A UN Summit is held in Rio de Janeiro where 5 Documents are Introduced that Would Help Pave the Way to Global Governance

“Behind the green mask UN Agenda 21” Rosa Koire is the executive director of the Post Sustainability Institute. Impacting every aspect of our lives, UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a corporate manipulation using the Green Mask of environmental concern to forward a globalist plan.

Rosa speaks across the world and is a regular blogger on her website Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 dot com. Her book, BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: UN Agenda 21 is available on Amazon.com, Kindle, and Nook, and at her website. Websites: www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com; http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org

From June 3-14 of 1992, A UN Summit is held in Rio de Janeiro where 5 documents are introduced that would help pave the way to global governance. Through the second half of the 20th century, the unelected powers that be in the United Nations were crafting documents and treaties to position themselves to implement Agenda 21 and these other treaties, etc. The key events to the Implementation of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development were the 1974 U.N. declaration of “New International Economic Order” that declared that government should control the economy and the 1976 U.N. Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) that stated that land cannot be controlled by the individual. Land represents wealth and it is a social injustice for it to be owned by the individual. The Rio de Janeiro UN conference unveiled multiple globalist designs to take away property rights, etc. via 3 treaties that were introduced:

• The Convention on Climate Change, the precursor to the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol later adopted in 1997.
• The Biodiversity Treaty – The second document was the Biodiversity Treaty, which would declare that massive amounts of land should be off-limits to human development.

Through many venues, including but not limited to local, state and federal regulations and programs, private property rights of rural land owners are incrementally taken – stolen, in compliance with this treaty. The treaty, while not fully ratified, is being implemented through the Executive branch of government.  This treaty spawned the Wildlands Project.  The intent of the Wildlands Project is to gain control over, and then return at least 50% of the rural land in the U.S. to the condition that predates Columbus’s arrival. The strategies used to remove the landowner from his land include, but are not limited to, the following:

Land is taken…

• … by denying water and/or grazing rights to farmers and ranchers or limiting their use of pesticides and herbicides, which in turn will force the farmers and ranchers out of business, causing the land to possibly fall into the hands of the federal gov’t.
• … when Wilderness Areas, Parks, etc. are established. Not only the land is out of production, but, the mineral resources underground or forest above can also be made off-limits for development.
• … by expanding the legal definition of a wetland. By making any trickle of water or puddle a wetland, the EPA can prevent the development of the land and all the land around it. This makes the land worthless and easy to acquire by sundry entities including the gov’t.
• … when an endangered species is located within a forest. Then large areas around this area are made off-limits to development, and once again, the land loses its value and is easily acquired by gov’t.
• … by the direct taking of land through eminent domain.
• … when Road RIP, a non-governmental organization, was created for the sole purpose of removing existing roads and preventing the construction of new roads into wilderness areas. Then humans are locked away from land that was once served by roadways.
• … when urban boundaries are created around a town, beyond which development may not occur and/or utilities may not be provided. This will destroy the economic value of the rural lands around the town. Comprehensive Land Use Plans in existence today and their policies are creating this scenario.
• …  when the government declares land part of a flood plain, then forces the homeowners to give up their homes. The homes are then destroyed and the land is not allowed to be developed. The government gets a 2-fer if the land is along a river.  Then, not only is the land off-limits to development, the government has total control of the river and the priceless water it contains.
• … when a land trust purchases private property rights from a land owner for promises from the land owner to do certain environmentally friendly things. In return the land owner and his heirs are then able to stay on this land in perpetuity.

Unfortunately over time, the land trust may make more and more environmental demands on the landowner, until the landowner can no longer make a living off of the land. With all the restriction  placed on the property, no one but the government may be willing to buy it. These agreements are called Conservation Easements.

President Obama  has greatly advanced the locking down of rural America through Executive Order 13575 with its far-reaching consequences.

*Executive Order 13575, which was signed in 2011, created the White House Rural Council. This council requires every federal agency in the U.S. to over-see all the food, fiber, and energy needs for all the rural sustainable communities. Across the U.S. this E.O. affects 16% of the population.

It is worth spending some time discussing some of the key plans of those who push the Sustainablist agenda and what they have in mind for the vacated rural land.

If a very large area, usually at least 5000 acres, of land can be freed of human activity then a core area can be created there.  This is where the large predators, like wolves, cougar, grizzly bear, etc. have been or will be reintroduced.

The human-free land that connects the cores are called corridors. Around the corridors and cores are buffer zones, where…

“Only human activity compatible with protection of the core reserves and corridors would be allowed.” Mission Statement to the Wildlands Project.

As the carnivore population increases, it may become necessary to enlarge the core areas, and consequently also so the buffer zones, to meet the increased range needed by the carnivores.

This process of relocating the human population, in order to create habitat for the wildlife is called the Wildlands Project.

This planning for where to relocate humans in order to create the cores, corridors, and buffer zones began in the United States several decades ago. We know this because in 1994 the U.S. Senate was scheduled to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty.  During that year, Dr. Michael Coffman pounded the capital with e-mails and calls, and before ratifying the Biodiversity Treaty Dr. Coffman presented a copy of the Biodiversity map to his Senator, who showed it to the Senate. The Senate Majority leader took the treaty off of the calendar and it was never ratified. Who says one person cannot make a difference!!

1994, the first time the Biodiversity Map was presented to the general public, was most of 20 years ago. Since then, the Sustainablists have been very busy thinking and re-thinking the best way to work around the Congress to  implement the un-ratified Biodiversity Treaty and to keep the Wildlands Project advancing. If you would like to see a possible recent version of the Wildlands Map, you might want to Google “America 2050-megaregions” and take a look at a possible updated version of the “1994 Michael Coffman map”.

To get a sense of just how much land is being made off-limits to man globally, take a look at the map below showing the North American Wildways.

This kind of land acquisition is occurring all over the globe in order to prepare the world for, as Al Gore said, “The wrenching transformation of society” or stated more clearly by John Davis, editor of Wild Earth Magazine)…

“Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization? Most assuredly.”

Since the founding of this country it has been known that man cannot be free without the ability to own property. George Washington said, “Property rights and freedom are inseparable.” John Adams said, “Property must be secure or liberty cannot exist.” The proponents of United Nations Agenda 21 understand very well that ownership of land provides wealth and security to those who control it. A government that denies land ownership to its citizens is knowingly reducing its citizenry to little more than serfs dependent on their government for their every need.

• The third document was called the Rio Declaration, which called for the eradication of poverty throughout the world by the redistribution of wealth.
• The fourth document was the Convention on Forest Principles, calling for the international management of the world’s forests, essentially shutting down or severely regulating the timber industry.
• The fifth document was Agenda for the 21st CENTURY, now commonly called Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 is a 300 page document that contains 40 Chapters which address virtually every facet of human life and contains great detail as to how the concept of Sustainable Development should be implemented through every level of government. Agenda 21 is the “How To” document for Sustainable Development.

It was at the Rio Summit that President George H.W. Bush, along with the other 178 heads of state, signed agreement to Agenda 21.

One year later, newly elected President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.  This council contained 12 cabinet secretaries. Six of them belonged to the Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, the World Resources Institute, or the National Wildlife Federation.

These same groups, called Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s), worked directly with the United Nations to craft Agenda 21, and now were in a key position to put Agenda 21 policies into every single agency in the U.S. Federal Government. This means every federal agency, the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the EPA, are all currently using your tax dollars to undercut our sovereignty and steal our property rights bit by bit.

The United Nations and the Non-governmental organizations that do the “heavy lifting” for the U.N. have been very clever in the ways they have chosen to get people around the world and in the U.S. to accept sustainable development policies.

First, the United Nation created the 3 E’s; social equity, economic justice, and environment justice. The logo below is used to represent Sustainable Development dogma.

By selecting the three terms used for the 3 E’s, the Sustainablists were very clever. You see Sustainablists are very good at selecting terms whose meaning seems self-explanatory and sound very positive. Social equity, economic justice, and environment justice are three examples of this. Most people who hear these terms for the first time think they understand what they mean, and with words like “equity” and “justice” in them, think that they are probably a good thing. The reality is quite different for several reasons.

First, the terms themselves vary. Sometimes social equity is called social justice. The same is true of the other two terms. The swapping out of terms is very confusing.

Secondly, just finding agreed upon definitions is very challenging. Of the three, only for the definition of social equity is there some degree of agreement, and even then, when you find a definition of economic justice, the examples cited, sound like the examples given for social justice. This is done by design. Precise use of words, allows everyone to know their true meaning. Agenda 21 is a stealth effort. The less the average citizen knows and understands the better.

So, how do you know the real definitions for the 3 E’s-by working backwards!  First you must find examples of the 3 E’s. Remember, “Actions speak louder than words”.

Examples of Social Injustice, according to the Sustainablists, occur when…

• …a person cannot move freely to meet his needs (i.e. no access to transportation or borders preventing immigration to another country).
• …a person has ill-health, so cannot meet their needs.
• …a person does not have access to good housing.
• ….a person does not have access to quality food.

Using those examples, social equity can be defined as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally” from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.

Looking at all four examples, it is not hard to see why solutions like mass transit, open borders, Obama Care, low-income housing, food stamps, and free lunch programs in the schools are all part of the Sustainable Development equation because they create “Social Justice”.

Examples of Economic Injustice occurs when…

• …a person’s gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation or a handicap places a limitation on their chances of success in the workplace.
• …a person’s socioeconomic status prevents them from receiving higher education.
• …a person’s socioeconomic status prevents them from moving up in the workplace.
• …certain countries, through a wealth of natural resources, prosper over other less fortunate countries.

Using these examples, economic justice can be defined as the equal ability of the individual or countries to gain wealth.

Again, you can see why quotas in the workplace, college scholarships for the low-income student, and redistribution of wealth from the wealthier countries to the poorer countries, sometimes through outright monetary “gifts” and sometimes through treaties and agreements that work to the U.S.’s disadvantage, are part of the formula of Sustainable Development because they create “Economic Justice.”

Examples of Environmental Injustice are when…

• …man pollutes the air, land, or water.
• …man causes species to go extinct.
• …man fills in a swamp.
• …man causes the climate to warm, or change, whichever claim the environmentalists are making this week.

From these examples it is not hard to create the definition for Environmental Justice.

Environmental Justice says that man is responsible for all of nature’s woes. The presence of man on this planet is an Environmental Injustice.  Consequently, it is critical that all of man’s activities be severely controlled, of course, by the government, in order to protect the environment.

Or as stated the Club of Rome (Premier environmental think-tank consultants to the United Nations)… “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy is humanity itself.”

Further, since Americans value the environment, it allows the Sustainablists to use Environmental Justice to effectively convince Americans that in order to save their planet they must give up their individual rights for those of the collective.

In other words, the 3 E’s are a way to be sure no one has more than anyone else (unless you are a member of the elite), even if you are smarter, worked harder, took more risks, made all the right decisions, and sacrificed. Your very success is a social injustice.  Further, God may have given Man dominion over the Earth, but apparently big government feels it has veto power over God.

For a sustainablist a regulation, or sustainable development policy, that manages to create social equity, economic and environmental justice, all in one fell swoop, is the ideal regulation or policy. That regulation is said to have achieved the Triple Bottom Line (=sustainability).

If you look at the logo for Agenda 21, you will see three overlapping circles, one for each of the 3 E’s. The area right in the center of the three circles, where all three circles overlap, represents the Triple Bottom Line, and that also represents “sustainability”.

It is the “precautionary principle” (Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration) that allows the government to use the environment as a hammer. This principle says that, if there is the slightest chance that an activity of man MAY harm the environment, then that activity must be stopped. The Keystone Pipeline is a perfect example of that.

Agenda 21 was a treaty that was never ratified by Congress. So the implementation of Agenda 21 is in direct violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States, which says…

“No State shall without the Consent of the Congress,…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. That means that our federal government is implementing an illegal set of actions counter to our Constitution.” (Also see Article IV, second paragraph of the U.S. Constitution.)

The Challenge Grant Program proves that the federal government cannot further the 3 E’s or implement Agenda 21 by regulations alone.  It requires the use of grants to create compliance and the appearance that America is anxious and willing to sacrifice her freedom in order to save the environment and the collective.  However, the true fact is that  most state and local governments are simply so desperate to keep their roads paved and lights on,  that they will not look too closely at the strings attached to the offered grants . The result is that the Agenda 21 train races down the track towards completion.

Agenda 21 is not an environmental movement. It is a political movement designed to control all of mankind’s behaviors and that only by taking our property away from us can Agenda 21 be successful.

At the U.N. Summit at Rio in 1992, the Conference Secretary-General, Maurice Strong, said:

“Isn’t the only hope for this planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

On March 18, 2012 Lord Christopher Monckton spoke to supporters of the International Free Press Society – Canada at Windermere Manor in London, Ontario. Topics of his speech included the United Nations, environmentalism, science, reason, Agenda 21, Marxism, Islam, and abortion as a major reason for the eventual downfall of the West.