POWELL SAYS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPELLING ISSUE FOR THE UNITED STATES

The "Sustainable(controlable) Development" concept has always gone hand-in-hand with "Active Population Control" discussions and implementations.

You can't have one without the other. IMHO

What is sustenaible development indeed? What it is not would be healthier to know. After all, the beauty of checks and balances is to acknowledge one's sins and "save" that way. But this is beyond the "promises" of this system apparently.

The spread of democracy and market economies, combined with breakthroughs in technology, permits us to dream of a day when, for the first time in history, most of humanity will be free of the ravages of tyranny and poverty.

Do you find that reasonable? Turning Saddam into a lamb with sustained development? I don't think so. People have got to be nuts to think this. Turning this idea into some kind of god is messianic false prophetic nonsense.

Moreover Powel's piece of tripe does not explain anything. It only is a bunch of vague claims without any string of logic. A poorly written advocacy at that.

Next in line is the environment factor that seems central in this. I am sorry, but the only thing central is that man has dominion over the environment and not the other way around. Man did not develop from the cave man to fly on the moon by worrying about displacing animals.

These people just think they are better than the ancestors, it is progressist crap masquerading as being pro-business. All it will do will depress business because people do not operate well when they are not given the basic dominions they were endowed with when born. Last but not least, any business can be sustained by one thing and one thing only: plain Bible honesty and morals. Forget the math, the economic forecasts, the ENRON miracles and the consumption/production theories.

In fact, what is the sustainable development? All it is, is a reduction of man's life to a pure consumer/producer, just like your average animal (hint: very bad for the environment). The only geneticaly superior entity on this planet (produces and consumes little) is the tree. You want good production/consumption? Kill animals and people, reduce the population, and plant trees. There, that's sustainable development. A consumerist Marxist obsession on consumption/production and equalities in consumption and production.

The spread of democracy and market economies, combined with breakthroughs in technology, permits us to dream of a day when, for the first time in history, most of humanity will be free of the ravages of tyranny and poverty.

Ah, the the mating call of the Socalist Do Do Bird same sound different bird.

Sorry to say but your reply jumps around to so many subjects that is difficult to respond to all that you said.

The world trend towards more democratic processes and market economy began under Thatcher/Reagan and has progressed quite well.Besides the current problems in S. America the largest threat to this trend is in the US.

As for your question as to the meaning of sustainable development, there is none. There is also no definition for "Civil Society". There will be 65,000 different definitions of sustainable development in Johannesberg. As Henry Lamb pointed out, there are major differences between sustained and sustainable development.

Thank you for letting me know about this.

"Global Spin Zone, sigh"

Agreed, sadly.

"SCREW THE UN"

Definately!

In a formal sense, not that I am aware of. I would imagine that there are informal contacts though.... same deal with WND and some of the other linked sites / sites who shared content.

A few comments. You make a hearty appeal for adoption of Christian fiscal and business principles. My guess is that most people haven't a clue about this appealing alternative to the current heavily corrupted version of Reformation era business practices. The highly necessary debt financing developed by the Dutch and later adopted by Britain, originally needed to develop the New World (and vehemently opposed by the Vatican and the Spanish Inquistion - to their own ultimate detriment) has since been overblown to the point of chaos. Something has got to give. I think we all know that at some level, some are simply more in denial about it than others.

At the same time, those who in one breath praise capitalism and "free markets" and then in the next breath talk about all the little fishies, about social safety nets and about eco-tourism (remind you of "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by Thomas L. "1960s Marxist Dressed Up In A Pin Sriped Suit 3rd Way Devotee" Friedman?) are actually practicing the ultimate in stealth Gramscian Marxism by increasingly layering the goals of "social justice" (or, an even better term, thanks to Thomas Sowell, "cosmic justice") onto capitalist ones. These people are dangerous and must be stopped.

Ironically, when confronted with assertions that geopolitics, nationalism and the middle class still matter, these same folks then don their "free trade" mantle. The incidious thing about "free trade" as currently defined is that along with the economic openness and standarization package, we also get the externally applied social micromanagement, destruction of conservative (with a small "c") culture and unilateral disarmament packages. After all, once one has signed up to truly global economic management, how can they defend, at a bottom line level, things such as Borders, Language, Culture and National Defense? Of course, one cannot since none of these things are "value added to" in the classical accounting sense.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world....

bttt

But – but – we have to have a one world government or we won’t be able to join the Federation of Planets!

"Sustainable" is code speak for "Preserve the elite and the status quo".

