Skip to comments.Earth Charter undone: Henry Lamb explains how town nixed 'syrupy' eco scheme
Posted on 04/21/2002 1:32:57 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Sanibel, Fla., was one of the first U.S. cities to endorse the Earth Charter nearly a year ago as a part of Earth Day celebrations. It was also the first U.S. city to withdraw its endorsement.
This controversial document, promoted by Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong for a decade, is seen by many to be an effort to create a new "16 Commandments" to serve as the foundation for a new global religion.
Sanibel citizens were not happy about the endorsement. Forty-two citizens and five former mayors signed an open letter, published in a local newspaper, demanding that the endorsement be rescinded. Council chambers were packed when three of the five council members voted to rescind the endorsement. The three members who voted to rescind admitted they had not read the document before voting to endorse it.
Francis Bailey, speaking against the Earth Charter, said, "You've got a smokescreen up here," referring to the charter's emphasis on the environment. "Everyone loves motherhood and apple pie, but what you've got here is abortion and rotten apples."
In an effort to counter the influence of the Earth Charter, the Acton Institute led in the development of the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship, which sets forth a different set of principles for protecting the environment, endorsed by many scholars and religious leaders.
The Earth Charter campaign is led by the Earth Council, a non-government organization in Costa Rica established by Maurice Strong shortly after the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The charter has been endorsed by both extremist and mainstream organizations.
The 16 principles advanced by the charter begin with the rejection of the historic belief that humans are created in the image of God and are assigned to be stewards over all other creatures.
This first principle, after years of recrafting the language, advances the biocentric view that all creatures have equal intrinsic value; humans have no higher value than bugs or beetles or the AIDS virus.
The language of the document is syrupy almost goo. A casual reading would likely not discover the basis for the concern of Sanibel's citizens. A careful reading, however, reveals the entire agenda of global governance: wealth redistribution, population control and managed societies to "protect" resources for future generations.
For example, consider this principle:
What's wrong with this rather bland statement? Who defines those plans and regulations that are to be adopted? Who defines "rehabilitation" and the extent to which it is required before development? Certainly not the people who are governed by them.
Implied, but not expressed, throughout the document is the existence of a central authority to draft the plans and regulations that are to be "adopted." The United Nations labyrinth of treaties provides both the plans and the regulations.
Nowhere in the document is there an appreciation for individual freedom and individual achievement. Everywhere in the document, freedom is limited by responsibilities, which others define, to advance what they define to be the "common good."
The document calls for the elimination of "genetically modified" organisms a direct threat to the world's food supply.
It calls for the adoption of "patterns of production and consumption" that are "sustainable." Maurice Strong announced in Rio that "use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable."
The document says it is necessary to:
Who does the guaranteeing and the allocating? The United Nations, of course. Who pays for the water, food, shelter? The United Nations is a full-fledged subscriber to the socialist philosophy "from each according to ability, to each according to need."
With the power of the new International Criminal Court and the longed-for global taxing authority, the United Nations will be able to take wealth from those who have produced it, and re-distribute it to those who have not.
Those who have endorsed the Earth Charter have endorsed the principles of global socialism, administered by the United Nations.
Citizen members of those towns and organizations that have endorsed this document might want to follow the example of the citizens of Sanibel and demand that the endorsements be rescinded.
Your heart may be in the right place, but your terminology is wrong. Anarchy is the absense of a government. What this document seeks to force is an overriding, totalitatarian one world government.
Anarchistic tendencies are toward freedom for all. The anti-globalists who are labled as "anarchists" are not. They are really socialists and green fascists.
sounds like a LOT of our freeper friends... the motto "A truckload of greivous responsibilities must be asssigned to each and every freedom that we grant to individuals... that will enhance the common good..."
Morality (the common good)... will be enforced!
good point... most anarchists.... aren't. You were wise to point it out.
Lotsa freepers consider "individual freedoms" anarchy, believing that we need a BIG NANNY government to make sure we never fully enjoy our individuality... it doesn't serve the common good, so it must be contolled. EVERYTHING is measured as good or bad, related to how it serves social order, society, or groupthink. NOTHING is measured in terms of good or bad, relative to its impact on individual liberties...
The general welfare clause has been expanded to include so much commonism, we are become quite communist/fascist in our pursuit of social utopia... no sin, no vice, no freedom...
Green on the outside and really red on the inside!
Unfortunately, this is not unusual.
Who does the guaranteeing and the allocating? The United Nations, of course. Who pays for the water, food, shelter? The United Nations is a full-fledged subscriber to the socialist philosophy "from each according to ability, to each according to need." With the power of the new International Criminal Court and the longed-for global taxing authority, the United Nations will be able to take wealth from those who have produced it, and re-distribute it to those who have not. Those who have endorsed the Earth Charter have endorsed the principles of global socialism, administered by the United Nations. Citizen members of those towns and organizations that have endorsed this document might want to follow the example of the citizens of Sanibel and demand that the endorsements be rescinded.
In an essay by Strong entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation, he says:
"Strengthening the role the United Nations can play...will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives."
"The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security."
God has given us a window of opportunity to turn these GlobalSocialists out on their ear. This one town's success in doing so (after making the grave mistake they made to endorse this insanity) should be encouraging to all who understand the dire situation should we fail to resist such Globaloney!
Maurice Strong certainly could be the AnitChrist (as some think). However, he seems to be getting on up there in age, doesn't he?
But look at this date: 2012 - the world must be under the dictatorship of the United Nations by that time according to his view.
Let's see what we can do to upset "the plan". First order of business: PRAY!
"Strong has worked diligently and effectively to bring his ideas to fruition. He is now in a position to implement them. His speeches and writings provide a clear picture of what to expect. In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:
"This interlocking...is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life."
He told the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, that industrialized countries have:
"developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -- involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing -- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
It actually makes one sick reading it...but handle everything with PRAYER!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.