No, Virginia, World Wildlife Fund is no Saint

By Kathleen Marquardt 25 July 2019  @ American Policy Center  Animal Rights, Sustainable Development

 

Recently Tom DeWeese, President of American Policy Center, has been writing articles about the Green New Deal and the attack on ranchers, here, here, and here. His articles have garnered tremendous response. I am the one who responds to the emails sent to American Policy Center and, lately, I have had to respond to people questioning Tom’s attacks on the World Wildlife Fund (WWF, also known as the World Wide Fund for Nature WWFN). The mail suggests that WWF is a St. Thomas of Assisi for cattle. That would be true only if you thought beef should no longer exist in our world, other than as something to worship.

I will give you some background data on WWF and its connection with the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the U.S. Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (USRSB), the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), the Nature Conservancy (TNC), the United Nations, Agenda 21, and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). Now if that isn’t a witches’ brew of alphabet soup, what is?

All of these seemingly disparate entities and their connections started coming together after the 1992 Earth Summit and the 1993, President’s Council on Sustainable Development was set up by Bill Clinton at President Bush’s behest. “The President’s Council on Sustainable Development was convened (on the one-year anniversary of the Rio Earth Summit) to harness corporations to green group ideology by promoting high-minded goals that sounded wonderful but silently eliminated natural resource extraction as part of a proper society.”[1]

The PCSD laid out ‘The Principles of Sustainability’ for ‘Our Vision of a Sustainable United States of America’:

Principle 4. Human Population must be stabilized at a level consistent with the capacity of the earth to support all its inhabitants in healthy conditions over the long term. Hunger and starvation around the world have been caused, mainly, because of either government policies or wars – not by overpopulation. This ruse is to fulfill the goal of reducing the human population.

Principle 5. In order to protect natural systems and preserve their benefits for future generations, current patterns of consumption should be altered through steady improvements in the efficiency of natural resource use. This is a biggie. First, patterns of consumption: we will see later in this article that meat eating is considered unsustainable, not by science but by those with an agenda. And those ‘steady improvements in the efficiency’ is a ruse to shut down natural resource use by humans, thus is both the Wildlands Project (taking land from property owners and allowing only animals to inhabit), and to reduce the human population.

Principle 9. Where public health may be affected adversely, or environmental damage may be serious or irreversible, protective action may be necessary even in the face of scientific uncertainty. What might necessitate protective action in spite of hard knowledge either lacking or to the contrary? This murky statement rings of 1984 and Brave New World. This is a ruse to shut people out of natural resources, i.e., the Wildlands Project.

Principle 10. The traditional behavior of government, private institutions, and individuals must change fundamentally if we are to ensure economic growth, environmental protection, and social equity over the long term. This one is blatantly that we need a top-down powerful government that controls industry and people through Public Private Partnerships, and removal of property rights and freedom, with the social equity of Orwell’s four legs good, two legs bad.

Principle 15. Since sustainability in the United States is closely tied to global sustainability, U.S. policies regarding trade, economic development, and environmental protection must evolve in the context of their international implications. A mouthful but basically saying that the U.S. must obey the U.N. on trade, economic development, and environmental protection – or in other words, we will sell what the UN wants to whom the UN wishes, we will limit what we produce to what we are allowed by the U.N., and most of our environment will be off-limits to us humans.

Principle 16. Citizens must have access to formal and lifelong non-formal education that enables them to understand the interdependence of economic growth, environmental quality, and social equity, and prepares them to take actions that support all three. Note the qualifying part of the access to education; it will not be education, but programming so that we understand exactly what we must do to be the ideal global citizen zombies.

One of the PCSD taskforces was the Sustainable Agriculture Task Force (SATF).

The Sustainable Agriculture Task Force is developing an integrated vision of sustainable agriculture, focusing on sustainable production practices and systems. The Task Force will recommend goals and actions in the areas of agriculture-related research and education, technology, and farming practices and systems to the Council for the National Action Strategy.

In other words, they will tell the farmers and ranchers how they must run their operations. SAFT’s definition of sustainable is not the dictionary’s definition. Sustainable, to SAFT, the UN, and NGOs is to provide enough for themselves and their useful idiots, and free up the rest of the land to be Wildlands.

From: https://clintonwhitehouse1.archives.gov/White_House/EOP/pcsd/vision/revised-draft.html
That was written back in 1995, almost a quarter of a century ago. Since then, there has been major ‘progress’ to advance the Agenda 21 (and now, 2030) goals. Now you can see where those other alphabet/NGO groups come in. This taskforce was chaired by John H. Adams, Executive Director, Natural Resources Defense Council; Richard Barth, Chairman, President & CEO, Ciba-Geigy Corporation; and Richard Rominger, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, i.e., big Green + Big Pharma with a little government added. Other members were Carol M. Browner of the EPA; John Sawhill, President and CEO of the Nature Conservancy; and Jonathan Lash, President of World Resources Institute (WRI).

A note on WRI: The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), Worldwatch Institute, EPA, Sierra Club, and others argue that the cost in human tragedy is a cost well incurred if there is even a remote chance that global warming will occur with all its forecast catastrophes.[2] The Institute generally argues through its key research leaders that national economics must be controlled by interventionists and that natural resources should not be used at all. The Institute’s highly impressive studies generally ignore the costs of environmentalism, the value of private property and individual liberty. The intellect this Institute brings to bear to stop development throughout the world is equaled only by its financing.[3] *(emphasis mine)

Back to beef ranchers and their foe. In 2010, the NCBA invited World Wildlife Federation’s Jason Clay to be the keynote speaker at their Summer Convention. That signaled the imbedding of the WWF’s global sustainability guidelines as well as production standards into the U.S. beef industry. That included adding the WWF’s panda onto the Beef Check-off logo. And the road to so-called sustainable beef was taken. You might ask where this road is going. Let the World Wildlife Federation’s 2017 report, Appetite for Destruction, reported here in “Meat eaters are destroying the planet, says report”, tell you the destination:

Meat consumption is devastating some of the world’s most valuable and vulnerable regions, due to the vast amount of land needed to produce animal feed, a report has warned.

The growing popularity of a Western diet, which contains high levels of meat and dairy, means an area 1.5 times the size of the European Union would be saved if global consumption of animal products was reduced to meet nutritional requirements.

The report went on to say that, to save the Earth, it was vital that we change human consumption habits away from meat.

Now, if this happened 20 years ago – if the beef industry put itself under the control of an organization that was working toward their imminent demise – sane people would have ask why in the world they would do that. But we have far fewer people in the world who are able to think critically, so when people go to the grocery store to buy their beef and see the WWF panda logo on the package, they think nothing of it (if they think at all) or think it is cute.

We all know that government never met a regulation that they didn’t like. Yet, the NCBA and cohorts were successful in persuading Congress to repeal Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), which was actually a good piece of legislation for both the public and the ranchers. Now, beef can be brought in from other countries and labeled as US beef; we know that no other country has such strict guidelines for both quality and animal welfare as the U.S., so we will never know what we are getting with the new so-called U.S. beef.

Next, the USRSB, the US Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, formed in 2015, “ is a multi-stakehold initiative developed to advance, support and communicate continuous improvement in sustainability of the U.S. beef value chain. The USRSB achieves this through leadership, innovation, multi-stakeholder engagement, and collaboration”.

A lot of the fuzzy-wuzzy Sustainable Development words, but what do they mean? Stakeholders are those who are involved but few have any physical stake in the cattle business other than what they will squeeze out of it by being one of those wielding control from afar. This includes Civil Society: Academic institutions, non-government and non-commercial institutions, foundations, alliances and associations with a stake in the beef value chain (it doesn’t say how these groups get a stake in the chain).

When they talk about “to advance, support and communicate continuous improvement in sustainability of the U.S. beef value chain”, they are blowing smoke. Many, if not most, of today’s ranchers have been on their land for several generations. They know more about making their land sustainable (in the true sense of the word), than any ‘sustainablist’ from the UN ever could (or would want to). If the ranchers hadn’t been using the best practices in caring for their land, they wouldn’t have any usable land at all by now. And that ‘beef value chain’, what is it? It is vertical marketing – controlling every aspect of beef production from the feed to the barns, to the care, to the slaughterhouse, to the packaging, selling, and transporting of the final product. They are intent at controlling every aspect of the beef industry; that way they have to do only minor changes to shut down the entire US beef supply when they are ready.

I hope this clears up a lot of misinformation that is spread thicker than cow manure in the MSM. But if you have questions, I am the one answering the emails at American Policy Center. I will try to answer any you have.

p.s. if none of that convinced you that the American beef industry shouldn’t be in bed with the World Wildlife Fund, how about this: “Anti-poaching guards backed by the World Wide Fund for Nature have gang-raped women and tortured villagers by tying their penises with fishing lines, according to the charity’s own investigators. WWF told its partners to treat the findings in a ‘non-public fashion.’”

[1] Arnold, Ron and Alan Gottlieb, Trashing the Economy, p 280;…
[2] Coffman, Michael S., Ph.D., Saviors of the Earth?, p.45.
[3] Arnold, Ron and Alan Gottlieb, Trashing the Economy, p 537.
* commentary from Arnold’s book on the following pages is enlightening on WRI.

Share

 

    

Kathleen Marquardt

KathleenMarquardt@americanpolicy.org

Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She is dedicated to exposing the fallacies of the radical environmental and animal rights movements. She has been featured in national publications including Fortune, People, the Washington Post, and Field and Stream, as well as television news programs such as Hard Copy, The McLaughlin Group, Geraldo, and many others. Today, she serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.

Conservation Easements and Land Trusts, the Ultimate Faustian Marriage

ByKathleen Marquardt Aug7,  2018

“Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our great adversary remains the apparatus—the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the one facing us across the frontier of the battle lines, which is not so much our enemy as our brothers’ enemy, but the one that calls itself our protector and makes us its slaves. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this apparatus and to trample underfoot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and in others.”—Simone Weil, French philosopher and political activist

Tom DeWeese wrote in Sustainable, that there are thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working with the UN to subvert property rights. Of course, they don’t just announce that property rights are now null and void. That would create a stir. Instead, they use code words and language that sound innocent and helpful to our society. One such tool that is now being used to target rural lands for takings is the Conservation Easement, and its threat is growing.

There is one NGO Tom didn’t write about, yet it may be the worst of them all. It is a ‘stealth NGO’; like many others it masquerades as a quasi-governmental body. I will get to it, but first let me give you some background.

Background

The right to own property is one of the main pillars of freedom. Numerous Revolutionary patriots wrote about the necessity of property rights for freedom; without that right they could not own the printing presses to share their grievances and promote the rights of man and desires for self-ownership. There have been encroachments on private property over the past one hundred plus years, but now we are seeing a steady army of those who would take away our property rights. As Tom described in his book, the Conservation Easement is but one of the tools NGO destroyers are using to deprive us of our freedom.

Our founding fathers drafted the Constitution to form a limited federal government, designed to take care of only those duties that were truly national business. All other powers were left to the state governments or the people. Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C., as the seat of the federal government, and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “…the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”[i]

Most older Americans know the Magna Carta’s role in property rights law in the Constitution, but, since it is no longer taught in schools, here is a very short explanation:

“Americans of the founding generation’s .. . . views were strongly shaped by the English constitutional tradition. Colonial Americans revered Magna Carta (1215) as a safeguard against arbitrary government. Several provisions of this famous document protected the rights of property owners: 1) The king agreed not take, imprison, or disseize a person of property “except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”. The “law of the land “clause was the forerunner of the due process norm. 2) The king promised not to take provisions without immediate payment. This language acknowledged the principle that government must pay the owner when it acquires private property.”[ii]

From that also came the Rule against Perpetuities

“Under the Common Law, the principle that no interest in property is valid unless it vests not later than twenty-one years, plus the periods of gestation, after some life or lives in being which exist at the time of the creation of the interest.

The courts developed the rule during the seventeenth century in order to restrict a person’s power to control perpetually the ownership and possession of his or her property after death and to endure the transferability of property. The rule includes the period of gestation to cover cases of posthumous birth.”[iii]

As I see read this, our founding fathers and their progeny felt strongly about the need for property rights and their protection. In fact, David Upham of FEE, says, . . . “insofar as the Founders made any distinction between property rights and other individual rights, they insisted that property rights were at least as important as personal rights. In Federalist 54, James Madison stated tersely: “Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.”[iv]

Gary Pecquet, also from FEE, notes, “The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people –- including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all non-owners – even the government.”[v]

Today

How does one assault property rights? Not directly. Like most other rights, long deemed to be natural rights and unassailable, property rights will have to be taken like the salami – one slice at a time. The attack on the essence of property rights has been going on for over 100 years. But only those waging this attack knew there was a war going on. It started as just a desire by one man to preserve green space and historic sites near Boston. His quest also bore the Land Trust.

