OBAMA’S G-SPOT: THE FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES IS TO IMPLEMENT GLOBALISM

In a nutshell: Globalism is establishing a geographical policy where the entire world is considered to be suitable for a governments influence. To globalize is to apply this policy.

The question: In order to globalize the United States, how much of our independence, freedom, and self-government will be sacrificed?

LEAN TO THE LEFT, LEAN TO THE RIGHT, DO BOTH PARTIES PROMOTE GLOBALISM OVER SOVEREIGNTY? (Does it really matter if we end up in the same place?)

Lean to the Left. Largely speaking, when the left is talking about globalism, they are referring to global responsibility.

THE BIG SELL: Sustainable development through the green movement.

The green movement is commonly promoted using ecological responsibility as its selling virtue. However, is there a difference between acting responsibly to curb energy use versus embracing a “green scheme” that will ultimately lead to profiteering through carbon trade as well as increased government control? Could this be the ultimate alliance of agendas between the left and right? According to the United Nations’ Agenda 21, “The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries…” One of the ways this will be realized is through taxing “Carbon Footprints” via the Cap and Trade Bill (see Cap and Traitor) if it is passed. If the Copenhagen Treaty is signed and ratified, the United States will then answer to the United Nations. “Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year.” The proposal for the Copenhagen Agreement states, “Implementation of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty will need significant financial resources. These commitments would be measured, reported and verified through the UNFCCC.” Among other objectives, funds will be used for “securing access to modern energy services for all people by 2025, without locking them into a high GHG intensity development path.” Is this promoting living green or is it green socialism when the taxpayers are paying via stimulus money to have SmartMeters™ installed in 40 million homes? Do SmartMeters cut down on energy use, are they installed so the government can eventually ration energy or will they be used as a tool to determine peak energy usage (ultimately resulting in increased rates based on consumption?) Unless utility companies come up with a pricing structure that benefits the consumer, “…the only sizable economic benefits are likely to be for the utilities themselves, not consumers, who are paying for the gizmos through higher utility rates. Mother nature is likely to get a fraction of the promised benefit.”

Lean to the Right. Broadly speaking, when the right is talking about globalism, they are referring to global economics.

THE BIG SELL: Globalizing companies will profit everyone.

But is that true, or is the main goal of global economics to increase corporate profits, as well as corporate power at the expense of everyone not in on the game? Some people feel the push for global oversight agencies/governments is desired specifically to eradicate that which hinders the operations of transnational companies. That is, if the world is governmentally globalized, they would be able to function more fluidly. If the United States works under and answers to global governments, business practices will be significantly easier to implement globally. Corporations can optimize their profits by having worldwide access to the cheapest labor and resources. Will the United States citizens prosper under these agreements? Globalism has and already is impacting US citizens. Major corporations currently have no borders. Through public-private partnerships, the United States is already quietly engaging in globalism. For instance, in 2005-07 a plan was developed with Mexico to have Kansas City taxpayers pay $3 million dollars to build the Kansas City Customs Port. The KCCP will serve as a Mexican customs office staffed by Mexican government customs officials. “The Kansas City Smart Port is designed to be a central hub in the planned international trade passing through the heart of the United States.” It has the potential to avoid using union labor to instead utilize nonunion Mexican railroads. In addition, “If Princeton economist Alan Blinder is correct; the United States will outsource an estimated 40 million jobs in the next two decades, largely to China and India.” While unemployment is heading into double digits, can American citizens maintain a standard of living if corporations offshore jobs because it is cheaper? In another example currently unfolding (in a deal that has almost been finalized), US stimulus funds will be given to Navistar/Modec to build energy efficient vehicles. ‘“I’m here today … to announce $2.4 billion in highly competitive grants to develop the next generation of fuel-efficient cars and trucks powered by the next generation of battery technologies, all made right here in the U.S. of A. Right here in America. Made in America,” Obama said inside Navistar’s Wakarusa, Ind., facility to a round of applause from local officials and factory workers. But while Navistar and Modec eventually plan to establish manufacturing facilities in the United States, the first batch of their battery-powered vehicles will come off the shop floor in England, not America.’ When Navistar was asked when the vehicles would start to be manufactured in the US, their spokesman would not say.

What is the price for globalism? Financial rights are violated through the constant redistribution of wealth and taxpayers are being obligated to increase the United States debt to fund projects for the world. In the end, will we end up paying the ultimate price? Will international globalization replace the sovereignty of America?

Sources: hbs.edu/research, America for Sale, Jerome Corsi,PhD.,www.aws.vcn.com,msnbc.msn.com, usnews-the_elkhart_project, sovereignty.net/p/sd/agenda21rpt.htm, australiannews.com 10/28/09, greenpeace.org, Copenhagen Treaty, Version 1, Forbes.com, Andy Stone, 10/21/09, smartmeters.com, newhorizons.org/future/botkin1htm, dictionary.com

UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
GHG: greenhouse gas
Sovereignty: Supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community