Friday, December 03, 2010

Observations from UN-COP16: UN over USA, unemployment vs. green energy





















As we drove along the main route to the United Nations global village yesterday, we noticed this woman standing on the median and waving the peace sign at passing motorists.

While we were not able to stop and speak to her, we all thought the placement of the UN flag above the US flag must have been symbolic.

Yes, we recognized that this was our own interpretation, and we discussed whether or not her nationality might be a factor in the message she was trying to convey.

But in the end, just like other motorists passing by and seeing the display, we had to judge for ourselves and I believe the placement of the UN flag above our own is a message that we, the United States, should be subjugated to the UN. And I cannot and will not support that.

Strangely, this concept seems to permeate the thoughts of many across the globe. 'The US must sacrifice for the greater good of the world.' 'The US government must forcibly take money from its citizens to pay for things the UN believes are needed.' 'The US must be brought down a notch or two - its success as a nation isn't "fair" when other nations are suffering.'

Of course, some of these thoughts are found among our own citizens and, increasingly, among elected officials.

The problem is - we are successful as a nation for a reason. No matter how much any other country or governmental body like the UN tries, they will not experience similar successes unless they adopt the principles of freedom, liberty and free markets that we have.

Sadly, people like our president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believe that the best way to *help* other nations is to throw money at them. Our money.

As I wrote previously, the current plan is to give the UN $100 billion (yes, billion with a 'b') of our tax dollars so 'developing' nations can pursue 'alternative' energy. Never mind that most of these alternative energy programs are not cost effective to begin with - even here in the USA where they survive currently only because of massive federal (meaning our tax dollars) subsidies.

And even if you are in favor of alternative energy and using tax dollars/legislation to prop it up for or force it on people, doing so in other nations cannot be a priority over the other items on the agenda of our lame-duck Congress. Right now, the House of Representatives is discussing extension of unemployment benefits. The Democrats want to give more money to the unemployed and the Republicans are asking 'how do we pay for it because we have no money.'

Now, I'm not saying spend money we don't have on the unemployment benefits rather than the transfer of our wealth to other nations based upon the false conclusions of junk science, but shouldn't those who want the spending for the unemployment be insisting upon that as a priority instead of giving the money away to companies and governments of other countries? Is there no sense of priority for the American people over the rest of the world?

Obviously not - or perhaps the argument will be that both are equally important and the 'rich' need to pay for all of it. But when you have limited - or in our case right now - NO funds, limitations need to be imposed. Without money - and I don't mean money borrowed from the Chinese - we cannot do everything, no matter how much we *want* to. And it's time the American people and our representatives understand that fact.

2 comments:

Mad Jack said...

I'm in favor of alternate energy, and I support the spending of our tax dollars on research for alternate energy sources. No one seems to have cracked the problem as yet, but it's still early.

All that being the case, how does giving one hundred billion U.S. dead presidents to, say, Togo improve our life here in the rust belt?

In grade school we were taught that no other flag may be allowed to fly over the United States flag. Of course, we were terribly repressed back then and were forced to learn the U.S. pledge of allegiance and recite the Lord's prayer.

So if you won't support being subjugated to the United Nations will you actively opposed subjugation?

Maggie Thurber said...

Mad Jack - I do oppose subjugation, but I don't believe that teaching children the Pledge of Allegiance is subjugation. I would not support forcing children in school to say the Lord's prayer, though I do not not have a problem with a moment after the pledge (as we used to do) for prayer or reflection or whatever...

Google Analytics Alternative