**Video at bottom of blog-Pelosi Pushes Agenda 21**
Learn the acronyms meaning, study them and stand up to them
The UN is using “gradualism” and backdoor tactics, to garner acceptance and in some cases support in their quest for Global Socialism: No SOVEREIGNTY for your city, your county, your state or your COUNTRY.
What is Agenda 21? Read at link below:
DICED: Agenda 21 on Steroids. What Americans Should Know about Global Socialism Right Under Our Noses. Is Obama Complicit or Just Following Marching Orders from the Shadow Party?
Control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control.
Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”
- Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”
- Article 11 discusses “equity” and “equitable manner” which are code words for communism.
- Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.
- Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we ratify this document, we must thus fight a non-existent man-made climate change.
- Article 31 requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.
- Article 32 requires recycling.
- Article 33 demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.”
- Article 33 delineates long-term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity of the environment.”
- Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.
- Article 36 describes military and hostile activities.
- Article 39 decides management plans and quotas for permissible taking or “harvesting transboundary biological resources.”
- Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.
“Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.
“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”
- Article 48 demands that biotechnology from research and development and royalties be shared; free access and transfer of technology is also required.
- Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.
- Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by an arbitrary tribunal such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
- Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.
Writers of the Draft Covenant are the UN Secretariat, international lawyers, and U.S. professors from Cornell, Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, University of the Pacific, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, and two attorneys in private practice.
World “Sustainability”, controlling our population in America and the World. Carol Browner, the former Obama’s “Global Warming Czar”. Until late 2008 Browner was a member of Socialist International Commission for a Sustainable World Society. Our current Science Czar for Obama is John Holdren advocates EUGENICS.
‘FERTILITY MANAGEMENT’: AL GORE CALLS ON WOMEN TO HAVE FEWER CHILDREN…TO CURB POLLUTION. Malthusian Ideology and Population Control (UN and Agenda 21)
Agenda 21 & the Club of Rome: The “Nudging” (Herding) of Americans Toward Globalization and Total Control
Take the time to FULLY read this:
By Berit Kjos – July 22, 2006
THE NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT
During a break, I asked moderator Robert McNeil to define solidarity for me. In his answer, he acknowledged that solidarity is strengthened by a common enemy as well as a “common good”:
“It means people with shared values or responsibilities cooperating or working together. In our culture, it was probably exemplified most often by the union movement. Industrial unions often used the phrase solidarity– ‘solidarity forever.’ And in the socialist movement, of course, solidarity was a very strong word — the solidarity of the workers against the employers, their oppressor, capitalists…. whatever it was….”
“Solidarity is like a social contract, like people agreeing that this is the way it should be. Whether I am poorer or richer than you are, we somehow agree that the way it is set up works best for all of us.”
What if we don’t agree? Then we are vilified as divisive resisters — excluded from the feel-good solidarity. Pastor Brian McLaren, an acknowledged leader in the Emerging Church movement, summarized it well:
“…to be truly inclusive, the [earthly] kingdom must exclude exclusive people, to be truly reconciling, the kingdom must not reconcile with those who refuse reconciliation.'”
Social contracts hold people accountable to the new standard. It pushes people toward the planned conformity, whether the society is a church, a school, or the “global neighborhood.” So I wasn’t surprised when UNESCO‘s Federico Mayor made the same point: “The 21st Century city will be a city of social solidarity,” he said. “We have to redefine the words… [and write a new] social contract.”
This evolving “social contract” has been written into every UN treaty and declaration. And former President Clinton’s Executive Order 13107 helped turn that UN “contract” into US policy. It is being implemented through government policies as well as laws whether the treaties were ratified by Congress or not.[See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules]
This “social contract” guarantees “freedom from want,” from fear, from hunger, and from offense by those who might voice contrary values. It also promises “freedom of thought and expression” — but only to those who share the UN vision. Remember, Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “...these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
Reflecting the same communitarian constraint, Ismail Serageldin, then Vice President of the World Bank, said:
“We should stop bemoaning the growth of cities. It’s going to happen and it’s a good thing, because cities are the vectors of social change and transformation. Let’s just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction.… The media must act as part of the education process that counters individualism.”
A cooperative media is essential to the planned change in public consciousness. As in totalitarian regimes, “voluntary” social transformation relies on effective propaganda. That’s why our Education Department’s Community Action Toolkit, The President’s Council for Sustainable Development, and the UN’s Local Agenda 21 all call for partnerships between educators and the news and entertainment media in every community. The public must be persuaded to give its consent; the people must learn to feel so uncomfortable with dissent that contrary voices would be silenced.
The masses must never notice that this manipulative process is changing their minds and actions. Since few people do notice, Professor Raymond Houghton’s triumphant promise in a 1970 NEA publication is becoming an alarming reality:
“…absolute behavior control is imminent. … The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will never self-consciously know that it has happened.”
This plan for “behavior control” would include three essentials steps: (1) a supportive news and entertainment media willing to disseminate politically correct information and inspire values that erode the old boundaries, (2) a management system for measuring and monitoring change, and (3) universal participation in the dialectic (consensus) process.
By use of a change agent, or “facilitator”, individuals are herded toward “consensus” by compromising their position for the sake of “social harmony.” According to Kurt Lewin,
“A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: UNFREEZING the present level, MOVING to the new level, and FREEZING group life on the new level.”
This is precisely the technique with which the communists brainwashed American POWs, the only difference being they could accelerate the “unfreezing” phase with physical torture. In group dynamics the pain is not physical, it’s emotional. … Transformational Marxists such as Kurt Lewin refined their weapon for the new battlefield: Using group dynamics to invade the culture to affect the paradigm shift. The weapon looks like this:
A Diverse Group (“Diversity” needed for conflict)
Dialoging to Consensus (Dialectic process)
Over a Social Issue (Problem/Crisis/Issues)
In a Facilitated Meeting (Controlled environment using facilitator /change agent)
To a Predetermined Outcome (Paradigm shift)