United Nations Will Pursue a Global Green Government at Rio+20 Summit

By ALEX NEWMAN | THE NEW AMERICAN | APRIL 27, 2012

A recently released United Nations report outlines the global body’s plan to foist a centrally planned “green” world order on all of humanity, making every level of government subservient to its “sustainable development” agenda. The upcoming Rio+20 sustainability conference in Brazil — held two decades after the first “Earth Summit” adopted Agenda 21 — will be used to solidify the foundation of the emerging planetary control system.

Under the guise of a “green economy” — expected to cost trillions of dollars per year, according to the report — the UN intends to make use of coercive power at all levels of governance to implement the plan. From local and national governments to regional and global entities, programs affecting every area of human life will be used to advance the controversial “sustainable development” agenda.

According to the UN report, entitled “Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective,” everything must change to make humanity more sustainable. Lifestyles, opinions, education, health, consumption, production, agriculture, diet, law, taxation, industry, governance, and more: Literally everything must be re-shaped to conform with new international standards.

“Specifically, in a transition to a green economy, public policies will need to be used strategically to reorient consumption, investments, and other economic activities,” the document explains, touting the reduction of carbon emissions and new educational programs to teach humanity why it must become sustainable. “Transitioning to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act.”

The perfect opportunity to solidify the scheme is coming up in June at the UN sustainability summit. And UN bosses are determined not to waste it. “Agreement among UN entities on core elements of strategy, policy, and programmatic services in support of governments’ green economy initiatives will send a powerful signal to governments, businesses, and civil society of the determination of the UN system to ‘Deliver as One’ on a green economy transformation for sustainable development,” the report notes.

Green, From the Top Down:

The plan, of course, will be imposed from the top down. Regional, national, state, and even local governments will all be coaxed into participation. “At the international, sub-regional, and regional levels, there is a need for policy coherence and financial and technological cooperation,” the UN report states. Various enforcement tools will be used to ensure compliance.

Global “justice” to enforce obedience must be powerful for the scheme to succeed. “The success of regulatory approaches hinges on the certainty of policies as well as the quality and credibility of regulatory institutions and their compliance mechanisms, including justice systems,” the report explains. “Effective compliance mechanisms should be put in place in order to achieve the desired outcomes.”

Read Full Article →

Corrupt Newspapers ‘softened’ Torture After U.S. began Using it

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
July 2, 2010

Torture, as a tool to obtain information from a human being is disgusting, inhumane and illegal by all measurements in past and

Do as I say, not as I do. This seems to be the motto of the torturers and the pandering media.

modern societies.  It is unthinkable that anyone with red blood in their veins could consider it acceptable to torture a person in order to obtain information that as it has been widely demonstrated, (1) has never provided any useful details to prevent a disaster.  In the western world, torture is mostly seen as unjustified, (2) and only some power men who control the militaries of the world still agree to use torture in various forms to get details of ‘plots’ to attack the free world.  Only a population that never experience torture as a tool to criminalize citizens could hesitate before the question, Is Torture Ever Justified? (3)

How would public perception change if the media that feeds propaganda to them on a daily basis simply began to indirectly condone or soften torture as a tool the government uses in times of war? A study conducted by Harvard reveals that the four newspapers with more circulation in the U.S. effectively mischaracterized the use of waterboarding -as a form of torture- after it was discovered the United States waterboarded and humiliated prisoners.  (4) The study conducted by Law students at Harvard says that The New York Times, the USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal either refused to call waterboarding torture or did it in only and handful of their articles that talked about the use of torture by the United States.

We found a significant and sudden shift in how newspapers characterized waterboarding…   … from 2002‐2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture. The New York Times called waterboarding torture or implied it was torture in just 2 of 143 articles (1.4%). The Los Angeles Times did so in 4.8% of articles (3 of 63). The Wall Street Journal characterized the practice as torture in just 1 of 63 articles (1.6%). USA Today never called waterboarding.

According to the study, newspapers were more likely to call waterboarding torture if another country was the perpetrator of the crime.

