World Hero of Mother Earth

There is no better proof that displaced Communists flocked to environmental causes after the Soviet Union imploded than Evo Morales, Bolivia’s communist president. Once the Communists were onboard the environmental scam the UN pulled out all stops. In October 2009, the UN General Assembly named Morales World Hero of Mother Earth. The “accolade” paid off when Morales came up with a new gimmick for getting to population controls (PC):

Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

Make no mistake about this, whatever Morales says or believes about the environment the United Nations has one goal in mind: Population controls. If the UN did not see a way to adapt Morales’ ridiculous treaty to PC he would get the same treatment a butterfly gets after somebody drops a net on him.

Here’s how the roadmap leading to population controls is laid out:

The earth’s Rights will become equal Rights. In order to save Mother Earth the human population will have to be reduced in order the insure the Rights of every other living thing. The machinery for enforcing PC is no more complicated than that.

Go back to the beginning

The UN’s grab for control of the environmental officially began in 1972 with the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. The scam began to take treaty form in 1992 with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997. So UN nut jobs like Morales only built upon a foundation that was already in place.

INTERPOL joined UN scam artists last November:

Interpol pledges war on environmental crime
Nov 8 03:28 PM US/Eastern

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.48399dc22534d9ab3ec84a3eb3a25a42.891&show_article=1

A month after INTERPOL was enfranchised the UN’s boy, none other than Evo Morales, called for an International climate justice tribunal:

Morales asks to save Kyoto Protocol, create global climate court
Dec 9, 2010, 18:18 GMT

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/n...ve-Kyoto-Protocol-create-global-climate-court

And let’s not overlook Hussein’s part in the scam. He did his part in December of 2009 when he amended President Reagan’s 1983 EO. See this thread for details:

http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/152962-forgotten-tragedies.html

Finally, for all of the years I have been watching the UN advance its population control agenda, I have to admit that I never saw insect Rights coming:

UN document would give 'Mother Earth' same rights as humans
By Steven Edwards, Postmedia News

UNITED NATIONS — Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving "Mother Earth" the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country.

The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to "dominate and exploit" — to the point that the "well-being and existence of many beings" is now threatened.

The wording may yet evolve, but the general structure is meant to mirror Bolivia's Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, which Bolivian President Evo Morales enacted in January.

That document speaks of the country's natural resources as "blessings," and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution.

It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state.

"If you want to have balance, and you think that the only (entities) who have rights are humans or companies, then how can you reach balance?" Pablo Salon, Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, told Postmedia News. "But if you recognize that nature too has rights, and (if you provide) legal forms to protect and preserve those rights, then you can achieve balance."

The application of the law appears destined to pose new challenges for companies operating in the country, which is rich in natural resources, including natural gas and lithium, but remains one of the poorest in Latin America.

But while Salon said his country just seeks to achieve "harmony" with nature, he signalled that mining and other companies may come under greater scrutiny.

"We're not saying, for example, you cannot eat meat because you know you are going to go against the rights of a cow," he said. "But when human activity develops at a certain scale that you (cause to) disappear a species, then you are really altering the vital cycles of nature or of Mother Earth. Of course, you need a mine to extract iron or zinc, but there are limits."

Bolivia is a country with a large indigenous population, whose traditional belief systems took on greater resonance following the election of Morales, Latin America's first indigenous president.

In a 2008 pamphlet his entourage distributed at the UN as he attended a summit there, 10 "commandments" are set out as Bolivia's plan to "save the planet" — beginning with the need "to end capitalism."

Reflecting indigenous traditional beliefs, the proposed global treaty says humans have caused "severe destruction . . . that is offensive to the many faiths, wisdom traditions and indigenous cultures for whom Mother Earth is sacred."

It also says that "Mother Earth has the right to exist, to persist and to continue the vital cycles, structures, functions and processes that sustain all human beings."

In indigenous Andean culture, the Earth deity known as Pachamama is the centre of all life, and humans are considered equal to all other entities.

