Prepare to be DICED 9

The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED) is, in the words of Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh writing at Canada Free Press, an Environmental Constitution of Global Governance.

She traces its history:

The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.

The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’

She shows clearly what this terrible instrument is for. It is intended to be a global constitution, superseding all existing constitutions of all countries that have them, including the Constitution of the USA.

All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.

“Sustainable Development” being the darling euphemism of the Left for “Our Control”.

The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.”

But they assert that “proper governance is necessary on all levels, ‘from the local to the global’”, and “Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under ‘the protection of international law’“.

Article 11 discusses “equity” and “equitable manner” which are code words for communism.

Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.

Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we ratify this document, we must thus fight a non-existent man-made climate change.

Article 31 requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.

If you ask, “Why can’t they get it into their heads that spreading wealth does not cure poverty?”, you’re forgetting that curing poverty is not actually their aim. Whatever would they do without the poor to act in the name of, to weep their crocodile tears over, and to feel superior to?

Article 32 requires recycling.

Article 33 demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level”.

People who are allowed to live will be put where The Rulers decide they should be:

Article 33 delineates long-term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity of the environment.”

The Rulers will decide arbitrarily how goods and services should be priced:

Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.”

It will be one centrally planned economy:

Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, … to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.”

The UN will morph into the Global Kremlin. Any “amendments” to the Constitution of the World will be reviewed by the UN Secretary-General – under some new name, of course, such as Secretary-General of the World Communist Party:

Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.

Who are the writers of the Covenant?

The UN Secretariat, international lawyers, and U.S. professors from Cornell, Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, University of the Pacific, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, and two attorneys in private practice.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, who is constantly vigilant for all of us in the cause of freedom, and to whom the free world should gratefully pay attention, sums up their intent:

This Draft Covenant … is obviously intended to be a world constitution for global governance, … to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.

Or, even more succinctly and accurately, a form of World Communist Dictatorship.

If Barack Obama is given another four years in power, he will enthusiastically promote this agenda.

We hope a Republican president will appoint John Bolton his Secretary of State, because he is the man we trust – as far as skeptics can trust anyone – to save us from being DICED.

 

Note:  Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh’s source for her article was Agenda 21 on Steroids by Debbie Coffey, which may be found here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  • Liz

    It has reached the point of absurdity that these megalomaniacal twerps are allowed to continue continue using our money to construct their little fantasyland.
    Same thing applies to Obama, the EPA, etc… 

  • http://hypermoxie.blogspot.com/ GTChristie

    The actual draft Covenant is published online (242 pages, format .pdf):
     
    http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/IUCN%20Intl%20Covenant%20on%20Env%20and%20Dev%20EPLP-031-rev3.pdf

    Interesting notes (Techno-Curmudgeon Dept):
    The doc title above says “rev3″ but the document itself is “Fourth Edition.” Nobody explains the naming convention, so historians will have to hash that out to avoid confusion in 100 years.

     The “%20″ symbols between title words in the URL indicate spaces in the title of the .pdf document. Apparently the authors do not understand how to title a document so our browsers will understand them: the convention is to dash or underscore between words in a title to make it continuous, so any browser can read the address. One must wonder, if the great and powerful poobahs of world government don’t understand even the basics of its most ubiquitous technology, how will they administer technology in general? Perhaps pass an international law that all browsers must understand spaces between title words in UN documents?

    The document is also known as ISBN: 978-2-8317-1286-4 (as a book published by UN). Once again, bureau-think at work. To search for it in a book catalog or index, you don’t need the dashes. The associated barcode would not dash the number.

    Somebody’s got ten thumbs technologically. I doubt I will want my technocracy run by techno-illiterati.

    Now I’m going to take the trouble to read all 240+ pages. More fun than Newt Gingrich’s doctoral thesis? We’ll see.

    What I’m really concerned about is, the articles I’ve read about it so far describe a document for micromanaging an economy of 10 billion people with no attention to the limits of government (such as we have in Constitution of the US). So I’m reading the document itself to find out what (if any) individual rights are protected/guaranteed. Can I deal in Indonesian teakwood at a discount if I grow it myself? (For example.) Or does somebody like Kofi Annan get to confiscate my Gibson guitar unless I got the teakwood at the centrally planned price? Bet I know the answer.

    • http://hypermoxie.blogspot.com/ GTChristie

      PS: I read a comment on another website about this UN initiative on “sustainability,” demanding/complaining that ordinary people should be told what is going on behind closed doors. I am sure I will never be asked to vote on this stuff.

      Accidentally stumbled into a document of the planning committee for the upcoming conference in Rio de Janiero (“Rio 20″) where the sustainability draft etc will be discussed (adopted? I can’t tell … still reading).

      Read a couple of pages of this. This is how the UN (and presumably, Central Planning) actually works. It’s the minutes of a meeting concerning planning for a meeting and if you read between the lines it’s hilarious. Especially one part where a concern of some Bureau members (the board who is having the meeting) about the wording of a planning document is addressed by substituting the proper name of a committee with an asterisk that will henceforth point to a footnote, instead of appearing in the actual text (did you even follow that???)

      Or, for grins, another Bureau newly created by the UN (evidently overlapping in responsibility with this one) has contacted this Bureau for a meeting to discuss … ummm … who’s who, I guess.

       LMFAO.
      This is what central planning actually looks like, folks. B.U.R.E.A.U.think.

    • George

      Ditto GT ,  well described ! 

  • Anonymous

    Time to stop supporting the UN.

  • Debbie Coffey

    Dr. Paugh has listed the source of her article as “Agenda 21 on Steroids” by Debbie Coffey at  http://ppjg.me/2012/03/14/agenda-21-on-steroids/   In order for your site to be in compliance with copyright laws, you must include this information.  Thank you.  Debbie Coffey

    • Jillian Becker

      Our apologies, Debbie Coffey!

      And thank you for drawing our attention to the error we made in omitting to mention your important article.

      We have now corrected the omission. 

  • George

    Not only are the left wing ultra-liberals who pomote their socialist/communist agenda  destroying free enterprise/capitalism , personal liberty , personal property ownership ,    and true human rights  and also humane &  respectful treatment but these same nut-case liberals have practically “hijacked” secular freethought and have so much tarnished the positive image of secular freethought and rational thinking.
                             Secular conservatism is the ONLY hope for us as secular conservatives to get true respect , acceptance, and dignity in the world .  Liberals are really seriously mentally disturbed individuals and self-destructive .      They are pathetic sickos and are seriously mentally deranged !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Please pardon my colorful lingo in describing them.