Posts Tagged ‘United Nations’

Maurice Strong turns 80

August 18, 2009

Happy Birthday Maurice!

No one has done more to undermine the sovereignty of Canada than You!

maurice_strong_hires2

Maurice Strong: Godfather of the international environmental movement

The Green Agenda

Nancy Pelosi–conspirator in pearls – Delivering American sovereignty over to the United Nations

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant

Man is the Enemy!

The Green Agenda

The History of the Global Warming Scare

Cloak of Green

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Is Global Warming Man Made?

Understanding the Environmental Movement

Global Warming – Scam of the Century

Global Warming Exposing the Scam

Green Agenda Quotes

AL GORE, THE UNITED NATIONS,

Advertisements

Celebrate Canada Day

July 1, 2009
Celebrate Canada while it still Exists

Celebrate Canada While it Still Exists

Over the years the Lberals, Conservatives and the NDP have done everything in their power to undermine this Great Land.

Support for the NAU and SPP and the signing of international agreements with the UN have worked to weaken our sovereignty.

The time has come for every Canadian to roll up their sleeves and get to work, unless of course you no longer believe in your country. If that is the case, please leave.

Prime Minister Harper officially endorses North American Union!

(Signed by Paul Martin)

Ontario becomes a Fascist State

Canadian Federal Election -2008

Food Freedom ll

April 26, 2009

Plan to attend Food Freedom ll in Owen Sound on May 2nd.

Watch the video for details

Carbon Offsets for Dummies

January 4, 2009

The Carbon Credit Offset Scam Explained

I’ve been waiting for someone to make a video like this. This, is how much sense Al Gore’s Carbon Credit scam makes. Tom Nelson found it.

In the Do As I Say Cult, all that matters is that you feel good about yourself. They don’t seem to understand, a fart is a fart. And just because some other guy is paid not to fart in another country, it doesn’t cover up the fact that you farted here. (and probably a lot more than the normal person)

Fears winter death toll may rise

November 27, 2008

Editor: If you still think MMGW is a real and imminent danger – please give your head a shake. The warming cycle flat-lined in 1998 and we are now heading into a cooling cycle.

The global warming fear-mongers should be rounded up and jailed. The IPCC is a political body – not a scientific one.

If it were a scientific body, the IPCC would have been open to the input of the tens of thousands of scientists that are critiquing their conclusions.

Instead they refuse to accept any criticism or allow any debate on the subject. That refusal should set off alarm bells in the minds of all thinking people.

The IEA (International Energy Agency) via the UN wants to control and restrict the use of energy and through the IWRM (Integrated Water Resources Management) control and restrict the use of water.

They also want to control and restrict food via FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)

They already control the minds of the children via UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)


In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
.”

Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.


The enemy is not – global warming or C02 emissions – the real enemy is your govt., global corporations, the UN and their drive for total control over all commons, resources and people via the NWO.

.

Fears winter death toll may rise

Elderly man

The number of winter deaths rose last year

Fears are being raised there could be a jump in the winter death toll.

An Age Concern poll of 2,300 people found many over 60s were worried about being able to heat their homes because of soaring energy prices.

And with one of the coldest winters for some years predicted, the charity said the death toll could rise.

It comes after figures for England and Wales suggested there was a 7% jump in extra deaths last year despite a relatively mild winter.

The Office for National Statistics estimates said from December 2007 to March 2008 there were an extra 25,300 deaths in England and Wales compared to the average for non-winter months.

With this winter set to be colder than last, the numbers are likely to rise
Gordon Lishman, Age Concern

However, the figure was still some way short of the extra deaths seen in the winters of the late 1990s when death tolls nearly hit 50,000 as flu swept around the country.

Nonetheless, the country still has one of the highest rates of winter deaths – ahead of the likes of Finland and Denmark which generally have colder winters.

Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said this was a scandal.

He added: “With this winter set to be colder than last, the numbers are likely to rise. Pensioners are clearly more worried about staying warm and well this year.

“Yet, the impact of increased energy bills is causing thousands to risk their health by cutting back on heating.”

Full article BBC

Earth on course for eco 'crunch' -BBC World News

October 28, 2008

Editor: If you like bullshit you’ve got to love the WWF. They can churn it out faster than the average person can read it. And you have to love the BBC in the UK and the CBC in Canada. They take the bull and make sure it is spread far and wide.

Before you get to the story by the BBC read these excerpts from the Green Agenda There’s a coup taking place and most people don’t know it yet.

“A radical change from the current trajectory is required, a complete reordering of global society…”

“Humans only truly unite when faced with a powerful external enemy…”

“At this time a new enemy must be found, one either real or invented for the purpose…”

“Democracy has failed us, a new system of global governance, based on environmental imperatives, must be implemented quickly…”

Gaia, Global Warming, and Global Governance are intricately entwined, if one truly believes in Gaia, and that she is being fatally harmed by the current system, then a new system of global governance and control would appear to be the only answer. Global Warming provides the ideal ‘enemy’ to bring about this objective. It is easy for these global elitists to talk about sacrifice, wrenching transformation, population control and halving the use of fossil fuels but the implications are truely horrendous.

Even if you think this is all nonsense I would ask you to at least read these quotes and excerpts, and think about the implications of their agenda. Everyday I am amazed at how quickly things are changing. It is coming hard and fast. It’s almost like reading a book and then watching the television adaptation, except that this adaptation is not a movie – it’s on the evening news. As Al Gore said in the closing sentence of his statement after he won the Nobel Peace Prize … “This is just the beginning.”

When you look at the map below keep these quotes in mind

As David Rockefeller stated, “all we need is the right crisis”. Everything is now in place. They are just building momentum and waiting for the storm they know is coming. You don’t need to look in the shadows for the coming world government. It is standing right before your eyes. When they bring “order out of chaos” the United Nations will be transformed and the final global empire will be born.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?

Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

.

Earth on course for eco ‘crunch’

Beijing (AFP)

Reckless consumption comes at a high cost, the report warns

The planet is headed for an ecological “credit crunch”, according to a report issued by conservation groups.

The document contends that our demands on natural resources overreach what the Earth can sustain by almost a third.

The Living Planet Report is the work of WWF, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network.

It says that more than three quarters of the world’s population lives in countries where consumption levels are outstripping environmental renewal.

This makes them “ecological debtors”, meaning that they are drawing – and often overdrawing – on the agricultural land, forests, seas and resources of other countries to sustain them.

Infographic (BBC)
The map shows hectares’ worth consumed in goods and services

The report concludes that the reckless consumption of “natural capital” is endangering the world’s future prosperity, with clear economic impacts including high costs for food, water and energy.

Orangutan (AP)

“If our demands on the planet continue to increase at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we would need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles,” said WWF International director-general James Leape.

Full story at the BBC

Before you cast your vote spend some time at the Green Agenda Obama is there.

Shun meat, says UN climate chief

September 7, 2008

Editor:

Don’t sell you SUV just yet. According to IPCC cow farts and burps are a bigger threat to life on earth than vehicle emissions.

Global warming is a fabrication used as a means of control over you.

All the way through the story,the theme is for you to eat less meat.

In the end, Africa is to eat more meat.

Less gas? No.

More control over you by the UN is the goal.

SO……………………………………………… if you want a better world.

BAN THE GOD-DAMNED UN!

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Cow road sign

Livestock production has a bigger climate impact than transport, the UN believes

People should consider eating less meat as a way of combating global warming, says the UN’s top climate scientist.

Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will make the call at a speech in London on Monday evening.

UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.

But a spokeswoman for the UK’s National Farmers’ Union (NFU) said methane emissions from farms were declining.

People may not realise that changing what’s on their plate could have an even bigger effect
Joyce D’Silva
Compassion in World Farming

Dr Pachauri has just been re-appointed for a second six-year term as chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC, the body that collates and evaluates climate data for the world’s governments.

“The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions,” he told BBC News.

“So I want to highlight the fact that among options for mitigating climate change, changing diets is something one should consider.”

Climate of persuasion

The FAO figure of 18% includes greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle – clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman

Dr Pachauri has chaired the Nobel Prize-winning body since 2002

The contributions of the three main greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – are roughly equivalent, the FAO calculates.

Transport, by contrast, accounts for just 13% of humankind’s greenhouse gas footprint, according to the IPCC.