The UN debate begins two days before the UN's recognition April 22 of the second International Mother Earth Day — another Morales-led initiative.

Canadian activist Maude Barlow is among global environmentalists backing the drive with a book the group will launch in New York during the UN debate: Nature Has Rights.

"It's going to have huge resonance around the world," Barlow said of the campaign. "It's going to start first with these southern countries trying to protect their land and their people from exploitation, but I think it will be grabbed onto by communities in our countries, for example, fighting the tarsands in Alberta."

Ecuador, which also has a large indigenous population, has enshrined similar aims in its Constitution — but the Bolivian law is said to be "stronger."

Ecuador is among countries that have already been supportive of the Bolivian initiative, along with Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda.

http://www.canada.com/news/world/do...r+Earth+same+rights+humans/4597840/story.html

 

Here’s a belated update on what the global government crowd is up to.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh’s article covers an important topic, yet not one of the wannabes seeking the Republican nomination is going after where the environmental poison originates: The United Nations. A few criticized the EPA, but not to the extent of saying they would shut it down. I know that Ron Paul wants to get the US out of the UN, but even he is staying far away from the UN’s environmental agenda.

Dr. Paugh’s article tells me that the phrase “environmental justice” is the slogan the UN settled on to sell its garbage. After all, how many politicians will speak out and be made to look like they stand for injustice? Never mind that environmental tyranny is the UN’s favorite, and most profitable, injustice.

I’m sorry to say I can’t make a direct connection between the UN’s environmental justice scam and Hussein empowering INTERPOL in this country. In time, I’m sure the connection will reveal itself.

Environmental Justice (EJ) will be further pandering to low-income voters, redistribution of wealth, control of natural resources, economic activity, land, and water use, a furthering of UN Agenda 21 goals
Environmental Justice
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Class warfare is about to get larger and more confusing – environmental justice will take the stage next to social justice. Executive Order 12898 signed on February 11, 1994 by President Bill Clinton set out to address environmental justice concerns in minority and low-income populations by requiring federal agencies to do the following:

∙ Develop an “environmental justice strategy”
∙ Promote enforcement of health and environmental laws in low-income and minority population areas
∙ Improve research and data collection in environmental justice issues
∙ Identify minority and low income patterns of consumption of natural resources
∙ Every agency must have environmental justice as part of their mission
∙ Every agency must identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations”

“Environmental justice as a social movement has grown rapidly since the early 1990s in response to concerns about disproportionate environmental burdens in poor, indigenous and minority communities. Natural resources and environment played an early and important role in helping bring national attention to this emerging social and political problem.” (University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment)

“Environmental Justice seeks to help the public and policymakers use scientific information to build sustainable communities world-wide,” says Professor Bunyan I. Bryant Jr., coordinator of the Environmental Justice field of study.

Sustainable communities is one of the stated goals explained in the 40 chapters of the United Nations Agenda 21 document signed in1992 by 179 nations in Rio de Janeiro. “The recommendations are not legally binding but nations that signed it are morally obligated to implement them according to the United Nations.”

The EPA administrator cited in a memo dated January 2010 “environmental justice is one the agency’s top priorities.” EPA released its “Plan Environmental Justice 2014” in September 2011.

The Plan EJ 2014 has three goals:

1. To protect the environment and health in communities overburdened by pollution
2. To empower communities to take action to improve their health and environment
3. To establish partnerships with local, state, tribal, federal governments, and organizations to achieve healthy and sustainable communities.

The third goal is very worrisome as it expands the EPA’s control over our lives in order to achieve the UN Agenda 21’s goal of sustainable communities. It is unclear how they are going to measure scientifically which communities are “overburdened by pollution” or how income correlates to air, water, or soil pollution intake by people with lower incomes since we all breathe the same air, eat food grown from the same soil, and drink water from the same sources. As this is a social movement invented by the leftist and Marxist elements in our society, aided by the interests of UN Agenda 21, it hardly represents a scientific endeavor.

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to examine the EPA’s environmental justice, “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in developing, implementing and enforcing environmental laws, regulations, and policies,” and published its report in October 2011. A draft of GAO’s report was provided to the EPA. EPA disagreed with two of GAO’s recommendations, partially agreed with one recommendation, and did not address the remaining recommendations.

The Council on Environmental Quality oversees the federal government’s compliance with Executive Order 12898 and with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

NEPA was enacted by Congress in 1970 to “assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” Congress also mandated that, “before federal agencies undertake a major federal action significantly affecting the environment, they must consider the environmental impact of such actions on the quality of the human environment, such as cultural, economic, social, or health effects including those on populations and areas with environmental justice concerns.”

Plan EJ 2014 advances environmental justice by:

Rulemaking (writers must include environmental justice in their plans)
Permitting (EPA-issued permits to address environmental pollution on poor populations)
Compliance and Enforcement (targeting pollution problems in disadvantaged communities)
Community-based action (giving grants and technical assistance to overburdened communities to help address environmental problems)
Administration-wide action on environmental justice (“establishing partnerships and initiatives with other federal agencies to support holistic approaches to addressing environmental, social, and economic burdens of affected communities”)

I am a bit confused since EPA stated that they wanted to apply Environmental Justice scientifically, but the language changes to “holistic.” I may be wrong, but it appears as another effort by EPA to control our population, land, air, and water under the guise of giving help to disadvantaged populations, a form of spreading the wealth through one more social program.

GAO identifies all environmental stakeholders as Congress, the administration, state and local governments, agency staff, agency customers, interest groups, and the public.

The stakeholders of the environmental justice plan are identified as the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, the Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, state agencies, and community groups.

EPA relies on the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to implement its programs. If a state is approved by EPA as meeting relevant criteria, the state is responsible to monitor and give permits, thus becoming a primary enforcer. States will be then responsible to carry out EPA’s environmental justice plan.

EPA has national ambient air quality standards for certain pollutants that are harmful to the public and the environment. State Implementation Plans must carry out these standards. Grants and loans programs such as Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds must now include Environmental Justice in their plans and programs. States, identified as key stakeholders, have limited detail how they are going to do this.

Community groups will buy into the Environmental Justice idea through funding mechanisms, training, technical assistance, and environmental indoctrination.

According to the GAO report released October 2011, EPA’s Plan EJ 2014 provides limited detail to states about their role in ongoing planning or about the states’ role in a nationally consistent environmental justice-screening tool (EJ SCREEN). The report points out the lack of standard definitions for basic environmental justice terms, such as minority and low-income.

EPA responded that it did not develop terms on purpose because it did not want to leave out certain communities that did not fit their predetermined definition. In other words, environmental justice will not be just at all, it will be capricious, random, and it will not be scientific.

Environmental Justice (EJ) will be further pandering to low-income voters, redistribution of wealth, control of natural resources, economic activity, land, and water use, a furthering of UN Agenda 21 goals.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43002

 

If corporations can have legal rights why not "Mother Earth"? Does the environment not deserve protection from those who wish to do it harm? Or do you believe that corporations have the right to destroy our (not their ) environment?
Why are the "rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution" a bad thing?

 

To MannieD: Enforcing the UN’s environmental claptrap is not about the legal Rights of corporations. Attacking corporations is nothing more than a clever way to promote the UN’s global warming agenda. Instead of comparing the legal Rights of corporations to the non-existent Right to be free from pollution the comparison is between the individual Rights listed in our Bill of Rights and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not one of the Rights in the Bill of Rights has to be paid for while every Right in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be paid for with tax dollars.

In truth, the Right you claim is a parasite’s Right since everybody else is forced to pay for it. Not only that, only a fool can possibly believe that a political Right is a Right when it is not enjoyed by everyone.

 

Which part of the "rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution" do you feel are parasitic?