Agenda 21 treaty on the horizon

By Henry Lamb via Canada Free Press

While liberal journalists continue to claim that Agenda 21 is just a “conspiracy theory” being advanced by right-wing crackpots, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Council for Environmental Law (ICEL) have released their fourth Draft of the International Covenant on Environment and Development. This document was designed from the beginning to convert the “soft-law” non-binding Agenda 21 into firmly binding global law – enforceable through the International Criminal Court and/or the dispute resolution features of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Two excellent analyses of this document are available here, and here. Read the entire 242-page document here.

Few people understand that it is standard operating procedure for the U.N. to issue a massive non-binding policy document to test the water and make adjustments to its plans before introducing the real, legally-binding treaty. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a “soft-law” instrument, was the precursor to the two 1966 U.N. Covenants on Human Rights. The 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change called for “voluntary” compliance. But at the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, the group agreed to create a Kyoto Protocol to the Convention that would set legally-binding targets for all member nations.

Noah M. Sachs, a University of Richmond law professor and environmental expert, said: “Agenda 21 has been a dead letter for 20 years, its recommendations have not been implemented by most governments, and the U.S. has largely ignored it.”

Mr. Sachs is either ignorant of the facts, or is deliberately trying to mislead his readers. President Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development operated between 1993 and 1999 expressly for the purpose of implementing the recommendations in Agenda 21. At the 11th meeting of the PCSD, Ron Brown, then- Secretary of the Department of Commerce, said that his department could implement 67% of the recommendations under his jurisdiction by rule, without the need for new legislation.

ICLEI: Advancing Agenda 21 around the world

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was created at the behest of the U.N. expressly for the purpose of advancing Agenda 21 around the world. They claim more than 1200 cities around the world have joined their organization for assistance in implementing “sustainable development”—defined to be the recommendations contained in Agenda 21. More than 600 of these cities are in the United States.

Mr. Sachs: Agenda 21 is not a dead letter!

A few organizations, Freedom21, Freedom Advocates in California, and the American Policy Center have been teaching Agenda 21 to people since the mid 1990s. In the last few years, Tea Parties, 9/12 and property rights groups have seen how ICLEI and liberal local officials have been converting the recommendations in Agenda 21 into binding law, by incorporating these recommendations into comprehensive land use plans. Dozens of cities have terminated their membership in ICLEI after local groups showed their elected officials how their plans actually reflect the recommendations in Agenda 21.

Those who like to ridicule by pointing to an imaginary global plot to rule the world, are either ignorant of the facts, or don’t want people to know that the IUCN and the ICEL have been working since 1995 to get Agenda 21 converted into binding international law. It is not a plot. It is not a conspiracy. It is a fact. The IUCN is not going to stop until they are successful. Virtually every environmental treaty adopted by the U.N. in the last several decades was written by the IUCN.

The IUCN consists of governments, government agencies, and non-government organizations. Seven federal agencies pay more than $500,000 per year to be members of the IUCN. Many of these people are the same people who are delegates and attend the U. N. meetings where these treaties are adopted. Federal employees helped write this fourth draft of the International Covenant on Environment and Development.

President Obama is on the Agenda 21 bandwagon

President Obama is on the Agenda 21 bandwagon. In addition to challenge grants offered by federal agencies to entice local communities to create comprehensive land use plans, he, like Bill Clinton, has issued Executive Orders to advance the agenda without interference from Congress. Obama issued an Executive Order to create the White House Rural Council last year. On March 15, he issued another Executive order creating the White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities. The next day, another Executive Order, National Defense Resources Preparedness, vastly expanded the President’s power to control virtually all resources in times of emergency.

In view of the facts that are readily available and undeniable, whenever a journalist or a politician, or an ordinary environmental extremist claims that Agenda 21 is not real, or is just a “conspiracy theory,” or the imaginations of right-wing crackpots, their comments can be dismissed and their motives challenged.

The U.N., the IUCN, and the ICEL—are working as hard as they can to get Agenda 21 converted into binding international law

The international community—the U.N., the IUCN, and the ICEL—are working as hard as they can to get Agenda 21 converted into binding international law. It will happen unless informed Americans stand up—as they have begun to do across the country—and kick out ICLEI, Agenda 21, and realize that use of the term “sustainable development” is nothing more than a sound-good substitute for Agenda 21.

Everyone should learn all they can about Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and join the battle to keep it away from America. A great place to start is here (video 18:54).

For more click here.

DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World – Agenda 21 on Steroids!

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh via Canada Free Press

Emblem of the United Nations. Color is #d69d36...

The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.

The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity

The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.

All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.

In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).

