Volume 3, Number 4 -- June 20, 1998
The City of Austin has embraced "the United Nations Agenda 21, a global action plan to sustainable development." From Charlottesville, Virginia to Santa Cruz, California the agenda of the United Nations is embraced with open arms.
Some communities boast proudly of this new affiliation (e.g. Austin) but other communities (e.g. Birmingham's Region 2020 and MAPS) deny any connection. The flower smells the same no matter what it is called or which civic group is sponsoring the agenda.
The Austin agenda calls for: growth boundaries around the population centers, proper infill density i.e. 3 1/2 families per acre of land, intergenerational & intragenerational equity, buffer zones & core areas, environmental justice, sustainable indicators (sometimes called measurements of progress), sustainable development, carrying capacity, viewshed committee, resource protection, and heritage protection. These concepts, although you have probably never heard of most of them, will be an integral part of your new society.
Al Gore, in his book, Earth in the Balance, states that this change will be a "wrenching transformation of society....." P.274
Included in this transformation is the Life Cycle Assessment. Every product made will undergo this assessment process. The Austin Workplan describes the Life Cycle Assessment:
"Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool used systematically to evaluate the environmental effects for a given activity from the initial gathering of raw material until the point that residuals are returned to the earth. It is a leading practice within sustainable development activities, offering a methodology for process analysis, material selection, product evaluation, product comparison, and policy-making."
Businesses and manufacturers will be paired with organizations (e.g. Sierra Club, Earth First, Audubon Society, commonly called NGOs or non-governmental organizations) to help them produce their products in a politically and ecologically correct manner.
The Workplan describes the three parts of the Assessment:
"A life cycle assessment consists of three parts - an inventory stage, impact analysis, and improvement analysis. For example, if a product is being studied through a LCA, the source of raw material for the product is examined for its acquisition characteristics. Is it mined locally thereby creating jobs; is it contributing to the destruction of rainforests, or is it producing surface water pollution?....At the processing stage where the raw material is manufactured into a product, the input (energy, water, other resources, labor) and output (air and water emissions, byproducts, worker safety) are examined. At the use stage, the product potentially impacts energy efficiency, indoor air quality, maintenance, and qualitative (such as aesthetic) benefits. In post-use, the product may be compostable, recyclable, toxic waste, or a landfill burden."
Three words that are found in every plan of action for sustainable development across the country are: economic, social, and environmental. Regarding these concepts the Austin's Workplan will establish a new position in local government. The following quote describes that position and its purpose:
"Risk exposure and risk attitude are also central drivers for cost benefit analysis. The Risk Manager will need to be involved and to understand contingent valuation which balances economic, social, and environmental values and impacts."
An example may help understand this concept. Water, a commodity that everyone requires, is delivered to most of our homes and businesses for the cost of pumping the water to us. This new concept will require that water be sold to individuals and businesses on two bases: (1) the ability to pay, and (2) the purpose for which it is to be used. If the purpose is to wash your car or would run your usage above the determined allowable limit, then the price will be extremely high ... or the right to purchase the water may be denied.
The web address for the Workplan, which is something over seventy pages, is:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/sustainable/workplan.pdf
However, as those of you who are experienced at searching the world wide web will realize, you will need the Acrobat Reader software to view this document. If you do not have the Acrobat Reader software, you can still get some summary information at:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/sustainable/contents.htm
If you do, you will find open references to the United Nations' Agenda 21.
A REPORT
During the month of February the Alabama Committee to Get Us Out of the United Nations mailed to every municipality, county commission, newspaper and state legislature in the State of Alabama, a letter which presented evidence that the American Heritage River Initiative was not a benign program based on populace support. The Committee received one inquiry from Monroeville, Alabama. We were invited to make a presentation before the Monroeville Kiwanis Club on May 29, 1998. In the presentation the following points were made:
The federal government will designate the nominating organization as the river community representative bypassing the elected representatives of the people.
The nominating organizations will write the plan of action for the river being nominated.
