In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Sustainable development: Erosion of freedom
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Sustainable development: Erosion of freedom
Posted: August 20, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
The World Summit on Sustainable Development will convene Aug. 26 to Sept. 4, in Johannesburg, South Africa, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the birth of "sustainable development."
This concept was given life when more than 150 nations adopted Agenda 21, at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, in 1992. Even though this 40-chapter, "soft-law" document is not legally binding, the concept of sustainable development has spread around the world, and in the United States, it is squeezing freedom from the land of the free.
It is difficult to wrap a brain around this concept which, ultimately, seeks to control virtually every facet of human life, in every nation on earth. It's like standing in the center of a vast forest, where several trees are clearly visible, but the magnitude of the entire forest is impossible to comprehend.
The "trees" we can readily see - urban boundaries, smart growth, wilderness designations, heritage corridors, scenic byways, school-to-work, outcome-based education - grow in the midst of a vast expanse of "forest," which can be fully appreciated only from the perspective of great distance.
Perhaps the Johannesburg conference is sufficiently far-removed from most Americans, that we can consider some of the global objectives, and then see how those objectives are being achieved by examining some of the "trees" that have begun to appear in domestic public policy.
The overall purpose of the Johannesburg conference is to bring about full, global implementation of Agenda 21. Achievement of this goal requires universal acceptance of a worldview that is relentlessly promoted by the United Nations, and its advocates.
In a nutshell, that worldview claims that the earth's biodiversity is being destroyed by human development, that the world's population has already exceeded the earth's carrying capacity, and that the only hope for future generations is for governments to control the activities of humans in order to protect the environment and ensure economic and social equity.
The fact that these assumptions are fatally flawed, and are refuted by a preponderance of scientific evidence, is ignored by the propaganda mills that churn out slick, highly polished "reports" and press releases in advance of every major U.N. conference. Because this propaganda is offered by prestigious organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Resources Institute, and others, the media is eager to publish and amplify the message without bothering to check the facts or examine the evidence.
Consequently, years of continuing propaganda have convinced the majority of the population that this worldview must be correct, and that whatever is necessary to correct the situation is acceptable. What sustainable development requires is this:
Control of the global commons - defined to be "... outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and the related environment that supports human life."
Control and rationing of fresh water
Global tax on currency exchange, and use of the global commons
Control of energy use
Global regulation of transnational corporations
International Criminal Court to adjudicate infractions of international law
A standing army under the command of the United Nations.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development will concentrate on the first five requirements.
In an article in the Sept. 2 issue of The Nation, Maude Barlow and Tony Clark, both members of the International Forum on Globalization, argue that water will be as critical to the 21st century as oil was to the 20th century. They argue that access to water is a "human right," that must not be left in the hands of private, profit-making corporations. They claim that:
Wealthy industrialized countries could supply every person on earth with clean water if they canceled the Third World debt, increased foreign aid payments and placed a tax on financial speculation [tax on currency exchange].
The United Nations has already created a "Commission on Water," which is working frantically to produce an International Treaty on Water - which is also called for in the Nation article.
The rest of the global commons is being addressed by other treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Desertification, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and its related Kyoto Protocol, The Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances, and its related Montreal Protocol - and many others.
Domestic policy is heavily influenced by these international agreements, though few people realize it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28669
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
By Abraham McLaughlin | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
LEBANON, MAINE - THIS is the tale of a town that decided to shut itself down.
That's right. When residents in this hamlet didn't like the new budget drawn up by their selectmen, they voted to close down the town hall.
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish
monitortalk:
Join the lively discussions in our society and culture forum. Or start a conversation yourself.
For most of the summer, that meant they couldn't get fishing or marriage licenses. They couldn't register their cars here. And the rescue squad was scrambling to borrow gloves and other supplies from neighboring towns.
It might be a surprising civic strategy to some people. But not here in Maine. Maybe it's old-fashioned Yankee independence. Or maybe it's just the orneriness built up over the long cold winters. But lots of folks in this state take great pride - and even a little glee - in bucking against any big-shot powers that try to boss them around.
There was that time in 1775 when a British sea captain demanded that Mainers sign an oath before he'd give them supplies. They grabbed the goods, rammed his boat, and pounced on his crew with muskets and pitchforks.
Today legions of Mainers trek to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs rather than fork over money to big pharmaceutical firms. The state has even sued the companies up to the Supreme Court over high drug costs.
