Category Archives: Sustainable Development

Kathleen Marquardt: THE DEFINITION OF “IS”

Kathleen Marquardt: THE DEFINITION OF “IS” – “I do not want to believe that Trump is just using blue smoke and mirrors…”

by Kathleen Marquardt

No, this has nothing (or very little) to do with Bill Clinton. My question is, ‘Is President Trump’ for or against Sustainable Development? He and his cabinet give mixed signals. Yes, Trump has done more positive things than any president in the last decade, that I can remember, anyway. But then there is this:

Oh, boy! Here we go. Actually, Zinke needs to go.

I emphasized the text in bold to indicate the usual farce of Agenda21/2030 that is going to be the destruction of Western Culture. Keep in mind that the usual disclaimer for A21/2030 is “strictly advisory” and “soft-law”, horse pocky! This piece brags that the Department of Interior will be blanketing all public lands with public/private partnerships, as if this is a good thing. They are painting with words so pretty to make you think Interior is the most patriotic of all departments, while what they are doing is so insidiously evil the devil will celebrate them if they pull this off. Zinke calls it Made in America, but instead it is the unmaking of America, the tearing apart of the Constitution. PPPs help SD destroy property rights – the bedrock of freedom.

As Tom describes PPPs in the link below this one: “It is little understood by the general public how Public/Private Partnerships are actually used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power. In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies. These privileged few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, free use of eminent domain, non-compete clauses in government contracts, and specific guarantees of return on their investments. That means the companies, in partnership with the government, can fix their prices, charging beyond what the market demands. They can use their relationship with government to put competition out of business. This is not free enterprise, nor is it government controlled by the people.”

In other words, PPPs are fascism in disguise. And, hopefully, America has seen enough of Sustainable Development in any form – Public/Private/Partnerships, carbon footprints, Common Core, social justice, you name it. Let’s tell Zinke that we just say, NO to calling an Agenda 21/2030 scheme “Made in America” as if it were baseball or apple pie, instead of the anti-American pile of horse-pocky that it is.

Secretary Zinke announces Creation of the “Made in America” Recreation Advisory Committee

“ Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announced the establishment of the “Made in America” Recreation Advisory Committee. The Committee will advise the Secretary of the Interior on public-private partnerships across all public lands, with the goal of expanding access to and improving infrastructure on public lands and waterways.

The duties of the Committee are strictly advisory and will consist of, but not be limited to, providing recommendations including:

Policies and programs that:

  • Expand and improve visitor infrastructure developed through public-private partnerships;
  • Implement sustainable operations embracing fair, efficient and convenient fee collection and strategic use of the collected fees;
  • Improve interpretation using technology;
  • Create better tools and/or opportunities for Americans to discover their lands and waters.”

For more information on public/private partnerships

Which will also lead you to a 3-part primer on PPPs.

After reading the above, one must question whose idea was this?

THE BIGGER PICTURE HIDDEN IN TRUMP’S CUTS TO CLINTON AND OBAMA LAND GRABS

Following up on an April executive order to have Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke review 27 “National Monuments,” Trump on Monday signed an order to cut back the Dec. 2016 Obama-created Bears Ears National Monument in Utah by eight percent (1.35 million acres to 201,876 acres). He also signed an order to cut the 1996 Clinton-created Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument – also in Utah — by nearly 50 percent (1.7 million to 1 million). The remainder of Clinton’s giant plaything will be broken into three separate areas: Grand Staircase National Monument, Kaiparowits National Monument, and Escalante Canyons National Monument.”

All of that leads to something I have been pondering.

Trump has done quite a few things to undo onerous regs and executive orders put in place by Obama, Clinton and Bush. Just today I read in The New American, “One of the very first actions of my administration was to impose at two-for-one rule on new federal regulations. We ordered that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated … as a result, the never-ending growth of red tape in America has come to a sudden screeching and beautiful halt….

Within our first 11 months, we cancelled or delayed over 1,500 planned regulatory actions — more than any previous President by far….

And instead of eliminating two old regulations, for everyone new regulation we have eliminated 22 — 22. That’s a big difference. We aimed for two-for-one and, in 2017, we hit twenty-two-for one.”

Woohoo. That is wonderful. A great start. But . . .. But there is a gaping hole. Nothing has been done to stop the onslaught of Sustainable Development (SD) on property rights and the indoctrination of our children in the schools.

Betsy DeVos, the queen of Common Core is Secretary of Education. Our children are being brainwashed, dumbed-down, and turned into useful idiots, at best. Common Core is still going strong, our children are learning the five pillars of Islam, and there isn’t a single right from the Bill of Rights taught in the classrooms.

AFFH, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is still alive and destroying property rights through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. People’s life savings and very lives are being destroyed by this as well as neighborhoods are being uprooted, whole classes of people are being dumped in neighborhoods not of their choosing just because of their race or their financial status. What most people do not understand is that AFFH is being embedded into every town, city, county and state the same way Sustainable Development was. When, like SD, AFFH has been put in place everywhere in this country, the name Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing will be dropped (just like SD), and AFFH will be an unnamed cancer eating away at our lives.

Also thanks to Sustainable Development, cities and counties are notifying their residents that they cannot even maintain their properties without getting permission from the planning commissions and abiding by the International Building Codes. Our codes, the best in the world, no longer are acceptable – because every city, county, berg, state in the world must now obey the same standards and rules; it is far easier for the global elite to control us that way.

Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who loves Asset Forfeiture, is still the AG and is not reining in Asset Forfeiture. He has finally ordered an examination of the Bundy case, but should it have taken him the outrageous infractions exposed by the whistleblower to see there was malfeasance going on there?

There is a lot more, but I think the above shows that, unless things are in the works and will be unveiled soon, we might need to start putting pressure on Trump to do what he said he would do. A lot of the ‘Deplorables’ promised to keep his feet to the fire if he didn’t do the job he promised. If President Trump is to eliminate 20,000 more regulations, if they aren’t to stop Sustainable Development, they will be useless.

I do not want to believe that Trump is just using blue smoke and mirrors to keep us mollified by making all these other good moves while Sustainable Development continues on with no slow down, destroying the greatest country every built. And I am not exaggerating! Sustainable Development should be the first focus for the President right now. We are so close to the tipping point; in fact, we could already be there.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/01/16/the-definition-of-is/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Tom DeWeeese: Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society

Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society 

by Tom DeWeese

It’s in every community in the nation. We hear it talked about in county commission meetings and state legislatures. It’s even used in advertising as a positive practice for food processing and auto sales. It’s used as the model for building materials, power sources and transportation policy. It’s sold as the bold visionary plan for the future. The nation is being transformed under the banner of “Sustainable Development.”

We are assured by elected officials that Sustainable Development is simply a tool or a guideline to help direct the carefully-planned growth of our cities and rural areas while protecting our natural resources for future generations. “We must guard against a chaotic, unregulated growth in our cities,” say its earnest proponents as they sell the concept through familiar, non-threatening words and beautiful pictures.

Citizens are assured by their community leaders that all such plans are just local, local, local, created with the participation of the whole community. Sustainable Development policy, they say, is just an environmental land conservation policy, a sensible development policy. Sustainable…what’s wrong with that?

Read Tom Deweese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

As usual, the answers are hidden in the details. Are we hearing the truth? What are the consequences of the policy that has taken over every level of government? Are there hidden dangers most just can’t see? Or, as its proponents claim, is opposition to Sustainable Development really just a silly, overblown conspiracy theory found in a twenty-year-old meaningless document called Agenda 21?

The UN’s Brundtland Commission on Global Governance described Sustainable Development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future.” It’s just common sense to assure we don’t overuse our resources, say proponents. If everyone will do their part, we can achieve total sustainability.

A couple of years later, in 1992, at the UN’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates approved a plan describing in great detail how to meet those future needs. They issued a document called Agenda 21, which the UN labeled as a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The UN sold Agenda 21 as a “soft law” policy, meaning it was an idea that nations would need to take up and impose through their own mechanisms.

To that end, in 1993, newly elected President Bill Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Serving on the Council were the representative of nearly every federal agency, along with representatives of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) who had helped to write Agenda 21 on the international level. Also on the Council were representatives of major global corporations. Their task was to create the policies to turn the Agenda 21 goals into official government policy and provide the means to fund it.

The President’s Council released a report describing its Sustainable Development goals, saying, “Sustainable communities encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural resources and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care is accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives.”    

It all sounds pretty neat. Nothing to fear here! It sounds like Utopia is truly ours for the taking. Again, what are the details? How do we put such ideas into action? What are the consequences? Is the environment better off? Are we better off? Well, let’s take each of these glowing ideas one at a time and just see where it all leads! CONTINUE READING

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2017/07/10/barbarians-at-the-school-house-door/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: The Third E of Sustainable Development

The Third E of Sustainable Development – “It exposes the inception of this so-called economic order designed to transfer the wealth…”

by Kathleen Marquardt

On May 1, 1974, the United Nations adopted a resolution “. . . to study for the first time the problems of raw materials and development, devoted to the consideration of the most important economic problems facing the world community.

In June of 1976, The Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements, the genesis of Agenda 21, was announced to the world and bring the 3Es to the fore. Rather than taking bureaucratic worded quotes from the UN document, I am going to let a far more learned person give you a taste of what the resolution proposed to do (and the UN is busy at work carrying through with it – to the extent that the UN carries anything through).

