November 26, 2006
Yeah, Yeah, I Know…
… I’m still harping on such issues that you say will never come to fruition, such as a North American Union or a Global legislature.
The agenda items of particular interest to NHF at this meeting included discussions on the World Health Organization’s Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, nutrient risk assessment, health claims and Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs), the latter of which currently seems the most likely candidate to replace Recommended Daily Allowances of vitamins and minerals on food, dietary supplement and functional food labels. The NHF has been taking an active part in the Working Group on risk assessment, a discipline which is set to become the key scientific justification for potential future bans on dietary supplements. Current risk assessment methods are flawed and biased, so methodologies that are scientifically rational are urgently required, and were central to the NHF’s interventions during this year’s meeting.
So what’s happening here? It sure looks to me like we’re allowing foreign countries to have a say in our nutritional policies. Does this mean that, in short order, someone in northern Greenland who lives on whale blubber will be allowed to tell me I can’t dine on a porterhouse, or that the Stresstabs vitamins I take every day are verboten because they contain too much Vitamin B-12? The United States is a sovereign country based on personal liberty, why are we talking to other countries about what’s best for us?
An international organization that proposes a global taxation system and is critical of the U.S. tax structure receives nearly one-fourth of its $400 million budget from the American taxpayer, a situation one Republican senator hopes to end.
“It’s ridiculous that we would support such a group,” Sen. Jim Inhofe said Friday of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based grouping of 30 of the world’s most developed nations.
In a press release, the Oklahoma senator said the OECD “receives 25 percent of its budget from the U.S.” and has used that money “to encourage and support higher taxes on the American taxpayer.”
We are being pressured into a world government situation by socialist entities, led by the U.N. Do we really want this?
I, for one, don’t!
H/T Cubed
http://hardastarboard.mu.nu/wp-trackback.php?p=581
November 27th, 2006 at 6:51 am
Keep harping, Seth, even if you are the male version of Cassandra.
The NAU, a global taxation system. I get a sinking feeling that these one-worlders are going to get their way–their dream of utopia. And utopias are always failures.
November 27th, 2006 at 8:37 am
I think we all feel like Cassandra sometimes and no one is listening.
Don’t get me started on the various shifty ways the UN is trying to get it’s hands deeper into American pockets. It’s Monday and I don’t want to raise my blood pressure this early in the week.
It suffices to say that Republicans are at least on to the game the UN is playing whereby they hope to fund their one world socialist fantasy by sucking the life out of the goose that lays the golden eggs and pulls the worlds economic train down the tracks (oops… metaphor overdose).
It’s a shame that even with all the revelations of UN financial scandal unearthed in the past few years we don’t find Democrats as eager to confront the UN problem.
Maybe Nancy Pelosi will change that (yeah, right).
November 27th, 2006 at 9:00 am
AOW –
We have, for too many years, been trying to keep the UN happy in too many ways there’s nary a peep about in the MSM.
The more global committees we allow to collect funds from us and draw us in, participation-wise, the more machinery there will be in place when all this B.S. ceases to be merely stealth issues, and when it’s too late for anybody to do anything.
Look at Europe: How easy would it be for one of those countries to simply back out of the EU?
November 27th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Mike’s America –
Nancy Pelosi, good little socialist that she is, would undoubtedly immerse herself in becoming part of the problem. After all, the left seems to believe that we need to consult the U.N. before we do anything — WWUND?
Like most extremely rich leftists, she is a serious hypocrite — she’ll have no problem allowing some world body to leverage outrageously high taxes on us, since her own money will be well shielded, anyway, or to impose liberty-restrictive laws that apply to the U.S. taxpayer, the same freedoms the liberals have been trying to take away to begin with, such as 2nd Amendment rights.
Hand-in-hand with an already proven effective propaganda machine like the MSM, she and the rest of her ilk would hand up our liberty and the lion’s share of our incomes on a platter.
November 27th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
The NHF is a fringe group, so I really can’t sort out their spin. Scientific truth crosses national boundaries, so I’m not concerned about international scientific study about nutrition - it’s the political implementation (or imposition) of the data that concerns me.
Nonetheless, it is certainly true that U.N. agencies (and other one-world interests) have been trying to impose their agendas on the U.S., and we need to maintain vigilence when they cross the line, as your second article indicates is the case with OECD. But this sort of stuff has been going on for years, in fact since the founding of the U.N.
It’s certainly worth monitoring and noting these matters on their own merits, but I’d be leary of trying to tie this too closely with NAU: correlation does not imply causality; congruent goals does not demonstrate conspiracy (the logical error of guilt by association).
November 27th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Civil Truth –
I believe that this goes beyond the concept of the NAU — the NAU is intended, in the final analysis, to be merely a component of a global legislative assembly.
The NHF, among other multinational “congresses”, as it were, is simply another cooperative “tie” to aid in binding principal governments together in ventures that, combined, will eventually ease us into a collective.
The U.S., besides being the ultimate military power in today’s world, is also a commercial dynamo whose financial assets and capabilities are unparalleled by any other country, or even group of countries.
Where the “big thinkers” are erring is in their efforts to herd us into their global collective and impose upon us the selfsame socialist values that render them less potent than we are — they fail to understand that it is the very nature of our existence as a capitalist republic that makes us the global asset that we are.
Should we succumb to the influence of these “one world government” thinkers, we will become as economically obsolete as the EU.