This is no joke I have been to some of their planning sessions in Ohio the vibrant2040 program which is being implemented as we speak!
Category WEF The Great Reset
Elitists Are on Record for 95% of the Population to be Eliminated
What is talked about here is the underlining purpose of UN Agenda 21, and sustainability. The process is to gain control of all of the worlds population through any means and eliminate all but 500 million to maybe on the outside 1 billion people. This is fact as can be derived by reading between the lines of just about everything that is published even the IPCC climate projections are really projects based on the number of people. The elitists fear the people not the CO2.
It’s Not Fearmongering or a Conspiracy Theory when Elitists Are on Record for 95% of the Population to be Eliminated
Re-Posted from Freedom Outpost Dean Garrison August 9, 2014
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” -Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund
Recently, we have posted a couple of articles at D.C. Clothesline that question the narrative of the current Ebola outbreak. D.C. Clothesline is not just a news site but a site that explores the world of conspiracy and embraces the truth movement.
The problem with looking at conspiracies is that often times, people immediately disregard them. You can tell people things like, “please just look at this video,” or “please just read this article,” and it really does not matter.
People are busy and your conspiracy is not their main priority. If they are not busy they are simply just too lazy or closed-minded.
So today, rather than tell you why you should believe anything about a possible Ebola conspiracy, I just want to show you some quotes from very famous people both past and present. If the words of these people do not prove to you that the elite of the world are looking for a way to reduce our population, then nothing likely will.
Before you can believe that Ebola, or any other virus, might be used in such a way, you must first understand that there are lots of people out there who would like to see billions of the world’s inhabitants dead.
Ever heard of a guy named Bill Gates?
Bill Gates is what many call a eugenicist, but he is not alone and is surrounded by lots of famous people and organizations worldwide:
“Since its inception, the U.N. has advanced a world-wide program of population control, scientific human breeding, and Darwinism.” -Claire Chambers, The SIECUS Circle: A Humanist Revolution.
“The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.” -Eco-92 Earth Charter
“The United Nation’s goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control of human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day.” -Jacques Cousteau
“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” -David Brower, Executive Director of The Sierra Club
“If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises.” -Earth First!
“At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars… War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective.
If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it?” -Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” -Ted Turner, CNN founder and supporter of UN
“There are many ways to make the death rate increase.” -Robert McNamara, New Solidarity, March 30, 1981
Meet John Holdren, Barack Obama’s Science Advisor
If you don’t think this administration is in favor of population control, then maybe Holdren’s words will convince you.
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” -John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.” -John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.” -John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.” -John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.” -John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” -John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.” -John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” -John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated.” -John P. Holdren, Obama’s science advisor, Ecoscience 1977.
A few more from various sources:
“The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” -Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.” -Jacques Cousteau, 1991 explorer and UNESCO courier
“I believe that human overpopulation is the fundamental problem on Earth Today” [and] “We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.” -Dave Foreman, Sierra Club, co-founder of Earth First!
“We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” -Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood
“MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE” -Anonymously commissioned Georgia Guidestones
“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind” -Theodore Roosevelt
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal” -Ted Turner, founder of CNN.
“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” -The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, p. 60, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz
“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” -David Rockefeller, Banker, Honorary director of Council on Foreign Relations, honorary chairman of Bilderberg Group & founder of Trilateral Commission. Member of Bohemian Club, praising Chairman Mao, whose policies killed at least 30 million people.
“War and famine would not do. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. AIDS is not an efficient killer because it is too slow. My favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. “We’ve got airborne diseases with 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that. “You know, the bird flu’s good, too. For everyone who survives, he will have to bury nine.” -Dr. Eric Pianka
If you throw these people and organizations into the mix, you might understand that there really are those who are evil enough to try to exterminate a large part of the world population.
Is that what Ebola is here for?
I don’t know. I am simply a truth seeker who likes to look at all angles.
But if you don’t realize that there really are people out there who want to exterminate 85% (or more) of the world’s population then you might not even bother to look. You might dismiss it all as conspiracy.
Agenda 21 is real. It is disguised in many clever ways such as women’s rights and environmental responsibility. In the end it is really about a bunch of elites who do not believe in God and have chosen to try to take His place. They think they know what is best for you. You belong to a subspecies. And most of that subspecies needs to be eliminated.
That is how these people think.
That is the truth and, just so you know, I could have listed hundreds more.
We really aren’t the crazed, conspiracy theorists that you might think, at least not all of us. Many of us, like myself, have just decided to do research that most are unwilling to do.
Source
The Elite’s Flawed Depopulation Agenda Is Quickly Morphing Into Genocide
This is the core of UN Agenda 21 they think that they need to get rid of a lot (billions) of people to save the planet!
Agenda 21, Illegal Immigration & IRS Scandals — Debbie Bacigalupi & Congressman Doug LaMalfa
This is UN Agenda 21 they are moving everyone back to the cities, I live in Cleveland Ohio and I have attended the planing meetings of NEOSCC and and their plan VIBRANT NEO 2040 is to have it done by 20401
Common Core rewrites American History for High School
U.S. history takes drastic left turn this fall AP course ‘rewrites America’s past, cuts out Founding Fathers’
Re-Posted from WND by John Aman is a writer and communications consultant August 3, 2014
High-school history teachers nationwide will give their top students a dark retelling of U.S. history this fall, courtesy of the College Board, a nonprofit college readiness firm led by Common Core architect David Coleman.
The College Board – which administers AP (advanced placement) courses and tests – is rolling out a revised curriculum framework for AP U.S. history, offering the 450,000 students who take AP U.S. history classes a hero-free account of America’s deeply stained past.
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, calls the new AP U.S. history framework “a briefing document on progressive and leftist views of the American past,” one which “weaves together a vaguely Marxist or at least materialist reading of the key events with the whole litany of identity group grievances.”
Conservative author Stanley Kurtz asserts the College Board is “pushing U.S. history as far to the left as it can get away with at the high-school level.”
The new 124-page history curriculum is a dramatic departure from the five-page outline previously supplied by the College Board to guide AP U.S. history instructors. A much more detailed “history from below,” it focuses on how native Indians and Africans suffered at the hands of Europeans in the New World.
Founding Fathers omitted
It deletes the Pilgrims, John Winthrop, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexis de Tocqueville, Abraham Lincoln and other long-celebrated figures central to America’s founding and growth.
In their place, America’s future leaders are given a warts-only take on America’s past that casts European settlers as villains. These Europeans disrupted ecologically balanced native American society, bringing “widespread deadly epidemics,” a “caste system,” resource exploitation and slavery. The Europeans’ “belief in white superiority” was used, the framework declares, “to justify their subjugation of Africans and American Indians.”
Things got worse with the British. Instead of establishing a “city upon a hill,” as generations of students have been told, they are cast as bigots beholden to a “rigid racial hierarchy,” indicated by their failure to intermarry with native populations or Africans (John Rolfe and Pocahontas, notwithstanding).
The framework gives the father of the country, George Washington, a quick, passing nod, and the founding document, the Declaration of Independence, merits two brief mentions.
Meanwhile, Manifest Destiny was “built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority.” The framework omits black leaders like W.E. DuBois but asserts “prominent racist and nativist theories, along with Supreme Court decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson, were used to justify violence as well as local and national policies of discrimination and segregation.”
The document’s treatment of the New Deal echoes Democratic Party tributes, asserting that President Franklin Roosevelt’s Depression-era programs used “government power to provide relief to the poor, stimulate recovery, and reform the American economy.”
America’s central role in defeating Nazi Germany and Japan rescued much of the globe from a long night of tyranny, but the frameworks include no mention of the sacrifice of America’s “Greatest Generation.” Instead, the new College Board history curriculum announces that “the internment of Japanese Americans, challenges to civil liberties, debates over race and segregation, and the decision to drop the atomic bomb raised questions about American values.”
Read the No. 1 book “America” by Dinesh D’Souza, and see the many offerings on the most powerful nation ever, from “Armed America” and “Ameritopia” to “Pat Boone’s America 50 Years.”
Larry Krieger, who has taught U.S. history for 35 years and written numerous widely popular AP and SAT exam prep books, said he reacted with shock and dismay when he read the framework earlier this year.
“It’s relentless left-wing indoctrination,” he said, calling it “antithetical to everything that I believe about teaching and our country’s history.”
Leftist bias, poorly written
“Leaving aside its very leftist bias, it is a very poorly written, unprofessional document,” said Krieger, adding he found it “boring” and “dispiriting.”
Lincoln_Memorial
It’s also an anonymous document. While the College Board convened two committees composed of 27 college professors and teachers to oversee the new curriculum, the actual author or authors and the process used to produce it are unknown.
The framework is one of 34 AP courses that are being revised under the leadership of College Board president and CEO David Coleman, who arrived at the organization in 2012.
“When they hired David Coleman, the chief architect of Common Core, they effectively politicized the College Board,” Krieger asserted. “The first thing he did was to yoke the SAT to Common Core, and now we’re going to apply Common Core principles to AP courses.”
The College Board denies that Common Core elements have made their way into its new AP U.S. history curriculum, but College Board executive Lawrence Charap indicated otherwise in May. Charap, who leads the College Board’s History and Social Sciences Content Development Group, told a gathering of the Organization of American Historians that his boss, David Coleman, is implementing the Common Core approach in both the AP and SAT exams, according to a report from Mary Graybar, an English professor and Common Core critic who attended the conference.
Formed in 1900, the College Board is a deep-pocketed association of more than 6,000 educational institutions. It took in $759 million in fiscal year 2012 and reported a surplus of $45 million. Funding sources include the federal government, the Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The organization has headquarters in Manhattan and Reston, Virginia, with six regional offices around the nation. It says its mission is to promote “excellence and equity in education.”
‘Curricular coup’
Krieger calls the new framework a “curricular coup” that shoves aside state-mandated history guidelines in favor of the new College Board curriculum.
Jane Robbins, an attorney who joined Krieger in a sharp critique of the new curriculum framework published this spring, said the framework is a radical departure from the state history standards they have reviewed.
“I would venture to guess it’s different from all states,” she said.
Krieger and Robbins report that a College Board-commissioned analysis turned up 181 specific elements required in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills are missing from the new College Board history curriculum. Another study found that 134 elements required in the Alabama Standards for U.S. History were not in the framework.
George_Washington_Brit_foe
The College Board’s new history curriculum for AP students “does commandeer how history is taught,” said Robbins, a senior fellow at the American Principles Project.
Instead of following state-mandated history guidelines, AP history instructors will “teach to the test” to ensure that students do well on the AP U.S. history exam. Good AP test scores can enable students to skip college history survey courses or jump ahead to take more advanced courses.
Teachers “can’t really focus on state standards,” she explained, “because that is a whole different body of knowledge, in most cases, so the AP course therefore will replace the history standards.”
And the impact of the new curriculum will go beyond AP classes, Robbins said, since most AP history instructors teach other students as well.
“It’s very likely that whatever is taught in the AP class is going to be taught to some extent in the other history classes,” she stated.
“So this is actually a quite effective way of changing what’s taught in history classes all over the country, in both public schools and private schools.”
It’s also being done without much public scrutiny. The College Board posted its new framework on its website in 2012, but for unclear reasons that did not generate much reaction until this spring when Robbins and Krieger published their critique.
The College Board is also keeping its sample AP U.S. history exam for the new framework a tightly guarded secret. The sample test is provided only to certified AP U.S. history teachers who face the loss of the AP teaching credentials – a severe, career-busting consequence – if they disclose test questions.
Teachers around the nation have contacted Krieger to vent their concern, telling him, he said: “I don’t like this. This is wrong. Can you help?”
At the same time, teachers are “very afraid of repercussions for speaking out.” They fear, Krieger said, negative consequences from either the College Board or their local school system.
One teacher who attended a gathering of some 1,000 AP exam “readers” – those who read and evaluate student AP exam essays – told Krieger 90 percent of teachers there either detested the new framework or viewed it with skepticism.
The College Board did not respond to interview requests from WND but claims in the framework document that teachers have “flexibility” to teach relevant history topics outside the prescribed curriculum. However, the framework also emphatically states that the new AP U.S. history exam will be limited to information in the framework.
In boldface and underlined text, the College Board states: “Beginning with the May 2015 AP U.S. History Exams, no AP U.S. History Exam question will require students to know historical content that falls outside this concept outline.”
Attempt to derail framework
Krieger and Robbins are working to derail the framework’s implementation, alerting parents and legislators about the College Board’s new history. One pivotal battlefront is Texas, where state school board member Ken Mercer wants the College Board to postpone the implementation of the framework in his state for one year. He and another school board member have said they will push for a rule that requires AP classes to conform to Texas history standards.
Texas is one of the College Board’s largest customers. Mercer told WND that some 46,000 Texas high schoolers take AP U.S. history classes, more than 10 percent of the roughly 450,000 students that will be taking the class nationwide this fall. College Board President David Coleman and others executives from the AP firm have spoken with Mercer to allay his concern but Mercer remains opposed to the new framework.
He blasted the new framework as a “rewrite of American history.” “It’s so negative that only America haters like former Illinois professor Bill Ayers would like this.”
Mercer decried the glaring absence of uplifting aspects of the U.S. civil rights struggle, including the Gettysburg Address, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, the Tuskegee Institute, the Navajo code talkers and the election of Barack Obama.
“If you look at the lessons on civil rights, Martin Luther King is nowhere to be found. How can that be?”
Mercer also charged that the College Board is “usurping the authority of the states’ boards of education and the state legislatures” with the implementation of the new framework.
“I don’t believe there is any elected board in the nation that could pass what they have,” said Mercer. “These are unelected people who don’t have to stand before my constituents, and they’re taking the power away from the state board and state legislature in all 50 legislatures.”
The Texas school board won’t consider a new rule to force AP history instruction to follow state standards until it meets in September, by which time instructors will already be teaching the new curriculum across Texas.
Concerned Texans spoke out against the new AP U.S. history curriculum at a July 18 meeting of the Texas school board. Mary Bowen, a Texas teacher with 30 years of instructional experience told the board, “If parents up and down the neighborhoods knew that this is what would be taught to their children they would be rising up in droves against it.”
‘Not the story of dead, white men’
The College Board’s Debbie Pennington testified as well, assuring the board that the new framework leaves ample room for the state history standards.
“This is designed so state standards can be integrated. It’s not on its own. It’s supposed to work in partnership with you to get what you need.”
Pennington also gave insight into the College Board’s approach to U.S. history, asserting history “can be fuzzy in a lot of different places.”
“You’ve got to remember, this is not the story of dead, white men as taught by almost dead, white men,” she said, citing the words of a mentor. “There were other people there, too, and you’ve got to give room for that flexibility, you’ve got to give room for that flavor and a true understanding of all those issues.”
That view of U.S. history – especially as it is presented in the new AP U.S. history framework – “is designed to create a cynical generation,” Robbins countered.
“Cynicism does not coexist very well with pride in one’s country and the belief that this country can accomplish great things. So, to me, it’s very disturbing. It’s not just that it leaves [students] without some of the factual foundation they need to have but it really does create a different mindset that is going to makes them skeptical of any real belief in the country, that we are exceptional that we have something to offer the rest of the world.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/u-s-history-takes-drastic-left-turn-this-fall/#IJUMU234wdqwlTRx.99
The Nemesis of Agenda21
UN Agenda 21 is the core driver of almost all that is wrong in the world today, learn what it is and what it means and you will not what what it is bringing!
By Alan Caruba ~
Watching left-wing organizations lose their wits denouncing conservatives is always fun and particularly if you know one of their targets. In my case, that would be Tom DeWeese, the founder and president of the American Policy Center; the most expert and outspoken opponent of Agenda21 in the nation.
In the early 1990s I sent him a commentary and he published it in The DeWeese Report, a publication of the Center, and thereafter I served as the Center’s communications director for a while. These days I am on its board of advisors.
He is a patriot and he lives his love for America by devoting himself to educating people to the dangers of the United Nations Agenda 21 with its emphasis on “sustainable development” and a range of issues involving ill-conceived environmental policies and programs, the importance of private property rights, the threat of federal computer…
View original post 567 more words
Diving into the Deeps of Decarbonization
Their true colors come out! This logic came out of the UN agenda 21 initiative passed in Rio-de-Janeiro in 1992 which when one reads, along with all the rest of the ‘propaganda,’ one sees that the REAL purpose behind all of this is a major reduction in population. What is really meant by ‘sustainable’ is a world with less than one billion people powered by solar and wind which is the maxim that they think those forms of generating energy will support. Their population estimated are probably off as its more like a lot less than one billion.
What Started Us Down the Path of Destruction to Our Constitution?
I am in the final stages of publishing a book exposing the false claims that mankind is destroying the planet by the use of fossil fuels i.e. coal, oil and natural gas. The lies that have been told on this subject put the lies of Hitler and Goebbels into the league of rank amateurs. But like those two infamous Politicians those Politicians today that practice those same arts of lies and deceit have the same motives in mind; absolute power over the people.
When I became a Green Beret one of the things I was taught as an officer, besides the arts of war, was how to bring down a government for that was our original mission. So today when I see what is being done in America I see that there are those that are doing what I was taught to do. The only way to counter that is with the truth and that is the purpose of this blog as I stated in my About section.
The wedge that those that desire “power” are using against us is “CLIMATE CHANGE” that we are told is caused by too many people and using too much energy therefore we are not sustainable. The truth is that the climate has always changed and that there isn’t enough carbon based fuels on the planet to do what they claim will happen. The original projections of doom and gloom have continued to be pushed into the future as we reach points in time where the disasters were to happen and they were not there. The latest IPCC assessment AR5 does this again. So what follows is a section from the introduction of the book I am written to destroy this travesty against our way of life.
The belief that CO2 is causing climate change on the planet by raising the planet’s temperature came primarily from the late 1960’s. The belief was that the increased temperatures, from CO2, would then change the world’s climate patterns which would then result in the melting of the world’s glaciers, increased storms and probably loss of valuable crop lands by rising sea levels. The implied result on the world’s civilizations will be catastrophic and therefore there will be a significant loss of life from both the climate change and the probable wars that will be fought over dwindling resources.
To prevent this from happening the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm from 5 to 16 June 1972, made a statement part of which is, “… having considered the need for a common outlook and for common principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment …” and then they established a set of principles and an international forum, the first of which was held in Rio de Janiero in June 1992 and then later Kyoto in 1997 where goals for a reduction in the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels primarily from petroleum, coal and natural gas were agreed to by the parties. Efforts to date have been totally unsuccessful and the CO2 levels have now reached 400 ppm and the rate of growth is increasing at an accelerating rate that is currently above ~2 ppm per year.
The first major program to began the task of changing how the entire world would adapt to the “required” reductions in Carbon Dioxide was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth-Summit), held in Rio-de-Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called UN Agenda 21. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference. Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections that was published in book form the following year:
Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
Section IV: Means of Implementation: implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.
The goal of UN Agenda 21 is to create a world economic system that equalizes world incomes and standards of living and at the same time reduces Carbon Dioxide levels back to the levels that existed prior to the industrial age of ~300 ppm. We are now at 400 ppm and growing at a geometrically increasing rate now a bit over 2 ppm per year and at that rate we will reach 500 ppm in 2050 at which point the UN Climate models and there spokespersons Al Gore and James Hansen say we will have an ecological and economic disaster that is irreversible.
There are only two ways to achieve this reduction back to their ideal ~300 ppm and they are not mutual exclusive. One is to reduce the world’s population and the other is to either reduce energy consumption or make a switch to non carbon burning fuels such as solar PV or wind turbines. Agenda 21 is the driver for all the sustainability programs that are being implemented at this time in the United States and the European Union; which mean that if the belief that Carbon Dioxide is the ultimate reason for changes in global climate is not true, that untold trillions of dollars and massive economic restructuring would be unwarranted.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) we are using about 500 Quad of energy world wide right now of which maybe 15% is classed as sustainable, and there are estimated to be 7.0 billion people on the planet. That means that 425 Quad of energy usage is not sustainable and the world’s population could reach 9.0 billion by 2050. By then we would be using 900 Quad of energy at current growth trends of which probably 650 Quad will not be sustainable if nothing major changes. The goal of Agenda 21 is therefore to find ways to reduce the number of people or significantly reduce how much energy they use. Carbon taxes and the redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries are the means to achieve this but there are no engineers on the planet that would say it would be possible to produce 650 Quad of sustainable generating capacity in 35 years (335% more than now), especially since no real effort has yet been made. And some of the “sustainable” categories are mutually exclusive e.g. growing plants for ethanol verses food.
To put this in perspective if we could make 250 Quad of reliable sustainable generating capacity annually that would mean that we could not have more than 1 billion people (actually the goal seems to be about half of that) on the planet and even those would not be able to live as well as we in the US do now. Prior to the 2008 financial collapse the US used about 100 Quad and had 300 million people. If the goal is 250 quad and 1 billion people that would mean a 25% reduction in the standard of living for all the advanced socialites. Since this is what is “required” to achieve the stated goals of preventing 500 ppm from happening it’s very obvious that there is a major problem brewing.
How did all this negativism about our future come about? Well actually it started in 1798 when Thomas Robert Malthus (b-1766 to d-1834) who was a cleric in the Church of England and a famous Classical English economist published his An Essay on the Principle of Population. This work and understanding it is critical to understanding our current situation. From Wikipedia we have the following. Malthus argued in his Essay (1798) that population growth generally expanded in times and in regions of plenty until the size of the population relative to the primary resources caused distress:
“Yet in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition”.
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter II, p 18 in Oxford World’s Classics reprint.
Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy. In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery (e.g., hunger, disease, and war) would inevitably afflict society, as would volatile economic cycles. On the other hand, “preventive checks” to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability. Malthus also argued against a variety of imaginable solutions, such as the notion that agricultural improvements could expand without limit and that would also prevent this from happening.
Of the relationship between population and economics, Malthus wrote that when the population of laborers grows faster than the production of food, real wages fall because the growing population causes the cost of living (i.e., the cost of food) to go up. Difficulties of raising a family eventually reduce the rate of population growth, until the falling population again leads to higher real wages. In the second and subsequent editions Malthus put more emphasis on moral restraint as the best means of easing the poverty of the lower classes.
Despite facts to the contrary as science found ways to provide more food from less land, the limitation of the world’s population has been the goal of many thinkers ever since. Today that view started by Malthus is promoted by the Club of Rome which was founded in 1968 about the same time as all the other like organizations started. From this group and others like it a one world government has been promoted which would be run by the world’s intellectual elites and they would limit growth and population to achieve a level that they believe is sustainable.
There are many scientists in the world that do not agree with the conclusions of the IPCC, not necessarily from bad science but from a lack of sufficient knowledge of all the relevant variables and the lack of computers of a sufficient capability to properly process the number of equations that would be required. Many of these scientists also believe that the world’s temperature is primarily controlled by other factors than CO2. The problem has been showing a provable theory based on science and physics on how this might occur and how could this alternative explanation be used to predict future global temperatures.
In this book we will show that properly constructed mathematical modeling can be used to predict world temperature with significantly greater accuracy than the IPCC computer models. The reason that the model proposed here is more accurate is that it is based on past changes in temperatures that have been observed and have documented patterns and those patterns have a reoccurring cycle. When those patterns are broken down into their simplest from and then properly modeled and plotted into the future it is found that the resultant model’s predictions match very closely with the observed world temperatures as published monthly by NASA.
DOJ Inspector General Releases Damning Results of FISA Application Review and Missing Woods Procedures, But Don’t Expect Any Accountability – Remember Mary McCord Was Prepositioned
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on September 30, 2021 | Sundance | 13 Comments
The DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG) has released a review of FISA applications used to gain Title-1 surveillance warrants against U.S. persons. [LINK HERE] The review specifically looks at the earlier issues identified in ‘Woods Files‘ that are legally required to be present in any FISA application and contain the material evidence to support the secret application to the secret court.
The ‘Trusty Plan‘ group; those who continue to push a false hope that corrective action inside the justice system will take place; will likely be very excited about the damning OIG release. However, nothing is likely to come of the report.
Remember, the original issues with the Woods Files were outlined by CTH 18 months ago {Go Deep} in March of last year, after the interim results were reported. This current OIG release is the finished product of that earlier investigation; and outlines almost identical issues.
Additionally, it is critical to remember the FISA court is operating in close coordination with the very corrupt DOJ-NSD, and the presiding judge of the FISC, James Boasberg, specifically took action after the Biden inauguration to protect himself and the institution. Boasberg knew this OIG review was ongoing. Boasberg worked with the DOJ and FBI to position defenses against any OIG revelations.
Earlier this year the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Presiding Judge James Boasberg, hired former DOJ National Security Division head, Mary McCord, as amici curiae advisor to the court. [LINK] The placement was first noted by an announcement from Georgetown Law ICAP.
Judge Boasberg, is the decision-maker in the appointment of Amici Curiae to the FISA court. There is no way, NO WAY, Judge Boasberg did not know Mary McCord was at the epicenter of the fraudulent FISA application used against Carter Page. Remember, in addition to being the FISC Presiding Judge, Boasberg was also the trial judge in the case against Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who lied about Page working for the CIA on the FISA application. {Go Deep}
Boasberg knows Mary McCord took over from former DOJ-NSD head John Carlin (October 2016); and it was McCord who guided the Carter Page FISA application through the court and across the finish-line (October 2016 and January 2017). That FISA application was built upon fraud and Mary McCord was at the center of it.
Judge Boasberg knows the granular details of the fraudulent FISA application. Boasberg knows the details of the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report about the fraudulent FISA application; and all the DOJ and FBI participants… which included Mary McCord. Boasberg knows exactly who Mary McCord is, and what activity she had taken on behalf of the political resistance inside the DOJ and inside congress. FISC Presiding Judge James Boasberg also knows Mary McCord has broken the law….
…And yet Boasberg appointed Mary McCord as amici curaie?
Let’s be really clear here. The FISA court is a small unit. The judges in/around Washington DC are also a small unit. They know everything that is going on in and around their DC network. A FISA judge inside that DC system knows every granular detail of everything that comes into their purview. All of it. Judge Boasberg even wrote the last two FISA court opinions (2019 and 2020) about the FBI abuses of the FISA-702 process and warrantless, illegal violations of the NSA database.
There was simply no other way to look at the placement of Mary McCord other than to see what it is. The FISA court is compromised; AND, McCord is being installed in order to coordinate any defensive measures that would be needed to cover-up that compromise.
Boasberg knew this damning OIG report was likely, because Boasberg as FISC presiding judge was the customer of the fraudulent documentation within the FISA applications. Judge Boasberg knew the Woods Files were missing or structurally flawed. None of this…. NONE of THIS… is a surprise to Presiding FISC Judge James Boasberg.
BACKGROUND – After the DOJ Offfice of Inspector General (OIG), Michael Horowitz, presented his December 2019 findings of the FISA application used against U.S person Carter Page, the gross deficiencies and intentional fraud were so extensive the IG said he was going to review a sample of FISA applications to identify if the fraud and abuse was widespread.
The OIG began reviewing FISA applications from eight field offices (the proverbial “rank and file”). The OIG selected 29 FISA applications from those field offices over the period of October 2014 to September 2019. Additionally, every field office and the DOJ-NSD generate internal “Accuracy Reviews”, or self-checks on FISA applications; so the OIG inspected 42 of the accuracy review FISA files to determine if they were compliant.
The results were so bad the IG produced an interim memorandum to the DOJ and FBI [pdf link here]. Within the 17-page-memo the IG notifies Attorney General Bill Barr and FBI Director Chris Wray that all of the claimed FISA processes, in every field office, are grossly deficient, and in most cases there is zero compliance with FISA standards. The IG memorandum is presented before the IG even looks at the specifics of the non-compliance.
Here is the original OIG report/memorandum. Additionally I am summarizing the stunning top-lines identified by the IG memo:
- The IG reviewed 29 FISA applications, surveillance warrants, used against U.S. persons.
- The 29 FISA applications were from eight different field offices.
- The FISA applications were from Oct/2014 through Sept/2019.
- All of the FISA applications reviewed were approved by the FISA court.
The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in the FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons outside the fourth amendment.
♦ Within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA application. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]
♦ Of the remaining 25 FISA applications, 100% of them, all of them, were materially deficient on the woods file requirement; and the average number of deficiencies per file was 20. Meaning an average of twenty direct statements against the target, supporting the purpose of the FISA application, sworn by the FBI affiant, were unsubstantiated. [The low was 5, the high was 63, the average per file was 20]
♦ Half of the FISA applications reviewed used Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s). The memo outlines that “many” of applications containing CHS claims had no supportive documentation attesting to the dependability of the CHS.
♦ Two of the 25 FISA applications reviewed had renewals; meaning the FISA applications were renewed to extended surveillance, wiretaps, etc. beyond the initial 90-days. None of the renewals had any re-verification. Both FISAs that used renewals were not compliant.
But wait… it gets worse.
The DOJ and FBI have an internal self-check mechanism. The DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) chief counsel, and the chief counsel for every FBI field office are required to conduct an “Accuracy Review” of selected FISA applications. One per field office (25 to 30 field offices),which are also sent to DOJ-NSD (main justice) for general counsel inspection.
Keep in mind, these “accuracy reviews” are known in advance, so the FBI has all the time in the world to select the best FISA file for review. Additionally, I surmise the OIG wanted to inspect the “accuracy review” FISA’s because they would show the best light on the overall system itself. The OIG was looking for the best, most compliant, product to report on.
However, when the OIG inspected 42 of these Accuracy Reviews, the IG identified that only three of them had accurately assembled documents (Woods File) supporting the application. The error rate within the files self-checked was over 93%.
So the best FBI files are selected to undergo the FBI and DOJ-NSD accuracy review. The accuracy review takes place by FBI legal counsel and DOJ-NSD legal counsel. However, the IG finds that only three FBI applications in the accuracy reviews were compliant.
The error rate in the files undertaken by the internal accuracy review was over 93% (3 compliant out of 42 reviewed). These were the FISA files with the greatest possibility of being accurate. Let that sink in…
All of what you just read preceded the release today by the OIG. FISA Court Presiding Judge James Boasberg, knew all of that before today.
CTH sees things as they are, not as we would wish them to be. With that in mind, do you really think the final report issued today is going to change anything?
[REVIEW THE FINAL REPORT HERE]
Last point… After years of research CTH outlined how the Fourth Branch of Government was created and supported. When we put the outline together we noted the 4th Branch supersedes all other branches, that includes the Judicial Branch – within which, the FISA Court is a subsidiary.
The FISA Court defers to the national security apparatus 100% of the time. The FISC never challenges the national security argument presented by the officials who administer the 4th Branch. The FISC never provides oversight of the Intelligence Community, which underpins the material given to the court.
The only way to reform the corrupt FISC, is to first remove the Fourth Branch of Government. Until that happens, nothing else is possible.
Centinel2012 