The new version of Conservation Easements (CE) was brought slowly and gently into the picture, but they worked so well, you would think they were on steroids. Like other programs that produce mega-bucks and mega-power, Conservation Easements became a hot commodity – not for the landowner but for those who wanted to get rich quick on someone else’s land: Land Trusts.

“Conservation easement is a deeded transfer of an interest in real property to a qualified charity that results in a tax deduction in exchange for the contribution. The purpose is to conserve or protect the land or its resources for future generation. However, the conservative easement allows owners to retain other private property rights and to live on and use their land. A conservation easement is legally binding. The easement creates a legally enforceable land preservation agreement between a landowner and a government agency. The restrictions of the easement run with the land.

Conservation easements are binding on all future owners of the property.”[vi]

The first Land Trust was established in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in 1891, to preserve “beautiful and historic places” around Boston. Almost a half-decade after Charles Eliot, the New Englander who proposed the easement, conservation easements were next used by the National Park Service to purchase land along parkways. Those actions, another half-decade later, would be the grounds used to invalidate the Rule of Perpetuities. We cannot go back and watch how the Greens or, more likely, their lawyers conceived of the idea of using conservation easements to first tie up lands, then, when that became easy and was almost un-objected to, they kept ratcheting up the ‘taking’ without ever having to worry about the Rule of Perpetuities. But we can see exactly how it is being done.

In the chapter titled, “Attack of the NGOs in Sustainable, DeWeese wrote “One rarely hears of it. Few elected officials raise an eyebrow. The media makes no mention of it. Yet, power is slowly slipping away from our locally-elected representatives into the hands of private, non-elected people and organizations. They come equipped with their own agenda, enforced by thousands of dedicated activists — and armed with a bunch of money. In much the same way Mao Tse-tung had his Red Guards, so the forces for global transformation have their NGOs. They may well be our masters tomorrow, and most people don’t even know who or what they are.

“Influencing the UN and helping to write policy are thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These are private groups, each of which seeks to implement a specific political agenda according to its own charter. There are hundreds of these groups covering every issue of Sustainable Development. NGOs are also referred to a ‘Civil Society’ in UN documents. A quick look at local government planning policies will see them referred to as ‘Stakeholders’ for the community, even though they are seldom from that area. Through the UN infrastructure, particularly through the UNEP, they have great power.”

An NGO is not just any private group hoping to influence policy. True NGOs are officially sanctioned by the United Nations. That means they not only can sit in on international meetings, but can actively participate in creating policy, right along side government representatives and diplomats.[vii]

Conservations Easements and Land Trusts (LT) grew slowly. It wasn’t until Sustainable Development became the issue du jour that the power elite (or most likely, their Green minions in the NGOs) figured out that CEs could be goldmines for little financial outlay. Once it was discovered that, not only could Land Trusts gobble up land at very low prices, they could turn around and sell these to the government for full price or they could swap the land for preferential land belonging to the government. Oh, did I forget to mention, Land Trusts have to be NGOs.

The NGO that DeWeese didn’t mention in his book is the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, (or Uniform Law Commission, ULC) which was established in 1892. It purportedly “provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law.

“. . . the organization also utilizes input from legal experts, and advisors and observers representing the views of other legal organizations or interests that will be subject to the proposed laws.”[viii]
The ULC wrote the Uniform Conservation Easement Act (UCEA) in 1981, which did away with the Rule of Perpetuities — and no one said a word. One day we were secure in our property rights under the Rule, and the next it was gone. No one squawked that it would destroy property rights. Where were the legal scholars?

Cui Bono? The National Historic Preservation, National Association of Realtors, and the National Park Service, among others were advisors on the UCEA. Tom and I are asking each other why the National Association of Realtors would promote an act that removes the value of real estate. But, somehow, they are all benefitting (for now) in CEs.

The Law of Perpetuity says you do not get to control how your property is used after you die. But, somehow, the ULC with its CE Act:

•   enables durable restrictions and affirmative obligations to be attached to real property to protect natural and historic resources. Under the conditions spelled out in the Act, the restrictions and obligations are immune from certain common law impediments which might otherwise be raised. The Act maximizes the freedom of the creators of the transaction to impose restrictions on the use of land and improvements in order to protect them, and it allows a similar latitude to impose affirmative duties for the same purposes. In each instance, if the requirements of the Act are satisfied, the restrictions or affirmative duties are binding upon the successors and assigns of the original parties.

•   The Act does not itself impose restrictions or affirmative duties. It merely allows the parties to do so within a consensual arrangement freed from common law impediments, if the conditions of the Act are complied with.

•   These conditions are designed to assure that protected transactions serve defined protective purposes (Section 1(1)) and that the protected interest is in a “holder” which is either a governmental body or a charitable organization having an interest in the subject matter (Section 1(2)). The interest may be created in the same manner as other easements in land (Section 2(a)). The Act also enables the parties to establish a right in a third party to enforce the terms of the transaction (Section 3(a)(3)) if the possessor of that right is also a governmental unit or charity (Section 1(3)).

•   The easement alternative is favored in the Act for three reasons. First, lawyers and courts are most comfortable with easements and easement doctrine, less so with restrictive covenants and equitable servitudes, and can be expected to experience severe confusion if the Act opts for a hybrid fourth interest. Second, the easement is the basic less-than-fee interest at common law; the restrictive covenant and the equitable servitude appeared only because of then-current, but now outdated, limitations of easement doctrine. Finally, non-possessory interests satisfying the requirements of covenant real or equitable servitude doctrine will invariably meet the Act’s less demanding requirements as “easements.” Hence, the Act’s easement orientation should not prove prejudicial to instruments drafted as real covenants or equitable servitudes, although the converse would not be true.

•   There are both practical and philosophical reasons for not subjecting conservation easements to a public ordering system. The Act has the relatively narrow purpose of sweeping away certain common law impediments which might otherwise undermine the easements’ validity, (emphasis mine), particularly those held in gross. If it is the intention to facilitate private grants that serve the ends of land conservation and historic preservation, moreover, the requirement of public agency approval adds a layer of complexity which may discourage private actions. Organizations and property owners may be reluctant to become involved in the bureaucratic, and sometimes political, process which public agency participation entails. Placing such a requirement in the Act may dissuade a state from enacting it for the reason that the state does not wish to accept the administrative and fiscal responsibilities of such a program.[ix]

The Public/Private Partnership angle from the inside

Now add to this the public/private partnership between Land Trusts and the government. Watch how your tax dollars go to benefitting NGOs while they are working to take private property – and sell it to the government at a huge profit.

Role of Government

“Government must be an active participant. First, where necessary, it should use its police powers, through the exercise of planning and zoning, to regulate subdivision and thus stabilize rural land use.. . . Although private covenants, like those embodied in conservation easements, might theoretically provide stability, the process of negotiating with individual landowners is just too slow to be practical in the real world.. . .Only by permanently retiring the development rights to farmland can true conservation be achieved. Remuneration of landowners – whether in cash or tax reduction or by some other means – is a necessary inducement to this kind of land use restriction. The private conservation community in America recognizes the principle but quite simply lacks the resources to carry it out on the scale necessary to protect a critical mass of farmland.”[x]

Role of Private Partners

“If government is an essential participant in agricultural conservation, action by the private sector is also necessary. It is axiomatic that in acquiring land, private organizations are quicker to act, freer to structure creative conservation transactions, and in general more flexible and aggressive than government agencies. With enough expertise and venture capital, they can simply reach more landowners and nail down more deals virtually than any bureaucracy. These qualities are perhaps even more important in agricultural conservation than in the preservation of habitat and scenery.”[xi]

“. . . government agencies turned to land trusts for assistance. Land trusts were not constrained by regulatory procedures and had employees and members who were more familiar with the methods of natural open space protection. As noted by a member of the Alachua Conservation Land Trust of Gainesville, Florida: “Land trusts can operate with less public scrutiny than a government agency. Trusts don’t have to give public notice or hold hearings on their actions” (Thomas 1999, 15).  

When a private land trust buys land in advance of a government agency’s ability to attain it, then sells the land to that agency, it is called a pre-acquisition. Land trusts are said to “bring 13 agility to projects” (Endicott 1993, 4), because they are able to quickly purchase land by more flexible means, such as at auctions or through installments, than are available to government agencies.  

Pre-acquisition enables the land trust to quickly obtain the land, giving the public agency time to raise the funds to purchase the property and perform the necessary public hearings. The land trust assures the government agency that the land will not be sold in the interim. The practice of pre-acquisition also generates direct monetary benefits to the land trust involved. Because of the tax deductions available for individuals who sell or donate land or easements to land trusts, land trusts are able to acquire land or easements at below market prices.  

When a land trust acquires this land, the organization can then sell the entire property or easements to a government agency at market value, realizing the difference. Thus, for example, in 1989 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) paid The Nature Conservancy (TNC) $1.4 million for land TNC had bought for $1.26 million. TNC was able to increase the amount of land protected from residential and commercial development while also increasing its funding. Transactions such as these have played a growing role in the spread of land trusts, but also mean that acreage held by a land trust is no longer always an accurate measure of its activity.”[xii]

Now, that is a win-win – for the government and the Land Trust. A lose-lose for the property owners and America. But the biggest loss is the abrogation of the Rule Against Perpetuities, thanks to the Uniform Conservation Easement Act. With this, on top of the change in the law for eminent domain from the Kelo case making the ‘takings clause’ in the Constitution null and void, the government can take our property any time it wishes. We no longer have a legal leg to stand on. We are SLAVES.

“Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own efforts, the man who has no right to the product of his efforts has no means to sustain his life. The man, who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.” Ayn Rand

[i] U.S. Constitution, Archives.gov
[ii] Ely, James W.Jr., Vanderbilt University, “Property Rights in America”, Hillsdale.edu
[iii] Rules against Perpetuities, The Free Dictionary.com
[iv] Upham, David, “The Primacy of Property Rights and the American Founding”, Foundation for Economic Education, fee.org
[v] Pecquet, Gary, Private Property and Government under the Constitution, Foundation for Economic Education
[vi] US legal.com
[vii] UN Civil Society
[viii] Ibid.
[ix]  Uniform Conservation Easement Act,  Uniform Laws.org
[x] Endicott, Eve ed., Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships, pp 44,45.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii]   Mulholland, et al, “The Growth of the Non-Profit Land Conservancy Movement, John E. Walker Dept. of Economics, Clemson University, and PERC
 

Kathleen Marquardt

KathleenMarquardt@americanpolicy.org

Kathleen Marquardt has been in the freedom movement since before it was called that. She was founder and chairman of Putting People First, a non-profit organization combatting the animal rights movement. Her book, AnimalScam: the Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, was published by Regnery in 1993. Kathleen has been Vice President of American Policy Center since 2000 and is the Agenda 21/Sustainable Development expert for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign. She was a contributing writer and researcher for Freedom Advocates.

Church, State, and Global Government Make Strange Bedfellows

17 May 2018  Sustainable Development by Kathleen Marquardt @ American Policy Center

The vital news of the day has been reduced to a carefully crafted summary that can be covered in two minutes or less. Truths are no longer truths, and lies are no longer lies; what matters is how you spin your truth or lie to create the perfect sound bite to move the masses.  Dr. Michael Lake, The Shinar Directive

What a world we live in today. But which world is it? The black is white one, or the ‘there is only gray’ one? Or another? While some of us have always had trouble discerning deceptions, today we all are in the same boat. There are too many deceptions foisted on us via media, our governments, schools, churches, social media – only those who are willing to expend the time to study the issues can sort the propaganda from the truth.

One problem is that the entities and people who are plotting for a one-world government have a lot of money, thus a lot of power. And remember that old adage, ‘power is an aphrodisiac.’ It truly is; power seduces those who want power, those who want to sleep with power, and those who want to be with the ‘in’ crowd. And, because our schools, instead of educating our children, are corrupting their values, attitudes, and beliefs, they are molding most to succumb to peer pressure – thus wanting to be part of the ‘in’ crowd.

Re: values, attitudes, and beliefs: there are many who scream to get the church out of the state, but what I see is the state needs to get out of the church, too. Instead, the church and state are marrying. Why? In my opinion, for power. The church, especially the Catholic Church has many millions of parishioners, thus voters – great for the state. The state has a plan that will centralize power in a small elite, and if the Catholic Church is on board, the Pope and his minions will be benefactors.

The plan behind all the deception is Sustainable Development with its concomitant parts of social justice, and sustainability (defined loosely enough to be as amorphous as climate change), and the ever-present ‘common good’. Tom describes social justice “as the right and opportunity of all people ‘to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.’ Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice.” But there are even more nasty ramifications of SJ. Certain groups are protected under social justice, but today’s groups might very well not be tomorrow’s; it is an ever changing, nebulous dictum.

Here is a perfect definition from the globalist perspective:

As I see it, social justice requires resource equity, fairness, and respect for diversity, as well as the eradication of existing forms of social oppression. Social justice entails a “redistribution” of resources from those who have “unjustly” gained them to those who justly deserve them, and it also means creating and “ensuring” the processes of truly democratic participation in decision-making…. It seems clear that only a “decisive” redistribution of resources and decision-making power can “ensure” social justice and authentic democracy. - Joe Feagin, American Sociological Review  

All I can say to that is to repeat an old Tammany Hall saying:

“Th’ fella’ w’at said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, underestimated th’ possibilities of compassion.” 

The church should be caring for souls, but it seems to care for only a few souls. The rest of us need to disappear to make Mother Earth more pleasing to the ‘right’ people. From the Vatican on Biological Extinction:

“In recent years the Pontifical Academies have held several colloquia on the subject of social justice, global inequality, and deep poverty in the contemporary world. But we haven’t addressed the question whether the Earth system is able to support the demands that humanity has been making on it, nor how global inequality and poverty relate to that. The survival of the natural world, and ultimately our survival, depends on our adoption of principles of social justice and sustainability. And sustainability requires care for the biodiversity that supplies the services that enable humanity to live and prosper. As PAS President Werner Arber stated recently, the question is now not so much how our children and grandchildren will fare, but whether the world will be able to function sustainably during the remainder of our own lives. 

“The living fabric of the world, which we are enjoyed in Genesis, Chapter II to protect, is slipping through our fingers without our showing much sign of caring.” Pontifical Academy of Sciences

 Obviously, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe God is in control anymore.
 

And, of course, the church has friends in low places. In 1974, Paul Ehrlich, was crying that we were about to experience a new ice age. Now he is on the global warming/climate change bandwagon, and he is advising the papacy with no sign of contrition for his wild swings of prophecy:

“One in five species on Earth now faces extinction, and that will rise to 50% by the end of the century unless urgent action is taken. A world population of around a billion would have an overall pro-life effect. This could be supported for many millennia and sustain many more human lives in the long term compared with our current uncontrolled growth and prospect of sudden collapse.”

That is the stark view of the world’s leading biologists, ecologists and economists who gathered to determine the social and economic changes needed to save the planet’s biosphere.

 

“The living fabric of the world is slipping through our fingers without our showing much sign of caring,” say the organizers of the Biological Extinction conference held at the Vatican.

Between the Vatican and the Greens, we humans are damned – and rightly so. They convened a workshop titled, ‘How to Save the Natural World on Which We Depend,’ …to strategize together on how to limit the mass extinction event caused by rampant over-development, climate change, overpopulation, and unsustainable agricultural practices.”

“The living fabric of the world is slipping through our fingers without our showing much sign of caring,” said the organizers of the workshop.

Forgive me for wondering how the Catholic Church went from banning birth control to worrying about overpopulation? And the ‘living fabric of the world’? I am surmising they mean Mother Earth and not the babies not being born.

Kathleen Marquardt

KathleenMarquardt@americanpolicy.org

 

Kathleen Marquardt has been in the freedom movement since before it was called that. She was founder and chairman of Putting People First, a non-profit organization combatting the animal rights movement. Her book, AnimalScam: the Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, was published by Regnery in 1993. Kathleen has been Vice President of American Policy Center since 2000 and is the Agenda 21/Sustainable Development expert for Rocky Top Freedom Campaign. She was a contributing writer and researcher for Freedom Advocates.