UN Agenda 21, ICLEI, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
One-World Governance Policies begin in New Rochelle, NY
by Sher Zieve
Canada Free Press
Monday, April 23, 2012
The revolutionary and Luciferian (he dedicated his book “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer…aka Satan) Saul Alinsky said ““True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.” Alinsky also taught that community organizing (aka ‘teaching radicalism and Satanic concepts’) must begin at the local level and in a forceful manner. Karl Marx, his partner Frederich Engels and Vladimir Lenin wrote and believed the same. Adolph Hitler, along with Marx and the rest, also believed that environmental elements and ‘saving the planet’ were excellent ploys to be brought into every speech and were needed in order to shame and bully a population into submission. It worked—and still works—remarkably well.
Today, in the USA and the rest of the world, we now have the UN Agenda 21—which, in New Rochelle, NY (as well as other towns and cities throughout the nation), is attempting implementation via ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). At one fell swoop, a city becomes part of the “international community” and is no longer accountable to its State or nation. And without the population realizing it, the city becomes part of the international order and one-world government commences with its attendant end to freedom, self-determination and the right to make any life decisions on one’s own. Thus, the end of liberty—and life as we know it—begins.
So it is in New Rochelle, New York.
Robert Cox is the Managing Editor of Talk of the Sound, the leading news web site in New Rochelle, NY.
Cox has been a pioneer in citizen journalism since 2002. As President of the Media Bloggers Association, he opened the door for bloggers to cover presidential debates, major sporting events, federal courts and corporate shareholder meetings, to name a few. He worked with a major insurance company to create the first-ever media liability insurance product for bloggers. He partnered with Harvard Law School and the Poynter Institute, to create a training program on media liability for online publishers at NewsU. Cox was part of the inaugural exhibit on citizen journalism at the Newseum in Washington, DC as the first blogger formally credentialed to cover a federal trial (US. v. Lewis “Scooter” Libby). He has lectured at numerous events at journalism conferences and journalism schools, events for the federal judiciary and new media conferences. He has appeared on all of the major cable news networks and numerous national talk radio shows.
Cox has a BA from the University of Notre Dame and MBA from the University of Chicago. He lives in New Rochelle, NY with his wife and children.
Sher: Robert, thanks so much for taking the time, today, to speak to my readers. When we spoke a few days ago, we talked at length about how Agenda 21 has been introduced into the New Rochelle community via ICLEI or the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.” Through ICLEI, the United Nations’ Agenda 21—which is designed to take over all local authority via its guise of a “sustainability agenda”—takes control of and makes decisions on virtually everything within a city and/or county. What initially prompted you to school yourself on Agenda 21 and to pursue a campaign against it?
Robert: During his annual State of the City Address in 2009, Mayor Bramson announced that New Rochelle was one of three localities selected for an ICLEI Pilot Program. That was the first time I had ever heard the word “ICLEI”. I am sure that many of the people in room applauding the announcement had never heard of ICLEI either. I later learned that many believed that the Mayor was announcing some sort of federal grant. I have learned that when our Mayor is talking about something I have never heard of before, it is a good idea to do some research. The more I learned about ICLEI the more concerned I became about it.
Sher: New Rochelle’s Mayor Noam Bramson has been highly in favor of pushing the ICLEI agenda onto the city and may not have provided accurate information about what may or will befall New Rochelle if the program is implemented. What has been his response to your enlightening the community as to the real extent of its (and his) purpose?
Robert: My deepest concern with ICLEI in New Rochelle is that our Mayor and his supporters have gone to great lengths to misrepresent ICLEI as a homegrown association of local governments staffed by eager 30-something staffers who want to do good. The Mayor has repeatedly denied any association between New Rochelle and the United Nations despite the undeniable and rather obvious fact that New Rochelle is a member of ICLEI and ICLEI is a part of the UN system to implement Agenda 21.
When an ICLEI representative appeared before our City Council she flat-out lied in responding to a direct question on the origins and funding of ICLEI.
I might add that our City Council never held a vote to authorize joining ICLEI. When asked about this at a public meeting by Council Member Louis Trangucci, our City Manager said that joining ICLEI was implied when the ICLEI representative spoke before Council.
As for our Mayor, he has sought to demonize and demagogue the issue. He refuses to address legitimate questions about ICLEI, instead engaging in ad hominem attacks. As the leading critic of ICLEI in New Rochelle, much of his vitriol has been directed at me. A fair amount has gone to Council Member Trangucci who was the only member of Council to vote against the Mayor’s Local Agenda 21 Plan named GreeNR.
Sher: One of the things we discussed over the phone was that Mayor Bramson had told you and others that “there is no relationship between New Rochelle and the UN”. Yet, a husband and wife team (Steven and Mrs. Nakashima) in the community who were appointed by Mayor Bramson to assist in implementing the program both work for the United Nations. I also understand that Mrs. Nakashima’s work at the UN involves running an Agenda 21 organization. Has Mayor Bramson explained his previous contradictory statement?
Robert: The Mayor has repeatedly dismissed any expression of concern about the connections between his GreeNR plan and ICLEI and the UN’s Agenda 21 Plan as the stuff of conspiracy theories. Not only is there a direct connection between ICLEI and the UN but the mayor appointed a UN employee to his advisory board, the spouse of a senior UN official.
Steven Nakashima is a UN employee who works in the Avian Flu program. His wife is Sophie de Caen. She is the Director of the $1 billion MDG Achievement Fund in New York. MDG stands for Millennium Development Goals. Goal 7, but listed first on her site, is Environment and Climate Change where the stated goal is to “integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes”.
I have, so far, found direct connections to the UN for two other Advisory Board members.
Sher: What are you now doing to educate the people of New Rochelle and other communities about these organizations’ true agenda of eliminating the sovereignty of the USA and individual States, in favor of a one world government organization?