The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”

The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations.  They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)

The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”

  • Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”
  • Article 11 discusses “equity” and “equitable manner” which are code words for communism.
  • Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.
  • Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we ratify this document, we must thus fight a non-existent man-made climate change.
  • Article 31 requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.
  • Article 32 requires recycling.
  • Article 33 demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.”
  • Article 33 delineates long-term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity of the environment.”
  • Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.
  • Article 36 describes military and hostile activities.
  • Article 39 decides management plans and quotas for permissible taking or “harvesting transboundary biological resources.”
  • Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank. “Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises. “Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”
  • Article 48 demands that biotechnology from research and development and royalties be shared; free access and transfer of technology is also required.
  • Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.
  • Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by an arbitrary tribunal such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
  • Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.

Writers of the Draft Covenant are the UN Secretariat, international lawyers, and U.S. professors from Cornell, Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, University of the Pacific, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, and two attorneys in private practice.

Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a world constitution for global governance, an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Most recent columns.

For more click here.

Additional source: Read Agenda 21 on Steroids by Deb Coffey

Related articles

Agenda 21: The Death Knell of Liberty

By Jim ONeill, October 12, 2009, Canada Free Press

This article may be slightly dated but the message is not and is still extremely relevant!  Kasey Jachim

“The common enemy of humanity is man.  In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.  …The real enemy then is humanity itself. Democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.” —From the Club of Rome’s “The First Global Revolution” p. 71,75  1993

Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee.”—John Donne (1572-1631)

The death knell for freedom has been tolling for some time, and only now are people starting to hear it.  It started tolling faintly, decades back, and has slowly progressed in volume, until today its tolling is impossible to ignore.

The United States of America—that “shining city on a hill”—had a good run of it, and made a gallant effort at establishing liberty for all.  But as the old saw would have it, all good things must come to an end.

Liberty, after all, is an aberration in mankind’s history—a light that has flared here and there over the centuries, only to dissolve back into the darkness.

America is barreling towards becoming a bit player on the world’s stage, and its vaunted middle class—once the envy of the world—is on the verge of being eliminated.

For the good of the planet, for the good of Gaia. for the good of the collective.

Freedom is being replaced by servitude, capitalism by socialism, and property rights by “sustainable development.”

I’m not talking about something we need to be on guard against.  It’s all already in place.  It has been going on for quite some time, and it will continue to go on, at a greatly accelerated pace.  We are at the “end game” point.

And the Globalists know it.  Why do you think the Democratic (and many Republican) political hacks on Capitol Hill are so dismissive of the American people?

They are essentially putting on a “dog and pony show” for public consumption, while the final pieces for America’s defeat are slid into place.  No, they are not worried about upcoming free elections.

To a great extent the Globalists own the mass media, the entertainment industry, our schools, and the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches of government. Why should they worry?

Already, several generations have been indoctrinated, via our school systems, to value globalization and “social justice,” over personal responsibility and free enterprise.

They have been repeatedly sold the idea that they should,  “Think globally, act locally.”

God has been demeaned, marginalized, and eradicated, at every turn.  Our religions are, in many cases, a watered down and diluted mimicry of true spirituality.

The Globalists have come out from the closets, the woodwork, and from under rocks.  They know that their time of hiding is at long last over.  They are brazen about, and proud of,  their anti-American/pro-global stance.  Their arrogance and hubris is palpable.

Call them Communists, Marxists, Fascists, or Globalists—call them what you will, they are collectivists who despise America’s middle class, capitalism, and free enterprise.

They have been duplicitous, Machavellian, clever, and patient.  And it has paid off; the trap has been sprung.

How did this happen?

America got hit high, and America got hit low.  We suffered sudden catastrophic sneak attacks from without, and insidious long-term betrayal from within.

We were hit low by Alinskyesque “community organizers” in our streets, and propagandists in our schools.  We were hit high by “think tanks” like the Trilateral Commission, the CoR (Club of Rome), and the CFR (Council for Foreign Relations).

They have divided us with special interest groups, vociferous “talking point” attacks, and identity politics.  They have infiltrated our schools, and indoctrinated our children.

They have opened floodgates using the Cloward-Priven Strategy—overwhelming our judicial system, banking establishment, and border security.

They have encouraged corruption and greed at the lowest, to the highest, levels of government.

They have twisted and perverted the U.S. Constitution.

They have promoted and encouraged anything and everything that would help bring America down.

They intend on taking over the planet, but first they needed to destabilize, and then destroy, the United States of America.  Because we were a powerful bulwark of freedom, we had to go first.

And to a large extent, go we have.

In this article, I will focus on the contributions made by the CoR and Agenda 21, to America’s defeat.

The Club of Rome (CoR) was founded 1968, in Italy, by Aurelio Peccei, an Italian scholar and industrialist, and Alexander King, a Scottish scientist.

