The Global Transformation – Why, How, and What

The Global Transformation

The information in this brochure is organized in such a way that it is factual (and immutable) and easy to glean with a cursory glance. But also, there is hours and hours of substantive depth and revelations if the basic skeleton is compelling enough to induce the reader to inquire further. Committed patriots should look at every link and read every article. “WE” are the one’s that are here because of our commitment to save our country…so it is incumbent upon us to be the experts so we can in turn lead others into opening their eyes! We cannot save this country by continuing to fail to recognize where the real problem lies and then being endlessly distracted by the comparative superfluous.

We need to be aware of what is driving ALL this policy so we can begin to cut the head off the snake. We need to make sure those candidates whom we think will change Washington in 2010 understand what is REALLY going on…otherwise what success could they possibly have?

This is why I did the handbook. Understanding Agenda 21; (and how the processes to circumvent treaty’s and still engage in international law are really working); identifies entirely the problem–for Health Care, Cap and Trade, Codex Alimentarius, etc etc…they are all part of Agenda 21. Now we need to make EVERYONE aware so each has the ‘big picture’. It is essential that our candidates are aware, otherwise there is nothing they can really do.

 

The Elite Class and the Radical Transformation of America

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken (1918)

“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.” — Richard Salent, Former President CBS News.

“News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising”. — former NBC news President Rubin Frank

If your partner were to come home one evening and announce to you that he/she is 5 days away from radically transforming you, would it be reasonable to ask a few questions, such as: Why? Into what? How are you going to do it? Who is going to transform me? How radically will I be transformed? What will it cost? What benefit will it have? Will it hurt? (Are you related to Lorraine Bobbitt?)

We are standing on the precipice of destruction, teetering unbalanced on one toe while inebriated, with the crevasse of unfathomable darkness looming menacingly below. We are about to plunge into an abyss from which there will be little hope of return. It will hurt! Both Liberals and Conservatives alike are united in their obliviousness to what is really transpiring, and what the outcome will be. Similarly, both the Left and the Right will equally suffocate when the coffin lid on America shuts tight. The radical transformation of America is completely bi-partisan in its cold neutrality.

I do not mean to be disparaging to either the Left or Right, but it becomes discouraging to see how the Left cheers the current Administration while unaware of the truth; and how the Right is easily distracted as they embroil themselves in ferreting out meaning contained within each piece of new legislation. Individuals from both sides of the fence are failing to glean the bigger picture that provides the context from which all this legislation flows. It is not that what the Conservatives are uncovering is in any way false, it is only that it is just fragments of a much bigger picture. If we continue to fail to recognize where the battlefield is, there is little hope of winning the war.

Before delving into the subject at hand, I must dispel one false hope that many Conservatives have. The biggest delusion I see my fellow Conservatives engaged in is the hope that if Obama is proved ineligible to hold office that we can then take our country back. Although I think it is important to resolve this issue, its resolution will not in any way affect the course we are on. Certainly, any laws that have been signed into being by an illegitimate President can be repealed, but this means only that the Health Care Bill (as of this writing) can be abolished. Our problems are much greater than this, with tentacles that have infested our Society and are about to choke the life out of our nation.

The international mantra that is the drive behind re-shaping the world is ‘man-made climate change’. The ‘green revolution’ has pervaded every level of our Society and there is not a day that goes by that we are not bombarded with advertisements touting how environmentally friendly some product is, or how ecologically responsible some corporation is. Its nauseating.

I am neither a Geologist nor a Climatologist, so as I pour through all the scientific arguments I must admit that I cannot confer credibility with absolutism upon either side of the debate.  However, I can ask if this ‘climate-change’ is being used as an excuse to foist a political agenda?

There have been numerous publications and statements made that certainly reveal the intent to create a crisis so that the Elitists can step in and tender their solution.

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching 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. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
Club of Rome-premier environmental think-tank,consultants to the United Nations

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“Adopting a central organizing principle…
means embarking on an all-out effort to use every
policy and program, every law and institution…
to halt the destruction of the environment.”
Al Gore-Earth in the Balance, member of Club of Rome, co-founder of Generations Investment Fund

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.”
UN Agenda 21— (signed by G.H. Bush, 1992)

This has been just a small sampling of many similar quotes,  to read more click [here].  For a list of references to all quotes, click [here].

If you are a functional human being in possession of a modicum of intellect, it should be glaringly obvious that something nefarious is afoot.  It may come as a surprise to many that revenues from Cap and Trade have already been accounted for in the 2012 budget. The Elite Class has had a plan in the hopper for some time now, and it is rapidly coming to fruition.  The universal acceptance of Agenda 21 has ushered in this new era, and just by giving a cursory glance over the 40 chapter titles that comprise Agenda 21 would reveal the depth of this Master Plan.

Never heard of Agenda 21?  Perhaps you have heard the words ‘sustainable’, ‘smart growth’, ‘social justice’, ‘biological equity’, and a plethora of similar words that have pervaded our societal lexicon.  Whenever you hear such words realize they are derivatives of Agenda 21.   Enclosed below is a description of Agenda 21 taken from the Johannesburg Summit of 2002.

This meeting will review progress in implementing Agenda 21, the plan of action for sustainable development that was agreed in Rio, and develop a plan for the further implementation of sustainable development policies and programmes worldwide. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has identified five themes for particular attention at the Summit: water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity. These are critical areas for long-term development, involving complex interactions among economic, social and environmental factors and involving different sectors, organizations and disciplines. Those issues, together with population and poverty, and the relationships among them, are the focus of the material collected here.

Agenda 21 is the blueprint for globalization and is the precursor to all legislation, taxes, and regulations you see coming out of Washington.  It is the vehicle by which the Master Class has found its Utopian dream of absolute control over you while simultaneously raping the world of all its wealth.  Power and money.  Since its inception in 1992, they have held 18 annual meetings.  Between May 3-14th of 2010 they held another meeting in NYC.  In attendance were all 50 signatory nations and representatives from 2,146 CSO’s (Civil Society Organizations, which are NGO’s that are accredited by the United Nations to have consultative status).  Want to know when America as you know it is coming to an end?  Well, that information is well documented too, and is known as the Marrakech Transition Process.  It may be comforting to some to know they have a life plan.  Unfortunately, it is being planned by someone else.

Do not let the noble sounding drivel of Agenda 21 fool you-remember, this is all steeped in the contrived notion that your presence on earth is contributing to cataclysmic climate change; authored by the elitists.  This Elite Class is comprised of internationalists from the financial world, media moguls, powerful politicians, upper echelon military, and multinational CEO’s.  Regardless their country of origin, they fail to see the world as you and I might see it, because they play ball on a global field.  Where we see regions of national sovereignty, they see only potential markets to be exploited.  Where we see individuals trying to lead their lives, they see us as merely insects to be squeezed for every last ounce of juice they can wring out of us.

An example that lends veracity to the bold statements made above is the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). All of the usual global elitists got together (either directly or indirectly) to form a company that is going to capitalize on regulations that will be levied against all persons and companies via Cap and Trade.  This bill has not even been signed into law, yet the company was formed 10 years ago in preparation of what they will do to us.  Al Gore has set up his company, Generations Investment Management that is poised to profit from the re-distribution of wealth.  The following is taken directly off his website:

According to some experts, the Base of the Pyramid is an untapped market opportunity of $13 trillion in annual sales as well as significant invisible assets.

I am baffled that no seems to have put together what should be the most alarming 2 pieces of information ever announced:  Just as Generations Investment Management states they anticipate $13 trillion in annual sales, the Chicago Climate Exchange announced that they expect $10 trillion in annual sales.  The worlds entire annual GDP is $69 trillion.  The United States annual GDP is $17 trillion. What they are saying is that just these two companies alone plan on capturing 33% of the worlds entire wealth!

The Elitists behind the theoretical development of these political platforms are Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert Muller, George Soros, and about 100 others that will always appear on boards of various NGO’s (non-government organizations).  Although I can trace these individuals to connections with apprx. 1,800 other organizations, they all sit on the Board of the Club of Rome.  These names will repeat themselves as you start sifting through each and every one of these organizations. For an in-depth look at the people and organizations, click [here].

For example, it is interesting to note that the Trilateral Commission, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Club of Rome were all founded by David Rockefeller.  It is also interesting to note that all these organizations and the plethora of their alliances all carry the same message, and all have the usual people associated with them.

The collaborative efforts of these CSO’s work to shape policy. Maurice Strong is founder of the Earth Council Alliance, and is responsible for writing policy underlying the Kyoto Treaty, the Rio Earth Summit, and the Earth Charter Initiative.  The Club of Rome (via the collaborative efforts of all their different alliances), put together Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations and signed by G.H. Bush in 1992.  The Earth Charter Initiative is a global curriculum for the re-education of our children, adopted by UNESCO and signed by G.W. Bush in 2000.

Have you ever wondered where the 1.2 trillion dollars funneled through the IMF goes? What about annual payment of 46 billion dollars paid out via the Millennium Accords and Global Poverty Act?  Much of it is given to these NGO’s in the form of grants. The recent Health Care Bill had 159 such grants embedded in it. Your money is being used to dig your own grave with.

I cannot fully expose the labyrinthine corridors of corruption in a singular accounting, but it is vitally important you begin to understand the depth of the ruse being foisted upon us.  We cannot fight these powers, but we can hold our elected officials feet to the fire and have them resolve this mess.  The 2010 elections are going to be the most important event in your lifetime.  We need a supermajority in the House, and those individuals must be willing to not only restore our country through Constitutional leadership, but they must also be aware of the corruption being foisted upon us and honor-bound to fight our fight!  We cannot hold them accountable unless we ourselves are knowledgeable as to where exactly the problem exists.

Recommended Reading:

Links to NGO’s and their Masters
Understanding NGO’s
Exposing the Club of Rome
Local Government for Sustainability

 

Understanding the World Bank and the IMF

THE FUND[1]
Background

Bretton Woods is a name we have all heard of since high school history class, but do we remember what took place there? Quite a lot happened there, but what we are focused on now is what was initially called the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. At that meeting five institutions were created; we are only concerned with two, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (officially the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) which were conceived in July 1944 and formally organized in July of the following year.

G. Edward Griffin explains the façade and the reality of these two entities, “The announced purpose of these organizations were admirable. The World Bank was to make loans to war-torn and underdeveloped nations so they could build stronger economies. The International Monetary Fund was to promote monetary cooperation between nations by maintaining fixed exchange rates between their currencies. But the method by which these goals were to be achieved was less admirable. It was to terminate the use of gold as the basis of international currency exchange and replace it with a politically manipulated paper standard. In other words, it was to allow governments to escape the discipline of gold so they could create money out of nothing without paying the penalty of having their currencies drop in value on world markets.”[2]

Both the IMF and the World Bank are based in Washington, D.C. The IMF always has a European head while the World Bank’s leader is an American.

Initially, as noted, they were set up to fund the reconstruction of Europe and Asia after World War II, and then to build infrastructure and provide for the basic needs of people in the developing world. But in the 1960s, the World Bank shifted the focus of its loans from infrastructure to social services and other social justice[3] sectors.

As Griffin points out, “The International Monetary Fund appears to be a part of the United Nations, much as the Federal Reserve System appears to be part of the United States government, but it is entirely independent. It is funded on a quota basis by its member nations, almost 200 in number. The greatest share of capital, however, comes from the more highly industrialized nations such as Great Britain, Japan, France, and Germany. The United States contributes the most, at about twenty percent of the total. In reality, that twenty percent represents about twice as much as the number indicates, because most of the other nations contribute worthless currencies which no one wants. The world prefers dollars.

One of the routine operations at the IMF is to exchange worthless currencies for dollars so the weaker countries can pay their international bills. This is supposed to cover temporary “cash-flow” problems. It is a kind of international FDIC[4] which rushes money to a country that has gone bankrupt so it can avoid devaluing its currency. The transactions are seldom paid back.”

“Although escape from the gold-exchange standard was the long-range goal of the IMF, the only way to convince nations to participate at the outset was to use gold itself as a backing for its own money supply – at least as a temporary expedient.”[5]

So now instead of IMF loans for concrete projects – infrastructure, private industry, and other sound investments — the loans are going to governments in pursuit of “humanitarian goals.” Actually much of the money ends up in the pockets of the leaders and bureaucrats. Some, very little, is actually used for aid to the starving citizens of those countries.

Part 1, Purpose

The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC)[6][7] has now requested that the IMF review “its mandate to cover the full range of macroeconomic and financial sector policies that bear on global stability,” and to report back to the Committee next year. On January 22, 2010, the International Monetary Fund’s Strategy, Policy, and Review Department (in consultation with the Legal Department) prepared an overview of the Fund’s Mandate and what it saw as the problems of control facing the Fund and how they could tweak the mandate “without the politically taxing process of amending the Articles of Agreement.”

What that means is how to make the IMF far more powerful than it already is without having the members vote on the changes, since the members would not be willing to make such far-reaching and drastic changes. For instance, regarding financial data of IMF members:

First, it (the IMF) has only limited and episodic access to supervisory data (e.g., in the context of FSAPs (Financial Sector Assessment Program), and members often decline to provide systemically relevant information on grounds of confidentiality. Second, the Fund has no authority to require confidential data on entities such as large complex financial institutions (LCFIs), a few dozen of which make up the basic plumbing of global finance. The reason is that Article VIII, Section 5 provides that members are under no obligation to furnish information that exposes individual corporations. Yet understanding the linkages between LCFIs, and changing patterns and concentrations in exposure, is crucial to any institution claiming to be a guardian of global stability. As amendment of the Articles to require such disclosure is unlikely to find broad support, alternative arrangements will be needed.

Already we see that the IMF is facing a brick wall if they have to go to the members for permission, but not if they go around the members via executive decisions. The IMF sees itself as a “guardian of global stability,” that is literally how they put it; yet a normal person, even one with little economics savvy, would consider them just the opposite. What the IMF, World Bank, the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, etc. are doing is working toward global instability – not stability – until they can wrest controlling power. Then they will set up stability in a world of masters (them) and slaves (us).

You don’t think so? Here is an interview of Maurice Strong, one of the world’s richest men, the Secretary-General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, President of the World Federation of United Nations, and on and on, speaking to journalist, Daniel Wood of WEST Magazine:

Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead. What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?

The group’s conclusion is “no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides:isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists – they’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…?[8]

Or as Griffin puts it in Creature, “Destruction of the economic strength of the industrialized nations is merely a necessary prerequisite for ensnaring them into the global web. The thrust of the current ecology movement is directed totally to that end.”[9]

Capital flows

(I)t seems appropriate that Fund surveillance cover more effectively capital flows and related policies. Granting the Fund the authority to approve — or not — capital controls would require amending the Articles, which is never an easy process, especially on an issue on which the membership is highly divided.

As will be shown further into this paper, the IMF wants capital to flow from the U.S. and other First World Countries to Third World Countries – from the “haves” to the “have nots.” Capital flow is not meant to promote technological or industrial growth, but will be used for welfare in order to create dependency; the IMF does not want the poor people of the world becoming strong and healthy economically or physically.

Role in Low Income Countries

In particular, the Fund may need to expand its role as a provider of insurance against global volatility and other shocks, including from the effects of climate change.[10]

Even though the global warming scare has been shown as a fraud to promote onerous legislation like “cap and trade,” to shut down industry in the U.S., and to prevent people from using their private property, all of these actions are still being carried out so the IMF pretends there is still a basis for it.

Also, Agenda 21 – the Earth Charter, calls for the redistribution of wealth between rich and poor countries as seen in section 2.1 on page 19:

“In order to meet the challenges of environment and development, States have decided to establish a new global partnership. This partnership commits all States to engage in a continuous and constructive dialogue, inspired by the need to achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy, keeping in view the increasing interdependence of the community of nations and that sustainable development should become a priority item on the agenda of the international community….

Economic policies of individual countries, and international economic relations both have great relevance to sustainable development. …Neither will it gather momentum if the developing countries are weighted down by external indebtedness…. Therefore, it is the intent of Governments that consensus-building at the intersection of the environmental and trade and development areas will be ongoing in existing international forums, as well as in the domestic policy of each country.”

Reserves

The build-up of international reserves as a buffer against shocks is widely expected to resume as the crisis fades and to some extent already has. While such accumulation can be costly for surplus and reserve-issuing countries alike, there are three underlying problems. First, there are concerns about the availability of international liquidity in times of crisis, prompting a precautionary reserve buildup, especially when heavy capital inflows threaten to overwhelm emerging markets. Second, there is no automatic adjustment of current account imbalances, neither surplus countries nor reserve-issuing deficit countries facing pressure to adjust. Third, the concentration of reserves in US dollars reflects the absence of close substitutes as a global store of value and anchor for asset and price stability. The Fund’s overarching responsibility to promote the effective operation of the international monetary system requires that it seek solutions to the above problems. While it may draw on all its powers for this purpose, a rarely discussed one is to be found in Article VIII, Section 7, which calls on members to collaborate on reserve policies with the objective of “better international surveillance of international liquidity and making the special drawing right the principal reserve asset in the international monetary system.” Consideration may need to be given to reviving this forgotten provision as a basis for action, not least because official reserves have become large enough relative to private flows as to have significant—and potentially destabilizing—market impact from a sudden portfolio reallocation.

A key problem with using a national currency as the main global reserve asset is that instability in its value translates to the entire system. The problem can be ameliorated by the presence of several suppliers of reserve assets—the euro has emerged as an alternative to the dollar and at some point in the future the yen and, further out, the renminbi[11] might also—or by globally-issued reserves. Given the network externalities associated with a single reserve asset, neither solution is likely to emerge spontaneously any time soon. Thus, it may be necessary to consider giving content to members’ obligation, under Article VIII, Section 7, “to collaborate with the Fund and with one another with regard to policies on reserve assets” so as to facilitate a smooth transition to a more stable system.

The IMF is making the point that the U.S. Dollar should no longer be used as the main global reserve asset. While they are considering using the yuan, they actually have other plans:

A global currency. The SDR is not a currency but a right to access freely usable currencies in case of balance of payments difficulties; its stability rests on that of its component currencies. A more far reaching approach would be to introduce a new global reserve currency, similar to Keynes’ bancor[12], issued by an institution with an impeccable balance sheet and a governance structure that gives confidence that it can function as a prudent and independent world central bank. A global reserve currency that is not associated with the economic developments of any particular country would remove the vulnerabilities associated with reserve accumulation in national currencies and could remedy the lack of automatic adjustment. The operational and political challenges, however, would be huge. As such, the idea is clearly one for the long term.

While the IMF’s Overview writers predict only positive effects of a global currency, what about the fact that there is no basis in gold or oil or precious metals for their currency? Without something to define the value of a currency, some standard on which to measure it, it then becomes the monetary equivalent of moral relevancy – it’s worth changing with the whims of the power elite.

That is a quick look at the Overview of the IMF’s Mandate.

Part 2, The Lawyers; or how to get around the rules

A month to the day after that was submitted, “The Fund’s Mandate – The Legal Framework” was offered up to accompany the Overview. Interestingly, it begins with a note on the specialization of the organization and states,

While, at a certain level of abstraction, it may be said that all international organizations have been established to enhance human welfare, the assumption underlying the design of the post-war international architecture was that each organization would make its own distinct contribution to that objective; … since all of the enumerated purposes are of an economic nature, it has been understood that, unlike some other organizations, the Fund is precluded from using its powers for political objectives. (italics mine)

It would be hard to see any other use of its powers. The IMF is one of the tentacles of Agenda 21 which is totally political – working toward a totalitarian socialistic world government through the redistribution of wealth.

The powers conferred upon the Fund under the Articles can be divided into three categories: (a) oversight powers,relating primarily to the Fund’s responsibility to monitor and promote the observance of members’ obligations under the Articles; (b) the power to provide financial assistance; and (c) advisory powers. Consistent with the principles of national sovereignty (italics mine) and specialization noted above, the powers conferred upon the Fund are generally limited to those explicitly identified in the Articles.

But they go onto state:

Accordingly, while the key parameters of the Fund’s mandate are established in the Articles of Agreement, it may be said that the operational content of the Fund’s mandate has been updated over time by Executive Board decision.

In other words, the Executive Board has made many changes that the members never would have allowed.

The legal department gripes that regarding domestic policies, including financial sector policies, member obligations are limited in two important respects:

• First, the relevant text reveals that these obligations (Article IV, Section 1 (i) and (ii)) are of a “soft” nature: taking into account the fact that members retain great sovereignty in terms of the conduct of their domestic policies, they are only required to exercise “best efforts” in this area. In contrast, those obligations that relate to members’ external policies, including exchange rate policies (Article IV, Section 1 (iii) and (iv)), are of a “hard” nature—requiring the achievement of results rather than just the exercise of best efforts—reflecting the direct international impact of these policies.
• Second, members’ obligations respecting domestic policies only require members to take action to promote their own domestic stability. As long as a member is implementing domestic policies in a manner that ensures such stability, it is under no obligation to change these policies, even if a change would further enhance the stability of the overall exchange rate system.

They are not happy that the members “retain great sovereignty in terms of the conduct of their domestic policies” or that the members’ obligations are to promote their own domestic stability – not that of the rest of the world (and they say this). In order to get around the Articles in the Mandate that they find to be too restricting, the legal department suggests that the constraints could be addressed through the adoption of decisions by the Executive Board.

What they are saying is that even though a country is being fiscally responsible, if the IMF decides that their domestic policies are impacting the “the balance of payments of other countries, even where this effect is not transmitted through the member’s own balance of payment,” then the IMF could step in and make those fiscally responsible countries change their fiscally conservative policies.

In order for the type of situation identified in paragraph 15 above to be made central to bilateral surveillance, it would be necessary to amend Article IV itself. Such an amendment could reconsider the primacy that is given to exchange rate policies over domestic policies and, in that context, expand members’ obligations relating to domestic policies in a manner that would require a member to adjust its domestic policies to support systemic stability—even if the domestic policies in question are not undermining the member’s own domestic stability. This would represent, however, a significant surrender of national sovereignty. (italics mine)

Much of the review is working out how the IMF can broaden its surveillance scope of countries. Right now member countries are under no obligation to furnish information in “such detail that the affairs of individuals or corporations are disclosed.” The IMF would like to change this without having to amend the Agreement (remember member countries are unlikely to want to give up either more information or their sovereignty), so they are looking to the Executive Board to make the necessary changes and to read the Articles in a new light to change “expectations” of information from members to solid demands.

And now to the Reserve Policies of Members:

“[e]ach member undertakes to collaborate with the Fund and with other members in order to ensure that the policies of the member with respect to reserve assets shall be consistent with the objectives of promoting better international surveillance of international liquidity and making the special drawing right the principal reserve asset in the international monetary system.” (italics mine)

As stated by the Legal Department, this provision was one of several new provisions that “were designed to reduce the role of gold and to strengthen the role of SDRs in the international monetary system,” or to put it another way, to have fiat money as the sole reserves.

The Fund would also need to provide further guidance on the meaning of the obligation of members to collaborate towards the objective of making the SDR the principal reserve asset in the international monetary system. Two important features of this objective should be noted. First, making the SDR the principal reserve asset of the international monetary system is identified as an objective, but not necessarily as a result that has been—or is required to be—achieved.

In discussing the Oversight of International Capital Movements, the Legal Department admits that while they want a more active role in overseeing members’ regulation of these movements, designing “an appropriate approach is far more complex and nuanced” than it was when they were just controlling current payments and transfers.

They admit that free capital movements “help channel resources to their most productive uses and increase economic growth and welfare.” But they then blame the free markets for the recent crises.

With that, the Legal Department says it would be open for the Fund to establish policies (which they would call “recommendations” for a softer sell), that provide guidance to members;

as to: (a) what conditions should be in place before a member liberalizes its capital account, and (b) when the imposition of controls on outflows or inflows may be an appropriate response to balance of payments or macroeconomic pressures. In the conduct of bilateral surveillance, the Fund would assess the extent to which members’ actions are consistent with these recommendations. The Fund could also take up the systemic role of capital movements—and the impact of controls on such movements—in the context of multilateral surveillance.

In other words, the IMF would decide what the countries’ fiscal and economic policies MUST be.

Summary

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
— Lord Acton

That sentence sums up this document very well. What happens when a group of powerful people decide that they do not have enough wealth and power and need to find more, is what happened here, or rather at Bretton Woods. Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury and John Maynard Keynes were the designers of the IMF and World Bank on behalf of themselves and their cronies in finance and government in the U.S. and Europe.

These same people also believe that what the world needs now is global governance. As a former U.S. Foreign Service Officer put it in his book, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited, the Unraveling of the American Dream, “… the golden age of individualism, liberty, and democracy is all but over. The need for a world government with enough coercive power over fractious nation states to achieve what reasonable people would regard as the planetary common interest has become overwhelming.”[13]

I have quoted G. Edward Griffin a number of times, let me add one more because he puts his finger on it so well. “Although most of the policy statements of the World Bank (and the IMF by extension, author’s note) deal with economic issues, a close monitoring of its activities reveal a preoccupation with social and political issues. This should not be surprising considering that the Bank was perceived by its founders as an instrument for social and political change. The change which it was designed to bring about was the building of world socialism, and that is exactly what it is accomplishing today.”[14]

Remember, the IMF doesn’t want the poor people of the world becoming strong and healthy economically or physically. What they want is control of the world – of both the rich and the poor countries – but they have to make the rich countries far poorer first (through their economic policies) in order to control them.

Footnotes:

[1] While the International Monetary Fund is referred to as the IMF in most media sources, insiders call themselves the Fund.

[2] Griffin, G. Edward, The Creature from Jekyll Island, A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. America Media, 2009 edition, p. 86.

[3] A system of human rights operates in concert with the pursuit of “social justice,” which can be defined as law formulated to obtain government’s social objectives at the expense of individual liberty.

[4] Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

[5] Griffin, op. cit., p. 89.

[6]Quote from the INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, The Fund’s Mandate—An Overview, prepared by the Strategy, Policy, and Review Department.

[7] Bank-Fund Annual Meetings and in March or April at what are referred to as the Spring Meetings. The Committee discusses matters of concern affecting the global economy and also advises the IMF on the direction of its work. At the end of the meetings, the Committee issues a communiqué summarizing its views. These communiqués provide guidance for the IMF’s work program during the six months leading up to the next Spring or Annual Meetings. There is no formal voting at the IMFC, which operates by consensus.

[8] Wood, Daniel. “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” West Magazine, May, 1990, p. 35.

[9] Griffin, op. cit., p. 534.

[10] Note that this was written after the Climate Change scandal was exposed.

[11] The renminbi or the Chinese yuan is the official currency of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), with the exception of Hong Kong and Macau.

[12] John Maynard Keynes proposed a global bank, which he called the International Clearing Union. The bank would issue its own currency – the bancor – which was exchangeable with national currencies at fixed rates of exchange. The bancor would become the unit of account between nations, which means it would be used to measure a country’s trade deficit or trade surplus. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/18/lord-keynes-international-monetary-fund)

[13] Orphuls, William, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited, the Unraveling of the American Dream, W.H. Freedman & Co., New York, 1992, p. 78.

[14] Griffin, op. cit., p. 95.

 

Understanding NGO’s

Everyone knows what a lobbyist is, but do you know what an “Adviser” is in Washington, D.C.? No matter whom we elect, no matter the person or party, if we don’t shine the light on who really is writing policy, we are in for a rude awakening.

