Permanent link for article #0158:
04-13-2011

Permalink



Mother Earth
Subject: You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

This is a follow up to my previous article on The Origins of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

As I have written elsewhere, the United Nations is the self-appointed international advocate and enabler of the environmentalist cause, pushing forward on every possible front, whether that be through the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and its anthropogenic global warming fiction, or with Agenda 21 and its misdirecting quest for "sustainability". Well, here is the latest chapter out of the UN's play book.

On April 13th, Steven Edwards wrote an article in The Vancouver Sun, describing a draft treaty currently being submitted for adoption by the United Nations. Here are a few excerpts from Edward's article:
    "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."

    "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."
Well, isn't that special. Men will have the same "rights" as insects, water, soil, rocks, and all other "natural things". In this scheme, there is neither room for the recognition of man's unique nature as a rational thinking being, nor of his specific requirements for survival. And just what sort of definition of a "right" could satisfy these conditions? Only one: the arbitrary whim of some dictatorial regime imposed upon all through the rigid application of force. Don't be swayed by the peripheral rhetoric; this is the sole purpose of such a proposal.

And what about the path to accomplishing this goal? Here is the first and the last step:

    "In a 2008 pamphlet [President Evo Morales'] 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.'"

    "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."

Yes, when you think of the great capitalistic centers of the world needing to be rescued from the the horrible consequences of wealth accumulation and production, it is Bolivia, Barbuda, Antigua and all the rest that immediately come to mind.

There is no underlying respect for nature to be found in this proposal; only a blind envy and hatred for civilization and the desire to see it destroyed, whatever the cost.

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

Don't be complacent thinking that lunacy such as this, taking place in the bowels of the UN, has no affect upon us here in the United States.

  • In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the UN's Agenda 21 declaration, and as I have written here, the Livable Communities Act of 2010, which implements many of the Agenda 21 goals is currently still pending in Congress.

  • In 1998 Bill Clinton signed the UN's Kyoto Protocol, although it was not ratified by Congress.

  • President Obama would have gladly signed the 2009 Copenhagen Carbon Emissions Accord, had Climategate not sunk that ship.

The greatest thing that any of us can do in the battle against this form of primitivism is to stand firm agains those who propose to invalidate the concept of individual rights. Always demand that people define their terms, and in this way, force them to reveal their unstated premises. And with that in mind, I will close with the following:

    "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action — which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

    Ayn Rand

Addendum:


[Thanks once again to Allen Small for bringing the Vancouver Sun article to my attention.]
For the most recent articles, see the Home page.