UN » Survival and Beyond

Climategate Leaker: Civilization is Being Destroyed by Lying “Science” Elitists

Posted by Ed Corcoran News No Responses »

Mar 272013

Anonymous hero who exposed the global warming emails tells the world why he did it – and releases a huge final trove of secret conversations

By Ron Arnold – Eurasia Review

“What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably.”

This private musing between two climate scientist colleagues first surfaced along with a whole raft of embarrassing material in 2011, when the anonymous Climategate leaker who calls himself “Mr. FOIA” leaked his second set of emails from Britain’s disgraced Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Now, Mr. FOIA has emerged for a third time, sharing with the world not only his entire batch of 220,000 encrypted emails and documents but also, for the first time, his thoughts.

Mr. FOIA had previously released two batches of 5,000 files each in 2009 and 2011. This enormous third batch went to a network of friends for decoding, sorting and publication.

The first and second email batches contained conversations among “scientists” who appear to have dishonored a once respectable discipline, documenting that their claims of a “man-made global warming crisis” look exactly like deliberate contrivances for academic career gain, research funding and positions of political power in “the cause.”

Some big-name players are playing games with people’s lives and livelihoods.

Biggest Player. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the scientific panel whose reports contain the work of Glimategate figures – and are highly politicized and publicized to increase fear of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): “imminent catastrophic man-made climate change.” Many horrendously expensive and needless local, state, federal and international policies have flowed from IPCC’s flawed reports.

Most Powerful Symbol. Professor Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick Graph” was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report. It alleged that global temperatures were flat for a thousand years before 1900, but then radically increased because of AGW. The chart looks like a hockey stick, a long straight line that bends sharply upward at the end. With recent IPCC admissions that temperatures have not increased for at least the past 16 years, the curve has now plunged downward to become as flat as the rest of the hockey stick, which is where public trust in climate science is headed.

The Game. “The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it,” says an astounding, horrifying UK government-funded booklet leaked by Mr. FOIA titled “The Rules of the Game: Evidence base for the Climate Change Communications Strategy.” Written by the UK public relations firm Futerra for six UK agencies – including The Carbon Trust – for use by ethics and public relations tone-deaf scientists,

“The Rules” teaches sophisticated behavior change tactics, including: “Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works” … “Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations” … “Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance” and “Use emotions and visuals” (e.g., scare people with the Hockey Stick Graph). It treats the public like gullible idiots who can be frightened and manipulated by seemingly trustworthy scientists to believe in AGW. For a long time, it worked.

The Team. Phil Jones, head of the CRU; Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office (the national weather service, originally the Meteorological Office) was joined by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis section head of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Tom Wigley, also of NCAR; and the litigious Penn State University Hockey Stick originator, Michael Mann.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, sums their actions up this way. The team consciously distorted and actively suppressed critical knowledge, then furiously tried to hide their actions by conducting a vicious smear campaign to discredit critics.

Consciously distorted: NCAR’s Wigley once complained to Mann, “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.…”

Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office warned Phil Jones, head of the CRU: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere, unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary.… I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Suppressed critical knowledge: Phil Jones wrote, “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder [the U.S. Department of Energy] in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.” The U.S. government was colluding with the hiders, who received tens of millions of dollars over the years.
Jones wrote to Mann, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith Briffa re AR4 [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Mann’s global warming hockey team, showed crass disregard for the lying and hiding: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching, if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.” It’s more important to keep the career back-scratching team happy.

The distortion, spin, suppression and smear campaign went on for years. In fact, the revelations sparked a furious “hide the lies” denial campaign that ironically calls skeptics “deniers.” What the skeptics actually deny is that there has been much honest science involved in the IPCC process; that there is any evidence to support claims that we face an imminent climate crisis; and that humans are primarily responsible for weather and climate variations that have always been controlled by hundreds of complex, inter-related natural forces and processes.

“Hide the lies” generated lawsuits between climate science “believers” (what kind of real science requires belief?) and skeptics of “dangerous man-made planetary warming” – along with ridiculous conspiracy theories such as “Big Oil hired evil hackers in a plot to discredit angelic climate scientists.”

Mr. FOIA denies these absurd allegations in his 3.0 message. “I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again,” he said. “That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.”

“The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science – on the contrary,” Mr. FOIA continued. “I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.” Reveal what he had discovered, or keep it to himself and let the lies continue?

Didn’t he fear discovery? “When I had to balance the interests of my own safety, the privacy and career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades … millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. … the first two weren’t the decisive concern.”

Why did he do it? His answer was both angry and anguished: “Climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material ‘might’ …. The price of ‘climate protection’ with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations,” he wrote. “We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not [taking] away from something and someone else.”