Over the years the list of its members has included ex-presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, diplomats, and billionaires.  Its membership roster reads like a “who’s who” of the world’s “movers and shakers.”  It includes U.N. bureaucrats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe

After its inception, it split into two more branches: The CoB (Club of Budapest), and the CoM (Club of Madrid).  The CoB focuses on social and philosophical issues, while the CoM concentrates on political issues.  In addition, there are over thirty affiliated organizations in other countries—such as the USACoR in America.

The CoR first garnered public attention with its 1972 report “The Limits to Growth,” which went on to become the best selling environmentalist book of all time.  Simply stated, its main thesis is that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely, because of the limited availability of natural resources, particularly oil.  It’s sort of an industrialized version of a Malthusian nightmare.

Twenty years later, the CoR published “The First Global Revolution”—a quote from the book appears at the start of this article.  This book also made a big splash, and helped to re-energize and expand the whole environmentalist movement.

Another quote from the book worth keeping in mind is, “It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary…such a  motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose….”

“One invented for the purpose.”  Enter global warming and greenhouse gases.

But something even more important happened the year before “The First Global Revolution ” came out.

At the instigation of the CoR, and their ilk, in 1992 the United Nations held the Conference on Environment and Development—informally known as the Earth Summit—in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. . At the Earth Summit, 178 nations signed an agreement called Agenda 21—so called because it dealt with the United Nation’s agenda for the 21st century.

It consists of numerous chapters detailing the role that different parts of society should play in implementing “sustainable development.”  There are chapters for central governments, local governments, businesses, and community organizations.

George Bush senior, then President of the United States, flew down and committed the United States to the U.N. FCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change) agenda.

Ever since then, the Executive Branch—Republican and Democrat—has been bypassing Congress, and passing “soft laws” foisting Agenda 21 on the American public.

Check out the U.S. Department of Energy website.

Check out the U.S. Department of Agriculture website.

Check out the U.S. Department of the Interior website.

No matter where you go, environmentalism permeates the U.S. Government bureaucracy.   Sometimes it’s blatant and out front; other times you may need to dig a little—but it’s always there.

The Agenda 21 Globalists wine and dine each other, and hold conventions and conferences around the world.  They give each other praise, pats on the back, and prestigious awards.

The Norwegian Globalists just gave Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, and for the same reason that they gave one to Al Gore—heavily pushing Agenda 21.

Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” also received an Oscar from the Hollywood elite.  These honors have been bestowed on Gore, not for exposing the truth—for “An Inconvenient Truth” is merely a slickly packaged lie—but because the film spreads the falsehoods of Agenda 21 so well.

It can only be shown to school children in the U.K. if accompanied by a disclaimer.  The U.K.‘s “The Daily Mail” reports that “…teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming, and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.”

The Daily Mail also noted that the lawyer who successfully sued to have the disclaimer attached, said it did not go far enough.  “He said ‘no amount of turgid guidance’ could change the fact that the film is unfit for consumption in the classroom.”

Yet American students see it over, and over.  With no disclaimer.

This past June, NASA said that global warming is caused by solar cycles—i.e. the sun.  Unsaid was the fact that the greenhouse gas theory is full of holes.  Actually it’s a fairy tale, a convenient lie to force the world to bend to the will of the globalists.

Al Gore, the CoR, the U.N., and all of the environmental organizations and their adherents, don’t care what the truth is.  They could care less about what causes global warming.  They have their “outside enemy…invented for the purpose,”  and they are not about to let go of it.

The Globalists actually tried Global Cooling first, but for various reasons it didn’t fly.  Look at page 22 in the 1974 Annual Rockefeller Report, and you’ll find the mention of a conference called to investigate “…the future implications of the global cooling trend now underway….”  Things sure warmed up in a hurry.

So what is the “purpose?”  What’s really behind all the global warming hoopla?

Power.  It’s the same old Marxist/Communist/Fascist collectivist schtick, dressed up in new clothes.

Global warming is all about a power grab by a wealthy elite and their collectivist sycophants—using the U.N. as a cover and tool.

As always, there are numerous “useful idiots” who swallow the party line whole.  Some of them are simply misguided idealists, and some of them are nuts—dangerously nuts.

Behind it all, is a relatively small group of people who are manipulating the world for their own sick, narcissistic ends.

It’s a perfect cover.  Think about it—who doesn’t feel that fresh air, clean water, and healthy environments are admirable ends to work towards?  Any sane person supports such ideals.

But hidden in back of the admirable goals are some diabolical designs.

Don’t take my word for it, and don’t dismiss me without research.  We all need to know what’s headed our way shortly.

If you aren’t aware of these facts already, then educate yourself on the internet.  At least check out The Green Agenda,  and check out Freedom Advocates.

What I’ve been discussing in this article is not “conspiracy theory” nonsense—look at those two websites I just mentioned (maybe watch a Michael Shaw video or two), and decide for yourself.

