I've heard a lot of bad things about this, but I've reserved my judgement because I've only heard analysis of it, never actually seen the document myself. Until now. I finally found the actual document on the United Nations site. Before I post the link, I have to give a disclaimer. 1). Apparently this was written in 1989. I don't know what has transpired since then and changed the UN's thinking on the matter, or how bad it has gotten since this document was written. They talk about what they want to do by the year 2000....that is scary. 2.) Every time I go to the site to get the address, I have to virus protect and delete at least 25 corrupted cookies that have adware and spyware on them. And I have a really good virus protection. So if you don't have any virus protection at all, I suggest you don't go at all, or at least not from your home computer. Am I being paranoid? You read the document and then decide for yourself. It scared me silly.
http://www.unep.org/documents.multilingual/default.asp?documentid=52
For some general guidelines, it's pro-woman to the point of pushing a woman's group agenda above all else. It's pro-youth group, children and indigenous people and poor. It seldom mentions men. It's anti-catholic and anyone else that wants large families (hidden under the guise of letting women be in charge of determining the size of their family as if men are in total charge of that). It's pro-redistribution of wealth, which includes land, jobs and technology. It has global governance written all over it. It spells out universal health care as well as free housing and supports "low impact lifestyles." Bear in mind, I'm on about page 40 of 270 pages. I printed the whole thing and bound it for my personal library. It's like Glenn Beck said, things are disappearing off the Internet too fast these days.
Back in my homeschooling days, I bought a comb binder for $9.99. It cost more to ship it because it weighs a ton. It's a dinosaur, but it works. I can comb bind anything I print, those little plastic 19-point comb bindings? I love it. But, printed, I can annotate my thoughts directly on the page.
And annotated, I can tell you the specifics of what I've found.
Redistribution of Wealth: In the introduction, they want everyone to work together to protect environments and ecosystems. Sounds good, right? But further down, it states that it "will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries..." Did you catch that? That's section 1.4. It means what we're doing is expensive, they can't afford it so the developed countries have to pay for it. They also say we will be required to strength the "capacity of international institutions for the implantation of Agenda 21." We have to pay them to carry this out? I don't think so. They're the bully of the school yard, telling us what to do, and we have to pay them to do it?
They also claim that this agenda can't "gather momentum if the developing countries are weighted down by external indebtedness, if development finance is inadequate, if barriers restrict access to markets and if commodity prices and the terms of trade of developing countries remain depressed." We have to make commodities cheaper because they can't afford them?
And in 2, section C, they come out and say it: "Providing adequate financial resources to developing countries." Let's just give them the money. If you'd like a scarier version: section 2.22(g): "Ensure that special factors affecting environment and trade policies in the developing countries are borne in mind in the application of environmental standards, as well as in the use of any trade measures. It is worth noting that standards that are valid in the most advanced countries may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost for the developing countries;" WHAT? We have to abide by the rules, but because they're poor they don't have to? It will hurt us, but it won't hurt them, because they're poor? So why will it hurt us? Because we have MONEY?
And would you like an explanation as to why Obama is not doing anything about the oil crisis? Found it in Agenda 21: section 2.22 (d): "Deal with the root causes of environment and development problems in a manner that avoids the adoption of environmental measures resulting in unjustified restrictions on trade;" If he makes sure that he solves this oil crisis, he can't stop all oil production. If he makes it a really big deal, he can halt all our oil production and we remain dependent on foreign oil. Agenda 21 supported.
And that's just one aspect of Agenda 21.
Let's look at all the references to women. I'm all for equal rights. But I can't even count the number of times they list the rights of women...I started highlighting it in blue and circling women's groups. They don't list men but a few times, and when they do it's with women. I counted 60 times in the approximately 40 pages I've read so far that women are listed. In section 3.2: An effective strategy for tackling the problems of poverty, development and environment simultaneously should begin by focusing on resources, production and people should cover demographic issues, enhanced health care and focusing on resources, production and people should cover demographics issues, enhanced health care and education, the rights of women, the role of youth and of indigenous people and local communities and a demographic participation process in association with improved governance."
There's a heavy emphasis on helping women determine the spacing of their children. This sounds to me like they want to influence Catholics that birth control is a good idea, as if it wasn't really their choice to have so many children, but their husband was making them do so. No, I am not Catholic.
It's amazing what I used to think was conspiracy theory, and now no longer do. Now, the question is: Are we, as a Nation, considering this? I don't know. I think if the American people were aware of it, they would revolt before allowing it. But we have radicals in the White House, who think just like this. THEY would do this. THEY think like this. I see policy that reflects some of this thinking. We have heard some of this language from our president, haven't we? He is for redistribution of wealth. We have universal health care now. Is he also for Universal Housing? Will he also give land to people who don't have jobs? Where is he going to get that land? From people who own more than an acre? Is he going to come to you, who have 5 acres, or 10 acres, or 20 acres and say you have too much land, we're going to give some of your land to Jose who doesn't have a job and needs that land. He can't pay you for it, but he still needs it for his family, so you get to give it to him, and not get compensated at all. It's your patriotic duty. It's your Godly duty. Go Obama.
Where does it stop? If you hear the words Agenda 21, remember the fall of freedom in Germany. Don't let it happen in America. Stand for Freedom.
Lori Ann Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment