Agency Tyranny
This turning point in the UN’s “peace”
goal was followed in 1987 by a commission report entitled, “Our Common Future”,
or the Brundtland Report, that tackled protection of the environment. The report
concluded, “Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental
issues.” The solution was to transfer the wealth of industrialized nations,
namely America, to poorer countries. Much of that wealth was in the form of
private property. The program was called “Sustainable Development” and was
defined by the UN as “Development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.”
Unfortunately, this meaningless catchall
of a definition obscured the reality that, for their plan to work, the State
had to control the use of private property. This was exactly the proposal in
the 1976 Vancouver Plan of Action.
Five years later, in June 1992, these globalist
ideals coalesced in a 2-week meeting in Rio de Janeiro called the UN Earth
Summit. The outcome was a 40-chapter plan of action to manage the world’s
resources, healthcare, education and private property called, Agenda 21. Plans
called for the expansion of “Sustainable Development” globally. The “Wildlands
Project,12” part of the UN’s Biological Diversity Treaty, which ran
concurrently to Agenda 21, proposed the relocation of Americans into regional
human habitats. Most of our nation
Though President Bill Clinton signed the
Biological Diversity Treaty in 1993, the Senate refused to ratify it after Dr.
Michael Coffman presented the “Wildlands Map” on the Senate floor. Taken from
UN documents, the map illustrates how America would look, if the plan came to
fruition. With its Core Reserves and Corridors with little to no human
activity, the “Wildlands Project” relegated people
to inhabiting government- defined regions. As you will see in the next section,
even though the Senate failed to ratify the United Nation’s Biological
Diversity Treaty, regional sustainable development, as it came to be called,
was alive and well. But, the United Nations was not the only
group attempting to pry Americans away from their private property rights.
Crushing the
Concept of Private Property
Political historian, David Upham writes
that, “Progressives in the twentieth century have in large part aimed at
turning the American people away from their traditional attachment to property
rights.” “Within intellectual circles,
Progressives have tended both to acknowledge that the Founders attached great significance to property rights and to denigrate them precisely for
this attachment. The harsher
critics, beginning with Charles Beard, ascribed to the Founders
selfish motives in establishing a constitution that provided generous
protections for private property; his claim was that the principal goal of such
a constitution was to protect the wealthy elite against the democratic
majority.13”
Agency Tyranny Page | 13
President Franklin Roosevelt tried to
convince Americans that our Founders believed more in socialist programs like
his New Deal than in rigid property ownership. He claimed that property rights were
malleable.
“Outside
intellectual circles, however, the popular rhetoric of the Progressives has not
openly attacked the Founders for their attachment to property rights; rather,
it has denied they had such an attachment. Franklin Roosevelt, eager to
convince the public that the New Deal was not so new, but actually a
“fulfillment of old and tested American ideals,” often argued publicly that the
Founders did not understand property rights to be as important as other
individual rights. In one campaign speech, Roosevelt remarked that Jefferson had
distinguished between the rights of “personal competency” (such as freedom of
opinion) and property rights; while the former were inviolable, the latter
should be modified as times and circumstances required.14”
Leftist historian, Howard Zinn, in his
ubiquitous 1980 academic text, “A People’s History of the United States”
even blames private property for the “oppression” of women. “Societies
based on private property and competition, in which monogamous families became
practical units for work and socialization, found it especially useful to establish
this special status of women, something akin to a house slave in the matter of
intimacy and oppression, and yet requiring, because of that intimacy, and long-term
connection with children, a special patronization, which on occasion,
especially in the face of a show of strength, could slip over into
treatment as an equal. An oppression so private would turn out hard to
uproot.16”
Agency Tyranny Page | 14
Zinn’s book is arguably one of the most
influential in our nation. Since its debut, “A People’s History of the United
States” has been a staple of high schools and colleges and sold over 1 million
copies. Actor Matt Damon even quoted from Zinn’s book in his 1997 movie, “Good
Will Hunting.17”.
http://sustainablefreedomlab.us11.list-manage.com/track/ click?u=ec7f192a872c6e5829dbbc97e&id=2c865c1a5b&e=49a2c9e532
No comments:
Post a Comment