That’s the most important statement so far in the decades-old climate debate: You’re forcing us backward into poverty and ignorance – for nothing, except to further your careers, funding and power.

Less than a week later, London’s Mail on Sunday newspaper ran an outraged feature based on the British Meteorological Office’s recent admission that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in more than 15 years. Citing a chart of predicted and actual temperatures, the Mail noted: “Official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed. The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The chart shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions. The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data.”

Is it improper to label the people responsible for this costly, miserable catastrophe as “eco-thugs”? And should we worry that the latest no-real-energy “energy security” proposal from the White House is telling us that President Obama has become America’s “Eco-thug in Chief,” who will continue to peddle fraudulent science and nearly worthless renewable energy to further his agenda?

It’s worth pondering.

A set of pro forma “investigations” claim to have exonerated PSU’s Mann. The internal PSU inquiry – with no impartial truth-seekers involved – was not going to harm their grant-getting cash cow Mann; instead, it whitewashed the evidence to ensure the preferred conclusion. Professional science groups that relied upon public funding for their financial survival fell in line behind a huge Tom Sawyer campaign of “exoneration.” There was no exoneration.

Summaries presented in court filings for the case of American Tradition Institute v. University of Virginia and Michael Mann – which demands release of Michael Mann’s emails – say, “Mann has never been exonerated…. Exoneration requires investigation; investigation requires pursuit aimed at discovering material facts. Mann’s employer since 2005, Penn State University, has conducted no such thing. Neither has the University of Virginia.”

The same conclusion applies to the UK’s Muir Russell and Oxburgh inquiries, which didn’t even mention Mann, because they were “investigating” only employees of the CRU.

I asked Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and attorney in the ATI v. UVa/Mann lawsuit for his take on the leaker’s message. He told me, “Whatever prompted ‘Mr. FOIA,’ I take it as a statement that, so far, the courts have failed us, as have our political institutions – and he has concluded that those in the public who have resisted the climate industry agenda should now have a chance to review these taxpayer-financed records, which are the subject of a remarkable campaign to subvert transparency laws.”

We ourselves can’t avoid blame for the science disaster uncovered by Mr. FOIA. As Peter Foster of London’s Financial Times noted, we didn’t heed President Dwight Eisenhower’s warning. “Most people are aware of Ike’s warning in 1961 about the military-industrial complex,” Foster wrote. Our fatal error was to ignore what he said next: “In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” [emphasis added]

Americans won’t take captivity. It’s time to demote our climate masters to our humble servants. We won’t kill them. But we should sentence them to prison – or Siberia, where they’ll wish the climate was warming.

Examiner columnist Ron Arnold is executive VP of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Portions of this article originally appeared in the Washington Examiner and are used by permission.

Set of 2 Large Pop-Up Mesh Screen Food Cover Tents - Keep Out Flies, Bugs, Mosquitos - Reusable - Colors May Vary

by American Co. (18) Buy new: ~~$10.99~~ $2.97

Agenda 21 Being Shoved Down the Throats of Local Communities All Over America

Posted by Ed Corcoran News No Responses »

Jan 032013

Have you ever heard of Agenda 21? If not, don’t feel bad, because most Americans haven’t. It is essentially a blueprint for a “sustainable world” that was introduced at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. Since then, it has been adopted by more than 200 counties and it has been modified and updated at other UN environmental summits. The philosophy behind Agenda 21 is that our environmental problems are the number one problem that we are facing, and that those problems are being caused by human activity. Therefore, according to Agenda 21 human activity needs to be tightly monitored, regulated and controlled for the greater good. Individual liberties and freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of the planet. If you are thinking that this sounds like it is exactly the opposite of what our founding fathers intended when they established this nation, you would be on the right track. Those that promote the philosophy underlying Agenda 21 believe that human activity must be “managed” and that letting people make their own decisions is “destructive” and “dangerous”. Sadly, the principles behind Agenda 21 are being rammed down the throats of local communities all over America, and most of the people living in those communities don’t even realize it.

So how is this being done? Well, after Agenda 21 was adopted, an international organization known as the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI) was established to help implement the goals of Agenda 21 in local communities. One thing that they learned very quickly was that the “Agenda 21″ label was a red flag for a lot of people. It tended to create quite a bit of opposition on the local level.

As they try to implement their goals, they very rarely use the term “Agenda 21″ anymore. Instead, they use much more harmless sounding labels such as “smart growth”, “comprehensive land use planning” and especially “sustainable development”.

So just because something does not carry the Agenda 21 label does not mean that it is not promoting the goals of Agenda 21.

The goals of Agenda 21 are not only being implemented in the United States. This is a massive worldwide effort that is being coordinated by the United Nations. An article that was posted on RedState.comdiscussed some of the history of Agenda 21…

In simplified terms, Agenda 21 is a master blueprint, or guidelines, for constructing “sustainable” communities. Agenda 21 was put forth by the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development, and was adopted by over 200 countries (signed into “soft law” by George Bush Sr.) at the United Nations Rio Conference in 1992. In 1994 the President’s Council for Sustainable Development was created via Executive Order by Bill Clinton to begin coordinating efforts at the Federal level to make the US Agenda 21 compliant.

The same year that Bill Clinton established the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, the International Code Council was also created.

The International Code Council has developed a large number of “international codes” which are intended to replace existing building codes all over the United States. The following is a list of these codes from Wikipedia…

International Building Code
International Residential Code
International Fire Code
International Plumbing Code
International Mechanical Code
International Fuel Gas Code
International Energy Conservation Code
ICC Performance Code
International Wildland Urban Interface Code
International Existing Building Code
International Property Maintenance Code
International Private Sewage Disposal Code
International Zoning Code
International Green Construction Code

These codes are very long and exceedingly boring, and those that write them know that hardly anyone will ever read them.

And for the most part, they contain a lot of things that are contained in existing building codes or that are common sense.

But a lot of poison has also been inserted into these codes. If you read them carefully, the influence of Agenda 21 is painfully obvious.

Unfortunately, even most of the local politicians that are adopting these codes don’t take the time to read them. Most of them just assume that they are “updating” their existing building codes.

So what often happens is that there will be fights in local communities between citizens that are concerned about the encroachment of Agenda 21 and local politicians who regard such talk as nonsense. The following is an example of what is happening all over the nation…

Summit Hill Borough Council last night unanimously adopted the “2012 edition of the International Property Maintenance Code,” but not before some audience members expressed vehement opposition to it.

An overflow crowd of 34 people attended the meeting, with some there to specifically voice their displeasure.

Sandy Dellicker, a borough resident, said she was against using an “international” maintenance code, arguing that it falls under the plan of Agenda 21 of the United Nations; an agenda for the 21st Century.

She said, “UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world.”

“This is not a conspiracy theory,” she told the council. “This is for real.”

She said the International Property Maintenance Code had been adopted in Montgomery County, but the county “has already gotten rid of it” because of its dictatorial direction.

“This is not what Summit Hill and the United States is about,” she said.

Council members pooh-poohed her assessment. “In my opinion, the International Property Maintenance Code is to protect citizens,” said Council President Michael Kokinda.

It would be great if these codes were just about public safety. But that is simply not the case. Sadly, these codes are often used to fine or even imprison homeowners that haven’t done anything wrong. Sometimes “code violations” are even used as justification to legally steal property from law-abiding homeowners. A post on the Freedom Reigns Radio blog detailed some of the things that are often done in the name of “code enforcement”…

1) The ‘Code Official’ – anybody the jurisdiction calls – a ‘Code Official’ – is the sole interpreter – no due process – Gestapo!

2) Every day an offense occurs is a separate mandatory misdemeanor – $555/day and/or a month in jail in Charleston, W.Va. They can fine you out of your home and jail you at their whim!

3) Anything the ‘Code Official’ says is not in good working condition – sticky window, dented or plugged gutter, torn window screen – whatever he says is not in good working order – hundreds of dollars of fines per day and/or jail time – usually a month – for every day the offense occurs.

4) Any unsanitary condition – whatever the ‘Code Official’ says is an ‘unsanitary condition’ – empty pop cans – puddles – dog droppings on your property – same deal – same fines and/or jail time – every day.

5) Any plant that the ‘Code Official’ says is a ‘noxious weed’ – same deal – same fines and/or jail time – every day. He can steal raw land.

6) He can fine you out of your home and jail you with no due process. Any court proceedings are window dressing as there is no remedy associated with this ‘code.’

7) It can be ‘adopted’ – just by an ‘administrative decree.’
WITHOUT COURT ACTION OR NOTICE THE CODE OFFICIAL CAN:
1) Enter your house whenever he – the sole interpreter – deems reasonable.
2) Prevent you from entering your house.
3) Tear your house down with your stuff in it.
4) Bill you for the demolition.
5) Place a lien on it for fines and/or demolition charges – steal it.
6) And ‘best’ of all, no insurance I know of will cover your losses.