Robert: My focus is to educate New Rochelle residents on the large gap between the Mayor’s rhetoric and reality at a local level. It is enough for me to educate residents on the fact that New Rochelle joined ICLEI without any public hearing or public discussion or City Council vote. That our being part of the ICLEI pilot program has not been the source of federal grant money but instead has required spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I want New Rochelleans to understand that the Mayor is not being factual when he denies any connection between his GreeNR plan and the United Nations. There is the direct connection that runs from ICLEI to Local Agenda 21 to Agenda 21 and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. His GreeNR plan is a UNCSD Local Agenda 21 Plan. It does not get any more direct than that.
Sher: If anyone would like to reach you for more information or to invite you for a speaking engagement, how should they contact you?
Robert: The best way to reach me is through the contact information on Talk of the Sound.
Sher: Thanks again, Robert, and we wish you the very best!
The Propagandist Strikes Back…and Strikes Out
Posted by Joseph Hippolito
April 20th, 2012
Reprinted from FrontPageMag – David Horowitz Freedom Center
Why does a respected Catholic author indulge in rhetorical venom that could give aid and comfort to sworn enemies of the United States and Israel?
Mark Shea, whom FPM exposed March 8 in “A Catholic Writer’s Propaganda For Iran,” offered this defense on his blog:
“In point of fact, I affirm Israel’s existence and think Jews, like Palestinians, deserve a homeland. I’m big on people having a home. I merely reject the propositions that a) Israel is immaculately conceived and preserved from all sin, both original and actual b) it’s our job to defend Israel (or Germany, Japan, Korea and the scores of other countries our Empire extends to)and c) we need to pound the drums for war with Iran.”
Let’s examine these propositions.
Regarding Israel, nobody would regard it as “immaculately conceived and preserved from all sin, both original and actual.” This rhetorical straw man caricatures pro-Israel opinion, and allows Shea not only to disregard Israeli concerns about self-defense but also the likelihood of an independent Palestinian state dedicating itself to Israel’s destruction.
In addition, Shea uses his “immaculate conception” meme to browbeat Israel’s supporters. On March 30, Shea condemned Benjamin Kirstein’s assertion that criticizing Israel “is either subjectively anti-Semitic, in that it consciously and intentionally furthers the goals of the campaign (to destroy Israel); or it is objectively anti-Semitic, in that it unconsciously and unintentionally does the same thing.”
Shea labeled Kerstein’s assertion “a particularly idiotic act of idolatry” and accused Kerstein of calling Israel a “sinless utopia,” which Kerstein never even implied.
Besides, since when did opposing anti-Semitic genocide — even clumsily –become a particularly idiotic act of idolatry?
Also, since when did the United States become an “empire”? If the United States is an “empire,” why did it withdraw troops from Iraq? Why didn’t it turn Iraq into a colony when it had the chance? Why does Iraq have an independent government? Why is the United States contemplating withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?
Moreover, why did the United States close military bases once the Cold War ended?
“And if Russia doesn’t appreciate your chickenhawk class’ election year need to look tough and throw some crappy little country against the wall just to show you mean business, you might discover that China wasn’t just whistling dixie when she warned of WWIII as a result of your rash pre-emptive war.”
On the same day — in a post sarcastically entitled “Today’s Pro-Mullah Propaganda”– Shea linked to a story on the Chinese and Russian foreign ministers’ warnings to the United States about attacking Iran.
“Actually, it’s just the common sense proposition that pre-emptive war is unjust, not to mention stupid and dangerous. One need not support the goons in Iran to see this.”
Shea believes pre-emptive attacks violate Catholic ethics. Logically, he cites for support the military and diplomatic leaders of two nations that not only are tone-deaf to Catholicism but also are cavalier about human rights.
Shea reinforces the “empire” myth by exploiting the travails of American troops. On March 14, Shea posted about Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, accused of murdering 16 Afghan civilians:
“The real criminals will never be charged in the mass murder in Afghanistan. These would be the members of our Ruling Classes who sent a brain-injured soldier back into battle for yet another tour of duty (his fourth!)…Sending this valiant and deeply self-sacrificial all-volunteer force back into battle again and again and again in order to maintain the empire–and in such a massive exercise in futility as our Afghan experiment in nation-building — is the real crime here….Leave Afghanistan. Now.”
Shea amplified that theme April 10:
“Not surprisingly, our armed forces, stretched to the breaking point by ten years of being used as lab rats in our ongoing experiments, are now massively medicated. You would be too if you and your family were shoveled around like concrete and your life was being thrown away on a colossal exercise in futility. Not one more drop of blood from our young men and women. Get us out of Afghanistan now.”
Shea ended with a hysterical, violent demand:
“Strip our legislative and executive branches of all wages and earnings except their pay for their office, and give it as a fund for wounded vets. If they complain, jail them until their experimental wars are over.”
Shea’s patronizing rhetoric demeans and insults American soldiers. It portrays them as slaves and dupes of an ostensibly evil political system. It is subtle, manipulative, cynical and beyond despicable.
It also ignores the reason for the invasion and occupation: to prevent Islamic terrorists from establishing a base for more attacks against civilians.
“Al-Qaeda is still present in Afghanistan,” U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker told London’s Daily Telegraph, which reported that about 100 al-Qaeda irregulars have returned, according to NATO estimates, with hundreds stationed in Pakistan.
“If we decide we’re tired, they’ll be back,” Crocker said. “We’ve killed all the slow and stupid ones. But that means that the ones that are left are totally dedicated. We think we’ve won a campaign before our adversaries have even started to fight. They have patience, and they know that we are short on that.”
If Shea really supports the troops, then why does he fail to address Iran’s role in providing 1) funds, training and weapons for anti-American insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq 2) a base for al-Qaeda’s financial and logistical operations and 3) asylum for Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s second in command and some of Osama bin Laden’s family?
For that matter, why did Shea link to this drivel Feb. 23? The link concerns a story from Associated Press about the USS Abraham Lincoln navigating the Strait of Hormuz in the midst of Iranian naval and air surveillance:
“And Iran ‘has threatened’ to close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for sanctions, embargoes and other acts of war? Iran thinks it has the right to defend itself? Is the world going totally nuts?” (emphases in original)
“My own suspicion is that Obama may sucker the End to Evil crowd on their own bloodlust and figure out a way to launch a war against Iran just before the election, solidifying the war-propagandized American people around himself and beating the Hawks at their own game….”