Harry G. Johnson, Professor of Economics at The University of Chicago, Professor of Economics at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva; educated at Toronto, Cambridge, and Harvard; and Professor of Economics at The London School of Economics among many other prestige positions gave the Woodward Court Lecture at The University of Chicago on October 5, 1975, on the UN’s New International Economic Order.

Below are excerpts. I hope It will tempt you to read the entire speech, it is only 18 pages.

The New International Economic Order

The new international economic order, considered as a set of proposals for changing the present international economic order, can be evaluated most succinctly by remarking that it is not new; it is not international: it is not economic; and it is not an order. Let me develop these points in turn. Actually, the ideas and proposals are by no means new; they have been around a long time.

In broad essentials, they were the focus of the 1964 Geneva Conference on World Trade and Development, and specifically the background document for that meeting, Towards a New Trade Policy for Development, prepared by the Secretary-General of the Conference, Dr. Raùl Prebisch. Individually, the ideas had been around for much longer.

On the one hand, the idea that international trade is a zero-sum game by which the rich benefit at the expense of the poor goes back to the Marxist view of imperialism, and before that to the mercantilist idea that foreign trade is a means of transferring wealth from one’s customers to oneself and the main thrust of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and of classical economics was to refute mercantilism. p. 1,2.

The fourth demand evolved into the so-called “link proposal” for coupling the creation of new international reserves or liquidity with distribution of a substantial part of the new money as aid to the less-developed countries. Such is the attraction of the idea that the creation of money involves bringing into existence something for nothing that this scheme has both excited a great deal of expert discussion, and become a general operating principle of International Monetary Fund thinking about world monetary reform.

Nevertheless, the benefits to the developing countries are likely to be small, since the subsequent emergence of world inflation is a symptom of the fact that the world has too much international liquidity, not too little.

The idea of international agreements to stabilize and raise the prices of commodity exports of developing countries-crystallized at the First United Nations Conference on Trade and Development into the concept of “an integrated core of the current demands for a new international economic order. However, nothing much came of it in the decade or so after the first conference.  p. 4.

The demand for a new international economic order is therefore not new; nor are the proposals themselves new; what is new, if anything, is the idea of trying to make a system or order out of a collection of monopolistic and discriminating policies, and the arguments for doing so. For this reason, the new international economic order is not “international” either.

It is not a system of arrangements among nations, each of which participates by virtue of its being a nation. Instead, it proposes, politically, a system of confrontation between two groups of nations, a numerical minority of successfully developed nations and a preponderant majority of developing or less-developed nations, on the basis of a majority vote.

Moreover, the developing country group is based on no clear-cut criteria, there being blatant discrimination against certain poor countries which are excluded-most notably Israel. In this proposed system, the minority is expected to yield to the majority partly on the basis of acceptance of a false parallel with the idea of democracy, partly on the basis of presumed guilt, past and present, for the underdeveloped state of the underdeveloped.

Third, the proposed new international economic order is not economic, at least if economic means more than the truism that any international arrangement has economic effects. Economics as defined by the vast majority of its practitioners is concerned with the rationale and effects of trade through markets including by extension the rationale and effects of the replacement of competitive markets by central planning, which in this context entails replacing multifarious private decision takers by a centralized social decision-taking process, but does not alter the principle of using rational allocation procedures to maximize the extent to which planning objectives can be fulfilled. p. 5,6.

On the other side, the proposed system relies on the ability to create and enlist feelings of guilt sufficiently strong to support regular payments of blackmail, made in the form of artificially high commodity prices. Economists have, it is true, been working on the economics of crime, bribery, and (so far as I know) hush money and blackmail as well; but no one has yet suggested that these phenomena have ever been, of a viable economic system.

Fourth, the system that would result, namely one of developed-country toleration and support for developing-country use of every possibility of monopolistic exploitation they could devise, would not be an order, but an experiment in the rule of the jungle-a rule modified by the hope that the largest and most savage carnivores will be so ashamed of their present existence by virtue of the killing and eating successes of their ancestors that they will offer themselves up as willing sacrifices to the hunger of the smaller fry. No amount of repetition of the rhetoric of “an integrated commodity policy” can convert the rule of the jungle into a rule of law. p. 7,8

There is more, much more meat in this paper. Please take the time to read it. It exposes the inception of this so-called economic order designed to transfer the wealth, mostly of American wealth, to the UN and its NGOs through “aid” programs.

The UN resolution is below:
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly: 3201 (S-VI). Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

 

Kathleen Marquardt: The Big Picture

The Big Picture: Recent Globalist Actions with Huge Implications for a Free America – “…Technocracy as the sole global economic system while destroying capitalism and free enterprise. ”

by Kathleen Marquardt

Okay, so far, so good. We have elected a president who says he is going to Make America Great Again. One of his first steps was hiring Myron Ebell to head EPA transition. Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at Competitive Enterprise Institute, has been at this since back in the Wise Use days. If all of Trump’s choices are this good, we can be happy.

But we have two more months of executive orders from Obama and the onslaught of directives on Sustainable Development and other UN initiatives to take control of the world. Quito was the scene of the most recent SD attack, once again putting ICLEI in the driver’s seat. With Habitat III finished, what are cities’ next steps toward implementation?

The Habitat III conference wrapped up last month in Quito, Ecuador, where nations adopted the New Urban Agenda — a 20-year vision on sustainable urbanization. “The agenda sets an important precedent: For the first time, national governments fully embraced much of the language on local sustainable development that has been used by local and subnational governments for the past 20 years. ICLEI has defined three strategic actions that local governments can take, starting tomorrow.

Three actions
1. Establish local commitments.
“Equally important will be to start building the political capital and commitment necessary to push forward sustainable development policies. This can be done by creating campaigns and movements across the political spectrum in order to ensure continuity of action, regardless of changes in the leadership of administrations through elections. “Similarly, local authorities can immediately start developing multi-stakeholder partnerships with local businesses, civil society and academia.

2. Seek sustainable and innovative financing mechanisms.
“Local governments also can advocate for more and better financing opportunities. ICLEI’s Transformative Action Program (TAP) is one important way to connect potential funders and cities with high ambitions and low resources.

3. Raise awareness and advocate for support.
“City leaders can explain the SDGs to citizens and all stakeholders, including local and multinational business, aiming to mobilize them to participate in their implementation. They also will need to put pressure on national counterparts so that they put in place enabling frameworks and inclusive approaches in defining national strategies for SDGs implementation.

Finally, local leaders can seek to develop urban sustainability alliances engaging a variety of stakeholders. This would help giving momentum to concerted local action to implement the SDGs.”
[Read More]

********** FLASH: This came in as I finished putting this blog together:

EPA Chief Urges Staff To Finish Obama’s Agenda Before Trump Takes Over
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urged employees to finish out the last weeks of the Obama administration “running” to finish implementing what they can of the president’s environmental agenda. “As I’ve mentioned to you before, we’re running — not walking — through the finish line of President Obama’s presidency,” EPA Administrator Gina […]

Another venue for destroying American free-trade is the TPP. In early November, the Republicans were bragging that they had the votes to help Obama push it through. The big questions now are, did they hear the message from the people and are they going to listen? If so, they will back off a vote for the TPP, and maybe live (politically) to see another election.

DR: http://deweesereport.com/2016/11/14/the-big-picture-recent-globalist-actions-with-huge-implications-for-a-free-america/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

 

Tom DeWeese: The Equator Principles and Sustainable Poverty

The Equator Principles and Sustainable Poverty “The people who just want to improve their lives and have simple things like running water and heated homes…”

by Tom DeWeese

This article was first published in The DeWeese Report in January of 2013. Nothing has changed since then except taxes are higher, government is more powerful and there are more poor in the world as the attack on free market capitalism increases. Corporations that play the Sustainability game are not free enterprise. They are its enemy. The assault continues.  -Tom DeWeese

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

The reminders are put in front of us everyday. Poverty in the world. How horrible. Starving children. Unimaginable hardships. Hopelessness. SOMEONE MUST DO SOMETHING!

Of course, the answer for the world leadership is to throw money at the problem, either through volunteer charity programs or mandatory taxation. The problem is, after subjecting us all to this redistribution of wealth in order to sentence the poor to a lifetime of breadlines, the only thing that changes is that we have more and more poor.

What other way is there? How do we eliminate these horrible conditions and create jobs in these very poor countries? Well, in a recent article I argued that “Private Property Ownership is the Only Way to Eradicate Poverty.” It is. But there must also be a workable infrastructure of electricity, clean water, commerce and transportation in place as well. One must have these things to provide jobs, health, and an upgraded standard of living for the means to purchase private property, after all.

Read 
Tom DeWeese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

So, it seems that a good place to start the process of eradicating world poverty and ending the bread lines would be for international companies to begin to invest in such an infrastructure. Building power plants and water treatment plants would lead to the development of housing, schools, shopping malls. Better roads would spring up as people would need to get to the newly created jobs. Farmers would need to employ new ways to increase their output to feed new mouths as people from other regions would arrive seeking the much needed jobs.

Prosperity and hope would overtake poverty and hopelessness. It’s the very system that helped to make the United States the richest nation on earth with the highest standard of living. Finally, instead of depending on us for their daily ration of bread, these people would be able to help, not only themselves, but others in need as well. The entire world could begin to move toward a global prosperity, which our leaders say is their goal.

There’s only one problem. Poverty is unacceptable only as long as it doesn’t hurt the environment! What? Say that again? Yes, you heard me. If such action to end poverty and improve people’s lives is somehow a threat to the world-wide plan for Sustainable Development, then such development is not to be considered. Read More

Read Tom Deweese’s Bio

Back to Homepage