More propaganda: The Southern Poverty Law (Lie) Center

March 16, 2012 by ppjg

Marti Oakley copyright 2012
Follow @MartiOakley

http://ppjg.me/2012/03/16/more-propaganda-the-southern-poverty-law-...

Few organizations conjure up as much revulsion in the public mind as the Southern Poverty Law (Lie) Center. Far from representing anything remotely resembling poverty, this is an asset rich organization that continues to raise funds from around the world. These funds are then used to disseminate misinformation and disinformation in an effort  to coax the public into fearing people they don’t know and will likely never meet. Still, SPLC compiles and publishes targeted lists of groups and individuals that it apparently, is fearful of.

While actual groups do exist that are quite obviously built around hatred or intolerance of other sectors of the population, it is highly doubtful that the government or law enforcement needs the assistance of SPLC to identify them. As SPLC has acquired its massive wealth through selling their own brand of hatred for profit, doubtless they should top the list of possible suspects.

A recent article on the SPLC site entitled “Antigovernment Conspiracy Theorists Rail Against UN’s Agenda 21 Pro... is indicative of the level of paranoia and the collusion within SPLC and government agencies to control public information. In this particular article, SPLC is forced to admit that the opposition to UN Agenda 21 is not just the result of those “dangerous, right wing extremist, anti-government” Tea Party’ers.

It appears a fair number of Democrats are also opposed to the UN plan to break the US into regions, the focus of which is dispensing with local governments and individual property rights. This is unfortunate as SPLC has spent a great deal of time targeting and maligning Tea Party groups contributing heavily to the misconception that those in the Tea Party were somehow extremist in their views. Then again, anyone who supports property rights, the Constitution and the right to self determination must seem extreme to the anti-American collective that is SPLC.

Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, is a large and growing group of progressive, liberal, left of center groups who have also identified Agenda 21 as a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of the United States. Now, in the paranoid fantasies of SPLC, these Democrats are to be viewed as, “dangerous, extremist, and anti-government individuals” along with the Tea Party.

The SPLC claims:
“In the last several years, an obscure United Nations accord called Agenda 21 has emerged as something of a unified field theory for the antigovernment movement. On its face, Agenda 21 does nothing but provide countries and communities with a set of principles to grow smartly — a plan, in short, to fight overpopulation, pollution, poverty and resource depletion.”

“On its face”, ( a very telling opening statement). Agenda 21 does far more than providing a set of principles to grow smartly. In fact, the intent of Agenda 21 is nothing short of control….of everything.

Agenda 21 is far from obscure, non-binding or non-threatening. Funding for this “obscure” plan is routinely added to the federal budget. Grants, subsidies, and other funding are provided to communities on the local level to establish Agenda 21 mandates. Maybe SPLC never heard of ICLEI? All these offers of funding ICLEI initiatives are masked behind phony environmental concerns, global harmonization agreements and other intrusive regulations and rules all intended to create “wildlife corridors, bio-diversity zones, and non-human habitat”. It also includes land use codes erected to limit the use of the land being taxed and paid for by individuals. This interference amounts to massive penalties, fines, fees and other costs arbitrarily foisted on property owners to limit the full use of their land and eventually to force them off their land.

The United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) 1993

The 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment, otherwise known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, hosted by United Nations leader Maurice Strong, produced the Convention on Biological Diversity. The senate at that time asked to see the document on biodiversity and was told by the UN that it did not exist.

George HW Bush declined signing the treaty. Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1993 even though he lacked authority to enter into the treaty with out ratification of the states.

“It was first proposed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1981. The land use policies required by the treaty were also expressed in dozens of other UN documents and at other UN conferences, and incorporated into the agendas of NGOs for implementation through programs and legislation at the local, state, and federal level long before the Treaty was ever presented to the world.“

It is obvious that SPLC also either missed totally or chose to ignore this little gem from the UN:
Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development. This is Agenda 21 on steroids.
Agenda 21, the United Nations action plan, is cited throughout the Covenant. Agenda 21’s objective is communally and collectively owned and managed land.

For example, the U.N. conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I). pdf

Here is an excerpt from the Preamble:

“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 the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice…”

“This preamble sets the stage for 65 pages of very specific land use recommendations. Among the many recommendations are:

• A-1. Redistribute population in accord with resources
• D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources
• D-2. Control land use through zoning & land-use planning
• D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government
• D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform
• D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights which should be held by a public authority.

This established the direction of the U.N.’s recommendation.”

On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…”

U.S. agencies that are members of IUCN are:

• U.S. Departments of State,
• Commerce,
• Agriculture (Forest Service),
• Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and,
• The National Park Service)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

These agencies are also on the White House Rural Council which was recently established to deal with rural property and economies.

The Covenant is also described as “a blueprint for an international framework (or umbrella) agreement” to remain a “living document” (we can change it at any time to suit our needs) until it is adopted as the basis for multilateral negotiations.

President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order #11647 on February 10, 1972, which divided the United States into 10 “standard Federal regions” at the insistence of the UN.

SPLC might be familiar with the Council of Governors appointed by Obama through Executive Order, to facilitate the activation of regional government as opposed to local and state.

10 governors appointed by Obama are:

• Governor James Douglas (R-Vermont) *Co-chair
• Governor Chris Gregoire (D-Washington) *Co-chair
• Governor Brad Henry (D-Oklahoma)
• Governor Jay Nixon (D-Missouri)
• Governor Martin O’Malley (D-Maryland)
• Governor Janice Brewer (R-Arizona)
• Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia)
• Governor Michael Rounds (R-South Dakota)
• Governor Beverly Perdue (D-North Carolina)
• Governor Luis G. Fortuno (R-Puerto Rico)

This is about Development. And it is also about social engineering and the eventual control of vast areas of land within the geographical boundaries of the United States, by the United Nations.

It appears that much of the back ground research, and/or a total lack of integrity in reporting is apparent in most of the material SPLC produces.

In the final statement of this piece of black propaganda from SPLC is this:

There seems to be an even better question: Is there something real to fear in Agenda 21 — or is it just another bogeyman of the politically paranoid?”

I have an even better question:

With the amassing of huge sums of money and assets, is it possible that SPLC forgot to fund a research department? Or: Is it more likely that SPLC is just doing one of those things it gets paid to do? i.e, attacking anyone who disagrees with government as they help to facilitate anti-American agendas emanating from the UN?

This may come as a strange concept to the tin foil hat wearer’s at SPLC; We have a right to disagree with the government, and to express those disagreements publicly. That does not make us extremists, dangerous, or anti-government. It does however, indicate that we are reticent to accept bad government.

Whether Democrat or Republican our objections to the implementation of foreign agreements and instruments that deprive us of our property rights, that infringe on our liberty is based on actual documents produced by the UN and by our own government. Obviously, SPLC chose to ignore or to marginalize these same documents, apparently lacking the collective intellectual capacity to either recognize or understand what was before them.

Opposing the interference of non-US organizations which are attempting to dictate how we live and using their own documents as evidence of what they have planned for us, does not make us conspiracy theorists. Calling it a theory ignores the facts; it ignores the existence of the mountains of documents. A [theory] in the sense that SPLC is using the word implies there is no evidence to support the opposition’s positions.  This kind of [theory] exists only if you have no evidence of your position. Unfortunately for the SPLC, their malignant nature is exceeded only by their lack of due diligence. But apparently, promoting un-American interests pays well.

The lack of ethical reporting and comprehensive analysis by SPLC appears to be nothing more than black propaganda produced by a band of paranoid fanatics whose extremist attitudes and declarations make them dangerous to the public at large. By the governments own standards SPLC is guilty of disseminating misinformation and disinformation to the public at large with the intent of altering and changing social and political beliefs.

According to Homeland Security, this would put SPLC in the category of domestic terrorists.

_________________________________________________________

A complete copy of section 10 of the GBA can be read here:

http://freedom.org/reports/gba10.htm

Contributors to the Covenant from the US include university and law professors here in the US; several professors from Cornell University, as well as professors from Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, and University of the Pacific.

US contributors also include, Daniel McGraw, who was Assoc. General Council for the EPA. In 2006, – Mr. Magraw is President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) (the group issuing this Covenant!) From 1992-2001, he was Director of the International Environmental Law Office of the US Environmental Protection Agency. In 2006 he joined the Board of Directors of Thorium Power, a nuclear energy company. http://www.caprep.com/b1006011.htm

Nicholas Yost of the big international law firm Sonnenshein, Nath & Rosenthal (which lists clients including WalMart, Sears, Sony), The Hastings Center and Arthur Westing of Westing Associates in Environment, Security and Education: and this is the short list!

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-al...

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/about-us.html

http://www.i-c-e-l.org/english/EPLP31EN_rev2.pdf

http://ppjg.me/2012/03/14/agenda-21-on-steroids/

http://www.dhushara.com/book/globio/ass.htm

http://www.iucnworldconservationcongress.org/

http://sovereignty.net/p/land/biotreatystop.htm

It was first proposed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1981. The land use policies required by the treaty were also expressed in dozens of other UN documents and at other UN conferences, and incorporated into the agendas of NGOs for implementation through programs and legislation at the local, state, and federal level long before the Treaty was ever presented to the world.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-ex...

http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=1

As recent as April 2011:

http:/http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/content/documents/UN-Habitat%20Gover.../www.un-freezone.org/habitat1.shtml