Tag Archives: Agenda 21

NHA OPPOSED

 

No one can dispute Southwest Virginia’s
uniquely rich musical heritage. We must continue efforts to leverage that distinction in a
way that brings tourists to our region and job
opportunities to our citizens. But after careful
consideration, I remain unconvinced that
designating The Crooked Road as a National
Heritage Area is in the best interest of my
constituents. Tourism success stories in
SWVA occur when risks are managed and
certainty surrounds the project and unfortunately, that cannot be said about the NHA designation at this time.
Senator Bill Carrico


The Southwest Virginia Cultural Heritage
Foundation does not support the National
Heritage Area Designation.
Delegate Terry Kilgore, Chairman, Southwest Virginia Cultural Heritage Foundation

 

After much studying, I have decided that I will
not be supporting the proposed NHA designation for The Crooked Road. Too many questions persist and our proud music heritage is already being successfully marketed all across the country, and indeed the world. I
question whether the additional designation
will be worth the undertaking of risk.
Delegate Israel O’Quinn


While the goals of The Crooked Road National Heritage Area may be noble in trying to promote Southwest Virginia musical heritage,
the Federal National Heritage designation
may put the rights of property owners at risk.
That is why I have not and will not support
the National Heritage Area designation.
Delegate Nick Rush
Although I understand that the proposed National Heritage Area will
bring in new money, there are many concerns which remain unanswered.
Delegate Anne B. Crockett-Stark

Delegate Joseph Yost and Delegate
Will Morefield did not return our calls
or emails with a statement on the
NHA. However, Delegate Morefield has since gone on record opposing the NHA designation.

In 2012, the Smyth County Board of
Supervisors voted to defund The
Crooked Road Organization.
*************

What if the Park Service decides to
regulate The Crooked Road? The
only recourse we would have is to
take them to court. He added that he
has a real problem with that because
our opinion of what infringes on property rights may differ.
Pulaski County Supervisor, Andy McCready

*************
Supervisor Ron Blevins (Smyth
County), Supervisor Bill Gibson
(Washington County) and Supervisor
Bob Gibson (Russell County) are all
outspoken opponents of the NHA.
*************
In November 2012, at their annual
meemeemeemeeting in Roanoke, the
Virginia Farm Bureau voted unanimously to oppose the National Heritage Area designation.

Who are Heritage Area VICTIMS?

Bart Dye’s bad fortune, along
with that of several other farmers
in his area of Shoals in southwestern Indiana, began in 1977, when,
as president of the Martin County
Farm Bureau, he organized the
farmers to oppose the expansion of
nearby Hoosier National Forest,
which was gobbling up farmland…………….
“Over 700 homes and businesses are currently within the
boundaries of the national lakeshore, despite the promise by the
federal government in 1965 that
there would be no condemnation of
homes and businesses,” said William Theis, a leader of STOP,
which he said has 310 members and
has collected 16,000 signatures on
a petition against dunes park expansion. “Literally hundreds of people
were forced to sell their homes
against their will and feel they were
not adequately compensated.”

The Yukon Cleansing

The Park Service essentially told everyone they
could go on living their accustomed
“subsistence lifestyle,” as it was a
“cultural value” worthy of protection.
But the deep changes NPS brought
pulled the future out from under the
people, for their rights didn’t extend
to the next generation and their present lives now operated under an incomprehensible permit system

 

Congress created the Yuma Crossing NHA, and hardly any of the locals knew about it until Lee Ott saw the surveyors on his property………

 

The Journey Through Hallowed Ground from Charlottesville to Gettysburg… is a sweet deal that could leave the Partnership “with a near monopoly on real estate development opportunities within the [JTHG] area………..

In the National Coal Heritage Area the people of
Hinton wanted funds to repair a local road. They lobbied their
legislators for several years, and finally the federal funding came
through. At that point, the National Park Service stepped in.
Because the local road was in a Heritage Area, Park Service
officials announced, the money would be used to create a Scenic
Parkway. The Scenic Parkwaycalled for condemning dozens of
properties, forcing people out of their homes.…..

