‘This means that you, Fido, and your prize petunia now have equal rights …’
Dear Editor,
In response to “Just what does ‘sustainable’ mean, in July 6th’s paper, I’d like to supply some “facts” and examples to clarify the previous answer. The concept of “Sustainable Development” is credited to Gro Harlem Brundtland, Chair of the Bruntdland Commission and also Vice Chair of the World Socialist Party. The Brundtland Commission defined the term “Sustainable Development” in the 1987 report from the U.N. World Commission on Environment & Development called “Our Common Future.” They defined sustainable development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
The President’s Council on Sustainable Development adopted that definition. Sounds good to me, until you read the entire U.N. document “Sustainable Development – Agenda 21” where the philosophy and plan to implement sustainable development originated and is revealed. (Ref. http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/) Keep in mind the inception of these sustainable programs was created to further achieve a one-world government/economy. The basis used to promote “sustainable development” programs is your acceptance of “global warming” and should we fail to implement sustainable development programs the earth will disintegrate, blow up or something like that. I haven’t quite been able to determine from the research exactly what will happen.
But even if you chose to believe in global warming, you still must accept the premise the sustainable programs mandate; which is man is equal with animals and nature. This means that you, Fido, and your prize petunia now have equal rights. For example, lets take the sustainable development “Wildlands Project” (Ref http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/) where the goal is to set aside 50% of the continent for preservation of biodiversity. In other words, since man and nature are equal, 50% of the land is set aside solely for the use of nature. Man is forbidden to trespass on nature’s 50%.
This particular sustainable program is currently being implemented via the Santa Clara County Habitat Conservation Plan and also The Foothills Legacy Plan. One teeny tiny problem with these sustainable programs is that they violate your property rights. If you recall our U.S. Constitution gives us unalienable rights, one of which is the right to own property.
The Sustainable Development-Agenda 21 plan teaches, “Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice …”
There are numerous “Sustainable Development” plans currently being implemented right here in Santa Clara County; i.e. The Wildlands Project, Healthy Communities, Santa Clara Habitat Conservation Plan and The Bay Area Plan. Each of these “sustainable” plans is currently being implemented right under your nose and will effect you “in in every area in which human impacts on the environment”, yet I’ll bet you know little or nothing about them.
That’s because plans for these sustainable development programs were concealed in planning guides; i.e. Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, distributed to your local government planning departments by ICLEI (International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives), a UN non-governmental organization.
So, just what does ‘sustainable” mean? It means you’d better wake up fast and realize that your property rights are in danger of being violated by these “sustainable development” programs. I believe that most of us Americans are in favor of protecting our environment. I also believe that we Americans are intelligent enough to develop our own environmental programs that don’t violate our rights under our Constitution without the help of the United Nations.
Diane Nuno, Gilroy
We’re in an economic recovery, so who needs Romney’s turnaround policy?
Dear Editor,
Which presidential candidate has a better plan to turn the economy around? Romney does! But when you think about it – turning the economy around isn’t a good thing.
We are in a recovery, and if Romney were president we would go back to the policies of Bush and the economy would be on free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. So we don’t want to turn the economy around. We want to stay the course and keep the recovery going.
Staying the course is better than turning the economy around.
Marc Perkel, Gilroy
Bullet train boondoggle gets past the legislature, so let’s take it back to the people
Dear Editor,
If the California legislature and governor have all that money to make a super-sized Amtrak, then they sure don’t need us to send them more taxes. So, we should reject all their tax increase measures on the November ballot.
Meanwhile, we’ll get busy to put the Bullet Train back on the ballot as Sen. LaMalfa has recommended and sponsored.
Joe Thompson, Gilroy
