Unified Serenity
21st May 2012, 17:38
Another thread was recently started which asked a great question about good works and such that celebrities are doing and who seem awake. I did not want to derail it by my opinions about some of the organizations listed in one members response, so I felt a new thread was appropriate because it covers a different subject and that is how some causes / groups use feel good terms and express great things, but when someone looks more deeply at their funding and efforts, things that support the taking of personal property and liberty are at their core. It's all about the famed Agenda 21 which goes right back to socialism and the state / government controlling every aspect of your life and choices.
So, lets look at Agenda 21 and various organizations, I'm sure many more can be added to this list:
Lots of organizations claim to be for good causes, but many are just compartments of Agenda 21. I'm sure we can point to good works done by each, but I'm equally sure we can find an agenda meant to strip people of rights and get government funding or more regulations which cripple the American people.
let's take a look atvarious groups / ngo's in public service
AGENDA 21
The official U.S. delegation that endorsed these recommendations includes familiar names. Carla A. Hills, then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development became George Bush's Chief trade negotiator. William K. Reilly, then-head of the Conservation Foundation, became Bush's Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Among the NGOs (non-government organizations) present, were: International Planned Parenthood Federation; World Federation of United Nations Associations; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); World Association of World Federalists; Friends of the Earth; National Audubon Society; National Parks and Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; and the Sierra Club.1 (http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm#1)
These ideas came to America in the form of the Federal Land Use Planning Act which failed twice in Congress during the 1970s. Federal regions were created and the principles of the UN land policy were implemented administratively to the maximum extent possible. NGOs were at work even then, lobbying for the implementation of UN land policy at the state and local level. Both Florida and Oregon enacted state Comprehensive Planning Acts. Florida created state districts and multi-county agencies to govern land and water use. Most states, however, were slow to embrace the UN initiative toward centralized planning and land management.
The foundation for the propaganda campaign may be found in three publications published jointly by the UN and its NGO collaborators: World Conservation Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1980); Caring for the Earth, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1991); and Global Biodiversity Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WRI, 1992). These documents, along with Our Common Future, the report of the 1987 Brundtland Commission (UN Commission on Environment and Development) set the stage for Earth Summit II, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
This conference produced Agenda 21, the ultimate plan of action to save the world from human activity. The document echos the 1976 document on land use policy, though in somewhat muted terms. From Section II, Chapter 10 (page 84).
Under the UN's concept of land and resource management, the owner is not even considered as one who may have a right to determine how his land is to be used. It is a higher authority that represents the "community" to whom "proof" must be offered that a proposed use is justified. This process effectively separates the right of ownership from the right of use, an objective discussed in Recommendation D.5(c)(v) of the 1976 document. And who, exactly, is this "higher authority" to whom proof must be presented? The authority envisioned by the UN is not local elected officials, but rather local "stakeholder councils" dominated by NGO professionals.
Most Americans are totally unaware of this relentless, 20-year campaign by the UN to gain control over land use around the world. Many people believe that the UN is a distant, benevolent do-good organization that is expensive, but which has no direct affect on America. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is now clear that the UN's land use policies, though refined over time, have had a predetermined objective from the very beginning. That objective -- as bizarre as it may sound -- is to place all land and natural resources under the ultimate authority of the UN. The official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, calls for placing "the global commons" under the direct authority of the UN Trusteeship Council, and defines "global commons" to be: "The atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."6 (http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm#6) Moreover, the UN Trusteeship Council is to be selected from "civil society" representatives. The Commission on Global Governance also calls for the creation of a new "Petitions Council" which would receive petitions from "Stakeholder Councils" in each nation for the purpose of directing the petitions to the correct UN agency for resolution and enforcement actions.
The objectives are real, published in official documents, and the process is well underway. The strategy originated with the IUCN, WWF, and the WRI, and is being advanced at the policy level through UN organizations, international treaties and agreements, and on the ground through a massive organization of "civil society" NGOs. Here, only the highest peaks of UN activity have been identified. Virtually every activity, conference, and action plan devised by the UN since the early 1970s has been aiming toward the ultimate objective of eventual global governance founded upon the principles of collectivism, central planning, and omnipotent enforcement, disguised by the language of equity, social justice, and environmental protection.
Sadly, American policy has failed to honor the Constitutional commitment to life, liberty and property. The next four years in America may well be the historic watershed which will be seen by future generations as the point from which the blessings of freedom were shared with the entire world, or the point from which the world began its descent into global tyranny.
