Select Page



1972 to Present

By Billene Spellins


The transition from the 1960s to the 1970s was one of turmoil, tragedy, and above all, contradictions. In the US, while “flower children” spread words of peace and love, the US military napalmed Vietnam. While a blossoming environmental movement quoted Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring and participated in the first Earth Day, the US military bathed the jungles of Vietnam in Agent Orange. And while Hippies, avowed vegetarians, were living in communes, growing their own food, Maurice Strong, then UN Secretary General of the Conference on the Human Environment, reportedly blamed the affluent, meat-eating middle-class in industrialized nations like the US for setting the world on a path of utter destruction.

Maurice Strong, the man who oversaw the United Nations’ first Earth Summit, held in Stockholm in 1972, was a walking, talking contradiction. Some call him the father of environmentalism, some say he was the consummate flim-flam man. Canadian born Strong was an oil & mineral tycoon, who owned or ran several different utility companies, a man with Marxist ties, socialist views, and New Age proclivities. He described himself as “…a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology,” and he believed that the UN should be the seat of global governance, as did most UN officials and wealthy associates at the time. As if to reinforce that concept, he either drew upon or initiated the practice in UN documents of referring to sovereign nations as states, as in states under the one United Nation. Also, more often than not, industrialized states (nations) are referred to as northern, developing states (nations) as southern. And whenever he spoke publically, as a representative of the United Nations, he threw in comments like those at the Rio Summit in 1992, “Today, the capital of our planet moves to this beautiful city of Rio de Janeiro.” And, “Today, in this beautiful city of Rio de Janeiro, you have come together, as representatives of more than 178 nations, in this unprecedented parliament of the planet…”

In 1969, when first tasked with organizing the 1972 Conference on the Human Environment, the first Earth Summit, Strong, a protégé of David Rockefeller, commissioned a team via the Rockefeller Foundation to write Only One Earth, a preparatory text for what would come to be known as “sustainable development.” Introduced at the conference, along with a film he and Rockefeller produced, Strong hoped that Only One Earth would serve as a clarion call for all nations to join in common cause. Strong also arranged, paid for, thousands of environmentalist and environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, to be at the summit and raise a ruckus in support the cause. Interestingly, that first summit was not about global warming or climate change. In fact, the prevailing scientific view at the time was that we might be heading for a new Ice Age. The focus of the summit was on pollution and inequality. From Strong’s opening speech, “No one decided to poison the Baltic – or any other of our polluted and dying waterways. No one decided to destroy millions of acres of productive soil through erosion, salinization, contamination and the intrusion of deserts. No one decided to dehumanize life in the greatest cities of the world with crowding, pollution and noise for the more fortunate, and with degrading squalor for the rest.” He emphasized the inequity between “the affluent consumer-oriented societies” versus the poverty ridden, developing countries, and concluded, “And if this is so, it follows that it is the more wealthy societies – the privileged minority of mankind – which will have to make the most profound, even revolutionary changes in attitudes and values.” That statement meant so much more than anyone knew.

Strong also offered three priorities to work on before the next summit: Clean Water Supply; Ocean Pollution; and Urban Settlements, which seemed to concern him most of all, “The cancerous growth of cities, the desperate shortage of housing, the expanding slums and squatter settlements which are so incompatible with our concept of the dignity of man, and the threatened breakdown of urban institutions, are almost universal phenomena that make urbanization one of the gravest problems of the human environment.”

The summit itself, the film, and Only One Earth were met with mixed reviews. Some countries boycotted, and the resentment and suspicion from developing countries rang loud and clear, with angry speeches and written submissions aimed mostly at the United States. Understandably, the US delegation was a little off-put. After all, the top priority of the summit was to secure a commitment, from the US and others, to give money to the very countries that seemed to hate us the most. But it turns out that even before the summit, after a heads-up from longtime associates Rockefeller, Strong, and National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, President Nixon had already established a $100 million dollar United Nations Fund for the Environment, with a commitment for $40 million more. Most other countries agreed to move forward as well, until the next major conference, which took take place in 1992, in Rio.

For the next two decades, Strong moved through the world like the energizer bunny. He either started up or was appointed to or gathered together more acronyms than space allows. There is hardly a world governance or civil society organization, or UN funding mechanism in existence today that doesn’t have his fingerprints on it, in particular, the plethora of NGOs, non-governmental organizations, all directed, if not funded, by the UN, including most environmental groups, like Greenpeace and Sierra Club. At the same time, he continued to wield influence over the creation of the UN’s “sustainable development” plan. His vision, his voice and determination are in every document, incorporating a sentiment he expressed many times, in many ways, “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

In the meantime, Strong still found the time to make money, some say billions, in oil, utilities, real estate and natural resources, every adventure replete with controversy and scandal, from his time serving as CEO of Petro-Canada, in 1970s, to head of Ontario Hydro in 1992. But perhaps the most intriguing chapter in the life of Maurice Strong, the epitome of contradiction, occurred in 1978, when he and his wife acquired AZL Resources Inc., which included almost 200,000 acres in Baca Grande in Colorado.

According to his wife, Hanne Strong, who was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, she knew as a child that she was different. She could see angels and remember past lives, one as an American Indian, and something told her that if she went to America, she’d find her ancestral home.

One evening, after moving to Baca Grande, a gray haired stranger came to the door. He told Hanne, “I’ve been waiting for you,” and described to her his visions while wandering the nearby mountains. He saw leaders of all the world’s religions gathered at the Baca. He saw temples and monasteries and churches, and he saw the political, educational, and corporate leaders that would follow. Together, he told Hanne, “these people would give shape to a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years ahead.”

Hanne took this as prophecy. She gathered up an Indian pipe, a pouch of medicinal herbs, and found her way to a promontory above the Baca, where for three days she fasted, meditating, until she knew that the stranger’s message could not be ignored. Thus, “The valley of the Refuge of the World Truths” was born, and in time a utopian settlement did emerge, with an exquisite Catholic monastery, several Hindu and Buddhists temples, an Indian hogan, the Academy of On, the house with a thousand crystals, and a huge, mustard-colored ziggurat built by Najeed Halaby, father of Queen Noor of Jordan.

Even today, the King and Queen of Jordan are known to visit the Baca, along with other well-known luminaries, such as the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, Henry Kissinger, journalist Bill Moyers, and for a while, Shirley MacLaine. As visitors have said, they come to the Baca to honor the great spirit Gaia, and to watch UFOs frolic in the evening sky. In a news article at the time, Strong said that one factor that may spare humanity from its environmental folly is a worldwide spiritual reawakening, and that he hopes the Baca can serve as a seed, by becoming the ‘Vatican City’ of a new world religion.

Then, low and behold, as luck would have it, turns out the Baca is also rich in oil, gas and minerals, and sits atop what is purported to be the largest freshwater aquifer in the entire United States. The water alone is worth billions. Strong swears he didn’t know. Nevertheless, in 1989, he founded American Water Development, Inc., and filed an application with the District Court for the right to pump water from the Baca and sell it to water districts in and around Denver. The project was opposed by neighboring communities, and after a lengthy trial, which ended in 1992, Strong lost, exited the company, and moved on to exploit the oil, gas and minerals on a wildlife refuge that was part of the Baca.

This episode is similar to another Strong venture in 1970s, this time in Costa Rica. Through his company, Ecological Development, he purchased land and built a beach resort that rests in part within a Wildlife Refuge and Indian reservation, where development is restricted, and put his son in charge. In the early 90s, as Chairman of Ontario Hydro, then one of North America’s largest power utilities, he used their money to purchase another 31,000 acres of Costa Rican rainforest, even though the company was in debt at the time. But being the Shaman that he was, Strong divined the future by telling them the purchase would one day help offset greenhouse gases from oil and coal-fired power plants. Cap and Trade was in its infancy, a concept introduced to mitigate acid rain caused by sulfur dioxide, not CO2. Climatologists had only recently zeroed in on CO2 as a possible manmade cause of global warming. Climate Change/CO2 was first introduced on the world stage at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, as a second rallying cry, alongside Sustainable Development.

In 1992, just days before he was scheduled to preside over the second Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, People Magazine interviewed Maurice Strong in his United Nations office in New York, where he pulled back his sleeve to reveal a frayed white string tied around his wrist. He explained that while in Brazil, planning for the upcoming Earth Summit, he was visited by several Amazonian tribal leaders, “It was very moving. They told me their prophets had forecast a day when the white people would be in trouble and would need their knowledge to save the earth. They had heard that a great council would be convened and that I would carry their message there. A lady chief embraced me, and they tied this woven strand around my wrist with a special knot, a symbol of their trust.” Further along in the article, it mentions that President Bush, Sr. was reluctant to go to the Rio Summit. Actually, the President refused to go, then changed his mind at the very last minute.

Enter Enron. Documents seized during the Enron scandal included a three page letter from Enron CEO Ken Lay to President Bush, Sr. Excerpts: “I am writing to urge you to attend the upcoming United Nations Conference on Environment and Development scheduled for early June in Brazil…” “…I am convinced that America’s hard-pressed domestic natural gas industry would benefit substantially from a market-based approach to reducing CO2 emissions…” “Natural gas is our cleanest fossil fuel and through its increased use in electric power generation could play a major role in reducing CO2 emissions…” “In summary, I urge you to provide leadership on this important global environmental issue.” The President went to Rio. But in true palace intrigue style, a subsequent news article quoted Maurice Strong saying that the U.S. Department of State tried to block him from presiding over the summit, but that he, Strong, persuaded President Bush to overrule the State Department, and to agree to come to the summit.

The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, was nothing less than spectacular—no expense spared—food and accommodations befitting royalty. The Global Forum, the largest parallel event, officially opened the ceremonies with the arrival of a replica Viking ship, the Gaia, named after the Greek goddess of the Earth. Having traveled 17,000 nautical miles from Norway, she arrived in port carrying six children from different continents, along with goodwill messages from dozens of world dignitaries. The children, in their native tongue, spoke of the sad things that were happening to the Earth, and amidst wild cheers from an estimated 7,000 NGOs participating in the 14-day event, organizers launched the Drop of Hope, a 24 meter- high hot air balloon, slated to travel around the world for two years, carrying resolutions adopted during the NGO Global Forum.

A spokesman for the NGOs, non-governmental organizations, which include environmental, business and industry representatives, said they were working on more than two dozen treaties, and hoped to offer an alternate Earth Charter that represented a private-sector pledge to work toward mitigating a variety environmental threats. Reportedly, Maurice Strong funded travel for many of these NGOs, and others were no doubt funded by the mysterious but ubiquitous “stakeholders,” sited in UN documents. Huge tents were set up on the beach to accommodate the thousands of revelers. But what is not in question is the fact that Hanne Strong, mistress of the Baca, shepherded the Sacred Earth Gathering/Wisdom Keepers to the Rio summit.

As participant Elisabet Sahtouris explained, “…even before the Earth Summit formally began, Hanne Strong’s Sacred Earth Gathering of spiritual leaders from around the world, including a number of Native North and South Americans, met in a spectacular mountain monastery setting. Hanne, whose focus it was to bring spirituality into the Earth Summit, organized by her husband Maurice, had asked me to participate in this gathering, and that of her Wisdom Keepers, because of my deep understanding of Earth-as-Gaia.”

Not to be outdone, Al Gore, Strong’s kindred spirit, led the U.S. Senate Delegation to the Earth Summit. In an almost reverential way, and attendee later wrote of a favorite moment, “Al Gore, drenched in sweat in the sweltering heat of a tent full of activists down by the beach, delivering a full-throated speech on the perils of global warming.”

Among the approximate 100,000 in attendance outside the formal summit chambers, a group totally separate from the NGOs and the Sacred Earth Gathering were representatives of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. With probably more at stake, then and now, they were said to have been more prepared and more impactful than any other attendee. As stated in the Kari-Oca Village Declaration, “The Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe and the Pacific, united in one voice…” “We, the Indigenous Peoples, maintain our inherent rights to self-determination. We have always had the right to determine our own forms of government, to use our own laws, to raise and educate our children, to our own cultural identity without interference.” “We maintain our inalienable rights to our lands and territories, to all our resources—above and below—and to our waters. We assert our ongoing responsibility to pass these on to future generations.” A haunting reminder to speak truth to power, from those who apparently saw through the whole glitzy spectacle.

Later in the week, inside the hallowed halls, filled with politicians, foreign dignitaries, stakeholders and note takers, once again Maurice Strong, as Secretary General of the conference, gave an impassioned speech. While not as fiery as the one in 1972, the message was the same: industrialized nations were to blame for the world’s ills, and the United Nations now wanted billions from them, to rectify their wanton behavior. “The wasteful and destructive lifestyles of the rich cannot be maintained at the cost of the lives and livelihoods of the poor, and of nature.” “One part of the world cannot live in an orgy of unrestrained consumption where the rest destroys its environment just to survive.” “No place on the planet could remain an island of affluence in a sea of misery. We are either going to save the whole world or no one will be saved.” This time, he didn’t specifically target the middleclass, perhaps now realizing that the UN would need their cooperation to fulfill UN objectives. And he also offered a bit of comfort. “For the rich, the transition to sustainable development need not require regression to a difficult or primitive life. On the contrary, it can lead to a richer life of expanded opportunities for self-realization and fulfilment.” So true.

There were two primary documents presented at the summit, both requiring funding mechanisms, Agenda 21 and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Strong described Agenda 21 as “a framework for the systemic, co-operative action required to effect the transition to sustainable development, and he stated that, “The issue of new and additional financial resources to enable developing countries to implement Agenda 21 is crucial and pervasive. This, more than any other issue, will clearly test the degree of political will and commitment of all countries to the fundamental purposes and goals of this Earth Summit.” “Traditional notions of foreign aid and of the donor-recipient syndrome are no longer an appropriate basis for North-South relations. The world community must move towards a more objective and consistent system of effecting resource transfers similar to that used to redress imbalances and ensure equity within national societies.” The UN later proposed that sovereign nations pay taxes directly to the UN.

He went on to say, “And in the case of global warming, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that if carbon dioxide emissions are not cut by 60 per cent immediately, the changes in the next 60 years may be so rapid that nature will be unable to adapt and man incapable of controlling them.” “We also need new ways of financing environment and development objectives. For example, emission permits that are tradeable internationally offer a means of making the most cost-effective use of funds devoted to pollution control while at the same time providing a non-budgetary means of effecting resource transfers. Taxes on polluting products or activities, like the C02 taxes now being levied or proposed by a number of countries, could also be devoted to the financing of international environment and development measures.” The cut to the chase. This brought us Cap and Trade, and the never-ending quest for a carbon tax.

Other items discussed were overpopulation and the need for open borders. “There is an ominous tendency today to erect new iron curtains to insulate the more affluent and privileged from the poor, the underprivileged and the dispossessed. Iron curtains and closed national boundaries provide no solutions to the problems of an interdependent world community in which what happens in one part affects all.” And before closing, a gentler tone, “We are reminded by the Declaration of the Sacred Earth Gathering, which met here last weekend, that the changes in behavior and direction called for here must be rooted in our deepest spiritual, moral and ethical values. We reinstate in our lives the ethic of love and respect for the Earth, which traditional peoples have retained as central to their value systems.”

In a world of contradictions, there may be nothing stranger than an Earth Summit. According to reporters on the scene, while thousands of revelers danced and sang by firelight, dressed in exotic attire, face paint, bangles and beads, cymbals and drums echoing in the background, inside, special interest groups were wheeling and dealing behind closed doors, and at the podium, speeches from world leaders continued to bash the United States. As Fidel Castro said, “It is necessary to point out that consumer societies are the main ones responsible for the atrocious destruction of the environment.” “They have poisoned the seas and the rivers, polluted the air, weakened and perforated the ozone layer, saturated the atmosphere with gases that change climatic conditions with catastrophic results that we now are beginning to suffer.” And after stating that developing countries like China should not have to pay back their debt, China’s Premier, Li Peng, declared that, “…wealthy countries bear a greater responsibility for the world’s environmental problems because of their excessive consumption of natural resources and massive discharge of pollutants.” “Developed countries have a greater obligation to find solutions and to transfer technology.” “China is opposed to interference in the internal affairs of other countries, using the human rights issue as an excuse.” This said only three years, to the day, after the Tiananmen Square Massacre, where pro-democracy protestors were run over by tanks in the streets of Beijing, 3,000 to 10,000 slaughtered, body parts hosed down the storm drains. Today, China is still the world’s largest polluter, and is repeatedly accused of stealing technology.

But Maurice Strong had a soft spot for China, and is said to have facilitated Nixon’s historic trip to China, just months before the first Earth Summit in 1972. Strong’s relative, Anna Louise Strong, was an American journalist, prolific author, and suspected spy, best known for her reporting on and support for communist movements in the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. Living through two world wars, she was a woman of mystery and intrigue, no life story contains the same facts, save one: She was a communist, heart and soul, bouncing between Russia and China, passionate to the cause, even when faced with the horrific atrocities of Stalin’s purge, which killed over 20 million, and Mao Tse‐tung’s ‘Cultural Revolution’, which killed one-and-a-half million and destroyed much of the country’s cultural heritage. Anna Louise made Beijing China her permanent home in 1958, where she was embraced and cared for by such notables as Mao Tse‐tung and Chou En-lai, then laid to rest in 1970, with a ceremony befitting a revered compatriot. Maurice Strong openly expressed his desire to see China become a super-power, and today, depending on how you look at it, China is the first or second largest economy in the world.

It’s worth noting that of the 178 countries represented at the summit, only seven are considered industrialized nations, and only nineteen are fully democratic, with Switzerland the purest form. The rest are various shades of socialist, communist, monarchies and dictatorships, some unspeakably brutal. And while most democratic leaders at the summit were apologetic and conciliatory, President Bush, Sr. stood his ground and defended his country. He balked at simply giving away technology, and wouldn’t agree to a firm CO2 reduction target, especially since developing countries were exempt. Nevertheless, after enduring the summit, President Bush returned home, bearing gifts: He signed on to Agenda 21 and The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and later that year, he signed the National Energy Policy Act, which started utility deregulation, and he signed on to NAFTA, a first step towards the globalization of world economies, which was finalized under Clinton in 1993. In retrospect, there was an interesting exchange at a debate leading up to the November 1992 Presidential election. Bush, Sr.—I am for the North American Free Trade Agreement. I think free trade is going to expand our job opportunity. I think it is exports that have saved us when we’re in a recession. We need more free trade agreements. Clinton—I say it does more good than harm if we can get protection for the environment so that the Mexicans have to follow their own environmental standards, their own labor law standards, and if we have a genuine commitment to reeducate and retrain American workers who lose their jobs. Ross Perot—You implement NAFTA, the Mexican trade agreement, where they pay a dollar an hour, have no health care, no retirement, no pollution controls, etc., and you’re going to hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country.

After the summit, Al Gore got busy as well, implementing Maurice Strong’s vision of uniting all the world religions under the worship of Gaia. The Cathedral of St. John the Divine, in New York City, is the seat of a bishop in the Anglican Church who is translating Thomas Berry’s “cosmology” into specific programs, rituals and institutions in order to spread the Gaia theology into mainstream Christianity. A member in attendance stated, “One of those rituals is the ‘Feast of St. Francis’ where elephants and camels and other animals are paraded down the aisle to the altar for a blessing, as others present bowls filled with compost and worms. Vice President Al Gore delivers a sermon in which he tells the congregation, God is not separate from the Earth.”

Such rituals are not limited to the New York City. The Episcopal Diocese of Kansas and the Stewardship Office of the Episcopal Church sponsored a celebration of Earth Day in April, 1995, that featured, “…a North American Native Indian praying to God, then praying to the Grandfather Spirit and to spirits of the Four Directions to bless the earth and oversee the conference. California Senator Tom Hayden, then offered an Earth Day prayer, claiming the earth was speaking through him: ‘On this Earth Day let us say an earth prayer and make an earth pledge. In the Bible “ruah” means both wind and spirit, so let us take time to breathe with the universe, connect with the earth and remember what we need to know and do. Celebrate that ancient spirits are born again in us, spirits of eagle vision, of coyote craft, of bear stewardship, of buffalo wisdom, of ancient goddesses, of druids, of native people, of Thoreau and Sitting Bull – born again and over again in John Muir and Rachel Carson and David Brower and Alice Walker.’ Hayden then asked us to ‘commit ourselves to carry the written word of Al Gore into official deeds.’” There are no words.

Maurice Strong had hoped to unveil his own Earth Charter at the Rio Summit in ‘92, but it proved to be more useful years later, when nations that had signed on to Agenda 21 were sluggish to act. Unlike Agenda 21, which is a document that provides a framework for hard laws, the Earth Charter, in Strong’s opinion, is a set of principles that facilitate and strengthen the implementation of those laws. As stated, “In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.”

Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev co-authored the Earth Charter, which effectively lays out a new Green Society Constitution, emphasizing the need to, “…form a global partnership to care for Earth and one another or risk the destruction of ourselves and the diversity of life. Fundamental changes are needed in our values, institutions, and ways of living.” They go on to explain, “The Earth Charter values and principles must be taught, contemplated, applied and internalized. To this end, the Earth Charter needs to be incorporated into both formal and non-formal education. This process must involve various communities, continue to integrate the Charter into the curriculum of schools and universities, and constitute an ongoing process of life-long learning.”

The Earth Charter was presented to the world on September 9, 2001, at Shelburne Farms, Vermont. Handwritten on handmade papyrus paper, it is sheltered within The Ark of Hope, a container created especially for the Earth Charter. With vibrant, intricately hand painted scenes of nature and symbols of faith, The Ark of Hope is a replica of the Ark of the Covenant, complete with carrying poles shaped like “unicorn horns, which render evil ineffective.” The Ark also contains the Temenos Books, images and words for “global healing, peace, and gratitude.” Two days after the ceremony, in response to 9/11, the 200lb Ark of Hope was carried to the United Nations in New York, and has since been around the world.

“My hope is that this Charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a ‘Sermon on the Mount,’ that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century and beyond,” stated Mikhail Gorbachev, in a 1997 interview with the Los Angeles Times. Maurice Strong was more direct. “The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.” And it truly has become the Mother Earth Bible for tens of thousands of people and organizations around the world.

Since 1992, Agenda 21 has morphed into Agenda 2030, soon to be Agenda 2036. And the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) became the Kyoto Protocol, then the Paris Agreement. All of these incarnations are basically the same. It seems world leaders like having parties in far-off lands just to reaffirm their commitment, and the UN keeps hosting them so it can ask for more money and more power. To date, 193 nations have signed on to both Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement, including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Syria—newly converted tree huggers?


Agenda 21 is such an expansive and intrusive restructuring of life as we know it—it’s hard to wrap your mind around it. No life, not one, will remain untouched. No freedom, not one, will remain unchallenged. “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth—it calls for specific changes in the activities of all people. Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” – Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993)

Implementation of Agenda 21 is called a plan for Sustainable Development, and on the surface, the bullet points do sound inspiring; a world without poverty, pollution or war—one people, one planet—in perfect harmony, with each other, and with Mother Earth, that sacred icon that will one day unite the world’s religions as one. However, the devil is in the details, and in the character and motivation of those in charge. That’s where it gets scary. In order to achieve their goals, the UN and their surrogates make it perfectly clear, they speak and write openly about what must be done. First and foremost, there must be a leveling of world economies, no super-stars, a goal aimed primarily at the middleclass in industrialized nations. All land and resources must be owned/controlled by nation/states, under the auspices of the UN. Citizens must be housed in controlled urban settlements, with limited, if any, ownership of cars and land. There must be a mental, emotional and religious reorientation of civil society. And there must be population control. They say this, out loud. It’s not a secret. And it’s happening, right now.

In addition, for the work that lays ahead, the UN now wants sovereign nations to pay taxes directly to them. And between the Agenda and Climate Change Agreements, the UN now wants trillions, not billion, from industrialized nations, by some estimates, as much as 70-90 trillion by 2030. And they are currently asking for more help from Stakeholders as well, promising them potential profits of 12 trillion over the next 12 years. They also want their own standing military, with the authority to intervene in international and civil wars, they want to get rid of the veto power that keeps the UN in check, and they want all UN agreements to be legally binding, with penalties. These are articulated goals coming straight from the United Nations, boldly and loudly.

To further these goals, the United Nations relies heavily on its estimated 58,000 NGOs, organizations registered with the United Nations, paid for, in part, by Stakeholders, and are committed to promulgating the Agenda’s plan for Sustainable Development. Since the Sustainable Development plan is a comprehensive restructuring of every aspect of civil society, each of these organizations is assigned a certain role, such as think-tanks, policy consultants, advocacy groups, educational and spiritual organizations, and groups that work to persuade elected officials to implement policies on a local, state and federal level. They are further broken down into specialized categories, such as energy, environment, land use, urban settlements, religion, childhood education, and so forth.

One group, ICLEI, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, is tasked with directing and facilitating cities and towns in the planning and implementation of the UN’s Urban Settlements Program, which cities pay for with tax dollars. From the ICLEI Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: “The proper selection of participants for the Stakeholder Group and its Working Groups is perhaps the most critical step in establishing a partnership planning process.” It goes on to suggest the types of participants they should look for, such as “groups who are traditionally underrepresented,” and “special groups,” such as “women, youth and indigenous people, the media and environmentalists,” and “the inclusion of individuals with credibility.” In the Community Action Toolkit, it says to “Find information that lends credence to your argument and creates a sense of urgency,” and, “One of the best ways to influence public opinion is to influence the news and information that people rely upon in making decisions.”

Once organized within a state, the first step is to get environmental laws passed, those that specifically require a reduction in CO2 emissions. Then ICLEI goes to each locale with a ready-made plan to accomplish that goal, Sustainable Development. And that is exactly what they did in California. One example is called Plan Bay Area. This from a California opposition group, “…they have foisted upon nine counties and 101 cities a ‘sustainable communities strategy’ that will effectively replace local governmental autonomy with regional rule by unelected, unaccountable agencies, thereby upending the core principles of checks and balances upon which our republic is based.” “Unfortunately, the ‘sustainable development’ outlined in Plan Bay Area can only be accomplished through the usurpation of local land use autonomy, the wrongful and infeasible classification of land into either ‘priority development areas’ (PDAs) or ‘priority conservation areas’ (PCAs), and the confiscation of private property through uncompensated (land) use restrictions.” The plan calls for mixed-use, commercial/residential, multi-family housing, placed within ½ mile of the plan’s designated transit corridors. One corridor, the El Camino Real, running from San Jose to San Francisco, will be transformed into a series of government controlled, “stack ‘n pack,” smart growth developments. The plan is that all private vehicles will be banned from what will be called The Grand Boulevard. This is part of a long-term, mindboggling plan to limit car ownership and create bike trails that connect recreational sites, residential neighborhoods and employment centers, while providing restricted access to environmentally sensitive areas. The ultimate goal is to create a continuous bike trail corridor that links all nine Bay Area counties. Could it be that humans are easier to control when they’re packed into small areas with limited transportation?

Point of interest. As stated on the ICLEI website: “ICLEI represents local governments at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, (and) the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Goal) Connect cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies. Mobilize local governments to help their countries implement multilateral environmental agreements.” So what they’re actually doing is creating a global governance mechanism that directly links US citizens to the will of the United Nations…brilliant!

Clearly, ICLEI is not your typical business, hired for their expertise in city planning, it is an indoctrination campaign geared to target legislators, so they will pass hard law, which the UN can’t do…yet. It’s a homeland invasion specifically designed to manipulate and usurp the democratic process, so as to insert the UN Agenda without needing congressional approval or oversight, an invasion of state’s rights without the UN or federal government held accountable. Several states have ban ICLEI and Agenda 21 altogether. But a recent example of the fervor that ICLEI is trained to provoke happened at a Berkeley, CA, City Council Meeting in June 2018, where a resolution was introduced, proclaiming, “The City of Berkeley calls on the United States of America to initiate a just national mobilization emergency effort to reverse global warming…” It warns of “a sixth mass extinction,” blames the conflict in Syria on global warming, and calls for an effort to “humanely stabilize population.” It says that we must reduce greenhouse gases, “…back to pre-industrial levels,” and that “residents should avoid consumerism and narcissism.” It declares that “the greatest crisis in history” requires a mobilization effort like that of “WWII,” and that “the United States of America has disproportionately contributed to the climate and ecological crises.” Sound familiar? The intensity and absoluteness of each declaration echoes their founding father. This organizational non-accountability plan, ICLEI in particular, was the brainchild of Maurice Strong, to send out swarms of NGOs, acolytes of the Brave New World vision of Maurice Strong and the United Nations.

A few other things the UN has accomplished or is working on: They initiated the ban on incandescent light bulbs; only led can be controlled. They initiated the Smart Grid. They have their own Behavioral Science Department and are developing their own Cloud. They are issuing biometric ID cards to track refugees receiving aid, but would like it to be universal. They are using Google Earth to observe habitat/land use and human suffering in underdeveloped countries, which they share through their Social Media Department, to spread the word about Sustainable Development. They are working on controlling vitamins and supplements, globally, and thanks to both Clinton and Obama, they may end up controlling the internet.

Whether you think that genuine concern is laudable or laughable, or even if, on some level, all of this sounds perfectly sane and reasonable, here are a few quotes from the UN’s Agenda for Sustainable Development founding father, Maurice Strong:

“It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Strong 1992 essay entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation.

“Strengthening the role the United Nations can play will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena, the rule of law, and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives.” Strong 1992 essay entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation.

“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?” “They (the rich countries) won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Strong 1992 interview, concerning the plot of a book he wanted to write, by Donald Gibson, Environmentalism: ideology and power, pg. 95.

“Successful management of today’s traumatic processes of change will not be easy to achieve. Our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions, particularly in terms of safeguarding the global environment that this transition will require and whose results are often not immediately apparent.” Strong essay in World Policy Journal, Summer, 2009, Facing Down Armageddon: Environment at a Crossroads.

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.”-Maurice Strong

And now a few from Strong’s environmental co-hearts, most of whom are fellow members of the Club of Rome, an organization with historic ties to the UN. Many high ranking UN officials belong to the Club of Rome, and the UN contracts the Club of Rome to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents.’ Not all the quotes have citations, so you’ll have to judge for yourself:

“We require a central organizing principle. One agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” – Al Gore

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and former US Senator, as quoted by Michael Fumento in Science Under Siege, 1993

“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” – Michael Oppenheimer, former manager of the Climate and Air Program for the Environmental Defense Fund

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, published in 1991

“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 a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable….” From the 1976 United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, Habitat I, Item #10

“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

Now to paraphrase another famous quote, “When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.” It is impossible to quantify the expansion of the UN since 1972. It has grown like kudzu, infiltrating every nook and cranny around the globe. They have thousands of departments and institutions that, in turn, promulgate thousands more, and the NGOs are legion, all focused on one goal, one vision, and that is to create a single, seamless global village, with the United Nations as the seat of global governance. If they happen to do good works along the way, it’s simply a byproduct of their ultimate goal.


At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, President Bush, Sr. signed on to Agenda 21, which was not a treaty, but a non-binding wish-list, promulgated by the United Nations. It did not need to be, nor was it ratified by the Senate. At the same conference, Bush also signed The Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was a treaty and was later ratified by the Senate. However, this treaty identifies goals to reduce greenhouse gases, not mandates.

