More on Agenda 21

My weeping, wailing, sniveling and raging about Agenda 21 was never intended to turn into series of articles, but that seems to be what it’s becoming, mostly because of so much material to cover. A quick search of the internet discloses nearly fourteen million documents under that name, most of which probably have nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. But there is a lot of information around if anyone wants to spend the rest of his life digging through it! So far I’ve explained where Agenda 21 came from and what it purports to be. I’ve also indicated portions of what is presently being done to implement it (or at least what I believe is being done), by the UN and our government.

From the preface to the “United Nations Millennium Goals 2006” report, I read; “Six years ago, leaders from every country agreed on a vision for the future – a world with less poverty, hunger and disease, greater survival prospects for mothers and their infants, better educated children, equal opportunities for women, and a healthier environment; a world in which developed and developing countries worked in partnership for the betterment of all. This vision took the shape of eight Millennium Development Goals, which are providing countries around the world a framework for development, and time-bound targets by which progress can be measured.” All the UN wants for now is a declaration that commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UN wants quite a lot it seems.

First, whether we agree with them or not, the fine sounding goals of Agenda 21 are supported (knowingly or otherwise) by a good many Americans. After all, saving the Earth, and protecting women and children are goals we can readily understand. Besides, how many people in this country have been led to believe that all encompassing federal “cradle to grave” care is not only inevitable, but desirable as well? How many more have been taught by our schools and by the incessant blathering of the far left media that “America is wrong” or that “It’s all America’s fault”? How many seemingly sane Americans firmly believe the European idea that America should always agree with European goals, irregardless of the effect those goals have on this country? How many more believe that it’s actually possible for an omnipotent international government to solve all the problems of life for the six billion inhabitants of Earth, merely with the stroke of a pen?

Remember when we were taught that America was the “great melting pot”, where people of all nations could come together, and in short order were assimilated into the great “Us”, Americans all? Today we are being told that diversity is the proper course, and rather than being “the American people”, we should be a land occupied by a large number of ethnically separate communities, held apart by race, creed, and language. We can’t even agree on a common language anymore. Seemingly every ethnic group in this country supports our constitution, until it interferes with one of their sacred cows, and then the constitution suddenly becomes irrelevant. No wonder we’re so divided! I can remember the days when I had to go overseas to meet a foreign people. Now it seems that all one has to do is cross the street in most American cities!

There was a time when we were taught to be honest with ourselves and each other, industrious, thrifty, and self sufficient. Now of course we’re being taught that self sufficiency has given way to “the government” taking care of us by way of “entitlements”. Thrift has given way to credit cards and mind numbing debt loads. Honesty has passed away, replaced by a parody of Hollywood’s “crime does pay” version of reality. We’re still industrious of course; we have to be to pay off those credit card bills, and to keep up with the neighbor’s newest gadgets. Sobriety has been replaced with a mountain of mind numbing drugs. It doesn’t matter if you’re personally religious or not, you’ve seen Christianity being replaced by everything from atheism to idolatry to devil worship. (All arguments aside, Christianity was the glue that held this nation together for a couple of hundred years, yet today political correctness has all but banished it from our nation.) Today Americans are supposed to worship only at the altar of globalization! You might also have noticed that globalization is essentially economic, business driven, and so far is only advantageous to international mega-corporations. We also must remember that globalization is but one portion of Agenda 21, which gives the whole thing a stamp of approval to the far left (and the New York Times), despite what the rest of us might want.

The United States Senate may soon vote on the imposition of an $845 BILLION global tax on American citizens. It's called the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and it is being sponsored by none other than US Senator Barack Obama. According to some sources this legislation could cost U.S. taxpayers $845,000,000,000.00 a year on welfare to third-world countries. Activist Phyllis Schlafly recently wrote: "Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts..." That’s in addition to the three hundred billion a year we already spend on international welfare. According to my calculator that’s $190.83, in US funds, handed free gratis to every man, woman, and child on the Earth. That’s not much money per person of course, but how much of it would actually get past the third world’s petty dictators and their Swiss bank accounts? On the flip side, advocates of the Global Poverty Act are claiming that it does not really commit the United States to anything... that it won't really cost anything... that it simply requires the President, working with the Secretary of State, to develop a plan to eliminate world poverty. Sen. Joe Biden states that "implementing S. 2433 would cost less than $1 million per year..." Well, technically he's correct I guess... after all, merely planning something doesn't really cost that much. But why bother to develop such a plan if there’s no intention of following through with it?

Methinks the air is getting a little thin in the ivory towers of our nations capitol, and not enough oxygen is reaching our elected representatives brains. Perhaps it’s time that the American voters got mad about this high-handed foolishness, and replaced those congressmen with people whose brains are still functioning. Winston Churchill once said: “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Wise words… words we might all remember as we sit in front of the TV, patiently waiting for someone else to halt Agenda 21 and the ending of our nation.