From: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htmhttp://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm
Most of us understand that Rockefeller is one of the highest placed elite and is in league with Soros, Morgans, Rothschild, and so many more players on the world chess board. It is logical to understand that he supports organizations and groups that further their interests, the banksters of the world, let's see some of the Rockefeller associations:
"David Rockefeller was the connection and influence to the Earth Charter and Maurice Strong of Canada. In 1972 Strong was Secretary General of the first Earth Summit in Stockholm. This led to the creation of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) 40 in 1972. Strong was UNEP's first Exec. Director. At the same time Strong served as the Director of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).41 The IUCN was accredited by the UN in 1946 to become its "scientific advisor" and was made up of various government scientists. Within the IUCN, the EPA, USFWS (who administers The US Endangered Species Act), Nat. Park Service, US Forest Service, and Nat. Ocean and Atmosphere Adm. huddle behind closed doors with the Sierra Club, National Audubon, National Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environ. Defense Fund, etc. to plan and implement this global agenda and the new global ethics from above and below. The IUCN wrote the Convention on Biodiversity 42 and created the pantheistic pseudoscience called "conservation biology" to "prove" earth's ecosystems were being mortally wounded by human use. The IUCN also founded the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) which pass the banner back and fourth in developing and promoting treaties and agreements ... " 43
Let's see about the Green Agenda:
I. Institutions Behind The Greening of America
In search for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…
The Club of Rome
In “The Greening of America Part 1- How Did It Happen?” (http://discerningtoday.org/greening_of_america1.htm), Dr. Michael Coffman (Ph.D. forester), notes that the “Greening of America” with its attendant conversion to Regional Governance, U.N. Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century), and Sustainable Development, began with the creation of the United Nations in 1945. In 1946, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was formed as the primary scientific adviser to the UN on environmental issues. It was founded by Julien Huxley, who was also a founder of UNESCO- United Nations Education, Scientfic and Cultural Organization. Members of the IUCN today include over 880 governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) in 133 countries. In the U.S., IUCN members include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service. Other IUCN members are the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP), the UN Development Program (UNDP), UNESCO, as well as a host of NGOs, including the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Two other major international environmental organizations were later created to also serve as advisers to the UN: the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the World Resources Institute (WRI). Figure 1 (below) illustrates how federal agencies today cooperate with environmental groups to implement strategies devised by the United Nations in concert with the IUCN, WWF, and WRI. Coffman notes that almost every strategy implemented during the past 30 years (1978 to 2008) has originated with this “unholy alliance.”
In “Diplomatic Immunity for the Sierra Club?” (http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly/coffman.htm), Dr. Coffman notes that when President Clinton signed Executive Order 12986 in 1996, he extended diplomatic immunity to the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). This means no lawsuits can be brought by Americans against the IUCN. Coffman asks the question: Since the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, etc. are members of the IUCN, does this give them diplomatic immunity from lawsuits as well?
http://sites.google.com/site/waterwatchalliance/image004.gif
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Regional government is the method by which the global ruling elite is slowly dismantling the sovereignty and constitutional protections of the world’s nations. In “Regionalism: Sneaking America into World Government,” Jakie Patru (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/regionalism/sneaking.htm) notes that using United Nations dictates, globalists have divided the planet into ten regions. North America is Region 1, South America is Region 6, etc. As has already been accomplished in Europe with the European Union, their plan calls for merging the North and South American regions through establishing trade agreements like the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) and a common currency.
The process of regionalizing America began long ago. In a 1969 press release, President Nixon designated ten federal regions, purportedly to “streamline the structure and processes of federal agencies in the field.” Each region was to have an appointed chairman (bureaucrats accountable only to Washington, D.C.) for its Federal Regional Council. Federal Regional Councils were further defined and legitimized in Nixon’s Executive Order 11647 of 1972 (http://www.sweetliberty.org/beware_metro.html).
Nixon’s executive order is in direct contravention of Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” (Webster defines a republican form of government as one in which “the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people- the electorate- and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them”). Establishment of regional government also violates Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates: “New states may be admitted by Congress into this Union; but no new State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of Congress.”" http://sites.google.com/site/waterwatchalliance/agenda21
Agenda 21 is being implemented through the use of facilitated stakeholder consensus councils, not by vote. These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a state Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and that implement a predetermined outcome affecting a region or a neighborhood. Members of a Soviet council are chosen by virtue of their willingness to comply with that outcome and their one-mindedness with the group. State Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy, whether it be socialism or government-business (public-private) partnerships. Initially, soviets seem innocuous. The police state that associates with state soviets arise when the soviet web is sufficiently in place.
