Articles
Restore Your Individual Property Rights
Whether you are a many-generations or a newcomer citizen of Mathews,
your property rights are endangered !
Would you want to be told that your electricity use (and therefore your water) must be cut in half and that after you’ve used up your monthly quota it will be turned off? Or that in order to meet housing codes or septic system regulations you must spend thousands of dollars - if it is even possible to do so? That you must move out of your house, without being compensated, and can only live in a residential area of dense and mixed use housing where the use of autos is discouraged and bicycles are promoted. Transportation to other residential areas would be by rapid transportation.
Sound preposterous? That can’t happen here! Under the guise of preserving the environment, it is already happening elsewhere in America under the Agenda 21. Unfortunately it is on the drawing board for Mathews County since the Mathews County Comprehensive Plan was passed last January by the Mathews Board of Supervisors.
Also Agenda 21 has resulted in highly restrictive governmental agency regulations. Loblolly pines have been recently designated as a
marker for non-tidal wetlands resulting in at least 75%-80% of Mathews County being designated as “non-tidal wetlands". These
regulations could drastically reduce any change on your land or home on the non-tidal wetland area and the 100-foot buffer zone
around it, such as moving or adding dirt, cutting down a tree etc. Restrictions on simple land use such as gardening and landscaping
could create code violations and fines.
When subdividing a parcel within a non-tidal wetland, only 1/10th of an acre is allowed to be changed without incurring a fee which is nonrefundable. Determining the impact involves a complex ratio and the fee could be as much as $4 per sq. ft. Property with extremely restrictive regulations on non-tidal wetlands and prohibitive impact costs will make selling, buying or developing property very unlikely. Property values will plunge. Mathews’ economy will suffer greatly.
New minimum requirements for lot sizes are being developed. Other impacts are still being realized as issues arise and further restrictions are being developed. Ditches that are unattended and clogged will cause drainage problems resulting in septic systems to malfunction and fail to meet codes. As a result owners of septic systems may be required to replace them at the cost of as much as $35,000. Water wells may also be impacted, enabling HRSD (Newport News Waterworks - a city government operation) to supply and control household and county government water usage in Mathews resulting in unknown costs.
This affects: land/home owners of large or small parcels in non-tidal wetlands, realtors, bankers, surveyors, builders, developers, foresters, watermen, aquaculture, farmers, septic system installers, landscapers, land clearing operations, tree removal, road work and soil or gravel delivery, anyone working with soil or land, County Taxing Office - everyone in Mathews County
What gives Agenda 21 ruling authority? At the United Nations’ Rio Summit in 1992, Agenda 21 was made official policy and the first President Bush signed the document, pledging to adopt its goals. Fearing that Agenda 21 would be exposed for what it is, total government control over our property, other names were devised - Comprehensive Plan, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth et. al. Then President Clinton signed Executive Order #12858 creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, directing all agencies of the federal government to direct all state and local communities to use the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21, all done in the name of saving the planet from “Global Warming” And, then in 2011, President Obama signed us into Agenda 21 goals with the White House Rural Council.
Here are some revealing quotes from the planners: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth (Emphasis added.) ----------- “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market...” -From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference. (Emphasis added.) -------------- “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” -Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman,
ICLEI, The Wildlands Project (Emphasis added.)
Knowing that people are going to resist this, the promoters have couched the plan in inoffensive language. If you see or hear these words, Sustained Development/Agenda 21 is in play: Environmental Quality, Partnership building, Consensus, Urban Redevelopment, Community Development, Purchase of Development Rights (IPDR), Maintaining a strong diversified local economy, Eco-Tourism, Preserve open space, Heritage Corridors, Quality Growth, Smart Growth, Innovative new development, Tax-free Zones, Use of Eminent Domain, Regional Governments, Regional Planning Boards, Water Control Boards, Urban Forest, Non-governmental Organizations (NGO), Conservation Easements, Sustainable Farming, Comprehensive Planning, Visioning Process, Growth Management, Resource Use, Equality, Consensus, Affordable housing, Quality of life, Sanctuary, Social justice, Watershed, Facilitator, Traffic calming, Best management practices, Outcome based education, Endangered species, Invasive species, Restoration, Collaborative, Interdisciplinary, Stakeholder, School to work, Historic preservation, Vision and many more.
