Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution say the United States of America is a sovereign nation. Well, the UN and our progressive pols have other ideas.
In 1987, the World Commission of Environment and Development (a UN commission) introduced us to the term “sustainable development” in its report. You hear the word “sustainable” used frequently by the progressive establishment in describing their plans for the U. S. economy, health care and employment.
The thesis of the report was that the Commission saw the “possibility for a new era of economic growth, one that must be based on policies that sustain and expand the environmental resource base. An we believe such growth to be absolutely essential to relieve...poverty” (p.1). “Growth will come through better managing technology and social organization (p.8).”
According to the book “From One Earth to One World: An Overview:” “the Commission’s document is an overview of a conceptual/moral report on the state of global affairs in terms of environmental degradation, international economic inequality and poverty, and the inability of current national and international institutions to deal effectively with the challenges of securing equity for future generations. It provides a useful discussion of the inter connectedness of economic and environmental changes, of the interdependence of nations in both economic and ecological terms, and of the inter connectedness of regional ecological systems. The Commission concludes with recommendations for achieving global sustainable development.”
Sustainable development is defined as meeting “the (human) needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (p.8) This concept implies that there are limits on environmental resources and the ability of the biosphere to absorb human activities. These limits are seen to have roots in technological inadequacies and inequitable social organization. Thus, sustainable development must entail: a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs (p.9).”
Note the use of the words “inter connectedness” and “interdependence,” in concert with “environmental degradation, international economic inequality and poverty, and the inability of current national and international institutions to deal” with the challenge “of securing equity for future generations.” This is socialist multicultural propaganda.
Further, as you dig deeper into the report, you see reference to “a progressive transformation of the economy and society...international interdependence and redistribution of wealth” which will ensure a sustainable level of population, economics, and environment. This is designed to develop a new ethic which will include the relationship between man and the environment. Once you’ve cleared away the verbal haze, you can see a world-wide plan for socialism.
And that’s just the beginning.
In September 2002, the UN held its World Summit on Sustainable Development to introduce its Agenda 21, which is a blueprint for the global evolution of sustainable development in the 21st century.
Agenda 21 is designed to promote sustainable development through changing consumption patterns; promoting sustainable human settlements; planning and managing all land resources, ecosystems, deserts, forests, mountains, oceans, fresh water; agriculture and rural development; biotechnology; ensuring equity, and an increased role for Non-Governemnt Organizations (NGOs). This all done by manipulating local, state and national governments.
Since America, with its Constitution, is the principle road block to achieving the UN goals, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, and the Bush 2 administration conjured up the idea of presenting sustainable development to the citizens of the U. S. through the education system.
Dr. Robert Paige was W’s first Secretary of Education. On Oct. 3, 2003, in a speech before the UN Round Table on Education, he acknowledged our return to UNESCO. He said: “Our governments have entrusted us with the responsibility of preparing our children to become citizens of the world” by working with UNESCO in coordinating the global Education for All initiative (EFA). He indicated the EFA was consistent with the No Child Left Behind Act; therefore, that made the U. S. a tacit supporter of the EFA and, ultimately, a one-world government.
There’s more...Clinton’s Goals 2000 set the baseline for a national standards plan in our education system. Nothing has changed since then except the nomenclature.
Fast forward to 2013 with the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) and you have a rehash of an education system which is aimed at indoctrinating our children into acceptance of a one-world government. Environmentalism is merely one facet of the program. Only a cursory study of American History is mentioned. The CCSSI almost eliminates it.
Several days ago I had the privilege of talking with John Huppenthal, a history buff, and Arizona Superintendent of Education, about what is being done to give American history more study time in our schools. He didn’t give me an answer.
Now you see why I ask the question about losing our sovereignty. If our history isn’t properly taught in our schools, future generations will have no connection to our reason for being, thereby leading to our death as a sovereign nation.
• Don Kennedy is a graduate of Dartmouth College with a degree in sociology. He has been a resident of Ahwatukee Foothills since 2002.