My First Post: The United Nations, Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, and the brand new Sustainable

What a amazing thread, thanks for posting.

Funny how combating poverty, providing education, and developing sustainability is somehow a threat.

a reply to: Astyanax

Good deflective answer.

Can you comment on this....


By 2050, two-thirds of all humans will be living in cities



SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES INVESTMENT AUTHORITIES

originally posted by: LDragonFire
What a amazing thread, thanks for posting.

Funny how combating poverty, providing education, and developing sustainability is somehow a threat.

Nothing wrong with combating poverty.

But how does this actually do any "combating" ?

What are the big U.S. cities doing about the worsening poverty and crime in the most poverty strickened areas ?

There must be a plan in progress already right?

Will those plans work by the year 2030 ?

a reply to: Kester

Are you going to dispute anything I wrote regarding the topic? I didn't just focus on the individual, I called out their ridiculousness, and backed it up with evidence. Would you like to focus on the evidence I presented?

We all have skeletons in our closet. It's a meaningless statement.

originally posted by: xuenchen


Now I'm supposed to believe everything I hear about Agenda21.

Great attitude there.

Great support tactic.

You seem to believe and post anything by right wing media.

You say its a threat to us, but can't prove it, now you say its not doing any good...can you prove that?

To the original poster:

You talk about the fact that the UN does not have teeth, which I agree with. However, their teeth are coming and will be handed to them. Maybe not in the sense that everyone thinks but it is written in Revelation 17:16-17 16 And the ten horns+ that you saw and the wild beast,+ these will hate the prostitute+ and will make her devastated and naked, and they will eat up her flesh and completely burn her with fire.+ 17 For God put it into their hearts to carry out his thought,+ yes, to carry out their one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast,+ until the words of God will have been accomplished.

God will put it in the hearts of these nations to hand over their power to the UN to carry out HIS purpose which is to destroy the Harlot, or in other words false religion throughout the world. This is increasingly becoming evident and picking up momentum. Look at the increasing criticism and demands from the UN regarding the abuse situation with the Catholic Church, who has basically thumbing it's nose at the UN demands. Take a look at ISIS or Islam in general and the increasing disruption to peace throughout different regions. Take a look at the riches that all these religions enjoy and the increasing financial trouble of ALL world governments. These churches are looking juicier and juicer to the world and ripe for the plucking. It's already happening in the broke country of India where the government has politely asked the temples for their gold, the temples have rejected the governments requests. Soon they will not be asking. Again, it is GOD who puts in in the hearts of the nations to carry out his purpose, their teeth are coming.

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Introduction

I have to say that contrary to the claims of the UN being a vehicle for the New World Order, or wanting to dissolve national sovereignty, or what have you, on a daily basis at the UN we are talking about how the UN really has no teeth and may never because the very UN Charter guarantees national sovereignty and most UN resolutions and or compacts are basically voluntary for each country.

We all know that the UN currently has no teeth, but wouldn't that be the point of the conspiracy theory...those insiders at the UN want to change this, so that they do have the teeth?

Okay, I'll bite. You bring up a reasonable point in that many conspiracy theorists claim that the UN is bad because it's end goal is to take away sovereignty.

FIrst, I tell you that in every dialogue and paper I encounter there, the sovereignty of nations is upheld. The only place at the UN that can issue truly binding resolutions with consequences is the UN Security Council, and that is only if one country violates the sovereignty of OTHER Countries. So then the UN is just protecting again the sovereignty of one from the other.

However, I differ from most people on here. Although the UN doesn't have the teeth, I think that they should. Seriously though, we still have a virtually lawless international stage, where there are no consequences for countries such as the US or Russia doing what they please. The powerful get to do what they want, the weak get punished. This ins't justice. This isn't good. There is nothing "conservative," Christian, just, or what have you about not enforcing the rule of law in the international sphere. I believe that international leaders need to be held accountable for their actions, so that no longer can we have might makes right. Without more teeth, that is impossible.

A fair question.

To answer that, first of all the first set of development goals, the Millennium Development Goals, focused on the poorest countries, focusing on the most essential interventions such as anti-malarial measures or reducing extreme poverty.

The measures invested in and executed are international development. There are countless government agencies, NGOs, private foundations, and Corporate Social Responsibility branches of companies that have and are engaging in on the ground work.

For example, for the goal of increasing the prevalence of antiretroviral medication for AIDS, funding was provided for more medication, generic production contracts were drawn up, deals were made with pharmaceutical companies, community health workers were trained in places such as sub-Saharan Africa, new clinics were set up. etc. That, is development. It includes all of the financial, government, political, science stuff that you could imagine would be necessary to go into it.

The upcoming development goals, the Sustainable Development Goals, will now address ALL NATIONS, including the US. Remember, these start in 2015.

They will also involve higher investment in all countries in everything from clean energy tech to education access for poor people.

I recommend that you go to the SDG link that I posted in my original post and look up Goal 17: Means of Implementation.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: LDragonFire
What a amazing thread, thanks for posting.

Funny how combating poverty, providing education, and developing sustainability is somehow a threat.

Nothing wrong with combating poverty.

But how does this actually do any "combating" ?

What are the big U.S. cities doing about the worsening poverty and crime in the most poverty strickened areas ?

There must be a plan in progress already right?

Will those plans work by the year 2030 ?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
What a amazing thread, thanks for posting.

Funny how combating poverty, providing education, and developing sustainability is somehow a threat.

Exactly, seriously everybody I work with is very serious about helping the poor, stopping war, creating equality and freedom, etc. Across the globe. They've dedicated their lives to it. So have I.

I just don't get why people, many of whom say they are "following Jesus" or what have you, or are conservative, are so against what I consider to be logical outgrowths of what Jesus or other religious leaders taught. I think that most of them are brainwashed by both corporate media, which is often against for the short term equality measures and or clean energy for example, and political pundits who are bought out by the same interests.

Xenophobia, hyper nationalism, fundamentalism, and exploitation of others and the environment represents a slowly dying breed of people. Thankfully.

Eh, you haven't really read my post nor gone to the link. This is more misinformation and fear on your part than a credible critique. You haven't read about the SDG development process, the history, nor who is involved clearly. There is no roundtable of powerful evil dudes making this stuff.

They have been developed with representatives from every single country on Earth, with them agreeing to these goals. So then it's not a violation of sovereignty, any more than Congress passing a bill with a huge majority is not violating the sovereignty of states.

Second, the goals are based on input from countless world experts, NGOs, companies, governments, scientists, you name it. Every single last target and goal. Why do you presume to know more? Have you sat there? Are you an expert on a single one of these issues? I am on education. And deeply knowledgeable on environment and science as a former science teacher. What do you know about environmental science? Or how much economic research is involved in the economic goals? Do you realize that for those virtually all of the top scientists or economists were consulted? From around the world?

It is all in good intention and fully informed.

Finally, the goals are still virtually voluntary. Even though all countries have gave their input, and there have been substantial democratic consultations, there are no true consequences for not reaching these. HOWEVER, because these goals represent the biggest needs of mankind across all areas of research, to not strive towards them WILL harm humanity and your own country.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

You, or your friend, make a lot of claims that under scrutiny can be seen as false. Do tell me, how exactly does he plan to... let's read below...

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
1.1 by 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day

1.2 by 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions

"Eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere". It does "sound too good to be true right"?... Normally when something "sounds too good to be true" it's because...

Anyways, first of all to be able to "eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere" the UN would have to have power over the "sovereignty of individual nations". Otherwise, how can the UN proclaim that by 2030 it will "eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere" without interfering with EVERY nation's sovereignty? You can't guarantee something will happen that you have no control over. This means the UN, and world elites do plan to have ALL CONTROL by 2030... next...

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
1.4 by 2030 ensure that all men and women, particularly the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership, and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services including microfinance

Again, more claims that "sound too good to be true"... So the UN plans, among many other things, to "ensure that ALL MEN AND WOMEN have equal rights and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services"... Once again, in order to "ensure" all of the above this means the UN will control ALL lands, and properties, as well as have a say on inheritance, how much natural resources each person can use, as well as what technology to use alongside assuring that everyone under their control has the same type of finances and services... That is exactly what socialism and communism does meanwhile claiming it has nothing to do with socialism or communism... I wonder how exactly does the UN plans to reach all these goals since to do so they must have ALL CONTROL...

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
1.5 by 2030 build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations, and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters

Oh wow, so that means pretty much that the UN and the IPCC would have control over anything they claim that can cause climate change, since the IPCC itself claims the ongoing climate change is caused by "men and women"... What this means is... more control over the actions of men and women "to protect the environment".... So more control for "the good of the planet" meanwhile those people in power do whatever the heck they want, they pollute the Earth as much as they want but the little person, that's you and me, would be controlled on every aspect of our lives...

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
1.a. ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular LDCs, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions

1.b create sound policy frameworks, at national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies to support accelerated investments in poverty eradication actions

Proposed goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
...

Again, do tell me, how the hell does your friend thinks they would reach those goals without interfering with national sovereignty of nations and without more control over every natural resource, controlling all land, controlling all economy, and in general control everything?...

Could you explain that?...

All I see is nothing but rhetoric camouflaged on pretty words to try to lure the average person to believe that to achive all of these things we all must give up our freedoms...

a reply to: EverythingEviL

RESULT!!

I always love it when the prophets come out.

a reply to: xuenchen

Can you comment on this.

One of many ways people are trying to solve the problems that beset us now and those we can foresee, in a pluralistic world where democratic governments back different initiatives supported by different constituencies. The best man doesn't necessarily win, but that's democracy. Now would you please be kind enough to stop badgering me?

a reply to: Astyanax

I sir never claimed to be a prophet

a reply to: EverythingEviL

Not to worry. I'm claiming it on your behalf.

a reply to: Astyanax

Thanks for the reply. I will consider the wisdom.

I understand the dilemma now.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

On the rest of my post, I'm completely open to an interesting debate on the nature of the UN, whether or not it is good, effective, etc.

Perhaps you can give some insight from the U.N. about some U.S. States and Localities actually passing laws to somehow prevent "Agenda 21" effects.

Are these laws coming from specific sources for specific reasons ?

And what is the U.N. doing to fight these.

Apparently some people think anti-Agenda21 laws are necessary.

Also we see many big corporations "signing on" to parts of Agenda 21.

Is this their true intentions ?

Or are they infiltrating to gain an advantage ?

What's the U.N. doing about credibility verification of "supporters" ? (maybe it'$ based on how much they "donate" and "pledge" ?)

Monsanto further unveils its true evil nature by signing on to UN Agenda 21 'sustainability' scam

These questions are solid ones. To be honest, I am less knowledgeable about the anti-Agenda 21 laws of which you speak.

Do you mean that the laws are specifically anti-Agenda 21 or that they more generally are anti-environmentalism for example? That might be my guess. A lot of red states will resist climate change mitigation for example, even though that is more strongly related to other things like the UNFCCC negotiations than specifically Agenda 21.

However, the UN won't do anything about the state stuff. The Federal Government is the one who sends a mission to the UN, as do other national level governments. Those governments make a pledge to commit x resources and y people and z time to these goals. It is on them to figure out how to do it and how states will be engaged.

This demonstrates again that the UN actually is not anti-sovereignty. The language specifically says that national governments will need to figure out their own priorities according to their own laws and system, etc.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

On the rest of my post, I'm completely open to an interesting debate on the nature of the UN, whether or not it is good, effective, etc.

Perhaps you can give some insight from the U.N. about some U.S. States and Localities actually passing laws to somehow prevent "Agenda 21" effects.

Are these laws coming from specific sources for specific reasons ?

And what is the U.N. doing to fight these.

Apparently some people think anti-Agenda21 laws are necessary.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Really? so you insult me and try to belittle me, throughout your response. But in the end you cannot even see what they are describing. They are describing global governance derived from corporate governance... Who will be the "stakeholders"?... You think it's going to be you and me?... Under corporate governance only those who have control of the stakes of the company have control and have a say on how the company is run... In this case the company is the whole world, and the stakeholders are the global elites.

As for "who is a shill"... You joined this website recently, and there are a lot of threads on these forums on "shills" that have been paid recently to join "conspiracy websites"... If anyone is a shill it would be more logical that the shills are people like you. More so when your whole argument is to make ad hominem attacks and trying to belittle people who would not agree with you.

That paper is describing on how the UN and the global elites plan to govern Earth as if it was a global corporation. All your insults and belittling comments will not change that fact...

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Many dictatorships have been formed under the guise of "good intentions"...

Of course, it's not like for example, we know that Obama is more than ready to sign us to the UN... After all, on several occasions he has stated that he would act alone and against the wishes of Congress, or the Senate...

What do I know? I was born and raised in a communist dictatorship and I see some of the same steps taken in other "socialist" type dictatorships which all claimed "it will be for the good of all"...

Allowing the UN, or any world body/agency to have a say on how Americans, or people from other nations, must be governed it's contradictory to what national sovereignty means... Whether or not you have the "consent of world leaders"...

You can try to cover it with sugar coating, but the goal and the methods to reach those goals can be easily ascertained.

In order to guarantee that "every man and woman" has "the same" you need to control the lives of every man and woman... It's that simple. You can cover it with beautiful words that try to lure people into thinking " this is a global utopia". But that's all they are, beautiful words that are trying to lure people into thinking this is "for the good of all" when it never is.

The world is formed of 7 billion people who were born, and grew up in different socio-economical systems. People who grew up with different moral views, and different goals. The UN, and probably even you, should know by now that there will be billions of people who will revolt against this whenever it is implemented. Heck, right now there are millions of people already doing that as they fight against what they see as a war against their beliefs, their national sovereignty and their identity.