The EPA Changed the Way it Makes Scientific Decisions to "Sustainable"
In January 2012, the EPA announced it was "realigning its entire research enterprise around the concept of sustainability." The new initiative is titled, "The Path Forward." Agency scientists and managers agreed to base their process on "the widely used definition of sustainability as outlined by the Brundtland Commission in 1987..."
The 1987 Brundtland Commission report, also known as "Our Common Future," stated that the earth was in danger, there was too much poverty and industrialized nations like the US were the cause. According to Brundtland, the only way to protect earth was for powerful central authorites to control all of society, the economy and the environment in an initiative it coined as "sustainable development."
Union Founder's Words on Socialism
"Socialism has no place in the hearts of those who would secure the fight for freedom and secure democracy." Samuel Gompers 1918
Samuel Gompers was the founder and longest serving president of the American Federation of Labor. (AFL)
"Deja vu All Over Again?"
FDR won his first two terms by attacking the wealthy and pitting them against poor Americans. In 1932 he promised to "cut government operations by 25% and lower taxes", but did neither.
In 1936, he overwhelmingly won by raising taxes on the rich then redistributing the money to larger voting blocks in swing states using the WPA, Silver Purchase Act and the Agricultural Act.
By 1940, needing businesspeople to win the war, he called for unity among the same people he divided and won another decisive victory.
In 1944, FDR sidestepped laws prohibiting union money in elections by forming the nation's first Political Action Committee. This provided urban labor support. Fearing a backlash by Japanese prisoners if released from internment camps, he created an executive order to keep them imprisoned until 3 days after the elections. To gain the Polish American vote, FDR promised special treatment for Poland after the war. He won nearly 90% of their vote, and then betrayed the group by failing to offer the promised "self-determination" for Poland at the Yalta conference. Still, he won a fourth slim victory.
Upon his death, the NYT wrote, "Men will thank God on their knees 100 years from now FDR was in the White House."!
Between budget battles and elections, politicians and media supporters spin wildly to advance their own positions, leaving the public misinformed. In this column we will attempt to unravel some of the worst spins.
Worst Economy, I think!
In 2008, now Pres. Obama said "we are in the worst economy since the Great Depression."
During the Healthcare Summit and his 2010 State of the Union message, Pres. Obama declared the healthcare bill would cut the federal deficit.
Sustainable Development: What's in A Name?
By John Anthony
What could be more wholesome, than a term like sustainable development? Saving forests, protecting species and caring for future generations are worthwhile efforts.
Yet citizens across the nation are rejecting sustainable development plans. Local communities and even states are passing resolutions and laws that severely restrict sustainable development.
So, what is happening in America? Have we rejected environmental concerns, or, is there something else? The answer lies in the vocabulary.
To most people, sustainable development is loosely defined. It may mean healthy living, organic eating or energy-saving thermostat settings. To others it signifies responsible living, bundling trips to the store to save fuel or adding solar panels to cut electric bills and protect the environment.
While most people are content with their own definitions of sustainability, several organizations have a far more aggressive meaning with towering objectives in mind.
This second definition began in Vancouver on a chilly overcast afternoon in May of 1976. Thirty-six year old William K. Reilly was an American delegate to the UN conference.
Eleven days later, Reilly signed off on a rather unusual plan. The Vancouver Plan of Action held that private property was too valuable to remain in citizen's hands, that the wealth it created was socially unjust, and that developed countries needed to build human settlement zones rather than allow sprawling land use.
Several years later, the UN's Brundtland Commission rough-sketched the plan Reilly signed in a report titled, Our Common Future. It declared that social equity, environmental justice and economic prosperity could come together to create "sustainable development," if humans and property were managed properly.
The report coined the official definition of sustainable development as, "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
This broad slogan concealed a radical program of wealth transfer and acquisition of private property by public agencies formerly unseen in American history.
The Senate refused to approve the accompanying treaty, but three important events did happen:
The results are programs like the, HUD-EPA-DOT, Partnership for Sustainable Communities, EPA's Community Challenge Grant programs and the expansion of EPA authority under the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. Executive order 13575 gave all Agencies authority over our nation's rural lands and 13602 gave HUD the authority to bypass local and state governments to directly engage in community planning.
Groups like the American Planning Association and even local zoning boards often unknowingly allow the Brundtland version of sustainable development into their communities through Federal grants. Once a grant is accepted, the wording defines open spaces, Liveable Communities, urban lifestyles, social equity and even the number of vehicle miles that can be travelled for work and play.
Community by community, the plans are nearly identical. Rural expansion is discouraged, monies are allocated for urban living and private property regulated or consumed by land trusts and federal agencies. These are the very prescriptions described in the Vancouver Action Plan and agreed to by Mr. Reilly.
No, citizens are not against protecting the environment. They are rejecting an aggressive definition of sustainable development that, for 30 years has used socially friendly jargon and cherry-picked successes to capitalize on American's concerns for the environment; while replacing them with the confiscation of their wealth and freedoms. Sustainable Development: There is a great deal in a name.
Did You Know Online
Contact Us: DYKOTeam@gmail.com
Site designed by: 3AM Computing