Skip to comments.Sustainable development explained: Joan Veon explains evolution of U.N. global control push
Posted on 03/30/2002 2:21:14 AM PST by JohnHuang2
I remember, when I heard the high schools in Montgomery County, Md., were advocating abortion and condom distribution to teens in the sex-education classes, how shocked I was. For five years prior to covering my first U.N. conference, I lobbied at the county and state level against these radical and immoral ideas. As I analyzed what our children were being taught, I was puzzled. I could see that these ideas came from the federal level to the state level and then down to the local level, but why? Where was our government getting these ideas?
It was not until I went to Cairo, Egypt, to cover the U.N. Conference on Population and Development that I realized the abortion/condom/sex-education agenda as well as the pro-homosexual agenda came from the international level the United Nations. I was amazed. Just who was the U.N. to tell us what our children should and should not do? I remember the press briefing by the powerful president of the World Bank, Lewis Preston. Dressed in a suit costing thousands of dollars, Preston told reporters that all future loans from the World Bank to developing countries would be dependent on whether or not they were reducing their population. Furthermore, as he discussed what goes on in a person's bedroom, I was appalled.
In Cairo, then Vice President Al Gore spoke, "As we reach a new stage of human history, there is a new urgency to tackle world-population questions [A] holistic approach must be applied to other problems such as the persistent high level of poverty. The solution to that problem will be found in a comprehensive approach that combines democracy, economic reform, low rates of inflation, low levels of corruption, sound environmental stewardship, free and open markets at home and access to markets in the developed countries." He reiterated over-population. It was the headline of the Sept. 13, 1994, conference paper, TERRAVIVA, that said it all: "Redefining the family, Nations embrace bold initiatives."
The phrase that summarizes the above agenda is "sustainable development," which comprises a major part of the radical environmental agenda. Where does it come from and what does it mean?
In 1974, the U.N. General Assembly called for the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources now called the World Conservation Union, and the World Wildlife Fund to "develop guidelines to help governments in the management of their living resources through the formulation of a world conservation strategy."
When it was finished in 1980, the aforementioned groups had also collaborated with the Food and Agricultural Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to prepare the "World Conservation Strategy." The aim of this roadmap is to "help advance the achievement of sustainable development." In 1980, the General Assembly endorsed the WCS. In 1983, the 38th session of the U.N. passed Resolution 38/161 that called upon the secretary-general to appoint a commission "to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development."
Known as the Brundtland Commission, after co-chair Gro Harlem Brundtland, its definition of sustainable development has been embraced throughout the U.N. family and world. Let me give you my quick definition:
The world has too many people, and if we do not reduce the number of people on the planet, they will use up and eat up all of the earth's resources so that future generations will be left without any resources. The United Nations is the only global body to monitor, manage and preserve the resources of the planet.
This concept fits hand and glove with the gaia hypothesis: It inverts perverts Genesis 1, 2 and 3. When I finally realized what sustainable development is, I understood what was happening in the schools and what our children are being taught.
In an effort to understand the philosophy behind sustainable development, I ended up looking at the 1977 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I found my answer in Chapter 2, Article 18, which states: "In the interests of the present and future generations, the necessary steps are taken in the USSR to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human development."
This basically describes the definition by the Brundtland Commission. Once I understood this, I had confirmation as to the roots and origination of the radical environmental agenda that is reshaping not only personal-property rights in America but also the value and meaning of family. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration set up the President's Commission on Sustainable Development.
Interestingly enough, one of the first people to commend the Brundtland Commission for bringing "sustainable development" into all our vocabularies was Prince Charles. He has been a major power behind Agenda 21 and sustainable development, pushing and shoving at every turn. For this reason, I have dubbed him, "the Sustainable Prince." You now hear "sustainable" being attached to everything: "sustainable agriculture," "sustainable economics" and "sustainable financing." When you see "sustainable," know that it implies complete control.
Yup. We'll use up this planet, and then find others to use up, too!
I don't know if this will be so (I HOPE so), but I love to use it when one of these "sustainable" tyrants opens up.
"Earth First! We'll log the other planets later."
These are the new Nazis and their goal of ridding the planet of vile humans like us makes the original Nazis look like pikers.
Serfs, tied to an owner: the "Sustainable Growth" dream for humanity.
TIKKUN Community c/o TIKKUN Magazine 2107 Van Ness Ave Suite 302, San Francisco, Ca. 94109Many of us are involved in social change movements like the women's movement, the environmental movement, the movement for economic justice, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, the labor movement, and the disability movement, to name just a few and have greatly admired the energy, courage, and moral commitment of the people we have worked with. We all have rejoiced in the significant victories that these movements have won.
...It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world...
George Washington, Farewell Address (1796)
Two-thirds of the Address is devoted to domestic matters and the rise of political parties, and Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation. He called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good, an "American character" wholly free of foreign attachments. The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances. While he called for maintenance of the treaty with France signed during the American Revolution, the problems created by that treaty ought to be clear. The United States must "act for ourselves and not for others."
Source: J.D. Richardson, ed., Compilation of Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol.1 (1907), 213.
We should withdraw from the UN, NATO, GATT, and all other postwar institutions. They have served there purpose and have succumbed to "mission creep". They have expanded beyond the original intent of their charters.
The United States was founded on certain principles. Their ought to be a balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Their ought to be a balance of power between national, regional, and local government. And the government which governs least governs best.
Now we are engaged in a battle in which the statists seek to overturn that legacy. They seek to empower the state and they abhor the success our forefathers bequeathed to us. Are we equal to the challenge?
Before the Taliban, before the Nazis, before the Soviets, there was evil -- racist, arrogant, murderous evil.
"Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves."
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.