Liberals/progressives detest the USA and its capitalist economy.

They believe the USA is a great source
of evil in the world. They believe that the USA is taking natural resources from the Third World and
enriching itself whilst keeping the population in those countries impoverished. In their view the world
would be a better place if the USA was constrained and the United Nations empowered.
Liberals/progressives, are anti-capitalists, anti- free markets and against individual freedom. They are
collectivists, they believe that the collective good is paramount. The government, through his
bureaucracy, determines what is the collective good.
They tend to be authoritarian . They have a view of a government ruling elite supported by a large
bureaucracy to rule over majority of the population. Andy Stern, the radical former head of the SEIU
used to say that the Obama administration wants to move the agenda towards using "the power or
persuasion or the persuasion of power."

A United States with a strong growing economy will make the task of transferring power to the UN
practically impossible. A United States in decline will make the task easier. Insert
Liberal/progressives are fond of the idea of a global government, similar to the European Union.

Liberals/Progressives are collectivist . Most would be called socialist in any other country. This
symbiotic relationship is clear from the Democrat Socialists of America website:
“Although capitalism will be with us for a long time, reforms we win now—raising the minimum
wage, securing a national health plan, and demanding passage of right-to-strike legislation—can
bring us closer to socialism. Many democratic socialists actively work in the single-issue
organizations that advocate for those reforms. We are visible in the reproductive freedom
movement, the fight for student aid, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered organizations,
anti-racist groups, and the labor movement. It is precisely our socialist vision that informs and
inspires our day-to-day activism for social justice.”
The website also states that the DSA works through the progressive Caucus of the U.S. Congress to push
the socialist agenda forward. Progressives and socialist are not in completion.
Furthermore, the Obama administration is staffed with socialist and their sympathizers. Just three
examples will suffice :Carol Browner, former VP of socialist international, was the czar for the
environment and energy; Anita Dunn, director of communications for the White House, is an admirer
Mao Tse Dung; Van Jones, is a proud Marxists by his own admission, was the White House green
technologies czar.

liberals/progressives talk a lot about social justice. But what exactly is social justice?
Social justice is based on the concept of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of
economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution and even property
redistribution. The aim is to achieve more than equality of opportunity but to achieve equality of
By equal outcome, the proponents of social justice mean a state in which people have approximately
the same material wealth or in which the general economic conditions of their lives are similar.

Liberal/progressive have a world vision where there is no superpower. This vision includes a set of
"global governance" rules administers by the UN. Global governance sounds less threatening to the
Americans than global government, but it is a difference in phraseology only. The globalist elites are
pushing for a source of revenue for the UN which will be independent of the nation states that make up
the membership of the UN. The idea of a carbon tax, financial transaction tax and global income tax are
being floated.

The liberals/progressives understand global governance has to be forced on the Americans stealthily.
Working with the United Nations environmental program the liberals/progressives are using climate
change, sustainable growth, and trans-nationalism as their tools to achieve the goal.
Climate change.
In December 2009 the world leaders met in Copenhagen to sign a new climate treaty, will replace the
Kyoto agreement.
The US sent well over 100 bureaucrats and elected officials, including the president of the United States.
The treaty was to agree on a new global climate organization to regulate the emissions of carbon
dioxide, with the authority to force its mandates on recalcitrant governments by taxing and fining any
government that signed the agreement. The agency was to be staffed by a new UN bureaucracy.
But on November 19, 2009 a computer file was leaked to the Internet That file included, among other
information, thousands of e-mails by climate scientists working for the I PCC had exchanged for over a
decade. These files and e-mails revealed that the scientist did not believe the level of threat which they
were promulgating in public and that they had been manipulating the data to suit their preconceived
notions and the demands of the IPCC.

India and China and a few other developing countries seized on these "climate gate" documents to
buttress their own scientific research which did not agree with the alarmists view and refused to sign
the proposed agreement.

What was so noxious tot the developing countries? Well, the new climate treaty would have set up a
new UN bureaucracy with the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and force sovereign
governments to obey it’s directives , one of energy poverty and loss of sovereignty. There are provisions
to give authority to this bureaucracy to tax incomes in individual countries! The alternative, face
crippling fines and or sanctions.
The power to regulate carbon emissions, also gives the power to regulate modern economies. This is the
back door to global socialism: central planning and ruse to redistribute wealth on a global scale.
While the Obama administration pushed for the agreement. China and India where not about to give up
their sovereignty to some UN bureaucracy!
Americans where saved by the Chinese and Indians from surrendering great deal of our sovereignty by
the stealth of the liberal/progressive establishment.

the liberals/progressives wing of the party has been pushing environmentalism for 50 years. This is not
because these elites who want to save the world. The real reason is that environmentalists are,
generally, anti capitalist anti-free markets and antique personal freedom.

The United Nations Gen. assembly authorized the formation of the human and environmental program,
which came into existence in 1973 led by the socialist Maurice Strong.
In 1976 the United Nations environmental program cosponsored a conference on humanity. The
concluding document of the conference taken explicit anti capitalist stance:
"land cannot be treated as an ordinary hazard, controlled by individuals in subject to pressures and
inefficiencies, marketplace. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of our compilation and
concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice".
It should be noted that advancement engineering technology came from resources located on private
property not government plans!

On how the result from the United Nations framework for climate change convention has been agenda
21 and sustainable growth/development
Sustainable development is development that integrates environmental, economic and social policies in
order to reduce human consumption of natural resources, achieve social equity and the preservation of
the ecosystem.
Sustainable development is a political ideology. It is a collective ideology that ends private property,
suppresses individualism and reduce cheapness wealth of the developed countries, mainly the USA, to
developing nations, using the UN as the intermediary and the arbiter of what each recipient nation will
Sustainable growth is the outcome of a series of conferences and reports from the United nations
beginning in 1973 when the UN general assembly authorized the UN environmental program, with
Maurice Strong, a self identified socialist, as its director.
In 1987 the report "our common..." The notion of sustainable growth was introduced. This led to the Rio
de Janeiro Earth conference in 1993. At that conference a detailed plan to achieve sustainable growth
was introduced Agenda 21.

Social justice means that everyone should benefit equally from the natural boundaries of their. They
should be equal results. What was the redistributive on a national GLOBAL BASIS.
Private property is ungenerous since not everybody can achieve the same results.
Agenda 21 also advocates for public/private partnerships. Selected companies will be privileged by
Texas and law overcompensation. These companies will send the rules applicable to the interest rates in
which they operate. This of course this classic fascism, but Mussolini called corporatism! Agenda 21 as S-
shaped and deeply in the roots of human society and has been advanced where liberal/progressives
have a voice on the local town and county boards. Words such as smart growth, green jobs, going green,
alternative energy, sustainable farming, consensus and green building are code words for the
implementation of agenda 21.
Revealing the real objectives of agenda 21 is the following statement by Maurice Strong at the 1992 Rio
"current lifestyle and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class [i.e. you could say closing
bracket are not sustainable!"

Liberals/progressives in the US know that agenda 21 tactics and objectives are unpopular with the US

most Americans believe instinctively that liberal democracy is the best political organization of
a society.
Traditionally liberalism, before the progressives/socialist appropriated the word, emphasized
individual rights, free institutions, the rule of law, private property, freedom of speech, religion,
We believe is that the government is responsible to the people. If the elected officials are
unresponsive to the desires of the electorate, they can turned out of office.

For the political class in the world leading nations, the "Davos crowd", the trending objective is
to achieve "global governance". This elitist group has set its aim of solving the world problems,
real or perceived, such as climate change/global warming, world hunger, racism, migration and
many other issues. All these problems to be solved through some type of "global governance"
because the nation states are unable to solve these complex matters on their own. This is the
view of the Davos crowd.
As John Fonte of the Hudson Institute explains the difference between the traditional international
system and the new globalization system of of the leftist globalist is that the new system seeks to
establish a set of supra – national laws, regulations and institutions with authority that extends within
the territory of the sovereign nations. Nations will continue to exist but they will be subordinate to this
new global authority.
Authority will be exercised through international institutions , such as the international criminal Court,
United Nations conventions such as the failed 2009 Copenhagen climate convention; supranational
institutions such as the European union, the nonelected nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that
the UN recognizes as "civil society", whatever that means.

American liberals/progressives have embraced globalization. In their view this is the best way to bring
the USA, a rogue nation that has been enriching itself at the expense of the third world, on the control.
In addition to this attribute, it has many of the features collectivists have been striving for since the time
of Plato. A small elite that sets policy and overall strategy for society and a large bureaucracy that
implements the directions of the elites. These two groups are largely unresponsive to the mass of
people over which the Lord. We have seen how this works out in practice in all of the socialist countries
of the 20th century: Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, India, etc. To a lesser extent the European
Union is following the same footsteps as the other social democratic nations, slow growth and loss of


Capitalism, also known as the free-enterprise or free-market system, is the economic structure that
permits people to use their private property however they see fit, with minimal interference from the
government. Under capitalism, people are free to work at jobs of their own choosing, to try to sell their
products or services at whatever prices they wish, and to select from among various product- and
service-providers for the best value.

Liberal/progressives believe it is imprudent to allow an unregulated market to run its course, and
to permit private citizens to make their own economic decisions based on self-interest. Asserting
that such systems are inherently chaotic and inefficient, these critics propose that government
regulators and bureaucrats -- "experts" presumably unencumbered by the greed or the impulse
for self-interest that motivates private citizens -- should be empowered to "manage" economies
authoritatively. In response to these positions, the Ludwig von Mises Institute scholar Robert P.
Murphy writes:
"This view is flawed in two major respects. First it is impossible for a central authority to plan an
economy. New technologies (if entrepreneurs have freedom to create new technologies), changes
in consumer taste (if consumers have freedom to pursue their tastes), and innumerable variables
that can affect production, distribution, and consumption of everything from newspapers to
lawnmowers on national or international scale are simply not 'manageable' in the way socialist
planners like to think they are. Second, the planning bias completely misunderstands the role of
profit and loss in a market economy. Far from being arbitrary, a company's 'bottom line'
indicates whether an entrepreneur is doing what makes sense: if his product is one that people
want and if he is using his resources in the best possible way."

Perhaps the most common objection to capitalism is the Marxist claim that it exploits the poor in order
to serve the interests of the rich. History shows, however, that this is precisely the antithesis of the
truth. In pre-capitalist, medieval Europe, for example, most people either toiled in the fields to which
they were bound or they worked at crafts that were heavily regulated by various guilds. The aristocracy,
meanwhile, acquired a virtual monopoly on luxury goods.