Dr Pachauri will be speaking at a meeting organised by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), whose main reason for suggesting people lower their consumption of meat is to reduce the number of animals in factory farms.

CIWF’s ambassador Joyce D’Silva said that thinking about climate change could spur people to change their habits.

“The climate change angle could be quite persuasive,” she said.

“Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realise that changing what’s on their plate could have an even bigger effect.”

Side benefits

Methane emissions from UK farms have fallen by 13% since 1990.

But the biggest source globally of carbon dioxide from meat production is land clearance, particularly of tropical forest, which is set to continue as long as demand for meat rises.

Ms D’Silva believes that governments negotiating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol ought to take these factors into account.

“I would like governments to set targets for reduction in meat production and consumption,” she said.

“That’s something that should probably happen at a global level as part of a negotiated climate change treaty, and it would be done fairly, so that people with little meat at the moment such as in sub-Saharan Africa would be able to eat more, and we in the west would eat less.”

Full load of bullshit can by found at the BBC

Nancy Pelosi–conspirator in pearls – Delivering American sovereignty over to the United Nations

August 17, 2008

Judi McLeod, Editor-Owner

Judi McLeod Canada Free Press.com and Toronto Free Pressfounding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 25 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard and the former Brampton Daily Times.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Queen of the Democrats Nancy Pelosi will deliver the sovereignty of her own country over to the United Nations. In fact, she’s been working on it since 1992.

An untold story, the 66-year-old’s Resolution 166 has been one of steadfast steps on a long road to stealthy success.

To understand her infinite patience in getting where she wanted to be, one must go back to the beginning.

“On August 5, 1992, Nancy Pelosi (CA) introduced a concurrent resolution in Congress (H.CON.RES. 353), saying that the United States of America should reform all domestic and foreign policy to adhere to the agreements of the Earth Summit, develop a national strategy to implement Agenda 21, and regularly report to the United Nations our progress on that path. (www.freedom21santacruz.net, Sept. 10, 2004).

Nancy Pelosi, Maurice Strong
“Undaunted by slow going in Congress, Nancy Pelosi returned to the
House floor on March 29, 1993 and introduced a joint resolution
(H.J.RES 166) to renew the call for the United States to “assume a
strong leadership role in implementing…Agenda 21 and other Earth Summit
agreements.” Pelosi eventually gathered 67 co-sponsors for her bill, 32
of whom are still in Congress.”

As freedom21santacruz.net writer Michael Park points out, researchers on the subject could content themselves that Pelosi’s fancy work got bogged down in subcommittee purgatory, but they would be wrong.

Pelosi’s revolutionary resolutions were picked up by an incoming President Bill Clinton, who on June 14, 1993, with only six months in office, signed an executive order establishing the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD)–which would carry out the exact functions called for in Pelosi’s earlier resolutions.

The fix was now in even though many average Americans knew nothing about it.

Were Republicans asleep at the switch when in a widely circulated White House press release, Clinton announced that the Council’s primary goals would be to:

. “Educate the public about the far-reaching opportunities in sustainable development”; “Recognize outstanding sustainable development achievements through an annual Presidential award,” among other things?

Courtesy of Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 policy recommendations filtered into every federal agency in America. Many of those agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), had their own representative in attendance at the Rio Earth Summit and were already acting upon Agenda 21, but this new source of support from the White House gave extra clout to their activities.

Anti-American, Canadian environmental guru Maurice Strong was the godfather of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Strong–who more than a decade later was to be driven off the radar screen when his alleged ties to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal became public–was the one-man force who pulled the wool over the world’s eyes with Agenda 21. At Rio, dubbed “the mother of all summits” while his occultist wife, Hanne was “tapping into Mother Earth’s energy”, hubby looked after the serious business of setting policy on sustainable development for the entire world. Hanne staged a three-week vigil with ‘Wisdomkeepers’, a group of “global transformationalists”. “Through round-the-clock sacred fire, drumbeat and meditation, the group helped hold the “energy pattern” for the duration of the summit.”

And if that sounds like the kind of bunk more befitting to fast-buck hucksters, very few among world leaders and the tens of thousands attending the summit blinked an eye.