What have we seen since the Obama Administration took over?

The brainiacs in charge of America’s finances have been ignoring our debts, and eagerly proposing ways to sink us deeper into the quagmire.  A lot deeper.

At first I thought that they were simply corrupt, venal, self-serving idiots—all of which is undoubtedly true, but they’re also destroying America’s financial foundation, cleverly and intentionally.

They want the American dollar replaced by a new global currency.  They want America’s middle class to hang in the wind, and die on the vine.  They’re Globalists, and they want America to fail.  It’s so easy to see, once you realize what’s going on.

Why else would they add trillions to an already staggering debt?  Why else would they try to rush through a Cap and Trade bill that will, in Obama’s words, make electricity prices “skyrocket.”  Why else would they try to jam government-run ObamaCare down America’s throat?  Why else would Obama say he’d bankrupt anybody who built a new coal plant?

Once you grasp Agenda 21, and the sly machinations of the United Nations, and globalizing NGOs like the CoR, it all makes sense.

It’s “The Plan.”  Ruin America’s economy, destroy her middle class, and put a stranglehold on her energy grid.

At the U.N. Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said “Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

He also said, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable.”

Club of Rome member, multi-billionaire George Soros, echoed Strong’s statement last fall, when he told an Australian newspaper, “America, as the center of the globalized financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world.  This is now over. The game is out,’ he said, adding that the time has come for ‘a very serious adjustment’ in American’s consumption habits.”

We will be forced to do their will.  Count on it.

Forced to cut back on fossil fuel consumption.  Forced to cut back on water usage.  Forced to give up our property.  Forced to eat less.  Forced to warm or cool our homes less.  Forced to give up driving.  Forced to give up these, and many other things that we currently take for granted.  It’s “The Plan”—you had better believe it.

Look at what’s happening to California’s Central Valley—once “the world’s breadbasket,” and now a dust bowl.  All due to Agenda 21.

I assure you that the globalists will not help the farmers.  As the saying goes, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.”  The globalists want the land unplowed.  They want it to go “back to nature.” They want to increase the price of food.  They want to ruin the middle class farming community.  It’s all part of “The Plan.”

It is not just America this is happening to, of course.  Australia, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, Germany…  Every country is on the verge of being converted into a vassal state—part of a global hegemony run by the U.N and a power elite.

All this will be more easily accomplished with a greatly reduced population.  Did I mention population reduction and control?

Behind all the warm and fuzzy terminology about “smart growth,” “sustainable development,” and “think green,” lies a very chilling fact.  The Agenda 21 folks want to reduce the earth’s population—substantially.

In 1996, Club of Rome member and CNN founder, Ted Turner, told Audubon magazine, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”  A 95% reduction.

Recently he has said that getting rid of a mere two thirds of the world’s population would suffice.  Getting mellow in his old age no doubt.

The hard-core environmentalists are all bio-centrists.  That is, they believe that humanity is no more important than any other species on this planet.  In fact, to hear them tell it, the world would be much better off without any people at all.

Anthropologist and anarchist David Graber put it like this in an L.A. Times book review, “Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet.  … We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.  …Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Talk about joie de vivre, huh?  Speaking of virus, don’t you find it a little odd that the U.N’s WHO (World Health Organization) is making such a big deal out of what is essentially a run-of-the-mill flu?  And the lame stream media goes right along with them.

Given the Globalist penchant for population reduction, I’m much more leery of the U.N.‘s vaccines, than the flu.  But that’s just me.

At any rate, because these Globalists are bio-centrists, most of them don’t believe in a divine spark in man, or unalienable rights, or God for that matter.  In short, they don’t have many qualms about killing people.  Something else to keep in mind.

You know the sardonic comment “Well excuse me for breathing?”  These people will take that statement literally—and probably won’t excuse you.  After all, you’re adding to the earth’s carbon dioxide level every time you breath out.

ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability—I know, don’t ask) even has a personal Co2 calculator you can use.  ICLEI (pronounced “ick-lee”) believes you should know, and of course want to know, the amount of “your yearly direct personal carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.”  To which I say, directly and personally, “Get lost,” or words to that effect.

My favorite eco-friendly slogan is “Save the Planet—Kill Yourself.”

There’s something deeply disturbed, and disturbing, about too many of these folks, if you ask me.  For example, Yale professor and eco-nut, Lamont Cole, is of the opinion that “To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.”

Jesus wept.

You should do yourself a favor and peruse the quotes on Free Republic’s “So you’re an environmentalist…” web-page.  If you don’t come away convinced that most of these folks are nuttier than a “Payday” candy bar, then I don’t know what to tell you.  Maybe—“Get a life?”

Many of these “useful idiots” may be crazy and harmless, but they can also be crazy and deadly.

Behind them, pulling the strings, and waiting to take over, are the Global Elite and their one world government.

Do you honestly think that America will last as a free republic until the 2012 presidential elections?  I don’t think it will last until the 2010 elections.

Iran’s leadership is aching to nuke Israel, and Israel’s only going to wait so long before taking preemptive measures.  And there goes a large chunk of America’s oil supply.

Long lines for gas—if you can get any at all.  America’s power grid will flicker, and intermittently fail.  Time for the Globalists to make their final moves.

The curtain falls.

So America goes down the drain on our watch.  It’s nothing to be proud of, that’s for sure.

Is there no hope then?

If there are still enough patriotic Americans who value personal integrity and freedom —there’s a chance we can still turn this thing around, but it won’t be easy.   Far from it.

Make no mistake, if we lose this one, America and the world will sink into an abyss of tyranny for a very, very long time.

Laus Deo.

Related articles

THE OTHER SHOE DROPS: A current events round-up for conservatives – “Sudden Jihad Syndrome”; Multiculturalism: Jihad By Other Means; When environmental values collide

By Victoria Knox on Tea Party Nation

Sudden Jihad Syndrome”: A study by researchers at the Parnassia Psychiatric Institute in The Hague published in the December issue of The American Journal of Psychiatry may provide the scientific underpinnings for Daniel Pipes’ “Sudden jihad syndrome” theory. Reviewing psychiatric records on patients between the ages of 15 to 54, researchers determined that there is an inverse relationship between the incidence of psychotic disorders and a person’s age when (s)he immigrated to Holland, The New York Times reports:

In four ethnic groups — people from Suriname, the Netherlands Antilles, Turkey and Morocco — the risk of psychosis was most elevated among those who immigrated before age 4. There was no association of psychosis with age among immigrants from Western countries.

There are nearly one million Muslims in the Netherlands. The largest group is from Turkey (358,000, or 40.5 percent), the second largest is from Morocco (315,000, or 35.6 percent) and the third largest is from Suriname (70,000, or 7.9 percent). FYI, Suriname’s population is 20 percent Muslim, the highest percentage of Muslims of any country in the Western hemisphere.

This study raises the possibility that immigration at a young age from a Muslim-majority country or province may be a factor in developing a mental illness that raises the risk of sudden jihad syndrome or susceptibility to radicalization, and homegrown terror experts in Western countries should examine whether there is a correlation.

Multiculturalism: Jihad By Other Means: The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court injunction prohibiting enforcement of State Question 755, an OK ballot initiative that would have amended the state Constitution to banned the incorporation of Sharia and other international law into court proceedings in the state (related article, penultimate item on the page).  The initiative, which was supported by 70 percent of voters in the state, was challenged by Muneer Awad, executive director of the OK chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on the grounds that it violated his rights under the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment, The National Law Journal reports:

Specifically, Awad complained that enforcement of State Question 755 would result in his being stigmatized for his faith; would inhibit his ability to practice Islam; and would limit his access to Oklahoma courts, particularly regarding enforcement of his last will and testament. …

“Appellants argue that the balance weighs in their favor because Oklahoma voters have a strong interest in having their politically expressed will enacted, a will manifested by a large margin at the polls,” Judge Scott Matheson wrote. “But when the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their interests do not outweigh Mr. Awad’s in having his constitutional rights protected.”

Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt, who argued that Oklahoma had a “compelling interest” in deciding what law is applied in Oklahoma courts, issued a statement soon following the ruling suggesting that the state would not seek a rehearing.

“With the decision by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a temporary stay of State Question 755, the case will return to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to determine its constitutionality,” he said. “My office will continue to defend the state in this matter and proceed with the merits of the case.”

The appeal court did not address the merits of Awad’s constitutional challenge.

Commenting on the unfortunate ruling, The Washington Times notes that specifically mentioning Sharia law “gave Muslim activists a wedge to take the case to court, claiming they were being unfairly discriminated against:

The amendment then fell under strict scrutiny standards that it could have avoided had it not singled out Islam. True, there is no pressing movement to read Catholic canon law into the American legal corpus or to insist that all readings of the law be “Mosaic compliant,” but focusing on Islam was a tactical error, calling attention to the obvious.

The appeals court addressed this matter as an establishment clause case. The decision notes that Mr. Awad had standing to sue because he “suffers a form of ‘personal and unwelcome contact’ with an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would target his religion for disfavored treatment.” This is ironic because proponents of basing American legal decisions on the Koran seek a form of favorable bias that the Oklahoma amendment sought to forestall. Mixed-up thinking on this issue was on display in September 2010 when Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer mused on “Good Morning America” that the fact that mobs of foreign extremists riot over people burning the Koran should force American jurists to consider limits on free expression in the United States [emphasis, The Stiletto].

When environmental values collide: Back in the 1970s, the tiny snail darter held up construction of a dam for six years. Now, the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service is considering issuing a “take” permit to West Butte Wind Power LLC. The permit would allow up to three protected golden eagles to be hacked to pieces by the blades of wind turbines over a five-year period as long as the wind farm developer contributes to a breed program to keep their population stable, MSNBC.com reports:

It’s the first eagle “take permit” application to be received and acted on by U.S. Fish and Wildlife under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. (“Take” means to kill, harass or disturb the birds, their nests or their eggs.)

The legislation, enacted in 1940, prohibits anyone from killing or disturbing any bald or golden eagles without a permit from the Interior Department.

Regulations adopted in 2009 enabled the agency to authorize, for the first time, the “take” of eagles for activities that are otherwise lawful but that result in either disturbance or death. …

“This is a type of project where it’s appropriate for them to issue this kind of permit,” said Liz Nysson, energy policy coordinator with the Oregon Natural Desert Association She noted that only a small number of golden eagles are believed to be in and around the area where the wind turbines will be built.

Hydroelectric energy is not politically correct, so it took an act of Congress to exempt the Tellico Dam from the Endangered Species Act. But environmental groups are fine with blowing off golden eagles for wind power.

So Easy, A Conservative Can Do It: Part III: Washington Post pundit Chris Cillizza reports that “a new Pew Research Center poll suggests that most voters have little idea about even the most basic facts regarding the backgrounds of the men seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year.” But that’s not the whole story. Republicans were better informed than Democrats:

Pew asked registered voters four questions: 1) “Which candidate served as the speaker of the House” 2) “Mitt Romney was the governor of ___” 3) “After Iowa and New Hampshire, the next primary is in ____” 4) “Which GOP candidate opposes U.S. involvement in Afghanistan” …

Just 43 percent of all registered voters — these people are actually registered to vote — got at least three of those questions right. Forty eight percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters got three right — not surprising given that the questions were GOP-focused — while 41 percent of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents knew the answers to at least three questions. …

The average voter is a low-information decider, making his or her choices about candidates based on often times incomplete or just plain wrong facts.

The analysis of political races — from the presidential race on down — often assumes a level of involvement and information that the average voter simply lacks.

The Stiletto does not agree with Cillizza that “the questions were GOP-focused”:

The Speaker of the House is a position of national prominence and the partisan affiliation of the person holding that office should not matter, given how often his or her name is in the news;

IA, NH and SC traditionally hold the first three nominating contests for both parties, so it should not matter that Dems don’t have to participate in caucuses or primaries this time around; and

 Since a plethora of articles and broadcast news reports on ObamaCare have likened it to then-MA Gov. Mitt Romney’s universal healthcare plan, Dems should have known the answer to that question as well.

On the other hand, seeing as how few people pay much attention to Ron Paul, only that last question qualifies as a stumper.

Thus, Cillizza’s conclusion holds true for Dems more so than for Repubs (related article, second item on the page). In The Stiletto’s experience, voters who were allowed to submit questions for the candidates to answer at the Republican debates were very informed and asked incisive questions (second item on the page).

Republicans Pass Resolution Against United Nations Agenda 21

Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21

 

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of

extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control

that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local

communities throughout the United States of America through the

International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local

“sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project,

Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or other

“Alternative” projects, and

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable

development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single

family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately

owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is

described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from

the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be

accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National

sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now therefore be

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive

and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the

public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan; and

therefore be it further

RESOLVED , that the U.S. government and no state or local government is

legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never

been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the

country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of

implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for

“sustainable development” and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies

and rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National

Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican

members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, all Republican

candidates for President who qualify for RNC sanctioned debates, and to

each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:

Helen Van Etten

Republican National Committeewoman for Kansas

Co-­Sponsors:

Carolyn McLarty

Republican National Committeewoman for Oklahoma

Kim Lehman

Republican National Committeewoman for Iowa

Paul Reynolds

Republican National Committeeman for Alabama

Demetra DeMonte

Republican national Committeewoman for Illinois

Solomon Yue

Republican National Committeewoman for Oregon

Donna Cain

Republican National Committeewoman for Oregon

Cindy Costa

Republican National Committeewoman for South Carolina

John Sigler

Republican State Chairman for Delaware

Steve Scheffler

Republican national Committeeman for Iowa

Peggy Lambert

Republican National Committeewoman for Tennessee

Jim Bopp

Republican National Committeeman for Indiana

Bruce Ash

Republican National Committeeman for Arizona

DeMarus Carlson

Republican National Committeewoman for Nebraska

Rio +20 Earth Summit will tie population into green knots

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh  

The United Nations is not giving up its assault on the economic and political future of our country and of our planet. The first installment of the United Nations to control the globe environmentally and economically was “The UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED),” held in Rio in 1992. The UN Bruntland Commission released its official UN Agenda 21 that same year, following the Conference on Human Settlements in 1976 and the 1987 report, “Our Common Future.”