How did the Mathews Comprehensive Plan come about? On January 18, 2011, the Mathews County Board of Supervisors met and passed the Mathews County Comprehensive Plan with only one dissenting vote. Having learned of the scheduled vote only a few days previously, a number of us attended that meeting but were not allowed to take the floor to ask questions.
In March Concerned Citizens submitted a letter to the BOS with 30 signatures requesting the Board to hold a town hall meeting and to
defer all pending zoning until citizens had time to review the Comprehensive Plan. In May the request for a town hall meeting and deferred zoning was unanimously denied by the BOS but some members, along with Mr. Shaw, said they would attend and answer questions if we had a meeting.
Prior to passage, only an incomplete draft of the Comprehensive Plan was available to review - one at the library, and one at the Planning
and Zoning office, neither of which could be removed. The online version (impossible to download with dial-up) was available on the County Website -but was very confusing, as it was listed in 3 separate parts, and found under the P & Z menu tab, not the Welcome Page as it later became. We asked that multiple copies be made available to take out at the Mathews Public Library. Finally, in April, five copies of the
236-page plan were made available to check out of the library. As of June 2011, the plan was still incomplete, lacking 70 more pages of Appendixes referred to in the text. CD copies of the plan became available from P &Z. or you can get it online at: https://www.co.mathews.va.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1433 Beware that it can sound innocuous or even utopian. Remember that this is just the outline of the goals. The details of implementation are as yet unknown.
Because this is too important to dismiss, please research for yourself. References abound. Here are a few:
An overall view with links ----- sovereignty.net
Videos of an overview of the plan -- https://www.sovereignty.net/Library/sd-1-vid/player.html
and https://www.sovereignty.net/Library/sd-2-vid/player.html
https://americanpolicy.org/sustainable-development/attack-of-the-ngos.html/
From the horses mouth --- rio+20 U N Conference on Sustainable Development -https://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?menu=14 /
Go Green Virginia https://www.gogreenva.org
Please join us in this effort to restore your property rights. We appreciate your support.
Spread the word.- Join our committee.-Sign the petition
Concerned Citizens of Mid Peninsula , Post Office Box 42, North, VA 23128
Phone ---- 804-210-1611 ---------- olesalt7410@yahoo.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21 passed-1-13-12
by the Republican National Committee
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism,
social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities
throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands
Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and,
WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views
the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership
and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right
and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the
environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a
social injustice; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of
United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous
intent of the plan; and therefore be it further
RESOLVED, that the U.S. government and no state or local government is legally bound by the United
Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and therefore be it
further
RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the country be well informed of
the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive
strategies for “sustainable development” and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and
rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall
deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican members of Congress, all Republican
candidates for Congress, all Republican candidates for President who qualify for RNC sanctioned
debates, and to each Republican state and territorial party office and recommend for adoption into the
Republican Party Platform at the 2012 Convention.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Democrats Against Agenda 21
(The following quotes are from: www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.html)
“In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any
of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are
not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control.
Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the
governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human
settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation.
Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set
aside for non-humans.”
“U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be
corrected. It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer
countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth. Although people around the world aspire
to achieve the levels of prosperity we have in our country, and will risk their lives to get here,
Americans are cast in a very negative light and need to be taken down to a condition closer to
average in the world. Only then, they say, will there be social justice which is a cornerstone of
the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.”
“Agenda 21 policies date back to the 70's but it got its real start in 1992 at the Earth Summit in
Rio de Janeiro when President Bush signed onto it. President Clinton signed it later and
continued the program in the United States. A non-governmental organization called the
International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, is tasked (by the UN) with
carrying out the goals of Agenda 21. Over 600 cities in the U.S. are members; our town joined
in 2007. The costs are paid by taxpayers.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you question the United Nations’ control over property in America, please consider this.