You’re left w/a house and your ‘stuff’ in a landfill – and any remaining unpaid mortgage, any remaining fines, any remaining taxes, and any remaining demolition charges after they steal your property

These codes restrict what homeowners can do with their own properties in thousands of different ways. If you rebel against one of the codes, the penalties can be extremely harsh.

And there is often “selective enforcement” of these codes. That means that they will leave most people alone but they will come down really hard on people that they do not like. You could even end up with a SWAT team on your doorstep.

Just ask some of the people who have been through this kind of thing.

Even if you have your mortgage completely paid off, that doesn’t mean that you really “own” your property. If you don’t pay your taxes and obey the “codes”, you could lose your property very rapidly.

The philosophy behind all of this is the same philosophy behind Agenda 21. The elite believe that you cannot be trusted to do the “right thing” with your own property and that your activity must be “managed” for the greater good. They believe that by controlling you and restricting your liberties that they are “saving the planet”.

Unfortunately, you can probably expect this to get a whole lot worse in the years ahead. Our society is shifting from one that cherishes individual liberties and freedoms to one that is fully embracing collectivism. So our politicians will likely be making even more of our decisions for us as the years move forward.

Do any of you out there have any “code violation horror stories” to share? If so, please share them with us by posting a comment below…

Set of 2 Large Pop-Up Mesh Screen Food Cover Tents - Keep Out Flies, Bugs, Mosquitos - Reusable - Colors May Vary

by American Co. (18) Buy new: ~~$10.99~~ $2.97

The Global Food Crisis You Need to Prepare for is Imminent

Posted by Ed Corcoran News, Videos No Responses »

Dec 202012

The Global Food Crisis You Need to Prepare for is Imminent

Marc Slavo SHTFplan.com

Grocery stores may still be stocked with food and most Americans are still able to keep their family’s fed, but with 50 million Americans requiring government assistance to do so and prices on a seemingly never ending rise, how long will it be before the situation becomes unmanageable?

The global food crisis you need to prepare for is now imminent.

For the past six years the world has consumed more food than it has produced. As a result, global food reserves are at the lowest level since 1974, when the world had 4 billion people. Today we have 7 billion.

Like a person living paycheck-to-paycheck, the world is now living year-to-year when it comes to food supplies.

According to the U.N., world grain reserves are so dangerously low that severe weather in the U.S. or other food exporting countries could trigger a major hunger crisis next year. The U.N. also warns that supplies are so tight and reserves are so low that we literally have no room for an unexpected event in 2013.

…

We are already seeing prices rise significantly this year, with corn rising 31%, soy beans rising 28%, and red meat rising 20%.

In the west higher food prices are a manageable burden for now.

Americans spend about 10% of their after tax incomes on food… But in the developing world some households are spending up to 50% of their income on food, which is usually the basic essentials like bread.

An increase in food prices can mean riots, revolutions and chaos.

Video excerpts via PeakResources.org

Watch: The Global Food Crisis & Bernanke’s Recipe for Disaster: Three Major Disasters That Could Lead to a Food Crisis Around the World

Any number of disasters, natural or man-made, can cause food prices to skyrocket to such levels that the most basic essentials like corn, rice, wheat, and soy beans become almost impossible to acquire for the majority of the population.

Another prolonged drought, a war with Iran that restricts the flow of oil, or a rapid collapse in the US dollar’s purchasing power could all lead to unprecedented worldwide pressure almost immediately.

We’ve seen what happens in countries where the populace is forced to spend 50% or more of their earned income on food. Despite how the media portrays it, the riots we’ve seen in the middle east, Greece and Spain have been largely fueled by cost increases in food and the inability of individuals to provide the basic essentials for their families.

Americans have been, for the most part, immune from these pressures thus far. But the social safety nets are very quickly becoming overburdened and prices at grocery stores are rising consistently and without pause.

With the consumer economy coming to a standstill, continued central bank monetary easing, job losses and wage reductions, and the urbanization of millions of people, it is only a matter of time before Americans are forced to spend 50% or more of their paychecks just to stay alive.

When that happens, look out, because what comes next is something that, up until now, we’ve only experienced on television feeds from the comfort of our living room couches.

Set of 2 Large Pop-Up Mesh Screen Food Cover Tents - Keep Out Flies, Bugs, Mosquitos - Reusable - Colors May Vary

by American Co. (18) Buy new: ~~$10.99~~ $2.97

Agenda 21 – The U.N.’s Environmental Dictatorship

Posted by Ed Corcoran News No Responses »

Sep 192012

Click the image to view full size

Under the guise of “saving the planet”, the United Nation’s Agenda 21 (the far-reaching plan to control every aspect of America’s natural resources) includes what areas of the county Americans will be allowed to live an recreate in the future. As I have mentioned numerous times on the show, they already have the areas mapped out which indicate the “forbidden zones” and areas where “habitation” will be allowed (see map to left) and will lead to the abolition of private property.

Under George Bush the elder, the United States signed into compliance with Agenda 21 at the “U.N. Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro back in 1992 and in 2011 Obama signed the “White House Rural Council” executive order (E.O. 13575) placing all of our rural lands and national resources (and about 16% of the population) under federal control.

Section One of 13575 states the following:

Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.

In other words: the “important role” the Federal Government has to play is in dictating to you how best to manage YOUR land, as according to the Rural Council states that continuing to allow the private stewardship of natural resources is an “unsustainable” practice.

For several years now, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) headed by international interests, such as Germany’s; ICLEI (the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) have been implementing Agenda 21 “harmonization” through imposing regulations in every state and county in the nation - except for Alabama, which recently sent ICLEI packing with the “Due Process for Property Rights Act” (SB 477) which was reported on Survival and Beyond back in June: Alabama – First State to Ban Agenda 21.

“The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21,’ ” the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

This is a major “sleeper” issue that is untouched by the mainstream media and under-reported by the alternative press, but if it continues to proceed unchecked, we could find ourselves living in an America where private property is abolished, where we are told where to live and ALL resources are strictly controlled and dispensed by the government and their globalist keepers!

The following is a brief article by frequent Survival and Beyond guest and strenuous Agenda 21 opponent; Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh:

I am not sure when subsequent generations, our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will no longer be permitted access in zones marked off-limits to human habitation and trespassing in accordance with the dictates of UN Agenda 21 and the now infamous Wildlands Project map.

The map was produced by Dr. Michael Coffman, editor of Discerning the Times Digest and NewsBytes and CEO of Sovereignty International, to stop the ratification of the international treaty on Convention on Biological Diversity one hour before the scheduled cloture and ratification vote. (Congressional Record S13790)

The mandate of the Convention of Biological Diversity draws buffer zones, core reserves and corridors to protect biodiversity. Areas in green will allow housing. Areas in yellow will be buffer zones, highly regulated with no homes and possible hiking. Red areas will be core reserves and corridors off-limits to human access and human habitation. There is already limited use of red areas via no management or resource harvesting through Wilderness, Critical Habitat, and Roadless Areas.

Dr. Coffman’s map also includes the Border 21/La Paz Sidebar Agreement of NAFTA, 120 mile wide international zone of cooperation, and Indian and military reservations.

The idea of a One World Government/Order and Agenda 21 has been around since the turn of the 20th century. To see written evidence, just look at the back of a one-dollar bill. Featured prominently under the Masonic pyramid are the Latin words, Novus Ordo Seclorum, the New World Order.

It was not until 1992, after numerous United Nations conferences around the globe spanning decades and a concerted effort by third world governments led by individuals like Maurice Strong and Gro Harlem Brundtland that the UN Agenda 21 became reality at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

This conference produced three documents: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (an international treaty), the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (an international treaty), and UN Agenda 21 (not a treaty but a “soft law”).

President Herbert Walker Bush signed along with 178 countries but refused to sign the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity because it required transfer of technology without recognition of proprietary rights. However, President Bush said, “It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.” I am sure the American people were very surprised or perhaps totally unaware that a U.S. President would pledge allegiance to a foreign body instead of the U.S. Constitution.

Set of 2 Large Pop-Up Mesh Screen Food Cover Tents - Keep Out Flies, Bugs, Mosquitos - Reusable - Colors May Vary

by American Co. (18) Buy new: ~~$10.99~~ $2.97

Alabama – First State to Ban Agenda 21

Posted by Ed Corcoran News No Responses »

Jun 072012

As I mentioned on the latest show, the state of Alabama has emerged as the first in the union to step up and reject the United Nations’ globalist “Agenda 21″. The plan – which has gradually taken root in every county in the U.S. – intends to nullify private property rights and take over rural and agricultural resources through non-governmental organization and foreign agencies (such as Germany’s ICLEI) under the guise of ”Sustainable Development” , “Smart Growth” and other so-called “green” initiatives to save the environment.

The U.N. seeks to abolish private property rights, usurp individual sovereignty and completely seize control over large expanses of American land and natural resources. Ultimately, the Agenda 21 objectives include the relocation of American citizens out of rural areas and into pre-designated “human settlement zones” located in urban areas, near railroad and other public transportation. The individual use of automobiles is to be “discouraged” while reduction of consumption is to be “encouraged” according to the language of the Agenda 21 manifesto (available here).