The acronym NGO stands for Non-Governmental Organization. While NGOs go back to the early 1900s, the phrase “non-governmental organization” came into its current use with the United Nations Organization in 1945. It is in Article 71 of Chapter 10 of the United Nations Charter. It established a consultative role for organizations which are neither governments nor member states. There is a conscious effort to replace the term NGO with a more politically-correct term — Civil Society Organization or CSO.

There is a major difference:

• NGO may apply to any non-profit organization.
• CSO designation applies only to those NGOs that are accredited by the United Nations and hold “consultative status” throughThe Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)

(For-profit companies and organizations can also be accredited, but we are only writing of NGOs here.)

According to Our Global Neighborhood, the official report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance, published in 1995, there were 28,900 international NGOs worldwide and hundreds of thousands of national NGOs. As of late 1994, only 980 were officially “accredited” by the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). However, these 980 accredited NGOs are affiliated with tens of thousands more NGOs in virtually every nation on earth. By virtue of their affiliation with accredited NGOs, these NGOs constitute what the UN describes as CSOs.

Non UN-accredited NGOs are described by globalists as “populist organizations” and the globalist feel that these organizations can upset and even destroy the work of decades of their deliberations in a short period of time. That is the potential of the “Tea Party” grass roots movement currently on the rise in the United States.

Here is some background to aid in understanding CSOs. There are two levels of accreditation:

• Accreditation by ECOSOC confers what is called “consultative” status.
• Accreditation by a subsidiary organization of ECOSOC authorizes “observer” status at a specific UN conference or event.

For a current list and locations of CSOs with consultative status go to: http://esango.un.org/irene/index.html

An example of the power of “observer” status was seen at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. Of the more than 8,000 NGOs represented at the NGO Forum held the week before the Earth Summit, 1,400 NGOs were accredited as “observers.”

NGOs with “consultative” and “observer” status are responsible for the following:

• Development of the global agenda, i.e., Agenda 21.
• Enactment of the policies at the international level.
• Converting international policy into national laws and regulations.
• Implementing the new policies, laws, and regulations on the ground.

History

The modern NGO story begins with the creation of the United Nations. One month after the UN Charter went into force, Julian Huxley signed the document that created the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the well-known UNESCO.

Two years later, the same Julian Huxley was instrumental in creating the International Union for the Conservation of Nature or IUCN. The IUCN consolidated the work of the British Fauna and Flora Preservation Society with other conservation groups that worked throughout the British Empire and aligned its work with the activities of UNESCO.

(For a brief discussion of the nature of NGO leaders, see: http://sovereignty.net/p/ngo/ngotut.htm)

To increase funding for its work, the IUCN created another, more public organization called the World Wildlife Fund or WWF in 1961. It was headed by Prince Philip.

During the 1960s, the IUCN lobbied the UN General Assembly to create a new status for NGOs. Resolution 1296, adopted in 1968, grants “consultative” status to NGOs. The IUCN is accredited with six UN organizations.

In 1982, the IUCN and WWF worked together to create still another NGO called the World Resources Institute (WRI). Russell Train, then-President of the WWF-USA, amassed $25 million in grants to create the World Resources Institute or WRI. He selected Gustave Speth, co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) as its first President. This triumvirate, consisting of the IUCN, WWF and WRI, is the driving force behind the rise of NGO influence at the UN and around the world.

The IUCN’s current membership includes: 92 international NGOs; 753 national NGOs; 29 affiliates; 80 state agencies; 93 government agencies with state members; and 23 government agencies without state members.

The U.S. State Department contributes more than $1 million per year to this NGO. President Clinton issued Executive Order #12986 which grants this NGO certain diplomatic “privileges and immunities.”

WWF funding in the USA is interesting. The WWF reported 1995 income in the USA to be $138,874,116 and assets at $62,558,896. In recent years the WWF’s take increased:

• In 2003 it was $370,245,000
• In 2004 it was $468,889,000
• In 2005 it was $499,629,000
• In 2006 it was $549,827,000
• In 2007 it was $663,193,000
• That totals $2,551,783,000

WWF’s take in 2008 was not quite as good. They switched their accounting to Euros, in place of dollars and took in €447,251,000. That’s roughly $584,000,000.

Their total income since 2003 is just over $3.1 billion (this does not include 2009).

Note that the WWF took €73,938,000 ($104,320,000) in 2007 and €76,930,000 ($108,856,000) in 2008 from ‘Governments and Aid Agencies.’

The WRI is perhaps the world’s most influential think-tank. It produces the so-called scientific foundation for the global agenda and coordinates much of the activity of affiliated NGOs as well. Maurice Strong has been or is currently a director or officer of each of these NGOs.

These three NGOs, IUCN, WWF and WRI, in concert with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), jointly published thedocuments from which the global agenda was developed. These documents include:

• World Conservation Strategy, published in 1980 by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF.
• Caring for the Earth, published in 1991 by UNEP, IUCN, and WWF.
• Global Biodiversity Strategy, published in 1992 by UNEP, IUCN, and WRI.
• Global Biodiversity Assessment, published in 1995 by UNEP, coordinated by WRI.

From these foundational works come such policy documents as:

• The Convention on Biological Diversity
• The Framework Convention on Climate Change
• Agenda 21

NGOs play two vital roles in implementing the policies that are developed by the triumvirate:

• The ideas are first hammered into policy statements that are adopted by an official UN body.
• Then the policies are translated into practice on the ground.

NGOs fulfill both of these functions.

Writing in the January/February, 1997 issue of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, Jessica Mathews wrote:

• “NGOs set the original goal of negotiating an agreement to control greenhouse gases. They proposed most of its structure and content, and lobbied and mobilized public pressure to force through a pact that virtually no one else thought possible when the talks began.”
• “More members of NGOs served on government delegations than ever before, and they penetrated deeply into official decision-making. They were allowed to attend the small working group meetings where the real decisions in international negotiations are made. The tiny nation of Vanuatu turned its delegation over to an NGO with expertise in international law, a group based in London and funded by an American foundation. Thus it made itself and other sea-level island states major players in the fight to control global warming.”
• “As a result, delegates completed the framework of a global climate accord in the blink of a diplomat’s eye—16 months—over the opposition of the three energy superpowers, the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.”

In this article, Jessica Mathews is referring to NGO involvement that lead up to the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. This is just one example: NGOs swarm to and are deeply involved in virtually every conference arranged by the United Nations.

Agenda promoters want you to believe NGO activity is spontaneous as is involvement of CSOs. However, NGO activity is organized and meticulously coordinated by the triumvirate.

NGOs organize into coalitions. Three of the more important coalitions are:

• CAN (Climate Action Network), which concentrates on climate change issues.
• BioNET, which concentrates on biodiversity issues. Note: UNEP and IUCN are among their affiliates. (See:http://www.bionet-intl.org/opencms/opencms/partners/memberships/memberships-affiliations.jsp)
• CitNet (Citizens Network for Sustainable Development), which concentrates on sustainable development issues.

Each of these coalitions is made up of hundreds of NGOs scattered around the world. They are connected by the internet.

With a substantial grant from the Tides Foundation, the Institute for Global Communications (IGC) joined forces with theAssociation for Progressive Communications (APC) in the mid 1980s to form an Internet site, http://www.igc.org which continually morphs into ever-changing affiliate groups. The site became the communications hub for 50,000 NGOs in 133 countries, and reaches tens of millions on the Internet. This specialized NGO has contracts with the UN to provide communication services for UN meetings around the world.

The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, created by President Clinton used this NGO website to disseminate information about its work. To a very large extent, it is responsible for the increased effectiveness of NGOs during the last decade.

Publications are important tools that NGOs provide to delegates at UN conferences. One publication titled ECO, has been published by NGOs at every UN meeting since the first Earth Summit in 1972. (It’s found at: http://www.climatenetwork.org.) At the recent global warming negotiations in Geneva, ECO listed nineteen staffers and thanked its funders which included:

• The Environment Ministries of Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands
• Rent-a-Mac
• EuroFax
• APC

Another publication, published sporadically and titled Earth Negotiations Bulletin, was published from March, 1993 to March, 1994 by the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Winnipeg. It cost $530,000 of which $279,550 came directly from Canadian taxpayers.

The activities of these NGOs are coordinated through the World Resources Institute which uses their publication titled The NGO Networker. Each coalition has its own coordinating mechanism.

For example, CITNET publishes a newsletter which lists administrative offices in California and a UN Liaison Office in New York, and proclaims that it is a Tides Foundation project. Its internet address is: http://igc.apc.org. Some of the organizations included in this coalition are:

• The Sierra Club
• Faith in Action
• The Humane Society of the United States
• Greenpeace International
• The IUCN
• Friends of the Earth
• Second Nature
• The Earth Council (Maurice Strong’s newest NGO)
• World Resources Institute
• and many others

One function of these NGOs is to urge their members to support specific policy measures as they are presented to Congress. Because they hold “consultative” status they are contractually required to support any item that is presented to them from their peers. They are also required to support individual candidates who support the overall agenda. The Sierra Club was deeply involved in the 1996 Congressional elections spending millions of dollars in support of candidates friendly to their cause.

Here’s how they are affecting Congress:

• The Federal Government has been accepting UN promoted policies through advisory committees.
• These committees are set up to gull the public into thinking that they themselves are involved in Federal decision-making.

In response to the growing number of advisory committees, Congress enacted the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). It established guidelines under which all Federal advisory committees must operate. The number of advisory committees is carefully managed, ensuring that committees are only established when essential to the attainment of clearly defined Executive Branch priorities.

What has transpired since 1972, is that only organizations, businesses, NGOs, or employees of these organizations who hold “consultative” status with ECOSOC are “Registered” to be hired as an Adviser to a Congressional Committee. According to a recent government report, there are no organizations, businesses, or NGOs who represent American Citizens’ interests on this list.

When a Congressional Committee or Federal Agency needs an Advisory Committee, they can only pick from those registered with the Federal Interagency Databases Online (FIDO GOV Database). There are about 1,000 of them listed at:http://www.fido.gov/facadatabase. This means that the NGOs that compile this data base are determining where the money is spent.

Funding:

The underlying coordination of NGO activity is driven by the funding sources. The Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA) is an informal association of more than 120 foundations and businesses assembled by the Rockefeller Foundation. The EGA meets annually to decide which NGOs and which projects will be funded. Annual grants to NGOs through this organization are estimated to be in the range of $500,000,000.

The federal government also funds NGOs. During a recent eighteen-month period the Department of Interior awarded grants totaling $242,000,000 to more than 800 NGOs.

Even more money comes from the UN. According to the 1996 First Quarter Report of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a total of $2.3 billion was spent on global warming projects. Most went to accredited NGOs around the world. The report identified thirty-nine such projects which were coordinated by the IUCN, the WWF, or the WRI worth a total of $350 million.

These NGOs are funded to achieve specific objectives. The Tides Foundation operates an “Incubator Program.” This program creates new NGOs to perform specialized tasks. The Environmental Working Group is one such program. Among its tasks is a project called The Clearinghouse for Environmental Research. One of its functions is to identify “populist organizations” that oppose the global agenda and attempt to discredit those organizations.

Another organization created in 1992 is The Greater Ecosystem Alliance. It was created for the purpose of generating public acceptance of the idea of ecosystem management in the Northwest, specifically, to introduce the concept of the Wildlands Project. The Wildlands Project was subsequently renamed the Wildlands Network. See: http://www.twp.org/

Every community has one or more such NGOs. They often consist of only two or three professionals funded by a foundation such as The Tides Foundation. They are placed in a community to build public support for some component of the international agenda.

Currently, Sustainable Communities are the hot item. NGOs have been dispatched to targeted communities to develop what they often call “visioning councils.” They are eligible for federal grants to develop a community plan for a Sustainable Community. The criteria for a Sustainable Community comes directly from Agenda 21. It was adopted in Rio de Janeiro, Americanized by The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, and designed to translate international policy into local ordinances and state and federal law.

NGOs in the Future

The power gained by NGOs in the recent past is nothing compared to what they have planned for the future. At Habitat II, UN Rule 61 gave accredited NGOs full participation in negotiating sessions with official delegates. Our Global Neighborhood recommends the creation of a new Assembly of the People. It is to consist of 300-to-600 representatives of accredited NGOs. The Assembly will meet annually before the UN General Assembly meeting to provide ideas and information to the official delegates on the next steps to implement Agenda 21 policies.

Another new UN entity being recommended is a Petitions Council. The Petitions Council would be a small council of representatives from accredited NGOs whose job would be to receive petitions of non-compliance from NGOs on the ground. The UN calls this an early warning system. Petitions would be screened by the council and forwarded to the appropriate UN organization for enforcement action.

Another recommendation is to restructure the UN Trusteeship Council to be governed by representatives from accredited NGOs. They would have “trusteeship” over the global commons. This is defined to be:

“The atmosphere, outer space, oceans beyond national jurisdiction, and the related environment and life-support systems that contribute to the support of human life.”

NGOs provide the interface between globalists and the rest of society. NGOs not affiliated with an accredited NGO, which confers CSO status, are discredited, discounted, and labeled as populist activists. Every CSO-NGO is empowered by a funding source that pays for a specific function designed to advance a broader agenda. The funding source, whether public or private, works to advance an agenda that is coordinated by, and developed through, the NGO triumvirate working with UN agencies and national governments.

As the NGOs see it, the result is phenomenal effectiveness at influencing policy at the international, national, and local levels. They believe that their effectiveness will increase.

 

The Obama Carbon-Scam

A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission.

Judi McLeod’s excellent article for Canada Free Press, which she expanded from a Fox News piece, highlights how years before he became president, Obama helped directly fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the proposed cap-and-trade carbon reduction program.

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to steer through Congress.

McLeod also notes that The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

While McLeod’s article highlights the cronyism and corporate dealings behind this set up, we should also add the fact that both Gore and Strong come from a stable of elite groups that have long sought to use the environmental movement to advance their agendas.

