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.]
|
