ATTENTION: Assault Weapons Ban” Introduced in Congress Today


House Democrats are making yet another push to restrict the rights of American citizens to purchase certain types of firearms.

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) has introduced the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2015”. The bill would ban the manufacture and sale of AR-15 rifles and other semi automatic long guns.

“Assault weapons are designed for the sole purpose of killing as many people as quickly as possible,” Cicilline said in a statement to The Hill. “We need to do everything we can to reduce the toll of gun violence by keeping these weapons out of our communities.”

This bill would allow current owners of semi-auto rifles to keep their firearms, however they would not be able to sell or transfer them.

The bill would also deny firearms dealers from selling a firearm if the federal background check does not come back after three days. Under current law, if the background check system does not respond after three days, the dealer can proceed with the transaction.

With a very strong Republican majority in both houses of Congress the bill likely has little chance of passing. However, the bill could signal the Democrats’ intentions when it comes to gun control if they were to win control of Congress in the 2016 election.

Nuclear Disasters Play into the Global Elite’s Agenda 21 ReWilding Scheme

Officials at the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California have admitted that conditions at the plant are worse than they anticipated.

Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear expert at the University of California, Santa Cruz, commented: “This reveals a far greater problem than has been previously disclosed, and raises serious questions about whether it is safe to restart either unit.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has downplayed concerns that prompted an investigation earlier this year when one reactor was closed. Published findings show that more than 3,400 steam generator tubes in the new steam generators at San Onofre have undergone some sort of damage — as well as about 1,800 in Unit 3 and 1,600 in Unit 2. Those tubes are instrumental in keeping the site’s 65 foot tall, 1.3 million pound generators up and running.

The aging facility, now more than a quarter of a century old, is in multiple stages of deterioration, yet it has not been scheduled for shut down. This endangers the populations living in the surrounding areas.

More than half of America’s nuclear power plants are suffering from wear and tear from aging, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NRC). They point out that these facilities were intended to be used for 40 years, and they are now being pushed past the 60 year mark.

Now it has been concluded through research that 75% of the US nuclear power plants are leaking massive amounts of radioactive substance into local groundwater by way of corroded piping. The NRC has actually lowered their official standards to accommodate the reactors that are working below acceptable levels. Tritium, a dangerous carcinogen, is responsible for boosting cancer incidents. The US government’s response to this is to raise the acceptable exposure levels for the nation.

Propaganda keeps the nuclear programs in the US running passed their time under the guise of cheap power with no greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, nuclear only accounts for 20% of the US allocation of electrical power.

The 23 reactors that are beginning to give warning signs that they will fail in the near future are of the same Mark 1 design of those at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. General Electric (GE) is responsible for the Mark 1. GE claims that the Mark 1, originated in 1972 is a safe design. “Critics say its containment box is too small and its walls are too thin. They also say the waste storage pools, situated several stories above the ground over the main reactor and outside a key containment vessel, are vulnerable to terrorist attack or meltdown.”

While we are dealing with the devastation produced by the Fukushima disaster, and waiting to see how the effects will unfold across the globe, there has been a beta-test into the long-lasting effects of radiation that is 25 years in the making. Scientists, documentary films and authors have been speaking about this subject for decades.

In 1986, the Soviet Union’s Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant melted down, resulting in toxic contamination of the entire area, mass evacuations and cordoned off zones deemed un-inhabitable for humans.

Yet researchers like Robert Baker, director of the Natural Sciences Research Laboratory have gone back to the radioactive city of Pripyat where abandoned buildings and neighboring villages are showing tremendous signs of rewilding.

The 20-mile exclusion zone is still off-limits to humans, however all species of plants, insects and animals have repopulated the areas and made a new home where there are no humans allowed. Evne some species that were supposed to be extinct have re-established themselves without signs of mutation from the radioactivity.

In fact, none of the animals, plants or insects living in the exclusion zone in Chernobyl shows signs of radioactive mutation.

Texas Tech scientists were baffled at their findings. They expected to see a radioactive waste-land where no life could sustain; and they discovered the antithesis. Where the world’s biggest ecological disaster had been declared was a growing natural habitat where deer grazed in lush green pastures, wolves openly stalked their prey and life was thriving despite the Geiger-counter readings showing dangerous levels of radioactivity present.

Baker remarked: “The countryside is beautiful. The animals and plants are in greater numbers now than if the reactor had not gone down. The ecosystem is as it was before humans started living out there – except for the radiation. It seems as though normal human activities associated with agrarian society are more destructive than the world’s worst nuclear meltdown.”

Ron Chesser of Texas Tech’s Radiation Studies, had full access to the exclusion zone where he estimated nearly 13,230 pounds of radioactive material containing about 150 different isotopes was released into the air from the reactor, which burned for 10 days.

While Chernobyl is cordoned off from human habitation, the high-concentration “dead-zones” are flourishing exponentially. Chesser commented that: “One thing that’s very important to understand about Chernobyl, because it really affects people’s preconceived ideas, is that proximity to the reactor has very little to do with how much radiation dose an organism is experiencing. You can come to the reactor from the east and actually not experience a huge change in the radiation background. However, if you approach it from the west as you start to cross the first plume of nuclear fuel was released, and then you’ll see a very dramatic increase in radiation background.”

Mainstream media plays off radiation as having assisted the environment in returning to its natural state by removing human influence. Ann Coulter stated that the government studies from scientists say that “radiation in excess of what the government tells you is good for you.”

Nuclear power, which was once the global Elite’s first choice in energy production because of its massive financial yields, is now being traded in for renewable energy sources as the UN unveiled their imitative toward renewable energy strategies at the Earth Summit on Sustainable Development last month.

By 2030, with the pledge of more than $50 billion from private corporations and governments, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon commented that: “This initiative is already mobilizing significant action from all sectors of society. Working together, we can provide solutions that drive economic growth, expand equity and reduce the risks of climate change.”

The global Elite want to transform all sectors of society by reworking the energy systems to ensure ecological and sustainable concerns are forefront.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has partnered with the UN during the World Future Energy Summit earlier this year to devise the “Sustainable Energy for All Initiative”. This collaboration of governments, business, the intergovernmental system, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have agreed that preserving nature while achieving energy needs in a drastically reduced consumptive world is a goal worth fighting for.

Their focus is reducing house-hold and community energy use and incorporating eco-friendly systems that regulate energy consumption for agriculture, educating the masses on energy conservation and restricting energy allocations to small businesses.

The IUCN is also interested in changing the current use of energy supplies that directly impact biodiversity. By switching to alternative, cleaner sources of energy, they hope to reduce energy consumption by half in the year 2030.

Nuclear power plants are unsustainable, according to the IUCN. They are working toward eliminating the dependence of European countries on nuclear power and replacing them with renewable sources beginning in 2014.

Could it be that the global Elite are moving away from nuclear power? As they push their environmental agendas for a more sustainable planet, biodiversity and Agenda 21, this evolution makes sense. By observing Chernobyl today, it is clear that the dramatic assumptions scientists had regarding radioactivity and the environment are incorrect. Although the toxicity remains evident that this area is inhabitable for humans, it seems to have no long-term negative effect on the land or wildlife.

Even though radiation poisoning is devastation unto its own, it clears the way for initiatives like the Wildlands Project . They seek to set aside more than 50% of the North American continent as “wildland preserves” for the cultivation of biodiversity.

They will create “reserve networks” made up of:

• Cores created from existing national parks and forests
• Buffer zones from usurped private lands to provide protection of the cores
• Corridors of public/private lands along rivers and animal migratory routes

The cores would be approximately 25 acres and be prohibited from human use. Deep Ecology is the philosophical guideline that:

• All life has equal value
• Humans are immoral because their existence derives from resource consumption
• Human populations must be reduced
• Western civilization is not sustainable
• Changes must be implemented now to save the planet

Chernobyl could be considered a wildland preserve. It is deemed un-inhabitable for humans and it is sustaining biodiversity without the negative effects of man.

It may be quite possible that the global Elite may be willing to allow current nuclear plants to continue to deteriorate and become hazardous because they provide the means by which conservation lands could be established. By using their globalist think-tank universities and controlled arsenal of scientists, the radioactive effects could be amplified in the public’s perception, simply as a ruse to keep humans off the land. If this scheme were successful, eventually there could be massive areas of land deemed un-inhabitable for humans across the globe simply by allowing a nuclear disaster to occur.

Certainly, as with Chernobyl, nature would reclaim the land and begin to flourish as if nothing had happened. It has taken a mere 25 years for the environment to return to normal – minus the radioactive levels still measured in high doses. The animals, plants, insects and other life are not mutated by this fact. Perhaps it is meant to just keep out the humans.


High-Speed Rail in California Brings Agenda 21 Megacities Closer to Reality

The California Senate has passed bill 21 – 16 that implements the financing for a high speed rail line across the Central Valley. The new law will require selling $4.5 in bonds to build this railway. They will also receive $3.2 billion in federal government stimulus.

The high speed railway will link to transportation lines.

Senator Joe Simitian said on the Senate floor: “I think high-speed rail makes sense in California … but we’re not being asked to vote on a vision today, we’re being asked to vote on a particular plan. Regrettably, the only conclusion I can come to today is that this is the wrong plan in the wrong place in the wrong time.”

Supporters of the bill claim that it would create jobs and promote public transit to protect the environment.

The high speed railway is the brainchild of America 2050, a non-governmental organization that supports Agenda 21 policies in the US. California Governor Jerry Brown and the California High-Speed Rail Authority “are to be commended on the revised 2012 draft business plan for high-speed rail, which cuts the project’s cost by $30 billion while making numerous improvements to previous proposals.”

Robert Yaro, co-chairman of America 2050 said: “Not only does this plan reduce the project cost substantially; it provides a new phasing strategy that will bring the benefits of high-speed rail to Californians more quickly.”

America 2050 claims that the railway will provide more trains to the growing population in California between San Francisco Bay and the Los Angeles Basin. They propose this endeavor is necessary to “close the gap” between Northern and Southern California.

Mark Pisano, co-chairman of America 2050, maintains that: “These revisions makes sense. They provide improvements now for the highly congested northern and southern regions of California and then link them together in the future. Connecting the state’s big population centers will foster economic growth while alleviating road and airport congestion.”

Petra Todorovich, director of America 2050, said, “It is clear that the success of high-speed rail in the U.S. is dependent on delivering real benefits to users at every stage in the process of project development and construction. The revisions to the California high-speed rail business plan address the urgency of translating taxpayer investment into transportation improvements in our commuting lifetimes.”

America 2050, in line with Agenda 21, wants to see high speed railways built along the east and west coasts of America. These railways will link the megaregions and subsequent megacities that will be constructed to house the citizens of America once the buffer zones, inhabitable for human areas and corridors are established.

The vision for Cascadia , which is the amalgamation of Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver, British Columbia with a high speed rail will ensure the protection of designated habitats for animals. Cascadia will begin in Northern California and extend along the Pacific Ocean.

The creation of megacities, now dubbed Ecolopolis, will be the supercity known as Cascadia. In order to gleen support for this scheme, they plan to “brand” Cascadia to ensure public allegiance for the development strategies.

Cascadia is expected to be the beta-testing ground for the global movement of Agenda 21. Federal, state, and the UN will converge to install “sustainable urban places” by destroying individual property rights, usurping rural areas from property owners and financially bankrupting towns so that the populations will move into Ecolopolis.

The four strategies that ensure Cascadia will become our future are:

  • In light of the similar strategies for metropolitan growth management employed in Cascadian metropolitan regions, create an internationally recognized effort to learn from this experience;
  • Save agriculture, and the working landscape more generally, to maintain separation between metropolitan areas;
  • Develop industry clusters across Cascadia, particularly in areas like green building and software that are already operating at a Cascadian scale; and
  • Increase accessibility through the development of high speed rail and other strategies linked to their strategic value at a Cascadian scale.

By perverting the Gallatin Plan begun by President Roosevelt in 1908, the globalists at America 2050 mitigate urbanization with the focal point on Agenda 21 sustainable development schemes to shift populations into dense megacities.

The US government is supporting these plans by offering financing to states that will build and implement infrastructure that ultimately creates the Ecolopolis megacity all across the nation. Government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are expected to assist in the “furthering goals for livability and smart growth”. America 2050 has studied “how the livability theme might be acted on here in Cascadia in anticipation of increased engagement from federal partners.”

Recently, the House of Representatives introduced S.1813 which would rewrite the nation’s transportation laws. This bill would cut funding to non-highway programs and force people to use public transit under the guise of reducing the impact of travel on the environment.

The House Committee on Ways and Means redirected funding from public transit by way of the transit trust fund. This means that Amtrak, who relies on government subsidies, will be on par with all other forms of transit. The $40 billion transfer from the US general fund could ultimately bankrupt the project.

America 2050 proposes raising gasoline taxes to make up the lost funding for their high speed railways. They say that if these monies were blamed on monetary inflation, the general public would not direct their blame on NGOs working the US government agencies to force the American public to pay for Agenda 21 policies whether they know it or not.

They estimate this scheme would funnel $34.5 billion to fill in the gaps in funding and that Congress should recognize that “transportation investments are just as important as healthcare and national security priorities.”


UN Receives Agenda 21 Funding from World Governments and Corporations

Governments and private sector corporations have pledged to fund the United Nations’ endeavors toward global governance with a generous %513 billion for Agenda 21 project that will restrict the movements of humans, perverse biodiversity and assist the UN in attaining their Millennium Development Goals.

Secretary-General Sha Zukang of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) said that over 692 monetary promises were given to the UN.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was thrilled that so much money had been given to the UN. “These huge numbers give a sense of the scale and growth of investment going into sustainable development. They are part of a growing global movement for change. Our job now is to create a critical mass, an irresistible momentum.”

Corporations like PepsiCo, and Virgin’s CEO Richard Branson project Carbon War Room are receiving $2 billion from the US government.

Jose-Angel Gurria, secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development , explained: “Without the private sector it’s not going to work. While governments put up the seed money, the big numbers come from the private sector. The private sector is looking at green growth with great interest, seeing it as an opportunity, as jobs, as investment.”

Academia and universities in places like Bejing, Sydney, Paris and New York will conduct and fund Agenda 21 projects on mega-city sustainability. Most of the $1 trillion allotted will go to projects in turbine, solar, biofuel and geothermal energy.

Manish Bapna, acting president of the World Resources Institute (WRI), a Washington-based environmental research group, said: “There’s no doubt that Rio+20 fell short. But it’s a mistake to conflate what happened here with what’s happening on the ground. You just need to look beyond the walls of the conference to find real-world examples of action.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council will target specific commitments concerning environmental advocacy that is intended to coerce the public into making the much needed rally cry for the new sustainable changes to our lives that the global Elite want to implement.

Bjorn Lomborg, professor at Copenhagen Business School, admonishes the follow-through records of governments as “very poor” and says they should be made to follow the recommendations set out at the conference in Rio. Lomborg explains that the UN has turned to corporations to help them.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State supports the incorporation of the Agenda 21 movement. She remarked that “sustainability won’t happen without business investment. Governments alone cannot solve all the problems we face, from climate change to persistent poverty to chronic energy shortages. That’s why we are so strongly in favor of partnerships.”

As far as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is concerned, the money from corporations and governments cannot come at a better time. Ki-moon claims that “words must translate into action” with regard to moving the environmental governance agenda forward.

Ki-moon says that since the first UNCSD, the incremental slide toward total global governance has spawned UN conventions on climate change, biodiversity and desertification, as well as the Agenda 21 blueprint for sustainable development, yet “progress has been too slow – we have not gone far enough down the road. We are now in sight of a historic agreement – the world is waiting to see if words will translate into action, as we know they must.”

The Asian Development Bank , one of 8 international development financial institutions have agreed to give the UN $175 billion for sustainable transportation schemes to be built and running within 10 years.

Holger Dalkmann, of the WRI, believe that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically cut by the controlled utilization of sustainable transport to replace private cars to ensure “cleaner air, less congested roads, and safer transportation.”

Businesses must be balancing costs with sustainability in order to continue doing business. Nick Clegg, UK Deputy Prime Minister calls this practice “a false economy” and demands transparency from British corporations.

Gro Harlem Brundtland, says that corporate power must be merged with the UN’s sustainable development goals if they are to be successful.

Governments like Russia, the Middle Eastern Nations and Latin America have been ruled as opposing the UN’s Agenda 21 policies.

Redirecting cash flow toward under-developed nations in a huge money laundering scheme is what the UN are planning. Endorsing green economies as defined by the UN’s standards are being forced upon South African nations right now.

Jeffrey Sachs, professor at Columbia University and special adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon strongly suggests that: “Those of us who look at this day in, day out know that many poor countries need that kind of help. And it does not do any good to cite large ambitious promises many years out, and then behind the scenes to say ‘we’re not going to talk about how they’re going to be fulfilled.”

Lisa Jackson, administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) affirmed that the US is committed to the UN’s Agenda 21 and the “green economy” that is required to sustain the scheme.

Brundtland explains that governments should work more closely with the powerful corporations to synergize “our political system, corporations, businesses and people who have economic power influence political decision-makers – that’s a fact, and so it’s part of the analysis.”

The UN is currently fine-tuning their UN climate agreement that will be ushered in at the “next Copenhagen” conference. It is there that the world will see the unveiling of legal force, corporate influence and the march toward global governance called Agenda 21.


Transition Towns: UN’s Agenda 21 Comes to Life

Transition towns are a movement modeled after the UN’s Agenda 21 to create communities that adhere to the initiative that center around reducing CO2 emissions.

Under the alarmist perspective of man-made climate change, founders Rob Hopkins and Naresh Giangrande created the Transition Model based on studies conducted by Ben Brangwyn on global relocalization agendas.

At an initial Transition Bristol meeting in the UK, the Tudor Trust began funding this initiative. This led to the creation of the Transition Initiatives Primer , an explanatory guide to the scheme and fake grassroots groups who coerced communities into adopting the plan.

Transition Initiatives were created in Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, USA, and Wales. Training courses have been developed to ensure that this ideal becomes a global movement. Issues under Transition Initiatives governance are food production, manipulation techniques in dealing with local governments, sustainable housing, reduction of public energy consumption, adaptation of communities to resemble transition cities and control over local economies.

A propaganda film entitled In Transition 1.0 was produced with the global audience in mind, giving more credence to this UN takeover of our local communities.

Groups like the West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) have been pushing for Transition Towns for several years. In British Columbia alone, they have begun to take root in Victoria , Vancouver , Nelson , Salt Spring, Powell River and the Cowichan Valley.

The Green Communities Program has help spread the propaganda of SmartGrowth ideology through SmartGrowth BC and the SmartGrowth Bylaws Guide a marketing tract on British Columbia bylaws that support UN Agenda 21.

The dangers that Transition Towns impose on our sovereignty and individuality are:

  •  Refocus town planning and infrastructure on implementation of Agneda 21
  •   Appear to be grassroots operations
  •   Promote the Peak Oil mythology as an energy scare-tactic
  •   Support SmarthGrowth which is code for Agenda 21
  •   Aspire to control framing, disburse ability to farm, and pressure governmental policies on farming that reflect Agenda 21
  •   Use the hoax of man-made climate change as the purpose for imposing policy control by building cities that are designed to reduce carbon emissions
  •   Securitize local food stores, businesses, healthcare and fuel
  •   Ensure SmarthGrowth controls all citizens ability to acquire any needs for human survival
  •   Create internal advocacies that band together to purvey Transition Town propaganda to elected officials and local governments

By working on the ground level, Transition Towns can over take states and nations quicker than funneling through the bureaucracy of national governments.

To anticipate any problems, this movement has secured a legion of lawyers to be hired at the whim of the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund , a WCEL “society” developed to infuse the court system with legal disputes to intimidate lawmakers into submitting to their “suggestions”. They impose “identifying structures and rules that encourage . . . favored strategies” as defined by the Transition Town movement.

By erecting a parallel structure to the local governments in place, that can ensure authorization by those local government through time honored and patient hounding of officials in community meetings where they use the Delphi Technique to coerce innocent citizens into backing their agendas. In this way, at community meetings the “grassroots” advocates of Transition Towns can assume a false devil’s advocate position and divide and conquer the attendees at the meetings to ensure their desired outcome is supported by the end of the meeting.

In the end places like Victoria are being over-run by the Transition Town movement which has convinced the Victoria City Council to send a bill to the taxpayers for an estimated $140,000 to influence and network a fake organic movement with the assistance of the Occupy Movement in Victoria, BC.

This is why the UN Agenda 21 is so insidious. It attacks at the local level, getting the citizens of these towns and cities to fight for its implementation; all the while hiding its true nature.

The future of our world under Agenda 21 means buffer zones, areas designated inhabitable for humans in the name of biodiversity and the securitization of all resources need for base human survival. And the UN will be at the helm.

This is the dream of the global Elite


UN Unveils Agreement Detailing Global Governance Strategy for “Sustainable Green Path”

At the UN Earth Summit Rio+20, negotiators for the globalist leaders have agreed to a document that lays out their plan for putting the nations of the world on a “ more sustainable path ”.

The purpose of this year’s conference is to outline global governance under the cover of environmentalism and protecting the planet.

The strengthening of the UN Environmental Program through “secure, adequate and increased financial resources” was one of the biggest issues brought to the forefront at the conference. The UN is kicking into high gear, planning on creating a clear path toward global governance. Their strength will become evident in the international mandates they plan to impose onto the governments of the world.

China, India, Indonesia and South Africa will be represented by their presidents and prime ministers.

President Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel will send representatives in their stead.

However, extended arms of the UN such as eco-fascist groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and “charities” believe that the agreement is not strict enough .

A panel of alarmist scientists, ministers and Nobel laureates are decrying that society is “on the edge of a threshold of a future with unprecedented environmental risks.”

Their declaration, delivered to the attendees of the Summit called for immediate and significant changes. They wrote: “The combined effects of climate change, resource scarcity, loss of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience at a time of increased demand, poses a real threat to humanity’s welfare. There is an unacceptable risk that human pressures on the planet, should they continue on a business as usual trajectory, will trigger abrupt and irreversible changes with catastrophic outcomes for human societies and life as we know it.”

Professor Will Steffen, of the Australian National University, believed that the declaration would send a clear message to the world leaders of their desire to set “intrinsic limits” on consumption so that humanity would not exceed “the planet’s capacity”.

Issues of discussion include:

• The green economy
• Fossil fuel subsidies
• Sustainable development goals

They complain that it only reiterates the governmental commitments as made in previous documents; which have not been upheld in the opponent’s opinion.
Following suit, the European Union (EU) was most unsatisfied with the document, however, Ida Auken, the Danish Environment Minister explained: “The EU would have liked to see a much more concrete and ambitious outcome, so in that respect I’m not happy with it. However, we managed to get the green economy on the agenda, and so I think we have a strong foundation for this vision that can drive civil society and the private sector to work in the same direction, to understand that environment and [that] the social side must be integrated into the heart of the economy.”

Auken still believes that the agreement will be signed by attendees without any further alterations.

Janez Potocnik, EU Environment Commissioner, asserted that the EU “”remains committed, for as long as it takes, to achieving concrete and ambitious outcomes from the Rio+20 negotiations . . . to bring the world towards a sustainable future.”

Radical environmentalists launched a Twitter call to action, campaigning for as much pressure as possible against governments to systematically end fossil fuel consumption immediately.

The agreement asserts that these programs will be “phased out” without setting specific dates and affirming that only if these modes of energy consumption are “harmful and inefficient”.

The UN will be deploying their Environment Program Corporations to report on environmental and social impact in a yet-to-be determined process of sustainable development goals (SDGs) to be mandated by 2015; as well as extensions on the UN’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The agreement mandates “urgent action” against what they classify as unsustainable production and consumption; yet definitions are broad and could be widely reinterpreted. Per usual with UN agreements, there is a lack of dead-line, explanation of how these mandates can be achieved, and no succinct suggestion as to how the world’ economy could afford the programs the UN demands all the world’s governments implement.

Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns for Friends of the Earth , asserts that the UN must be more authoritative to “solve the global emergency we’re facing” and explained that: “Developed countries have repeatedly failed to live safely within our planet’s limits. Now they must wake up to the fact that until we fix our broken economic system we’re just papering over the ever-widening cracks.”

According to the agreement, governments will refrain from making water and energy more accessible to their citizens unless directed by the UN. Predatory talks concerning the securitization of resources by the UN within developing nations became outlines for demands and affirmation of pledges of financial and technological assistance from Western countries. The document reads: “We emphasize the need to make progress in implementing previous commitments… it is critical that we honor all previous commitments, without regression.”

Asad Rehman, head of international climate of the Friends of the Earth said: “Faced with the determined efforts by some developed countries, in particular the US, to rip up the Earth Summit agreement of 1992, the text seems to have stopped us moving backwards. But it certainly doesn’t get close to addressing the concerns of the people or our planet. Faced with a triple planetary crisis – climate catastrophe, deepening global inequity and unsustainable consumption driven by a broken economic system – the text is neither ambitious enough nor delivers the required political will needed.”

The UN itself will implement sustainable development programs under UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Sustainable Energy For All initiative, in developing countries to create “greening” economies. This scheme will mandate UN sanctioned renewable energy efficiency by 2030.

The UN also wants to directly affect control over “measures of progress to complement GDP in order to better inform policy decisions.”

The right to food and water, a subject of broad governance as written in the document is certainly an aspect of the UN’s sustainable development agenda.

Ocean conservation, another topic of interest, explicitly demanded that they govern those assets allocated from this expansive resource. The UN will oversee the international governance over the end of illegal and exploitative fishing, support local small-scale fishers, and set up a process that would eventually regulate fishing and protect life on the high seas. Those definitions, though broad in the document, would left to specific interpretation as needed in individual situations.

The UN will govern the right to:

• Gender equality in the workplace
• Corporate requirements for sustainability
• Youth employment
• Empower the UNEP to extend over-reaching control


At Earth Summit Royal Society and WWF: Humanity is an Unsustainable Danger to Earth’s Eco-System

The UN’s Earth Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio+20 this month has attracted more than 100 science academies and leaders from all across the globe to discuss population control and human consumption, among other topics of global domination.

Humanity is a viable threat to the eco-system and future of planet Earth, say scientists from the UK’s Royal Society .

“The overall message is that we need a renewed focus on both population and consumption – it’s not enough to look at one or the other,” said Prof Charles Godray from the Martin School at the University of Oxford, who chaired the process of writing the declaration. “We need to look at both, because together they determine the footprint on the world.”

Globalist academics decry humanity’s footprint is getting “heavier and heavier”. They have released a public declaration to coerce developed and developing nations to join forces to combat humanity’s assault on our planet.

The declaration states: “The global population is currently around seven billion, and most projections suggest that it will probably lie between eight and 11 billion by 2050. Global consumption levels are at an all-time high, largely because of the high per-capita consumption of developed countries.”

The fear-mongers assert that if governments fail to enact these changes, “will put us on track to alternative futures with severe and potentially catastrophic implications for human well-being.”

Population control and severely limiting human consumption, being discussed at the UN Earth Summit, will admonish governments to agree to “commit to systematically consider population trends and projections in our national, rural and urban development strategies and policies.”

The drafted agreement claims all governments pledge to “change unsustainable consumption and production patterns” to reflect Agenda 21 Sustainable Development policies within sovereign nations so that the UN can usurp authority by ratification of international mandate within individual countries.

The report claims that over population in under-developed countries has resulted in unsustainable consumption worldwide.

Eliya Zulu, executive director of the African Institute for Development Policy in Nairobi, co-author of the report from the Royal Society, says: “Many African countries are feeling the effects of population growth, and are finding they’ll need to deal with it in order to continue developing as well as to address their environmental issues. If you look at a country like Rwanda, it’s one of the most densely populated in Africa and the government believes one of the reasons behind the genocide was high population density and competition for resources. And the economic downturn that started in the late 1980s made people realize that in order to reach the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs], you can’t do it if your population is growing rapidly.”

Zulu points out that women in Africa are contributing to the over-population problems, which is causing the need to increase family planning provisions in Africa.

“This is an absolutely critical period for people and the planet, with profound changes for human health and wellbeing and the natural environment,” said Sir John Sulston, the report’s chairman, who headed the Human Genome Project , and currently chairs the Institute for Science Ethics and Innovation . “Where we go is down to human volition – it’s not pre-ordained, it’s not the act of anything outside humanity, it’s in our hands.”

These globalists believe that while more people are born, over-consumption becomes an issue of over-population. Under-developed countries are being blamed for ushering our planet toward destruction because of lack of access to family planning services.

By controlling fertility rates, as well as consumption of food, water and other resources, these experts assert that the environment, CO2 emissions and the status of the planet will be saved.

The Royal Society has used gross national product (GDP) to define how a nation’s economy can sustain its population. Their focus is to protect the environment over the rights of humanity as a whole.

While the UN discusses how to deal with the rising human population, radical environmentalists are speaking at the UN Earth Summit, urging that biodiversity be protected from the effects of humanity.

The World Wildlife Federation (WWF) has also released a report called the Living Planet Report that condemns the ecological disaster our planet is becoming from the direct influence of man.

It was the WWF who published a false report on the polar bear population last year. By purveying the myth that the polar bears are drowning due to ice sheets melting because of global warming, the WWF participated in the alarmism of climate change.

Real world observations from researchers found that polar bear populations are estimated at 66% higher than climate change alarmists predicted.

David Nussbaum, CEO of the WWF in the UK, says: “The Rio+20 conferences are an opportunity for the world to get serious about the need for development to be made sustainable. We need to elevate the sense of urgency, and I think this is ultimately not only about our lives but the legacy we leave for future generations.”

The report from the WWF is compiled from data obtained from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), as well as analysis from the Global Footprint Network (GFN) to further globalist agendas for global sustainability and encompassing the world’s ecological footprint. They assert issues surrounding the use of fossil fuels, deforestation for agricultural use, logging wood, and depleting fish populations as a food source.

The ZSL claims 30% of the species of the world have been in a steady decline since 1970, while tropical species have been waning at a rate of more than 60% because of the destruction to tropical lakes and rivers.

Tim Blackburn, director of the Institute of Zoology at the ZSL, maintains: “Nature is more important than money. Humanity can live without money, but we can’t live without nature and the essential services it provides.”

Nations under pressure by the UN and defined as completely unsustainable are:

• Qatar
• Kuwait
• United Arab Emirate countries
• Denmark
• Belgium
• Australia
• Ireland
• United Kingdom

The WWF report points out that 405 river systems are under attack worldwide, as well as the 30% food wastage caused by countries in the West contribute to the global food shortages and infrastructure in under-developed countries.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, has launched a “ global conversation ” to keep the appearance that the UN is interested in creating the “future we want”.

Through Facebook , Twitter or simply mailing in concerns, the panelists and event participants will answer “questions, expectations, or comments . . . at the event on November 22, 2012 at 10am EST.”

The UN hope to continue to purvey the ruse that they are an international community dedicated to making our world a better place. In the shadows, the globalist Elite lurks and patiently wait while the very right to human existence is stripped from sovereign nations through international directives.

This vision of the future is not what we want.