Two-hundred years after signing a
declaration protecting Americans’ right to pursue life, liberty and property,
the stewards of the very government our Founders formed, began stealing all
three.
The story of why and how our
government, through federal agencies like HUD and the EPA implement global law
is the story of America’s return to slavery.
To understand the importance of the
story we must first recognize the importance of property rights.
For
example, if you own a farm, but another person tells you what to plant, where
you can mow, and whom you must have for neighbors, your ownership becomes worthless.
That other person controls not only your land, but also what you can and
cannot do. When any person or government controls your property, they
control your behavior. Your obedience to that control is the beginning of
slavery.
In 1976, while Americans were
distracted watching a manly Bruce Jenner ace the Olympic decathlon; while two
Steves formed a company called Apple, and millions mimicked “meow, meow, meow,
meow” to the Meow Mix commercial, two United States delegates signed an international
agreement in Vancouver, Canada that
accelerated the demise of our Founders’ protections.
The document concluded that land
“contributes to social injustice,” and “cannot be controlled by individuals.”
With those signatures, our government’s official position on private property
ownership reversed. The U.S. government now agreed that “public
control of land use is…indispensable.”
A decade later, the globalist Brundtland
Report added the environment, poverty, the
economy and even global warming as further causes to place private property,
and therefore those who own the property, under government control. The report
labeled the massive initiative, “Sustainable Development.” The United
Nations introduced the concept to the world in their 1992, 40-chapter, Agenda
21 action plan.
President Clinton inserted that
plan’s goals into our federal agencies’ objectives. To assure no
departure from the international aim of diluting property rights, the authors
of the action plan teamed with HUD, the EPA and other
agencies to write federal
regulations relating to sustainable
development.
Today, those anti-property rules
exist in every federal agency and every branch of our U.S. government.
Most Americans trusted their government and never saw the deception
coming.
The Endangered Species Act,
originally intended to protect the Bald Eagle, today ignores the windmill
slaughter of our national symbol, while restricting homeowners’ activities on
their own land the EPA may designate a critical habitat.
According to Karen Budd-Falen, a
property rights’ Attorney in Cheyenne, Wyoming, under President Obama, a series
of regulatory changes place property owners at even greater risk.
Should the government establish your
property as a critical habitat, they can limit your activities purely on the
theory that sometime in the future an endangered species might find your land
contains the necessary sources to “feed, breed and shelter.” In other words,
the government can deem your private property a critical habitat for an
endangered species, even if none lives there.
Americans are practical and
independent. They would never surrender their property rights on some
federal whim. They are also, some of the most
generous people on earth. When government calls for programs to help the
poor and protect the environment Americans respond. After all, our communities
have helped the poor and homeowners protected their natural surroundings since
our nation’s founding.
Because of their inherent
generosity, few suspected that once worthy agencies had been coopted by the
government’s own thirst for control and drive to limit private property.
To support the need for globally
guided sustainable development, The Brundtland Report revived the decades’ old
work of a Swedish scientist. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius theorized that
fossil fuel combustion causes global warming. Never mind that after 30 years of
dire predictions, none of the global warming proponents’ catastrophes has
occurred.
The earth’s temperature has been
virtually flat since 1998, 500,000 year studies reveal nothing unusual is
happening today, and the federal agency in charge of measuring earth
temperatures was caught red-handed cooking the data. In fact, scores of
UN scientists have turned
on the idea of man-made climate
fears.
The climate change myth persists
solely to enable the momentum of global sustainable development and its
accompanying social and economic change.
According to UN Climate Change
official, Ottmar
Edenhofer, “Climate
policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is
actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s
resources will be negotiated.” Those resources include your private
property.
In the United States, local
jurisdictions are surrendering their authority to unelected regional councils
that govern our land use. The causes for their surrender? Among others,
to protect the environment from climate change and become globally competitive.
In classrooms, children learn that
the only way for America to lead in a global economy, is to reduce our living
standards and become more like those nations we have led for over 200 years.
The largest single attack on our
property rights is HUD’s new rule, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
Under the guise of helping protected classes out of poverty and expanding
social justice, that agency enacts globalist programs stripped directly from
the pages of Agenda 21. Programs that will eventually socially engineer
over 1200 U.S. communities.
HUD has bastardized the Fair Housing
Act authorizing themselves to provide upward mobility, socioeconomic diversity
and balanced living patterns for all people in communities that receive their
most popular federal funds.
Sustainable development is an
international buzzword chosen to numb Americans into compliance with global
goals. Its definitions are broad and imprecise. Its goals are grandiose
and immeasurable. But its outcomes are always the same. Fewer choices, less
property rights and greater federal control.
No comments:
Post a Comment