As Shea continued, he mentioned nothing about sailors being away from their families, suffering from severe stress or even being manipulated by their own government
Naturally, Shea’s concern about “pounding the drums for war with Iran” allows him to ignore that Iran has been the real warmonger for nearly 35 years.
Since the 1979 revolution, Iran’s leaders have plunged their country into a state of undeclared war against the United States and Israel. Chants of “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” have been staples of the theocrats and their cadres.
Governments do not engage in such rhetoric without purpose.
For nearly 10 years, Cato the Elder ended all his speeches in the Roman Senate by demanding that Carthage be destroyed. In 146 B.C. — three years after Cato’s death — Rome obliterated Carthage to end the Third Punic War.
In the late 19th Century, German intellectuals proclaimed Jews to be the parasites of European culture. Fifty years later, the Nazis intensified the rhetoric to the point of equating Jews to rats running through a gutter into a sewer in a propaganda film.
The rest is history.
None of Shea’s defenses answer the question in the first paragraph. The following series of contrasts, however, does.
On March 19, Muhammad Merah, a French terrorist trained by al-Qaeda, murdered a rabbi and three children at a Jewish school in Toulouse before police killed him. Before his rampage, Merah tried to train local boys for jihad..
On March 22, Shea posted under the title, “Saying Things I Regret in the Morning”:
“So yesterday, I put up a post about the Muslim butcher of children in Toulouse and called him a person we can do without. My apologies. I have taken down that post and regret it. Whatever that sentiment is, it is not Christian. Jesus died for that man as well as for everybody else. My attitude was not rooted in the mercy of God or the love of Christ but in human contempt and vengefulness….May God grant this man mercy in Christ (and me too).”
Nowhere did Shea ask God to grant mercy to the victims. Nor did Shea ask God to grant mercy to Bales or his victims.
Moreover, it is inconceivable for somebody who commits murder and dies without repenting to receive posthumous forgiveness from a God who decreed (according to the Ten Commandments) that murder is forbidden.
Besides, calling a murderer of children “a person we can do without” is rather tame for someone who claimed that most Republican presidential candidates “aspire to be war criminals,” described one as a member of “Murderers for Jesus” and declared “as a general rule, evangelical Christians love war above all.”
Nowhere has Shea apologized for such bombast.
The warped moral universe where Shea resides bears no resemblance to basic ethics or common sense, let alone to any form of Christianity.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Blood Libels from Israel-Hating Students in Florida
Posted by Arnold Ahlert
April 23rd, 2012
Students who vocally call for the destruction of Israel have created a stir in Florida with their promotion of modern-day blood libels and lies demonizing the Jewish State. On March 30th, 200 mock eviction notices were placed on dorm-room doors by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton. “We regret to inform you that your home is scheduled for demolition shortly,” begins the notice, which can be seen here. “You have three (3) days to vacate the premise persuant (sic) to code no. 208.2A or you will be subject to arrest. If you do not leave, we reserve the right to destroy your home. Anyone left inside is not our responsibility.”
The notice continues: “Harsh? So is this reality: The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions reports about 25,000 homes have been destroyed by Israeli military forces since the Occupation of Palestine began in 1967.” Further down, the notice repeats the lie that Israeli forces deliberately murdered American peace activist Rachel Corrie.
For the legions of college students reliably ignorant of history, 1967 is the year of the Six Day War during which Israel neutralized the attempt by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq to annihilate the Jewish State. As for Corrie, she was killed when she attempted to interfere with Israeli counter-terrorism operations taking place in a declared war zone. The zone was part of an area concealing weapon smuggling tunnels used to attack Israel. Corrie was acting as a human shield and was accidently crushed by falling debris. Yet her death remains a cornerstone of anti-Israeli propaganda.
SJP campus leader Noor Fawzy claims the notice was nothing more than an attempt to educate students. “The intent is to expose Israel’s illegal policies and give students a feel of what it’s like to live under occupation” she said, further noting that the notices were posted at random and Jewish students were not singled out. “We don’t discriminate, we’re here to raise awareness about the plight of Palestinians,” said Fawzy. “This was done randomly, we were escorted by a housing official as we distributed the notices.”
With respect to that last contention at least, Fawzy is telling the truth. The FAU Housing and Residential Life Department not only approved the notices, but provided a department employee as an escort when the anti-Israeli activists posted them on dorm doors and elevators. Initially, Charles Brown, FAU’s Senior Vice President for Student Affairs, contended the university did not condone the fliers. Yet FAU was eventually forced to accept responsibility. “The recent mock eviction postings did not comply with the policies of University Housing and Residential Life or the Office of Student Involvement and Leadership concerning the distribution of printed material,” said a released statement.
The notices also contained a mock Palm Beach County seal that PBC Commissioner Steven Abrams noted was illegal, even though it contained a disclaimer “not affiliated with county.” Abrams contended the posting was done “to scare or confuse students, which I am informed was the case in many instances,” he said.
Fawzy remained unrepentant. “We have the right to express ourselves,” she said. “There is no reason for the Jewish community to feel afraid.” Student Rayna Exelbierd, who had one of the eviction notices posted on her door, wasn’t buying it. “We’re taking it very seriously,” she said. “We’re considering it a hate crime. The flier promotes hate; it doesn’t promote peace. People were scared by it. People felt threatened by it.”
Students do have the right to express themselves, yet the point at which such expression crosses the line into outright intimidation–make that university-sanctioned intimidation–may in fact be a violation of anti-discrimination laws that do not allow for the creation of a hostile environment targeting specific groups. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), a group that has led the charge to defend Jewish college students from campus hate, demanded that FAU condemn the notice. They contend the flyer was anti-Semitic, citing a 2005 study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recognizing that anti-Semitism “should be distinguished from legitimate discourse regarding foreign policy,” and that “anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism.”
The ZOA has a legitimate point. In 2010, after six years of campaigning, they got the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to clarify that Jewish students finally would merit the same protection “against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin” that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act confers on all minorities. Thus, it is possible that FAU, due to its official sanction of the notices, may be in violation of federal law.