Strong, who was groomed by David Rockefeller to eventually serve as Director of the Rockefeller Foundation, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Club of Rome.

Gore too comes from the Club of Rome clique.

Lets take a look at the connections these groups have to the environmental movement.

In 1990, writes veteran reporter Jim Tucker, the Bilderbergers adopted climate change as the preferred model to impose global government and reintroduce serfdom. “Like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group discovered the issue of environmental deterioration. Bilderbergers embraced a report from the Trilateral Commission that year on the environment, because the potential profit in cleaning up the mess would be immense.”

The following year, the Club of Rome think tank published The First Global Revolution, a book suggesting a draconian neo-Malthusianism approach will solve the world’s “problems”, in fact a problem the global elite has with humanity.

“In searching 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 book states. “All these dangers are caused by human intervention,” and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, expanded on this topic in his article, State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era. According to Haass, a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming and terrorism, both invented as the Club of Rome suggested.

“Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change,” writes Haass. “The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called Limits to growth. The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

As we reported two years ago, During the secretive Trilateral Commission group meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

Why is this so concerning? Because groups such as the Club of Rome are contracted out by our own governments and the UN to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which they use in formulating their policies and programs. How come the Club of Rome gets the gig? Simply because many high ranking UN and government officials are also CoR members, or have direct corporate ties to members. The same goes for the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

A recently unearthed documentary that sought to expose this agenda at its inception is George Hunt’s excellent research piece on the environmental movement.

Considering the information unearthed concerning Obama’s links to all of this, it is not surprising that he is now pushing the “cap-and-trade” carbon tax program, which in reality represents a war on the middle and working classes.

Prior to the election, Obama called for drastically reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent, a move that would inflict a new Great Depression, cost millions of jobs, and sink America to near third world status.

The 80 per cent figure is a huge leap towards the ultimate goal, expressed by the Carnegie Institute last year and afforded sober credibility by the corporate media – a complete reduction down to zero carbon emissions.

As we have previously noted, such a move would lead to the near complete reversal of hundreds of years of technological progress and man’s return to the stone age.

 

The Club of Rome and the UNFCCC

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DC’s and LDC’s, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and or each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” John P. Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Ecoscience, 1977

The Copenhagen conference on climate change at the beginning of next month seeks to, according to its creators, “reach a new global accord to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions of greenhouse gases”. UN-front man Ban Ki-Moon remarked at a preparation speech on the road to Copenhagen that “sooner or later there will be a higher price on carbon – imposed either by policy or by market forces.” All this just rolls off the tongs of these transnationalist as if they are whistling a tune while tending their garden. If there was no such thing as historic fact, it would sound noble, urgent, and necessary. Unfortunately, we know precisely what motivates the initiators of this global effort: profit, absolute control and- I almost forgot- depopulation of the world’s inhabitants. This garden the elite is cultivating is by no means a place of joy. It stinks of rotten weeds and dead foliage.

In this first of several articles, I set out to identify the blueprint of modern day eugenics and its intimate ties to the environmental movement. In fact, the more one researches this union, forged in the blood of millions in the last century, the more one realises that the anthropogenic global warming swindle is not just tied to eugenics. It is eugenics.

In 1968 a think-tank emerged out of the back alleys of the face-lifted eugenics movement called the Club of Rome. Nurtured from its very conception as a beacon of light to which all environmentalist ships should navigate, its creators knew that the green movement they had set out to create, was designed to blame man for the supposed predicament the earth was in. As a consequence the number of people should be reduced lest the earth crumble under his crushing weight. The only thing to be done, so argued the Club, was for a global body of power to enforce depopulation goals as decided upon by the global elite.

Of what people does this global elite consist? Well just google ‘Club of Rome members’ and compare the names on the membership lists with those on the list of attendants of the annual Bilderberg conferences and you will discover the very same cast of characters, setting up the rules in the New World Order. You’ll find Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, and all the other enemies of all free humanity and their cronies.

In 1972, the self described “group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” published their (in)famous “The Limits to Growth”. In this document the authors point-blank argue for the population to shrink if mother earth is to survive much longer: “The overwhelming growth in world population”, claim the authors, “caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality.”

This development is highly worrisome, says the Club of Rome. As possible solutions for this “problem” it proposes either the birthrate to be brought down “to equal the new, lower death rate”, or “the death rate must rise again.” The following example will show that these statements by the world’s upper elites are in no way innocent musings without consequence.

Contrary to popular belief, the original architect of China’s policies was neither Mao Zedong in a power-drunk whim nor a Party-sadist hatching eugenics in some sub-level torture chamber. According to anthropologist Susan Greenhalgh in her study ‘Just One Child: Science and Policy in Deng’s China’ the inspiration for the tyrannical move by the Chinese Communist Party was inspired first and foremost by the Club of Rome.

In the early seventies, a group of Chinese scientists visited several scientific conferences in Europe, and readily picked up on the ideas distributed by the Club of Rome. At the head of this Chinese delegation was a man credited for introducing China’s notorious one-child policies, source of so much hardship suffered by the Chinese people in the last decades.

Greenhalgh points out that the infamous policy “had roots in missile scientists’ exposure to and import of Club of Rome population concepts through international conferences in the 1970s.”

The ‘missile scientists’ Greenhalgh mentions, are Dr. Song Jian and company, visiting several conferences in Europe in the 1970s designed to further the glory and prestige of the People’s Republic of China around the world. They picked up and further developed several methods to calculate population rates on blueprint models used by the Club of Rome to calculate their scams into creation. The fact that the Club of Rome stands at the cradle of one-child policies may not come as a complete surprise to those who have read all the policy-papers issued from the seventies onward. The same Malthusian idea that triggered our current green movement and its obsession with man-made global warming mythology once inspired hardcore involuntary sterilization policies in the decades preceding World War II.

In order to force a rising death rate into being one needs to create “a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in a vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.”

In the 1991 publication “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome” by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, the common denominator that the world would need to rally around was identified in all clarity:

“In searching 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. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

This contrived and purposeful enemy arrived in the shape of man-made global warming. And to think that all of us gullible gadgets were fooled into believing that any climate change was caused by that big lamp in the sky, determining not just earth’s overall temperatures but those of all planets in the solar system.

It just goes to show that the scam is perpetrated on such an unprecedented scale, that few dare question its validity. The entire thing of course boils down to the old Nazi proverb: the bigger the lie, the easier the sell. The United Nations, the globalist foremost salesman, was designated to carry the message along to all the world’s ‘regions’ and all nation-states falling under her jurisdiction. The division of the UN deemed most qualified to do the job was UNESCO, the scientific arm deciding what educational programs are to be distributed amongst the world’s universities and primary schools. On June 15th of this year, Martin Lees, Secretary General of the Club of Rome gave a speech to UNESCO- social engineers in which he admits that:

“We in the Club of Rome have had a long relationship with UNESCO. We look forward to developing our future collaboration so that we can advance our understanding and cooperation to promote action on the critical global issues which will determine the future of us all at this difficult moment in history.”

To understand what this collaboration between the Club of Rome and UNESCO will specifically entail, Mr. Lees provides us with the agenda leading up to and following the Copenhagen conference next month. Just so you know what to expect from the social engineers in the year to come:

“In October 2009, we will focus at our Annual General Assembly in Amsterdam on “Environment, Energy and Economic Recovery” focused on the key issues for the Copenhagen Climate Conference. In February 2010 we will tackle Cluster Three, on International Development. In April 2010 we will focus on Cluster Four, Social Transformation and in July 2010, on Peace and Security. The Programme will conclude with a major event in November 2010.”

The agenda shows that the Copenhagen conference is not an isolated happening. It is just one piece of the overall global architecture the elite is constructing and with which it means to consolidate power in the 21st century. Or, as the Secretary General of the Club of Rome puts it:

“Issues of international governance and institutional architecture will be critical in particular to the effective implementation of a post-Kyoto Treaty. To address the underlying drivers of climate change, institutional mechanisms must be introduced or adapted to implement and coordinate new policies in key areas of concentration such as: finance; science and technology; human resource development; information and communications; and capacity building. And the issue of “climate justice” will be central to achieving any agreement and to the acceptance of any treaty.”

Irrespective of these world players’ vested interest in such an architecture, they all dance to the tune of eugenics- whether they are aware of it or not. It can be to further their career or some sadist pleasure in usurping innocence; whatever their motivation, they have openly declared themselves to be on the opposite side of humanity.

 

De-Population

The basis for the depopulation agenda is a standard all elitist’s hold dear. This standard is called:

The Hegelian Dialectic:

Problem – Reaction-Solution

Create the Problem Cause a Reaction Offer a Solution

You will see exactly how they have created the problem; caused a reaction so widespread it is really quite impressive how successful they have been; and offered a solution: A deadly solution.

I ask that you please make an attempt to distribute this paper everywhere you possibly can. The time grows short and so many are going to be caught unawares. By getting the word out, you may be able to prevent someone from needless pain and suffering.

	Aldous Huxley

William Benton, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State at UNESCO 1946: (UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization)

“As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The schools therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism)…we shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world mindedness. We are at the beginning of a long process of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty. UNESCO must be the pioneer.” (Emphasis mine throughout)

Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991:

“In searching 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 (this is absolute proof that man made global warming is a fabrication)…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Mikhail Gorbachev:

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World 1946:

“There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarians should resemble the old. Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost.”

Aldous Huxley, Lecture named Population Explosion 1959:

“…Let us ask ourselves what the practical alternatives are as we confront this problem of population growth. One alternative is to do nothing in particular about it and just let things go on as they are…The question is: Are we going to restore the balance in the natural way, which is a brutal and entirely anti-human way, or are we going to restore it in some intelligent, rational, and humane way…Try to increase production as much as possible and at the same time try to re-establish the balance between the birth rate by means less gruesome than those which are used by nature – by intelligent and human methods?…There are colossal difficulties in the way of implementing any large-scale policy of limitation of population; whereas death control is extremely easy under modern circumstances, birth control is extremely difficult. The reason is very simple: death control – the control, for example, of infectious diseases – can be accomplished by a handful of experts and quite a small labour force of unskilled persons and requires a very small capital expenditure.”

Barry Commoner, Making Peace with the Planet:

“There have been ‘triage’ proposals that would condemn whole nations to death through some species of global ‘benign neglect’. There have been schemes for coercing people to curtail their fertility, by physical and legal means that are ominously left unspecified. Now we are told that we must curtail rather than extend our efforts to feed the hungry peoples of the world. Where will it end?” Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997, Testimony before Congressional Committee: “There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important.”

Jacques Cousteau

Jacques Cousteau UNESCO Courier 1991:

“In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.”

Jacques Cousteau, Population: Opposing Viewpoints:

“If we want our precarious endeavor to succeed, we must convince all human beings to participate in our adventure, and we must urgently find solutions to curb the population explosion that has a direct influence on the impoverishment of the less-favoured communities. Otherwise, generalized resentment will beget hatred, and the ugliest genocide imaginable, involving billions of people, will become unavoidable.”

“Uncontrolled population growth and poverty must not be fought from inside, from Europe, from North America, or any nation or group of nations; it must be attacked from the outside – by international agencies helped in the formidable job by competent and totally non-governmental organizations.”

Bertrand Russell, The Impact Of Science On Society 1953

“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing… War… has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s… There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority…”

Henry Kissinger, 1978:

“U.S. policy toward the third world should be one of depopulation”

David Rockefeller, 2000:

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

David Rockefeller: Memoirs 2002 Founder of the CFR:

“We wield over American political and economical institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political structure, one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

David Rockefeller, Co-founder of the Trilateral Commission:

	David Rockefeller

“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American Case Officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA) (now the US State Dept. Office of Population Affairs, est. by Henry Kissinger in 1975): “There is a single theme behind all our work -we must reduce population levels,” said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department’s Office of Population Affairs (OPA). “Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. “The professionals,” said Ferguson, “aren’t interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population -or else we will have trouble.

“So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it…. There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there.” (1981)

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 28, 1997; Testimony before Congressional Committee:

“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: its Purpose and its Philosophy:

“Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” In the early 1950’s, former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed the opinion that UNESCO was comparable to a Communist Party agitation and propaganda department. He stated that such a party apparatus ‘handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old.’ Huxley would lard the agency with a motley collection of Communists and fellow travelers.

President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding

Theodore Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport, January 3, 1913, Charles B. Davenport Papers, Department of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.:

“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them…The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”

Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt:

“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind…. Any group of farmers, who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum…. Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population… The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity…” “I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them… The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…”

By Carl Teichrib:

“The Georgia Guidestones, a massive granite edifice planted in the Georgia countryside, contains a list of ten new commandments for Earth’s citizens. The first commandment, and the one which concerns this article, simply states; “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”

Robert Walker, former chair of PepsiCo and Proctor & Gamble on water:

Water is a gift of nature. Its delivery is not. It must be priced to insure it is used sustainably.

Ted Turner makes the radical statement that, “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal,”

Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood, funded by the Rockefellers) said in her proposed “The American Baby Code”, intended to become law:

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

This is the woman (Margaret Sanger) whom Hillary Clinton publicly declared she looked up to, during the 2008 presidential debates.

Here is a short list of some advocates of eugenics; Alexander Graham Bell, George Bernard Shaw H. G. Wells, Sidney Webb, William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling, Sidney Webb, Sir Francis Galton, Charles B. Davenport Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard (who wanted to create a Dept. of Peace):

“Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend…One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other…One-fourth is resistant to election. They are unattracted by life ever evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God…They are defective seeds…There have always been defective seeds. In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’…we, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow…Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human—the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers—the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds. Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God…the riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity…”

	Henry Kissinger

Alexander Haig is quoted referring to the US State Department Office of Population Affairs, which was established by Henry Kissinger in 1975. The title has since been changed to The Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs:

“Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nation’s access to nuclear energy technology–the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a “firm believer” in population control.

