The UN has its hand out for more money from the United States as NAFTA continues the rape of America's job base.

As America's labor force reels under the negative impact of a dozen years of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] that was forced through the Democratically-controlled Congress in 1993 by the co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the United Nations—not content with the speed in which the "going-out-of-business" sale of the United States is taking place through NAFTA's theft of America's job base—now has its hands outstretched for whatever pocket change is left in the frayed britches of the American consumer.

The UN just issued its 3,000 page UN Millennium Project report that was compiled by the research of 265 globalist scholars, environmental scientists and poverty specialists over a period of three years in which it concluded that the United States and 21 other "rich" nations need to greatly increase their overseas development assistance programs this year in order to achieve their stated objective of cutting in half global poverty for a billion people in the next ten years. (The UN doesn't seem to understand—as the American electorate, and the voters in the other "rich" nations do—that promises from politicians are simply worthless rhetoric spoken for the benefit of the media to get votes. In the United States and the other "rich" nations, the people understand the emptiness of a politician's promise. Nobody actually expects them to keep their word because, frankly, they never do. Politicians are, first and foremost liars who forget the promises made to their constituents as soon as the words pass their lips. It's rhetoric. Hyberbole.

Don't take my word for that. Let Hillary Clinton tell you in her own words. On Nov. 11, 1993 Bill, Hillary, TFM (Thomas Mack McLarty), RN (Roy Neel), IM (Ira Magaziner), GS (Gene Sperling), and RH (Richard Herget) met at the White House to discuss the fate of Hillary's doomed Health Security Act of 1993 that was dying a bitter death in the Congress. The protocol of that particular meeting (the transcribed notes) was one of five meeting protocols, bearing a San Francisco postmark, that arrived at several American newspapers across the country around December 10, 1993. None of the newspapers who received them (to my knowledge) used the contents of any of the five protocols. The entire Protocol of White House Conference of Nov. 11, 1993—and the logic for using it—appears as chapter ten of Whatever Happened To America? The meeting began with an update on the progress of NAFTA, which was slowly working its way through the House and Senate. The protocol—which the Clinton White House denounced as fiction at the time—begins: "The President opens the discussion by giving an overview of the NAFTA situation. In his view, this matter will probably be passed by the House. Republican support, with a few exceptions, is assured. (HRC: After all, it's their bill.) It was this legislation Bush-41 could not get through the Democratically-controlled Congress. It was also the reason he did not get a second term since he lost the support of the framers of the New World Order who needed the legislation passed to achieve their objective of redistributing the wealth of consumer product-saturated America to those nations who were destined to become the consumers of tomorrow. Reluctant Democrats are being lobbied intensively and it will prove to be successful. (TFM: But we have to be careful not to predict a quick victory. It should go down to the wire...if we are certain of the votes...to make the President look better.) The President agrees with this view. The second matter on the agenda is the projected final form of the Health Security Act. Here the President expresses his opinion that there is probably too much opposition in Congress to pass this as it stands. (HRC: If they swallow NAFTA, they can certainly pass this as it stands.) (Whatever Happened To America? by Jon Christian Ryter; pg. 220; Hallberg Publishing © 2001.) (Note: the red text is the verbatim transcript of the conversation that took place that evening in the White House war room as it was recorded in the White House protocol for that particular meeting.)

Hyperbole. Political rhetoric. Deceit. The Clintons, using the liberal media to sell the public, promoted NAFTA as a "jobs for America" piece of legislation. They knew better. They knew it would drain millions of jobs from America. But when you have a chance to become the most powerful couple in the world, its easy to sacrifice someone else's job—and lifestyle—to gain power. Both Bill and Hillary would sell their soul to the devil for power without batting an eye or worrying about the eternal consequences. Hillary already sees herself as the 44th President of the United States if Article II of the Constitution doesn't get in her way in 2008. Bill Clinton daydreams about becoming the 1st President of the world if the UN charter doesn't get in his way.