In 1993, shortly after Bill Clinton took office, he tried, with the help of Nancy Pelosi, to push through H. Con. Res. 353, legislation “to implement Agenda 21.” It passed the house but was stopped in the Senate. So in June 1993, Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, via Executive Order, which remained in effect until he left office in 1999. This was tricky business, because Agenda 21 had no legal standing. It had been rejected by the Senate. In fact, as if covering his bases, Clinton set things up by saying, “I have determined that the Council shall be established in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, except that of reporting to the Congress, which are applicable to the Council, shall be performed by the Office of the Administration in the Executive Office of the President, in accord with the guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.” Although the President’s Council may have allowed some laws to be fraudulently promulgated, for the most part, it was an exercise in the art of persuasion, and nothing then or since has made Agenda 21 the law of the land.

But that doesn’t make what Clinton did any less dangerous. Both Clinton and Gore are members of the Club of Rome, so they knew exactly how to proceed. The Council on Sustainable Development was set up like one of Maurice Strong’s NGOs, and over the next six years, they sent out teams to indoctrinate as many cities and towns and departments in the federal government as they could. There were 25 council members selected, and one Sustainability Officer appointed to every department in the federal government. Among the Council members were representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, Dow Chemical, BP Amoco, Pacific Gas and Electric, of course, and you guessed it, Ken Lay, CEO of Enron. There was also one Mayor and one Commissioner, and someone from the Center for Neighborhood Technology, a website worth checking out to see how Sustainable Development has created “stack ‘n pack” housing in Chicago that the average citizen cannot afford.

Of course, now they’re calling them Smart Cities. And since you can’t have a Smart City without a Smart Grid, in 1996, Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act, clearly designed to further erode PUCA 1935, but to also pave the way for monolithic tele/utility holding companies. Equally important is Section 704 (iv) of the Act, which states, “No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions.” Who does that? What kind of human does that, unless they already know there are environmental/health effects, and they don’t care. And they did know, as early as the 1970s. In 1972, the US military analyzed studies that began in Russia in the 1960s, which identified serious health effects from RF radiation, as well as supplementation/vitamins and minerals that helped mitigate those effects. A declassified 1976 Defense Intelligence Agency report showed that military personnel exposed to non-thermal radio frequency radiation experienced “headaches, fatigue, dizziness, irritability, sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, forgetfulness and arrhythmia.” Exactly what thousands of US citizens are experiencing with Smart Meters and cell towers. And every legitimate scientific study done since then has shown even worse effects. Only the FCC, which still has a “Sustainability Officer” on board and the WHO, a specialized agency of the UN, disagree. Although, the WHO recently reclassified non-thermal RF radiation as a Group 2B ‘possible’ human carcinogen.

RF radiation exposure limits in Russia, China, Switzerland, and Italy are two orders of magnitude lower than those in the United States and most Western European countries. Russian scientists have consistently found that at US exposure levels, humans develop pathological changes in heart, kidney, liver and brain tissues, plus cancers of all types. Some countries limit public exposures with further measures in “sensitive” areas, such as hospitals, schools and nursery schools. Chile’s “Antenna Law” prohibits cell antenna/towers in “sensitive areas,” and in a 2011 Russian resolution, it says, “It is reasonable to set limits on mobile telecommunications use by children and adolescents, including a ban on all types of advertisement of mobile telecommunications for children.” “The Russian Federation specifically advises that those under the age of 18 should not use a mobile phone at all.”

But in the United States, children are dying. Between 2000 and 2008, there were brain and breast cancer clusters on the SDSU Campus in San Diego, Ca. All those diagnosed had spent an extended amount of time in the Literature Building complex, and those with brain cancer, in particular, spent time in Nasatir Hall, Room 131, right next to a huge cell tower, around which trees were dying on the side facing the tower. There were nine cases of breast cancer, and eight or nine with brain cancer, mostly, GBM-Glioblastoma Multiforme. All victims experienced RF radiation symptoms before diagnosis. Electrical Power Research Institute was commissioned to do a study. The final report found no linkage between the cell tower and cancer. However, it did offer an interesting recommendation, “Prudent avoidance has become the principal rationale in recent years for minimizing human exposure to high electric current configurations.” “Prudent avoidance is a special case of the precautionary principle that is applied when the scientific findings are suggestive of potential for harm, but when there is still uncertainty.” The document went on to thank James Turman, Project Manager at San Diego Gas & Electric. In 2011, a parent of one of the students who died observed that Room 131, in Nasatir Hall, was completely boarded up, with cardboard lining the windows, but the tower is still there.

What others did discover is that the cell tower in question is a HPWREN, which is connected to the Lambda Rail Grid, Tera Grid, PRAGAMA Grid, feeding into the Smart Grid, and perhaps a World Grid. And therein lies the problem. Smart Meters are dangerous, they can kill you, but they are just one part of a much larger system that threatens the entire planet. And yet, schools and schoolboards across the nation say that because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they have no choice but to allow companies to install whatever they want. The thing is: that one passage in the Telecommunications Act is illegal, unconstitutional and criminal. A President cannot willfully and knowingly put citizens in danger of harm or death. Period. And the passage itself pleads the case. If Clinton, or whomever, had absolutely no idea that RF radiation was dangerous, it wouldn’t even cross their mind to put that in. Even if they thought that maybe the science was questionable, they still wouldn’t put that in, they’d let the science play out. They would only put that passage in the legislation if they knew, unequivocally, that cell towers, and/or RF radiation was dangerous. And they did know, and they didn’t care. They put it in to protect the telecom companies, and to allow the Sustainable Development plan to move forward, no matter what. But now that the WHO has change the RF radiation classification to “possible” carcinogen, the case is even stronger. And every schoolboard that rolls over, instead of fighting, is just as culpable, for knowingly exposing their students to the potentiality of an agonizing death. This fight needs to go to the Supreme Court.

So here’s the irony: Great minds sometimes disagree, like when it comes to climate change, because the correlation between CO2 and global warming is just plain statistically inconsistent and non-linear, no matter who’s messing with the data. The assessment that most CO2 advocates rely on is a compilation of ‘peer-reviewed’ studies, put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an entity created by Maurice Strong for the United Nations. And said assessment is what has been presented to world leaders at the various UN sponsored Climate Change Conventions, where to this day, the majority of scientist do not agree with its findings. For example, in 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of the world’s most prominent and respected physicists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” And a survey reported in Forbes Magazine in 2013 found that out of almost 1,100 scientists surveyed, only 36% thought CO2 caused global warming. So that leaves 64% who said, “They are less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate.”

On the other hand, a new theory does look promising, electromagnetic radiation, which comes in a variety of shapes and sizes, including microwaves and RF radiation. Unlike CO2, we know what these energies can do, from military weapons to cellphones. And scientists do agree that the noticeable to dramatic fluctuations in temperature and weather patterns began around the 1950s, the exact timeframe, just after WWII, when militaries all over the world began to develop these technologies, which then led to the plethora of commercial products we have today. And global militaries haven’t stopped, from HAARP, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, to EISCAT, an ionospheric heater, to a public demonstration, in 2007, of the US Air Force’s Active Denial System: a non-lethal crowd-control weapon that emits a beam of 95 gigahertz microwaves, designed to heat the skin. And commercially, there seems to be no end, with an ever-expanding worldwide grid, connecting cell towers, 5G, and mindless gadgets, such as Comcast’s EcoFactor, Google’s Nest and Alexa, Apple’s HomePod and beyond! At the same time, there are thousands of scientist, with legitimate studies, going to extraordinary lengths to warn about the dangers of microwaves and RF radiation. Some of these energies cause heat, and some disrupt biological systems on a cellular level. And the fact is, the planet is already soaked in energies that should not be there. Every living and non-living thing, including mother earth, functions within its own unique pattern of electromagnetic energy. Anything that disrupts that pattern is not good. Since 2014, even the Schumann Resonance, which some call the heartbeat of mother earth, has gone crazy. Just from a layman’s understanding of what these energies can do, climate change due to manmade electromagnetic radiation makes perfect sense. Now wouldn’t that be a pickle….

In 1997, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, the next generation Climate Change Agreement, but he did not send it to congress and it was never ratified. Prior to the conference, then VP Al Gore insisted that the reduction targets for CO2 emissions must be mandates, and the GOP told him up front that if there were mandates, particularly if they did not include China and India, they would not ratify. Nevertheless, Gore went to the convention and made sure there were mandates on the US, but not China, India or other “developing countries.” When President Bush, Jr. took office in 2000, he refused to ratify it as well. Then the next major event was the Paris Agreement in 2015, which did not have mandates. Still, facing the same problem as Clinton, President Obama chose to “adopt” it as a “sole executive agreement” (SOE), which some have called, “an exotic and previously unidentified species of international deal that does not have to be treated as a treaty.” Since Clinton, most everything pertaining to the UN’s many agendas has been dealt with through Executive Order, bypassing Congress and without the knowledge or consent of the people. The UN also began using long-standing treaties in unforeseen ways, such as The World Heritage Convention, one of Maurice Strong’s ideas, or by usurping US regulations, in the name of Sustainable Development, such as the International Property Maintenance Code.

So while Democrats are shilling for the UN, and Republicans for big oil and holding companies, the UN is using them both, and our tax dollars pay for it all, from Sustainable Development to Smart Meter/Smart Grid, neither of which have any legal authority or constitutional grounds to stand on.

But who needs laws when perception/deception works just as well. So for some, the Kyoto Protocol was a resounding success. Al Gore, Maurice Strong, and Enron were thrilled. Just prior to the Kyoto Summit, Ken Lay, Enron’s CEO and BP’s Lord John Browne met with Clinton and Gore in the Oval Office to develop administration positions for the Kyoto negotiations. And while Gore represented the US at Kyoto, John Palmisano, a lobbyist for Enron, was an official delegate. Among documents found during the Enron investigation, was a letter written by Palmisano to Enron from Kyoto. Keep in mind that this is 1997, the same year Enron and PG&E launched their deregulation scam that almost bankrupt California. The letter is perhaps the most telling document out of this whole sordid mess; a few excerpts:

“If implemented, this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.” “During the next year there will be intense positioning of organizations to capture an early lead in a variety of carbon trading businesses.” “The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us. A “clean development fund” is included. The fund would allow for emission offsets from projects in developing countries. This means that Enron projects in Russia, Bulgaria, Romania or other eastern countries can be monetized, in part, by capturing carbon reductions for sale back in the US or other Western countries.” “I believe that it will be impossible to separate electricity restructuring from climate change as a domestic political issue. The administration has signaled its view that the two issues are intertwined.” “Through our involvement with the climate change initiatives, Enron now has excellent credentials with many “green” interests including Greenpeace, WWF, NRDC, GermanWatch, the US Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI, and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized).” “EU delegates asked for my input into the agreement to oppose some of the positions espoused by some US delegates. In particular, the US was advocating no rules governing the trading of carbon emissions because rules would “inhibit trading.” “This agreement will be good for Enron stock!!”

Point of reference: In 1997, with just enough deregulation to run amok, Enron and PG&E began a crime spree that just about bankrupt California. A few years later, during the Bush Jr. administration, Bush, Cheney, and Enron worked together to further deregulate the utility industry, usher in utility holding companies, and loosen Stock Market regulations. By 2001, however, it was too late for Enron. PG&E got off scot-free, and Enron was eventually indicted. But then, the Smart Grid, not Smart Meters, took center stage in Bush, Jr’s The Energy Policy Act of 2005. It wasn’t until Bush’s Independence and Security Act of 2007 that Smart Meters show up. On the surface, it appears to have been more about greed, not the UN Agenda, although the UN was already talking about how Smart Meter/Smart Grid would advance their agenda, so by 2007, it was probably about both. The whole story about Bush, Jr., Enron and Smart Meters is in Power Grab Part Two, but here’s an excerpt: President Bush put the Smart Meter/Smart Grid project under the Department of Energy (DOE), which early on hired an energy PR firm, Horizon Energy Group, to promote the effort. Below are two excerpts from a document referring to Bush’s 2007 legislation. The whole document uses the words “gold rush” three times: “What’s the payoff? Now, state regulators must take over the leadership role by changing regulatory policies that discourage investments in grid modernization. Once this critical contribution is made, the “gold rush” can begin in earnest.” “Thus far, the Act has only been “authorized.” Funds would need to be appropriated by Congress to implement the provisions of Title XIII before it will make a difference in our quest towards achieving the Smart Grid. Once that occurs, let the gold rush begin!”

In 1997, among those in the US advocating no rules for carbon trading were of course Clinton, Gore, Maurice and Enron. So it’s a two-way street; all of them are using the UN’s agenda to make obscene amounts of money, this time through Cap and Trade. The story of Cap and Trade is a saga in itself. But in brief, because it pertains to Smart Meters: Investor-owned utility companies have a business plan akin to La Cosa Nostra—they have a product you can’t refuse. So in the 1980s, when power plants caused acid rain because of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, the utilities refused to invest in the R&D it would take to upgrade their technology, or to even put in scrubbers. So the basic premise of Cap and Trade is that the government simply imposes a cap on emissions. Each company starts the year with a certain number of tons allowed, and if it doesn’t use up its allowance, it can sell what it no longer needs, or it might have to buy extra allowances on the open market. Each year, the cap ratchets down, and the shrinking pool of allowances gets costlier. Emissions trading for SO2 became law as part of the Clean Air Act of 1990. Even though the penalties for noncompliance were vague, it worked. It cost utilities less than upgrades, and they probably made money. But the main reason it worked is it only applied to the US, and SO2 has no other potential offsets or competition, except volcanoes. Not true with CO2. Every living thing either sucks it up or breathes it out, and it’s a byproduct of everyday life. And thanks to the UN, the trading of CO2 is now global, and the profit potential is astronomical. Ready-set-go.

First off, trading exchanges were established to provide a spot market in permits, as well as a derivatives market for futures and options. These trade and settle internationally, allowing permits to be transferred between countries. Each international transfer is validated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

If you remember, Maurice Strong started early, because in 1992, he was already buying up tropical rain forests to use for carbon trading. But Obama also had an early start, even before he became a US Senator. As early as 2000, Barack Obama served on the board of a Chicago-based charitable foundation that gave nearly $1.1 million to help create and launch the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself, “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.” And Maurice Strong served on the board.

Point of interest: “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Barack Obama, January 17, 2008, San Francisco Chronicle. He also said this on video with a smile on his face, but the question is…why? Why on earth should utility rates go up?

Gore was a little behind when he created the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004, with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner.” “The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.” “GIM purchases, but isn’t a provider of carbon dioxide offsets.” Some say Maurice was a silent partner.

And we know Enron was set to go. “With more than a half-dozen profit centers aligned with carbon dioxide (CO2) regulation, Ken Lay was more than just active in promoting the global warming agenda.” “Enron was the company most responsible for sparking off the greenhouse civil war in the hydrocarbon business,” stated Greenpeace-ex Jeremy Leggett.

So I guess they can all take a little credit, including the UN’s World Bank, which now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe, helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX, half of which is owned by the Chicago Climate Exchange CCX (Obama/Strong), which is influenced by Generation Investment Management GIM (Gore/Strong?).

Point of interest: Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, predicts that “carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall.” The carbon market is predicted to be in the trillions globally.

Although there are myriad reasons why both utilities and the UN want Smart Meter/Smart Grid, one is carbon trading. While the US has this self-imposed/pretend mandate on emissions, developing countries do not, and they will probably be “developing” for decades, spewing CO2 and in need of carbon credits. In early utility documents, as well as UN documents, they acknowledge they don’t need Smart Meters for the Smart Grid, but, as one UN document says, the meters are needed to “control” the customer. Utilities say they don’t want to build anymore power plants, or pay for meter readers and their trucks, so they’re getting their cost of doing business way down, and just as profitable, perhaps more so, their carbon emissions way down. If they can force customers to use less, the less the better, they will have, literally, tons of carbon credits to sell, across the world. In addition, it leaves them with a glut of oil, coal, and liquefied gas, which they are currently selling to developed and developing countries overseas for as much as four times what they can get in the US.

Most Cap and Trade programs also allow carbon credits for taking actions that supposedly reduce emissions outside the firm’s facilities or operations. In one popular version, firms earn credits by buying seedling trees for planting in less-developed countries, even though it will take years to make a difference, assuming the seedlings even survive. And Maurice Strong’s version, buy forest land for carbon credits, may be taking an insidious turn. Utilities can and have bought vast tracts of forest land, for carbon credits, then clear-cut, selling the good wood, mostly overseas, and burning the underbrush and scrap wood in converted coal-fired plants. Then they can plant seedlings, get carbon credits, and start all over.

From the get-go, the whole idea that utility companies suddenly decided to help save the planet didn’t make any sense, and as Judge Judy says, “If it doesn’t make sense, it’s not true.” The truth is, utilities are making a whole lot of money and CO2 emissions are going up. “Last year’s (2017) increase was 50% greater than the average yearly increase over the past decade…” At the same time, temperature and weather patterns are fluctuating in a way that has scientists scrambling to find consensus on a particular school of thought, except for one interesting point—they say, unequivocally, loss of trees and vegetation is exacerbating the problem.

But CO2 is just one revenue stream from Smart Meters. Another big ticket item is selling customer data to third parties. The more data the better, and that’s why there’s an intense focus on how to get customers to buy, rent or steal more digital electronics. Some utilities are setting up to manufacture their own Smart appliances, such as refrigerators and washing machines, and perhaps, they’ve said this, make customers rent them. They are not more energy efficient, but will give utilities absolute control, while providing even more personal data to sell. This is one reason utility companies, and apparently the UN, have been and still are fighting solar. One obvious reason is if everyone had solar panels on the roof and storage batteries in the garage, and perhaps a neighborhood micro-grid, they wouldn’t need a Smart Meter, and they wouldn’t be on the Smart Grid. Net Metering has been under attack for a long time, but some states are now going a step further. Arizona is trying to tax people away from solar. Others like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, are using additional fees to discourage solar, and five states have made it illegal to live off the grid, period, which is what this is really about. And most telling is Florida. The Florida courts have ruled that living off the grid is a violation of the International Property Maintenance Code, which was a US regulatory body, but is now under the auspices of the UN. Although the code does not specifically address off the grid living, the governing factor as stated in the Florida legislation is that residences have to have sustainable water and electricity. Sound familiar? All of these states have been heavily infiltrated by ICLEI.

In fairness, the above has also coincided with a concerted and well-funded lobbying campaign by traditional utilities, which have been working in state capitals across the country to reverse incentives for homeowners to install solar panels. And one of their excuses, as stated in the New York Times, 2017, “…a practice known as net metering can be unfair to homeowners who do not want or cannot afford their own solar installations.” Are you kidding me! On the other hand, California now requires solar on new construction. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Point of interest. “I think the data (from Smart Meters) is going to be worth a lot more than the commodity that’s being consumed to generate the data,” said Miles Keogh, director of grants and research at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Even before Smart Meters, just plain old utility companies shared an estimated 2.1 trillion per year.

The UN involvement with the Smart Grid began as early as 2001, and an official department, NGO, or whatever it is was formalized in 2010, The Global Smart Grid Federation GSGF. There are others as well, one called World, one called International. The UN appears to use Smart Meter/Smart Grid data in a more analytical way, collecting/monitoring? individual health, employment, interests, activities, and so forth. With most likely the help of Bill Gates, Siemens, the UN has or is developing their own Cloud, and the UN World Bank is funding Smart Meter/Smart Grid in underdeveloped countries, even remote villages in Africa that have never had electricity—but it has to be Smart Grid. “We argue that these Smart Grid advances may enable sub-Saharan African countries to leapfrog elements of traditional power systems and accelerate and improve electrification efforts. We introduce the notion of Just Grids to reflect the need for power systems to contribute towards equitable and inclusive economic and social development without marginalizing the poor.” Whatever it takes. They want every inch of the planet on the Grid.

In 1993, Maurice Strong, then CEO of Ontario Hydro, gave a speech at The Empire Club of Canada, in which he stated, “Thus it is only sensible and responsible for us to help our customers improve their competitiveness by becoming more energy-efficient, even at a time when we have a substantial surplus of supply.” “It is fully consistent with market economy principles that the full costs of developing, producing, distributing and using energy be incorporated in its price structure….although clearly it cannot be applied to setting our rates until the society as a whole is ready to do this.” “In light of our current surplus capacity, which we project will continue for the next 10 years, Ontario Hydro cannot commit to developing new capacity, to extending existing capacity….or purchasing new supplies from non-utility generators (solar/wind) at a time when we don’t need the power.” So Maurice Strong laid out the talking-points for utility companies as early as 1993! And from two of its earliest published assessments of how things were going, the UN’s Global Smart Grid Federation couldn’t be clearer:

• The funding of national security objectives, environmental policy goals and job growth is being passed from the tax payer to the electricity rate payer.

• Engaging consumers from the beginning of the smart grid deployment process is a key to success. Utilities should be less technocratic in their approach and employ best practices from other consumer-centric industries.

• The ratepayer is taking on the role previously held by the taxpayer in paying for environmental and energy security policy.

• There is a role for government and industry to convince consumers of the environmental, security and economic benefits, a role that many utilities have not traditionally been asked to perform.

Smart Meters, all on their own, can identify usage down to individual appliances, extrapolate your habits in remarkable detail, and they can and eventually will control everything remotely. But that’s not enough; utilities want, and the UN needs to be inside your home and business. It’s called deep learning, which comes from combining IoT, the Internet of Things, with AI, artificial intelligence. “AI-as-a-Service is revolutionizing how products interact with people,” says chief operations officer, Amit Hammer. “Today, Neura’s solution transforms raw sensor data from consumers’ phones and connected devices into a pattern of behavior. It builds a profile of each individual, until it can predict the experience that matches the user’s specific needs at that moment. AI enables apps and connected devices to learn about each person in the home, creating a profile for their eating, sleeping, travelling, exercise, entry and exit.” According to a report by the Federal Trade Commission, “…the “Internet of Things” (IoT) and Smart Grid technologies will together be aggressively integrated into the developed world’s socioeconomic fabric with little-if-any public or governmental oversight.” So there you go.

And if that weren’t enough, all these years, the United States has had primary control of the Internet through ICANN. That ended in September 2016, when Obama let the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract expire without being renewed. After expiration, we forever lost the right to renew that contract. According to the tech world, it’s no secret that US control of IANA was the only thing that prevented attempts by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union, currently run by the Peoples Republic of China, to take control of ICANN. For the moment, ICANN is in the hands of a “multi-stakeholder model,” whatever that means.

In 2015, perhaps in preparation for the above action, and to afford some kind of protection to the American people, Obama established Net Neutrality, which prevented internet providers from limiting, on an individual basis, the quality of service and access, by blocking content, applications, and websites, or by just slowing down your browser, all based on your ability to pay. But President Trump got rid of Net Neutrality, using that old standard, “leave it to market forces” line.

When you it put all together, The Internet of Things IoT, AI, and ICANN, without Net Neutrality, as feeble a protection as it might have been, and place them in the hands of the United Nations, well, no good can come from it. IoT is predicted to be a $3 trillion enterprise by 2025, growing at a rate of at least 30 percent per year. And everybody knows the UN wants more money. If they do gain control of the internet, the first thing they’ll do is tax the market. Paying taxes to the UN has been on the table for a long time; Obama wanted a carbon tax to feed the UN. But beyond all that is the truly horrifying access and potential they will have, between Smart Meters, IoT, and AI. They will be able to monitor, control, predict, and influence, on a massive scale. Just look at Facebook, and Russia, for that matter, influencing our election. But the risk is compounded even further with the advent of Behavioral Science.

The status of the human population changed dramatically sometime in the early 2000s, with the introduction of Behavioral Science, a time when everyday people officially became subjects of manipulation. In its earliest, simplest form, Behavioral Science is based on known psychological traits and responses in the human psyche, broadly applied. But today, with technology, people can be individually targeted. The use of Behavioral Science undoubtedly began with the UN, but was likely introduced in the US when President Clinton, through Executive Order, set up the Sustainable Development Department. From there, it infected every department in the federal government, long before its official debut in 2015, through Executive Order by President Obama. Behavioral Science has spread like a social disease, throughout the very fabric of society, from federal, state and local governments, to energy companies, to wall street, to tech street, to old-fashioned companies like Sears. Tech companies, online companies, and Wall Street want your money. The UN, utility companies, and the federal government want your compliance. Behavioral Science, or Nudge units, are now embedded in at least 80 countries, as well as at the international level of OECD, World Bank, the UN, and the major media outlets. The World Bank World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior, outlined the ways that “behavioral science can complement policy makers’ toolbox.”

Nudge is a Behavioral Science theory drawn from James Wilk’s cybernetics, around 1995, and described by Brunel University academic D. J. Stewart as “the art of the Nudge.” Nudge, in its most benign form, proposes positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions as ways to influence the behavior and decision making of groups or individuals. As stated in a McKinsey Publishing Podcast: It’s based on the premise that, “…although humans are known to be irrational, they are at least irrational in predictable ways. Practitioners teach companies and institutions how to use behavioral science to address unconscious bias and instincts and manage the irrational mind. Employing techniques such as ‘nudging’ and different debiasing methods, executives can change people’s behavior—and have a positive effect on business—without restricting what people are able to do.” In the old days, a good Public Relations firm or Management Analysist instinctively accomplished the same thing, whether promoting a product or improving office efficiency.

Or, it can take a slightly darker tone. In 2008, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness brought Nudge theory to prominence. The authors refer to influencing behavior without coercion as “libertarian paternalism” and the influencers as “choice architects.” They defined the concept as: “A Nudge, as we will use the term, is any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.” But in describing the premise of the book, Sunstein said, “We think there is a little Homer Simpson in all of us.” “Sometimes we have self-control problems, sometimes we’re impulsive. In these circumstances, both public and private institutions, without coercing, can make our lives a lot better.” “Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there’s a lot that can be done to manipulate them.”

Or, even darker. Cass Sunstein wrote the Introduction to the 2017 Behavioral Economics Guide. He titled his entry, “Don’t Tell Me What I Can’t Do!”: On the Intrinsic Value of Control, and goes on to offer two observed reactions to control. One refers to the adverse reaction some people have when they feel their freedoms and autonomy impinged by outsiders, such as government, marketers, or other people. The other reaction refers to people receptive to control in order to minimize cognitive and emotional stress. “Some individuals prefer to keep control over decisions and choices to themselves and view nudging as imposing on their freedoms and dignity, while some are content to relinquish control and delegate decisions to others.” Sunstein explains that he conducted lab experiments to test whether and under what circumstances individuals are willing to relinquish control. The study found that participants were willing to pay a premium price and refuse a reward to preserve control. Sunstein concludes that, “Further research is required to understand the boundaries of control and how to incentivize individuals to invest cognitive bandwidth to take control over some key decisions, and how to encourage those wanting to preserve control to delegate decisions that they might not be best at determining.” In summation, he invites researchers and readers to join him in his quest to unravel the intrinsic value of control and its influence on people’s choices and behavior.

Can you see my face? These people seem to have forgotten what it is to be human, that each of us, as individuals and as a collective, is on a journey. There was a time when we understood that humans not only have the right, but the need to make mistakes. It’s how we learn as individuals and societies: it’s how a child grows to be a well-rounded adult, how societies become advanced civilizations, how the human spirit achieves grace. And on a purely practical level, humans, within their own sphere of influence, within their own home, have an innate instinct and intimate knowledge of what is in their best interest, even though we sometimes make mistakes. I make one at least once a day. And what do they think happens to the mind, if not challenged by critical thinking, but rather, like Pavlov’s dog, reacting in knee-jerk fashion to cognitive and emotional triggers. But even scarier is what it does to the person using behavioral modification on others. It changes who they are. It allows them to detach, and view the rest of humanity as mere subjects in the furtherance of the cause. Behavioral Science is a slippery slope.

But Obama didn’t think so when, in 2008, the same year Cass Sunstein’s first book came out, he appointed him as administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a full seven years before he officially created the Behavioral Science Department. In addition, it appears that Obama already had a United Nations Behavioral Science team on board, one called the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, or SIOP. According to their website, they began working for the UN in 2007, and became an accredited NGO, “with special consultative status within the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 2012.”

According to Lori Foster, current chair of the SIOP United Nations Team, “…the focus of the team is working to help the United Nations achieve its recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” She went on to point out, “…the UN recently published a progress report that highlights the positive impact the behavioral sciences have had on its Agenda 2030 pilot projects.” She also pointed out that, “I-O (short for SIOP) psychologists have worked within U.S. government agencies for years.” “We have a lot of SIOP members who are doing amazing work in different federal agencies. That has been going on for quite a long time.” She continues, “In 2015, the White House created a Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST)…” “The broader collaborative framework, which includes 17 Federal departments and agencies and 5 White House offices, was the new feature of the SBST.” “It was an effort to bring a range of social and behavioral scientists together– psychologists, economists, political scientists and others to work across the different agencies—to apply both our theories and our methods to the challenges those agencies face, whatever they may be,” said Foster, who was a member of that team for two years. Since President Clinton had already set up Sustainable Development departments within the federal government, and ICLEI was already in place, the federal government was set to receive guidance from SIOP. The only question is, did ICLEI then go out and use Nudge on state and local agencies and elected officials, or did ICLEI teach these agencies and elected officials how to use Nudge on their own citizens? Don’t know. But my bet is that ICLEI is using Nudge to wrap state and local agencies and elected officials around their little finger.

Another group that has latched onto Nudge for all it’s worth is the utility industry. Although there are now myriad companies providing Nudge programs and services to utility companies, this is one: “CPS Energy is using behavioral science techniques, and some high-tech data analysis, in a new program that taps on deeply rooted psychological drives to reduce energy usage during peak times. “Plucking on their competitive spirit, you can get them to reduce their energy use, anywhere between 1 and 3 percent over the course of a year,” said Neel Gulhar, senior director of product strategy at Oracle Utilities. “CPS has contracted with Oracle to run a program that uses data culled from the company’s new Smart Meters to influence consumer behavior.” “The strategy itself is relatively simple: showing customers their energy consumption compared with their neighbors and letting their competitive instincts do the rest.” “Time and time again, we find that if you use these different behavioral science techniques, you can actually change behavior.” Is it any wonder we’re a country divided, when they’re creating competition, jealousy?

Just when it seems the whole world has been “Nudge-a-fied,” there are critics. Tammy Boyce, from public health foundation The King’s Fund, said: “We need to move away from short-term, politically motivated initiatives, such as the ‘nudging people’ idea, which are not based on any good evidence and don’t help people make long-term behavior changes.” Ethicists, from Bovens to Goodwin to Wilkinson, challenge Nudges for being manipulative, while others, such as Yeung question their scientific credibility. Still others, including Lepenies & Malecka have questioned whether Nudges are compatible with the rule of law. And numerous legal scholars have challenged Nudges, as it relates to law and the Constitution. Still others, psychologists, have charged that Nudging is a euphemism for psychological manipulation as practiced in social engineering. Ta-da! And there it is, because that is exactly what this is about…social engineering. Controlling and herding the masses into Sustainable Development Urban Settlements, and keeping them compliant.