United Nations Control Over American Historical Landmarks
1972 United Nations Treaty Allows Foreign Control of American Assets
by Melissa Wiedbrauk
National Policy Analysis Paper #341 published in July 2001 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 777 North Capitol Street NE #803, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/371-1400, Fax 202/408- 7773, E-Mail info@nationalcenter.org, Web https://www.nationalcenter.org. Reprints permitted provided source is credited.
*****************
When our Founding Fathers sparked the American Revolution and signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, they sought self-government for the American colonies and an escape from the dominance of England.
The Founding Fathers would be shocked to learn that some of their successors have given control of key American sovereign territory to other nations.
Through an international treaty, the United States is allowing the United Nations and its member countries access to and control of American soil - in particular, our historic buildings and treasured wilderness.
In 1972, our government signed the United Nations' World Heritage Treaty, a treaty that creates "World Heritage Sites" and Biosphere Reserves." Selected for their cultural, historical or natural significance, national governments are obligated to protect these landmarks under U.N. mandate.1 Since 1972, 68 percent of all U.S. national parks, monuments and preserves have been designated as World Heritage Sites.2
Twenty important symbols of national pride, along with 51 million acres of our wilderness, are World Heritage Sites or Biosphere Reserves now falling under the control of the U.N. This includes the Statue of Liberty, Thomas Jefferson's home at Monticello, the Washington Monument, the Brooklyn Bridge, Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and the Grand Canyon - to name just a few.
Most ironic of all is the listing of Philadelphia's Independence Hall. The birthplace of our Republic is now an official World Heritage Site. The very place where our Founding Fathers signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - the documents that set America apart from other nations and created the world's longest-standing democracy - is no longer fully under the control of our government and the American people. Protection of our treasured places is a sound undertaking, but doing so by ceding control of our sovereign territory to a foreign power is wrong and threatens our rights and freedoms.
In 1995, Crown Butte Mines in the New World Mining District in Montana was forced to abandon a mine development project after the U.N. listed Yellowstone National Park as a "World Heritage Site in Danger."3 Crown Butte proposed to mine a medium-size underground operation on private property three miles from the boundary of Yellowstone. The project would have employed 280 people and generated $230 million in revenue.4
This mining project was not unique. The area had been mined for 150 years before Yellowstone National Park was established. Crown Butte had worked along with the U.S. Forest Service to ensure that all of the necessary precautions were being taken to ensure that the project would be environmentally responsible. Crown Butte had won an award for excellence in 1992 and was considered to be a "showcase operation."5
None of these factors mattered to the U.N.'s World Heritage Committee. Citing the project as a potential threat, the U.N. exerted its authority to force the abandonment of the project. It did not matter to the U.N. that this violated Crown Butte's exercise of its private property rights under the U.S. Constitution. Nor did the U.N. care that its action also went against U.S. federal law prohibiting the inclusion of non-federal property within a U.S. World Heritage Site without the consent of the property owner.6
Although it has not happened yet, under the World Heritage Treaty the U.N. has the legal right to someday restrict us, as American citizens, from visiting our national treasures.
Many environmentalists believe that the mere presence of humans disturbs the environment. As such, it is not farfetched to wonder when the politically-correct U.N. will ban the American public from Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Florida Everglades and other precious natural wonders now visited annually by millions of tourists.
Ironically, banning generations of young people from visiting our natural wonders would undermine the public's appreciation for the spectacular gifts of nature, and undercut support for environmental protection.
Unfortunately, the World Heritage Treaty is just one of a series of government actions that is stripping away the gift of freedom we received from our Founding Fathers.
To stop this erosion of sovereign rights, federal legislation has been introduced to restore the rights of Americans against this threat to freedom. The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act seeks to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public lands and preserve the private property rights of private citizens. It would require congressional oversight of U.N. land designations within the U.S.7
We should not turn our backs on the Founding Fathers by surrendering the precious gift of sovereignty. We should treasure and protect it.