Most liberal politicians—particularly the Clintons and other socialists in the House and Senate like Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi—would rather give our tax dollars to some other country—particularly one that hates Americans, rather than let the American people invest the fruits of their sweat equity in their own future. (Perhaps one like Indonesia—with the world's largest Muslim population—that just threw the American military tsunami relief team out of their country after telling us to make sure we left our contributions on the table when we left...but not to let the door smack us in the butt on the way out.)

Since most of the non-English speaking third world nations in the world hate America, we need to wake up to the notion that regardless how much money we give them we aren't going to succeed in bribing them into liking us. As you can see from the reaction of the government of Indonesia that desperately needed all the physical and financial help they could get in the tsunami crisis, they didn't even pretend to like us. They took our money and the care packages we delivered like it was due them, and then rudely snubbed the American fleet that came to help—with a raised index finger salute as the Indonesian government told us to get out of Dodge. Once we finally admit to ourselves that America is an isolated Christian island in the sea of multicultural biases against Christians—in which we have only a very small handful of friends that we can count on around the globe—we can, and with a clear conscious should, begin to focus using all our financial resources at home to feed, cloth, educate and provide jobs for poverty-stricken Americans in America. America became the most powerful economy in the world through the sweat equity of its own culturally and ethnically-diverse citizenry who learned how to work together without killing each other to build a truly great nation.

Nobody ever gave America a handout. America grew strong because it was an island fortress that shielded its economy with high tariff walls that protected the economic system which provided jobs and job security for the American worker. American was internally secure because we actually guarded our borders to minimize the influx of illegal aliens—and we had a Border Patrol Service and an Immigration Service that were dedicated to rounding up illegals and deporting them—not a bureaucracy trying to figure out how to provide monetary benefits for illegals that simply entice increased waves of them to enter the country illegally as our current president attempts to open the doors between Mexico and America and welcome illegals with open arms because thirty-one years of liberal abortion policy brought about the assassinations of almost 54 million unborn babies by their mothers. Abortion, the slaughter of the unborn, was largely responsible for the destruction of Social Security by eliminating 54 million future workers and consumers who would have helped keep it solvent.

Had abortion never been legal in America, this nation would not be below population replenishment levels. NAFTA would never have been enacted. Five million jobs would not have left this country. And we would not be having this discussion.

It's time we closed the doors to America's job pantry and padlocked them. Hillary Clinton may not have realized it on November 11, 1993, but the American people weren't swallowing NAFTA when 538 Congressmen and Senators—who knew who filled their reelection coffers and which way they were expected to vote on the jobs drain bill—were preparing to cast their votes to begin the jobs rape of their constituents.

American workers in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Ohio, Michigan, and the textile belt in the South who believed the Clintons' lies, discovered through the pink slips they received in their pay envelopes that NAFTA was a job export bill that provided a swinging door that let tariff-free cheap third world merchandise, wearing American brand names, back into this country for the American consumers who still had jobs, to buy.

What continues to amaze me is that the American consumer is still buying third world goods as more and more American jobs leave our shores for the growing industrial communities in the most socialist nation in the world—communist China—where American-born transnational corporations are relocating their manufacturing facilities because they can pay slave labor wages sans benefits—and there are no government regulations that strangle the free enterprise system. Think about that one as you dig through the "help wanted" classified ads in your local newspapers this weekend.

Unfortunately, the bureaucrats and the one-worlders inside the DC beltway know we can't lock the doors since they are the keepers the keys. The transnationalist industrialists who bought the best government known to man know that, too. So does the UN which has had their hands in everyone's pockets since 1945 (and is now seeking the right to dig into a few more pockets by levying a global tax on one day's earnings of every employed worker in the world). I guess that's why the UN has some expectations that they will get eventually what they need to cut world poverty in half within the next decade.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs*, a Columbia University economist who headed up the project said he hopes the UN Millennial Project Report will stimulate the governments of the world's richest nations to tax their people just a little bit heavier so they can spend more to solve the problems of the world's poor. "We are in a position to end extreme poverty within our generation," Sachs said in the report he presented on Monday, Jan. 17, 2005 to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Sachs condemned the United States, England and the other industrial nations for failing to live up to their "commitment" at the 2000 UN Millennium Summit to set aside 0.7% of their gross national product to fight global poverty. (NOTE: it is important to understand that none of the legislative bodies of the governments of the world nor the national leaders of those countries made the pledge—although several of the world's 189 member nations did send appointed delegates to observe, and who were given voting rights that obligated their nations. The pledge was largely made by NGOs like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Sierra Club, the International Red Cross, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Trust, the Johnson-Wood Foundation, the Pew Foundation, the AFL-CIO [which gained NGO-status in exchange for their quiet acquiescence to the massive loss of union jobs in the United States], and some 500 or so other special interest groups that include local and regional special interest groups that have voting rights on programs that will become binding upon their nations—although the NGOs were never elected by the people of those countries to represent their wishes. The NGOs represent only the interests of the one-worlders within the globalist movement.) That's pretty much what you call a stacked deck. The only organizations whose credentials are certified as "voting members" are those who agree with the overall agenda of the globalization of the world. The only disagreement among them are the methods by which the redistribution of America's wealth will be accomplished.

Sachs noted in his report that only five countries—Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden—have met their obligations. The world's 22 wealthiest nations have fallen far short of the mark, providing only about $69 billion for global poverty relief—about 0.25% of their GNP (or less than half their commitment). The report recommended those nations increase their commitment by another 0.44%, generating $135 billion more in 2006, and up to 0.54% ($195 billion) by 2015.

Let's face it, folks. Anyway you parse the words, this is a global tax levied by the United Nations—something forbidden it by its own charter. Of course, it's a "voluntary" tax—just like our own federal income tax.

The United States government provides the UN with a stipend equal to 0.15% of its $11 trillion GNP—$16.3 billion last year for overseas poverty assistance. According to the UN Millennial Project Report, our government needs to cough up $30 billion more each year—for a sum total of $46.3 billion—to hit 0.07% of GNP. The report came on the heels of a statement by senior UN official Jan Egeland wgo said the United States and other "donor" nations had been "stingy" in their tsunami relief contributions.

The increased funding, the report stated, was needed to build the commercial infrastructures of the economically-emerging third world countries, improve healthcare and fight AIDS; improve crop yields through modern agricultural principles, equipment and fertilizers; preserve the environment (of course); provide mandatory free education and, of course, provide jobs so that the human capital of the third world can take their rightful place as the primary consumers of the 21st century as the new profit-center of the businesses of the transnational industrialists in the decades to come.

Since the most affluent nation in the world, the United States, shoulders the bulk of the world's debt, those same transnationalist bankers and industrialists to whom that debt is owed, must take care that the job transition does not cripple America since it is the American people and not the emerging nations that is expected to pay the freight for the rape of the job base of America. If the global bankers and industrialists miscalculate and the financial bubble bursts and the economies of the G-7 nations collapse simultaneously, a doomsday domino affect will occur and the economies of every nation in the world will crash, bringing about an economic catastrophe that will make the Crash of 1929 look like a baby's burp.

Well, once again, you have my two cents worth on this subject.

*It should be noted that Sachs is a wolf in sheep's clothing. While the media painted him as an honest broker who was given an assignment by the UN through which an unbiased report would be issued, the reality is Sachs—who does hold the chair as Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia—is the Director of The Earth Institute and Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development. He is also a special advisor to Kofi Annan. Sachs is a UN advisor specializing in the governments of Latin America, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Asia and Africa—your basic third world countries. He works with international agencies to promote poverty reduction through the elimination of the debt owed by poor countries to the 22 wealthiest nations.