SourceThe UN Habitat Conference report concludes:
"Public ownership of land is justified in favor of the common good, rather than to protect the interests of the already privileged."
Isn't it the privileged who are behind all this? No, it's the VERY privileged.
Maurice Strong is a Canadian billionaire, a Board member of Petro-Canada and Dome Petroleum, and President of Ontario Hydro. He is Director of the IUCN, Chairman of the Earth Council, Trustee of the Aspen Institute, Director of the World Future Society, Director of Finance for the Lindisfarne Association, founder of Planetary Citizens, member of the Club of Rome, Chairman of the World Resources Institute, and Co-Chairman and founder of the Council of the World Economic Forum and Senior Adviser to the President of the World Bank. He is President of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, Senior Advisor to the UN Secretary General and for the Rockefeller and Rothschild Trusts.
In addition, Mr. Strong's credentials include membership in the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance. It's 1995 report entitled Our Global Neighborhood contained a number of ominous proposals including:
* UN control over global commons: air, oceans, space, the electromagnetic spectrum...
* The establishment of a global tax system on all currency transfers,
* Expansion of the powers of the World Bank,
* Removal of the veto power in the Security Council,
* Creation of an Economic Security Council to rule the world's economy,
* Expansion of the International Criminal Court to adjudicate it, AND
* A standing UN Army to enforce it.
Maurice Strong is the chief architect of Global Governance, and co-authored the Earth Charter with Mikhail Gorbachev (not exactly what you would call the equivalent of a Constitutional Convention, is it?). Gorby must have acquired his environmental credentials during his career in the KGB because he now has his very own "accredited" environmental NGO, the International Green Cross. He says, "Nature is my God." Perhaps he found religion after the job he did on the environment of the former Soviet Union.
Mr. Strong was Secretary General of the 1972 Earth Summit in Stockholm and the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Mr. Gorbachev addressed the assembly to cheers. What do these guys know about taking care of dirt?
All rights conferred to "Citizens of the World" under UN Treaty are granted by the UN. What if they change their minds? The UN Charter states that all rights are subject to the purposes of the UN, whatever they may be.
Let's see... The UN foists rules driving production overseas. Imported oil and imported food means lots of currency transfers and the UN then taxes those, but this isn't about money; this is about the environment, right?
No. It's about money. Environmental set-asides are capable of manipulating supplies of critical commodities. They increase the value of producing lands and substitute goods in the hands of multinational oligopolies. Regulations depress the price of acquisition by forcing competitors into a distressed sale.
One wouldn't think that titans of altruism were interested exclusively in charity. Oil company foundations fund a coterie of environmentalists to end nuclear power, breach hydroelectric dams, tie up access to reserves of oil, gas, geothermal, coal, solar, wind power, and rely entirely upon a constrained supply of which fossil fuels to supply our high-technology economy? There are so many of such manipulations that no one strategy can describe them all. The scale is breathtaking.
The same corrupt political and legal control system, advocated by so many environmentalists as some kind of solution to "the problem," is the same system we were using in the days of unfettered rape of the land. It's STILL the rich guys in charge. The only difference is that they have tamed an army of NGO lawyers and bureaucrats to do their bidding.
Most of the people doing the dirty work for these financiers call themselves "Citizens of the World." They don't care what it takes to save The Environment as long as it is under their direction. They have egos to feed, mortgages to pay, and a weak understanding of the history of their benefactors. A paycheck makes it easier for them to explain away the ecological damage that betrays the actual priorities of Global Governance: money and power.
Bureaucrats and NGO functionaries have absolved themselves of accountability for the results of their actions with the urgency of their individual and cultural rhetoric, choosing instead to focus upon a final solution. They have already decided that the world will be better off without 80% of its people. They call it "carrying capacity."
The Global Biodiversity Assessment, concludes that:
"...an agricultural world, in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people...a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2-3 billion would be possible."
The current global population is approximately 6 billion. The trend of growth rate is declining and may turn negative this century. Estimates of carrying capacity range from 1 to 40 billion people, depending upon whom you ask, but perhaps the statement is more revealing than it would at first seem.
That's how many people it will support, the way they intend to run it.
Most activists are ignorant of where a process like this leads, and have no clue that their supposedly altruistic benefactors may be more interested in sequestering or accessing mineral wealth than in healthy habitat. Once the Constitution is gone, they are easily replaced.
When the United Nations adopts the Earth Charter, they will legally consider everyone a "Citizen of the World," superceding national citizenship. Your rights would then be "harmonized" to those conferred by the UN and just as easily taken. The International Criminal Court can then prosecute anyone, anywhere, with no jury, under multiple jeopardy, and with no habeas corpus.
At the opening session of the Rio Conference (Earth Summit II) in 1992, Mr. Strong said 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."
A shift is necessary for the middle class, the very group capable of making the technologies Mr. Strong can't envision, that might well prevent the environmental crises he supposedly stresses about from ever developing. This from a guy who came up through an oil company and ran an electricity monopoly and was caught trying to drain and sell the Ogalala Aquifer?
Your book is moving into the right places and the true education is spreading amongst previously ignorant individual.
Of course another problem is the number of firearms held in Canada in the US by individuals who are not willing to lay down and be trampled by corrupt socialism promoters.
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." ~ Albert Einstein
Oh yeah, and 'Heads on Pikes'...the b*stards!
Horsewhipping would be a good start; we could save the 'piking' for a public holiday.