Footnotes:
1 "World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves Fact Sheet," United States House or Representatives Committee on Resources.
2 "American Land Should Be Controlled By Americans," press release, The National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC, February 24, 1999.
3 Kathleen Benedetto, testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC, May 26, 1999.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 "American Land Should Be Controlled By Americans." # # #
Melissa Wiedbrauk is a research associate with The National Center for Public Policy Research, a a Washington, D.C. think tank
Regionalism
There are two different types of regionalism. One is Global created by the United Nations. The other is Federal created by presidential executive order. I will discuss Global briefly and go into more detail in Federal.
The goal of Global Regionalism is one world governance. There is a distinction between one world governance and one world government.
Governance - means "control by rules, restrictions and regulations. That's a far cry from our elective, representative form of government where laws are to be passed only by elected officials – legislators – and only in pursuance of the Constitution.
Regional Governance is a ‘layer’ – or layers – of government run by nameless, faceless and usually ruthless appointed bureaucrats who are insulated from the election process, and therefore accountable only to those who appoint them. And they will not bite the hand that feeds them. The rules and regulations being promulgated via regional governance are mandates trickled up from self-selected world policy makers at the United Nations to the federal, state and local levels.
Regional Governance is the method whereby would-be world rulers intend to control every aspect of our lives.
The following statement should remove any doubts about the intentions of the United Nations. It is from a book published in
October of 1995 – in celebration of the UN’s 50th Anniversary – titled Our Global Neighborhood. It states that:
The UN must prepare for a time when regionalism becomes more prevalent worldwide, and even help the process along. The Secretary-General has called repeatedly for a strengthening of regionalism in global governance.
The development of global governance is part of the evolution of human efforts to organize life on the planet, . . . we are convinced that it is time for the world to move on from the designs evolved over the centuries and given new form in the establishment of the United Nations nearly fifty years ago.
This is all I will say about Global Regionalism. Please do your own research on it. Now I would like to talk briefly about Federal Regionalism.
It is defined as the consolidation of local and state governments into large regional units and it centralizes power in bureaucratic authorities, boards, and commissions whose primary function is to administer plans and programs dictated by Washington.
On March 27th, 1968 President Nixon signed Executive Order No. 11647, dividing the United States into ten federal regions to be run by "Federal Regional Councils." A capital was established for each region.
Each Council was composed of the directors of the regional offices of the Departments of Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development, the Secretarial Representative of the Department of Transportation, and the directors of the regional offices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. The government in the ten federal regions would be administered by federal appointed bureaucrats accountable only to Washington, D.C. The President did not obtain the consent of all the State Legislatures concerned, nor of Congress.
It stands to reason that if there is no constitutional jurisdiction for the federal government to legislate for a local government in a Union state, there is also no jurisdiction for a federal bureaucracy to legislate for a local government in a Union state. As example: the EPA, the DEA, the IRS and the FBI, etc., have no Constitutional authority to legislate in a Union State. These are agencies of the Federal government, having jurisdiction only on federal territory. This is something the government doesn't want you to know.
Demeaning the authority of elected officials and replacement of these officials by appointed Federal "administrators" is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to representative government posed by Federal Regional Government.
President Reagan’s Executive Order #12407 on February 22, 1983 dismantled the ten regional capitols.
However, grant making agencies of the ten Federal Regions remain in place assuring continuity of control over all Americans and their elected representatives by the central government.
Federal grants to state government are the fuel, which make the Regional engines "go." The individual Union States are blackmailed, through the withholding of federal funds, if federal legislation is not enacted into State law,
The purpose regional government is to place all power in the hands of the federal government and to turn State, county, and city governments into administrative Councils of Government in one big bureaucratic machine.
It is the accumulation of power in as few hands as possible—federally appointed, unelected bureaucrats beyond the recall of the electorate.
It's policies and programs, goals and methods, appear in a variety of forms designed to deal with varying State and local laws.