The United States government signed into compliance with Agenda 21 protocols back in 1992, and is complicit in facilitating its implementation through the signing of the “Rural Council” executive order, as well as numerous other regulatory and legislative measures that have been put in place and continue to be created.

States are bullied into complying with the mandates of these foreign and NGO agencies through fear of losing federal funding if they don’t play nice, while individuals and communities are being brainwashed into “species guilt” with global warming junk science and “eco-responsible” rhetoric. But it’s encouraging to see that Governor Robert Bentley did the right thing, signing SB 477 into law, kicking the globalists out of Alabama! Other states are waking up to the U.N. threat as well… Here in New Hampshire, similar legislation is making a fast-track through the state Congress and is expected to be passed soon, while other states, such as Arizona, are also making efforts to ban Agenda 21.

The following article from The New American reports the details of Alabama’s bold move:

(Alex Newman) Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21. Activists from across the political spectrum celebrated the measure’s approval as a significant victory against the UN “sustainability” plot, expressing hope that similar sovereignty-preserving measures would be adopted in other states as the nationwide battle heats up.

The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 legislation, known unofficially among some supporters as the “Due Process for Property Rights” Act, was approved unanimously by both the state House and Senate. After hesitating for a few days, late last month Republican Governor Robert Bentley finally signed into law the wildly popular measure — but only after heavy pressure from activists forced his hand.

Virtually no mention of the law was made in the establishment press. But analysts said the measure was likely the strongest protection against the UN scheme passed anywhere in America so far. The law, aimed at protecting private property rights, specifically prevents all state agencies and local governments in Alabama from participating in the global scheme in any way.

“The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to ‘Agenda 21,’ ” the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

The people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives — not UN bureaucrats — have the authority to develop the state’s environmental and development policies, the official synopsis of the law explains. Therefore, infringements on the property rights of citizens linked to “any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama” are also prohibited under the new measure.

Of course, as the law points out, the UN has enlisted a broad array of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations in its effort to foist Agenda 21 on the world — most notably a Germany-based group called ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. But the new measure takes direct aim at that problem, too: “the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from” any such entities, as defined in Agenda 21 documents.

“This bill, that would bar the state from taking over private property without due process, is intended to shelter Alabamians from the United Nations Agenda 21, a sustainable development initiative that some conservatives see as a precursor for the creation of a world government,” explained Alabama GOP Executive Director T.J. Maloney when announcing that it had been signed into law. The Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted a resolution earlier this year blasting the global scheme and urging policy makers to oppose it, and state parties have followed suit.

Public support for the Alabama law was overwhelming and bipartisan as citizens who had been terrorized by Agenda 21-linked schemes targeting their private property spoke out. But according to analysts and state Republican Party officials cited in press reports, Gov. Bentley was originally hesitant to sign the bill — almost certainly due to concerns over the potential loss of some federal funding.

The U.S. Senate, of course, has never formally ratified Agenda 21. But the executive branch — in conjunction with accomplices at the international, state, and local levels — has for two decades been quietly attempting to impose the plan on Americans by stealth, mostly using deceptive terms like “Smart Growth” and “Green.” And proponents of the global scheme consistently threaten that states seeking to protect citizens from the UN plot could end up losing some federal funds.

“Every time you take a dollar of federal money, there’s strings attached,” explained Ken Freeman, chairman of the Alabama-based group Alliance for Citizens Rights (ACR), an organization that fought hard to ensure that the Governor signed the bill into law. “We were originally walking soft on this issue, to tell you the truth, because when things were going our way, why change anything?”

But when Gov. Bentley did not immediately approve the bill, Freeman told a reporter, ACR turned the activism up a notch, urging citizens to contact the Governor’s office and express their support for the measure. The grassroots pressure paid off: Alabama became the first state to be officially shielded by law from UN-linked anti-property rights scheming.

“It seems that Agenda 21 does actually bring people together in communities — just not in the way the U.N. had hoped for,” remarkedJustice Gilpin-Green in a column for the conservative site Townhall, citing Freeman and other instrumental supporters of the effort. “Hopefully other states can mirror Alabama’s determined nature in passing their anti-Agenda 21 legislation. It was citizen awareness and direct action that finally brought about the needed changes last week and that same awareness and action will be needed for the future of every other state.”

Legislative analysts said the bill, sponsored by GOP state Sen. Gerald Dial, was extremely well crafted: protecting citizens and individual rights from UN decrees in a simple, straightforward manner that Agenda 21 advocates would have a hard time criticizing. Liberty-minded organizations and lawmakers are already examining the measure for potential use as a model in other states currently struggling to expel the global scheme and its myriad tentacles.