Yet FAU remains defiant. In announcing the conclusion of their investigation, the university claimed it had taken “appropriate corrective steps” with staffers who approved the notices–even as they refused to detail those steps, citing the tiresomely familiar excuse that the university does not comment on personnel matters. An email released by Charles Brown echoes that opaqueness, but offers up yet another familiar fallback position for university administrators: moral equivalence. “We have received disturbing reports of threats, hostility and intolerance from and against fellow members of our community in connection with these postings,” it states, implying those who posted the notices have been as intimidated as those who received them. Again, since no details are provided, we are forced to accept Mr. Brown at his word.
Yet further on in the email the senior vice president for Student Affairs demonstrates a startling disconnect from reality: “We can confirm that, although the postings failed to comply with University policy and should not have been distributed as they were, we have found no evidence that the postings were intended to target or intimidate individuals of any particular religion, national origin or faith” (bold in the original). Why? Because the postings were “distributed randomly.”
Utter nonsense, and Mr Brown is well aware of it. ZOA met with him in 2011 and made him aware of the SJP’s growing radicalization, including the fact that their leader, Noor Fawzy, had been involved with organizing “Miami’s Third Intifada Rally for Palestine” and a “Freedom Flotilla II” rally. Video of Fawzy chanting, “Long live the Intifada” and “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” can be seen here. Furthermore, there is no mistaking the meaning of the word “intifada,” which is a call for a “violent uprising,” nor the implication behind “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free,” which is a call for the annihilation of the Jewish State. As for the flotilla, it was the second attempt by hard-left, anti-Israeli activists to break an Israeli naval blockade aimed at preventing the arming of Palestinian terrorists in the Gaza Strip.
Overt anti-Semitism is hardly confined to FAU. Rutgers University is investigating an incident in which the Daily Medium, a student-funded newspaper, published a “mock” article in its April 4th edition. “What About the Good things that Hitler Did?” falsely attributed authorship to conservative Jewish student Aaron Marcus, whose grandparents lost family in the Holocaust. Prof. Ronald Miskoff, an advisor to the newspaper, defended both the article and the false attribution, contending that “permission is not required for a parody” and that Marcus “is a columnist for the Daily Targum and also a public person.”
In both of these incidents and numerous others, the protagonists’ position is that they are exercising their First Amendment rights, and aside from the limitations imposed by Title VI, they are undoubtedly correct. But it has become clear that a mystifying double standard with respect to Jewish students exists on today’s campuses. The fact of the matter is, not all minority groups are treated equally at the university. For some, it is open season, which allows those who oppose and despise the Jewish homeland to spread their hate and lies delegitimizing its existence totally unimpeded. Imagine if, for example, the College Republicans circulated “random” eviction notices to students to promote “awareness” about illegal immigration. Or sent students “pink slips” informing them that they lost their campus job because it had been given to an illegal immigrant. Undoubtedly such expressions of free speech would be condemned as racist, invariably followed by an investigation into the “targeting” of Hispanic students.
At the very least, FAU owes their Jewish students an official, university-sanctioned apology for the part it played in abetting campus radicalism directed at a specific group. The “random distribution” excuse is a pathetically weak explanation that would neither be offer or accepted by any university, if virtually any other group were the target of posted eviction notices. Calls to other university officials, most notably Mr. Brown and university president Dr. Mary Jane Saunders, went unanswered. The aforementioned email was deemed sufficient communication regarding the incident. It isn’t.
Duck and cover never is.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Measuring the Me Generation
Posted by Alan W. Dowd
April 23rd, 2012
Reprinted from FrontPageMag – David Horowitz Freedom Center
Stephen Marche has written a thought-provoking piece about what he terms the “war against youth.” Although a bit whiny at times and sprinkled with class-envy rhetoric—he warns of “flowers of rage,” derides “virulently purified capitalism” and writes approvingly about “the protesters, the occupiers, the kids who screamed themselves hoarse in the parks of New York and Oakland last year”—the thrust of the essay highlights the selfishness of the Baby Boomer generation and the consequences of that selfishness.
Here are a few of the consequences that Marche identifies: Pointing to the “economic cloak of unreality that the Boomers have wrapped themselves in,” he argues that “There is a young America and there is an old America…One takes from the other.” He cites a 2009 Brookings Institution study to support his case: “The United States spends 2.4 times as much on the elderly as on children.”
Thanks to what he calls “30 years of economic and social policy that has been rigged to serve the comfort and largesse of the old at the expense of the young,” he notes that “in 1984, American breadwinners who were 65 and over made ten times as much as those under 35. The year Obama took office, older Americans made almost 47 times as much as the younger generation.”
Maintaining a political-economic system that serves “the comfort and largesse of the old” helps explain the untouchable nature of the tax-guzzling Social Security and Medicare programs. Marche notes that the Social Security system will run out of funds in 2036, “so there’s just enough to get the oldest Boomers to age 90.” Indeed, he makes a compelling case that “the whole of American society has been rearranged so that the limits of vision coincide exactly with the death of the Boomers. Nobody wants this. The Boomers did not set out to screw over their kids. The wind just seemed to blow them that way.”
In other words, the Boomers will likely eat through the safety net their parents handed down to them. Yet many Boomers loudly oppose reforms to the system that could extend its life. A PBS report found that simply raising the Social Security retirement age to 71 by 2040, and to 75 by 2070, would save enough money to cover the looming shortfalls. Likewise, to preserve the system for future generations, Medicare needs to be reined in, means-tested and trimmed down; some elements of Medicare need to be phased out altogether.
But those are non-starters, which means the Boomers’ kids and grandkids will work longer and receive a far smaller return on their “investment” in Social Security and Medicare. Again, Marche offers helpful evidence in this regard: He notes that a wealthy retired couple today will pay $899,000 into programs like Medicare and Social Security and receive $1.01 million in benefits; a low-earning retired couple today will pay $510,000 into the system and get $821,000 back. Post-Boomer generations won’t see anything like this.
Indeed, it could be argued that the spending and debt debates in today’s Washington are basically debates over how much the Boomers will take from their children and grandchildren.
If those are some of the public-policy consequences of Baby Boomer selfishness, what are the causes?
