by E. Jeffrey Ludwig
As a signee to this Agenda in 2015, we have made a national commitment, yet this dramatic step in the direction of a one-world government is not consistent with President Donald J. Trump's America First principles.
A shadow hanging over the United States of America is the United Nations' desire to move toward a world government, expressed most recently in the U.N.'s Agenda 2030. Not one question about this document has been directed toward either presidential candidate in any forum during this election cycle. As a signee to this Agenda in 2015, we have made a national commitment, yet this dramatic step in the direction of a one-world government is not consistent with President Donald J. Trump's America First principles. America First is the correct philosophy for the USA.
The COVID pandemic is putting another nail in the coffin for our national identity. Being global in nature, the pandemic is being evaluated in terms of data outside our national boundaries, and trends in other countries are being considered as we formulate policies for our beloved USA. If therapeutics or vaccines to help the world are forthcoming, the USA will be the country with the greatest financial commitment. Everything we do in every sphere of economic and social activity seems to have global implications. Thus, how do we avoid the pitfalls of globalism and affirm an America First philosophy of government?
Sadly, neither major candidate has brought up the subject in any public forum. It is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
U.N. Agenda 2030 states the following:
We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources. We resolve also to create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and decent work for all, taking into account different levels of national development and capacities.
This sounds just like the progressive jargon we find in the mouths of "woke" leftist politicians in the USA, and the above could easily have been written by foreign nationals with the same mindset as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Kamala Harris.
The above quote begins with a pious platitude calling for the unrealistic goal of ending hunger and poverty everywhere. Yet we are not surprised to find that poverty and hunger are not "everywhere." Instead, the USA is in the top 20 highest GDP per capita income countries, with 11 of those top 20 being Western Hemisphere and European countries, plus a smattering of Middle Eastern oil wealth countries where we know that a rich elite of sheiks garner a very high percentage of the wealth. At the other end of the spectrum, of the bottom 30 countries with the lowest per capita GDP, we find that 24 out of 30 are located in Africa.
Thus, despite all the progressive worry about the top 1% and top 0.1% income persons in the USA, we are clearly still in the top 10% in per capita income in the world. Despite a tremendous commitment to the least developed developing countries (LDDCs) since the end of WWII, we have seen only the smallest improvements in their income levels. The International Monetary Fund has supported the currencies of these countries, and the World Bank has supported developmental projects in the poorest countries. But because of poor accounting practices and corruption, they have made less progress than we hoped for. The difficulties in helping these countries move forward was described beautifully in Robert Klitgard's classic volume Tropical Gangsters.
The post-WWII guru of economic development for the Third World was Prof. Walt Rostow of MIT, who also was national security adviser to Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson. In 1960 he came up with a five-stage plan for growth for the poorest countries, which he expanded to six steps in 1970. This overly optimistic model was noted for its stage 3 — the Take-Off Stage — which is when "[m]anufacturing industry assumes greater importance, although the number of industries remains small. Political and social institutions start to develop — external finance may still be required. Savings and investment grow, perhaps to 15% of GDP. Agriculture assumes lesser importance in relative terms although the majority of people may remain employed in the farming sector." Despite 60 years since this plan became a central ideal for upgrading economies throughout the world, we see that the poorest of the poor from that era are still the poorest of the poor.
The pie-in-the-sky platitudes of the left carry no weight because they fail to account for the corruption, gross mismanagement, and lack of motivation and scientific creativity of the poorest countries.
Agenda 2030 also states that the U.N. desires "to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls." Is this a joke? Was this included as a statement to appease the radical feminists in the USA who are so self-absorbed that they are thinking that the problems they face as emancipated women are the same as those faced by the majority of women throughout the world? Do they think the man-hating ideology of Western feminism is a winner or even useful on a worldwide scale?
My goodness, my own mother had only an 8th-grade education and was a full-time homemaker, as were 90% of the women on our wonderful street in Philadelphia. Do you think she and the other women on our block were shrinking violets, or limp as cooked spaghetti in dealing with the vicissitudes of everyday life? Do you think they were brainless puppets of their husbands, bowing and scraping in endless servitude? Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem are damned witches for even hinting at such a state of affairs.
The fact is that about one quarter of the world's countries are Muslim-majority countries. Clearly, the way this matter of female "equality" and "empowerment" is phrased, they are using language designed to appeal to Western radical feminist women, terms that have no relevance in a Muslim context. Many of those countries allow or require FGM (female genital mutilation). Additionally, the Qur'an allows Muslim men to marry up to four women. Would you not easily see that the increased number of permissible wives lowers the value of any individual wife? Further, beating one's wife is allowed by the Qur'an. And what about the wearing of a hijab? Or dating a male who is not a Muslim? Or a woman converting to another religion? This writer had a student who, when she was growing up in Africa in a Muslim home, converted to Christianity and was told by her father and her brother that if she did not renounce the conversion, they would kill her. Both beat her numerous times. Finally, she fled to France to escape death. The fact that this statement about women's "equality" is in Western feminist terms shows that it is purposely a misleading vicious lie.
The U.N.'s Agenda 2030 is filled with lies, redundancies, platitudes, and attempts to mislead people everywhere regarding the globalist agenda. Its premises are false and need to be more fully and consistently exposed by our leaders. Our president's America First agenda must become even more strident and open. We must strive to breathe the air of freedom more fully and to recapture the unique essence of America.
E. Jeffrey Ludwig
Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/trumps_america_first_vision_must_defeat_uns_agenda_2030_globalism.html
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment