Welcome to GulfCoastNews.com
  GCN Political Analysis

The Green Gun Reloaded

Under The Guise Of Environmentalism, Global Socialism Would Become A Reality Through United Nations Agenda 21.

Part 6 of 8    Filed 5/8/10         (Part 1, Part 2Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7)

By Perry Hicks- Special to GulfCoastNews.com  

The Pen is Mightier Than The Sword- Edward Bulwer-Lytton 1839

Benito Mussolini, the Italian dictator credited as the founder of Fascism, reportedly did so because he grew tired of his fellow socialists inaction. Before the Russian Revolution of 1917, all he could see socialists do was make speeches, write voluminous position papers, and form committees to endlessly wrangle over trivial details.

A man of action, Mussolini was too impatient to wait for progress. He forged together a number of preexisting philosophies into what became the fascist movement, otherwise known as National Socialism.

But these were only the opening decades of the 20th Century. It was not yet evident why the incremental if plodding progressivism of international socialists was far more prudent. Impetuously, Mussolini demanded immediate results.

As history has proven, Mussolini was wrong. By the mid 1940s, both Mussolini and Hitler were dead, and Europe was in smoldering ruins. The international socialists, however, trudged on seeing success after success: Mainland China fell to the Communists as the European allies were too exhausted to assist the Chinese Nationalists; Russia emerged from vanquishing the Germans to be America's chief rival; and in the United States, the Democrat Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt shredded the Constitution by expanding government's power over individual American lives.

Clearly the long term view was the more effective and international socialists and communists of all stripes have been frighteningly consistent and absolutely relentless on achieving what they want.

So successful were they by mid 20th Century, Norman Thomas, the six time Socialist Party presidential candidate, issued this famous quote:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."

America has finally arrived at that day with the presidency of Barrack Hussein Obama. What remains to be seen is if the Democrat's haste to complete America's transition will result in a backlash of sufficient strength to preserve liberty.

Reigning In Freedom And Industry

America cannot be “remade,” as Obama phrased it during his campaign, into a socialist state without first destroying the present system. That is the purpose of the Cloward-Piven strategy; to break both private and governmental systems down to the point of dysfunction, for only then will people clamor for “change.”

The change Obama seeks would be the transformation of America's free market representative republic into a full blown socialist state. Moreover, since socialism requires citizens to accept what is not in their best interests, the socialist agenda will have to be advanced through coercion. Hence, America's transformation into a socialist state will also require America's transition to tyranny.

However, intentionally crushing the American economy poses a difficult problem. Even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, industry soldiered on; automobiles advanced from flivvers to powerful, stylish, and comfortable all-steel vehicles. Aeroplanes similarly went from cloth and wire contraptions to all aluminum alloy aircraft capable of crossing the Atlantic at will; diesel locomotives were developed as were television and the first computers.

What keeps the American economy producing is the free enterprise system with a strong emphasis on “free.” And what keeps America free is the U.S. Constitution. Thwart that, and destruction is assured.

The favored mechanism to attain socialist goals is international treaties. With a willing same party domination of both houses of congress, a communist president need only sign a treaty and have the senate ratify it. That treaty then becomes the law, overriding, some legal scholars would argue, the Bill of Rights, and all judges of any court, Federal, or State, must abide by it in rendering their decisions

Thus, treaties with the United Nations could have devastating impact on liberty. Global taxes could be imposed on the American people, private property usurped for public purpose, energy consumption could be severely restricted, travel regulated, guns could be confiscated, and even free speech curtailed.

The self defeating mechanism for this is the Supremacy Clause of Article 6, of the U.S. Constitution which reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Treaties then become part of the body of Federal Law and if its provisions are in contravention with existing law, the one latter one in time prevails.

In theory, the Supreme Court could rule any and all provisions of a treaty to be unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Congress could also modify a treaty as well. However, a congress dominated by members of the president's same party, and a Supreme Court packed with justices appointed by or otherwise favoring the president, would make any self correcting constitutional mechanisms moot.

Packing the Supreme Court was the threat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made to the court justices in 1937 through a bill submitted to congress. The details of the bill is thought to have originated with Harvard University professor Arthur Holcombe.

Ample records exist detailing the intentions the Founding Fathers had in crafting Article 6, including strong opinions on the subject by Thomas Jefferson. There are also extant a large number of legal studies exploring the ramifications, as well. However, none of these documents have the force of law.

The fact is that the Supreme Court has never rendered a decision regarding the question of unconstitutional treaties perversely overriding the Constitution. Even if it had, that decision could always be overturned by a later court.

What it all boils down to is not what, but how much can the American public tolerate within a given period of time.

United Nations Agenda 21

"... The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

The well financed environmental groups enjoy special recognition from the United Nations as NonAgenda 21 Governmental Organizations, or NGOs. While they do not have voting rights, they do have massive influence, particularly consultative status. More importantly, U.S. courts afford many of these groups legal standing to petition courts in environmental litigation.

In 1992, the U.N. Held a Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, commonly called the Earth Summit, or just Rio. The NGOs also held a Global Forum to garner a consensus on certain unresolved issues in implementing the requisite socio-political and economic change necessary to realize their goals.

While George Bush the senior signed the “soft law policy” requiring no congressional action, it was Bill Clinton that actually took the first steps to implement it. These documents presented a clear and present danger to free market capitalism, national sovereignty, representative democracy, and individual liberty.

The chief offender was Agenda 21, an 800 page working plan whose scope far exceeds mere environmental concerns; its 40 chapters details plans to reach a mirage goal of “sustainability.” What would occur under its provisions would be a massive transfer of wealth and intellectual property from the western democracies to third world dictatorships and a global end to economic prosperity.