Transforming America: Sustainable Development www.freedom21santacruz.net/thereport/Transforming_America.pdf (http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/thereport/Transforming_America.pdf)
So, lets look at Agenda 21 and various organizations, I'm sure many more can be added to this list:
Lots of organizations claim to be for good causes, but many are just compartments of Agenda 21. I'm sure we can point to good works done by each, but I'm equally sure we can find an agenda meant to strip people of rights and get government funding or more regulations which cripple the American people.
let's take a look atvarious groups / ngo's in public service
AGENDA 21
The official U.S. delegation that endorsed these recommendations includes familiar names. Carla A. Hills, then-Secretary of Housing and Urban Development became George Bush's Chief trade negotiator. William K. Reilly, then-head of the Conservation Foundation, became Bush's Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Among the NGOs (non-government organizations) present, were: International Planned Parenthood Federation; World Federation of United Nations Associations; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN); World Association of World Federalists; Friends of the Earth; National Audubon Society; National Parks and Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; and the Sierra Club.1 (http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm#1)
These ideas came to America in the form of the Federal Land Use Planning Act which failed twice in Congress during the 1970s. Federal regions were created and the principles of the UN land policy were implemented administratively to the maximum extent possible. NGOs were at work even then, lobbying for the implementation of UN land policy at the state and local level. Both Florida and Oregon enacted state Comprehensive Planning Acts. Florida created state districts and multi-county agencies to govern land and water use. Most states, however, were slow to embrace the UN initiative toward centralized planning and land management.
The foundation for the propaganda campaign may be found in three publications published jointly by the UN and its NGO collaborators: World Conservation Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1980); Caring for the Earth, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1991); and Global Biodiversity Strategy, (UNEP, IUCN, WRI, 1992). These documents, along with Our Common Future, the report of the 1987 Brundtland Commission (UN Commission on Environment and Development) set the stage for Earth Summit II, the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
This conference produced Agenda 21, the ultimate plan of action to save the world from human activity. The document echos the 1976 document on land use policy, though in somewhat muted terms. From Section II, Chapter 10 (page 84).
Under the UN's concept of land and resource management, the owner is not even considered as one who may have a right to determine how his land is to be used. It is a higher authority that represents the "community" to whom "proof" must be offered that a proposed use is justified. This process effectively separates the right of ownership from the right of use, an objective discussed in Recommendation D.5(c)(v) of the 1976 document. And who, exactly, is this "higher authority" to whom proof must be presented? The authority envisioned by the UN is not local elected officials, but rather local "stakeholder councils" dominated by NGO professionals.
Most Americans are totally unaware of this relentless, 20-year campaign by the UN to gain control over land use around the world. Many people believe that the UN is a distant, benevolent do-good organization that is expensive, but which has no direct affect on America. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is now clear that the UN's land use policies, though refined over time, have had a predetermined objective from the very beginning. That objective -- as bizarre as it may sound -- is to place all land and natural resources under the ultimate authority of the UN. The official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighborhood, calls for placing "the global commons" under the direct authority of the UN Trusteeship Council, and defines "global commons" to be: "The atmosphere, outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life."6 (http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm#6) Moreover, the UN Trusteeship Council is to be selected from "civil society" representatives. The Commission on Global Governance also calls for the creation of a new "Petitions Council" which would receive petitions from "Stakeholder Councils" in each nation for the purpose of directing the petitions to the correct UN agency for resolution and enforcement actions.
The objectives are real, published in official documents, and the process is well underway. The strategy originated with the IUCN, WWF, and the WRI, and is being advanced at the policy level through UN organizations, international treaties and agreements, and on the ground through a massive organization of "civil society" NGOs. Here, only the highest peaks of UN activity have been identified. Virtually every activity, conference, and action plan devised by the UN since the early 1970s has been aiming toward the ultimate objective of eventual global governance founded upon the principles of collectivism, central planning, and omnipotent enforcement, disguised by the language of equity, social justice, and environmental protection.
Sadly, American policy has failed to honor the Constitutional commitment to life, liberty and property. The next four years in America may well be the historic watershed which will be seen by future generations as the point from which the blessings of freedom were shared with the entire world, or the point from which the world began its descent into global tyranny.
