General Interest > Tacitus' Realm
Raygun- His-story that we shouldn't forget
thepatriot:
The "Sacred" Text
"The protection of Earth?s vitality, diversity, and beauty is a sacred trust," the Earth Charter asserts. However, "an unprecedented rise in human population has overburdened ecological and social systems. The foundations of global security are threatened." Thus, "we urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community."
According to the Charter, we must:
* "Recognize that all beings are interdependent and every form of life has value...." (Unborn children, of course, are not included in the UN?s definition of "every form of life." The Earth Summit II documents continue to support the UN?s pro-abortion policies.)
* "Affirm faith in the inherent dignity of all human beings." (UN agencies, however, support policies of euthanasia for those determined not capable of living a "quality" life.)
* "Adopt at all levels sustainable development plans and regulations...." (This is a prescription for global socialism in a super-regulated global state.)
* "Prevent pollution of any part of the environment...." (Enforcing this dictum would mean stopping virtually all human activity.)
* "Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price." (This seemingly harmless sentence would empower the state to price, tax, and regulate all production and consumption.)
* "Ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction. (This is a thinly disguised call for socialized medicine that includes abortion and population control.)
* "Eliminate discrimination in all its forms, such as that based on race ? [and] sexual orientation." (This provision is clearly aimed at criminalizing those who refuse to accept homosexuality as positive and good.)
* "Promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations. (Few Marxist documents have put their "redistribution of wealth" program more plainly.)
The Charter includes much, much more. It ends with this stirring exhortation: "In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development."
The Charter will soon be making its way to schools, city governments, state legislatures, teachers organizations, civic groups, professional associations, judges, and law schools. The aforementioned Global Judges Symposium concluded its summit activities by issuing the so-called Johannesburg Principles on the Rule of Law and Sustainable Development. "We recognize," it states, "the importance of ensuring that environmental law and law in the field of sustainable development feature prominently in academic curricula, legal studies and training at all levels, in particular among judges and others engaged in the judicial process."
The judicial symposium was sponsored by the United Nations Environmental Program (largely supported by U.S. tax dollars) and the Environmental Law Institute, one of the principal eco-activist legal groups supported by U.S. tax-exempt foundations.
For the amount of time, effort, and money invested in the Earth Charter program over the past decade, its profile at the recent Johannesburg Earth Summit was remarkably subdued. Apparently, the plan is to orchestrate a global stealth campaign for the Charter among a sympathetic core constituency. As the campaign picks up steam, activists will obtain signatures and public support for this new global ethic from local, state, and national governments, schools, and organizations ? without stirring the suspicions and opposition of churches, pro-life, and pro-family forces. Once a critical mass of support has been built among students, teachers, journalists, and public officials, the Charter will appear to be universally accepted and unstoppable.
Americans can make sure that that scheme does not work by informing themselves and their friends and neighbors about this blatantly diabolical and blasphemous deception
Hey Deborah This would be your new Goverment[ This Message was edited by: thepatriot on 2004-06-10 11:18 ]
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---On 2004-06-10 09:26:00, Deborah wrote:
"**My point was that I think it would be a waste of time to debate my ideas with you.
I got that. What I fail to understand is why, unless your intention is not to debate but to convince me to adopt your opinion, which you realize is probably futile. I too, often decide that it's not worth my time and effort to debate with someone who is passionate about their position. Depends on my mood, but whether I perceive them as tactless, insulting or offensive is not how I decide. Notice that we are different that way, and that we are having a debate of sorts. I also notice that you will waste your time to evaluate me, but not debate with me.
**I can't make you understand what being tactless, insulting, or offensive is. I'm sure you know what it is like to talk to someone who thinks they are right about everything.
Yes I do. I noticed it in how you assumed that you know THE definition of tactless, insulting, and offensive, and that YOU 'can't make me understand'. No two people are the same in terms of what offends them. If you can't 'make me understand' what YOU perceive as insulting or offensive; if you can't identify what YOUR personal boundaries are for engaging with another; that again is a problem for YOU to work out, if it's important.
**I think you are annoying and I would much rather debate with someone like the patriot.
Thanks for sharing. Feel better since you got that off your chest? Get about debating with Patriot and spare me your ongoing evaluations, as they are of no use to me, whatever your intention.
"
--- End quote ---
Deborah, you asked me to explain something to you in a post so that is what I was doing. I know exactaly what my personal boundaries are, there is no problem there. I don't get why you SEEM to be so hung up on why I won't share my personal boundaries and opinions with you. Who cares??? To be honest arguing gives me a headache. I don't think that I did anything different to you that you don't do everyday on these boards. You called it "evaluating you" I agree with you we are very different and we think very differently. By the way, THE definitions for those words are in the dictionary. Have a nice life :wave:
Deborah:
Patriot,
Are the interpretations in parenthesis your's or someone elses?
****
Anon, you too.
:wave:
Deborah:
http://cartoonistgroup.com/store/add.php?iid=7430
Kirk Anderson's tribute. Remembering Ronnie.
He tripled the national debt, but he had such CHARISMA!
He supported aparthied, but he was ALWAYS personable!
He supported Saddam, but he made us feel GOOD about ourselves!
He crushed workers rights, but he was someone you could sit down and have a beer with.
Star Wars turned out to be an expensive fantasy, but he had that INFECTIOUS OPTIMISM!
He backed death squads throughout Central America, but he always looked for the best in everyone.
He looked the other way when Salvadorian allies raped American nuns, but he had that SELF-
DEPRECATING HUMOR!
He confused old movies with foreign policy, but he was always QUICK WITH A JOKE!
He traded arms for hostages and diverted money to drug-running death squads, but he never lost his SUNNY DISPOSITION!
Anonymous:
Deborah, this is a national day of mourning for a man who will be remembered in ways that say more about the person who remembers, then the man being remembered. I find it profoundly sad that even as you are free to speak your mind, you lack the grace and the wisdom to do so in ways that reflect kindly upon yourself.
God Bless Ronald Reagan and God Bless America.
:smile:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version