Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, also known as the “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development” was published in 1992, a product of the Earth Summit as a manifesto to create a “new global partnership for sustainable development (pg 15)” based on the December 1989 United Nations General Assembly resolution 44/228. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was founded in 1990 by 200 local governments at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future at the United Nations headquarters and later renamed “ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability” in 2003. ICLEI is the major global coordinator of the UN Agenda 21 “sustainable development” program and it is ICLEI's job to promote the goals embodied in this program at the local level. The city of Spokane is a member of ICLEI. In fact, ICLEI has worked closely with the Mayor's Sustainability Task Force as can be seen on the cover of the March 9, 2009 Greenhouse Gas Inventory report. As explained by Climate Physicist Edwin X. Berry in an open letter to the city of Spokane, the city has been duped by ICLEI into reshaping the city against the best interests of its citizens.
It is time to expose this fraud and to end it in the city of Spokane. Two city charter amendments have been introduced towards this end. In this article we will give you the overview of where Agenda 21 fits into the big picture with regards to what various special interests are trying to accomplish at your expense.
Many have never heard of UN Agenda 21 or ICLEI; we are here to correct that. You probably have heard the code words for Agenda 21 everywhere though, embodied in “sustainability,” “climate change,” or even “democracy.” Incidentally, if you think democracy is not a code word for something more sinister, I invite you to check out the following website PermanentDefense where a ballot initiative, or vote of the people, was characterized as an “undemocratic assault on majority rule.” Confused? We shall explain the connection later in this article. The words “democracy” and “sustainability” were riddled throughout Envision Spokane's Proposition 4 (seeking “to build a healthy, sustainable, and democratic Spokane”) which best illustrated principles behind UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI's global sustainability program. It was too much change, too fast for politicians in control as few of them would even endorse it because the population of Spokane was not ready for it yet – such measures are best implemented gradually so that the public does not notice the changes in their daily lives. However, if you compare the goals of Proposition 4 to the principles as set forth in page 6 of the ICLEI Charter, you will find similar language and concepts represented.
Now many of the goals and concepts behind “sustainability” do not sound bad at all. Tyranny and government oppression is never marketed as such in the open – one always must have publicly admirable goals in order to justify any agenda that a regime is trying to promote. For example, most would agree that affordable health care and housing is a good thing; that is, until their taxes shoot through the roof in order to pay for such. People generally approve of respecting the ecosystem; that is, until the government comes in and tells you exactly how you can use the property you paid good money for. The citizens of Spokane recognized that this is exactly what Proposition 4 was trying to accomplish and overwhelmingly voted it down.
However, UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI's sustainability plan are no different. Goals are there for a reason. It is to justify a coordinated action. What type of action? Government action. More specifically government action which lightens your pocket book, limits the free market, and gradually erodes what is left of private property rights. “Sustainability” is the rallying cry to ratchet up the government control grid until our grandchildren no longer can conceive of what a truly free society looks like. In fact, I imagine the government control we live under today would be intolerable to someone alive 100 years ago in this country and in as little as 10-20 years we might be living in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
The whole idea behind “sustainable development” is that human beings, when left on their own, free from government meddling in their daily personal affairs, cannot live in a “sustainable” manner. Such unfettered development will purportedly wreak great havoc upon the environment and global “equity.” The use of the term “equity” repeatedly throughout UN Agenda 21 (“new and equitable global partnership” pg. 9) is particularly disturbing. The term embodies the ideas not of equal justice under the natural law, but the idea of equity put forth by Karl Marx, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In fact, the idea of wealth transfer from nations which are prosperous (due to adherence to free market principles long ago) to nations which are not prosperous (usually third world dictatorships which do not respect private property) can be found throughout the UN Agenda 21 document. Principle 5 in the declaration has as a key goal of decreasing “the disparities in standards of living,” not recognizing that this can only be achieved by allowing free market commerce in these banana republics, not through a global handout program or by imposing government controls on free market societies. The result of this tactic will be to “equalize” them into poverty.
The United States was founded on the principles of natural law codified in our Constitution, which formed and guaranteed a republican form of government. I am not talking about the political party, I am talking about the form of government where the rule of law governs above the whims of mankind. Great philosophers such as John Locke saw that the sole purpose of civil government was the protection of private property from theft by larger groups of people. In theory, the government, or supergang as some call it, would prevent these gangs from harming others or taking property that does not belong to them. However, the creation of this supergang known as government created great dangers as well, and could be more harmful than any gang if it exercised arbitrary powers. That is why the founders established very limited powers to the central government and established a system of checks and balances, codified in the United States Constitution. This is why public officials all swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution, not to Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court. We are ruled by law, not the whims of men.
Democracy, on the other hand, is the rule of the majority, not the rule of law. The United States was not set up as a democracy as our founders despised democracy because it undermined the very reason for the foundation of civil government: the protection of private property. Benjamin Franklin said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” In a democracy, if 51% of the people vote to steal from 49% of the people, they can do so (and regularly do). If people over 5 foot 6 inches vote to take everything from those who are shorter, they can do so in a democracy. In a republic, such laws would be null and void. While our elected officials are elected in a democratic fashion, they are constrained by the rule of law – the United States Constitution, which gives them limited powers to violate the private property rights of others.
