The Green Tsunami: A Tidal Wave of Eco-Babble Drowning Us All (4 page)

At the ‘92 Earth Summit, Strong also introduced a new socialist concept he called, “Social Justice” that soon morphed into
“Environmental Justice”. Whenever referenced at subsequent U.N.
meetings, “social and environmental justice” included such blatantly
socialist concepts as the abolition of private property, private transportation and the elimination of private farms in favor of “collectives”.
But the element most shocking to everyone was an emphasis on
population control, a concept that harkened back to Paul Ehrlich’s
previously mentioned book, “The Population Bomb”. This new position of the global environmentalist movement was to control the
growth of the earth’s population lest we over-populate the planet and
are unable to “sustain” life (yet another reference to the new global
goal of “sustainability”). Just how and what methods of control were
they suggesting?

When asked to explain in more detail exactly what his concept of
population control might look like in practical terms, Strong told a
reporter, “Licenses to have babies, incidentally, is something that I
got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that
this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the
right to have a child.”

In another interview prior to the opening of the U.N.’s Earth
Summit, Strong explained his fundamental belief in global government as, “The right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally
from the resources afforded us by society and the environment would
be accomplished by the socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.”

As I read those words in the 1990s, I recalled the writings of Karl
Marx in 1875, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Surely, no American would embrace this new approach to a global
environmental agenda with licenses to have babies and the redistribution of wealth so the rich would support the poor or, as America’s first
black President would later say, “We have to spread the wealth around
a little”.

That old counter-culture of the 60s and 70s might not have agreed
with American foreign policy, but we all strongly believed in American
freedom; freedom of conscience, freedom to explore new ideas, freedom to live as an individual, to live wherever you wanted and to pursue
your dreams, no matter where they might take you. That fundamental
vision of American Freedom was obviously diametrically opposite to
the goals of the new U.N. “Global Environmentalism Movement.”
The more we have learned about it over the years, the more our fears
have been confirmed.

Maurice Strong, by the way, has now abandoned America and
established his 21st century life in a new part of the world. He and
Hanna did not return to the sprawling farm in New England where
the “ark” is buried, or to native Canada. They did not even move
to Tokyo where Strong serves as President of the United Nation’s
University, the school that trains the next generation of U.N. global
leaders. The couple now resides in the Peoples Republic of China in a
compound of wealthy ex-pats. Mr. Strong’s speaking appearances are
growing much less frequent as he advances in age, with his last muchanticipated talk in San Francisco cancelled at the last minute sending
along regrets with an explanation of being “very busy with projects
in China”.

Meanwhile back at the U.N.’s June, 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the
meeting was preparing to adjourn and delegates including President
George H.W. Bush, who at one time served as the U.S. Ambassador
to the U.N., signed a commitment to codify the new global environmental agenda as articulated by Strong and Brundtland. The
new document would create a list of goals to be accomplished in the
coming 21st century. Five years later, in 1997, that document was
ratified at a U.N. follow-up environmental conference in Kyoto, Japan.
“The Agenda for the 21st Century” was born, now known as
“Agenda 21”.

Though President H.W. Bush signed on to the commitment to the
new environmental agenda, his defeat for re-election in 1992 did not
permit him to carry out the obligation. However, with the election
of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, this key environmental task was accomplished bypassing Congress.
On June 29, 1993, President Clinton
signed Executive Order, #12852 creating the “President’s Council
on Sustainable Development”.
Al Gore, who had already published
his environmental best seller “Earth in the Balance”, was named to
head the new council. When the names of members were published a
few months later, it included the leaders of some of the world’s most
aggressive global environmental organizations which we shall discuss
in more detail a bit later.

According to “Agenda 21”, the earth’s “unsustainability” was being
dramatically threatened by seven gases that previously seemed perfectly
harmless to scientists everywhere. These so-called Greenhouse Gases
(GHG’s), now listed one by one in the Kyoto Accord and “Agenda
21”, created the latest dire threat to the planet, “Global Warming”.
What a far cry from the “Ice Age” predicted at the first “Earth Day”
in 1970.

Now let’s identify those nasty greenhouse gases (GHG’s).
The first is Carbon Dioxide (CO-2), a gas generated in greenhouses
to make plants grow more abundantly. According to “Agenda 21”,
carbon dioxide is the single largest threat to mankind. Lest CO-2
warm the planet and create mayhem in the universe, carbon dioxide
must be controlled by a cooperative Global Government campaign at
virtually any cost.
The next gas is Methane. This is the gas produced in a mammal’s
digestive system. Cows became the radical environmentalists “bullseye” (excuse the pun) and the manure piles on the world’s farms were
labeled a threat to the future of mankind and the planet. Before long
there would be no more “California Happy Cows”.
The third gas, Nitrous Oxide, is the one dentists use to ease patient’s
anxiety during dental work. It is also known as “laughing gas”. N2O
was no laughing matter to the environmentalists. Those three gases,
plus four others (with long scientific names I can’t remember or
pronounce), were supposedly combining to put Planet Earth into
imminent peril unless the U.N. did something to control all of them.
The second “global goal” of the U.N.’s “Agenda 21” program
seemed completely unrealistic. All nations of the world must agree
voluntarily to roll back their pollution levels to where they were in
1990. They were to accomplish the miracle by the year 2020.
The third “goal” of the U.N.’s “Agenda 21” really pushed the
envelope. It was an outlandish economic program that ordered the
industrial nation’s of the world to “cap” their pollution levels at a predetermined figure. If they exceeded their caps, they would voluntarily
transfer their wealth (send their money) to the non-polluting, still
developing and very poor Third World Nations of the world.
In other words, they would “trade” money to exceed their pollution “caps” and the scam became known as “Cap and Trade”.
The
redistribution of wealth under a form of social-communism that
Strong articulated five years previously at the Rio Earth Summit
had now become a formal component of the U.N.’s “Agenda 21”
document.
A fourth goal of Agenda 21 is “Social Justice” which we will detail
later.
Reflecting back to the 1970 Earth Day predictions of a coming
“Ice Age” and the extermination of 80% of life on planet Earth had
now been replaced by the new “Global Warming” threat to mankind.
Unfortunately, few remembered those earlier years of history, just as
Marcus Cicero warned.
Those nasty pop top cans that concerned us in the 1970s had long
ago been “retooled” by beverage manufacturers, gone and largely forgotten. Our 1970 challenge to grocery shoppers (“save the trees, use
plastic”) was so far removed from the new United Nation’s environmental reality; they could not possibly belong to the same movement,
could they? In point of fact, they did not.
The Green Movement’s evolution over 25 years had developed so
slowly and incrementally, so deliberately and almost invisibly, that the
21st Century began with a planet that feared Global Warming and
environmental extinction.
Like the Wizard of Oz who hid behind his curtain, pulled levers
and made threatening noises that frightened the Cowardly Lion, the
Tin Man, Dorothy and everybody in OZ, a small group of globalist wizards hiding behind a “Green Curtain” created one imagined
environmental disaster after another. For two plus decades, the wizards scared everybody with their scientific eco-babble and demands
for obedience to their Agenda for the 21st century. When they proclaimed “the science is settled”, we were to have little doubt as to the
severity of this threat.
The “Green Tsunami” began to build its strength around the planet
with a giant and destructive wave of “green” rules and regulations, of
do’s and don’ts for the have’s and have not’s. In the mind of U.N.
global environmentalists, the problems they manufactured in the 80s
and 90s could only be solved by the U.N.’s Agenda for the new 21st
century, an
“agenda” that was to continue until 2099.
One might easily say, “This is just another conspiracy theory” since
for many years “black helicopter” conspiracy theorists imagined a new
world order was being secretly created at meetings of the Illuminati,
or Freemasonry, or the Club of Rome. Perhaps, the Bilderbergers or
the super-secret Tri Lateral Commission or even the New York City
Council on Foreign Relations was at the heart of the global governance conspiracies.
In reality, the real proponents of “Globalism” operate completely in
the open, supported by our tax dollars, in their New York City headquarters a tall, thin skyscraper along the East River. If the planet is to
be safe from the threat of global warming and climate change,
the
United Nations insists it knows what is best.
They have set their
global agenda for the next century and it is moving incrementally forward. In fact, I would be willing to guess their work has already crept
into your local community.

Since the 1945 creation of the U.N., the organization has now
grown into a global behemoth. Sadly, most of us don’t realize the
size and scope of its global operations. There are six primary organizations, all functioning under the Secretary General’s office in
New York. Under those agencies there are another fifteen worldwide
organizations that carry out the U.N.’s work and employ an army of
roughly 40,000 workers.

The two most familiar operating bodies in the U.N. are the Security
Council, where every member nation has the right of veto, and the
General Assembly where the majority rules. Frankly, that majority of
member nations are not America’s friends and allies.

Largely, the U.N. is divided into two camps, the industrialized
nations of the world and the developing, or Third World nations. The
latter group sees the mission of the U.N. as “spreading the wealth
around a little” seeking financial aid and development money from the
more advanced industrial countries.

One of those advanced industrial countries is of course America. Of
the U.N.’s General Operating budget, 25% of it is paid by only one
of the U.N.’s 192 member nations—the United States. There are 135
members, who all get a vote in the General Assembly, but contribute a
meager 1% to pay the U.N.’s bills. The annual budget for the United
Nation’s operation in NYC is $7 plus Billion.

Since its beginning, the U.N. has grown astronomically. At The
Hague in the Netherlands sits the International Court of Justice, a
full-blown U.N. operation. The fifteen justices who hear cases that
involve international law are all elected by the General Assembly. I am
willing to bet not one America can name any of the 15 faceless justices.

The court rules on such weighty controversies as crimes against
humanity to matters involving genocide and war crimes. In the wrong
hands, the U.N.’s International Court of Justice could decide that
America’s pursuit of a terrorist enemy with a drone attack anywhere
in the world was a war crime and a U.S. government official could
conceivably be put on trial. If an American drone strike caused civilian
casualties, could the incident be labeled a genocide crime with military
or government officials prosecuted at the U.N.’s International Court
of Justice?

The World Court is but the first in a lengthy list of U.N. Agencies
operating all over the world. Here is a fact worth noting. Although
America pays a majority of the U.N.’s bills, few of the organizations
operate within New York at the U.N. Headquarters, let alone anywhere inside our nation’s borders.

For example, the U.N.’s Food and Drug Organization and U.N.
Fund for Agricultural Development are both headquartered in Rome.
The U.N.’s Civil Aviation Department is in Canada. UNESCO, the
United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is
headquartered within the shadow of Paris’ Eiffel Tower. Offices for
the U.N. Atomic Energy Commission and U.N. Office for Industrial
Development are located in Vienna. Madrid, Spain is home to the
U.N. office of International Tourism.

Geneva, Switzerland houses the U.N. office of the International
Labor Organization, the U.N. International Telecommunications
Union, the U.N. High Commission for Refugees and the U.N.’s
World Health Organization that outlawed the use of D.D.T. back in
the 1960s (a decision that has cost millions of lives, to this day, in
developing nations).

Other Geneva offices include the World Intellectual Property
Organization, the World Meteorological Association and the U.N.
World Trade Organization. But before leaving Switzerland, we cannot
forget the U.N.’s Postal Union in Berne. With so many U.N. offices
already in Switzerland, is there any reason the entire U.N. operation
should not be moved there? This would allow the Swiss to carry the
financial burden.