The New York Times, 85.8% of articles (28 of 33) that dealt with a country other than the United States using waterboarding called it torture or implied it was torture while only 7.69% (16 of 208) did so when the United States was responsible. The Los Angeles Times characterized the practice as torture in 91.3% of articles (21 of 23).

Although waterboarding has been debated and talked about since the beginning of the century, it was never so close to home as it has been in the last decade.  After 9/11, and in the middle of a careless campaign to hunt a nonexistent enemy, the U.S. launched a military assault in Iraq and Afghanistan to find and kill the murderers who had killed innocent Americans.  There was very little concern in the public’s mind as to how this goal was achieved and what would it take to bring them to justice.  Then came Abu Ghraib (5) and a mass awakening took place.  Was the U.S using the very same techniques it had condemned in the past?  The answer was YES.

Harvard’s study examined the newspapers’ coverage using electronic databases.  “Our research team word searched for the term “waterboarding”, these included classifying the practice as “torture,” giving it some lesser, negative classification (such as calling waterboarding “inhuman”), giving it a softer, less negative classification (such as calling waterboarding “objectionable”), or not characterizing the practice at all.”  The study analyzed the reporting of four major newspapers using Proquest, LexisNexis, and the NY Times website archives.  Read more about the methodology on page 5 of the study.

“The results of this study demonstrate that there was a sudden, significant, shift in major print media’s treatment of waterboarding,” concludes the study.  After the Abu Ghraib scandal, the four studied newspapers changed the word torture for “harsh” and/or “coercive”, to describe waterboarding.  This behaviour was seen both in articles considered as “news” as well as those classified as “opinion”.  Although Harvard’s study does not provide any possible reason why this change in wording occurred, it does cite an article by New York Times editor Clark Hoyt, who said that this behaviour was a deliberate decision made by Journalists and Editors in an effort to remain “neutral”.

The study refutes Mr. Hoyt’s statement with the fact newspapers comfortably called waterboarding and other practices of the sort “torture” before 9/11 and even before 2004 without any reserves.  Another reason why Mr. Hoyt’s affirmation is baseless, is that waterboarding had been labeled torture and an illegal practice by American law, international law, and the very same newspapers that now justify their actions by calling themselves “neutral”.

(1) http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-torture-does-not-work-as-history-shows-777213.html

(2) http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/military_0604.pdf

(3) http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/04/pew-poll-public-support-for-torture-at-five-year-high/

(4) http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/torture_at_times_hks_students.pdf

(5) http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

63% Now Agree to Repeal Obama Healthcare Law

If one did not know the real numbers, this report would come as a surprise.  However, the opposition to Obamacare has been this high since before it was actually approved.

Rassmusen

Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.

Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.

The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.

While opposition to the bill has remained as consistent since its passage as it was beforehand, this marks the first time that support for repeal has climbed into the 60s. It will be interesting to see whether this marks a brief bounce or indicates a trend of growing opposition.

Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters now believe the health care plan will be good for the country, down six points from a week ago and the lowest level of confidence in the plan to date. Fifty-five percent (55%) say it will be bad for the nation. Only three percent (3%) think it will have no impact.

The Political Class continues to be a strong supporter of the plan, however. While 67% of Mainstream voters believe the plan will be bad for America, 77% of the Political Class disagree and think it be good for the country.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on May 22-23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of all voters expect the health care plan to increase the federal deficit. Just 12% expect the bill to push the deficit down, while 13% say it will have no impact.

Fifty-five percent (55%) say the plan will make the quality of health care in the country worse. Twenty percent (20%) expect it to improve the quality of health care, and 18% think quality will stay about the same.

Fifty-five percent (55%) also expect the health care plan to drive up the cost of health care rather than achieve its stated goal of causing those costs to go down. Only 18% believe health care costs will indeed go down because of the plan’s passage. Another 16% expect costs to stay about the same.

Male voters remain more critical of the health care plan than female voters.

While sizable majorities of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party continue to favor repeal of the plan, most Democrats remain supportive.