April 2012: When will a single US official call for an end to these ridiculous statements by UN grifters and mean it? The US has no business anywhere near this mass of unelected parasites. UN personnel cannot be prosecuted by the US for any crime, abuse, or theft of US taxpayer dollars even if admitted no matter how great. (Citation at end of post). The UN defines "green economy" as taking money from Americans and why not? The US has agreed they can do whatever they want with our money, even spend it criminally. If the UN really wants "improved human well-being and social equity" why don't they agree to account for every penny and offer to be judged by the same civil and criminal standards that apply to US 'humans' who earned the money the UN wants to 'transfer'? The UN "props up despotic regimes in the name of 'climate change'" and this continues to be fine with US presidents.
4/20/12, "U.N. to debut plan for world socialism in June--time for US to exit?," Jeffrey Klein, Examiner.com
"The United Nations is holding its' "Conference on Sustainable Development" in Rio de Janero, Brazil, over three separate sessions in June, to which organizers, led by UN Conference Secretary-General of Rio+20, Sha Zukang [who 'really doesn't like Americans'], expect 193 attendees from governments, the private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders, according to the Sarah de Sainte Croix March 20, 2012 article in The Rio Times.
The stated themes of this colossal conference, which is structured around a 204-page report titled, "Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy, A United Nations System-Wide Perspective," are “the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication,” ... [by and through] ... "the institutional framework for sustainable development,” according to George Russell's excellent and quoted-filled FOXNews article today.
More specifically, the debates will cover a ... 'breathtaking array of carbon taxes, transfers of trillions of dollars from wealthy countries to poor ones,"...
- [Ed. note: The cash as always is to be 'no strings.' It can be put in Swiss Banks, given to cronies, terrorists, political candidates, etc. If the UN had wanted to help the poor they could long ago have done so.]
According to Russell, the Obama Administration officials have supported this "agenda," which is designed to 'make dramatic and enormously expensive changes in the way that the world does nearly everything—or, as one of the documents puts it, "a fundamental shift in the way we think and act."
According to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, proposals on how the “challenges can and must be addressed,” include:
--'More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering “green infrastructure ... climate adaptation ... other green economy” measures.'
--'New carbon taxes for industrialized countries [amounting to] about $250 billion a year, or 0.6 percent of [US] GDP by 2020. Other environmental taxes are mentioned, but not specified.'
--'Further unspecified price hikes ... derived from agriculture, fisheries, forestry, or other kinds of land and water use [industries], all of which would be radically reorganized--[to] “contribute to a more level playing field between established, 'brown' technologies and newer, greener ones."'
-- 'Major global social spending programs, including a "social protection floor" and "social safety nets" for the world's most vulnerable social groups for reasons of “equity.”'
--'Even more social benefits for those displaced by [this] green economy revolution—such as those put out of work in undesirable fossil fuel industries. The benefits, called “investments,” would include “access to nutritious food, health services, education, training and retraining, and unemployment benefits."'
--'A guarantee that if those sweeping benefits weren’t enough, more would be granted ... “Any adverse effects of changes in prices of goods and services, vital to the welfare of vulnerable groups, must be compensated for and new livelihood opportunities provided."'
“Transforming the global economy will require action locally (e.g., through land use planning), at the national level (e.g., through energy-use regulations) and at the international level (e.g., through technology diffusion),” the document says.
It involves “profound changes in economic systems, in resource efficiency, in the composition of global demand, in production and consumption patterns and a major transformation in public policy-making.” It will also require “a serious rethinking of lifestyles in developed countries.”
This 'UN guidebook for global social engineering,' was prepared by the Geneva-based United Nations Environmental Management Group (UNEMG), a consortium of 36 U.N. agencies, development banks and environmental bureaucracies--all of which rely on the contributions, from tax collecting nations for their very existence--not a single entity engaged in the production of goods or services, producing a profit and owning singular wealth.
This UN doctrine seems to directly channel Marx and Engel's scribe of 1848, "The Communist Manifesto," wherein its' organizational and operational structure appears to largely be a paraphrasical equivalent to the 10 short-term demands Marx prescribed in section II., "Proletarians and Communists."
However, instead of the UN overthrowing the capitalist system, it simply wants to tie it to a leash and be subject to the UN ... [a] 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' to redistribute wealth around the world to "magically elevate the poverty class to the middle class.
The United States, arguably the most fertile and favorable ground for such a massive experiment, has already spent $15 [T]rillion in taxpayer treasure over the past 47 years attempting to circumvent market forces and eliminate poverty--with no affect.
Additionally, study after study has revealed the UN to have grown into an impossibly dysfunctional gargantuan, having negligent management skills, metrics and accountability, and a source of financially wasteful pandering--second only to the U.S. General Services Administration.
Actually, as this directly smacks of the long-discussed "UN Agenda 21," America must treat this audacity of the United Nations as a wake up call, and say "[last] check please"--then hit the UN exit doors without delay." via Climate Depot
======================
Ed. note: By 2001, 87 US municipalities had already signed up for Agenda 21 (p. 10). If money were the answer to poverty, why do people who win millions in the lottery end up bankrupt?
------------------------------------
2/26/12, "Rio+20 meets Agenda 21," WUWT, Willis Eschenbach
"Well, the rent-seekers, money-hungry NGOs, grifters, post-normal “scientists”, con-men, Eurotrash, and the usual camp followers are gearing up again for another monumental waste of money. This time, it’s for the upcoming extravagarbonza, the new Rio+20 Climate Carnival.
The meeting features the usual dangerous bafflegab, which conceals wholesale theft under layers of rhetoric like this:
Integrate the three pillars of sustainable development and promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and related outcomes, consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability, keeping in mind the Rio Principles, in particular common but differentiated responsibilities. SOURCEAs is typical with this kind of mealy-mouthed official doublespeak, we need a translation to see who is getting fleeced, and how....
I don’t want globalization of any kind, and if I did, I damn sure don’t want the UN involved in any way....
In any case, Rio+20 is the usual, and still very dangerous, conflux of the useful idiots, greedy activists, pimps, prostitutes, and pseudo-scientists who have caused so much damage in the past. Head them off at the pass, harass their flanks, destroy their supply-wagons, cut them off from their water supply, I don’t know what … but this madness has to stop. You cannot redistribute your way to wealth."...
--------------------------
10/28/09, "UN Agenda 21 - Coming to a Neighborhood near You," American Thinker, Strzelczyk and Rothschild
---------------------------
Via Freedom of Info. Act, examples of how and why the UN spends US taxpayer millions any way it pleases including complicity by USAID:
"Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity,"...4/16/09, "Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects," USA Today, Ken Dilanian
"Two United Nations agencies spent millions in U.S. money on substandard Afghanistan construction projects, including a central bank without electricity and a bridge at risk of "life threatening" collapse, according to an investigation by U.S. federal agents.
The U.N. ran a "quick impact" infrastructure program from 2003 to 2006 under a $25 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The U.N. delivered shoddy work, diverted money to other countries and then stonewalled U.S. efforts to figure out what happened, according to a report by USAID's inspector general obtained by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act.
"Due to the refusal of the United Nations to cooperate with this investigation, questions remain unanswered," the report says.
Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity, according to the report. USAID has scaled back its dealings with the U.N. and hired a collection agency to seek $7.6 million back, Deputy Administrator James Bever said. The aid agency hasn't heeded its inspector general's request to sever all ties.
- "There are certain cases where working with the U.N. is the only option available," Bever said in an e-mail....
One U.N. employee told investigators that "about $10 million of USAID grant money went to projects in other countries, to include Sudan, Haiti, Sri Lanka and Dubai." That witness said the Afghanistan country director for the U.N. Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which served as the contractor on the project for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), spent about $200,000 in U.S. money to renovate his guesthouse. Witness names were withheld by USAID.
The development program hired UNOPS to do the work and kept a 7% management fee, the report says. The finances were "out of control," an unnamed project services manager told investigators.
An unnamed USAID contractor told investigators that the program was "ill conceived from the beginning. This was a political idea to do quick impact projects that would look good," the report said.
- Investigators found that projects reported as "complete" were actually so shoddily built that they were unusable, the report said. For example:
•An airstrip in the southern town of Qalat, originally budgeted at $300,000, cost $749,000 and could not accommodate military planes.
•A $375,000 headquarters for Afghanistan's central bank lacked electricity or plumbing, and basement flooding destroyed stacks of local currency.
Investigators found that UNDP withdrew $6.7 million from a U.S. line of credit without permission in 2007, months after the project had ended. UNDP has
- yet to explain what happened to that money, the report says."...
.
No comments:
Post a Comment