What Our Politicians Have Done To America Part 13 –
As we continue our look at the goals of the UN’s Agenda 2030 we see that the ‘goals’ are named to make them sound good as if they are goals that are supposed to benefit all mankind when in reality the steps taken to achieve these ‘goals’ on insures that the elite stay in power and complete control.
Looking at Goal #9 they claim that they want to build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. Notice they use the word sustainable again. Bottom line is government will control all industry. Keep in mind that money is at the root of all of this. Government wants to control all currency, trade, and what is manufactured, grown or developed. Even though history has proven when the government is in control of these things, it ALWAYS ends in complete failure, ALWAYS. For those of you that can remember back in the 1950’s through the early 1980’s, when the USSR was still a contender on the world scene, their total control of everything kept the majority of their population in abject poverty. The elites did very well but there were no incentives for the common man to be able to better himself. If you could never better yourself, you had no hope.
During those years America continued to have a bigger presence on the world’s markets. We allow our citizens the right to be innovative for our personal benefit. Best example is Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. These two men changed how the world operated. Why did they do it? Because they were guaranteed to benefit financially in doing so. The development of the personal computer revolutionized the lives of all humans. This type of activity in the USSR was discouraged and even if you did do something that in America you would have become wealthy, in Russia the government benefitted from your innovation. You got nothing.
During those years the United States had 6% of the farmable land in the world. The USSR had 30%. The United States fed the world and the USSR couldn’t feed themselves. The reason? Government control of industry that would not reward a person who improved the system. This is what Goal #9 will do. Government will put nations into debt with the World Bank building their infrastructures using corrupt companies keeping nations in endless spiral if debt. See the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins to understand the details of how this scheme has been repeated countless times over the last several decades.
Their next goal sounds very good and even has shades of humanitarianism, Goal #10, Reduce inequality within and among countries. This sounds so noble but the problem is all nations aren’t equal by natural and can never be equal. There are two ways this can happen, free up all nations with a free market system so they can grow and achieve as America has done for the last almost 400 years, but this does not fit their agenda of total control, or they can confiscate from those in nations that are productive and give it to the nations that could be productive but their governments and natural reasons don’t allow that type of activity. Please note that I’m not against helping those that don’t have the opportunities that we have but the best avenue to help them is to create the opportunities for them that we have enjoyed. Giving people handouts perpetually is not help, it’s enabling. You’ll notice in America people longed to immigrate here because our system and culture allowed for a person to better himself if he wanted as long as he was willing to work for it. In the 1935 FDR began Social Security and that morphed over the years into Food Stamps, Aid to Dependant Children, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid and the list goes on and on. Now people come here, too many illegally, and live off the backs of the America taxpayer. The muslim refugees coming to America have become a massive drain on our system, which is something I believe that Obama had intended on. Remember he wanted to make it ‘easier on the guy coming up next’? 91.4% of muslim refugees are on food stamps and 63.8% are on cash welfare. 1 Even legal immigrants put a strain on our welfare system; An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.
- Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.
- Legal immigrant households account for three-quarters of all immigrant households accessing one or more welfare programs.
- Less-educated legal immigrants make extensive use of every type of welfare program, including cash, food, Medicaid, and housing.
- The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education; therefore, the high use of welfare associated with less-educated legal immigrants indicates that legalization would likely increase welfare costs, particularly for cash and housing programs.
- Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to only a modest share of immigrants at any one time, some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced. Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children.2
This is Agenda 2030’s idea of how to ‘equalize countries’, taking from the productive and giving it to the non-productive. Bottom line is they will punish the productive and reward the non-productive. The problem with this is too many Americans will not allow this to happen. True equality will never occur until there is equal effort by all which has never happened in the history of man and there is no indication that it will happen in the future either. People are beginning to demand the welfare nanny state, thanks to our liberal colleges and universities, without realizing that it will cost us all our freedoms, which is just what the elite want.
This global governing system has been in the works for many decades and involves the world’s richest men. Notice that they don’t want you to achieve the same status they have. David Rockefeller stated in June of 1991: “We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” He was also proud of the fact that what he was doing was against the best interests of the United States: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” 3
Our job is to stop this from happening for as long as possible. Scripture tells us that in the end times that there will be a one world government. We can slow it down but it will happen but I believe that the church will be gone before the full implementation of it. Our freedoms have to be fought for internationally and domestically.
3. David Rockefeller autobiography “Memoirs” page 405.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.