http://forums.ebay.com/db1/topic/About-Me-Page/International-Crown-Capital/5100137440

1. UN’s “Post-2015 Development Agenda”
Morphed from “Agenda 21”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55695

2. The hurried Chinese customer was angry and raising her voice. She was
demanding in broken English why the girl behind the cosmetics counter could
not understand her long shopping list written in Chinese. “You learn Chinese if
you to survive,” she said. The girl‟s eyes were brimming with tears at the abusive
and rude treatment.
I walked away, upset at the unnecessary verbal dress-down. Was the
Chinese lady a tourist or an employee of the 247 plus Chinese free trade
zones that have sprung up around the country? I am not sure which is
going to be worse, being under the boot of communist China who is
buying more and more of our debt, land, buildings, military
equipment, food producers such as Smithfield Foods, GM (dubbed
“General Tso‟s Motors”), the ideology of Islam, or United Nation‟s global
governance? All spell potential trouble for what is left of our freedom.
On May 30, 2013 a letter was sent to the Secretary-
General of the United Nation, signed by the Presidents of
Indonesia, Liberia, and the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom, David Cameron. This letter was informing Ban
Ki-moon, the Secretary-General that the task he assigned
to a panel of twenty-seven individuals has been
completed, and the report published.

3. The distinguished panelists represented
Indonesia, Liberia, UK, USA, Cuba, Benin, India, Sweden, Mexico, Colombia, Jap
an, Yemen, Republic of Korea, Germany, Mozambique, Kenya, Russian
Federation, Nigeria, Latvia, Timor, Netherlands, Jordan, France, Brazil, Turkey, a
nd China. Representing the United States was John Podesta, chair of the Center
for American Progress and of the Center for American Progress Action
Fund, advocates for progressive policy.
The task was to decide United Nations‟ Post-2015
Development Agenda. The 69-page report is entitled, “A
New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform
Economies through Sustainable Development.” The U.N.
Agenda 21 marches on. Progressives do not give up in
spite of the Rio +20‟s failure.

4. The financial contributors were the
governments of
Colombia, Denmark, Germany, Indones
ia, Japan, Liberia, Mexico, the
Netherlands, Sweden, the United
Kingdom, the United States of
America, the Ford
Foundation, Havas, and the Hewlett
Foundation.
The report was developed in
consultation with the United Nations
Development Group (UNDG), the UN
Global Compact, Regional
Commissions, scientists, the academic
community through Sustainable
Development Solutions Network, 5,000
civil society organizations, and
250 chief executive officers of major
corporations. A complete list can be
found at www.post2015hlp.org.
The main goal of this new agenda is to
end poverty through sustainable
development in one generation, by
2030 to be exact.
Sustainable development as the United
Nations envisions it includes
development ofgood governance as
they see it, rule of law, free
speech, open and accountable
government. Sounds
lofty, however, should governments be
accountable to the United Nations?

5. The UN report says on page 5, “Scientific
evidence of the direct threat from climate
change has mounted.” There is no such
scientific evidence. On the contrary, U.N.„s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the main purveyor of global
warming/climate change said, “There is
insufficient evidence to determine whether
trends existed in small-scale phenomena
such as tornadoes and hail.”
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of 13 years ago did not include the
economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainable development—it did
not promote sustainable patterns of consumption and production and left out
guidelines for consumption and production. Most importantly, climate change
was not addressed. Substituting global warming for climate change might pass
the scrutiny.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) said,…a discernible trend was
not present over the past 30 years, and that, unless
new findings suggest otherwise,… a claim to
attribution (to human impacts) is thus problematic.”

6. ” (Preliminary Assessment of Climate Factors Contributing to the Extreme 2011
Tornadoes, July 8, 2011)
The Congressional Report Service released a 26-page report on May
22, 2013, “Severe Thunderstorms and Tornadoes in the United States.” Peter
Folger, Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy, said, “It is not clear
whether changes to climate over the past half-century have increased the
frequency or intensity of thunderstorms and tornadoes, or whether climate
changes were responsible for the intense and destructive tornado activity in
2011, or for the extremely destructive EF-5 tornado that struck
Moore, Oklahoma, on May 20, 2013.”
Damages seem to be increasing, similar to
trends for other natural disasters in part
due to changing
populations, demographics, weather-
sensitive infrastructure, and better and
faster reporting. The Weather Channel lists
the top 10 deadliest tornadoes, some of
which have occurred long before the
industrial revolution.
The UN‟s “Post-2015 Development
Agenda” report continues,

7. Because the UN
bureaucrats know
better, here is what
they have
proposed, following
conferences in New
York, London, Monrovi
a, and Bali.
In New York, they have
discussed social
justice, better
accountability, variables
of poverty, and end to
violence against women.
The fact that women are
treated like chattel and
second class citizens in
some cultures was not
an issue.
In Monrovia, they
talked about
economic
transformation, socia
l inclusion, and
business for
sustainable
development.
“The stresses of unsustainable production and consumption patterns have
become clear, in areas likedeforestation, water scarcity, food waste, and high
carbon emissions. Losses from natural disasters—including drought, floods, and
storms—have increased at an alarming rate.”

