Over the past year, in addition to dealing with fun stuff like unemployment and breast cancer, I've received a crash course in the hidden agenda of the United Nations, specifically Agenda 21.
Now if you Google “Agenda 21,” the first website that comes up is the UN page describing Agenda 21. And if you click through, you can link to read the entire document. It's long, boring and uses terms like “inter alia” and “sustainable development.” And it's all right there on their website, so it's not a “hidden” agenda at all. Right?
Wrong.
The part that's hidden in fancy catchphrases that sound reasonable, such as “sustainable development,” is the erosion of property rights and taking from the “rich” to give to the “poor” so that everyone will be equal. I'm all for helping the poor. I know charitable contributions are vital to the survival of many organizations that do legitimate good works to help those in need. For several years we gave money to Heifer Project International yearly because we believe it's a good program. They help people by giving them animals so they can raise them for food, eggs and milk. The recipients of the animals are then required to pass on an offspring of their animals so others can benefit. In other words, pay it forward.
I like that. God helps those who help themselves. The Heifer Project people also teach them how to manage the land and take care of the animals to make them more environmentally conscious. That's good too. I like the idea of ending hunger, empowering people and saving the world all at the same time.
And then they went and did it. Busted out that “sustainable development” term. It sounds like a good idea, making sure we don't run out of natural resources, making sure the world is still around and usable for our children and grandchildren. It SOUNDS good, but if you dig a little deeper, you find that these schemes serve to limit what we can do with our own private property.
If the best practices of raising livestock and crops are known, and they are not cost prohibitive, most landowners are going to do the right thing. If I have a family farm I plan to pass on to my children, I want it to be usable. I want my children and their children to be able to get as much use as possible out of it. I don't want to pass on a worthless piece of land to them.
But the UN thinks otherwise.
“The broad objective is 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. In doing so, environmental, social and economic issues should be taken into consideration. Protected areas, private property rights, the rights of indigenous people and their communities and other local communities and the economic role of women in agriculture and rural development, among other issues, should be taken into account.” (Agenda 21, Section II, Chapter 10, paragraph 10.5)
In layman's terms, they want to make it easier to make sure land is used with the most sustainable benefits. What's wrong with that? Say you own 1000 acres. In your area, you need roughly one acre per head and you want to raise 1000 head of cattle. Or you could raise corn and yield 160 bushels per acre. Shouldn't you be able to decide what you'd like to raise? What works for your family and your bottom line? Maybe you'd make more money from one but your family has raised the other for four generations?
Enter “sustainable development.” Experts in the Department of Agriculture have determined that your land is best suited to raising corn, and more people can be fed with that corn. So under Agenda 21, they can come in and tell you that you must raise corn. Think it won't happen? I mean, after all, the paragraph quoted mentions “private property rights...local communities and...other issues.” However, look what else was mentioned: the rights of indigenous people (of which 94% of the world's population is NOT), protected areas (government controlled lands, such as national parks, state forests, the city park and the latest trickeration, national heritage areas) and women in agriculture. So if you are say, a white (or black or Hispanic or Asian) male in Missouri, you may not have any property rights if this goes through.
But we live in the good ol' US of A! This can't happen here! Wrong...it already is. Review current planning and zoning policies and practices in your area. Note the mention of sustainable development or sustainablity. It's the latest catchphrase. Sadly, many of the county commissioners, city councilmen, state senators and Congressmen who vote for sustainability don't really even know what it means. But once the terms have worked their way into law, you can bet the people who stand to benefit from the policy change will be first in line to let us know exactly what it means. Look out for organizations such as PETA and the HSUS and environmental wackos who would like nothing more than to send us back to the 19th century. Maybe throw a little Communism in there...From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875)
“All countries should, as appropriate and in accordance with national plans, objectives and priorities: Promote the use of labour-intensive construction and maintenance technologies which generate employment in the construction sector for the underemployed labour force found in most large cities, while at the same time promoting the development of skills in the construction sector” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraph 7.69e)
“Promoting efficient and environmentally sound urban transport systems in all countries should be a comprehensive approach to urban-transport planning and management. To this end, all countries should: integrate land-use and transportation planning to encourage development patterns that reduce transport demand; adopt urban-transport programmes favouring high-occupancy public transport in countries, as appropriate; encourage non-motorized modes of transport by providing safe cycleways and footways in urban and suburban centres in countries, as appropriate” (Agenda 21, Section I, Chapter 7, paragraphs 7.52a-c)
We can all ride our bicycles or the train from our apartments to our inefficient, green jobs (such as swinging a hammer to build a house instead of using a nail gun) so that everyone has a job and no one has any more than anyone else. Hmmm, what does that sound like?
Communist Russia, maybe??
Certainly not the United States of America, founded by Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Not the country that was torn apart by the War Between the States but came back together and within 50 years was a superpower. Not the nation that survived two world wars, the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, and the Civil Rights Movement. Not the sovereignty that rose from the ashes of the terrorism of September 11, 2001.
Not my country.
No comments:
Post a Comment