We don’t know whether Madam Pelosi danced Hanne’s occultist dance, but she was unquestionably first off the mark in shepherding Agenda 21 through American Congress.

Continue reading article at CFP

Environmental Extremism must be put in its Place in the Climate Debate

January 11, 2008

United Nations and crusading celebrities are simply wrong

 Environmental extremism must be put in its place in the climate debate

By Dr. Tim Ball & Tom Harris  Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Earth Apollo 17 picture, NASAAll responsible citizens are ‘environmentalists’, but that is no reason to yield to mass delusions.

Many people are starting to realize that much of what they’ve been told about climate change by governments, the United Nations and crusading celebrities is simply wrong. Not surprisingly, the assertion that “the science is settled” in a field the public is coming to understand is both immature and quickly evolving, is triggering growing public skepticism.  Alarmists respond by upping the ante, making even more extreme and nonsensical forecasts, which in turn further fuels healthy public disbelief.
This pattern of exaggerated, and finally ludicrous assertions influencing debate in society is an old story. Extremists and extremism have always defined the limits for the majority. Climate extremism will increase in the near future as purveyors of politically correct but flawed views of climate change attempt to defend the indefensible.

Realization of this misdirection, and in many cases, deception, leads to the next stage in the life cycle of such mass delusions.  People begin to ask, “What is the motivation for the scare? How was society so easily misled? Why did so many otherwise intelligent people accept or even promote the scare?

In this and subsequent articles I (Dr. Ball) will suggest answers to these crucially important questions.

Like all philosophies that come to dominate society, climate hysteria is part of an evolution of ideas and needs an historical context.  The current western view of the World essentially evolved from the Darwinian view. Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.

A proper appreciation of time is essential to this discussion and the larger theme of climate change. Before Darwin, the English church accepted Bishop Ussher’s biblically-based calculation that the world was formed on October 23, 4004 BC. But Darwin needed a much older world to allow the sort of evolution he envisioned as driving natural change to occur. Religion said God created the world in 7 days; Darwin needed millions.

Sir Charles Lyell provided the answer in a book titled Principles of Geology, which Darwin took on his famous voyage to the Galapagos Islands. The combination of long time frames and slow development resulted in a philosophical view known as uniformitarianism.

If such a term sounds more appropriate to religion than science, that is because it is, in essence, another form of belief system. Uniformitarianism is the idea now underpinning western society’s view of the World. A basic tenet assumes change is gradual over long periods of time and any sudden or dramatic change is not natural. Employing a version of uniformitarianism adapted to their needs, environmental extremists can point to practically any change and say it is unnatural, which implies it is man-made.  But we know from modern science that natural changes can indeed be quite sudden and extreme – Professor Tim Patterson of Carleton University, in Ottawa pointed out last year in the Financial Post that “Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long “Younger Dryas” cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6 degrees C in a decade—100 times faster than the past century’s 0.6 degrees C warming that has so upset environmentalists.”  Happening as it did before the dawn of civilization, it was, of course, entirely natural.

Notice also another illogic inherent in the stance of the extremists. If humanity is not ‘natural’ then who are we and why are here? One obvious answer is we were put here by a greater being, a God.  But the entire essence of Darwin’s theory is that there is no God as Darwin was a professed atheist. This debate is actually part of the entire question of environmentalism and the misdirection discussed here. It is also part of today’s debate manifest in best selling books such as Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion”, or Christopher Hitchens’ “God is not Great.”  Dawkins talks almost as if he views Darwin as a God.

Historically, new views of the world take time to filter down and become part of the general fabric of society.  Even then, some people never buy in.  Over 400 years ago, Copernicus proposed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, yet even today polls in Europe showed a significant percentage of people still believe the Sun goes around the Earth as this seems to match the visual evidence.  But for most people it really doesn’t matter – as long as the Sun rises and sets they couldn’t care less. But Darwin’s theory had much greater implication for the average person. To put it in a silly way reflective of the fashion in which he was attacked at the time, Darwin effectively said there is no God and your great grandmother was a gorilla. Now he was talking to, and about, everybody in a personal way.

Science became more personal still with the advent of environmentalism, which began with a symbolic event, the usual agent of change. The famous Whole Earth photograph taken by U.S. Apollo 17 astronaut Ronald Evans part way to the Moon became symbolic and changed how we viewed our planet and our relation to it.  This image quickly became what anthropologists refer to as a catalytic symbol and was a major trigger that ushered in today’s environmental movement.

Apollo17, NASA
“In 1948, the British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle said, “Once a photograph of the Earth, taken from the outside is available…a new idea as powerful as any in history will be let loose.” U.S astronaut Ronald Evans’ well known Whole Earth photo is now considered by many to be the most important image of the twentieth century.  It has acted as a catalytic symbol helping change the way we think about our world.”

While previously the idea that the Earth was small and finite and we could run out of resources was a philosophical concept appreciated only by a few, now everyone could see the image of our planet floating in a vast and hostile universe. Ronald Evans’ photo showed up in classrooms, school texts and at environmental conferences everywhere and had massive impact on the average citizen’s perspective of humanity’s place in nature.

An entirely new worldview (at least for the bulk of society) developed, called environmentalism.  But, as with all new views, people wondered how far it would, or should, change society, how fast we should implement such changes and what we should preserve from the ‘old ways’. As usual, extremists are defining the limits. They inevitably take the ideas too far or too fast. Extremists also alienate people by assuming they’re the only ones who understand, often complaining that society is now losing more than we are gaining.

At the same time, extremists took on the title of environmentalists as if they were somehow special and the rest of us were not also concerned about, and involved in, environmental protection.  How dare they – we are all environmentalists. Yet extremists continue to imply that they care and we don’t and that we must do things their way or ‘else’.

For example, PR Newswire Association LLC (UK) cites the Washington DC based Center for Science and Public Policy (see link on Breitbart news page), “Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists [i.e. those who question whether human-produced carbon dioxide is causing a climate crisis]. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media.”

Environmental extremists have successfully applied intense emotional pressure – both moral and political – ‘you don’t care about the planet, the children, or the future if you question us’, let alone disagree, they assert. .

Complete text at CFP

AL GORE, THE UNITED NATIONS,

January 2, 2008
Editor:
The people who want to rule the world.
“Gore has written openly about the Earth having sacred qualities and he has praised primitive pagan religions and goddess worship”. Christians might not be amused. An interesting read.
AL GORE, THE UNITED NATIONS,
AND THE CULT OF GAIA (1999)
By Cliff Kincaid, President, America’s Survival, Inc.
                             www.USAsurvival.org
Executive Summary
    U.S. taxpayers are being forced to subsidize a new form of state religion which holds that natural resources have to be protected for the sake of Gaia, a so-called Earth spirit.  This religious movement, which has cult-like qualities, is being promoted by leading figures and organizations such as Vice President Albert Gore, broadcaster Ted Turner, and the United Nations.
    Gore, who as a member of the U.S. Senate participated in the 1992 U.N.-sponsored Earth Summit, is the most prominent member of what appears to be an environmental cult built around the concept of reverence for the Earth.  Gore has written openly about the Earth having sacred qualities and he has praised primitive pagan religions and goddess worship.
    Another key player is Ted Turner, who has turned his broadcasting empire into a virtual arm of the United Nations.  A noted critic of Christianity and ambassador on behalf of the U.N. Population Fund, he promotes the concept of Gaia in his television programs, such as the “Captain Planet” cartoon show, in which characters get magic powers from an Earth spirit or goddess.
    At the United Nations, the U.N. Environmental Program, founded by Maurice Strong, promotes the idea of an “Environmental Sabbath,” a variation of the Gaia concept.  Strong, now the Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform under Secretary-General Kofi Annan, has described the global environmental movement in terms suggesting a religious crusade.  One of Strong’s organizations, the Earth Council, has produced an “Earth Charter” for the world that refers to respect for “Mother Earth” and animal rights.
    As Turner’s involvement suggests, this Cult of Gaia has a definite anti-Christian orientation.  Traditional Christianity is regarded by this movement as anti-environmental because God is viewed as being apart from the Earth itself.
    Those promoting the Gaia concept have no qualms about using the full force of government, even the international resources of the United Nations, to impose their beliefs on the rest of us.  If they are successful in their drive for “sustainable development” to protect Gaia, they could stifle economic growth and promote a drastic decline in the American standard of living.
    Congressional hearings are urgently needed to explore whether forced U.S. taxpayer underwriting of this bizarre religious movement constitutes a violation of the First Amendment prohibition on the establishment of a state church.
Planetary Brain
    The nation was shocked when 39 members of the Heaven’s Gate cult killed themselves.  It was the largest mass suicide in U.S. history.  But are there other cults active behind-the-scenes of world events?  And might they be occupying positions of power at the national and international levels?  The answers, upon analysis and reflection, are very disturbing.  There appears to be a high-level movement with very strange spiritual beliefs operating in the upper echelons of the U.S. Government, the United Nations and the global media.
    These people believe in Gaia — an “Earth spirit,” goddess or planetary brain — and they think that human beings can have mystical experiences or a spiritual relationship with this entity.  In order to protect Gaia, in their view, the U.S. and other industrial countries have to be prohibited from certain uses of the world’s natural resources.  This is called “sustainable development.”
    In general and secular terms, this cult, which combines aspects of the animal rights and radical environmentalist movements, holds that human beings are exploiting the Earth and other living creatures for selfish purposes.
Congressional Concern
    But the religious overtones of this movement are too obvious to ignore.  Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) has described this phenomenon as “environmental religion” and says that it has “profound constitutional implications” because of the First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion.  Columnist Alston Chase, a reformed environmentalist, agrees, warning that “It may be only a matter of time before America becomes a complete theocracy — a place where, in the name of environmentalism, science and religion fuse with civil authority to rule the populace.”1

Dr. Michael S. Coffman, president of Environmental Perspectives, says, “They are instituting a new state religion.”  But it is a religion at sharp variance with the Judeo-Christian foundations of the American constitutional republic.  A document mandated by the U.N.-sponsored Convention on Biological Diversity, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, explicitly refers to Christianity as a faith that has set humans “apart from nature,” a process in which nature has “lost its sacred qualities.”  The document states:

Conversion to Christianity has therefore meant an abandonment of an affinity with the natural world for many forest dwellers, peasants, fishers all over the world…The northeastern hilly states of India bordering China and Myanmar supported small scale, largely autonomous shifting cultivator societies [until the] 1950’s.  These people followed their own religious traditions that included setting part between 10% and 30% of the landscape as sacred groves and ponds.2 
On the other hand, this U.N. document asserts that the eastern religious traditions such as Buddhism and Hinduism “did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements.”  Thus, the U.N. favors non-Christian religions as faithful stewards of the Earth.
    In fact, the key difference between Christianity and these Eastern religions is the role played by Jesus Christ.  Christianity holds that there is a gulf between God and man that is breached by Christ.  Christianity teaches that man is distant from and radically different than God, and that atonement or mediation is achieved through Christ, who rose from the dead.
    By contrast, the philosophy of Gaia holds that nature is God, and that by experiencing or even worshipping nature, humans can attain oneness with God.  Some followers of Gaia believe that humans, after death, are reincarnated into non-human forms.
Secret Agenda
    This decidedly unscientific, even bizarre, view of the environment appears to be driving U.S. and U.N. environmental policies, including locking up or restricting development on huge areas of U.S. lands, and making it more expensive to produce or use our natural resources.  Science, technology and industrial development are regarded as anathema to the followers of the Gaia philosophy.

Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, who is recognized as the driving force behind the administration’s environmental agenda, the American people have witnessed rather extraordinary actions designed to stop economic development.  First, Clinton complied with U.N. demands to cancel a mining project outside Yellowstone Park.  The mining complex, which would have produced gold and copper, was planned to operate for 12 years and would have employed approximately 175 individuals on a year-round basis.

Clinton then designated 1.7 million acres of land in southwest Utah as a national monument, placing it off limits to development.  This area reportedly contains billions of barrels of oil, minerals and tens of billions of tons of low sulfur clean-burning coal.  It could have produced thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue for the state and federal governments.

American “energy independence,” once a realistic policy option, looks increasingly like a pipe dream.  U.S. Department of Energy figures show U.S. dependence on foreign oil rising from 50 to 80 percent by the year 2010.  This makes the U.S. vulnerable to the actions of foreign countries, some of them openly hostile, laying the groundwork for another Persian Gulf-type war.

International trade has been another factor driving up U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  It is also a source of the pollution that the environmentalists claim to be concerned about.

In this context, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been established to assist in the expansion of international trade while James Gustave Speth, administrator of the U.N. Development Program, has endorsed the concept of a World Environmental Organization (WEO) under U.N. auspices to regulate such trade.  Speth sees the WTO as a stepping stone to his WEO.  Thus, “free trade,” conducted under the management of the WTO, will lay the groundwork for the WEO to regulate it for environmental purposes.  This is the U.N. plan as Speth sees it.  Top U.N. official Maurice Strong reportedly agrees with this scenario.

Climate Change Treaty
    With international trade and energy use rising, another U.N. initiative, a global climate change treaty, takes on more urgency.  A major U.N. campaign is underway to impose further restrictions on the use of fossil fuels in some industrial countries to fight the “global warming” that is said to result.  The U.N. is sponsoring a December meeting in Kyoto, Japan, where a new treaty is expected to be hammered out.
    Here, too, a preoccupation with Gaia seems to be driving some of the concern.  Dr. Stephen H. Schneider, a climatologist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, cites the Gaia theory several times in his own book on global warming, asking “…is there a Goddess of the Earth?”  He adds, “This is not a fanciful question, but one that has spurred a major debate over what has been called the Gaia hypothesis.”
    Schneider, whose book included endorsements from then-Senator Al Gore and then-Senator Tim Wirth (now Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs), didn’t come to any firm conclusions.  However, he argued that even if the planet is a self-regulating organism, as the Gaia concept suggests, this force alone will not be sufficient to immediately negate the impact of humans on the environment and that human activity will, therefore, have to be restrained in some way.3
    In other words, the industrial and economic activities of human beings will still have to be controlled for the benefit of Gaia.  By whom?  The United Nations, working in tandem with federal agencies and commissions.
    However, a key problem with the proposed climate change treaty is the decision which has already been made by the Clinton administration to allow so-called developing countries such as Communist China to escape limits on the discharge of the so-called “greenhouse gasses” which are blamed for global warming.  Will the U.S. Senate approve such a treaty?
Spiritual Awareness
    Membership in what can be termed the Cult of Gaia should be understood in a loose sense because there is no evidence that Gore, Strong and others belong to a formal organization.  Moreover, this movement is not a cult in the sense that there is one strong central human figure or leader.  But a cult can also suggest the experience of a form of “awakening” which drives a person to have a fanatical devotion to a cause.
    William D. Dinges, associate professor of religion and religious education at The Catholic University of America, points out that, in the case of the Heaven’s Gate group, it was “composed of people who assume they have some knowledge of something not available to others.”  They thought they had inside information about the nature of life on Earth and the end of the world.
    Those involved in the Cult of Gaia have a similar mentality.  They believe in a form of spiritual planetary consciousness.  In their minds, it is no less spiritual than the “born-again” experience of some Christians.  However, some Christians believe that what followers of Gaia are experiencing is actually a “demonic” spirit.4
    On the liberal-left side of the political spectrum, devotion or even worship of Gaia is becoming more popular.  In their book, Spiritual Politics, Corrine McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson write:
God Imminent, the Divinity within all life, is today becoming more widely recognized in the new spiritual, ecological, and feminist movements that are working to empower the individual, support human rights, and honor the sacredness of the Earth as Gaia, the ancient Mother Goddess.5
In the book, which is endorsed by Noel Brown of the U.N. Environmental Program, McLaughlin and Davidson write about the Meditation Room in U.N. headquarters, describing it as “the focus for the energies of a unified planet and humanity, and for right relations among all kingdoms of life.”  Critics describe this room as a “pagan temple.”  However, it is not known for sure if Gaia worship takes place there.
    The ties between feminism and ecology have been noted by Russell Chandler, former religion writer for The Los Angeles Times, who explains:
Nature-based religion, particularly that of the Goddess of Wicca (or “witchcraft”) is strong within the New Age strand often referred to as “eco-feminism.”6

www.USAsurvival.org