Although the above stated quotes should be sufficient to prove that the elitists in power have definite intent to depopulate this planet to what they deem to be a sustainable level. Some will argue these are only opinions and are of no real consequence. I will now move on to providing bits of documentation showing this is a plan that has a worldwide scope of influence.

Most of these documents are at least 10 years old, some older. That however, does not take away from the seriousness of the content. Do not think them invalid due to their age. It takes time to foment plans on such a grand scale. But, if you are honest with yourself you can see glimpses of these things happening today.

I am going to cover some issues stemming from the UN Treaty on Biological Diversity (Agenda 21), which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993 before it was sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

EPA Internal Working Document Ecosystem Management:

“The executive branch should direct federal agencies to evaluate national policies…. in light of international policies and obligations, and to amend national policies to achieve international objectives.”

“In other words, our federal bureaucrats are writing U.S. law, independent of Congress who has Constitutional authority to do that. They are changing regulations and creating laws out of thin air.”

“They are no longer working for the people of the United States. They are working for the international community. There are so many treaties written up that they have (effectively) bound the United States. Whereas a few of the treaties were not a problem, the abundance (100’s) of them have now taken control over all of our lives” -Michael Coffman

UN Treaty on Biological Diversity Assessment on Desirable Culture:

“…Traditional societies have considered certain sites as sacred, where most human activities are prohibited.”

That is the heart of the Convention on Biodiversity. Locking up nearly 50% of the land area of the United States is their idea of protecting biological diversity. -Michael Coffman

UN Treaty on Biodiversity Diversity Usage of Fertilizers Not Sustainable:

“That fertilizers have played an essential part in producing the world’s harvests is undisputed. (It) is estimated that if the use of fertilizers ceased, the world’s harvests would be cut almost in half. However, the negative side of the equation is that the nitrates from fertilizers seep into ground water aquifers and they are seriously implicated in the eutrophication of lakes, rivers and coastal ecosystems causing often drastic changes in the fauna and flora.”

“They are willing to take a course of action that will reduce the world’s food supply by half, or more, as they will likely reduce the use of pesticides knowing full well how many people this will kill”. -Michael Coffman

UN Biodiversity Assessment on Sustainable Human Population; US Senate September 9, 1994:

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion people. This must be implemented within 30-50 years, 2/3’s of the population must be cut.”

“The UN says property rights are not absolute and unchanging, but are there for the convenience of whatever government wants to do.” – Michael Coffman

“Nobody owns biodiversity, so everything we do impinges on biodiversity. Property rights become meaningless. At the Rio De Janeiro Summit it was decided that the Global Environmental Facility would be the depository of all property rights.” – Michael Coffman

UN Biodiversity Assessment The Worldview of Western Civilization Section 12.2.3, Page 835:

The western “worldview is characteristic of large-scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a worldview that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes of nature… (which) became firmly established about 2000 years (ago) with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.”

This same treaty considers rocks to be living beings on an equal plane with human beings. Rocks, many believe, will reincarnate into lower life forms; and gradually into human beings.

Bureau of Land Management Internal Working Document

“Soylent green is… humans.”

Human Dimensions of Ecosystem Management Objective/Purpose: “All ecosystem management activities should consider human beings as biological resources…” (Reminiscent of Soylent Green)

This document was brought before Congress. This statement created such an uproar that it was removed. Regardless of its removal, it still serves to prove the mindset of these people; and just because this was removed from a document it does not mean it was removed from the thoughts and the intended goals of those who penned it; or who believe it.

“For the elite to be able to have management of the ecosystem, humans would have no more value than a rock.” – Michael Coffman

UN Biodiversity Treaty UN Global Biological Assessment Sustainable Human Populations:

“Population growth has exceeded the capacity of the biosphere” (i.e. the earth) “It is estimated that an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.”

Now I feel is an appropriate time to cover some other areas of government, as well as private organizations that would like to see the population of the world decrease at an astounding rate (up to 90%). This is a dark, bloody agenda that will cause terrible hardship and pain upon millions of people.

World Wildlife Fund, World Resources Institute International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN):

The IUCN involves the EPA, US Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Fund, the National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, UNESCO, the Environmental Defense Fund, the U.N. Environmental Program, etc. .

IUCN 1992

Covenant On the Environment and Development: “Eventually a wilderness network would dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix, with human habitations being the islands. The remaining half of the US would be used as buffer zones.”

“The night before this treaty was ratified, Senator Mitchell withdrew it from the calendar and it was never voted on. It took four men, devoted to God in prayer to stop this treaty. The treaty still waits in the wings. Upon ratification, the US will have no ability to protect its own citizens.” -Michael Coffman

Henry Kissinger had a similar plan to use food as a weapon in 1974, found in the National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests; which was adopted as official policy by then President Gerald Ford in November of 1975. This Memorandum outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in lesser-developed countries by means of birth control, and implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as National Security Advisor, (the same post Scowcroft held in the Bush Administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George H.W. Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense and Agriculture.

This document has never been renounced, only certain portions have been amended, leaving it as the foundational document on population control issued in the U.S. Government.

The major players in the founding of this document are as follows:

Henry Kissinger Richard Nixon Margaret Sanger Paul Ehrlich Werner Fornos Timothy Wirth The United Nations Population Fund The United States Agency for International Development Planned Parenthood Federation of America International Planned Parenthood Federation The Club of Rome UNICEF WHO United Nations World Bank

The document can be read here in its entirety, along with the other organizations and individuals complicit in this abomination:

http://www.usmutes.com/NSSM200.htm

	Adolph Hitler

Let it be noted that Adolph Hitler also used food as weapon, stating that food is “a beautiful instrument…for maneuvering and disciplining the masses.” Food has been used as a weapon of war for centuries. Why then would it be outrageous for the elite to use food as a weapon, both a physical and a psychological weapon, in a declared war on overpopulation? It would not be outrageous at all. As has been said time and time again, history repeats itself.

Now we will cover the Earth Charter.

The Earth Charter; A Radical Global Religion, created by Mikhail Gorbachev and Michael Strong: “The Earth Charter initiative reflects the conviction that a radical change in humanity’s attitudes and values is essential to achieve social, economic and ecological well-being in the 21st century… The commission…plans to circulate a final version of the Charter as a People’s Treaty beginning in mid-1998. The Charter will be submitted to the U.N. General Assembly in the year 2000…(where it will) ensure a very strong document that reflects the emerging new global ethics.” This is unprecedented (it is) the first component of an authentic global governance. We are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our ability to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity to organize our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage.”

The American people were not allowed to see this. Americans as a whole do not want the UN to be the head of a world government. The one thing the majority of this country values, above most everything else, is their freedom. Or the semblance of freedom we have left should I say.

At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Presidential Council on Sustainable Development in 1996 came to the conclusion that the world’s human population should not exceed 500 million people. That is a 93% reduction in population!

According to the UN video, “Armed to the Teeth”; and also in the Freedom From War Policy -put into effect by JFK in 1961-general and complete disarmament and US military power was given over, in full, to the UN. This is a loss of the sovereignty of America. (Read this document at http://www.scribd.com/doc/5009662/Freedom From-War).

The Earth Charter (1992), A Spiritual Vision: “A consensus has developed that the Earth Charter should be…the articulation of a spiritual vision that reflects universal spiritual values, including, but not limited to, ethical values …a people’s charter that serves as a universal code of conduct for ordinary citizens, educators, business executives, scientists, religious leaders, non-governmental organizers and national councils of sustainable development; and a declaration of principles that can serve as a “soft tax” document when endorsed by the UN General Assembly. ”

In its original form, The Earth Charter failed miserably due to open, blatant pantheistic approach. Gorbachev and Strong have worked diligently to change the language and make it appear less obvious. You may be wondering what the Earth Charter has to do with depopulation. It has everything to do with it. Here is a very brief synopsis of what the Charter holds for us.

According to the Charter, we must:

* “Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value…” (Unborn children, of course, are not included in the UN’s definition of “every form of life.” The Earth Summit II documents continue to support the UN’s pro-abortion policies.)

* “Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings.” (UN agencies, however, support policies of euthanasia for those determined not capable of living a “quality” life.)

* “Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations….” (This is a prescription for global socialism in a super-regulated global state.)

* “Prevent pollution of any part of the environment…” (Enforcing this dictum would mean stopping virtually all human activity.)

* “Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price.” (This seemingly harmless sentence would empower the state to price, tax, and regulate all production and consumption.)

* “Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction. (This is a thinly disguised call for that includes abortion and population control.)

* “Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race … [and] sexual orientation.” (This provision is clearly aimed at criminalizing those who refuse to accept homosexuality as positive and good.)

* “Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations. (See;

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+new+world+religion%3a+presented+to+the+world+as+a+mystical… a091968392 for the full article)

Earth Charter

The Earth Charter has not been ratified. Do not make the mistake of assuming it has not been interwoven into our society, however! It is being taught in our schools and promoted shamelessly by Hollywood, the UN, NBC (owned by GE), ABC, CBS, CNN, HLN & all the Fox owned stations, with the exception of Fox News in order to keep the supporters blinded to the machinations of Rupert Murdock. Do not be deceived!

The ability to freely procreate is soon to be removed from us, much as it has been in China for many years. Not only will we not be allowed to have children, anyone who is termed a “useless eater” (A term coined by Henry Kissinger) will be euthanized: Mercilessly culled.

In Sweden , the “Sterilization Act of 1934″ provided for the voluntary sterilization of some mental patients. The law was passed while the Swedish Social Democratic Party was in power, though it was also supported by all other political parties in Parliament at the time, as well as the Lutheran Church and much of the medical profession. -Wikipedia

America is scheduled to become compliant to Codex Alimentarius (CA) as of December 31, 2009.

Codex Alimentarius is going to regulate virtually anything that you put into your mouth that is not a pharmaceutical. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has accepted Codex Alimentarius and any nation that is a member of the WTO must become compliant with CA. In any dispute between 2 countries, the one that is Codex compliant automatically wins. This is quite an incentive for all nations to become compliant. – Rima Laibow

CA guidelines set for vitamins & minerals are said to be voluntary, however, they are scheduled to become mandatory on December 31, 2009. In 1994, Codex Alimentarius declared nutrients to be poisons: See the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (DSHEA). Yet fluoride is acceptable! Why? It creates complacency. Proper nutrients will ensure a longer, healthier life. Not at all in keeping with a depopulation agenda.

From Esoteric Agenda, a documentary by Ben Stewart:

“In 1962 it was decreed that there would be a move toward total global implementation of Codex Alimentarius. The date set for implementation is December 31, 2009. WHO and FAO are the commissions in charge of CA. They fund it and run it at the request of the U.N.

According to WHO & FAO, epidemiological projections, it is estimated that according to the vitamin and mineral guideline alone; when CA goes into global implementation on December 31, 2009, it will result in a minimum of 3 billion deaths; 1 billion due through starvation. The next 2 billion will die from preventable diseases due to malnutrition.”

“The U.N. has put out dozens of reports calling for an 80% reduction in population (most put the number at 90%). At the 1997 Women’s World Conference in Beijing, the head of the U.N. Food Program said, “We will use food as a weapon against the people.””

In conjunction with Codex Alimentarius, food will be limited and water consumption will be decreased to 10 gallons per day, per person. The average American uses 140 gallons of water every day. The food provided will be Genetically Modified and nutrient deficient.

As of the Codex Alimentarius (CA) implementation date of 12/31/09, if there were a famine anywhere in the world, it will be illegal to send any high nutrient density biscuits. Or to distribute them!!

Once a country becomes CA compliant, CA can never be repealed. Membership with the WTO robs the member nations of any and all sovereignty. Germany is now CA compliant.

Codex Alimentarius goes hand in hand with Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty. The deadline to implement both Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Treaty is 2012.” (Rima Laibow)

Agenda 21 was birthed out of the Rio Summit 1992. Agenda 21 (A 21), a.k.a. Smart Growth, Regionalism, Visioning Processes, Action Plans, Shared Values; 20/20, Best Practices; Community Festivals & Public/Private Partnerships. These are the names you will hear A 21 called, the buzzwords.

Every county must set up a council to oversee the implementation of A 21. A 21 is Sustainable Development. Steven Rockefeller set up the Earth Charter, referenced above. The Earth Charter is the new One World Religion: Earth worship. The earth is considered to be ‘sacred’, and its protection is a ‘sacred trust’. Global responsibility will demand basic changes in values, behaviors and attitudes of government, the private sector, and civil society.

Under Sustainable Development man is considered to be responsible for the pollution of the planet and is subordinate to all other living creatures. This is a direct contradiction to the Bible where God placed man in a position of dominance over the entire earth. The elite will worship and serve the creature, rather than the Creator.

“The environmental agenda is a spiritual agenda with earth worship at its root. As such, the following practices are all considered to be unsustainable: Fossil fuels, artificial fertilizers, modern systems of agricultural production, irrigation water, herbicides, pesticides, farmland, pastures, grazing of livestock, consumerism, dietary habits, salt, sugar, private property, paved roads, dams, reservoirs, logging activities, fencing of pastures”. – Joan Peros

“Every environmental resource must be measured. What can be measured can be managed under the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Project.” – Joan Peros

Among the things considered to be unsustainable, as listed above, these are included: Monotheism and the family unit. The health care plan of President Obama is under A 21. Under this health care plan, the family unit is very much being attacked. Anyone over age 65 must undergo ‘end of life counseling’ by their doctor every 5 years. Abortion will be pushed that much harder, especially with the Science Czar wanting sterilants put into our water supply! One of the new appointee’s to the Obama Administration once said in a book he co-wrote that a child could be killed up to the age of 2 years old! What kind of a monster could think that is acceptable?

Nearly the exact language used to define Sustainable Development was taken from the 1977 Soviet Constitution!

The Family Dependency Ratio, under the United Nations, will look at every household. They will gauge what that household has produced in accordance with what it has used (i.e., resources) by the water bills, energy bills, etc. Are you using more than you are producing? Are you adding to the collective, or merely taking away? This is how the powers that be will determine whether you are a productive citizen, or, in the words of Henry Kissinger, “A useless eater”.

In 1990, Prince Charles formed The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum to bring together 50-60 of the world’s topmost multi-national/transnational corporations to start buying up governments around the world. This is Public/Private Partnerships: This is the very definition of fascism.

I must stop here. At the rate things are now moving, I could add to this daily. But, December 31 is not so far away now, only 4 months. I must get this out now. Time is short.

 

The Green Economy

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

– Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level. –U.N. Agenda 21

The Green Economy – A Global Economic Suicide Pact

The global green movement places very little value on the modern industrial society that has produced huge improvements in economic prosperity, health care, human rights, education and standards of living. In fact, the green movement hates and fears western-style capitalism. To them, the loss of industrial civilisation is of no great consequence. In fact, it is one of the top priorities of the Global Green Agenda.

The green movement has been obsessed with capitalism, especially evil multi-national corporations, since its birth in the 1960s. Long before the advent of ‘global warming’, the primary objective of the movement was, and always has been, simply the destruction of energy production. They know that the life blood of the industrial society is energy, especially fossil fuels, and a significant reduction in energy availability will deal a fatal blow to Gaia’s greatest threat – modern human society. Primitive societies are admired for being sustainable and living in harmony with Gaia. Western capitalist nations are reviled as “destroyers of the earth” which must be subdued. They make no attempt to conceal this agenda:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

One of the first targets of green movement was the nuclear power industry. Even though nuclear energy offers enormous energy potential with no CO2 emissions they still revile it. They also fiercely oppose any proposals to build new hydro-electric dams based on perceived negative environmental effects. The same argument is used to oppose any proposals to develop new oil fields. They intend to starve the beast not feed it. The only sources of power that the environmental movement is willing to allow are wind and sunlight. Humans will just have to adapt to living with very low volumes of unreliable energy.

Of course the big prize has always been to find some way to control, or even eliminate, the use of fossil fuels. After all, it is fossil fuels that have allowed the human population to blossom from a mere one billion in 1850 to more than six billion today. A single barrel of oil contains 23,000 man-hours of energy. Hence the 20 million barrels that the USA consumes each day is equivalent to 15 billion additional human workers. Oil has empowered each American worker the equivalent of 45 ‘virtual slaves’. Globally it provides us with the equivalent daily energy of more than 70 billion human workers. Try pushing your car for a few miles to see just how much work oil does for us.

In 1850 more than 85% of people led lives of hard drudgery growing food, today less than 2% of people in western societies are employed in the agricultural sector. In 1850 most people never traveled beyond the next village, whereas we are free to roam the world and learn from other cultures. The average life expectancy in England in 1850 was 34, and infant mortality was nearly 30%. Now the average life expectancy is in excess of 70, and infant mortality is miniscule.

But the green movement looks back with great fondness to a simpler and gentler time. According to them without fossil fuels the world will be transformed into an Ecotopia. We would all live in small sustainable villages, surrounded by lush fields where happy peasants sang love-songs to Gaia as they gently tilled her soil. Without the unbridled power provided by fossil fuels we could no longer dominate the earth, shaping it according to our own will. Humans would learn to once again live humbly alongside all other living beings, and be reconciled with Mother Nature.

The fact that modern ‘industrial’ agriculture would collapse without fossil fuels, and as a result hundreds of millions would starve, seems to be of minor consequence. It’s just a bit of short-term pain for long-term gain. Ted Turner, who donated over a billion dollars to the United Nations specifically to fund the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks that “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Hence for the green movement Global Warming presents an opportunity to finally and completely destroy the voracious beast of capitalism. They are demanding the imposition of a massive reduction in global emissions of carbon dioxide accompanied by a freeze on such emissions at the sharply reduced level. This would immediately result in the elimination or radical reduction in the supply of all goods and services that depend on fossil fuel consumption. As Al Gore says it would be a “wrenching transformation of society.” Every aspect of daily life would be dramatically altered.

The much vaunted Stern Report called for a 25% reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Given the fact that the world population is expected to increase by third which means the 9 billion people would have to generate 25% less then 6 billion, or a per capita reduction of 50%. This would devastate the global economy and make the Great Depression look like a picnic.

The two leading Democratic Presidential Candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have both called for an 80% reduction by 2050. Factoring in population growth, this would require a reduction of more than 90%. You really have to wonder if they have thought deeply about the implications of this goal. It even makes the climate doom stories seem pleasant:

“According to the Department of Energy’s most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050. Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction. It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia. If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita.” – Link

And then we have dear old Al Gore. The Goracle has called for a reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions of 90% within 20 years! There is little chance that modern society could function with 25% less oil, just imagine the consequences of a 90% reduction. Cities would be deserted and slowly rot. Infrastructure could no longer be maintained. It would surely result in a massive die-off in the human population.

I’m quite certain Al isn’t serious about his demands for a 90% reduction. That would be uncontrollable, and the whole purpose behind the Global Green Agenda is to gain control over, transform, and reduce human activity. A more likely outcome will be less severe reductions, combined with the imposition of a global system of carbon permits governed by the United Nations. This would give the UN unprecedented power to regulate individuals, businesses and governments, all in the name of ‘saving the Earth’. Carbon markets have already been established in many countries in anticipation of a mandatory system.

In the United States the only operating carbon emissions trading market is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Coincidentally, or not, Al Gore’s hedge fund, Generation Investment Management, is the largest shareholder in CCX. Now that’s what I call a conflict of interest! The most vocal Global Warming alarmist is the largest shareholder in the USA’s only operating ‘carbon market.’ On the board of CCX we find our old friend Maurice Strong.

In late 2007 the UN will host a conference in Bali with the intention of formulating an internationally binding Climate Change Treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. It is widely expected that this treaty will mandate a global carbon trading system, and possibly a global carbon tax. Many green activists know that Global Warming is a vague and hollow threat. However, it is proving to be a very effective tool in implementing their Global Green Agenda which began more than a decade ago with Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.

 

Agenda 21 for Dummies

Are You Sustainable?

Sustainable Development is a framework of thought to “save our planet” by harmonizing eco-systems with industry and population. In its most modern iteration (inasmuch it has been around a long time), it is the outcome of the Earth Summit, and is organized around “climate change”, man’s impact on environmental resources and the organic biosphere we live within. It is currently getting notoriety as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which is the Treaty that legally binds all nations to Agenda 21. Although much larger than this, we could summarize that it is the outcome of the Rio Earth Summit where Al Gore unveiled his Inconvenient Truths. It is a blueprint to ‘radically change the entire world in the name of Economic, Social, and Environmental equity.

We ask ourselves where did Obama’s entire team of Czars’ come from? What is their role? Where did the language for all these massive Bills come from? Most of Obama’s czars are from the world of academia and had been contributors to the thoughts that went into this Global Vision as perceived and outlined by the United Nations.

At the Earth Summit meeting Al Gore said: “Americans are going to have to face a wrenching transformation of Society.” Mr. Sagar of the Eden Foundation submits, “It is inherently illogical and otherwise irresponsible to suggest that human activity does not possess the potential to alter the Earth’s climate.” Alexander King, Founder of the Club of Rome adds: “Unless we find the means to change our thinking I can see little hope in solving the supreme problem for humanity – its impending extinction.”

And they are steadily putting these ‘truths’ into practice. Just a few weeks ago, the United Nation held the Conference on the World’s Financial and Economic Crisis. UN General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto blatantly moved the conference to denounce the free market system, saying, “Capitalism cannot be reformed…”He went on to say, “Egotism and greed cannot be corrected …we must go beyond controls and corrections… to create something that strives towards a new paradigm of social coexistence.”

Based upon so-called ‘scientific proof’ that man is killing the planet, an entire framework of thought has evolved to re-shape the globe. It makes no difference that this evidence doesn’t even conform to the principles of the Scientific Method, nor even if it did, that it proves man has created climate change. The conclusions from these scientific tests are speculative.  What does matter though is the importance it has to foisting a political agenda!

The scientific proofs of this political agenda are based on conclusions that are extrapolated from a school of thought known as the ‘precautionary principle’.  In a nutshell, the precautionary principle translates to this:  If there is any possible risks, stop.  If evidence is inconclusive, stop.  If there is no proof, stop anyway.  As a political agenda, the latter is transformed to mean that in the absence of proof, just repeat what you want others to believe long enough so that they also believe it, then pass legislation to prevent its’ outcome.  Clever, isn’t it?  This is the ‘science’ created by politicians,  and it is this irrationality that is the driving force behind the notion of man-made climate change.  It is this irrationality that has concluded that pets and babies are destroying our planet.  If politics was not the engaged in the influence of people, a better case could be made that fish poop in the ocean, therefore fish are destroying our planet.  Sadly, fish don’t pay taxes, so they are allowed to poop us into oblivion.

Although  31,708 U.S. scientists have published research and tried to argue vehemently against the data upon which ‘the radical transformation of our Society’  is being predicated upon; have you heard any of them? They have been silenced, ridiculed, driven out of teaching positions, had Grants cut off, and some even imprisoned. ‘The Plan’ will not tolerate dissent. The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is ‘authored’ by approximately 600 scientists. These ‘authors’ are not permitted power of approval over the publication. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.

Sustainable Development theory has encroached upon every American in ways they have not even recognized. The language of Sustainable Development has pervaded our society. When Bush signed us into UNESCO, the education of our children was to teach them global citizenship and environmental stewardship. Globally acceptable “truths” are now:

Global Warming is globally-acceptable truth.

The United Nations’ Declaration on Human Rights is globally-acceptable truth.

Universal health care is globally-acceptable truth.

Environmentally friendly transportation is globally-acceptable truth.

The common good over the individual is globally-acceptable truth.

Sovereign nations as a source of war is globally-acceptable truth.

Global governance for the future peace of man-kind is globally-acceptable truth.

Global citizenship is globally-acceptable truth.

Severe reduction of the population is globally-acceptable truth.

Many people have been forever speaking of some major ‘conspiracy theory’ afoot, and alluding to The North American Union, or the New World Order. They were partly right, although wrong. There is no conspiracy…there is no secret. If this is a conspiracy, it is the worst kept secret ever made by mankind, as it is published everywhere. You can type Sustainable Development in your search engine, and the millions of hits it will return will range from the U.S. Government, the United Nations, every major University, Corporation, NGO’s (non-government organizations), and on and on. Wow! Stealthy, aren’t they? When last I looked, there were over 26 million hits. Some secret!

Remember, Sustainable Development is the theory. The ‘bad guy’ is Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is the means to implement the theory. Again, shhhhhh…this is very hush-hush stuff, returning only 58 million hits when put into the search engine! If you want to find out when the noose will tighten about your neck, well that too is well published and is called the Marrakech Transition Process. It only returns a paltry 1 million hits.

G.H. Bush signed Agenda 21 in 1992. He did not need ratification or congressional process because this is not a treaty, it is merely a set of ‘soft-laws’. In 1993 Bill Clinton; by Executive Order; created the President’s Council of Sustainable Development. The Council of Czars, if you will.

So while Conservatives flop around ineffectually because they have been so easily duped into dissecting all the content of the massive bills being thrown at us, the context from which it all stems from has been marching forward.  Conversely, while Liberals are unwittingly cheering a universal Utopia because the context is being packaged behind a cascade of obfuscations, they fail to look at any content that could dispel the myths.  Agenda 21 is completely bi-partisan, for when the coffin lid on America and personal freedoms shuts, we all suffocate together.  Meanwhile, the Politicians are laughing at us, realizing how easily manipulated the people are.

The framework for all the language contained in these massive bills coming out of the House, are straight out of Agenda 21. Just by reading the 40 chapter titles of this document would give one a pretty good understanding of what is going on if they are in the least politically aware and can connect the dots.

“All biological life has natural cycles of birth and death, and we should learn to accept these natural cycles and teach people that saving lives at birth or extending life at our times end is non-sustainable”. In other words, what these Sustainabilist’s are saying is…”can’t you just have the good grace to simply die, rather than be a strain on Society”? Or, “why can’t you just accept your baby was born defective and can never be a contributing member to Society, and have the decency to simply let ‘it’ die”. Can this really be happening? Yes, it is happening. Every re-iteration of Health Care Reform bills have heavy taxes to be levied against Medical Devices. These devices are the ones used to sustain life, to extend life. They simply must be run out of business! There are heavy restrictions and taxes to be levied against any/all homeopathic supplements and other Natural Supplements that will force subscription to only those drugs that are supported by our Regime. Those drugs will become vastly reduced as well, as life extending drugs will be increasingly limited. Cures that make economical sense will be endorsed. Prevention and Extension are deemed non-sustainable.

Two major components of Sustainable Development are de-population/population control and bio-equity. As Cass Sunstein announced: “animals and all living creatures have equal rights to humans.” We may laugh, but they are laughing harder as the re-shape the map of the United States in nefarious ways to meet the objectives of Sustainable Development. The political goal (in the name of ‘climate change’) is to have all population living in government-controlled urbanized enclaves, where private transportation choices will become a thing of the past. We are to live, work, and socialize within these cities, brought to you under the lexicon of ‘smart growth‘, and all its derivative language. This can’t be true, you may say. Yes it is. The San Joaquin Valley is being starved as their economy is shut-down to protect the smelt. Logging villages are being shut-down in Oregon to preserve the spotted owl (as if they could not fly anywhere else). Over 400,000 square miles of the United States is currently being ‘grabbed’ by the Government in the name of the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project, referred to hereafter as TWP. (The Wildlands Project). There are currently 39 massive WP’s ongoing in the United States this very moment with the objective to engineer population distribution.

TWP is just one of many different ways our land is being grabbed so we can be shuffled into the pre-planned zones of population. Wildlife Preserves, National Parks, National Forests, Heritage Lands, etc., are some of the other numerous ways. It’s real noble sounding too! Over the last 10 years the United States has added 27 species to the endangered species list. Over the last 6 months, Cass Sunstein has added 681. What does this mean? It means you have got to go, because this bug has equal rights to you, and you are encroaching upon its equitable rights.

This link will take you to maps that show how our country is to be organized, and how our population is to be re-distributed. Notice the language used on the map legend. We get to live in ‘Normal Use -Zones of Cooperation’. I could go into great detail about what ‘Zones of Cooperation’ actually means. Trust me, you won’t like it. Without delving into this subject matter, suffice it to say there is a plethora of cooperation ongoing with Local and Federal Government Agencies as we speak. These alliances are created via Public/Private Partnerships (PPP’s), Non-Government Organizations (NGO’s), and Stakeholder Councils. Every State, every County, and most cities already have ‘cooperative agencies’ , this link taking you to just one of hundred’s.

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that the Supreme Court upheld the legality of Eminent Domain. Who will get eminent domain privileges?  Why co-operating entities of course! Those PPP’s are companies that agreed to keep their mouths shut and play ball with this agenda, in order to get the goodies and protection of the U.S. Government. Cronyism extraordinaire!

Private property and single family homes are deemed non-sustainable. Cap and Trade is clearly outlined in Agenda 21, and as you may be aware, if this passes it gives the Federal Government almost full control over your property. The EPA will determine if your house meets the standards it decides (for the moment) are acceptable to them so you can re-sell your home. This is one insidious slippery slope. Yes, your name will still be on the deed, but the choices on how you live in your house will not be left up to you. You get to pay the bills, you have to pay the taxes, and you will have to pay the fines levied against you as the Government starts handing out violation notices. Your house will become your nightmare!  Your electricity, air conditioning, heating, water, insulation, roof, windows, doors, etc., will all be subject to new regulations.

Another aspect of Cap and Trade (straight out of Agenda 21) is sustainable water usage. This plays a major role throughout all aspects of Agenda 21. Currently, the average American household uses 100 gals/day of water. This will be limited to 26 gals/day. Cows are non-sustainable, they require too much water, land, and they emit too much methane. Both Healthcare and Cap & Trade are taking care of this pesky problem. Hope you like tofu and bean sprouts. These are just a couple of examples among thousands.

It all can be summarized this way: Sustainable Development is essentially the ‘land grab’. The Wildlands Project is the ‘water grab’. Health Care Reform is the ‘body grab’. Cap and Trade is the ‘private property grab’. It is much more complex of course, but it can readily be discerned when you consider all the new Codex Laws for Agriculture that have been passed, all the enumerated powers given the USDA, EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc. These ‘grabs’ are being enacted in numerous ways, but they all flow from Agenda 21.

This is meant only as a primer, to open your eyes, to make you aware of this ‘secret’ plan to “radically transform America” If you are among the youth of today, feeling a bit aimless and uncertain of your future, the good news is you have a Life Plan, no need to fret. If you are a citizen that has diligently organized your life and you are obtaining the goals of your Life Plan, well, I have some bad news for you—your plan is being replaced by someone else’s plan.

Until you know where the battlefield is, you have no chance of winning the War.

 

Return to Eden

Today, there is one acceptable idea – government is the answer. Stray from that premise – even a little, as did Miss California, — and there will be no mercy for you. Your life will be destroyed. There are forces in this nation who want total power to dictate their agenda and they will stop at nothing to achieve it. For them there is no compromise or polite discussion or differences of opinion. The wants, needs, desires of your life, your family, your home, are not to be considered.

Some describe their efforts as a conspiracy. If so, it isn’t very secret. The goal has been outlined in detail many times.

In the UN’s report on Global Governance; in Agenda 21; in various programs of UNESCO, like its International Baccalaureate program, which teaches global citizenship in a global village; it was in the Biodiversity Treaty; the Kyoto global warming accord; and it’s in the Cap and Trade initiative. It is most certainly in Obama’s health care bill.

All of these policies are blatant in their intent. Top down control; no sovereign, independent nations; no individual thought; no private property; no self defense; no morality; no personal pride of achievement; no questions. Anything that goes against the plan, anything that would cause anyone to hesitate in moving toward the agenda, must be eliminated or neutralized. .

Educate, indoctrinate, intimidate. Above all, destroy reason and control the ability to think.

The real question for which we must all learn the answer is how they are doing it. How have they taken a nation created on the ideals of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets, and gotten us to accept the opposite?

Globally Acceptable Truth in the Land of Eden

A few years ago, I found the answer and I wrote about it, believing I was now arming our movement with the ammunition we needed to fight back. But that article was met with a resounding thud. Too intellectual, perhaps? Too academic? People want red meat. They want names and numbers of the culprits. They want to keep it simple.

Well, now that we have moved so much closer to fulfillment of their agenda – now that tyranny can be more clearly found in almost every aspect of our lives – perhaps now is the time to try again.

Ask yourselves this question: when did the ability to think rational thought become replaced with Zombie-like programmed responses? Where do these ideas come from?

Believe it or not, there is an organization, part of the UN, of course, whose purpose is to define what we are allowed to think. Its process is called “globally-acceptable truth.”

The organization is called the Eden Foundation and the head of it is a man named Donald Sagar. He is a representative to the United Nations’ Association for World Education.

He is dangerous to you and me because he has written the blue print on thought control and is now enlisting the self-proclaimed leaders of the world to enforce it.

Mr. Sagar doesn’t want to be bothered by mere science when he has loftier goals in mind,as he states: “It is inherently illogical and otherwise irresponsible to suggest that human activity does not posses the potential to alter the Earth’s climate.”

What he’s saying is, no matter what science tells us, I “FEEL” that man is damaging the Earth, therefore I insist that it be true.

Incredibly he then argued, with obvious horror that, “energy usage worldwide is increasing at an alarming rate of speed as 3rd world countries continue to modernize.”

One must not miss the completely astonishing rationale of his statement. My first thought is that he is one of those who advocate that people who live in third world countries are simply animals who should always live in mud huts, walk five miles a day for their filthy water and cook over the quaint campfire in the center of the village. Because, you see, that is good for the environment.

And he certainly does believe that. But his reasoning is astounding. He says, “Because of advances in technology, everyone in the world is now at similar risk – rich and poor alike.” He believes that science is only a force for destruction.

And that’s why Mr. Sagar advocates that all technological advances must be first approved by a higher authority – safely out of the hands of individuals.

Too Much Knowledge

But fear not, Sagar’s Eden Project, he says, can define our problems on Earth and fix them. And here is how Donald Sager defines that problem: “Because of the relentless increase in the quantity and complexity of knowledge in the world, we are experiencing a clash between cultures that prevents all but the most capable of surviving with any meaningful identity in tact.”

Did you catch that? The reason we have wars, poverty and misery is because there is too much knowledge. Based on that premise, Sagar then set out to create the blue print to define acceptable ideas and thoughts – those that would bring harmony to the world.

That leaves no room for new ideas or innovation. Because new ideas bring change, causing confusion, shifts in living conditions and unemployment as old industries die to make way for the new.

So, instead, we must set up a system of thought control. Certain ideas are the only ones safe to think. Globallyacceptable truth. And there must be a top-down control to assure bad thoughts are controlled or obliterated.

For it to work, the rest of us must be convinced or forced to stop thinking or using our own experiences, along with academic and scientific absolutes, to draw our own conclusion.

Once that is established, it is easy to reject morality, and then only a short step to accepting the idea that people of third world nations should live out their days in total poverty – just for the common good. And by way, eventually it would be good for all of us to live that way too.

It is then just as short journey to accepting euthanasia as a means to rid us of the elderly who are no longer useful for the village. And then, it’s an even shorter step to accepting the final solution of forced abortion for population control.

Gathering the Power of the World Elite

Once Sagar put this idea together, he began to contact world leaders to convince them of his plan. For success, he needed them to be the enforcement hammer. You’ll find on his website a series of letters from world leaders, as they praise and endorse the plan.

One is a letter from none other than Robert Muller, former Assistant Secretary General of the UN, and affectionately known as the “philosopher” of the UN.

Said Muller in his letter: “I am referring to the need to establish a body of objective, globally acceptable information to serve as a foundation for global education…”

Other supporters include K.B. Mathur, Director General of UNESCO, the man in charge of implementing global education policy in our public schools. There is also Dale Ott, of the World Council of Churches, and many more heads of global and international organizations – the infamous Nongovernmental organizations that are responsible for writing policies and treaties that seep out of the UN and into national law.

Most telling was a quote from a man named Keith Smiley, president of a UN consultant group who said “The planet and its people have been experiencing an information explosion. The uncontrolled expansion of information is dangerous since it tends to diffuse meaning and purpose.”

And then there is this endorsement from Alexander King – the founder of the Club of Rome: King writes to Sagar, “One aspect of your letter… struck me forcibly – it was when you said, ‘it is actually our thought process that is responsible for the predicament we find ourselves in.’ Concluded King, “I couldn’t agree with you more. Unless we find the means to change our thinking I can see little hope in solving the supreme problem for humanity – its impending extinction.”

These powerful people are telling us that humans, armed with knowledge are dangerous to the new order of peace and harmony they intend to establish for us.

Zombies and the End of Human Progress

No matter what you call it, this is thought control – globally acceptable truth. It is the only way you will be permitted to think. Imagine the consequences such thought control will have on the human race.

Thomas Edison wouldn’t have been allowed to even think about such radical changes as alternatives to candle wax in our well-ordered society. The Wright Brothers would have been hanged as heretics to suggest man could fly.

This is the process by which your children are being deliberately “dumbed down” in government schools. The premise of “globally-acceptable truth” is the very root of today’s public school curriculum.

And the process is working like a well-oiled machine. Americans have been giving up their liberty and way of life with barely a blink of an eye – for decades.

Misleading sound bites are replacing reasoned thought. Just say “Go Green,” and the eyes of the masses glaze over and the people comply. Or, “it’s for the children,” and we give up control to the state. Or, “it’s just to keep you safe,” and we openly encourage the creation of a total surveillance society.

The process is so all encompassing, so all pervasive, that most people don’t recognize that it’s being employed.

Enemies from Within

And a lot of people who should know better, who should be in the fight to stop it are actually helping them do it.

For example, in the name of stopping illegal immigration, mainstream conservatives, both in congress and in trusted organizations, are embracing and promoting policies like Real ID and E-Verify.

Both of these programs are major tools in creating an international surveillance society, which will make it easier for control of individuals in the global village. But people many of you trust are telling you to accept these policies, actually saying “I would rather give up some freedom to be safer!”

To promote this argument, they actually use the phrase, “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” What they are really saying with that phrase is that the government always gets it right. That phrase also indicates that the Bill of Rights was actually written to protect the guilty. What do we need guarantees for – if benevolent government is there to protect us?

As for E-Verify, which demands the use of a social security number for every single American at every age, so the government can grant you the ability to get a job—is it really the position of the freedom movement that every baby born in America should be stamped with a number at birth?

Some who proclaim themselves to be freedom advocates also argue that Public/Private Partnerships are free enterprise and that “free trade” policies will actually help to restore the Republic. I’m really trying to understand how the creation of governmentsanctioned monopolies represents a free market. And how does that concept fall in line with the ideas of the Founding Fathers?

Our Founders believed it was government’s job to protect the ability of business to compete – not to guarantee profits. They certainly didn’t mean for government and business to get into bed together.

And then there is the growing defense in conservative circles of the Social Security system as the vital tool necessary to take care of the elderly. When did that shift take place in our movement? Social Security was part of Franklin Roosevelt’s socialist New Deal.

When you start to defend Social Security, it’s much easier to find yourself defending welfare, Medicare and Obama’s health care scheme. It’s all from the same bone.

See how quickly we begin to accept ideas we would not normally support? That’s the power of Globally acceptable truth. It’s all around us.

The End of Reason

Sagar’s project is the key to understanding what is being done to our society and how it is being implemented – right before our very eyes. We must learn that we are not facing a scattering of issues that are just wrong headed. Instead, it’s being orchestrated with a specific mindset behind it.

Step by step, we have surrendered the ability to reason and to take responsibility for our own lives – and instead are giving our lives to government to be cradled in its warm and safe cocoon from birth to death.

There is an endless supply of examples to show how the process is destroying our once free society. In fact, what was once a slow process – perhaps moving so slowly that most people didn’t even notice – has become a tsunami.

The public school system is a major example. There are now more psychologists on the payroll of public schools than teachers. The result is an abuse of innocent minds beyond description. Today, dumbed-down children emerge from classrooms like zombies – modern children of the corn, unable to question authority, unable to think for themselves. The perfect citizens of the global village.

The imposition of environmental regulations has become the greatest threat to ownership and control of private property. Our Supreme Court has now declared that there is no private property and that any community is free to take any property it desires for private development – all for the common good of the community.

We have accepted the rise of a horde of powerful non-elected government agencies like planning commissions, transportation commissions, homeowners associations, neighborhood development councils, historic preservation councils, and stake holder councils – and we call them a proper role for government.

Yet, the more non-elected councils making the rules – the less power for the elected representatives chosen by the people – the less say we have about our own lives.

The true purpose of this new government structure is to create and enforce the global village. The policy of choice to make it happen is, of course, Sustainable Development.

Sustainable Development has three components: global land use, global education, and global population control. Sustainable Development is anti-free enterprise; anti- limited government and anti-individual liberty. But most communities and government entities have accepted it as a proper role for government.

Can you name one single elected official – anywhere in the United States – at any level of office – who speaks out against Sustainable Development? Can you name one who has stood up to stop this policy? But there sure are a lot of them who like to get up at political meetings and rouse the faithful about how they are working to restore the Republic and our free society.

A free society protects its property owners and businesses and helps them to go about their lives unencumbered. A free society doesn’t set up spy mechanisms to track the whereabouts of its people through ID cards and biometric databases. A free society doesn’t close down whole industries and towns at the whim of special interest groups using made up excuses like spotted owls. A free society defends its borders and protects its citizens from outside invasion.

But all of these things are being done through the process of Sustainable Development – and the politicians sit on their hands and ignore it.

Like a bad plastic surgery, our society is being transformed into a hideous monster. And it will destroy everything you hold dear in life.

In the name of Sustainable Development, there are now movements to ban over the counter, natural supplements; and fast food; and air conditioning; and recreational vehicles; and the consumption of meat; and cars; and suburban housing; and the family pet; and plastics; and fireplaces, and on and on.The floodgates have been opened. And so many of our fellow Americans don’t even question why. Was it not always so?

Ban it. Ban it. Ban it. Ban it. These are the sounds of the bombs going off in a war for control. The war against freedom. The one statement that should never be uttered in a free society is “ban it.” A free society cannot exist under this weight.

A New Dark Ages

Sustainable Development is the policy Mr. Sagar’s thought control was created to implement. And to Mr. Sagar, these concepts we call freedom are nothing more that delusion. And that’s why he and his fellow travelers are so dangerous to us.

They use every sort of deception, half-truth and non-science to implement this concept for the virtual captivity of the human spirit. Through the policies of Sustainable Development and “globally-acceptable truth” we are very quickly being led back to the tyranny and to the darkest ages of human history.

The last time the human race was faced with such an attack on reason and free thought was during the Inquisition in the 13th Century. Then, most of Europe lived under the tyranny of one small, self appointed gang – which made the decisions about what proper thought and conduct was to be.

Anyone who disagreed was charged with heresy and called a lunatic. Most were automatically found guilty and were ruined, tortured or killed. People lived in terror. Human progress ground to a half.

“Evacuate” – “Eliminate”

But, you say, that could not happen today. We are alerted. We are dedicated. We will fight to our dying day!

I will give you this warning. It is entirely possible that in just a very short time, all of us could be following Mr. Sagar’s rants – and actually praising them as our own.

How could this happen? Let me explain by calling your attention to a film I viewed recently. It was called “Conspiracy.” This film dramatically documents a real event. The entire screenplay takes place during a single two-hour meeting.

As the opening credits role, we see the staff of a very fine resort preparing the food, which will later be served on the finest china. Wine will be enjoyed from the finest crystal. There couldn’t be a more genteel, civilized setting. The participants of the scheduled meeting are some of the most accomplished and respected leaders of their nation.

In a short time they begin to arrive. One by one, fifteen invited participants eventually enter the room and take their place around the table. The mood is jovial as they exchange greetings to friends and acquaintances. Though none is fully aware of the purpose for the gathering, they anxiously await the arrival of the meeting’s leader. He is known and respected by them.

With a flourish, he arrives. He is jovial, soft-spoken, smiling, calm, congenial, and he makes sure to address each participant with a warm greeting or a quick personal remark. All are at ease.

The day is January 20, 1942. The meeting begins. The leader is Reinhard Heydrick. He is the top aid of Heinrick Himmler and the head of the main office of the Nazi SS. His second in command is Adolph Eichmann. The meeting has been called specifically to discuss the “storage problem of the Jews.”

They calmly discuss the problems the government will soon face as they conquer more countries with Jewish populations. It is described as a simple logistics problem. Soon 11 million Jews will be under Nazi control. What to do?

They begin to discuss the need to remove Jews from everyday society. The administrator in charge of the Warsaw Ghetto discusses the health problems he is facing. He brings up the need for suitable housing.

The administrator in charge of German public works projects discusses the need for using more Jews in work crews. He seeks to keep them healthy for more work.

The discussion turns to Jewish immigration – the need to move them from country to country. Then the term “evacuation” is used. One participant asks what the difference is. Col. Heydrick smiles and asks if he might postpone that answer just now. He calmly lets the discussion continue around the room.

Concerning the issue of immigration, Col. Heydrick says calmly, once the policies are in place “there will be no Jews in Europe.” There is applause around the table.

As the meeting progresses, protests to issues are calmly put aside. Several times, Col. Heydrick asks that the objections be postponed because they will be dealt with later in the discussion.

One official, who works directly with the German Chancellery to carry out the government’s Jewish policy, argues that “We had an understanding about what the policy with the Jews was to be.” We are to use them in the work force,” he says. Suddenly, as if a revelation has just come to him, one military leader said, “I shot 30,000 Jews. Is what I did an evacuation?” “I need a clarification of words.”

The discussion pauses as Col. Heydrick considers the answer.

Before he can answer, the Chancellery bureaucrat says, “That is not what the Furer` told me. He has denied that killing the Jews is to be our policy.” Col. Heydrick calmly answers him, “and it will continue to be denied.” The room goes silent, as all understand the meaning of that comment.

When the discussion gets heated, Col. Heydrick calls for a break and asks for snacks and drink to be brought in. As the participants break up into small groups to eat and talk, the Colonel pulls the protesting official aside for a private discussion. Before it is over, the protesting participant is calmed and agreeable.As the meeting resumes, Col. Heydrick says with satisfaction,

“If I may speak for the group, we are moving along.” He firmly, but softly guides the discussion.

Finally, the discussion of evacuation takes a turn. Some Jews, the group is told, will be evacuated swiftly. “Can we all agree that ‘evacuation’ means ‘elimination?’” says Col. Heydrick. In that one moment, everyone understands the direction of the meeting.

The discussion turns to methods. And then Adolph Eikeman reveals the creation of the gas chambers and discusses their incredible efficiency.

They break for lunch. As they return the Colonel says, “It is now our purpose to make the plan work — not to discuss the ifs.” It becomes clear what the policy is to be.

As the meeting moves to conclusion, Col. Heydrick asks each of them if there are any disputes left to face “with what we have agreed.” There are no disputes.One by one, each agrees to the plan “we have made.” The meeting ends as Col. Heydrick says, “Good, we have accomplished something.”

In the course of two hours, over good food and wine, respected politicians and political leaders have sat in a room and have been slowly and expertly maneuvered to agree with a plan to completely eliminate an entire race of human beings from the face of the Earth. This was a professionally facilitated consensus meeting.

What does the story mean to you today? That is exactly the tactic being used in every single city council meeting, county commissioner meetings, state government hearing and Congressional hearing in this nation to impose the UN’s agenda 21 into American policy. The use of a professionally-trained facilitator, armed with a predetermined outcome.

This is how Sustainable Development is being implemented to replace our Republic. And they are making you think it’s your idea.

Words have no meaning. Principles and the rule of law are just quaint ideas. First, we accept Mr Sagar’s globally-acceptable truths – removing reason from the discussion. Then we just fill in the blanks. Evacuate. Eliminate. Same difference.

But the story about the Nazi’s creation of the final solution of the Jews may relate to each of us in a much more personal way.

A New Storage Problem

Consider this: replace the word “Jew” with the word “Patriot,” and then review the story again. Harsh, you say? Over the top? Let me remind you that today we have a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its sole mission is to define and find enemies of the state.

While most Americans think the Agency’s job is to protect us from Middle East terrorists, the DHS has spent an incredible amount of time issuing reports and warning about threats this government faces from one group specifically – American right wing extremists.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, an extremist bordering on terrorism, is anyone concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; has antagonism toward the Obama Administration; has criticism of free trade programs like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership; is anti-abortion; opposed to same sex marriage; believes in the “end times;” stock piles food, ammunition, and weapons; opposes illegal immigration; opposes a New World Order; opposes the United Nations; opposes loss of US prestige; and uses the Internet or alternative media to express any of these ideas.

In short, anyone holding personal or political opinions different from that held by the federal authority is a potentially violent threat to the government. According to that description, the only people in the nation who fit the proper mold, and therefore are the perfect model citizens for the village are the mindless couch potatoes who watch Oprah and get their news from John Stewart on Comedy Central.

The threat from Right wing extremists is becoming globally-acceptable truth.

Since the reports have been released and the threat defined, now, each time there is an act of violence against an abortion clinic the news media says see – just like the DHS warned.

The shooting at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC just a few weeks after the release of the DHWS report on “Right Wing Extremism” was followed immediately by news reports and special side bar articles repeating the DHS reports – justifying the warnings.As your TEA Parties are monitored by federal agents, perhaps as this conference is being monitored, as the federal government places our biometric profiles in international data bases with cameras using software to watch how we walk, dress or sweat to determine if we have bad thoughts – as due process is replaced by intimidation – most Americans ignore it, happy to be protected.

And now, at Town Hall meetings, where Americans are supposed to take up issues with their elected representatives, union goons are intimidating and assaulting honest Americans.

Yet, like sheep, the news media dutifully report the globally-acceptable truth that these protests are actually orchestrated by malcontents and extremists.

This government, you see, has a new storage problem to deal with – those pesky patriots who keep quoting the Founding Fathers, whom the government keeps trying to eliminate from the history books.

To fully impose the agenda, you must be silenced. How far will they go? Does silence mean “evacuate” or “eliminate?”

My friends, can you connect the dots? Do you understand? This control of the ability to think and act on ones own is the root — the key – to who and what we are up against. It is the horror unveiled.

As my friend Dr. Ed Berry so eloquently put it, those who ignore these warnings, believing all is well, are “partying on the train to Auschwitz.”

Our Global Elders

Of course, the alternative to the chaos of a free society is the global village. Peace, order, harmony. Everyone in their place. Strict enforcement of the rules assures crime stops.

Rather than the din of millions of individual voices, confusing us with science and facts and absolutes, we’ll have the calming voices of the village elders – whose wisdom will save us all from the need to think or act for ourselves.

Tell us, our fathers, what should we do? Again, you say – over the top. DeWeese is just playing with fantasy. Well, not so fast. Let me introduce you to our self-appointed Elders of the Global Village.

Recently, they boldly announced themselves and even set up a website. Their announcement said, “We are moving to a global village and yet we don’t have our global elders. The Elders can be a group who have the trust of the world, who can speak freely, be fiercely independent and respond fast and flexibly in conflict situations.”

It seems, with all the chaos in the world, our need is great for the strong hand of gods on high – with the ability to look out over the Earth and see danger and swoop in to fix it.

And who could such super men be? There are 12 of them, including Nelson Mandela; the terrorist who actually practiced “necklacing” on his own people – you know – put a burning rubber tire around their necks.

Then there is Desmond Tutu, the great humanitarian whose great answer to poverty is life-long bread lines; And Gro Bruntland, the inventor of Sustainable Development; and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General who did more to create UN global governance than any other; and Jimmy Carter, the joke who just won’t die. These are the ones you most likely have heard of.

They are serious. They are meeting. They are involved with the transformation you and I are fighting and they are committed to take power.

These self appointed saviors represent the end of self government and your ability to own your life. They won’t have time to be bothered with trivial issues like your home, your family or your dreams. They have much loftier goals to deal with.

And oh yes, the Executive Director of the Global Elders, the man working to put them on the throne is none other than Robert Pastor – the man who gave away the Panama Canal and is now working to create the North American Union.

Sustainable Development; Total Surveillance Society; Department of Homeland Security; Global Village; Globally-acceptable truth; Global Elders; Global Governance.

This is the blue print for the creation of a new dark age of pain and misery, fueled by mindless superstition and ignorance and the drive to control the world. It is the destruction of our civilization.

Equality 7-2521

To fully understand the massive changes to our society that we are witnessing I suggest you read a tiny little book, written decades ago by Ayn Rand called “Anthem.”

It describes a society that emerged after a great war. A society built on the top of an old order – now forgotten and forbidden, called the Unmentionable Times.

The people now exist only to serve the state. They are conceived in Controlled Palaces of Mating. They die in the Home of the Useless. From cradle to grave, the crowd is one – a great WE – led and controlled by The Elders.

They have no names, no individuality and no identity – only numbers – like in EVerify.

As in today’s School to Work program, jobs are assigned to them. As in today’s Smart Growth policy, there is a wall around the city, beyond which no one can travel into what is called the Uncharted Forest.

But the Elders hadn’t counted on one who didn’t go along. One who insisted on the ability to think for himself. His name is Equality 7-2521. He is a street sweeper who longs to be in the Council of Scholars, to work with science and knowledge.

One day, while sweeping the streets, Equality 7-2521 discovers a hole and inside he finds a tunnel – left from the Unmentionable Times. He discovers an odd, unknown device – an electric light.

He takes it to the Council of Scholars, certain they will be thrilled with the discovery that will make their lives better.

Surely now they will let him stay with them. Not only is he rejected – he is threatened with death for trying to question the wisdom of the Elders and disrupting the harmony of the village.

He runs, into the Uncharted Forest – there to find a house from the Unmentionable Times – and in it a library. There he finds words he has never heard before. The words he needs to understand who he is – the word “I,” the word “Ego” and the word “Individual.”

All words the elders tried to destroy – because they are the words that threaten their power over the masses. Those words give the people their own power – the power to think for themselves.

That is the power you must never surrender. We are in a battle between liberty and tyranny.

The social, economic, and political transformations Sustainable Development requires will mean the suppression of the human spirit. This is the enemy we face. Every other issue is just a symptom. Understand that fact alone and become a very dangerous enemy to their schemes.

Those armed with Donald Sagar’s blue print now haunt the upper levels of the UN, the federal government, our state houses and your city council chambers.

They have achieved many of their goals, but they have not yet won. And their arrogance and impatience is resulting in a stirring of the American people. Their whole agenda is built on a house of cards that stands only when you are ignorant and compliant.

Now is our time. Now is the time to write, speak out, protest, demonstrate. Demand. Refuse.

As Gandhi said, “First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then we win.”