Tuesday, July 19, 2011

What could be bad about 'sustainability'? ~ By Henry Lamb

Sustainable development as defined in Agenda 21, regardless of how it is repackaged and resold, must be rejected at every level of government.

The purpose of government is not to redistribute wealth. The purpose of government is not to protect the environment. The purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens, and to defend those citizens from all enemies both foreign and domestic. When government fulfills this purpose, every person has an equal right to pursue personal happiness to the maximum extent of his abilities. No person is entitled to the wealth of another, regardless of Agenda 21 or any other U.N. declaration. Any person whose property or environment is damaged by another is entitled to recover those damages in court. This, too, is a legitimate function of government.

Activity that is, and is not, sustainable should be determined by nature, not by government. Sustainability is just the latest disguise government is using to shroud its incessant quest to control its citizens.

"And an unknowing public drinks the progressive Kool-Aid." Those are the words that Henry Lamb wrote in his column that has led me to choose it for review in this blog. I will do my best to explain why those words are so vital in fitting the information Henry provides us with into the bigger picture of the puzzle.

In order to illustrate my point, it will take more than just this column. I do not normally do this, but this column, which Henry wrote a week ago, will be followed up by my discussion of this week's column by Henry.

Clearly, a new Facebook friend, Danna Reubin, had it right, when she wrote on a group post the following:

Some Newspeak (see: Orwell, Gorege 1984) feel free to add to the list:
  • Gun Collection: Arsenal of Weapons
  • Swamp: Delicate Wetlands
  • Illegal Alien: Undocumented Worker
  • Synthetic Fiber: Cruelty-Free Materials
  • Well-protected: Heavily Armed
  • Righteous: Narrow-minded
  • Coerced Theft: Taxes / Your Fair Share
  • Gun Confiscation: Commonsense Gun Control
  • Stump Removal Powder: Illegal Hazardous Explosives
  • Unborn Baby: Nonviable Tissue Mass
  • Socialism: Equal Access to Opportunity
  • High Crime Area: Multicultural Community
  • Marxism: Fairness / Social Progress
  • Self-Employed: Upper Class / "The Rich "
  • Big Government Scheme: Progressive, Change
  • Bums /Welfare Leeches: Homeless or Disadvantaged
  • Scoped Deer Rifle: Sniper Rifle
  • Higher Taxes: Investment For the Future
  • Socialized Medicine: Healthcare Reform
  • Conservative: Extremist, Judgmental, or Hater
  • Homeschoolers: Truants
  • Criminal or Lazy Good-For-Nothing: Victim or Oppressed
  • Standard Capacity Magazine: High Capacity Magazine
  • Church-going: Religious Zealot
  • Employer or Land Owner: Exploiters / "The Rich "
  • NRA Members: The Gun Lobby
  • Semi-Auto (Grandpa's M1 Carbine): Assault Weapon
  • New Taxes and Higher Taxes: Fiscal Stimulus
  • Chinese Mercury-Laden Light Bulbs: Mandated Eco-Friendly Lighting
Do you get the idea? Words are twisted, and re-defined, for a purpose.  I believe that you will discover the purpose when you read Henry's column, "What could be bad about 'sustainability'?

Well, here's my plan: I'm publishing this because I want to make sure that there will be no "unsuspecting official who still thinks Agenda 21 is just a conspiracy theory and that the word 'sustainable' means 'acceptable' to the green lobby." That is part of the point that Henry Lamb makes in his next column, which you will soon read about in, "Government termites." There must not be any reason - no excuse - for an elected official to claim "ignorance" of what is now public knowledge. "Sustainable development" is being exposed as just another way for your freedom to be gnawed away by those that want to run your life. I'm just sayin'...

*     *     *     *

What could be bad about 'sustainability'?
By Henry Lamb

July 09, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

To ordinary people, the word sustainable is an adjective that means the activity the word describes can continue forever. For example, since biblical days, farmers practiced sustainable agriculture by leaving their fields fallow every seventh year. In early America, farmers knew that for agriculture to be sustainable, the same crop could not be planted in the same field year after year. Sustainable agriculture has always been practiced by successful farmers. Farmers who didn't practice sustainable agriculture inevitably failed.

The United Nations has given the word sustainable a new definition. Introduced to the world in "Our Common Future," the report of the 1987 U.N. Commission on Environment and Development, and further defined in the U.N.'s "Agenda 21" at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, the term "sustainable" was married to the term "development," and a brand new concept entered the world. The term "sustainable development" means any activity that has economic impact, and is equitable, and has no negative environmental impact. All three elements are required to qualify as "sustainable development."

There can be no development without economic impact, of course; nothing new here. "Equitable," however, is a new requirement. Equitable means social justice, which means, as a beginning point, equal benefit from the earth's resources. Progressives have expanded the definition to include such things as a right to housing, health care and a livable wage, but at the very least, equitable means redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not. To meet this requirement of sustainable development, government must empower agents to take wealth from one segment of the population and give it to others.

To be sustainable, according to the U.N. definition, development must have no negative environmental impact. This requirement demands a monitor of development activity and a judgment made to determine whether the activity results in a negative environmental impact. This monitor and judge is necessarily some entity empowered by government. Development that fails to meet these requirements is, by definition, not sustainable. Development that meets these requirements is declared by government to be sustainable.

Therefore, sustainable development is government-approved development.

In the context of sustainable development, any activity government describes as sustainable must be a government-approved activity. Sustainable agriculture, despite the fact that agriculture has been practiced sustainably since biblical days, must now be government-approved to enjoy the sustainable label. Government has now applied the word sustainable to communities, which means that for a community to be sustainable it must be government-approved.

Proponents of sustainable development, inside and outside the government, downplay this fundamental element of sustainable development. Instead, they tout the benefits to the environment of sustainable programs that promote recycling, renewable energy, conservation and the like. And an unknowing public drinks the progressive Kool-Aid.


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

No comments:

Post a Comment