We have the UN now and the world could not be more divided. How is the UN uniting anyone?

Fox News is no more biased than the Commie News Network or the taxpayer funded network Constantly Bullshitting Canadians and I see those two sources quoted all the time and hear the libs whine when us cons question their source.

[betsy]

I also disagree with leaving the UN. I tihnk by leaving the UN we would just repeat mor mistakes in history. We need to be united.

What mistakes would we be repeating by leaving the UN? Please clarify.

[scribblet]

oh yes. Fox new. Now they are a "perfectly good news group" </sarcasm>

I also disagree with leaving the UN. I tihnk by leaving the UN we would just repeat mor mistakes in history. We need to be united.

Fox news is as good a news source as any, if we only posted from the Red Star for instance, we'd have a pretty uneven view of life.

The U.N. is united allright, united in its anti U.S. anti Israel bias. It is united in wanting 'wealth distribution' and continually holding its hand out to the west, treating our wealth as theirs, to distribute as they wish.

[geoffrey]

Exactly, the UN believes in the ridiculous concept of wealth distribution that has apparently caught on with the more socialist leaning nations of Europe (plus Canada).

Where did this idea come from? Straight from the mouth of Marx? Seriously, why must everyone be more equal in pay, when everyone has various worths and amount of work.

Wealth distribution policies (welfare and taxation) is the main cause of first world poverty, and now they want to extend that failure to the rest of the world.

Brilliant UN, I still must ask, what has the UN ever done.

[ClearWest]

I agree with sticking it to the UN. They're looking more and more like 'Ingsoc' everyday.

[Michael Hardner]

Betsy:

I repeat again: I don't trust the UN!

It's peopled by mostly dictators and corrupt governments.

We must untangle ourselves from it.

And what will we replace it with ?

Pliny:

I agree the UN should be abolished.

...

I don't say that to defend nationalism or religion I am just stating a fact that globally, the UN is working to centralize its power.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

What would you replace it with ?

Montgomery Burns:

Yes, and the Kyoto credit plan was based on a similar plan that successfully reduced emissions in the US.

geoffrey:

Like money has ever solved terrorism, human rights abuses and all those other things.

The UN should be dissolved. It's failures are more wideknown than successes.

So because it's PERCEIVED as failure, then it is a failure ?

Do you really expect these problems to be completely solved by the UN ? Do you hold the same success criteria to other organizations ? How about the US' rebuilding effort in Iraq ?

Hicksey:

We have the UN now and the world could not be more divided. How is the UN uniting anyone?

What is your metric for this ? It seems to me that there is progress being made.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Spouting something like 'abolish the UN' without any plan to replace it is pretty empty. It's like saying 'privatize all health care now'. Or... the patient isn't getting any better let's kill him.

There were wars before the UN existed, weren't there ?

[betsy]

Betsy:

I repeat again: I don't trust the UN!

It's peopled by mostly dictators and corrupt governments.

We must untangle ourselves from it.

And what will we replace it with ?

The UN is not credible. It's biased. And unreliable where it's needed. Remember Rwanda?

What's the point of hanging on to something useless? Even if there's no replacement?

[Michael Hardner]

The UN is not credible. It's biased. And unreliable where it's needed. Remember Rwanda?

What's the point of hanging on to something useless? Even if there's no replacement?

I'm sure that all the UN means to you is a group of people generating propaganda that offends your political sensibilities, but they have saved many lives around the world through emergency relief, medical assistance, vaccinations and other programs.

Your opinion that it should be replaced 'even if there's no replacement' is pretty outrageous, given what they do.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, the Rwandan massacre happened despite the UN. Lawlessness happens, even where there are police. Is your solution to get rid of the police ?

[geoffrey]

Yes, the Rwandan massacre happened despite the UN. Lawlessness happens, even where there are police. Is your solution to get rid of the police ?

When had the 'police' ever worked in this situation. You have to stop seeing the UN as world police and start seeing them as an elaborate transfer program with corruption that would make the Liberals look ethical.

[Michael Hardner]

geoffrey:

When had the 'police' ever worked in this situation.

I don't know much about UN police actions or peacekeeping, but that was an analogy. I believe that they were used in Cyprus, beginning about 40 years ago.

You have to stop seeing the UN as world police and start seeing them as an elaborate transfer program with corruption that would make the Liberals look ethical.

Why do I 'have' to do that ? I think you have to defend your statement that the UN should be abolished, given the many people that they've helped.

[Montgomery Burns]

Michael Hardner:

So because it is PERCEIVED as a failure, it is a failure?

You've got to be kidding. These are the clowns who issued a report concluding that there is no genocide going on in Sudan. They refused to enforce 17 of their own binding resolutions and Kofi Annan is on the record saying Operation Iraqi Freedom is illegal. They threw the US off their Human Rights Commission and stacked it with Cuba, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, etal. Their Human Rights Commission is literally a rogues gallery of human rights abusers. It seems that they dole out non-binding resolutions every week condemning Israel for some PERCEIVED offense, but have little to say about the displaced Arab death cult.

This [the UN is working to centralize its power] sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Read the OP of this thread

What would you replace it with ?

An organization that only allows democracies comes to mind, i.e., if it is essential that it has to be replaced with something else.

Yes, and the Kyoto credit plan was based on a similar plan that successfully reduced emissions in the US.

I'm unsure what you mean. AP6 was launched January 12/2006, and as far as I know, buying and selling credits is not a part of AP6. Are we talking about the same thing? Please clarify.

