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
2 describes in detail "respect for all life forms."
Article
3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of
international law.”
Article 5 refers to "equity and justice," code words for
socialism/communism.
Article
16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into
all national decisions.
Article
19 deals with "Stratospheric Ozone." Rex Communis is the customary international law regime
applicable to areas beyond national jurisdiction: in particular to the high
seas and outer space." (p. 72)
Article
20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate
change.” If we endorse this document, we must fight a non-existent man-made
climate change.
Article
31, "Action to Eradicate Poverty," requires the eradication of
poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.
Article
32 requires recycling, "consumption and production patterns."
Article
33, "Demographic policies," 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.” In
Malthusian model, humans were supposed to run out of food and starve to death.
In a similar prediction, this document claims that the out-of control
multiplication of humans can endanger 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 37 discusses "Transboundary Environmental Effects and article 39
directs how "Transboundary Natural Resources" will be conserved,
"quantitatively and qualitatively." According to the document,
"conserve means managing human-induced processes and activities which may
be damaging to natural systems in such a way that the essential functions of
these systems are maintained."
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.
“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 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 the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, and/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 approximately 19 U.S. professors of Law, Biology,
Natural Resources, Urban Planning, Theology, Environmental Ethics, two General
Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, chair of the
IUCN Ethics Working Group, two attorneys in private practice in the U.S., a
judge from the International Court of Justice, a U.S. High Seas Policy advisor
of the IUCN Global Marine Programme, foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, and 13
members of the UN Secretariat, including the Chairman, Dr. Wolfgang E.
Burhenne. (2006-onwards)
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.
Article
20 is of particular interest because it forces the signatories to DICED “to
mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” When President Trump withdrew
the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, “climatologists” from Hollywood and
millennials brainwashed by their professors that CO2 is going to destroy the
planet and kills us all, took to microphones and podiums to express their
displeasure with such a “criminal” decision.
It
did not matter that the President explained in a very logical manner that this
accord was nothing else than an economic scheme to steal and redistribute
wealth from the United States to the third world while real heavy polluters
like China and India were allowed to continue to pollute until 2030 when, at
that time, they could be bribed to reduce their pollution and perhaps China
would install smokestack scrubbers.
President
Trump explained how many millions of American jobs would be lost and how our
energy generation is getting cleaner while we are exploring other forms of energy. Once President Obama declared that the
science has been settled, the science provided and the IPCC modeling had been
adjusted to fit the globalist man made global warming agenda, so called
anthropogenic.
Since
none of Al Gore’s predictions of islands under water due to the melting of ice
cap have turned out true, we have more ice than ever this year, the globalists
changed the title of their global warming hoax to climate change. Who would
object to that term? Everybody knows that climate change but it is not because
of humans spewing CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t see any liberals who have
stopped breathing and passing gas. But we do see Hollywood jet set everywhere
or sail in their expensive yachts, build mansions on the most beautiful beach
side properties in the world, right after they chew humanity out for destroying
the planet with our very existence and civilization.
How
did man become the main perpetrator of climate change? How did we become so
powerful that we can change climate with our very existence but, if we pay
carbon taxes to the third world, we correct our guilt of existing, of breathing,
and we turn climate into a favorable proposition for all – no hurricanes, no
tornadoes, no droughts, no hail, no torrential rains, no earthquakes, no
tsunamis, nothing but serene climate year after year.
The
Club of Rome, the premier environmental think-tank, consultant to the United
Nations and the alleged writer of U.N. Agenda 21’s 40 chapters, explained, “The
common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we
came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water
shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused
by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior
that they can be overcome. The real enemy is the humanity itself.”
Environmentalists
tell us that the science is “settled” yet 31,000 scientists have signed a
petition against the theory that humans are causing climate change. There is
certainly a need to reduce pollution of our oceans, rivers, soil, and air but humans
are not causing climate change. Temperatures and CO2 concentrations were much
higher when there was no industrial activity or even humans.
The
Vostock ice core samples taken by a team of Russian and French scientists
proved beyond any doubt that CO2 concentrations in deep ice were six times
higher than they are today. There are more serious variables that affect the
climate, including solar flares, volcanic activity on earth and in oceans, and
oceanic currents. Then there is the deliberate government weather tampering by
seeding clouds from flying airplanes with various chemicals in order to
“mitigate the effects of global warming.”
Dr.
David Frame, climate modeler at Oxford University said, “The models are
convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” Prof. Chris Folland
from the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research explained, “The data
doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing
them on the climate models.”
Christine
Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, also said, “No matter if
the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the
greatest opportunity to bring about social justice and equality in the world.”
Timothy
Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation, said, “We’ve got to ride this global
warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing
the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
The
sad thing is that many mayors around the country have decided to disobey
President Trump’s decision on the Paris Climate Accord and reported publicly
that they will continue their membership even though such a move is illegal
under our Constitution. Art. VI, paragraph 2, states, …”and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the
supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby;
any Thing in the Constitution or Law of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.”
According
to the Tennesseestar.com, the mayor of Nashville, Megan Barry, said that “The
Constitution does not apply here in Nashville: ‘I am committed to meeting the goals
of the Paris Agreement . . . Even if the President is not.’”
Mayor
Barry, who is joined by the mayors of Knoxville, Madeline Rogero, the mayor of
Chattanooga, Andy Berke, and “187 U.S. mayors, mostly Democrats, representing
52 million Americans,” have decided to ignore Article I, Section 10 of the U.S.
Constitution which prohibits states governments, including towns in those
states, from “entering into any treaty, alliance, and confederation.”
http://tennesseestar.com/2017/06/05/nashville-mayor-megan-barry-i-am-committed-to-meeting-the-goals-of-the-paris-agreement-even-if-the-president-is-not/
There
is no surprise that there is such a drive from the left to have a Convention of
States (COS) in order to replace our U.S. Constitution with their own
environmental constitution of the world, which is called The Draft
International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED).
James
Delingpole wrote in a recent article at breitbart.com that “Global warming is a
myth – so say 80 graphs from 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in
2017.” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/
The
scientific “consensus” about the global warming lie, cited by the left without
hesitation, is not science and President Trump was right in pulling the U.S.
out of the Paris Climate agreement, an agreement based on the pretense that the
massive lie of global warming is true. http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#stash.ktFOtSb7.rFipkQZb.dpbs
India
alone needs $2.5 trillion between now and 2030 to comply with the requirements
of the Paris Climate agreement, a sum which would come from the largest
developed countries, mainly the U.S. And there are many other third world
nations that would demand such redistribution of wealth from us in order to
“decarbonize” and reduce pollution. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/
Delingpole
cites in the above article the quote given in an interview to Dr. Charles
Battig on November 13, 2010. Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Co-Chair of Working Group 3, stated, “We [UN-IPCC]
redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… One has to free
oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental
policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…” http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/07/delingpole-paris-trump-just-dodged-a-2-5-trillion-bullet/
Dr. Charles Battig amply
documents the advancement of Agenda 21 in the United States via ICLEI and gives
successful examples of municipalities who were able to extricate themselves
from the global warming hoax pushed at the local level by the International
Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an arm of U.N.’s many
octopus Agenda 21 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who use federal grants, mayors, and
local boards of supervisors to insinuate their own plans called “visioning”
onto the local community who, most of the time, has no voting rights nor input
into the plans. http://www.slideserve.com/zilya/by-charles-battig-md-piedmont-chapter-va-scientists-and-engineers-for-energy-and-environment
Patrick Wood wrote in LinkedIn, Exposing: AGENDA 21, “It’s time to go tell your city leaders to kill climate change initiatives. #StopTechnocracy.” It is time that American mayors follow the U.S. Constitution and not the U.N.’s environmental Constitution called D.I.C.E.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment