The authors of Agenda 21 have said it will affect every area of life, grouped according to three objectives: Equity, Economy, and Environment (known commonly as the 3 Es). By defining these terms vaguely, a litany of abuse has resulted. Furthermore, by rubber-stamping pre-conceived plans, using manipulative visioning sessions to garner the appearance of public buy-in, and acquiring grants from sources with questionable motives, the entire process of implementing Sustainable Development policies is suspect.
Equity:
Using the Law to Restructure Human Nature
The authors of the Sustainable Development action plan recognized that their environmental and economic objectives, and the corresponding transformation of the American system of justice, are radically divergent from the views and objectives of the average person. Therefore, in order to achieve their objectives, they call for a shift in attitudes, that can be seen in the educational programs developed by its proponents. This is the premise of Sustainable Development: That individual human wants, needs, and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of planners. Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), and Clerk of the Circuit and County Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida, has said that individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.
Economy: The International Redistribution of Wealth and the Creation of Public/Private Partnerships
...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable. Maurice Strong, Secretary General, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, 1992. (Also known as the Rio Earth Summit, where Agenda 21 was unveiled.) According to its preamble, The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries. Language throughout Agenda 21 erroneously assumes that life is a zero-sum game (the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor, making them even poorer). This critique of economic ills denies the ingenuity of private action, individual determination, and truly free market innovation, and leads inevitably to the conclusion that if the conditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must be taken from the rich. Sustainable Development embodies this unjust redistribution of wealth both in theory and in implementation, effectively lowering the standard of living in America to that of the rest of the world. The Draft Covenant on Environment and Development states in Article 8:
equity will be achieved through implementation of the international economic order ... and through transfers of resources to developing countries.... In addition to its appeal for the international redistribution of wealth, Sustainable Development is actually restructuring the economy, molding it not on private enterprise, but on public/private partnerships.
Public/private partnerships bring businesses desiring the protection offered by governments legalized force together with government agents that want the power that comes with economic control. The power of economics, and the force of government, must serve as a check and balance on each other; combining the two will ultimately result in tyranny. Free enterprise is lost amid subsidies, incentives, tax-breaks, and insider privilege, and with it goes the notion that the customer is the final determiner of how resources are allocated in production. The Sustainable Development partnerships involve some corporations domestic and multinational some tax-exempt family foundations, select individuals, and collectivist politicians and their administrations. Of these participants, only elected politicians are accountable to the public for their actions.
Environment: Nature Above Man
Americans support laws and regulations that are designated to effectively prevent pollution of the air, water, or the property of another. Yet, it is increasingly clear that Sustainable Development uses the environment simply as the means to promote a political agenda. For example, Al Gore says that Sustainable Development will bring about a wrenching transformation of American society. Sustainable Development is ostensibly concerned with the environment; it is more concerned with restructuring the governmental system of the worlds nations so that all the people of the world will be the subjects of a global collective. Many of its proposed implementation strategies require the surrender of unalienable rights.
This fact alone casts a serious shadow of doubt on the motives of Sustainable Development planners who would discard the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property in order to pursue dubious programs. When Sustainable Development is implemented, ordinary people will be left unprotected from de facto decrees placing nature above man, while relegating man to the status of a biological resource.
Educating the Youth to Mold the Minds of Tomorrow
All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth. Aristotle
One means that Sustainable Developers have to ensure continuing support of their anti-human programs is through molding the minds of the next generation. Chapter 25 of the U.N. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 calls for the need to enlist and empower children and youth in reaching for sustainability. Even a cursory look at the federally-mandated curriculum being taught in classrooms in every government school in America would show that the doctrines of Sustainable Development are finding their way into every subject. French classes are used to teach students to save the earth; economics classes feature lectures discouraging individual initiative in the marketplace and decrying private ownership; history classes obscure the importance of Americas founding documents; mandatory service-learning programs enlist students to work for government-approved Sustainable Development partner organizations. The list goes on and on.
While taxpayers foot the bill for the increasing costs of government education, parents are increasingly shut out of decisions crucial to the molding of their childs mind. Controversial programs designed for values clarification are being performed in government schools that employ powerful behavior control techniques and peer pressure to make [a] developing child question his or her individual worth and values, and are designed to disrupt parental oversight in the upbringing of their children, according to Professor of Organizational Behavior, Brent Duncan.
Poster Comment:
Still more to come or go to http://www.freedomadvocates.org/ to read complete document. Sample: SMART GROWTH: A typical day in the Orwellian society created by Smart Growth would consist of an individual waking up in his government provided housing unit, eating a ration of government-subsidized foods purchased at a government-sanctioned grocery store, walking his children (if he has any) to the government-run child care center, boarding government-subsidized public transit to go to his government job, then returning home later that evening