The Wheeling National
Heritage Act Corporation…take properties away
from their present owners and
give them to other private retail
businesses of the City’s choosing….

 

images (3)

What did a historic survey find?

Private landowners ostensibly selling their properties to the National Park Service are in fact not bona fide sellers but are giving up title to
escape the legal expenses of a
foredoomed condemnation.

A problem arises when Park
Service officials are using
their jargon term SELLER
outside their circle, understood by the public in the
generally accepted meaning of
a free agent conducting business. A clever Park promoter
even coined the slogan WILLING SELLER/WILLING
BUYER, falsely implying that
the two parties are on an
equal footing. This slogan has
developed into a mantra recited at hearings and discussions on Park expansion for
the deception of legislators
and the general public.
 It is reasonable to assume that
Park Service extortion was
exercised in most of the
1,130 title transactions.

 

 

ARC + SWVA=Agenda 21

images

 

 

 

 

The Crooked Road, ‘Round the Mountain and the other colorful-sounding spin-offs of our

new-fangled “asset based economy”—the Appalachian Regional Commission dubs it their ”creative cluster”— take their foundation in Sustainable Development/UN Agenda 21. How do we know this? From their own account.

RESPONSE TO ANTHONY FLACCAVENTO’S CHALLENGE : The Washington County Tea Party  doesn’t need to make this stuff up, when the facts so clearly speak for themselves! We accept your challenge by reporting the truth.

 

What Sustainable Development Is and Is Not

 

A Challenge to the Washington County Tea Party

Prepared by Anthony Flaccavento, January 23, 2011

Materials gathered by the Washington County Tea Party portray “sustainable development” as a sinister effort to undermine American values and install socialist policies that eliminate private property. Based on nearly 20 years of work, research and writing in this field, I am putting forth this challenge to their attack on sustainable development. It is divided into four sections, corresponding to four core elements of their “argument”.

Sustainable development is being driven by the United Nation’s Agenda 21

· Contrary to the WCTP’s contentions, “Agenda 21″ and the UN have absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of sustainable development (SD) projects and initiatives in Washington county, neighboring states or the nation as a whole. Out of a dozen sustainable development initiatives in the Appalachian region and more than 30 nationwide with which I am personally familiar, not a single one was launched or driven by Agenda 21, or is managed or directed by it. In fact, all of these initiatives were started at the grassroots, by a broad base of community people including local businesses, farmers, civic leaders, elected officials, etc. In 20 years of work and consultation with SD groups around the nation, I have never once heard “Agenda 21″ even mentioned.

 

We suggest that you start here, Mr. Flaccavento, and get it right from the horse’s mouth—as some of us quaint folks say around here in Appalachia!

 

topmiddle1

Prepared for: Appalachian
Regional Commission
***************************************
Building on the concept of sustainability,
a new corporate philosophy and ac-
counting form has emerged that takes
into consideration not only the tradi-
tional economic “bottom line,” but also
considers less quantifiable indicators
that measure social and environmental
impact…………………………….
***************************************
The concept of the triple bottom line
originated from the notion of sustainabil-
ity and sustainable development. Ecol-
ogically sustainable development (ESD)
thinking was first espoused in the
Brundtland Report (World Commission
on Environment and Development,
1987) and reiterated during Agenda 21
and the Rio Declaration on Environment
and Development (1992)……………….
**********************************************
Social and Environmental Justice:
Advocates of social and environmental
justice stress the need to promote op-
portunity and equity within our society,
between societies, between genera-
tions, and between species………………….
*********************************************
This broader perspective, sometimes
called sustainable development or the
Triple Bottom Line (TBL) is relevant to
the types of economic development
projects typically funded by ARC within
the tourism program……………………
********************************************
[The Ford Foundation] felt that the ARC
work would provide a platform for build-
ing a better understanding of the oppor-
tunities and challenges for adopting a
TBL perspective in rural areas including
Appalachia…………………………….
********************************************
…new government policies and new
government roles will be needed to
change existing organizations into more
flexible and fluid entities that will support
sustainability…Developing this compre-
hensive approach will be a
central governance challenge……..
*******************************************
A recent study was completed of the Crooked Road portfolio of projects. Since ARC has
provided funding for virtually all of the Crooked Road projects (mostly in tandem with
other Federal, state, or local funds) it provides a test of the value of using a more strategic
project funding that could be encouraged in other ARC states.
*******************************************
…..first-rate TBL uses relevant, common indicators to make it easier to
compare performance or “value added” across organizations and requires honest, open and
transparent disclosure. Ideally, it has been suggested that TBL should lead to improvements incorporate performance. TBL reports should include key goals for improving organizational
performance into the future – preferably quantitative and time-bound goals. The Global
Reporting Initiative, a program developed under the auspices of nearly 20 agencies including the
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the United National Environment
Program and the World Resources Institute, standardizes TBL measures and areas to be reported
and currently has more than 1,300 participating organizations.
*************************************************
*************************************************