Unfortunately, our republic is being destroyed. Individual rights, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, are being mocked and dismissed by our public school system. Instead of teaching the true history and intent of our country’s Founders, public education has become the most useful tool to justify corrupt Supreme Court decisions which ignore the framer's intent, and treat the document as a living, breathing entity which can be changed at willby the same government it is supposed to be constraining. A prime example was Wickard v. Filburn where Supreme Court officials, appointed by a corrupt and power hungry president, ruled that a farmer, using the crops he grew himself to feed his family, was engaging in interstate commerce. The very protections of a republic are gone when such interpretations can be justified or allowed to stand. If jurors of the public were originally informed of their obligation to follow the Constitution first, such cases would have never even made it to the supreme court. However, foundations long advocating a global socialist economy, like the Carnegie Foundation, have infiltrated our schools. They indoctrinate our children by convincing them that we are a “democracy,” where public theft is legitimized for the sake of “equity”, instead of a “republic,” where private property is respected, hard work is rewarded, and our rights are commensurate to our responsibilities. When one can infiltrate the public education system, one can shape the opinions of entire generations of people to lead your new “democracy” in any direction that those in control want. This creates a system which is visibly a “democracy,” but which, in reality, is an oligarchy, or rule by an elite few. That is why educational indoctrination is a key tool of those promoting sustainability to create not a population of individual thinkers, but “sheep people” or “sheeple” who will accept what they are told without critical thinking.
A prime example of this is the current hysteria over global warming, or manmade climate change. When one confronts young people with hard facts contradicting the hypothesis, such as the fact that carbon dioxide concentrations were much, much higher at the time of the dinosaurs and life was never more abundant, they often can only respond, “But this is what we are taught in our school books so it must be true.” I was told by one Global Warming believer that the exposed fraud behind the IPCC data was irrelevant, because everyone had “forgotten about it.” The message was that propaganda is more important than facts! When one is focused on the answers to standardized tests, such as those required by the No Child Left Behind bureaucracy foisted upon us by the Bush administration, instead of teaching logic and critical reasoning skills from a classic education, these are the types of brainwashed people you get. That is what it takes to create a new “up-to-date mythological or religious structure” (see quote at top of page) of global climate change, where people blindly accept what they are told because it is coming from the modern priests, or scientists. Just as priests could be corrupted in the Middle Ages, so can the scientists who are paid to justify one particular hypothesis. What do you think happens to scientists at a think tank, funded by the United Nations to specifically advance a climate change agenda, when they come up with conflicting conclusions? I imagine it is the same thing that happens to researchers employed by cigarette companies who find a link between cancer and smoking. In this perspective, the ClimateGate data manipulations to justify a pre-formed conclusion make total sense.
That brings us back to this religion of false environmentalism. In order to get people to give up their natural rights, you have to redirect their focus on something greater than themselves. In time of war, it is patriotism – the need to defeat the other side. The Report from Iron Mountain (purportedly a hoax, but someone came up with these ideas over 50 years ago; hoax or not, the ideas which made it to the New York Times bestseller list appear to have been co-opted towards action based on the extent of climate fraud) discussed the challenge of controlling the masses in times of peace. The answer involved creating a series of new wars against ideas, instead of actual nation-states, i.e. War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Environmental Pollution. The most intriguing idea generated in the report was the ability to mobilize people to confront an environmental crisis by convincing them that if they did not act in submission to their government in support of these goals they risked their own lives and the lives of future generations. Such language pervades UN Agenda 21. In the Report from Iron Mountain they even suggestdeliberately polluting the environment or making up a fake crisis in order for people to submit to a more powerful government. In the guise of the manmade climate change myth, those lusting for more power have gotten their wish. It does not matter that (1) warming is historically beneficial to the environment, (2) solar radiation is the prime motivator of climate change, (3) carbon dioxide represents one of many greenhouse gases such as water vapor, (4) there is a dramatically diminishing effect to the trapping of solar radiation with increasing concentrations, and (5) climate change models represent what statisticians call “curve-fitting” with poor prediction records, as one should not let the idea of facts get in the way of a good public hoax or religion amongst its zealots. It is most interesting that most meteorologists who must use and develop good, predictive climate models are some of the harshest critics of the myth of manmade global warming.
Now do not get me wrong. I am not saying that being conscious of preserving the environment or helping underdeveloped countries is a bad thing. In fact, if the American people actually knew the way the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and various non-governmental entities were “helping” these nations, they would be appalled (read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, or The Creature from Jekyll Island for shocking details). The reality is that individual private property owners, when left to their own devices, are much better stewards of the environment than most governments and multinational corporations. When there is personal ownership, there is also responsibility; people tend to take care of their own property. If you do not believe me, go and check the state of public forest land versus privately owned forest areas.