In the meantime, while Clinton was installing the United Nations as another branch of government, and Obama was laying the foundation for Cap and Trade and his run for the Senate, and Enron was about to get its tail in a ringer, Al Gore and Maurice Strong were cashing in on the fruits of their labor.

In 1995, Al Gore and Maurice Strong partnered in a company called Molten Metal Technology, a firm that claimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste. Well known as the founding fathers of the environmental movement, and the fact that Gore was then Vice President, it was easy for them to procure more than $25 million in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) research and development grants, and an additional $8 million later on. Molten Metal’s stock quickly soared to $35 a share. But in early 1996, when DOE scientists balked at further funding, corporate officers took action. Between March and October of 1996, seven corporate officers–including Maurice Strong–sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value of $35. On Oct. 20, 1996, the company issued a press release, announcing that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers. The next day, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share. By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict.

Also in 1995, in response to the devastation caused by the first Gulf War, the United Nations established the Oil for Food program, which was adopted by the Clinton administration, in response to arguments that Iraqi citizens were unduly suffering due to international economic sanctions imposed after the War. Through the UN, Maurice Strong was intricately involved in the program, and as time went on, it became one of the most disgraceful episodes in UN history—tens of billions of dollars just disappeared. But, as far as we know, Maurice Strong only received a little bit of it, and he wasn’t found out until 2005, when countries started asking where all the money went. In 1997, while working for the UN Secretary General, as top envoy for North Korea, Strong endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to “Mr. M. Strong,” issued by a Jordanian bank. It’s reported that the check was hand-delivered by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who was later convicted for trying to bribe U.N. officials on Saddam Hussein’s behalf. During the inquiry, after claiming he had no idea where the check came from, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would “sideline himself until the cloud was removed.”

Soon after, Strong removed himself altogether by moving to the People’s Republic of China. When interviewed just prior to leaving, he said, “I don’t have any role at the UN, but I’m still quite cooperative with a number of UN activities, in particular to China and that region. I don’t have any government responsibilities or formal role. I continue to be active, though.” Strong reportedly continued as President of the Council of the United Nations’ University for Peace, and became an active honorary professor at Peking University and Honorary Chairman of its Environmental Foundation. He was also Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Institute for Research on Security and Sustainability for Northeast Asia, up until shortly before his passing in 2015.

In 2006, one Enron executive, Jeff Skilling, 52, was convicted on 19 counts of conspiracy and fraud. Combined with his conviction on one count of insider trading, he faced a maximum of 185 years in prison. Ken Lay, 64, was convicted on all six counts against him, including conspiracy to commit securities and wire fraud. He faced a maximum of 45 years in prison, in addition to 120 years in a separate case. Ken Lay passed away in 2006, shortly before sentencing.

Al Gore, on the other hand, has done well. In 2007, he shared the Nobel Peace Prize, along with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in part for his book and film, An Inconvenient Truth, and in part, “…for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” A reward for the UN’s IPCC, which has been discredited by the majority of scientists.

Point of interest: In 2017, Richard H. Thaler, co-author of the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, discussed earlier, won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. “Thaler, known as the ‘father of behavioral economics,’ by exploring the consequences of limited rationality, social preferences, and lack of self-control, has shown how these human traits systematically affect individual decisions as well as market outcomes.” In case you’re wondering, yes, the Nobel Prize has historic ties to the United Nations.

As they say—all roads lead to Rome. Before his passing in 2017, David Rockefeller, founder of the Club of Rome, founded a new club, the Good Club, in 2009—although there is confusion as to whether this was Rockefeller Sr. or Jr.; that’s how secret this was. The first known meeting of the Good Club was urgently assembled at the request of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, the second and third richest men in the world. Warren Buffett, among other things, owns PacifiCorp/Pacific Power in Oregon, in addition to utility holdings in about six other states, plus Europe. This somewhat new group of global billionaires held their first and highly secretive meeting at Rockefeller University, in the heart of New York City, just down the street from the UN building. Among the attendees were the usual; Bill Gates, George Soros, David Rockefeller and Ted Turner, all members of the Club of Rome. But among the new entries, were Warren Buffett and Oprah Winfrey. When news of the secret meeting leaked, thanks to in Manhattan, it caused quite a stir. “It is really unprecedented. It is the first time a group of donors of this level of wealth has met like that behind closed doors in what is in essence a billionaires’ club,” said Ian Wilhelm, senior writer at the Chronicle of Philanthropy magazine. The group met for six hours, reportedly discussing a variety of problems facing the world. However, two themes in particular were shared with reporters, both described as urgent. The first, population control. One attendee reveled to The Times, a UK newspaper that, “…a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.” “This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers.” The second urgent matter was the need to compel the super-rich to start giving away their fortunes, sooner, rather than later. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have that in common. They also want to give it all away sooner, rather than later, and indeed the club’s members have given about $70 billion in 12 years, the bulk of which went to the UN.

“The problem with any Good Club is that all the people might not be ‘good,’ said Louise Uwacu, the Rwandan-born founder of the Canadian education charity Positivision. “…who votes for the Good Club?” Others are even more outspoken at the growing global dominance of a handful of billionaires, particularly when they talk about population control, which, historically, has been an issue for both the Club of Rome and the UN.

Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

Club of Rome-Goals for Mankind: “… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”

However, the one to watch is Bill Gates, who seems to have picked up the mantle that Maurice Strong left behind. He is widely known for his views on population control. It’s an obsession, and where the majority of his time and money is spent. He’s given billions to and through the UN, for a vaccination program in Africa, which is laudable, but his motivation, as stated, is population control. He explains that if the population is healthier, and they know their children will survive, they will have less of them. He is also getting ready to launch his new birth control microchip, sometime in 2018. Once implanted, it can last up to 16 years, and can be turned on and off, but it is hackable. However, in true Maurice fashion, Gates has started to branch out, speaking at the UN and to world leaders, in support of Sustainable Development and population control, as well as advising them on how to run their countries. In 2016, he called on the United States to learn from Germany and Sweden and open its doors for migrants. Then, he caused a tizzy in Europe, when he reversed himself in 2017, stating, “Germany cannot possibly take in the huge, massive number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.” Europe needs to, “…make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes.” “…the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this – which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa.” In the view of one European reporter, Tyler Durden, “What Bill Gates is saying is a sign that the globalist may have realized that they’ve made a fatal mistake. The globalists have always advocated for the disintegration of Western values and borders. But the refugee crisis is what has spurred the most resistance to globalism in recent years. It has contributed to Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and the slow motion fracturing of the EU. Now they’re trying to close this can of worms.” Or maybe Gates just doesn’t want his “control group” to escape. But the looming question is—what credentials give Bill Gates the authority to advise heads of state on policy matters, other than he’s a computer geek who made billions? But then again, Maurice didn’t finish high school, an oil and gas who made billions by plundering the earth’s natural resources, yet managed to convince the world that he was the father of the environmental movement. So maybe the only credentials you need is chutzpah.

Closer to home, even Barack Obama may have population concerns. Six weeks after he was elected, Obama nominated John Holdren to be his chief science adviser and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. During the Clinton administration, Holdren had served on the president’s council of advisers on science and technology, but refused to become chief science adviser. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, “…if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, in which the following are just a few of many disturbing suggestions, “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” “The law regulates other highly personal matters. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” “Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime — sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment.” “The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits.” “If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force.” “The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.” Holdren was questioned about all of this in his congressional confirmation hearing, but when he said he no longer believes any of that, he was easily confirmed.

So Obama had Sunstein, an advocate for mind control, and Holdren, an advocate for population control. The UN must have been thrilled. For the UN, population control has always been on the Agenda. But, notably, in the very beginning, the complaint about humanity focused for the most part on developed nations and their excess consumption and waste, then it broadened to overpopulation in underdeveloped countries, and how developed countries could no longer be selfish and needed to help. Pollution, in general, was always an issue, but once CO2 came on board, the UN had their hook. Humans exhale CO2, ergo, overpopulation causes climate change. I’m not kidding. That’s what they say, in their own obtuse way. If you feel you’ve entered the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party, welcome to my world, as I researched this document. The same year the Good Club panicked over overpopulation, the United Nations Population Fund released its annual State of the World Population Report for 2009, entitled Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate. “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.” “No human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral,’ especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution, in some way.” In fairness, they are also fixated on cows, which also breathe and poop, heralding back to Maurice Strong, when he complained about the “meat-eating middleclass,” at the first Earth Summit in 1972. Nevertheless, the UN is expressing an urgent and immediate need for population control; method unclear.

However, in the book he now disavows, Holdren, Obama’s chief science adviser suggested, “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.” “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems.” “The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”

But for now, more than anything, the UN wants money, which was the second urgent agenda item for the Good Club. In 1998, The United Nations Foundation was launched with a $1 billion gift from Ted Turner. And, as stated, “the United Nations Foundation’s original purpose was to build support for United Nations causes, and to make sure that the United States honors its commitments to the United Nations.” That commitment has to do with dues, which the US pays more of than most other countries. The creation of the Foundation was also intended to encourage other donors to support the UN in its activities. The main issues for the Foundation are child health, climate change & energy, sustainable development, technology, women, girls, population, and supporting the United Nations. The United Nations Foundation serves as the largest source of private funding to the United Nations. From the Foundation website, “The United Nations Foundation links the UN’s work with others around the world, mobilizing the energy and expertise of business and non-governmental organizations to help the UN tackle issues including climate change, global health, peace and security, women’s empowerment, poverty eradication, energy access, and U.S.-UN relations.” The UN is focused on the United States. Dollars to donuts, the Good Club’s meeting was called to order with a request from Buffett, Gates and Turner, for the others to turn over their fortunes to the UN Foundation, at the appropriate time, of course. Buffett has already pledged to give his to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which will go straight to the UN. And in 2010, Gates and Buffett formally announced the Giving Pledge campaign and began recruiting billionaire members. As of 2018, the pledge has 183 signatories. Also, watch out for a carbon tax, which Obama tried, with a smile on his face. Other than donations to the UN Foundation, the UN has to rely on countries paying their dues. But a globally imposed carbon tax, by all accounts, would give them trillions per year.

Point of interest: Another quote from Maurice Strong. “I was with Ted Turner when he came to see Kofi Annan – the Secretary-General of the UN – to announce his decision to put $1 billion to the service of UN projects and programs.”