Ronald Reagan offered an answer way back in 1967. Speaking to a gathering of young Baby Boomers at Eureka College, he concluded that his generation had given his children’s generation—the Boomers—too much. “Because we had to earn,” he explained, “we wanted to give…‘No’ was either a dirty word or dropped from our vocabulary.” He lamented that “our motives have been laudable, but our judgment has been bad…I am afraid we shortchanged you on responsibilities.”
The words may sting, but they proved prescient.
“No” and “responsibility”—with all their limiting power—are words that too many Boomers have never understood, grasped or used.
Just contrast the Boomers with their parents.
The generation born between 1915 and 1935 wasn’t granted the luxury of contemplating what to do after high school or college—“finding yourself” wasn’t an option for them. So they grew up fast and dutifully marched off to Europe and Africa and the Pacific to save the world from Nazi fascism and Japanese imperialism. Those who missed World War II were treated to World War 2.5 in Korea. They returned home to hold back Moscow’s Iron Curtain—and ultimately tear it down. We should never forget that the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed while one of their own sat in the Oval Office. Unlike their parents and their children, they would not leave their unfinished business to another generation. Duty and responsibility were ingrained into them. Their willingness to serve and sacrifice grew from a patriotism that many of their children would scorn and many more of their grandchildren would never quite understand. It’s telling that Reagan and Kennedy’s generation reached for the moon. Obama’s generation shut down the space shuttle and lowered America’s sites.
That brings us back to the Boomers. While their parents saluted when their country called, many Boomers responded with a shrug. To be sure, some 2 million Boomers served in Vietnam, fighting for their country, just like their dads had done. But sadly, they were overshadowed by those in their generation who burned their draft cards, “dropped out” and found something—anything—to protest. The historical record shows that Baby Boomers waved North Vietnamese flags while North Vietnamese bullets and bombs were killing American boys. There is simply no analogue to that from the World War II generation.
This is not to say that the Boomers’ parents were perfect. Reagan conceded his generation’s failures in his 1967 diagnosis. Moreover, it was Reagan’s generation that mismanaged the Vietnam War. But the Boomers’ parents get credit for their previous record (in World War II, they sacrificed more than any generation) and for their motives (they believed the Free World and the American way of life were worth fighting for). So many of the Boomers, on the other hand, seemed to conclude that nothing was worth fighting for.
Amid depression, scarcity and war, their parents had to grow up too fast. But many of the Boomers never seemed to grow up at all, never seemed to understand that they couldn’t “have it all”—sex without consequence, knowledge without truth, freedom without responsibility, life without the healthy limits of “no.”
Their parents saved civilization; the Boomers assaulted it—marriage and family and religion were upended in their wake.
Their parents walked among us without pretense, like silver-haired Clark Kents. But so many of the Boomers chose a different demeanor: showy and pretentious, myopic and narcissistic. There’s a reason they were known as the “Me Generation.” Just contrast, say, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush—who spoke in terms of “we” and “us” and “our”—with Barack Obama, born at the end of the postwar baby boom—who incessantly talks about “I” and “me” and “my.”
There are many exceptions, of course. I can think of two in particular—my mom and dad, who lived lives on the sensible and selfless side of the Baby Boomer spectrum. But so many of their peers didn’t—and still don’t.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Holocaust Memorial Day and European Hypocrisy
Posted by Joseph Puder
April 23rd, 2012
Reprinted from FrontPageMag – David Horowitz Freedom Center
German Nobel Laureate Gunther Grass, a former Waffen S.S. soldier in Hitler’s army, published a poem earlier this month which criticized Israel for “aggressive warmongering against Iran” and identified the Jewish State as a “threat to world peace…”
Yom Ha’Shoah/Holocaust Memorial Day is a widely recognized day of commemoration throughout Europe. Holocaust memorials and museums abound; in Germany and other countries that willingly cooperated with Nazi Germany in the murder of the Jews. Yet, throughout Western and Northern Europe today, Jews feel like an endangered species. Residual anti-Semitism, largely borne of envy and age old prejudices shared at many “kitchen tables” is still prevalent in today’s Europe. This, coupled with the influx of Muslims who have been taught that the Jews are the “enemies of Allah,” gives renewed vigor and legitimization to anti-Semitism.
During the pre-Holocaust age, Jews in Europe were characterized as Communists and Capitalists, misers and free-spenders. Jews were targeted as an ethno-religious group as well as individuals. In the godless Europe where Christianity is largely dead, it is politically incorrect to target individual Jews or Judaism however, it has become more acceptable to target the Jewish State for hate. And, since Jews are automatically identified with Israel they are once again a target for hate and violence. Last month saw the murder of a rabbi and three young children in Toulouse, France and, while Europe was “shocked,” the appeasement of the Arab-Muslim world continues as well as Israel bashing by the European media, academia, and most governments of the EU.
The trouble with the much of the “civilized” world is that it loves “dead Jews.” “Cultured” Europeans murdered six-million Jewish people, including 1.5 million children, during the Holocaust, whose only crime was to be born to Jewish parents. This same “cultured” world viciously attacks today’s proud living Jews and supports those engaged in hateful de-legitimization campaigns. The “cultured” world loves Jews as victims not as victors.
On November 2, 2003 the Israel Insider reported the results of a European Commission poll – nearly 60% of European citizens believe that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace – more so than Iran, North Korea or Afghanistan. The report prompted Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, to comment that “These shocking results defy logic and [are] a racist flight of fancy that only shows that anti-Semitism is deeply embedded within European society,”
For several decades following Israel’s rebirth, many wanted to forget the dead Jews of the Holocaust, looking upon them as those who went like “sheep to the slaughter.” The Sabras (native born Israelis) were ashamed of the perceived weakness of their kinsmen. Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first Prime Minister, along with his generation of Labor Zionists, sought to create a new man in the old homeland.