“Alabama House Bill 618 [SB 477] is a large step towards protecting Alabamians against UN meddling. It protects the due process rights of Alabamians. It keeps Constitutional Law above International Law,” noted Jason Baker, a Montgomery-based conservative pundit with the Examiner. “Now state after state awakens to the threat it poses to freedom and sovereignty.”

Across America, Tea Party groups, liberty-minded Democrats, libertarians, and a broad coalition of activists have been turning up the heat on Agenda 21. Tennessee, for example, adopted a bipartisan state resolution slamming the UN scheme as an “insidious” and “socialist” plot that is completely at odds with American traditions of limited government, individual freedom, private property, and self-governance under the Constitution. Numerous other states are pursuing similar measures.

A bill similar to Alabama’s seeking a complete ban on Agenda 21 and unconstitutional UN “sustainability” efforts in Arizona wasapproved overwhelmingly in the state Senate. The legislation died in the state House even after clearing several hurdles, however, when the legislative session ended before a final vote could be taken. New Hampshire is reportedly working on a bill to ban Agenda 21 that sailed through the state House last month.

Meanwhile, local governments across America — under intense pressure from citizens and activist groups — are slowly awakening to what critics call the “dangers” of the UN scheme. Dozens of cities and counties have withdrawn from ICLEI in recent years, and as awareness continues to grow, that trend is expected to accelerate.

The UN, however, is doubling down on its controversial plan. In June, governments from all over the world will be meeting in Rio de Janeiro for the so-called “Conference on Sustainable Development” — known as Rio+20 for short. According to official documents released by the global body, the summit, headed by Chinese Communist Sha Zukang, will be seeking to dramatically transform human civilization under the guise of environmentalism.

Production, education, consumption, individual rights, and even people’s thoughts will all be targeted under the global plan to create a so-called “green economy,” the UN admitted. But with the tidal wave of opposition in America growing stronger every single day, analysts expect fierce U.S. opposition — if not from the Obama administration, at least from the increasingly outraged citizenry.

Related articles:

Arizona Bill Would Ban UN Agenda 21 Within State

Tennessee Passes Resolution Slamming “Socialist” UN Agenda 21

Kansas Lawmakers Seek Resolution Against “Insidious” UN Agenda 21

EPA’s Plans for Implementing UN’s Agenda 21

What are the UN’s Agenda 21 and ICLEI?

Texas City Withdraws From ICLEI, UN “Agenda 21”

UN Report for Rio+20 Outlines Top-down “Green” World Order

Set of 2 Large Pop-Up Mesh Screen Food Cover Tents - Keep Out Flies, Bugs, Mosquitos - Reusable - Colors May Vary

by American Co. (18) Buy new: ~~$10.99~~ $2.97

Obama Grants Himself Power to Redistribute Sovereignty – Appoints “Atrocities Czar”

Posted by Ed Corcoran News No Responses »

May 012012

Through powers granted to himself, with the signing of Executive Order 13606, Obama has taken yet another step towards imperialism, and furthering the progress of the new world order using U.S. foreign policy as the conduit to impose United Nations mandates. Last week, Obama created a new government agency to act as an international police force, charged with identifying war crimes, crimes against humanity and other atrocities.

The agency, dubbed: “The White House Atrocities Prevention Board” (APB) will be staffed by senior gov’t officials from across several other agencies, and will meet regularly at the White House to formulate tactics on combating atrocities in foreign countries, under the pretext that atrocities committed by other nations against their own people is a serious risk to national security as well as a moral imperative.

While I abhor the subjugation, torture and genocide of ANY people, ANYWHERE in the world, to call this a matter of national security is flatly ludicrous. This seems more like another phase in the ongoing agenda of frightening Americans into giving up even more of the their freedoms while simultaneously granting the U.S. carte blanche to run roughshod over the sovereignty of other nations. All thinly veiled under the seemingly benevolent guise of protecting the citizens of the world from atrocities.

With the creation of the APB and the signing of the executive order, Obama has granted himself the power to intervene in the affairs of other countries whom the US deems to be committing atrocities against its own people. If the country won’t comply peacefully, the US will proceed to coerce compliance through UN-endorsed mandates outlined in the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, which stipulates the use of economic sanctions and military force.

This really isn’t anything new. It’s not like the US has never claimed humanitarian motives for engaging the military in wars and conflicts, without the approval of Congress. But now it has become official policy, and it redefines national sovereignty as a privilege that may be revoked by the US and UN at any time they see fit.

Obama has appointed White House National Security Advisor, Samantha Power to head the APB. A choice that has been met with some suspicion among critics, since she was the driving force responsible for the creation of the agency and developing the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine in the first place.