But this is beyond the "promises" of this system apparently.
The promise is subject to transmogrification.

bttt

Please, please, please NO Colin Powell on the ticket in 2004. Please.

bttt

Sustainable development is the globalists code word for controlled development

another code phrase in the article: doubling the funds

What is the definition of 'controlled development' as you use it?

It means killing people because the environment supposedly cannot support them when we all know the environment is not central but engineering is central to development. Dominion over nature and not the reverse.

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/08/19/arsf081902.htm

U. S. Department of Energy promotes "sustainable development" in accordance with United Nations' scheme
By Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online
Published 08. 18. 02 at 20:26 Sierra Time

The U. S. Department of Energy has joined in promoting the concept of "sustainable development", as revealed by their website. One of the "solutions" offered is "relocation" of property owners. This is something we are seeing on a local level here in Clallam County, Washington.[1]

“Sustainable Development” was first introduced by Maurice Strong, socialist, senior adviser to the Commission on Global Governance and driving force behind the concept of “sustainability”. When introducing the term at the 1992 Rio Conference (Earth Summit II), he stated: Industrialized countries [Americans] 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 pattern 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.”[2] Strong also explains in an essay that the concept of sovereignty has to yield in favor of the “new imperatives of global environmental cooperative.”

Following are some alarming excerpts from the U.S. Department of Energy's website:

http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/disaster/disintro.shtml ...Development continues unabated in the riskiest of areas, along the coasts and floodplains in the U.S. Communities in these high-risk regions, by definition, are not sustainable. Residents cannot count on the communities' survival for generations to come. Some live in fear that the next rain or wind storm could mean the end of normal life. These are people and communities at risk, locked in a costly, life-threatening gamble with the environment.... ...Sustainable development offers a way out. For some communities, the only solution is relocation, moving entirely off the floodplain, out of harm's way. For others, sustainable development means restricting new construction in particularly vulnerable areas, elevating structures to remove the threat of flooding, or building smarter, stronger buildings that are more hazard-resistant... ...While at first glance this facet of sustainable development may seem unrelated to disaster prevention, in truth they're intricately tied. An increasing body of evidence points to human energy use - specifically the burning of fossil fuels - as a factor in global climate change. Global climate change, in turn, may be at least partially responsible for the increased number and severity of storms. By making efficient use of energy resources, disaster-prone communities that employ sustainable development are also doing their part to slow global warming and temper the very storms that threaten them.... ...Striving for sustainability is a daunting task, even for those communities that aren't disaster-prone. Changing the way we use resources and approach development is slow-going and often frustrating...

The Dept. of Energy bases much of its rhetoric on the false premise that humans are the cause of "global warming" - when in fact, global warming is a theory, not scientifically proven. See Global Warming Models Labeled 'Fairy Tale' By Team of Scientists.[3]

The insurance industry has been pulled into the game of “Sustainable Development”, too. The website states: “Increasingly, the insurance industry is taking an interest in global climate change as a possible contributor to the dramatic rise in costly natural disasters. Industry leaders share with advocates of sustainable development a desire to mitigate weather-related damages and make communities stronger. Insurance and The Natural Sciences: Partners in the Public Interest, a speech presented in September 1996 by Franklin W. Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, further explains this ‘insurance connection.’”

As a “public/private” partnership, the move toward fascism continues.[4]

The Dept. of Energy website refers the reader to the United Nations for more information. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, through Global Change, a magazine about climate change and ozone depletion published by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security.

Action you can take:

Write to President Bush and request that he reverse the "Sustainable Development" trend in the agencies he controls. Find contact information here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[1] See ‘Contentious’ river property owners unwilling to sell, but some feel they have no choice and Citizens speak out against river buyout; county to proceed with grant application anyway

[2] Agenda 21 stresses “ Improving human settlement management; Promoting sustainable land-use planning and management; Promoting sustainable energy and transport systems in human settlements, to name a few – in other words, “managing humans” is the goal at a global level.

[3] See also Another Study Debunks Global Warming. Two new studies of temperatures and ice cap movement in that same area indicate that is not the case. In fact, Antarctica is becoming colder. Dr. Peter Dorman and his team of scientists have determined that since 1986, temperatures have been dropping an average of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and similar downturns have occurred since 1978 in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of east Antarctica. When the scientists noticed that “glacial ice wasn’t melting, streams weren’t flowing, lakes were shrinking and microorganisms were disappearing, they decided to expand their data collection and discovered that “Antarctica as a whole had gotten considerably colder." The study seems to confirm what 17,000 scientists have previously determined; there is no “global warming.”

[4] Fascism defined: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism.” (The American College Dictionary, c. 1951, P 438)