The policy of Sustainable Development, land use, education, population control and reduction, made nature and its protection the central principle for all member nations.

The 65-page socialist document released from the Conference on Human Settlements (1976) declared private land ownership and wealth as primary reasons for “social injustice.” Its recommendations that were later incorporated in UN Agenda 21 are:

  • Redistribution of population according to resources
  • Government control of land use in order to achieve equitable distribution of resources
  • Land use control through zoning and planning
  • Government control of excessive profits from land use
  • Urban and rural land control through public land ownership
  • Developing rights must be held by public authorities

The next episode of the saga will play again in Brazil—“Rio +20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development,” twenty years later. The 19-page draft was released on January 10, 2012 under the title, “The Future We Want.” Who is “WE?”

The 40 chapters of the U.N. Agenda 21  signed in 1992 in Rio is not really a treaty, “It is a soft-law document.” The nations whose representatives signed the document were “morally obligated to implement them, according to the United Nations.” (Henry Lamb)

The United States, represented by George Bush, and 178 other nations signed the document that proposed regulations, organizations, and practices that limit the economic behavior of citizens, organizations, and firms with regard to water use, land use, transfer of technology, and human habitation under global governance.

Because the recommendations were not legally binding, strongly suggested regulations were implemented administratively, bypassing Congress. Congress has not debated nor adopted UN Agenda 21, yet certain provisions have been included in law from time to time.

The full Senate scheduled a vote after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the Convention on Biological Diversity by a vote of 16-3 on June 29, 1994. One hour before the vote, the “treaty” was pulled from the schedule. (Henry Lamb)

President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852, creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to translate UN Agenda 21 into U.S. public policy called “ecosystem management,” administered by the federal government.

The President’s Council created “Sustainable America” with 16 “we believe” statements. The ultimate goals were to abolish private property, control education, control and reduce population, and control the economy. Currently, every federal government agency has a sustainable UN Agenda 21 plan. (fedcenter.gov)

In June 20-22, 2012, participants will sign on to 10 new sustainable development goals for the planet and promise to build a global green economy in order to reduce consumption and poverty. (The Guardian)

Countries will have to agree to protect oceans against overfishing, publish and approve an annual state of the planet report, subscribe to a single world agency for the environment, and appoint a Global High Commissioner for Future Generations or “ombudsperson.”

Stephen Hale, Oxfam’s deputy advocacy and campaigns director, wants the Rio negotiations to develop “concrete proposals on sustainable agriculture and food security.”

Ruth Davis, chief policy advisor of Greenpeace, UK, wants an end to “the wild-west plundering of the high seas.” Might she be referring to Somali pirates? Joking aside, she believes the ocean population has been depleted. I still marvel how they can count creatures per cubic foot when they are constantly in motion.

The Obama administration wants to ratify “The Convention on the Law of the Sea.” Member nations surrender sovereignty over their territorial seas when they voluntarily agree to act according to the treaty and “other rules of international law.” (Henry Lamb)

“The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law.” (Article 2, (3))

The UN bemoans in its Rio +20 draft the setbacks in food insecurity, climate change, biodiversity loss, the existence of 1.4 billion people who live in extreme poverty and one-sixth under-nourished, pandemics, and epidemics. “Unsustainable development has increased the stress on the earth’s limited natural resources and on the carrying capacity of ecosystems. Our planet supports seven billion people expected to be 9 billion by 2050.”

“We emphasize the importance of culture for sustainable development. We call for a holistic approach to sustainable development which will guide humanity to live in harmony with nature.”

The new United Nations Rio +20 conference in June 2012 will demand:

  • Universal access and right to information and communications technology
  • Poverty eradication
  • Integration of local governments into all levels of decision making in sustainable development
  • The need to reflect the views of children and youth
  • No new trade barriers
  • No new conditions on aid and finance
  • No subsidies
  • Green technology in the public domain for all to share
  • Global policy framework requiring all listed and large private companies to integrate sustainability information within UN required reporting cycles
  • Move the entire world to low-carbon development
  • The UN-established specialized agency for the environment with universal membership should be located in Nairobi
  • Regular review of the state of the planet and Earth’s carrying capacity
  • Global trade should be regulated by World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, and regional development banks
  • Development and implementation of integrated water resource management
  • Efficient human settlements
  • Restoration and enhancement of natural capital
  • Sustainable land and water management practices
  • Family farming, ecological farming, organic production systems
  • Sustainable forest management
  • Rational use of biodiversity for economic purposes
  • New markets linked to renewable and unconventional energy sources
  • Green job creation/green economy
  • Promote education for sustainable development

It looks like the greenologists and the third world dictators at the UN have a lot of work to do between now and June, determining how to better steal our wealth, technology, to indoctrinate impressionable youth into the religion of Gaia, and replenish their bank accounts with U.S. and western money and economic aid under the “wise” United Nations global governance and the guise of eradicating poverty.