The origin of the name, Agenda 21, has been thought by some to indicate this would be the U.N.'s signature program for the 21st Century. Indeed, this would follow the socialist's propensity for incrementalism, and the reality that such a sweeping plan would give the U.N. massive, one world governmental powers, including taxation. Agenda 21 has been an on-going project since at least 1989.

The development of the Rio summit resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which then spawned the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to control greenhouse gases.

The political objectives of the so-called environmental movement is blatantly evident in Kyoto. Here, egregious toxic polluters such as China and India are given only mild obligations while the United States in particular is called out as a major offender and threat to the survival of the planet.

However, controlling CO2 is only one small part of Agenda 21. Population and demographics modification, reducing demand by changing (consumer) consumption patterns, fighting poverty through massive transfers of wealth, promoting bio-diversity, creating sustainable human settlements, and direct intellectual property (technology) transfers, are all integral parts of this grandiose radical plan.

Yet, as implausible as Agenda 21 might sound, as much as the environmental Left might want to characterize those alarmed by it as conspiracy theorists, the goals of Agenda 21 can indeed be found deployed within a host of other far left issues:

Agenda 21 is therefore far more than a global plan to improve the natural environment, it is a socio-political plan to literally transform the world into a one world socialist state.

The Wildlands Project

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects ... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."- Dave Foreman, President Wildlands Project

At the time of the original Green Gun series, the Wildlands Project was a radical, well financed, and formally recognized organization dedicated to returning the entire North America continent to a near pre-Columbian state. Toward this objective, the project eschewed capitalism, looked to confiscating vast tracts of private land, and drastically reducing the human population. While the stated goals are the same, the organization has softened its image and renamed itself “The Wildlands Network.” The goals, however, remain unchanged.

The salient points of The Wildlands Project are:

  • Preserving biodiversity by creating “reserve networks” that would take a full 50% of the land mass of North America.

  • Reserve networks are subdivided into three land use classes:

    1. Core areas taken initially from national forests and park land.

    2. Buffer areas taken from private land adjacent to the cores and corridors.

    3. Corridors to link cores taken from public and private land.

  • Core areas are to be as large as possible, as measured in tens of millions of acres. Human activity within the core areas is forbidden.

  • Buffer areas permit only limited human activity so long as that activity “is managed with native biodiversity as a preeminent concern.”

  • Corridors would follow rivers and other wildlife migration routes.

As mad as this plan sounds, it is amazing to see just how many of its precepts have been adopted.

For example, one of the Wildlands Project’s “dream” objectives was to see large carnivores reintroduced back into the wild and, at full implementation, be able to “range from New Mexico to Alaska”.

The Federal Government placed gray wolves on the endangered species list in 1973, developed a relocation plan, further refined it over a ten year period, and despite considerable protest from effected citizens, began reestablishing the wolves into select areas in 1995. At this date, gray wolves have been reintroduced from New Mexico to Washington State.

There are even extant proposals to reintroduce wolves into the North East states, particularly the Adirondack area of New York. Experimental red wolf reintroductions have been made in North Carolina.

Once endangered species are reintroduced to an area, both land use and human activity become federally regulated. Accordingly environmentalists fight to keep even large populations on the endangered species list, resorting to law suits if necessary.

When then Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, proposed removing the gray wolf from the endangered list in 2004. This resulted in a suit by the National Wildlife Federation, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, Maine Wolf Coalition, Environmental Advocates of New York, and the Maine Audubon Society.

If NGO interference in internal state affairs were not enough, the United Nations has named natural or cultural locations throughout the U.S. as World Heritage Sites that have been deemed of such “universal value” that the entire globe has an interest in their preservation. Ironically, it was President Nixon that first proposed the heritage sites and it was the United States that first ratified the treaty.

Yellowstone Park (photo left) was designated by the U.N. as the first “endangered” Heritage Site in 1995 because of a proposed gold mine to be located just outside the park. The U.N. was invited in by the then Assistance Secretary of the Interior, George Frampton, and UNESCO representatives subsequently called for a buffer zone of 150 miles in diameter to be established around the entire park!

Yellowstone had not only been designated a World Heritage Site in 1978, it was also listed as one of 47 U.N. Biospheres Reserves during the 1980s. Interestingly enough, the biospheres are linked to the Wildlands Project.

The Biospheres Reserve Treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless, in 1990, the Federal Government, in concert with a number of environmental groups, attempted to use the U.N. Biospheres designation as an authority to implement the Wildlands Project by declaring an 18 million acre buffer zone around the park!

The mechanism for this was the Greater Yellowstone Vision Document. A massive cry of protest erupted from the states over which Yellowstone lays; Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

Eventually, the Federal Government backed away from the direct application of U.N. World Heritage Committee pressure. Then President Bill Clinton settled the issue by proposing a $65 million buy-out and congress appropriated the money in 1996 to acquire the site from Crown Butte Mines. However, the National Park Service continues to report to the U.N. World Heritage Committee.

In Part 7 we will examine the environmental arguments for Agenda 21 and the Wildlands Project : The Precautionary Principle and Deep Ecology.

Additional Information:

About the Author.....

Perry Hicks is the senior writer and Washington correspondent for GCN. He is a former Mississippi Coast resident and was a correspondent for the old Gulfport Star Journal. He has appeared on Fox News Channel. Perry has also hosted his own radio talk show on the auto industry with a mix of politics. Perry is a frequent contributor to GCN writing on stories of national importance with local interests. His articles can be found in the GCN Archive.

Contact the Author: arielsquarefour@hotmail.com

Welcome to GulfCoastNews.com