UN personnel cannot be prosecuted by the US for any crime, abuse, theft or misuse of US taxpayer dollars even if admitted no matter how great. (Citation at end of post). In 2001, 87 US municipalities had already signed up for Agenda 21 (p. 10).
2/26/12, "Rio+20 meets Agenda 21," WUWT, Willis Eschenbach
"Well, the rent-seekers, money-hungry NGOs, grifters, post-normal “scientists”, con-men, Eurotrash, and the usual camp followers are gearing up again for another monumental waste of money. This time, it’s for the upcoming extravagarbonza, the new Rio+20 Climate Carnival.
The meeting features the usual dangerous bafflegab, which conceals wholesale theft under layers of rhetoric like this:
Integrate the three pillars of sustainable development and promote the implementation of Agenda 21 and related outcomes, consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability, keeping in mind the Rio Principles, in particular common but differentiated responsibilities. SOURCE
As is typical with this kind of mealy-mouthed official doublespeak, we need a translation to see who is getting fleeced, and how....
They say that they want to “promote the implementation of Agenda 21″. Now, “Agenda 21” was what started all of this nonsense. It was adopted at the original Rio Conference in 1992, and is as dangerous now as it was then.The danger is highlighted by the recent meeting of the UN Chief, Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon, with his UN aides brainstorming about Rio+20. They talk about “moving toward a fairer, greener, and more sustainable globalization”, a very frightening thought. They talk about strengthening the UN “to manage the process of globalization better,” another scary idea.
- I don’t want globalization of any kind, and if I did,
- I damn sure don’t want the UN involved in any way.
Cooperate in research to develop methodologies and identify threshold levels of atmospheric pollutants, as well as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, that would cause dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the environment as a whole, and the associated rates of change that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally;
There are several things of note about this part of Agenda 21. First, in 1992 we didn’t know (and still don’t know now) if GHGs can cause “dangerous anthropogenic interference” with the climate system or not. For that matter, we don’t know what “dangerous anthropogenic interference” is when it’s at home. But despite that, the goal was not to find out what the actual effect of GHGs might be.
Rather than figuring out if there was a danger, Agenda 21 instructed people to establish an imaginary level of “dangerous interference”.
The same is true about “rates of change”. We have no evidence that changes in climate can keep ecosystems from “adapt[ing] naturally”. Despite that, we are instructed to determine the levels that do just that,
- with no hint about what that might be or how to measure it.
Finally, you can see how early this was—GHGs were not listed as a “pollutant”. This is in stark distinction to the EPA’s ruling that CO2 is a pollutant … go figure.
Anyhow, that’s just a little bit of the garbage in Agenda 21. It has already caused huge problems, including the formation of the IPCC and the assumption of GHGs as the main (if not only) driver of global climate change when there is no clear evidence (even today) if that is actually the case—that’s what the debate is about.
To leave Agenda 21 and return to the first bit of translation, they say they want to rip people off “consistent with the principles of universality, democracy, transparency, cost-effectiveness and accountability”. What this means depends on the tide, the phase of the moon, and the desires of the person invoking it. Basically, it means whatever they want it to mean, unless it happens to favor development, business, or human beings, in which case it means the opposite.
Next, they pledge allegiance to the “Rio Principles“. The “Rio Principles” were an unprincipled declaration of how they planned to achieve their global redistribution of wealth. Among the un-principles are the “Precautionary Principle“, along with the usual feel-good clauses and paragraphs about how they planned to spend the money.
Finally, in a wonderful understatement, they back the idea of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This is UN-speak at its finest. The “differentiated responsibilities” part means “the poorest in the rich countries have the responsibility of providing the money to pay to the richest in the poor countries, whose responsibility is to spend it on Mercedes sedans for Government Ministers.” Seriously. That’s what “common but differentiated responsibilities” means, except the part about the Mercedes, I added that because it’s the inevitable outcome.
So yes, no surprise, they have learned absolutely nothing in the last 20 years. How could they, when 20 years ago they claimed they already understood it all? They are doubling down on their stupidity, planning to restructure the global economy and have the industrialized world pay the whole tab. I mean, somebody has to line the pockets of the NGOs and the third-world despots, and who better than … you?
I’m not sure how we can fight this, but fight it we must. I see they are planning to use “social media” to try to whip up the faithful, so we can expect lots of that, fluff on Facebook and the like. In any case, Rio+20 is the usual, and still very dangerous, conflux of the useful idiots, greedy activists, pimps, prostitutes, and pseudo-scientists who have caused so much damage in the past.
Head them off at the pass, harass their flanks, destroy their supply-wagons, cut them off from their water supply, I don’t know what … but this madness has to stop. You cannot redistribute your way to wealth, and as Margaret Thatcher is rumored to have remarked, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
A word to the wise … it’s your money that they are planning to run out of, in the process of propping up some of the planet’s most despotic regimes in the name of “combatting climate change” …"...
================
2001, "Environmental Governance and Institutions — Agenda 21: Number of formally committed municipalities," earthtrends.wri.org
In 2001 87 US municipalities had signed up for Agenda 21. The number is likely much higher today. It doesn't matter if the US as a country isn't signed up for it.
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/results.php?years=2001-2001&variable_ID=661&theme=10&cID=190&ccID=
------------------------------
10/28/09, "UN Agenda 21 - Coming to a Neighborhood near You," American Thinker, Strzelczyk and Rothschild
----------------------------
"Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity,"...
4/16/09, "Report: U.N. spent U.S. funds on shoddy projects," USA Today, Ken Dilanian
"Two United Nations agencies spent millions in U.S. money on substandard Afghanistan construction projects, including a central bank without electricity and a bridge at risk of "life threatening" collapse, according to an investigation by U.S. federal agents.
The U.N. ran a "quick impact" infrastructure program from 2003 to 2006 under a $25 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The U.N. delivered shoddy work, diverted money to other countries and then stonewalled U.S. efforts to figure out what happened, according to a report by USAID's inspector general obtained by USA TODAY under the Freedom of Information Act.
"Due to the refusal of the United Nations to cooperate with this investigation, questions remain unanswered," the report says.
Federal prosecutors in New York City were forced to drop criminal and civil cases because the U.N. officials have immunity, according to the report. USAID has scaled back its dealings with the U.N. and hired a collection agency to seek $7.6 million back, Deputy Administrator James Bever said. The aid agency hasn't heeded its inspector general's request to sever all ties.
- "There are certain cases where working with the U.N. is the only option available," Bever said in an e-mail....
One U.N. employee told investigators that "about $10 million of USAID grant money went to projects in other countries, to include Sudan, Haiti, Sri Lanka and Dubai." That witness said the Afghanistan country director for the U.N. Office for Project Services (UNOPS), which served as the contractor on the project for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), spent about $200,000 in U.S. money to renovate his guesthouse. Witness names were withheld by USAID.
The development program hired UNOPS to do the work and kept a 7% management fee, the report says. The finances were "out of control," an unnamed project services manager told investigators.
An unnamed USAID contractor told investigators that the program was "ill conceived from the beginning. This was a political idea to do quick impact projects that would look good," the report said.
- Investigators found that projects reported as "complete" were actually so shoddily built that they were unusable, the report said. For example:
•An airstrip in the southern town of Qalat, originally budgeted at $300,000, cost $749,000 and could not accommodate military planes.
•A $375,000 headquarters for Afghanistan's central bank lacked electricity or plumbing, and basement flooding destroyed stacks of local currency.
Investigators found that UNDP withdrew $6.7 million from a U.S. line of credit without permission in 2007, months after the project had ended. UNDP has
- yet to explain what happened to that money, the report says."...
----------------------------------
3/30/10, "UN immune from criminal prosecution. Did you know?" SciForums
MrsLucySnowe: "The international court of justice has denied allowing women from Srebrenica from suing the UN for their responsibility in the Bosnian massacre.
Srebrenica Relatives of Bosnian Muslims killed in Europe's worst massacre since World War II lost another round Tuesday in their attempt to sue the United Nations for responsibility. The Hague Appeals Court upheld a 2008 lower court ruling
- affirming U.N. immunity from prosecution.
Some 8,000 men were murdered in July 1995 by Serb forces who overran Srebrenica, which had been declared a U.N. safe zone for the Muslim civilians in the Bosnian enclave. The Dutch U.N. peacekeepers protecting the enclave were undermanned and outgunned, and failed to intervene.
- International courts have ruled the slayings were a genocide.
"How long can the U.N. retain its credibility, striving to protect human rights but at the same time
- disregarding them itself?" the lawyers said.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-netherlands-srebrenica,0,2525397.story
- So are you down with that?
=================
Ed. note: Even so-called GOP politicians will say not to worry about Agenda 21. Saying the name Agenda 21 will get you laughed at as a 'conspiracy theorist' even though it's a well established UN group. This single tool, ridicule, has been the key to success of these groups. People always back off when ridiculed. Hipster names for it are things like "smart growth" or "sustainable communities."
Under the guise of 'caring' about the poor, the UN has made everything worse for the poor and much better for third world profiteers. via Tom Nelson
===================
2009, UN Division of Sustainable Development, Core Publications Agenda 21
.
No comments:
Post a Comment