If any of the foregoing sounds just too farfetched to believe, well, in 2014, right in the middle of Obama’s second term, the Republican Senate issued a minority report just as scathing and direct: “The Chain of Environmental Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA.” It has a slightly different focus, follow the money, but essentially the same players. The parentheses are mine:

“In advancing their cause, these wealthy liberals fully exploit the benefits of a generous tax code meant to promote genuine philanthropy and charitable acts, amazingly with little apparent Internal Revenue Service scrutiny. Instead of furthering a noble purpose, their tax deductible contributions secretly flow to a select group of left wing activists (NGOs) who are complicit and eager to participate in the fee-for-service arrangement to promote shared political goals. Moreover, the financial arrangement provides significant insulation to these wealthy elite from the incidental damage they do to the U.S. economy and average Americans.”

• The “Billionaire’s Club,” an exclusive group of wealthy individuals, directs the far-left environmental movement. The members of this elite liberal club funnel their fortunes through private foundations to execute their personal political agenda, which is centered around restricting the use of fossil fuels in the United States.

• Public charities attempt to provide the maximum amount of control to their donors through fiscal sponsorships, which are a legally suspect innovation unique to the left, whereby the charity essentially sells its nonprofit status to a group for a fee.

• Public charity activist groups discussed in this report propagate the false notion that they are independent, citizen-funded groups working altruistically. In reality, they work in tandem with wealthy donors (Stakeholders) to maximize the value of the donors’ tax deductible donations and leverage their combined resources to influence elections and policy outcomes, with a focus on the EPA.

The Republican effort didn’t change anything, and even though we now have a Republican President and a Republican Congress, they’re a little preoccupied at the moment. In any event, it may not be possible for anything to be done at the federal level. The UN is ingrained in every department, and what is so diabolically evident, whether by design or happenstance, is that the two parties serve to different masters, while both masters serve the UN. The Democrats have latched onto the UN Agenda, some might say, in a sick and twisted way, willing to sacrifice democracy, freedom, and the dignity of human life, all in the name of whatever part of the Agenda compels them: the environment, a return to Eden; population control, too many guys; or a technological wonderland, ala the Matrix, although that wasn’t very appealing. The Republicans, on the other hand, pay homage to big oil, gas and coal, the fossil fuel industry, as well as the super-rich of every strip, who then turn around and give their money to the UN. Maurice couldn’t have planned it better, if he tried. He too played both sides, the fossil fuel/environmentalist. And, of course, all of them are making money, lots of it, so who knows who their real master is. Hope and pray that true Americans will stand up, get elected, and never forget, no matter your circumstance, what a gift it is to live in the freedom and safety of the greatest democracy ever known…and that includes ancient Greece. We need a do-over when it comes to our elected officials.

On the subject of politics, a reminder; the majority of countries in the UN are not democracies, and they’d like nothing better than to see America brought to its knees. They’ve said that, in almost every speech, at every Earth Summit, since 1972. And a few of them are declared enemies of the US. The majority power, when the UN was first created at the end of WWII, was Stalinist Russia and its two satellites, Ukraine and Byelorussia, and the Republic of China. The minority, the only two democracies, were the US and the UK. According to the UN Charter, it’s primary purpose is, “…to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights…and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” This was written at the exact same time Stalin was torturing and murdering millions of his own people, which he continued to do, until his death in 1953. And that communist, socialist, dictatorial miasma has never left the UN. Besides, when has the UN ever prevented war, their first and most important mandate? The Korean War started six years after their founding. And the reason had everything to do with the natural animus between democracy and communism, which still prevails in the UN.

The Rothschild family, big banking, and the Rockefeller family, big oil, were the ruling elite at the time, and they helped fund the formation of the UN, which they have been intimately involved in ever since. Both families had also helped fund the League of Nations, the UN’s predecessor, which fell apart when it failed to stop WWII. Part of that failure, however, was due to funding Hitler received from outside sources, perhaps in the hopes that Hitler could assert global dominance. The Rothschild’s involvement is suspect, but the evidence murky. On the other hand, the Rockefeller involvement with the Hitler regime is well-known, well documented, and scary. This is just one example: “They funded various German eugenics programs, including the laboratory of Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, for whom Josef Mengele worked before he went to Auschwitz, the construction of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute’s Institute for Brain Research with a $317,000 grant in 1929, with continuing support for the institute’s operations under Ernst Rüdin, over the next several years. Funding an experiment conducted by Vanderbilt University, where they gave 800 pregnant women radioactive iron, 751 of whom were given pills, without their consent.” In its least offensive form, eugenics is the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. But, of course, Hitler took it far beyond even that disturbing level. And, in sort of a full-circle moment, even the Bush family can’t escape history. In 1942, Prescott Bush, President Bush Jr.’s grandfather, had his company seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act. From his home in America, Prescott Bush had been funding Hitler from the beginning. And then there’s Siemens, a company that works with Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and is sort of an all-around handyman for the UN. Siemens, at the time, Siemens-Schuckert, also worked with Hitler. They owned a plant in Auschwitz, and used forced labor from extermination camps. The company supplied electrical parts to Nazi death camps, and the factories were run by the SS and high-level Siemens officials. The sins of thy father…do they count? Or are they indicative of a generational mindset for global governance?

But here’s the thing; this is not a conspiracy, because the players have been open and frank about their desire to see the UN as the seat of global governance since 1945. And it’s not a theory, because it’s working. It has become a family legacy for the two wealthiest, longest-running dynasties in the world. So in a way, none of this should be surprising. But what should be challenged is the idea that all these disparate countries are working tirelessly, with each other and the UN, to save the planet from the scourge of global warming…it’s ridiculous. As we speak, three or four of the richest countries are fighting over who has the right to plunder the Antarctic for its fossil fuels and precious metals. No conservation there. We are transforming our country, eroding our democracy, and endangering our people…based on a big fat lie.

But they can be stopped, thanks to the brilliance of our true founding fathers, who gave us states’ rights. The states have the power to stop this, by stopping Smart Meters, the lynchpin for the whole UN Agenda. As said before, it never made sense that utility companies would suddenly go rogue, breaking laws, violating every code of human decency, and that it would happen, like spontaneous combustion, across the entire globe at virtually the same time. In document after document, utilities acknowledge they don’t need Smart Meters for a Smart Grid. They really don’t need a Smart Grid, if they would just rebuild the transmission grid, so it can handle interstate traffic, and the unpredictability of renewables. Or better yet, go back to the old days, when utility companies were confined within a given state, and could be monitored and controlled. But that’s not going to happen now that we have utility holding companies, which are merging, and buying each other out, all in a race to be the last man standing. Predictions are it will be Warren Buffett, if not the only, then one of three, globally. Smart Meters are an incentive for utility companies, because they will make a fortune selling personal data and renting out the grid, but the Smart Meter, itself, is for the UN, and has been since the beginning.

Smart Meters are the only current technology that gives the UN absolute control over every human on the planet, even in remote villages, in faraway places. Smart Meters enable the UN to literally enter your home or business, monitor and asses your lifestyle, control the usage, of virtually everything, while constantly scooping up individual personal data. They will be able to control the flow of information to and from your home and business, and employ behavioral modification techniques, either over the internet, or via the mail, like utilities are already doing, all designed keep you compliant. Knowledge is power, and if they can control and manipulate what you know, or don’t know, not just demographically, but to a person, they win. While it’s true that most everything you buy today that’s digital/wifi has two-way monitoring, audio and video, they can’t make you buy them, and even if they give them to you, they can’t make you use them, or prevent you from destroying them. But a Smart Meter is attached to the building, and it provides something people can’t live without, energy and water, especially if they won’t allow you to live off the grid. And that’s another clue, utilities don’t need Smart Meters for water. Water is not connected to the Smart Grid. But the UN does need it for control. In 2010, the United Nations and Siemens joined forces by signing an agreement that says, “The United Nations and Siemens joined forces today to make cities more livable and promote sustainable urban development. Siemens and the Siemens Stiftung will be partners in the World Urban Campaign (WUC) of the UN-HABITAT program, the United Nation’s agency for housing and sustainable urban development. The program brings together representatives of cities, government agencies, the private sector and non-government organizations with the aim of working on solutions for the cities of the future.” With the UN and Siemens working together, there is no angle they won’t think of, no technology beyond their reach, no amount of control unattainable.

Unfortunately, in addition to all that, they’ve chosen a technology that has a history of catching fire, exploding, making utility bills soar, and is known to damage living organisms, especially humans. But of course, they know that, all of them, utilities included, but they don’t care. Greed and lust for power overrides all else. What the UN has in mind is not a verdant/technological paradise, but more like an ant farm, especially if they can herd people into urban settlements.

Point of interest: Warren Buffett, who owns PacifiCorp/Pacific Power in the US, wants to go a step further in terms of his control. In the UK, Warren Buffett’s Northern Powergrid Holdings Co. is working with Siemens AG (SIE) to test, “…a smart grid that has the ability to control when consumer appliances will be used in the home.” The control has to be absolute. You can’t rule the world without it.

One last farewell to Maurice Strong, acolyte of David Rockefeller, straw man for the UN, one who prowled the world, from country to country, rubbing shoulders with heads of state and royalty, like Gollum, ever seeking precious. And he succeeded. China is now a world power, with nukes, and the largest single holder of US debt. And the UN Agenda has infected every country on the planet. Good job. One last insidious quote from Strong’s UN Commission on Global Governance: “The Commission believes that the U.N. should protect the “security of the people” inside the borders of sovereign nations, with or without the invitation of the national government. It proposes the expansion of an NGO “early warning” network to function through the Petitions Council to alert the U.N. to possible action.” And they’re already here, in the form of groups like ICLEI.

Communities across America and across the world are fighting Smart Meters in various ways, from moratoriums, to opt-ins to opt-outs to outright bans. There are about 500 different approaches in California alone, Michigan has free opt-out for the whole state, and New Mexico has ban Smart Meters altogether. Numerous communities within states have ban ICLEI, and several states, including Alabama, Kansas and New Hampshire have ban ICLEI from the whole state. It’s a start.

Bottom line: Half the players in this saga want to rule the world, the other half are in a race to become the first trillionaire. Mere humans are caught in the middle, pawns in a very serious game. Every state needs to BAN Smart Meters, and kick ICLEI, and every other NGO, out of America, once and for all.


James Robert Deal , Attorney & Broker
PO Box 2276 Lynnwood WA 98036
Law Office Line: 425-771-1110
Broker Line: 425-774-6611
Cell and Text Line: 425-670-1405
KW Everett Office Line: 425-212-2007
Fax: 425-776-8081
Candidate for US Senate
Cell phone real estate app:
Desktop real estate app:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share This
%d bloggers like this: