Secretary Kerry did mention in his own way how globalists were going to enslave mankind and how the U.S. was going to be a lead example:
"One of those mountains is the effort to safeguard future generations from the harmful effects of climate change. I am proud to say that the United States is leading the way together with many other nations, and last month, with my granddaughter on my lap, I formally committed the United States to set an example for the 196 nations that have pledged to curb greenhouse gas emissions and make progress towards a low carbon energy future."
He then went on to extol the virtues of globalism and how the U.S. needs to be doing more to help accomplish this goal: "My friends, we are blessed to live in a country with a $17 trillion economy, and yet we spend just one penny on every dollar of our federal budget on all of our foreign aid."
"The fact is there is much more that we can do and must do to encourage and reward innovation, to diversify economies, to improve governance, to stop corruption, to ensure the education of young people and that it actually teaches young people what they need to know and keeps them from being radicalized."
"Now, there is much more that we can invest and many more projects for my generation and yours to take on as you take on your careers in the days ahead."
Unfortunately, he received copious amounts of applause on many of these points, yet if the globalist agenda is seen through, these graduates will have much more to worry about than finding employment.
Think about a "borderless world." A world that would see the free flow of people and goods through all countries. This may not seem bad on the surface, but yet the standard of living for the average American would be in danger of dropping significantly. Why's that? Because in order to have a borderless world, all countries would need to be merged under some type of universal governing body (think the United Nations). To merge, each country would need to be similar in its infrastructure of economics and politics. No longer would the ability to govern one's country be a responsibility of only its citizens. Regional associations (think blocks of nations) and tribunals would also have a large stake in this governing. Over time, each country would cease to govern itself. Great Britain has had a taste of this as a member (and hopefully soon-to-be former member) of the European Union and has set up a referendum on June 23 to either stay-in or get out of the EU.
For the U.S., we could look forward to not having a Republic that protects the rights of minorities from the majority, but rather operating our country according to the greater good of other countries. There would no longer be any pride in one's country of origin, no exceptionalism, and definitely fewer and then fewer opportunities. Our Bill of Rights with our God-given rights secured by the U.S. Constitution would replaced by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights with our UN-authorized rights revocable when in conflict with UN purposes.
If a country does not have a border, it ceases to exist as a viable entity. If a country has no borders, then that country belongs to anyone who wishes to come into that country, so it belongs to everyone but the citizens that produced it. In the process, the immigrants will wrest from the inhabitants their wealth, either directly or indirectly. Would anyone immigrate into a third-world society? Unlikely, unless they are retirees looking to take advantage of the lesser economy to extend their purchasing power.
No comments:
Post a Comment