The Global New Deal

I first posted this in Feb of 2001... can you see any of having been instituted?

The Global New Deal
--------------------------

ALASKA -- Benjamin Franklin described our "free press" as the guardian of American liberty. If that's true, we had better put out a contract for a new watchdog. On Saturday, July 1, 2000 while the U.S. media was preoccupied with the price of gasoline, speculating on the seating arrangements for Camp David and worrying about who might or might not play in the All Star game, the United Nations General Assembly met in Geneva, Switzerland, to launch a plan that would dramatically
reduce national sovereignty, limit the ability of nations to
govern their own affairs, impose global taxes on developed countries, and cost Americans trillions of dollars. It should have gotten some attention in the U.S. media. (But, Americans don't care. Unless it affects their checkbook. Which one day soon, it well).

But it didn't. For whatever reason, almost nothing was reported to the American people about this remarkable conclave of representatives from 130 nations at what was billed as "The Second World Summit for Social Development." Unlike debates in Congress, 10 heads of state, 11 prime ministers, 7 vice-presidents and a seemingly endless swarm of top government factotums from around the planet came to the podium and spoke, nearly unanimously in praise for the United Nations, its agencies and international agreements, and in support for a dramatically increased role for the UN in administering social programs on a global scale.

The U.S. was represented at this little-reported confab by the Clinton Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala. We might as well have been represented by the delegation from Luxembourg. Or Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. They could have done a MUCH better job! In her official remarks, Shalala embraced UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's vision for a "Global New Deal," proffered a lengthy litany of vacuous platitudes for Annan's madcap schemes and then descended into outright hypocrisy on the issue of respect for human rights. Shalala's rant was punctuated by wild applause when she demanded political rights and free expression around the world. I believe this is called treason, is it not? Punishable by hanging? Then, what are we waiting on?

Apparently the HHS Secretary had forgotten, or the crowd
chose to overlook, that she serves in an administration that had just returned a six-year-old boy to a brutal dictator, and she also serves in the cabinet of a Chief Executive who routinely ignores grotesque human rights violations in Communist China. And when Shalala demanded UN intervention to control the "distribution of health care at the global level," the crowd went positively nuts -- even though the concept of government-regulated medicine had been soundly rejected when Hillary! (No Last Name) tried to jam it down the throats of U.S. citizens. And let us not forget, clearly demonstrated by their record, that the U.N.'s only interest in "human rights violations" is to make sure that as many people as possible are killed in any manner possible.

Unfortunately, vague phrases like "global control" are
commonplace for the internationalist crowd that gathered in Geneva. Their speech and writings are rife with deceptive, fuzzy-headed terms like "multilateral cooperative measures," and "global interdependence," and "global solidarity" when they seek to define specific goals and objectives in their "Global New Deal." Some read this phraseology for its entertainment value. And it might be laughable -- except that there are increasing numbers of high-level officials in western democracies and even in the U.S. government who see these
terms as appropriate expressions in an "enlightened"
worldview. We, the people, do not.

In fact, no representative of any government at the Geneva General Assembly session stood up to challenge those who advocate the dissolution of "nation-states" and abandoning national sovereignty and individual liberty as "archaic concepts." And because the UN operates in virtual secrecy without the scrutiny of a skeptical media, and acts through unelected, unaccountable diplomats answerable to no one, ludicrous ideas become credible concepts.

Thus in Geneva, no official arose to oppose the absurd core notion of the Global New Deal: that because so many other national governments are unwilling or unable to do so, the United Nations should provide a "basic income for all people."

The idea: Create a "UN currency." Establish a UN central bank and thousands of UN Branch Banks and an accompanying UN debit system. Distribute 250 "UN dollars" to every person in the world (more for those in poverty.) To ensure that all people on the planet benefit, a UN representative would be assigned to represent every 1,000 people. Your local UN representative will
be responsible for entering all necessary personal information into the UN Global Computer System to ensure that you use your UN dollars for appropriate purposes. I believe this is known as "The Mark Of The Beast", and guarentees one an eternity in Hell. Doesn't sound all that appealling, to me.

The problem: How to pay for this loony idea.

The solution: A "global tax," collected by the UN on all
financial transactions involving a currency exchange. Sound too crazy to be true? Well, consider this: The UN is planning another global conference for next year which will focus specifically on the subject of global taxes. Best say NO now, or forever hold your peace!

Interestingly enough, by next year, all international banks will have systems in place that could administer a currency transaction tax. The European Union, Canada, the U.K, Switzerland, and Finland have all expressed support for some kind of global tax to support the UN. Interesting - they all express interest in a system that will enure their enslavement. Just how STUPID are these people, these days?

Several months ago, when he first advanced this madcap
concept, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked, "Could the time be ripe for a Global New Deal?" Hopefully, in less than 210 days, we will swear in a new president who will turn to Annan and just say "NO!"