Categorized | ICLEI, News


One of my many places I look at for anti-ICLEI stuff had this interesting pro-ICLEI article with this title:

“Tea Party Opposes ICLEI and Sustainable Development in Cities”

I have told people off blog for some time that the surest sign of our efforts having an effect is there will be articles (I was expecting Salon or Slate first) critical of the fight.  Here’s an early example from a posting at Triple Pundit – it even mentions this blog!  Boyd Cohen calls those who do not agree with left-wing globalist science to be “Climate Deniers”  (Sounds ominous like “Holocaust Deniers”; give the left credit for adroit use of language!  Before I would laugh that off, there has already been a public call for Nurenberg-style trials for climate deniers.)  He also basically argues that to oppose ICLEI is silly and ridiculous:

I know that the Tea Party is ultra conservative and opposes action on climate change and of course even doubts climate change exists or that it is man-made.  But I just had a hard time understanding why any organized group could be in such opposition to Local Governments for Sustainability.  What would they prefer? As my friend, Guy Dauncey likes to say, the future has to be green because the alternative is brown, ugly and dead.

But when they laugh at my blog mate, it gets personal!  (Actually Dr. Cohen was quite nice about it!)

So I had to tweet inquiries to those making negative comments and see if they’d elaborate on their problems with ICLEI. Really, I just wanted to know what their issues were.  The best answer came from @varight who’s profile reads: “World news with a Virginia Right twist. Exposing liberals with the light from the right.”

In response to my question about what issues do they have with ICLEI, he responded:

“Simple. ICLEI = Agenda 21 = UN = One World Government = Loss of Property Rights. ‘Sustained Development’ is code for UN control”

@varight’s response is that ICLEI is associated with Agenda 21 and the UN which to him and his Tea Party affiliates means that ICLEI is promoting government control of everything and taking away individual freedoms.

Let’s go over the ICLEI issue again…

1.  ICLEI is unconstitutional.

The US Constitution is clear.  No state is allowed to enter into an “…treaty, alliance, or confederation…”  (Article I, Section 10) without the express consent of Congress.  There is no such consent.  The Supreme Court in two cases have held states cannot have foreign policy positions.  ICLEI represents its members at UN climate conferences:

ICLEI holds up the flag for Local Governments at UNEP Governing Council

February 24, 2011

At the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GC26/GMEF), that took place from 21-24 February 2011, in Nairobi, Kenya, ICLEI has been flying the flag for Local Governments. ICLEI was in attendance as a Local Authority Major Group Co-Facilitator, a representative of the interests of local governments.  (Emphasis mine)

Maybe we need more:

In collaboration with partners such as UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, UNEP is working on making cities more liveable, better prepared for the multiple environmental challenges they are facing, as well as giving them a stronger voice in the international climate negotiations.

The Constitution forbids states and local governments having a voice, strong or weak, in international climate negotiations.  For more, read this post.

2.  ICLEI has political goals.

The ICLEI Charter is clear:  It has political goals:

(7)  Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.  This means ABORTION!
(9) Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.
This means statist and socialistic solutions to poverty not free-market ones

(10) Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.
More share the wealth nonsense
(11) Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.
This is the political heresy that health care is a “right” and the people have a “right” to economic outcomes that the left conjures up regularly.

(12) Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.
Political correctness!
(13) Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.
(14) Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.
Propaganda and indoctrination – especially our kids!  (emphasis mine)

These political goals are inimical to the ones in the Declaration:

 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Contrast that with Dr. Cohen’s alternative:

So the Tea Party opposes any initiatives promoting sustainable development because there is an implicit assumption that such a program could impact their ability to drive Hummers without paying fuel taxes or to own McMansions in the suburbs, or convert their suburbs to embrace more smart growth and resilient city strategies like increased density and transit, more parks and district energy systems.

And Agenda 21:

Chapter 3.1 Poverty is a complex multidimensional problem with origins in both the national and international domains. No uniform solution can be found for global application. Rather, country-specific programmes to tackle poverty and international efforts supporting national efforts, as well as the parallel process of creating a supportive international environment, are crucial for a solution to this problem. The eradication of poverty and hunger, greater equity in income distribution and human resource development remain major challenges everywhere. The struggle against poverty is the shared responsibility of all countries.  (Emphasis mine)

Which world vision is consistent with the American Dream?  The Declaration or Agenda 21.  Our constitutional system?  Our sovereignty?  Personal liberty?  To ask the question is to answer it.  For you cannot have two masters. The Bible answers for you will hold fast to either one master or another.  My answer to Dr. Cohen is what the greatest Hanoverian once said, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”



About Elwood Sanders

Elwood "Sandy" Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia's first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!