In Lebanon, it was the selectmen's pay that got most people riled. For years, the town's three elected leaders were paid $10 an hour - and were typically taking home between $15,000 to $24,000 a year, by one account. That works out to between 28 and 46 hours a week.
But there was growing suspicion about whether some selectmen were really working all those hours. After all, this is no big-city metropolis with a teeming bureaucracy. It's a two-gas-pump town with about 5,000 people.
The town center is a crossroads with a packed country store. Bread and handguns are available in one aisle, Windex and shotguns in the next. Scattered about the town's 78-square miles are an antique store, a few restaurants, and a welding shop.
Then, this year, the selectmen tried to institute a yearly salary of $15,000 for themselves. "How in the world should a selectman in our town make that much money?" asks one business owner, brandishing a calculator and vigorously punching in figures. (The owner asked not to be named, saying "People get pretty nasty about this stuff around here.")
If selectmen in a nearby town get paid $20 per meeting, the owner says, "and even if they're meeting twice a week, that comes out to, let's see, $2,080 a year."
Outrage of this sort spread throughout the town. And residents revolted. They voted down the town budget, including a plan to buy an ambulance from a nearby town. Suddenly Lebanon's eight employees were collecting unemployment checks. And the town had just become America's most extreme experiment in small government - something akin to Newt Gingrich's dream come true.
By some accounts it worked pretty well.
"The town is practically normal," says Country Store owner Al Noyes. One reason he supported the revolt was that the next town had offered Lebanon its used ambulance for $7,000. But Lebanon's budget called for up to $50,000 for a new vehicle. That further raised suspicions. "Most people know that if a government entity is given $50,000, it will take it," says Mr. Noyes, "even if it doesn't need it."
Indeed, a hardy skepticism of government pervades this place. After all, this town in southern Maine is just a few miles from New Hampshire, where big government is practically evil incarnate.
Yet Noyes and other Lebanon residents are hardly as radical as antigovernment militia types out West. In fact, during the shutdown, Noyes advanced the fire and rescue crews nearly $400 in gasoline from his pumps.
"Thank God for that," says Jason Cole, the assistant rescue chief. He bought Band-Aids at Wal-Mart with his own money. But to him that wasn't enough. In July, a woman at a local sky-diving site crashed into the ground and had to wait 20 minutes for an ambulance. She later died - making some rethink the town shutdown.
That was one reason the new budget passed overwhelmingly last week. Now the town hall is open, and employees are back at work. A new ambulance is on the way. But the selectmen also relented - and agreed to stay on hourly pay. "I'm going to be carefully tracking my hours," says Selectman Darryl Moore. One of his colleagues, though, says he won't be running again.
To many residents, taking the town's politicians down a notch was just right. Perhaps the move fitted with the tradition of Samuel Danforth, an early New England preacher. Explaining why so many Europeans left the royal opulence of their homelands for the wilds of America, he said: "We came not hither to see men clothed like courtiers," for, he said, "The affectation of courtly pomp and gallantry is very unsuitable in a wilderness."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0820/p01s01-ussc.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Does It Really Make Any Difference?
by Kevin Tuma
It is now the eleventh hour before Police State America. Less than one year after the World Trade Center attacks, the Federal government--ordinarily plodding and slow, when it comes to mundane matters--is speeding us down the fast track to military government on greased rails. We have the Office of Homeland Security.
Click image for full size
Federalized airport screeners. Laws that give the police unbelievable authority to snoop and intrude, without search warrants. There is a movement toward a National ID card, which will probably be insidiously pushed through in the form of state Driver's Licenses. New tracking devices with microchips that are meant to be inserted under human skin. Military tribunals. Plans for forced vaccinations of entire cities. Secret police. There is even talk of legalizing torture. Concentration camps and gulags may be on next month's agenda. One shudders in anticipation of what will be proposed next.
Of course, many people are rationalizing and softening the blow of this new-wave fascism by saying that its creators, most especially President Bush, are 'well-meaning'. And that the dangers from these militaristic, aggressive 'security' measures are down the road. This is also a rationalization, because it implies that we still have time to change things. The dangers are already hanging over our heads.
Certainly, it is possible that George W. Bush could be a well-meaning ignoramus. This possibility has been evident since 9-11, as we have watched him stammer his way through abortive sentences in front of blue-collar firefighters and Police chiefs who can speak much better than he can. Watching Bush with a microphone, attempting to speak off-the-cuff in front of a crowd, is downright painful. He often lapses into sub-grammatic gibberish that is impossible to decipher, even on paper. And one gets the impression that the reason this is the case is because--as he falters to remember some pre-rehearsed speech line---he's not even vaguely familiar with what he is talking about.
It's entirely conceivable that Bush--a living monument to nepotism in political form--does not realize what he is doing as the 'company man' for the New World Order. He may not understand that his recent proposal of 24 million civilian informants in the "TIPS" plan was a spectacular gesture toward totalitarianism. He may not realize that the "USA-Patriot Act" is a monstrous abrogation of the Bill of Rights, unprecedented in American history. He may be blithely unaware that Federalizing the police is a violation of the doctrine of Posse Comitatus. In fact, it's highly unlikely that Bush can even spell 'Posse Comitatus', let alone cite the historical concept behind the phrase.
Yes, it is possible that many Bush-league Republicans, even at the top, are well-meaning. We all remember Ronald Reagan. And, make no mistake--there is certainly a great deal at risk in the "War On Terror". Those of us who shake our fists on the political sidelines often forget to think through the dangers that a serious war between the US and Islam could represent.
Suppose, for example, that the worst were to happen---that Islamic suicide bombers might decide to send their souls to Allah by exploding a thermonuclear weapon in New York City. It would be a horrendous blow to the United States, even if a very small fraction of the citizens of that city were killed. New York City is the center of the US economy. If the city were destroyed, it would have a catastrophic ripple effect throughout our system. We would be plunged into a depression darker than the one of the 1930s. Utter chaos would result...and that would be from only one errant nuclear weapon.
It's entirely possible that those at the top, who are cranking out one fascistic police state plan after another, are desperately attempting to stop something like that from happening. It's also possible that their refusal to deal with the issue logically--by racially profiling Arabs and leaving ordinary folk alone--could be because they are incompetent, bureaucratic, effete, and cowardly. We are, after all, talking about Republican politicians here. The "Patriot Act", the Gestapo-like Office of Homeland Security, the proposed National ID card, the proposed TIPS plan--all could be sincere attempts to avert disaster, and their flaws could be attributed to constitutional illiteracy and a lack of common sense. It's even possible that all these things may be motivated by fear of public safety; it may not be the malfeasance or conspiratorial scheming to destroy our liberties that it appears to be on the surface.
But the truth is that all of this really doesn't matter. The government has absolutely no authority to immolate the Bill of Rights for any reason--good or bad; sincere or treasonous. A government that tramples the US Constitution roughshod is an illegal and illicit government. And if the constitutional abrogators are ignorant of what they are doing? Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. A judge will tell the common citizen that for the tiniest infraction. It applies equally to the Powerful and the Arrogant.
And as for the catastrophic risks? We have lived under them for fifty years, through the Cold War and the age of nuclear proliferation. Indeed, the risks, even today, that Russia or China might nuke one of our cities are just as viable as any possible terrorism the Muslims might inflict. The Federal government should take action, if it really wants to protect the American people, by developing a valid civil defense system. Instead, the government is using every possible excuse of danger to take away our constitutional rights. Is this due to incompetence, or evil? Does it really matter?
Twenty-eight years ago, when liberals were undermining the Presidency of Richard Nixon, we heard a great deal of pontification about the idea that the "President should not be above the Law". It was a good concept. Unfortunately, this was turned on its head by the Senate's refusal to remove Bill Clinton from office. A dangerous precedent was set. We will now have a new breed of Presidents who throw their weight around like Roman Emperors. Bush is one of them. The fact that he is dense as a cinder block does not change matters any. Nor does it matter whether he is "well-meaning"--or not. He is doing great harm.
We are rapidly reaching the point where we must all choose whether we are going to ignore the laws of the land--because, certainly, our elective rulers are doing so, and they are drunk with power. The Constitution is the legal foundation of this country--it is the Law. Any President who willfully attempts to destroy the legal foundations of the Constitution is in violation of the Law. A Congress that rubber-stamps such abuses is also in violation of the Law. And black-garbed Federal police who enforce such abrogations, who are "just following orders", are in violation of the Law as well.
When the government ignores its own Law, sets itself above the Law, and denies its own citizens the protections of the Law...we have very little left to lose.
http://libertyforall.net/tuma.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878