Here is another analysis of Sustainable Development and The Global Reporting Initiative………

canada-free-press

 

 

 

I spent several hours navigating through the myriad of resources, data, and links. I am sure, most Americans do not have the interest or the time to research what is happening to their country.

GRI is encouraging organizations to report (read snitch) on Sustainable Development compliance in their countries.

The list of past supporters includes….The Ford Foundation.

“The Global Reporting Initiative and the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development signed a Memorandum of Understanding
in 2008 to set internationally recognized sustainability reporting
standards. It was done to foster sustainable development in developing
countries and transition economies.”
The real ultimate goal is to spread the wealth and arrest development
in countries like U.S.

Should United Nations dictate to the rest of the world what economic justice is? I do not wish to receive lectures on respect for diversity from UN totalitarian governments that disrespect women, other religions, and repress minorities through genocide.
We had informants under the communist system—it allowed the
totalitarian government to better control the masses. We have whistleblowers
in capitalism; we do not need UN’s rules to control us
through organized snitching……I fail to see how a private corporation
is obligated to report anything to the United Nations.
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

 

AGENDA 21 and Obama’s Rural Council

 

 

 

White House Rural Council

Agenda 21 and Obama’s Rural Council?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37561

 

 - Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh  Wednesday, June 15, 2011

On June 9, 2011, an Executive Order established the White House Rural Council with 25 executive branch departments including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, National Drug Control, Environmental Quality, Labor, Commerce, Interior, EPA, Housing, Health, Education to name just a few.

The order covers 16% of the American population who lives in rural counties because they “supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation.”

“Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential in winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead.” What kind of future are we supposed to win? Are we losers right now? This is very vague, what years ahead?

“To enhance the Federal Government’s efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities.” As a world traveler, I can attest that Americans already have the highest standard of living in rural areas, prosperity, and excellent quality of life when compared to anybody else.

A recent article in Washington Post appeared with the innocuous title, “What we need: Smarter growth plans.” The author is Roger K. Lewis, a practicing architect and professor emeritus at the University of Maryland. Who can possibly object to “smarter growth plans?” Except that “smart growth plans” is the euphemism used by the United Nations for its Agenda 21, a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty.

Roger K. Lewis suggests that “smart growth” was designed by market forces driven by “green building.” He makes no mention of Agenda 21 and ICLEI objectives and intrusion into our society since the early 1970s or the agreement signed in 1992 that went under the radar of the American people’s understanding of the complex negative ramifications for our economy and our liberties.

I have not met Americans who think, “sprawl-producing planning, zoning and mortgage templates are obsolete” as the author claims. Would Americans willingly give up their land and homes with or without compensation in exchange for a move to a densely populated high-rise, with no parking garages, no access to cars, like rats fenced in a grey concrete maze?

Communist “social engineering” confiscated land and homes for agriculture. People were forced to move into many-storied, tiny cinder block apartments without any compensation for the land or homes bulldozed. They were forced to commute by bicycles or public transit.

Lewis deems subdivision developments with low-density, detached, single-family homes as outdated. He calls the areas educationally dysfunctional and unsafe. American suburbia was built, he says, on four assumptions that have lost validity today:

  1. Unlimited supply of land
  2. Inexpensive and inexhaustible supply of oil
  3. Homogenous land use
  4. The American dream to own and inhabit a mortgaged house.

I am not sure on what research Lewis based his conclusions, but we have huge domestic oil reserves if permits were issued to drill. We also have a vast land mass. Some areas have 70 or less inhabitants per square mile. Americans still want to own their own home and want to live in a homogeneous community of other homeowners. Just because power hungry bureaucrats at the United Nations have decided to “preserve” land and the environment for the future of the planet and its animals, neglecting the future of humans, does not mean Americans agree to this vision.

Much of America’s land cannot and should not be developed.” Who are you to decide for us, Mr. Lewis and why? Last time I checked we were free people who determined their own life choices.

“Dependency on oil and limitless use of cars pose daunting environmental, economic, and geopolitical problems.” Who is going to decide the limit to our car use? Is it going to be done by law, more regulations, or executive order?

A handful of environmentalists, the EPA, and the United Nation’s dictators, using faulty debunked data from the University of East Anglia or phony research are trying to separate Americans from their land use, cars, trucks, and the open-wide roads.

Lewis continues his Agenda 21 fallacy. “The traditional nuclear family—mom, dad, two to three kids and one or two pets—is now a minority of America’s households.” I am positive that this man is not describing America that I know and see every day. His statements continue, “Today a majority of households are people, young or old, living alone; couples or sets of unrelated individuals of various ethnicities, ages and tastes.”

Agenda 21 and Mr. Lewis suggest building high-rises in “designated areas within municipalities where new development and re-development is feasible and desirable.Affordable housing is a priority and so are environmental standards.

It is obvious that “smart growth plans” or Agenda 21 designed by United Nations will affect our future choices in how we live and where. EPA will be involved and will twist the arms of those who do not adopt “smart growth plans,” denying grants to states and cities and levying other penalties. By the time Americans realize the implications of Agenda 21“smart growth,they will lose their homes and lands with no compensation. At least people who lost property under Eminent Domain have been compensated.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of 600 national, regional, and local government associations who promote “sustainable development” and protection of the environment because of man-made global warming that does not exist.

“Sustainable development” is the United Nations effort to contain and limit economic development in developed countries and thus control population growth. It is “sustainable de-growth,” plain and simple. The focus is “low-income agriculture” and to set limits on the developed world.

United Nations and its affiliates believe that first world countries polluted significantly during their development while urging third world countries to reduce pollution thus impeding their growth. Implementation of “sustainable development” would revert our society to a pre-modern lifestyle.

ICLEI wants to keep the environment as pristine as possible through “ideal-seeking behavior.” These euphemisms are not clearly defined in terms of what or who will evaluate or set the standards for this “ideal-seeking behavior.”

Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure to manage, count, and control assets. It is not concerned with protecting the environment or the world’s resources. Agenda 21 wants change from old sector-centered ways of doing business to new approaches. The “desired future state” should be to pursue “economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity.”

“Social equity” is the new euphemism for “social justice” the Marxists in our government have been using a lot lately. Who gave them the authority and the mandate to initiate such change? I do not remember the American people being asked through a referendum whether we wanted our way of life to be fundamentally changed according to mandates set up by the United Nations. How will population growth control be achieved in order to protect the precious environment?

There are four tiers to UN’s “sustainable development” plan:

  1. Environmental sustainability
  2. Economic sustainability
  3. Socio-political sustainability
  4. Cultural diversity.

In 2001 UNESCO, in The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, stated that cultural diversity is as important as biodiversity in the sense of a more satisfactory, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence. Who is to decide the level and quality of the population’s satisfaction, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence? Human needs must be met while preserving the environment for the future. Again, who will decide what our needs are in order to preserve the future?

In February 2011 in Nairobi, Kenya, ICLEI attended a United Nations conference as representative of the interests of local governments. “In collaboration with partners such as UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance and ICLEI, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Protection) is working to make cities more livable, better prepared for the multiple environmental challenges they are facing, as well as giving them a stronger voice in the international climate negotiations.” Last time I checked, global warming has been debunked as a hoax and UN rapidly changed its name to climate change, continuing the attempt to fleece developed countries. In addition, who decides these international climate negotiations and why? What are we negotiating? Carbon credits?

In October 2009 in Bangkok, ICLEI stated, “local governments are offering national governments our partnership in the fight against climate change.” ICLEI wants local governments to collaborate with national governments to fight against climate change, the very change that has been scientifically debunked.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states clearly, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation, …No State shall,… enter into an Agreement or Compact with another State or with a foreign power…” The counties and cities that are members of ICLEI in the U.S. through its national organization are attempting to implement foreign policy, which our Constitution forbids. What mayors and municipal governments are doing is plain unconstitutional.

“Mayors and local governments set forth the following commitments to implement sub-national, national, and international frameworks by providing resources, authority, and mandate to carry forward climate protection roles and responsibilities.”

There is no law or act of Congress to authorize the aiding and abetting of foreign policy globalism by state and local governments. We have to protect our sovereignty by banning cities and counties to be members of ICLEI, an organization that promotes United Nation’s Agenda 21/“smart growth” which is detrimental to American economic interests, liberty, and sovereignty.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Most recent columns

  “Dr.  Ileana Johnson Paugh is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Modern Conservative, Anystreet.org, Romanian Conservative, Lucianne) and speaker who recently published a book about her 20-year experience with communist life, “Echoes of Communism,” available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, social engineering, and confiscation of property, among other subjects.

Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana1959@gmail.com

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Most recent columns

  “Dr.  Ileana Johnson Paugh is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Modern Conservative, Anystreet.org, Romanian Conservative, Lucianne) and speaker who recently published a book about her 20-year experience with communist life, “Echoes of Communism,” available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, social engineering, and confiscation of property, among other subjects.

Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana1959@gmail.com


AGENDA 21 by another name

Libya and the Soros Doctrine

Right Side News 

Monday, 28 March 2011 05:15 Rick Moran
E-mail Print

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorizes a no-fly zone over Libya and the protection of civilians by all means necessary, is the culmination of a decade-long effort to radically strengthen the ability of the UN to intervene in sovereign nations through the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine. Behind the initiative are, unsurprisingly, some of the usual suspects: National Security Council adviser Samantha Power and her patron George Soros. Their call to prevent human rights abuses through military intervention masks an agenda to alter drastically the concept of state sovereignty and to allow the United Nations to essentially co-opt the US military.
A 2008 backgrounder produced by The Heritage Foundation on the Responsibility to Protect articulates one of the most dangerous aspects of the doctrine: “R2P would effectively cede U.S. national sovereignty and decision-making power over key components of national security and foreign policy and subject them to the whims of the international community.”
Obama_SorosWhat we are seeing unfold in Libya today may very well be a test case for this doctrine: the United Nations has “borrowed” the US military to enforce its idea of Gaddafi’s “responsibilities.” And one question of grave concern is: Might the UN also “borrow” the U.S. and other Western militaries in future to impose its will on member states it feels are not living up to the UN’s nebulous idea of state responsibilities?
Before we examine the ingredients of this potentially catastrophic scenario, a bit of historical background is necessary. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which is deliberately nebulous and ill-defined, is not new. In fact, Hitler’s intervention in the Sudetenland was justified by “humanitarian reasons.” Hitler’s propaganda machine created mass hysteria in Germany by falsely accusing Czechoslovakia of carrying out atrocities against ethnic Germans. Hitler negotiated with Neville Chamberlain on the basis that he was only going to intervene to save lives. Chamberlain may not have bought Hitler’s lies, but Munich occurred nonetheless.
The doctrine was applied sporadically for the next 50 years because military intervention of any kind during the Cold War risked nuclear confrontation. Although the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified by Moscow as a “humanitarian” endeavor, there were few other cases.
Once the Soviet Union disappeared, a host of situations occurred in the 1990s that drove debate in the United Nations toward accepting the use of humanitarian intervention to stop governments from killing their own people. The ad hoc nature of these interventions gave an opening to individuals who wished to codify UN intervention into international law. Most of these same people also recognized humanitarian intervention as a means of vastly strengthening the UN, while weakening the sovereignty of nations.
The history of Responsibility to Protect bears this out. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was formed out of the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000 with a mandate “to promote a comprehensive debate on the relationship between intervention and sovereignty, with a view to fostering global political consensus on how to move from polemics towards action within the international system.”
The ICISS issued a report in December of 2001 titled “The Responsibility to Protect” that encapsulated “the Commissioners’ views on intervention and state sovereignty and their recommendations for practical action.” The document was sent to the UN for debate and approval.
At the UN, a firestorm broke out over the R2P concept (now the official name of “humanitarian intervention”), largely divided between the industrialized West and the impoverished South. The former colonies only saw a legal way for Western powers to invade them, while the West — including the United States — viewed R2P as a potent weapon to prevent another Rwanda.
The ICISS was chaired by Gareth Evans, former foreign minister for Australia, whose thoughts about the report and sovereignty in particular bear looking at in detail. Mr. Evans sought to turn the debate on sovereignty “on its head” by “characteriz[ing] it not as an argument about the ‘right’ of states to anything, but rather about their ‘responsibility’ — one to protect people at grave risk.”
That “responsibility” is to be defined by the United Nations. Mr. Evans envisions a world where sovereign nations are hardly “sovereign” as we understand the term. Indeed, Evans is seeking nothing less than a brand new definition of sovereignty — what he calls “a new way of talking about sovereignty itself.” The starting point, he says, is that sovereignty “should now be seen not as ‘control,’ as in the centuries-old Westphalian tradition, but, again, as ‘responsibility.’”
No “rights.” No “control.” At least Mr. Evans is willing to let nations keep their borders — for now — although that may also be under threat from R2P. One can imagine the United Nations taking the US to task for trying to keep millions of illegals from crossing our border: We have no “right” to keep hungry, desperate people from seeking a better life. Might our border policies also violate the R2P doctrine? Indeed, such an argument is already being made.
In 2004, the Secretary General Kofi Annan set up a blue ribbon committee to examine the ICISS findings and issue a report to the United Nations. The Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Changeswallowed the “new” definition of sovereignty while recommending R2P be adopted as a matter of policy and law. Their report, “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility,” recommended that it be the responsibility “of every State when it comes to people suffering from avoidable catastrophe, mass murder and rape, ethnic cleansing by forcible expulsion and terror, and deliberate starvation and exposure to disease.”
In other words, “responsibility” has morphed from the 1990s concept–which entailed that it is up to the world community or voluntary coalitions to intervene where necessary to protect innocents–to a set of rules that sovereign nations themselves must satisfy the United Nations or the hammer will fall.
In direct violation of its own charter, the UN has set itself up as the arbiter of where sovereignty begins and ends, tossing aside Article 51′s “inherent right to self-defense” clause. The Office of the Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide at the UN makes this clear. The individual state’s idea of sovereignty takes a back seat to the UN’s judgment: “Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility where States are accountable for the welfare of their people.”

Might R2P also be invoked by Israel’s enemies to target the Jewish State in its war of national survival against the Palestinians? This has already become a reality. Michael Rubin, writing at Commentary Contentions, reports that the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arnç said last week, “We wish that the United Nations had made such resolutions and countries had taken action in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and the other regions.”

Does this explain the surprising decision of the Arab League to allow for R2P to be invoked for Libyan intervention? Recall that the Arab League, the African Union, and numerous other regional developing world organizations originally opposed the concept of R2P. Could the prospect of a UN intervention in Gaza have encouraged the Arab League to back the Libyan adventure?
Even if it didn’t, you can rest assured that the next time Israel feels compelled to defend itself by going into Gaza and taking out terrorists who are attacking it, the League will be crying out for an international response to the “atrocities.”  It will contend that Israel is not living up to its “responsibilities” to protect Palestinians. Such an argument will convince many — especially those who are predisposed to hate Israel in the first place. The US will then be in the unenviable position of being forced to veto such action in the Security Council, opening itself up to charges of hypocrisy.
Would we veto such a resolution? With NSC adviser Samantha Power‘s influence on Obama, it is highly questionable. Power is an avid R2P advocate; her 2002 book on the issue, A Problem from Hell, so affected Obama that he invited Power to join his Senate staff as a foreign policy fellow. She also briefly served on his campaign foreign-policy brain trust.
Power is also credited with influencing the president to adopt R2P as part of his foreign policy. But it is her views on Israel that should concern us most of all. She has a long record of antipathytoward the Jewish State. Ed Lasky, writing in the American Thinker, reports that Power “also advocates that America send armed military forces, ‘a mammoth protection force’ and an ‘external intervention,’ to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.” Clearly, Power is someone who would readily impose a R2P solution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But with her anti-Israeli disposition so apparent, what exactly would this solution look like?
Other advocates of the R2P doctrine include numerous Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which promote it for ideological reasons and also because of UN grants and funding. The International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protectbrings together many of these NGOs under one umbrella, where they can be more effective in both lobbying the UN and shaking the international money tree. The list of members is a Who’s Who of internationalists, one worlders, and leftist Utopians, including Oxfam, Citizens for Global Solutions, the International Crisis Group, the World Federalist Movement, Human Rights Watch, and The Stanley Foundation.
What all those groups have in common is a desire to destroy or vastly curtail the sovereignty of nations. And rising above all of them as chief financier and inspiration are George Soros and his Open Society Institute.
There is little doubt that Soros recognized early the kind of power that a vast, worldwide movement could exert and bring him closer to his dream of radically changing the scope of national sovereignty, thus allowing for a new economic and financial system to take hold. He calls himself a “stateless statesman,” which is a good description of how he wants the rest of us to live.

In addition to being the primary funder of The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, the Open Society Institute also heavily supports other NGOs that belong to the R2P coalition, including the International Crisis Group (ICG)and Human Rights Watch.
You don’t have to connect too many dots to discover Soros’ influence on the Obama administration. Samantha Power served on the executive committee of the ICG along with Soros until she left for the UN in 2009. And several members of the Obama foreign policy team were employed by the Center for American Progress – another Soros funded think tank.

The future of R2P is now. The situation in the small African country of Côte d’Ivoire is spiraling out of control and headed for civil war with the potential for atrocities and mass civilian casualties. Several nations, including the African Union and NGOs involved in the R2P movement, are already calling for military intervention, while the UN has expressed its “alarm” at the deteriorating situation.

Meanwhile, Bashar Assad is killing demonstrators in the streets of Syria, and the world does nothing. Clearly, R2P needs a little fine tuning. The ICISS and UN panel on R2P both advanced the notion of “thresholds” that would have to be crossed before action was contemplated, but the UN has yet to adopt any hard and fast rules about intervention.
Until they do, the Security Council will be fumbling in the dark, confused and hesitant to proceed. But the real danger will come if they ever do get their act together and begin to intervene in the world’s trouble spots in earnest. Given R2P’s broad mandate, which includes “starvation and disease” as responsibilities of member states, the list of countries that would be ripe for intervention is growing considerably. For the proponents of R2P, this is not accidental.
Rick Moran is blog editor of The American Thinker,and Chicago editor of PJ Media.His personal blog is Right Wing Nuthouse.