But the basic strategy involves merging and consolidation of local governments into a larger area government—which is in lock step with the 10 federal
regions established by Nixon’s Executive Order, and controlled by Washington, D.C.
It moves local government into the collective whole. This is accomplished by the merging of city and county, county and district, and then State with other States, into a federal region. This establishes only two levels of government—federal and regional.
Regional ruling bodies are non-representative because regional officers do not represent the citizenry. Regional officers are appointed… there are no regional elections, no regional voters.
Consider how centralized power in Washington could come into play in the current environment in our country today. In the event of any type of attack or other types of disturbance considered a threat by the president, he can declare a national emergency, which allows regional council members to control all food supply, money and credit transactions, communications, public utilities, hospitals, and other essential facets of human existence.
We should be aware that any type of Regional Government is a threat to our Constitutional rights.
Listed below is an excellent video which will help you understand Regionalism and Agenda 21 and how they are being implemented to destroy our sovereignty. The speaker is Rosa Kolre. She is a liberal Democrat but on this one issue she is spot on and explains this issue in a way the average unaware citizen can understand it. It is very long but it should be watched in its entirety. Let everyone you know be aware that this information is available and must be understood if we are to overcome the forces that are destroying us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDtCb45Lqt0
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Resolution that was passed by Gaston County, North Carolina
RESOLUTION TITLE: UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21 - TO HEIGHTEN AWARENESS OF ITS IMPACT
ON COMMUNITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social
engineering and global political control, that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,
WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the
United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through
local sustainable development policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional
Visioning Projects, and other Green or Alternative projects; and,
WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called sustainable development views the
American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual
travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and
opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment
which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,
WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a social
injustice.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Gaston County Board of Commissioners that:
• While supporting projected growth and development, the Gaston County Board of Commissioners
recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby seeks to
heighten the awareness of the public and that of public policy makers as to the dangerous intent of
the plan;
• The United States government nor the states nor the local governments of the United States are
legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the United
States Senate;
• The federal, state and local governments across this country should seek to be well informed of the
underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies
for sustainable development and do hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies.
Concerned Citizens of Middle Peninsula
Post Office Box 42, North, VA 23128
Phone ---- 804-210-1611
olesalt7410@yahoo.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DICED is UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Tuesday, March 20, 2012
I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. Some call the Draft Covenant “Agenda 21 on steroids” while others see it as the “Environmental Constitution of global governance.”
The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.
The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’
The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.
All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.
In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).
The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”
The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)
The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”
Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”
Article 11 discusses “equity” and “equitable manner” which are code words for communism.
Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.
Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we ratify this document, we must thus fight a non-existent man-made climate change.
Article 31 requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.
Article 32 requires recycling.
Article 33 demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.”
Article 33 delineates long-term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity of the environment.”
Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.
Article 36 describes military and hostile activities.
Article 39 decides management plans and quotas for permissible taking or “harvesting transboundary biological resources.”
Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.
“Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.
“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”
Article 48 demands that biotechnology from research and development and royalties be shared; free access and transfer of technology is also required.
Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.
Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by an arbitrary tribunal such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.
Writers of the Draft Covenant are the UN Secretariat, international lawyers, and U.S. professors from Cornell, Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, University of the Pacific, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, and two attorneys in private practice.
Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a world constitution for global governance, an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++atriots, the next time you hear someone make a positive comment about sustainable development pleasbe aware of this
Sustainable Development has three components: global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction. The international focus for Sustainable Development is the United States. This is because America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. Private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development…. Sustainable Development works to abolish private property in order to manufacture natural resource shortages and other alarms in order to facilitate governmental control over all resources and ultimately all human action. So-called public/private partnerships are the major tool to accomplish this objective.
It is being promoted through “public-private partnerships” between government, industry, multi-national corporations, non-governmental organizations, foundations, non-profits, and sustainability grant recipients.
Most of the people involved in the myriad and numerous organizations, government agencies, and activist groups involved in these land transfers do not understandthe full implications of the UN plan they are helping to implement.