From: http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htmhttp://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/unproprts.htm
Most of us understand that Rockefeller is one of the highest placed elite and is in league with Soros, Morgans, Rothschild, and so many more players on the world chess board. It is logical to understand that he supports organizations and groups that further their interests, the banksters of the world, let's see some of the Rockefeller associations:
"David Rockefeller was the connection and influence to the Earth Charter and Maurice Strong of Canada. In 1972 Strong was Secretary General of the first Earth Summit in Stockholm. This led to the creation of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) 40 in 1972. Strong was UNEP's first Exec. Director. At the same time Strong served as the Director of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).41 The IUCN was accredited by the UN in 1946 to become its "scientific advisor" and was made up of various government scientists. Within the IUCN, the EPA, USFWS (who administers The US Endangered Species Act), Nat. Park Service, US Forest Service, and Nat. Ocean and Atmosphere Adm. huddle behind closed doors with the Sierra Club, National Audubon, National Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environ. Defense Fund, etc. to plan and implement this global agenda and the new global ethics from above and below. The IUCN wrote the Convention on Biodiversity 42 and created the pantheistic pseudoscience called "conservation biology" to "prove" earth's ecosystems were being mortally wounded by human use. The IUCN also founded the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the World Resources Institute (WRI) which pass the banner back and fourth in developing and promoting treaties and agreements ... " 43
Let's see about the Green Agenda:
I. Institutions Behind The Greening of America
In search for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…
The Club of Rome
In “The Greening of America Part 1- How Did It Happen?” (http://discerningtoday.org/greening_of_america1.htm), Dr. Michael Coffman (Ph.D. forester), notes that the “Greening of America” with its attendant conversion to Regional Governance, U.N. Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century), and Sustainable Development, began with the creation of the United Nations in 1945. In 1946, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was formed as the primary scientific adviser to the UN on environmental issues. It was founded by Julien Huxley, who was also a founder of UNESCO- United Nations Education, Scientfic and Cultural Organization. Members of the IUCN today include over 880 governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) in 133 countries. In the U.S., IUCN members include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service. Other IUCN members are the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP), the UN Development Program (UNDP), UNESCO, as well as a host of NGOs, including the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Two other major international environmental organizations were later created to also serve as advisers to the UN: the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the World Resources Institute (WRI). Figure 1 (below) illustrates how federal agencies today cooperate with environmental groups to implement strategies devised by the United Nations in concert with the IUCN, WWF, and WRI. Coffman notes that almost every strategy implemented during the past 30 years (1978 to 2008) has originated with this “unholy alliance.”
In “Diplomatic Immunity for the Sierra Club?” (http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly/coffman.htm), Dr. Coffman notes that when President Clinton signed Executive Order 12986 in 1996, he extended diplomatic immunity to the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). This means no lawsuits can be brought by Americans against the IUCN. Coffman asks the question: Since the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, etc. are members of the IUCN, does this give them diplomatic immunity from lawsuits as well?
http://sites.google.com/site/waterwatchalliance/image004.gif
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Regional government is the method by which the global ruling elite is slowly dismantling the sovereignty and constitutional protections of the world’s nations. In “Regionalism: Sneaking America into World Government,” Jakie Patru (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/regionalism/sneaking.htm) notes that using United Nations dictates, globalists have divided the planet into ten regions. North America is Region 1, South America is Region 6, etc. As has already been accomplished in Europe with the European Union, their plan calls for merging the North and South American regions through establishing trade agreements like the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) and a common currency.
The process of regionalizing America began long ago. In a 1969 press release, President Nixon designated ten federal regions, purportedly to “streamline the structure and processes of federal agencies in the field.” Each region was to have an appointed chairman (bureaucrats accountable only to Washington, D.C.) for its Federal Regional Council. Federal Regional Councils were further defined and legitimized in Nixon’s Executive Order 11647 of 1972 (http://www.sweetliberty.org/beware_metro.html).
Nixon’s executive order is in direct contravention of Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” (Webster defines a republican form of government as one in which “the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people- the electorate- and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them”). Establishment of regional government also violates Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates: “New states may be admitted by Congress into this Union; but no new State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of Congress.”" http://sites.google.com/site/waterwatchalliance/agenda21
Agenda 21 is being implemented through the use of facilitated stakeholder consensus councils, not by vote. These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a state Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and that implement a predetermined outcome affecting a region or a neighborhood. Members of a Soviet council are chosen by virtue of their willingness to comply with that outcome and their one-mindedness with the group. State Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy, whether it be socialism or government-business (public-private) partnerships. Initially, soviets seem innocuous. The police state that associates with state soviets arise when the soviet web is sufficiently in place.
Transforming America: Sustainable Development www.freedom21santacruz.net/thereport/Transforming_America.pdf (http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/thereport/Transforming_America.pdf)