All resources from the federal government will be utilized at the direction of the designated organization.
If the plan of action called for restoration of the river, the definition of restoration would be "return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance." Meaning disturbance by modern man.
The President's American Heritage Rivers Initiative, Brownfields Initiative, Project XL, the Watershed Protection Approach, Transportation Partners, the $mart Growth Network, and the Community-Based Environmental Protection Approach are all programs that implement the United Nations Agenda 21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable Development, signed by the United States at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
One aspect of Agenda 21 is the implementation of the Biodiversity Treaty. All of the programs mentioned are part of the implementation process and part and parcel of the treaty. The programs were not created at the grass roots level, but simply given that facade.
The presentation was concluded with a general summation that we can not remain both free and ignorant.
A questions and answer period followed. The first person to ask a question rose to his feet and said that he was in opposition to all that had been said. He said the American Heritage Rivers Initiative was a grassroots effort endorsed by every chamber of commerce along the river where he lived. His opposition to the information in the presentation was adamant. There were two other persons who took a similar stand. The majority of the 75 persons in attendance were receptive and supportive of the information and seemed genuinely appreciative of our effort.
The Committee welcomed the opportunity to present the truth about our changing society. We thank the Kiwanis Club for their open-mindedness and their southern hospitality that extended a warm welcome to a couple of strangers. We would also welcome speaking invitations from other groups interested in learning the truth about the United Nations and its goal for socializing the globe.
Our American society is the result of a premise that is seldom acknowledged today, and most people seem to give it not one iota of thought. This premise is that God is the creator of all; that man is to worship and serve Him; that the earth and all its bounty is subservient to man; that man, by mixing the sweat of his brow with God's created resources, acquires the right to call those resources his own, on loan from God.
Thanks to an unrepentant and arrogant society, we are accepting a new frame of reference, a new paradigm. This new paradigm pervades United Nations literature and is part and parcel of the Biodiversity Treaty. Simply stated, the new paradigm says a person has no more right to a piece of land than a frog. In talking with some of the Kiwanis members prior to the presentation, this statement was made to one prominent member whose response was, "I don't know that I disagree with that statement."
If we as a society deny God, we have no rights other than what is given by other men. The privilege of acknowledging inalienable rights was purchased for us at a very high cost. The only way we can repay that debt is to pass along to our children that same privilege. This generation is failing in that effort. When the time for accountability comes, as it must to every man , what will you say?
The dissemination of truth begins with one individual who must become a sounding board to carry that truth forward. Learn as much as you can about the United Nations, its programs and agendas, which include Maps and Region 2020 -- commonly called Local Agenda 21.
Some may consider us alarmists. We consider ourselves truth bearers. If the truth alarms you, that is a good sign. It just may mean you are beginning to understand our situation, which is just that -- alarming. We must keep our eyes open and our goal clear: to resist the evil that would have us deny that our rights come from God. The alternative is unthinkable.
THE US CONSTITUTION VS THE UN CHARTER
On March 23, 1998, the educational efforts of the Committee were warmly received by a group of homeschoolers in Montgomery, Alabama. The homeschoolers were attending a week long field trip in the State Capital, meeting state representative and generally learning how the State government works. The average age: 16 to 17 years.
You might think that adults this young would not be aware of the United Nations agenda, but it was quiet obvious from the questions they asked that homeschooling is superior to a world class education (Goals 2000).
The program began with a discussion of the significance of the shot heard 'round the world. An action that helped lay the foundation for our government as well as the premise for the discussion that night. That shot signified that we would no longer accept the rule of an hereditary kingship, that King Jesus is the ruler of all men and governmental law must be subservient to His rule. The founding fathers established a federal government but granted it only limited powers, reserving a system of self-government for the people and the sovereign states.
This concept was then contrasted to the United Nations Charter, which essentially establishes an all-powerful government that does not recognize the headship of God, nor does it recognize individual's rights as coming from God. They are seen as being granted by the state and as such may be revoked by the state.