8. In Bali, they agreed on a “global partnership for a people-centered and planet-
sensitive agenda, based on the principle of common humanity” by regulating
global financial andcommodity markets and by managing the world‟s
consumption and production patterns in more sustainable and equitable
ways.” I translate this as re-distribution of wealth in the name of saving mother
Earth, from “evil” capitalists to third world nations by telling us what to
consume, what to produce, what to sell, how much, and where. Capitalism is
“evil” and global communism must reign supreme with the United Nations at
the helm because unelected foreign bureaucrats know better.
The entire 69-page document can be found in English at the following link
One World, One Sustainable Development Agenda, Building Consensus, and
Our Vision are touted in the paper. I have no idea who empowered the UN to
fundamentally transform our sovereign way of life. Take for example the
background research paper, “Sustainable Development and Planetary
Boundaries” submitted to Ban Ki-moon in support of the Post-2015 Agenda
report.

9. The authors have determined that planetary boundaries for economic growth
involve the rich countries “substantially reduce their standard of living, and
developing countries can grow until they converge at the lower income of high-
income countries. At that point economic growth would need to stop…. The rich
world is lucky to have a reached a high level of income first.” I personally do not
call it luck; I call it hard work and entrepreneurship in a free society.
Another recommendation was to switch the entire global economy to low-carbon
economy, citing the scaremongering and unproven 2012 World Bank data that
“the world will likely experience a likely 3-5 degree C increase in temperatures by
the end of this century that would expose all countries to catastrophic climate
change, including sea level rise, ocean acidification, extreme
storms, droughts, floods, crops failures, and the collapse of whole ecosystems.”

10. Five primary goals are listed in the Executive Summary of the
Post-2015 Agenda.
“We outline five transformational shifts, applicable to both
developed and developing countries alike, including a
new Global Partnership as the basis for a single, universal
post-2015 agenda that will deliver this vision for the sake
of humanity.” This universal agenda (their emphasis)
must be driven by:

11. 1. Leave no one behind
2. United Nations wants to ensure that “everyone must accept their proper share
of responsibility” for the ending of poverty. To reach this goal, UN wants to
“track progress at all levels of income.” Nobody can be denied “universal
human rights and basic economic opportunities, regardless of
ethnicity, gender, geography, disability, race, or other status.” Uncle UN is
going to make sure that our wealth is evenly distributed across the planet in its
global communism vision.
2. Put sustainable development at the core.
Developed countries have to adopt “social inclusion” and must reduce
“unsustainable consumption” by switching to a green economy and by
eradicating poverty for eight billion people by 2030 if the planet is to survive the
alarming pace of climate change. Climate has been changing for eons but our
brainwashed youth have developed now into the low information adult voters
who believe the scaremongering tactics of gloom and doom.
3. Transform economies for jobs and inclusive growth.
The developed world must reduce their consumption and
must build “diversified economies, with equal opportunities
for all.”

12. ” In this utopian view, it is our responsibility that “everyone has what they need
to grow and prosper, including access to quality education and
skills, healthcare, clean water, electricity, telecommunications, and
transport.” We must rapidly urbanize because “cities are the world‟s engines
for business and innovation.” I wonder how the UN plans to feed 8 billion
people living in high density urban areas. Who is going to grow food?
4. Build peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all.
Peace and good governance is a fundamental human right provided through a
“transparency revolution.” Where is this governance coming from? Who
decides what a transparency revolution is? Who decided that peace and good
governance are human rights?
5. Forge a new global partnership.
Giving North to South aid is no longer enough—everyone must be fully
accountable to Uncle UN for “corruption, illicit financial flows, money
laundering, tax evasion, and hidden ownership of assets.” I guess there will be
no more off-shore or Swiss Bank accounts for well-off “citizens of the world.”
Trade must be fair, technology must be “transferred and diffused,” and financial
stability must reign supreme. Who will police compliance and how will non-
compliance be punished? Would technology development occur if it must be
“shared” for free?

13. Multinational corporations must pay taxes fairly to the countries in which they
operate. The financial system must be heavily regulated. This Post-2015 Agenda
is counting on the world‟s savings of $18 trillion. “Finance will come not just
from aid but private capital, major pension funds, mutual funds, sovereign wealth
funds, private corporations, development banks, and other investors.” (p. 12)
The five goals will be considered achieved for “all relevant income and social
groups” after a “rigorous monitoring system.” Who is going to be in charge of
this monitoring system and who will conduct it?
This entire UN report, “The Post-2015 Development Agenda” is still UN Agenda
21‟s Sustainable Development morphed from old into new, revamped talking
points of arresting economic growth, re-distribution of wealth, and de-
developing the United States, the one stumbling block in the path of UN‟s global
communist governance.
The tiresome talking points are still based on debunked man-made global warming
caused by greenhouse gas emissions. If EU flatulence tax did not work, perhaps
Mark Steyn‟s suggestion would work that scientists should genetically engineer
non-flatulent cows. The methane gas problem would be solved and ergo, the
planet would survive.
I don‟t want to burst anybody‟s transformational bubble, however, having lived
under both socialist and capitalist economies, and under freedom of speech vs.
communist tyranny, I would choose capitalism (not the crony variety) any day.