GOP Presidential Candidates on Agenda 21 ‘Sustainable Development’

By Arlen Williams

Even those who believe themselves devoted patriots (including devout Christians) may foolishly be enticed by the powers that be, into violating Americans’ sacred and essential Popular and national Sovereignties. It has been happening for a long time, now.

People who believe in a Sovereign nation called the United States of America are being duped into not only violating the mandates of our Constitution, but even worse, into nullifying our own Declaration of Independence from the control of foreign, kleptocratic power.

This is the tragedy for all, of those who foolishly follow the stratagems  of those seeking hegemony over us via “global governance” and it’s ploy, “sustainable development,” a.k.a., “millennium goals,” a.k.a., “green growth,” as outlined in United NationsAgenda 21. It is being executed by ICLEI, regional councils, Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13575, and in many other ways governmental and paragovernmental, in corporations, finance, the news and entertainment media, and in eduction.

However, some seem not so fooled.

In alphabetical order, these are positions of the remaining Republican candidates for United States President, regarding this globalist warfare upon America and all the nations of the world.


Newt Gingrich, his opposition to Agenda 21:

Video, “Newt on Agenda 21,” uploaded July 26, 2011

Video, “Newt on Agenda21.mov,” uploaded September 16, 2011Counterpoint:


Jon Huntsman, a proponent of sustainable development, uses the peer pressure ploy of a propagandist, pardon the alliteration, against those seeking valid science about the climate, instead of the party line of the globalist powers that be:

http://www.mrctv.org/embed/105126 Video, “Huntsman Spars with Fox & Friends Hosts over Global Warming,” August 29, 2011An article from the ecofascist left, supporting Jon Huntsman over other Republican candidates:


Ron Paul, his opposition to Agenda 21, within the limits of a libertarian’s revised interpretation of federalism (also declares his opposition the United Nations as a whole, plus the IMF and the Federal Reserve):

Video, “Ron Paul Answers Agenda 21 Question,” uploaded August 10, 2011


Rick Perry, his cooperation with Agenda 21 related transnationalist/globalist moves and liaisons:

Perry’s comments in opposition to drastic policy based upon man-made global warming theory, in this propagandized Associated Press (AP) video:

Video Essay: Perry vs. Global Warming in NH,” August 18, 2011


Mitt Romney, his favoring of and participation in Agenda 21…

…and one may page search “Romney” in this expansive collection of evidence:

Romney, during the 2008 campaign, stating that government should at times take the lead in reducing “green house gas emissions”:

Video, “Romney answers question about renewables and green jobs,” uploaded December 27, 2007


Rick Santorum, answers generally, when asked specifically about Agenda 21:

Bill McNally: [A question about Agenda 21]  Question to describe Agenda 21, what it means for America’s sovereignty, and how Santorum, as President, would enforce it.

Santorum: There are a lot of things that the U.N. promulgates through its various committees and agencies.  The United Nations should serve some (emphasis his) on security issues, but a lot of the policies from the United Nations would be problematic for America.  “We will not give legitimacy to UN organisations that promulgate a laundry list of ideas…. [including abortion] I’m not going to, as President, have our country participate in things that are antithetical to our values.”  They are trying to impose international law on the sovereignty of the United States.  Cited the Rights of the Child as a means of undermining parental authority.  [This blogger will note that the Rights of the Child inexplicably does not include the right to be born without someone stabbing you in the head with a fork.]


Directly related, here is an assessment of each candidate’s’ stance on the question…

  • Will you abolish the Environmental Protection Agencey (EPA)?
  1. Gingrich Yes. SOURCE
  2. Huntsman Rein it in, not abolish it. SOURCE
  3. Paul Yes. SOURCE
  4. Perry Yes, and rebuild a new environmental agency. SOURCE
  5. Romney Supports much of the agency’s mission but would reform some things. SOURCE
  6. Santorum Modify it, not abolish it. SOURCE

in AsMarion.com, republished from Tea Party Voter Guide, New Hampshire Edition


For further information on the candidates regarding the American Sovereignties and threats to them, including Agenda 21, see…

Caveat: all analysis of the behavior of human beings must be dynamic, not static. Let us keep asking questions. Here is one suggestion for ongoing activism:

We look forward to providing further information demonstrating key candidates’ stances on America’s most essential Sovereignty issues, in future articles and blog entries.