In Israel’s patriotic decades of the 1940s, 1950s, and up to 1967, little was said or taught about the Holocaust. In homes or in the youth movements, this most tragic event in Jewish history was barely discussed. Holocaust survivors were reluctant to tell their stories, nor were they encourage d to do so. A number of events led to the incorporation of the European Shoah into Israel’s living history. First of these was the Eichmann Trial in 1961. The testimonies revealed to the young Israelis the incredible machinations of the Nazis, and the helplessness of the Jews. Hated and persecuted by their gentile neighbors, without weapons or means to defend themselves the public learned that the Jews of Europe marched to their death with dignity, in spite of the brutality of the Nazi murderers and their helpers.
In 1965 the Knesset debated whether or not Israel should establish diplomatic relations with the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). Many survivors and their children protested, as did Menahem Begin and the Herut Party (he was elected Prime Minister in 1977). Earlier in the 1950’s Begin and the Herut party had protested against taking reparations from Germany. Begin’s fiery speeches declared that “Our honor and the honor of our dead brothers and sisters will not be bought off by the murderer’s money.”
The great awakening of the Israeli public and, parenthetically, sympathy with the Holocaust victims and survivors occurred in the aftermath of the July 4, 1976 rescue mission of Israeli hostages at Uganda’s Entebbe Airport. As the public learned of the involvement of German terrorists and that their guns were used to separate Jew from gentile, and of Jewish parents seeking to protect their children, the scenes evoked identification with those men and women who marched to their death in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, and scores of other death camps in Poland and Germany, as well as Ukrainian villages where German murder squads hauled Jews from their home and marched them to a forest to dig ditches, then shot and buried them in mass graves.
So why do the Europeans, the likes of Gunther Grass hate the live Jews of Israel? Robin Shepard, the British born author of A State Beyond the Palesuggested in Ed West’s review in The Telegraph (June 14, 2010) that Europe should be berated for “dishonoring the memory of the Holocaust, for making common cause with tyranny, for lacking a moral compass, for hypocrisy, wickedness and appeasement. It is accused of succumbing to an obsession, of giving in to irrationalism and anti-intellectualism, of hatred, scorn and contempt.”
Europeans see Israel as the aggressor, and view its treatment of Palestinians as tantamount to genocide, and claim it is a “racist” state akin to apartheid South Africa, with no right to exist.
Shepard argues that Israel has the legal right to exist in accordance with the British Mandate, as agreed upon under the League of Nations, as well as UN Resolution 181, which offered both parties a two-state solution in 1947. The Palestinian-Arabs rejected the offer and attacked the Jewish state along with the Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
The “racist” argument is based on the fact that Israel is a home to the Jewish people. But, Shepard argues: “Just as France has a right to exist as a state for French people, China for Chinese people, Egypt for Egyptian people and so on.” In fact: “Just as dozens of states define themselves as Christian or Muslim (including the 56 states of the Organization of Islamic Conference), so Israel has a right to define itself as Jewish.”
Shepard maintains that anti-Zionism is largely re-shaped anti-Semitism. And it is also the third stage of an “old European disease.” The second stage, following religious anti-Semitism, was racial anti-Semitism (practiced by the Nazis). The present-day ideological anti-Semitism, similar to what was present during the Middle Ages, gives the Jew an option to join (instead of the church) the anti-Zionist bandwagon.
Gunther Grass can be counted on to be “remorseful” over the millions of Jews he and his Nazi comrades helped murder. But like many of his fellow Europeans, Israeli Jews who are able to defend themselves against Nazi-like Arab-Palestinian murderers, and Holocaust deniers like Iran’s Ahmadinejad (who vowed to “wipe Israel off the map”), are an anathema for this delicate German poet.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Abortion Doc Runs Group Making Planned Parenthood “Prayers”
by Jordan Sekulow and Matthew Clark | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 4/19/12
Pro-life advocates have long complained that Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider, worships at the altar of abortion, but did you know that the abortion industry actually prays for abortion?
Perversely reminiscent of 40 day pro-life prayer vigils, Planned Parenthood is promoting it’s own “40 days of prayer,” March 18th through April 27th, for abortion. This is not their usually disguised promotion of abortion as “preventative care,” “family planning,” or “contraceptive services.” No, they throw those typical euphemisms out and directly pray for abortion.
A prayer guide found on PlannedParenthood.org ,40 Days of Prayer Supporting Women Everywhere , encourages pro-abortion supporters to offer prayers of “thanks for abortion providers” and the “sacred care” they provide.
· “We give thanks for the doctors who provide quality abortion care.”
· We pray for a cloud of gentleness to surround every abortion facility.”
· We pray for all the staff at abortion clinics around the nation. May they be daily confirmed in the sacred care that they offer women.”
Some of the prayers, like those above, are for the abortionists. Others are for all “women to access . . . abortion,” and one is to “give thanks and celebrate that abortion is still safe and legal.”
Still other prayers are against pro-life advocates. They pray that women on the way to have an abortion would be “shielded” from the lifesaving message of pro-life sidewalk counselors and “give thanks for abortion escorts who guide women safely through the hostile gauntlets of protesters.” In another, “we pray for women who have been made afraid of their own power [of choice, i.e. abortion] by their religion. May they learn to reject fear and live bravely.”
One of the most outrageous of these pro-abortion prayers actually urges people to “pray for the families we’ve chosen. May they know the blessing of choice.” What about the babies who weren’t “chosen”?
Of course, none of this should be surprising when you take a look at the group who penned these prayers, Faith Aloud. Among Faith Aloud’s board members is the infamous partial-birth abortion doctor LeRoy Carhart.
While admitting that aborted babies are “our children—even those we decide not to bring into the world,” Faith Aloud cannot debunk the claim that abortion is murder. Faith Aloud’s Web site states, “When you hear something over and over, like ‘abortion is murder’, it can get into your head—like a commercial. But if you really believed that abortion was the same as murder you probably wouldn’t even be considering it.”
But apparently, these prayers are being used by the entire abortion industry. Faith Aloud even wrote us after we at the ACLJ initially exposed Planned Parenthood’s prayer guide to clarify, “Independent abortion providers (non-Planned Parenthood facilities) have been using these prayers for years.”
While the prayers themselves are shocking, the true outrage continues to be the yearly slaughter of millions of unborn babies. No matter how you try to spiritualize it or rationalize, it’s just plain wrong, and we will continue fighting for life.