The problem with pollution generally comes not from individuals, but the very multinational corporations behind this drive towards “sustainable development.” Ask yourself why the effort to regulate carbon dioxide, a gas necessary for plant life to thrive, seems to be the main focus of this global environmental push, yet the same public authorities actively promote the addition of flouride, a potent carcinogen as determined by EPA scientists, into your drinking water. The answer is global control. If you can control the very gas expired by all animal life, you control life itself. Do you realize the sort of money large investment banks such as Goldman Sachs stand to make from the entire cap and trade scheme (conceived by Enron, of all companies)? The reality is the “carbon tax” you hear being proposed will not be paid to your governments, but to the large corporations themselves! Meanwhile, prior to dumping toxins like sodium hexaflouride into your drinking water, large corporations such as aluminum producers had to pay a lot of money to dispose of this toxic waste. Now they GET PAID to pollute our drinking water with it.
Limited liability corporations are at the core of the real problems of environmental pollution. There is a reason for this. Under the law, the elected board of directors and management team is under a fiduciary responsibility to make the greatest profits possible for their shareholders, but are not necessarily under a moral responsibility that individual small business owners feel. By giving the investors limited liability, they can vote in those who care most about corporate profits (over collateral obligations like a code of ethics) who will benefit their individual pocket books the most without having to individually face the consequences. These directors can then “press the envelope” and if worse comes to worst, the investors lose no more than what they put in, even thought the environmental or other damage could be much greater than the value of corporate assets. As one accumulates large sums of money, one can also pay more money in court costs and make generous contributions to lawmakers to better one's odds of the public policy of a nation aligning with the interests of the corporation. It seems ironic that one would be crazy to not form a limited liability corporation, because of the dramatic expense of the modern legal system; however, remember who benefits from that expensive legal system: those with practically unlimited money to spend on court cases, quashing justice for the average individual or small business owner. It is reasonable to believe that large corporations' influence on Congress over the past 150 years had everything to do with this.
Why would multinational corporations be promoting sustainable development? Believe it or not, they are the biggest beneficiaries of enhanced government powers, because they most directly control the government through the big money campaign contributions to elect these officials. Did you ever wonder why members of both political parties were rushing to bail out Goldman Sachs, when 90%-plus of the population were against it? Follow the money. Large corporations own the major media outlets which promote certain candidates over others (wonder why Fox News banned Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate?). In a society where running for political office requires a lot of money, guess where it comes from? They will often contribute funds to politicians of both parties (if you do not believe the Republicans participate in the whole sustainability agenda look up the International Democratic Union). That way, whoever you vote for, the large corporations end up on top. People forget that citizens had the right to vote in the old Soviet Union. However, that vote was between, for example, Boris the Communist and Vladimir the Communist. It was the illusion of democratic choice in a system that was really an oligarchy. Our country is no different. That is why the differences between the two parties are minor. Did the Republicans actually drill for oil in Alaska, lower spending, or reduce the educational bureaucracy as per their party platform? No. Have the Democrats repealed the Patriot Act, gotten rid of warrantless wiretaps, or brought our soldiers home? Absolutely not. Each side creates the illusion of choice, advancing one aspect of tyranny (Republicans – social control on individual rights, Democrats – social control on economic rights) while never repealing anything done by the other side. Both sides are firm adherents to the doctrine of sustainability in one manner or another (mayors Hessian (R) and Verner (D) in Spokane).
What most progressives or liberals do not understand is socialism is not about making things better for the poor at the expense of large corporations. It is precisely about enriching large corporations by killing competition from small businesses. John D. Rockefeller said, “Competition is a sin,” and he meant it. What is the best way to eliminate competition? By using the apparatus of government to force them out of business. Increased regulations put a large regulatory compliance burden on small mom and pop units, which do not have the revenue base for the economies of scale to cover this overhead. Burdensome regulations will force them out of business. Our legal system has become a tool by which only those companies with armies of attorneys and very deep pockets get a fair shake. We have eliminated international trade barriers, so large corporations can make goods in sweat shops overseas and import them back to the United States to compete with domestic businesses. Incidentally, elimination of trade barriers is a hallmark of the UN Agenda 21 plan!
It is no wonder that large financial interests financed Lenin's Bolshevik takeover of the Soviet Union, the rise of Hitler's national socialism in Germany, and Chairman Mao's Communist revolution in China. In none of these centrally controlled tyrannies was the lot of the poor made better; however, those in power exercised tremendous control over those below them. Those in control lived lavishly, not like the Communist dream of “equity” in the idealist literature. Socialism is the lie spoon fed to the masses, like the ideals of democracy, sustainability, and manmade climate change, to get people to go along with the corporatist takeover of their property rights. This is what we are fighting. It is “We the People”, as individuals and small business owners, against global multinational corporations who promote the sustainability agenda to increase control and corporate profits, making the average person dependent on these same corporations and the state itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment