UN Agenda 21: Republicans opposed?

Benjamin Netanyahu gave them hell at the UN today, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan did nearly fifty-nine years earlier.
Print Friendly

The often bitter battles about the Republican Party platform hid a possible sea change in Republican policy. For the first time in twenty years, Republicans officially oppose UN Agenda 21. Ironically, a Republican President signed on to it, twenty years ago. The Tea Party just scored a victory, if the Republicans mean it.

UN Agenda 21 and other bad treaties

The Republican platform mentions UN Agenda 21 briefly in a paragraph about international treaties. Republicans note one key fact about treaties:

Under our Constitution, treaties become the law of the land.

So: if you don’t want bad law in your own country, don’t sign bad treaties. The Republicans won’t debate whether a treaty truly can trump the Constitution. But the platform lists several treaties that break Americans’ rights under it:

And (the important part): the “declarations” of the UN Conference on Environment and Development. And on that subject, the platform explicitly “reject[s]” UN Agenda 21. UN Agenda 21 erodes American sovereignty, the platform says. And Republicans reject any UN Global Tax.

UN Agenda 21: review

The United Nations, promulgator of UN Agenda 21

The flag of the United Nations. (Public domain as per UN policy.)

The United Nations says little about UN Agenda 21 beyond its goals. The UN seeks to manage, even micro-manage, every effect of human beings on the environment. That much overweening pride should scare anyone. Philip Hodges at Political Outcast reviews UN Agenda 21 in detail.

The key phrase is “sustainable development.” Someone makes a judgment about whether the environment can cope with human beings. Who makes that judgment? A political appointee. And he usually relies on junk science.

In fact, UN Agenda 21 is a ration plan. Someone will decide your ration of energy, land, water, and maybe even the air you breathe. That’s what “smart meters,” “smart growth,” and so on are all about. Those who push UN Agenda 21 look forward to getting people out of their cars and onto public buses and trains. (Not airliners! They’ll reserve flying for the nomenklatura. Which is Soviet-era government speak for “VIPs.”) They also will push people out of their single-family houses, and into apartment complexes. Or better yet: “mixed-use dwellings.” And what are they? Dingbat dorms, with “approved” shops on the ground floors. The idea is that you never have any errands to run. Anything beyond common everyday stuff, you order in, and someone will load it on a truck and bring it to you. Maybe. If the “sustainable development” honcho approves it.

Hodges finds another UN Agenda 21 buzz phrase: “social justice.” That means: no such thing as private property. Hodges quotes a 1976 report that shows what’s really going on. Land is the linchpin of independence. The world planners know it. So they tell people it’s not fair for anyone to own any land. (Not that anyone really owns his land anyway. Almost all property deeds in the United States grant land in fee simple. That means that you have the right to stay on that land so long as you pay the property tax. No one truly owns his land unless he holds allodial title.)

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) manages UN Agenda 21 at the community level. Several American cities and towns have signed on. (New Jersey has its own ICLEI stand-in, “Sustainable Jersey.”)

The cat’s out of the bag!

Merely by saying anything about UN Agenda 21, the Republicans have riled those who push it. On Tuesday of last week, Leslie Kaufman, the “Green” blogger at The New York Times, complained about that. She noticed, six months before, that Tea Party and other activists are fighting UN Agenda 21 in town halls across America. Now she’s afraid she’ll see more of this.

So far, the Republicans say only that they oppose it. They don’t say what they’ll do about it. Of course, they have a problem: two of their own Presidents, Bush Senior and Junior, each pushed it in his day.

The Tea Party, of course, doesn’t have this problem. Nor will its activists likely stop being active, merely because a major party has said it agrees with them.

Related: