Is Tom DeWeese misleading us on purpose?

I keep getting forwards that link to Tom DeWeese's last article on Senator Dodd's proposed Livable Communities Act (S.1619). http://americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer-action-alerts/%E2%80%9Clivable-communities%E2%80%9D-is-a-socialist-trap.html

DeWeese calls it a "socialist trap." He closes with a call for all Republicans to call and write their representatives to protest the bill because, I suppose, this will stop it, and in his expert opinion, registered Democrats (read socialists) have no reason to oppose it.

DeWeese claims he has been leading the fight against LA21 for over a decade. He tells us:

"S.1619 is the first federal Sustainable Development law to enforce the UN’s Agenda 21. It must be stopped now – or every single community in America will be forced to comply with UN policy."

Does the above quote give you the impression that calling and writing your Congress will STOP LA21 in the USA? Does it imply that as yet no place has been forced to comply with UN policy?

The truth is, there have been many federal laws and programs that have already implemented Sustainable Development from one end of the country to another. Clinton's President's Council on Sustainable Development was created in 1993. The National Town Meetings began in the 1990s too. The Communitarian Network and Presidential Adviser Amitai Etzioni worked side by side with the Clinton Administration to be the "moral" backbone for reinventing our nation under SD principles. Rebuilding Community and SD go hand in hand.

The federal department of Agriculture changed its mission statement to promote SD in 1993. The USDA is completely devoted to SD and everything they do promotes it. Sustainable Communities is the goal of every government program already ongoing in the country. Our best universities have been teaching SD for over a decade already.

There have been numerous state laws and programs since 1992 that have implemented Sustainable Development in every state in the union. There are numerous treaties that have already put the U.S. under U.N. communitarian law. SD standards are already mandatory.

So why would Tom DeWeese, a self proclaimed "leader" in fighting SD for over a decade, tell his readers that THIS new law proposed by Dodd is the key to stopping SD?

How is it possible that this "leader" of the U.S. opposition to SD has written only one article in all his years of "fighting" SD that mentions the philosophy behind SD? Why won't DeWeese tell you about the massive communitarian legal system and bureaucracy that already "legalized" SD in the USA? Why doesn't he explain communitarian law is supreme law under the revised U.N., or that every country in the world is facing the same changes to the structure of their governments? (Global government is NOT just an American problem!)

I asked Kevin Eggers if he could explain why average people like himself and the Santa Rosa Democrats Against LA21 can so readily understand communitarianism when people like DeWeese, who claim to be experts, can continue to completely ignore it. His response:

"Communitarianism makes sense. Senator William Borah described in his book "Bedrock" (1936) how the corporations were controlling things through their monopolies in a free market system and also how the corporations controlled things in the legislation or "planned industrialism" that was supposed to be for the people's benefit. Without calling it the Hegelian Dialectic, Borah explained the Hegelian dialectic of capitalism versus socialism with the large corporations winning no matter what. Today, the left can only see the expoitation of corporate controlled capitalism and the right can only see the exploitation of corporate influenced big government socialism. Our corporate controlled education and media maintains these left right divisions so they can get away with nearly anything."

Who else besides the corporate controlled media maintains the left right divisions?

Where can average people be the most effective in the war against the SD gangsters? At HOME, on their home fronts, where the SD programs claim to have the support of the whole community. Any time spent writing federal representatives about SD is a waste of time. They've already embraced the communitarian ideology. But if Americans go to their local meetings and take over their local councils... they can direct SD in any direction they choose (including straight into the garbage can where it belongs).

The bottom line is these innovative strategies to reinvent American government do not gain their validity only via national laws. Communitarian powers come from the communitarian claims that the "community" supports communitarian changes. If the residents in the community don't know anything about communitarianism, the planners have no clear opposition.

If we don't know what communitarianism is, then we can't identify the people who embrace it. If we don't know what legal theory supports SD, we can't challenge it using our legitimate local law.

H.R. 2016: 26 million acres in jepordy

This just came in from Pete. It looks like it legalizes the Yellowstone to Yukon project but it isn't described as such. This also looks like it establishes more LA21 levels of government.

DO WE STILL OWN OUR OWN CONTRY?

Liberty Matters ACTION ALERT
http://www.libertymatters.org/

26 Million Acres in Jeopardy
HR 2016 Up For Vote This Week

The House Natural Resource Committee has sent HR 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System bill, to the House floor and could be voted on as early as today. The measure would place 26 million acres under jurisdiction of the National Park Service in the 13 Western States, and could lead to the end of multiple-use on much of those lands. {bold emphasis mine}

The legislation codifies a system that former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt initiated in 2000. It includes 17 National Conservation Areas, 15 National Monuments, 38 Wild and Scenic Rivers, 161 Wilderness Acres, 5203 miles of National Scenic and Historic Trails, and 604 Wilderness Study Areas -- all in the 13 Western States. Not surprisingly, the bill sponsors are predominantly from the east, and no member from Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Utah or Wyoming is cosponsors. These five states alone have 82% of the Wild and Scenic Rivers, 62% of the National Historic Trails, 45% of the Wilderness Study Areas, and 33% of the National Scenic Trails. Specifically, HR 2016 will:

1. Codify by statute the NLCS, adding an additional layer of bureaucracy to traditionally multi-use BLM lands in the restrictive fashion of the National Park Service.

2. Elevates “protecting the values for which the components of the system were designated,” above existing management requirements, placing a higher value on “landscape preservation” than what the existing law provides.

3. Elevates the purposes of “conserve, protect, restore” above other purposes.

4. Management requirements set forth in the bill are vague, opening an invitation for environmental groups to unduly influence how the lands will be managed.

5. Authorizes land managers to trump access rights and productive uses if viewed to conflict with “protecting the values” for which the land was designated.

6. Contains no provision where local governments can raise and address local impacts.

The Bush administration has shown no interest in protecting the multiple-use status of the 26 million acres either, as Interior Secretary Kempthorne’s staff was sent to testify in favor of the measure. The Senate has already passed the companion bill out of committee, where it is also waiting for a floor vote.

It is imperative to contact your Representative immediately asking them to vote against HR 2016. Any Congressman can be reached by calling 202-225-3121. Don’t delay. Remember, the bill could come up for a vote anytime this week, including today, so call immediately.

Then somebody from our neighborhood made a very interesting search for terms that led them to my blog, and led me to this:

http://www.democracynature.org/dn/vol8/takis_transitional.htm

DEMOCRACY & NATURE: The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY

vol.8, no.1, (March 2002)

Transitional strategies and the Inclusive Democracy project

Takis Fotopoulos

Abstract: The aim of this paper is twofold. First, to critically assess the various transitional strategies for radical social change which have been proposed in the past, as well as some recently developed strategies, like the civil societarian approach, the Libertarian Municipalism strategy and the ‘lifestyle’ strategies. Second, to propose a new transitional strategy which aims at the transition to a confederal Inclusive Democracy. In this context, the emancipatory subject in present society is discussed, a new type of politics and political organisation is suggested, and a series of steps for the transition to a political, economic, ecological democracy, as well as a ‘democracy in the social realm’ is proposed.

The collapse of actually existing socialism and the parallel failure of Western social democracy and its replacement by today’s neoliberal consensus in combination with the rise of the ideology of postmodernism[1] and the decline of antisystemic movements[2] have inevitably led to a corresponding decline of a discussion which was still flourishing a few decades ago: the discussion on a transitional strategy towards an alternative society. This was inevitable, because the abandonment by the Left (Old, New, and Green) of any vision for an alternative society in effect made such strategies redundant. A basic criterion which we may use in distinguishing between the various transitional strategies which have been proposed in the past and the few being proposed today is whether a strategy aims at reforming the present institutions without proposing any alternative institutional framework, or whether, instead, it aims at replacing the present society’s institutional framework, that is, the system of the globalised market economy and the complementary institution of representative ‘democracy’, as well as the corresponding system of values that constitutes the dominant social paradigm on which the present society is based. On the basis of this criterion we may distinguish between ‘non-systemic’ and ‘anti-systemic’ strategies.

This is a very long scholarly presentation that I need time to review, but here's their conclusion:

Finally, the transitional strategy should involve steps in the development of institutions and values which aim at the reintegration of society with Nature and the elimination of any human attempt to dominate the natural world. This implies, apart from participating in struggles against the activities of the political and economic elites which have resulted in the present ecological crisis, the initiation of moves for the establishment of alternative ‘eco-friendly’ institutions and renewable forms of energy. In fact, as I showed elsewhere,[94] the establishment of the new political and economic institutions itself and particularly the drastic decentralisation that the new institutions involve is a crucial step in this direction, as it allows the development of new lifestyles , new patterns of work, production, energy use and consumption, which are perfectly compatible with the aim of an ecological democracy.

In conclusion, no one should have any illusions that the establishment of democracy will be a swift process or that the implementation of a transitional strategy program will not have a hard time from the elites controlling the state machine and the market economy. This process is bound to be a long one involving a huge popular movement and will extend over an entire historical period. However, without underestimating the difficulties involved in the context of today’s perfected methods of brain control and economic violence, which, in fact, might prove more effective methods than pure state violence in suppressing a movement for an inclusive democracy, I think that the proposed strategy is a realistic strategy on the way to a new society.

Foot note #36 is: "see also Takis Fotopoulos, ‘Social Ecology, Eco-Communitarianism and Inclusive Democracy’, Democracy & Nature, vol 5 no 3 (November 1999), pp. 561-576"

Eco-Communitarianism? Gee...what's that?

Now the real "people" who live on the land and want to own what they legally own have become the "elites" standing in the way of inclusive democratic progress. I find it interesting that the conclusion affirms the concept of "brain control aand economic violence." Definitely worth studying... but I won't be able to get to it for months. We're moving into our new office this week and getting ready for summer tourist season. We have a major book editing project that will take our course of thinking into the more spiritual realm of ACL research. I need to contemplate what motivates me. I don't often consider what role my beliefs play in my devotion to exposing the communitarian lie, knowing as I do how twisted up it is with false patriotism and new age Christian religion. Who are the new breed of Christians who practice snobbery and condemnation of others as a daily ritual? How can people do so much meddling and manipulation, while spreading gossip and lies, always claim to go to "church" and use THAT as their justification for their rudeness and evil acts toward others? My childhood experience with Jesus taught me to be kind, above all other things. Yet, to my sister Judy, and her growing clique of "church" affiliates, kindness is reserved for above poverty level members only. So what "God" do they pray to in their oft cited claims to superior morality? It's incredibly painful to see the communitarian church's influence on our family and friends. Wasn't "brother against brother" something predicted for the end times in their Bible?

H.CON.RES.292

Looks like the U.S. Congress was well prepared to implement the new system agreed to at Rio. I love it that they added the blurb at the end about protecting American jobs. They care.

H.CON.RES.292
Title: Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to United States participation in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).
Sponsor: Rep Fascell, Dante B. [FL-19] (introduced 3/12/1992) Cosponsors (37)
Related Bills: S.CON.RES.89
Latest Major Action: 4/7/1992 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate in lieu of S.CON.RES. 89 with an amendment and an amended preamble by Yea-Nay Vote. 87-11. Record Vote No: 67.

---

SUMMARY AS OF:
4/7/1992--Passed Senate amended. (There is 1 other summary)

Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should: (1) play a strong role in cooperating with other governments to prepare for a successful United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Brazil in 1992; and (2) seek to develop international agreements to enhance global environmental protection and encourage the use of sustainable development practices for signature at UNCED.

Urges the President to support: (1) an international convention to reduce the threat of global climatic change; (2) the development of a global strategy and action plan to conserve biological diversity; (3) principles that provide for the international protection, growth, and sustainable use of mature forests; (4) the creation of an International Northern Forests Organization (to study the linkages among international trade in forest products, the management of northern forests, and the regional and global environment in order to assist member countries in the development of sustainable forest management policis); (5) policies and agreements that encourage the development of renewable sources of energy and energy-efficient technology with priority to developing more efficient transportation systems; (6) the implementation of the Montreal Guidelines for Protection of Marine Environment Against Pollution from Land-Based Sources; (7) programs to ensure the efficient and equitable use of fresh water resources with priority to the promotion of water conservation and demand management programs; (8) the acceleration of international efforts to reduce the emission of and phase out chemicals that deplete the ozone layer; (9) efforts to strengthen the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Shipments of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; (10) voluntary measures for financing UNCED agenda initiatives that integrate environmental projects and considerations with comprehensive developmental goals and that meet the concerns of developing countries; (11) new voluntary multilateral measures to provide assistance for global environmental protection activities in developing countries; (12) a process for international consultation for identifying methods of conserving natural resources and reducing the debt burden of developing countries; (13) initiatives to strengthen the ability of the United Nations and its agencies to assist the world community in developing and implementing agreements that serve the goals of UNCED; (14) the development of a reform system of national accounting that reflects full environmental costs; and (15) the international recognition of the right of the general public to be informed of, and participate in, decision making that affects the environment and the use of natural resources.

Calls on the President to recognize June 5, 1992, as World Environment Day.

Declares that the President should not support any action or undertake any commitment pursuant to this Act that would adversely affect the competitiveness of American industry or that would result in a net long-term loss of American jobs.