Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Mother Earth Rights - A Rose by Any Other Name

For all the marbles here in America, the communist agenda must first eradicate the widely accepted idea; rights come from God and are bestowed to individuals while powers are granted unto government by the governed. If this one thought is ever lost in the shuffle then communism will have won out and government will have gained the power to enslave us all.

Van Jones name has popped up in the news of late. You may recall he was a member of Barack Obama’s inner circle at one time; that Van Jones is “helping to push for a new, global architecture of environmental law that would give Mother Nature the same rights status as humans” according to an article by George Russell posted on Fox News website.

Hardly a day goes by where America’s foundations aren’t attacked; why would today be any different? You often hear or read how America is a melting pot of diversity, that we tolerate any and all, that America has room for those who want to build it up as well as those who wish to tear it down and rebuild it into something completely different. While there is a particle of truth in such a broad paint brush approach, painting with broad strokes fails to address the truth.

America was founded upon Christian values. Our sacred documents include the Scriptures, Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Individual rights are gifts from our Creator, not something Congress came up with. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were put in place to protect individual God given rights FROM Congress and the natural expansion of government powers. America only works if a majority of its inhabitants voluntarily uphold the principles of self governance as set forth in these sacred documents.

Those who don’t understand the origin of rights, or worse, clearly understand constitutional limits on government as protecting God given rights, have tried for years to confuse this important issue. They blur the distinction by calling entitlements “rights”, as if the terms were interchangeable; they are not interchangeable.

Gerald Ford counseled (often attributed to Thomas Jefferson), “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have”. Do you really want to go along with the supposition, as proposed by progressives, that individual rights come from any source other than God?

“The new movement is almost certain to be showcased at a U.N.-sponsored global summit on “sustainable development” to take place in Rio de Janeiro in May 2012, when similar issues of “global environmental governance” are a major focus of attention.”

The U.N. wants to supersede the United States’ Constitution and Bill of Rights. Put it another way, a bunch of third world thugs want to impose their will on the entire world as if their way of doing business is some how better than the grand design offered by God here in America. Do we want to take a giant step backwards?

The left is counting on a stupor of thought as they intentionally misrepresent their bold bid to abolish individual liberties; freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms in defense of life, liberty and property and every other God given right we sometimes take for granted. All we need do is discount God’s role in America.

Jon McNaughton’s painting of Jesus Christ holding the United States Constitution might be the perfect example of our situation; after all, “a picture is worth a thousand words”. This painting drew enough heat from the left to have it removed from the book store at BYU because it offended so many progressives.

America is divided nearly in half. On one side are folks with traditional conservative values which sprang from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those on the other side would change America into a member state of some “yet to be” world wide governance system without the protection of our constitution. Short of calling these folks “workers of Satan”, for they would put us all in bondage; what else can they be called?

Van Jones is “one of the newest board members of an obscure San Francisco New Age-style organization known as the Pachamama Alliance, which has been creating a global movement to make human rights for Mother Nature an international reality — complete with enforceable laws.” A secondary group, The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, “is working to build a movement of millions of educated and inspired individuals, with thousands of successful cases of enforceable Rights of Nature legislation having been enacted at local and national levels, by the end of 2014…”

“Jones has continued to advocate those ideas since leaving the administration, as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank closely associated with financier George Soros, and at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson Center for International Affairs.”

If you want that explained in simple terms; the communist agenda requires that God given rights be forgotten and replaced with something less formidable. Man made “rights” will then be substituted as they can be rewarded or withdrawn as needed by which ever régime is in power at the time. It’s called enslavement; but they needed to call it something other than enslavement to sell the package, they picked Mother Earth Rights to go along with global sustainable development.

“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet”

Shakespeare understood the importance of a name. Would America smell as sweet if we called Progressives by a different name; communists, Marxists or socialists? Perhaps I’ve chosen a poor example since Romeo and Juliet both die as a result of their family names; is that the fate of America?

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.


J said...

I enjoyed your article.

However, the Scriptures are not considered part of the founding documents.

Many concepts and ideas were taken from the Scriptures but they are not equivalent to nor are they one of the founding documents.

As much as I love the Constitution and the scriptures, it is historically and factually wrong assertion. Its just not true.

T. F. Stern said...

J, I respect your comment and at one time would have agreed with it; however, having read the history of those who came up with our founding documents and how they relied heavily on the scriptures in each aspect of putting together this constitutional republic I've come to include, "if only as my opinion", that our country could not exist without the scriptures. Thanks for leaving your comment and stop by often.