PA Children’s Show: Zion is a Devil with a Tail (VIDEO)
by Elad Benari
Reprinted from Israel News – Arutz Sheva
As part of its ongoing campaign to delegitimize and demonize Israel, a Palestinian Authority TV children’s program recently featured a child reciting a poem promoting Pan-Arabism. The poem, by an Egyptian writer, included words “Our enemy, Zion, is Satan with a tail.”
The children’s program, entitled “The Best Home”, aired on April 7 on a PA television station run by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah movement. The program was documented and translated by the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) research organization.
In the video clip, the host is seen asking an Arab girl, “Laila, what do you want to recite next?” to which the girl responds by reciting the following poem written by an Egyptian writer:
“When I was young I was taught that Arabness is my honor…
and that our lands extend from one end to the other,
and that our wars were for the Al-Aqsa Mosque,
and that our enemy, Zion, is Satan with a tail…
Our division is by your hands [Arab rulers]. May your hands be cut off.
We are fed up with our division, while all people are uniting.”
The host then says, “Bravo, bravo, bravo.”
The PA often uses children in its anti-Israel campaign, as PMW has shown several times in the past.
Last summer PMW exposed that a PA-sponsored children’s summer camp divided its campers into three groups named after terrorists Dalal Mughrabi, Salah Khalaf and Abu Ali Mustafa.
Dalal Mughrabi carried out led the most lethal terror attack in Israelis history in 1978. 37 Israeli civilians were killed in that attack, among them 12 children.
Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) was the head of the Black September terror group and was involved in the murder of 11 Israeli athletes in the Munich Olympics in 1972 (an attack which was reportedly funded by current PA President Mahmoud Abbas).
Abu Ali Mustafa served as General Secretary of the terror organization Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). He planned numerous terror attacks against Israeli civilians before being killed by the IDF in 2001.
A fourth group was named after former PA Chairman Yasser Arafat.
PMW noted that the summer camp was held under the auspices of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who visited the camp to participate in the closing ceremonies, which he also sponsored.
UN Ambassador Prosor Explodes ‘Myths’ of PA-Israeli ‘Struggle’
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Reprinted from Israel News – Arutz Sheva
Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor broke down several myths Monday in an “Open Debate on the Situation in the Middle East” in the United Nations Security Council.
After quoting Winston Churchill’s statement, “In the time that it takes a lie to get halfway around the world, the truth is still getting its pants on,” Prosor methodically brought up and broke down myths that he said have fertile ground in the Middle East. “Facts often remain buried in the sand. The myths forged in our region travel abroad – and can surprisingly find their way into these halls,” He said.
— Myth number one: “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is the central conflict in the Middle East. If you solve that conflict, you solve all the other conflicts in the region.” Prosor told the Council members. “The truth is that conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Bahrain, and many other parts of the Middle East have absolutely nothing to do with Israel.
“It is obvious that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict won’t stop the persecution of minorities across the region, end the subjugation of women, or heal the sectarian divides. Obsessing over Israel has not stopped Assad’s tanks from flattening entire communities. On the contrary, it has only distracted attention from his crimes.
“Thousands are being killed in Syria, hundreds in Yemen, dozens in Iraq — and yet, this debate again repeatedly is focusing on the legitimate actions of the government of the only democracy in the Middle East. And dedicating the majority of this debate to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, month after month after month after month, has not stopped the Iranian regime’s centrifuges from spinning.
— Myth number two: “There is a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.”
The Ambassador pointed out that even the Deputy Head of the Red Cross Office and “numerous international organizations have said clearly that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”
He added, Gaza’s real GDP grew by more than 25 percent during the first three quarters of 2011. There is not a single civilian good that cannot enter Gaza today. Yet, as aid flows into the area, missiles fly out. This is the crisis in Gaza.”
— Myth number three: “Settlements are the primary obstacle to peace.”
Prosor said he can save time for the UN Human Rights Council, which has proposed another ‘fact-finding’ mission to Israel – this time to explore Israeli settlements. He said that “the facts have already been found,” explaining that when Egypt and Jordan controlled Judea, Samaria and Gaza between 1948 and 1967, “The Arab World did nothing – it did not lift a finger – to create a Palestinian state. And it sought Israel’s annihilation when not a single settlement stood anywhere in the West Bank or Gaza.
Prosor charged that the Arab world’s “primary obstacle to peace is not settlements [but]…is the so-called ‘claim of return’ – and the Palestinian’s refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
He said that claims that Israel is “Judaizing Jerusalem” are “accusations [that] come about 3,000 years too late. It’s like accusing the NBA of Americanizing basketball.” Prosor also said that the percentage of Arab residents in Jerusalem has grown from 26 percent in 1967 to 35 percent during the period that Israel supposed has been exercising “ethnic cleansing.”
— Another myth the Security has overlooked for the past 64 years, when Israel was reestablished as a state. is the “one great untold story, or – to be more specific – …more than 850,000 untold stories [of] Jews…uprooted from their homes in Arab countries,” he said.
Prosor pointed out, “These were vibrant communities dating back 2,500 years [but]…were wiped out. Age-old family businesses and properties were confiscated. Jewish quarters were destroyed. Pogroms left synagogues looted, graveyards desecrated and thousands dead.”
“The pages that the UN has written about the Palestinian refugees could fill up soccer stadiums, but not a drop of ink has been spilled about the Jewish refugees.
— He told the Council he “saved the most obvious myth for last: the myth that peace can somehow be achieved between Israelis and Palestinians by bypassing direct negotiations. History has shown that peace and negotiations are inseparable.”
“Palestinian leaders continue to pile up new pre-conditions for sitting with Israel. They are everywhere except the negotiating table.“
The UN Plan For Running The World: Global Carbon Taxes, Global Safety
Nets And A One World Green Economy
24 April 2012
Did you know that the UN has a plan for running the world and it is right out in the open? It is called “sustainable development”, but it is far more comprehensive than it sounds. The truth is that the UN plan for running the world would dramatically alter nearly all forms of human activity. A 204 page report on “sustainable development” entitled “Working Towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy, A United Nations System-Wide Perspective” has been published in advance of the upcoming Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro. You can read the full report right here. It envisions a vast system of global carbon taxes, massive global safety nets and the implementation of a one world green economy. Many of those that are pushing “sustainable development” on a global level believe that they are doing it for the good of the planet. In fact, the 204 page report mentioned above even says that the transition “to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act” but that it will be worth it in the end. What people need to understand is that throughout modern history tyranny has almost always been initially introduced by people that believed that they had “good intentions”. No matter how much friendly language the UN uses in their reports, the truth is that what they are promoting is an insidious agenda of absolute tyranny on a global scale.
The upcoming Rio + 20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro comes 20 years after the original 1992 UN Earth Summit that adopted “Agenda 21“. This new summit will be about renewing that commitment to “sustainable development” and moving that agenda forward.
A lot of people out there will not be alarmed by any of this because they know that the UN does not have the power to impose any of their goals on them right now. But that is not the game that the UN is playing.
The UN is not playing a short-term political game. The UN is ready to play their game for decades if necessary. They will just keep coming back with conference after conference and treaty after treaty until they get what they want.
At the moment, the United Nations is operating as something of a “soft global government”. The UN does not have the power to coerce nations to do their bidding yet, so they rely mostly on cooperation. The UN will “take what they can get” right now, and they know that someday they will eventually have the power to turn their recommendations into mandates.
One of the things that the UN would love to implement is a global carbon tax scheme. The power to tax is the power to control, and if the UN is ever given the power to tax the entire globe they will at that point become much more than a “soft global government”.
Right now, the UN is proposing a global carbon tax scheme that would come to as much as 0.6 percent of GDP for participating nations. The following comes directly from the report….
If, for example, industrialized countries were to use carbon taxes or auctioned emissions permits to reach the GHG emission targets they pledged in the Cancun Agreements, they could raise as much as 0.6 per cent of their GDP or about US $250 billion in revenues per year by 2020 (OECD 2012). In addition, other forms of carbon finance, PES, green stimulus funds, micro-finance, social responsibility investment funds, green bonds and other local financial innovations have emerged in recent years and can open up the space for large-scale green financing. To further scale up the financing for a green economy, public-private innovative financing mechanisms are needed to tap institutional investors’ capital.
The report also envisions the transfer of trillions of dollars a year from wealthy countries to poorer countries. The UN feels that this is necessary for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the UN says that developing nations do not have the resources to pay for the “green infrastructure” that is needed to participate in the new green economy and therefore wealthier nations should pay for it.
Secondly, the UN believes that massive global wealth distribution is needed in order to bring about global “equity”.
Does that sound like radical socialism to you?
The UN report also speaks of a “social protection floor”. So now instead of just supporting tens of millions of Americans that are relying on “the safety net”, U.S. taxpayers will also be expected to contribute to a global safety net that hundreds of millions of people could end up relying on.
The UN also envisions a one world “green economy” where “freer trade” is accompanied by environmental responsibility. The following comes from the UN report mentioned above….
Freer trade should be tied to important human values, welfare goals and inclusive growth, assisting those developing countries that are marginalized in the global trading system. Trade policy also needs to be accompanied by policies in both the social and environmental spheres.
In this one world “green economy”, prices for things like food and energy will go up dramatically for Americans. The UN is pushing a concept known as “full-cost pricing”. What that means is that the “full social and environmental costs” of producing goods and services must be passed on to you so that you will be “motivated” to change your behavior. The following is another excerpt from the UN report….
Full-cost pricing, which includes full social and environmental costs, is an essential tool for changing investments as well as consumption and production patterns and for motivating innovations.
For example, the UN really does not like that Americans drive their cars so much. They believe that it is very bad for the environment. So according to the UN it is going to be necessary to raise the price of gasoline dramatically.
The UN report also envisions massive changes to the global financial system. This new UN report on “sustainable development” is just the latest in a long string of UN reports that sees an emerging role for “Special Drawing Rights” to play in the international financial system….
Efforts need to be made to explore the potential for an innovative use of Special Drawing Rights, other international reserve assets and pools of concentrated assets to serve the aim of financing green economy investments with attractive social as well as private returns and increasing the provision of global public goods.
The United Nations also wants to change the way that you eat. This new UN report says that we all need to transition to “sustainable diets”. For one thing, that would mean a lot less meat for you and your family.
The United Nations also wants to reform public education. The new UN report says that “climate change education is a particularly important part of quality education”.
Do you want “climate change education” to be pounded into the heads of your kids when they go to school?
If not, you better start paying attention to what the UN is trying to do.
Also, the new UN report speaks of the need for “universal access to reproductive health care and family planning”. In other words, the United Nations wants to make sure that there is an abortion clinic in every corner of the globe.
As I have written about so many times before, the elitists that are pushing “sustainable development” on a global scale love death. They believe that humans are the primary cause of global warming, and they also believe that if there were a lot less humans running around that there would be a lot less climate change.
Sadly, there are a whole lot of people out there these days that are advocating very strict population control measures for the entire globe. They believe that they are trying to “save the planet”, but the truth is that what they are really doing is promoting global tyranny.
Unfortunately, there are now millions upon millions of “true believers” in this “sustainable development” agenda and it is being taught in almost every major college and university in the developed world.
The United Nations is going to keep coming back again and again with this agenda. They will advance it an inch at a time if they have to. The elitists that are promoting this will not get tired and they will not give up.
In fact, UN officials have even been drafting an environmental constitution for the world that is intended to eventually supersede all existing national laws.
This document contains a “preamble” like the U.S. Constitution does, it is organized into “articles” like the U.S. Constitution is, and it even sets forth procedures for “amending” the document just like the U.S. Constitution does.
The working title of this document is “Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” and you can read the entire thing right here.
Most people out there have absolutely no idea how serious the United Nations is about all of this. The United Nations truly believes that it should be running the world and ushering humanity into a new era of peace, equality and “green prosperity”.
The environment is going to be used as an excuse over and over to further strengthen global institutions such as the United Nations.
If the American people are not really careful, one day our children will wake up in a world where soldiers in blue helmets are standing on our street corners.
It is not here yet, but it is coming.