From The New American:

Apart from the unconstitutionality of this use of the executive order, there is something sinister in the selection of Samantha Power to spearhead the search for atrocities.

One source claims that the very existence of the APB is due to Power’s own persistence in convincing the White House that discovering atrocities should be a “core national-security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” The statement released concomitant with the issuing of the executive order evinces Power’s remarkable power of persuasion.

Samantha Power rose to prominence in government circles as part of her campaign to promote a doctrine known as the Responsibility to Protect. Notably, this philosophy was also espoused by Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian lawmaker who has publicly questioned the reality of the Holocaust and who was a dedicated lictor of the late leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization — Yasser Arafat.

Responsibility to Protect (also known as Responsibility to Act) is a doctrine advanced by the United Nations and is predicated on the proposition that sovereignty is a privilege not a right and that if any regime in any nation violates the prevailing precepts of acceptable governance, then the international community is morally obligated to revoke that nation’s sovereignty and assume command and control of the offending country.

There are three pillars of the United Nations’ backed Responsibility to Protect are:

A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities,
The international community has a responsibility to assist the state if it is unable to protect its population on its own.
If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
Records indicate that the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, of which Samantha Power is a co-founder, participated in the advisory board of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that was established by the Canadian government in September 2000 to address the growing problem of “mass atrocities.”

It was this “independent” commission that coined the term “responsibility to protect.”

Also of significance to the current examination of the newly-minted Atrocities Prevention Board and its chief, Samantha Power, is the fact that the latter is the founding executive director and the head of the Carr Center at the precise time it was helping to hammer out the details of the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect.

There are other more ominous threads in the tapestry depicting the relationship that exists among President Obama, Samantha Power, the Atrocities Prevention Board, the United Nations, and America’s official sponsorship of the Responsibility to Protect.

The worldwide leader in the promotion of this sovereignty stealing doctrine that Samantha Power worked to develop is the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect (GCR2P).

As published on its website, the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect’s mission is:

… to help transform the principle of the responsibility to protect into a practical guide for action in the face of mass atrocities. The GCR2P was founded by leading figures in government and academia, as well as by International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International, Refugees International, and WFM-Institute for Global Policy.   The GCR2P engages in advocacy around specific crises; conducts research designed to further understanding of R2P; recommends and supports strategies to consolidate the norm and help states build capacity; and works closely with NGOs, governments and regional bodies which are seeking to operationalize the responsibility to protect.

One of the biggest financial supporters of the GCR2P is the Open Society Institute which itself is a branch of the Open Society Foundation, an organization created by leftist financier and Rothschild benefactor, George Soros.

A quick perusal of the GCR2P website reveals that Soros’ group is one of a very small cadre of sponsors not affiliated with any government. The other two being the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (a substantial funder of National Public Radio) and Scott and Elena Lawlor.

Apart from providing financial backing to the Right to Protect, Soros personally believes in and promotes the philosophy. In an article published by Foreign Policy in 2004 entitled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations,” Soros presented his take on the principles that undergird the Right to Protect.

“[T]rue sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments,” Soros wrote.

And:

If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.

In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.

So deep are Soros’ roots in the Right to Protect family tree that Ramesh Thakur, one of the men credited with first uttering the term “responsibility to protect,” sits with Soros on several boards and is in fact a fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, which participates in international efforts with another institute founded by Soros.

The picture is darker still. Thakur, the co-author of the Right to Protect doctrine that is so dear to Atrocities Board leader Samantha Power, was quoted in a Canadian newspaper article published in March 2011 pushing for a “global rebalancing” and “international redistribution” of power that would usher in a “new world order.”

Seems that President Obama and those of his progressive ilk are not content with the forced redistribution of wealth, but insist on wresting control of all the governments of the world and assigning sovereignty to those who will commit to following the orders and heeding the policy directives of the United Nations, the Right to Protect crowd, and George Soros.

With the naming of Samantha Power to direct the Atrocities Prevention Board, President Barack Obama has now officially given Right to Protect the imprimatur of the United States of America. Let us hope that our own national government is not being purposefully mis-managed in such a way as to invite a revocation of our sovereignty by the United Nations under the authority of the Right to Protect nor a domestic demonstration of what Samantha Power describes as a “meaningful military presence” that she believes is appropriate when a nation’s sovereignty must be re-distributed to those who share her worldview.

Set of 2 Large Pop-Up Mesh Screen Food Cover Tents - Keep Out Flies, Bugs, Mosquitos - Reusable - Colors May Vary

by American Co. (18) Buy new: ~~$10.99~~ $2.97