[Montgomery Burns]

Tophat:

oh yes. Fox new. Now they are a "perfectly good news group" </sarcasm>

No MSM news source, none, offers more diversity of opinion than the FNC. From far-right social conservatives like Jerry Falwell to far-leftists wearing Che Guevera t-shirts, and everything in between. Their actual news is far more fair and balanced than any other MSM source. If you go to their website, you will see many of their news stories come from newswires like the Associated Press - which is definitely leftwing.

They report, you decide...unlike the rest of the MSM which is We Report Half, You Decide.

The FNC shines a light on the antics and idiocy of many on the left, and liberals have a problem with that. The left doesn't like someone challenging their talking points, and if you got the guts to go on the FNC, you better be ready to back up your sh*t. Liberals can rarely do that and sometimes end up looking like fools when they appear on the FNC

Hannity & Colmes was great tonight. On one segment they talked about some Boston College students protesting Condi Rice for getting an honorary degree. Anyways, they had a professor from BC, Steve Almond, who had resigned from the college because of this. Why was he so upset? Because Condi is a "liar" and Bush "lied" about Iraq's WMD. After Colmes got through talking to him, it was Hannity's turn. I'm going to paraphrase part of their conversation:

SH: Did you vote for John Kerry?

SA: *Silence and an uncomfortable look on his face*

SH: Did you vote for John Kerry?

SA: Uhhh...what does that have to do with anything?

SH: It's a simple question. Did you vote for John Kerry?

SA: *Silence and an uncomfortable look on his face*......This has nothing to do with the topic.

SH: Why are you being evasive? Did you vote for John Kerry?

SA: Look....I...uh....

SH: I think you did vote for John Kerry and here is what John Kerry said: *lifts up a piece of paper* "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." So what does that make you?

SA: 20,000 casualties, quagmire, stealing the oil, blah blah blah liberal talking points.

SH: *waves his hand in disgust*

And that's why the left hates the FNC!

This is the same Professor Steve Almond that hung up on (FNC's) John Gibson last week during Gibson's radio show. At least Almond had the guts to appear on H&C; Howard Dean is still refusing to accept Bill O'Reilly's invitation for him to appear on the No Spin Zone. Think about that. O'Reilly has the #1 rated show on cable news and the head of the DNC refuses (scared?) to appear on his show.

*Edited to change Condi speaking at Boston College graduation...to Condi getting an honorary degree from BC.

Edited May 23, 2006 by Montgomery Burns

[Machinations]

I agree the UN should be abolished.

Obstacles that stand in the way of achieiving this global government are nationalism and religion. Both of which are constantly being eroded.

I don't say that to defend nationalism or religion I am just stating a fact that globally, the UN is working to centralize its power.

The father of the Kyoto Accord, our own Maurice Strong, stated that our only hope for the planet is that industrialized civilizations collapse and it is our responsibility to bring that about. Sound like good government?

What are you saying, then? While I agree, the UN has flaws, at is, as I understand, undergoing 'reform' - it does not change the fact that an institution like the United Nations is required in the world, if only a place to broker disputes between nations in a forum that is as public as possible.

Religion and nationalism - pick your poison.

Both of these ideas are detrimental to the advances of a global human civilization - one that stops spending on gigantic nuclear place-annihilators and starts the science down the long path of colonizing space. Spreading our eggs to many baskets - if you will - seems the natural destiny of the human race, for what are people if not explorers?

We don't even have a national space program. Oh yeah, we have that robotic arm thingy. Yay. Meanwhile, the International Space Station begins to mothball, and the United States is using a space-plane designed and built in the 60s using solid state electronics. Was it really surprising that there was a critical failure?

Most space based programs are satellites designed to aid a military system of one form or another. The irony.

[Machinations]

From far-right social conservatives like Jerry Falwell to far-leftists wearing Che Guevera t-shirts..

I ask you this, Mr. Burns: who has more fun?

Also, is'nt Bill O'Reilly on Fox News? How anyone can claim FNC is fair and balanced with falafel Bill in da house is beyond me.

[Montgomery Burns]

Machinations:

I ask you this, Mr. Burns: who has more fun?

Unquestionably conservatives. Definitely not liberals. For 34 years straight since they first started researching this in 1972.

Also, is'nt Bill O'Reilly on Fox News?

Yes, he is a pundit on the FNC.

How anyone can claim FNC is fair and balanced...

Ahhh...the partisan George Soros-funded Media Matters and its rhetorical dishonesty. Soros also funds MoveOn.org, the organization that sponsored 2 ads showing President Bush morphing into Adolf Hitler. They even streamed it on their site. Nice.

I ask you this, Machinations:

How many conservatives at the state-run, taxpayer-funded CBC Newsworld? Rex Murphy and...?

How many conservatives at CNN? Zero.

...with falafel Bill in da house is beyond me.

O'Reilly was never convicted of sexually harassing this lady. However, George Soros is a convicted criminal.

[betsy]

The UN is not credible. It's biased. And unreliable where it's needed. Remember Rwanda?

What's the point of hanging on to something useless? Even if there's no replacement?

I'm sure that all the UN means to you is a group of people generating propaganda that offends your political sensibilities, but they have saved many lives around the world through emergency relief, medical assistance, vaccinations and other programs.

Your opinion that it should be replaced 'even if there's no replacement' is pretty outrageous, given what they do.

WHAT COUNTRY provides the MOST FINANCIAL AID? Quick and organized response in cases of emergencies?

Don't we, through CIDA provide assistance? Other rich countries probably have their own foreign programs as well.

We save lives...with or without the UN.

Why do we need the UN for the things you've mentioned?

Why do you need the approval of a bunch of degenerate dictators, whom you know have their own political agenda? Can't well-developed countries such as Canada stand on its own when it comes to decision-makings?