Saturday, May 18, 2013

"Benefit Corporations" and Agenda 21, and a Word Study

From Karen Bracken, edited for typing/formatting only:

"
Another victory against Agenda 21.   North Carolina (again) tried to pass legislation to allow Benefit Corporations.   If you don't know what they are I will give a brief overview.  This law would have allowed companies to use profits for sustainable development projects.  It's the fascist concept of Public Private Partnerships and would end up giving preferential treatment to businesses that are Benefit Corporations.  It's more complicated than that but you get the idea.   It is just another idea laced with mom and apple pie sentiments only to find out later the pie was made with rotten apples.  Wynne Coleman is an expert on the subject.  I have also done a ton of research on Benefit Corporations and B Labs.  So keep your ear to the ground if you hear of this happening in your state you will want to stop it.
 Karen


Dear North Carolina Friends:

Warm congratulations on the defeat of HB 440 North Carolina Benefit Act. You took action and the legislators responded.

We were able to take a bill that was relatively unknown, expose the significant nature of it, and then defeated it.  This victory opens the door for further success in exposing “sustainability” and its corrupting governmental influences.  As I went through the long process of opposing this legislation (March 2011 to the present), I came to respect a number of North Carolina Legislators I came in contact with. Once they were alerted to the dangers of HB 440, each used their individual talents and professional knowledge to prevent the passage of this bill. I am sure that they would appreciate hearing from you. If you want to thank them, here is link to a page that will tell you how each Representative voted.


If there is any more information to come out of this, I will certainly pass it on.

Appreciatively,
Wynne Coleman

Karen Bracken - I WILL NOT COMPLY - WILL YOU?

 
Somebody in Rio Linda may be confused by now. Haven't we said that plans for long-term projects, like a medical care fund, need to be sustainable? They do--although the use of "sustainable" in proposals related to the U.N. Agenda 21 is reminding me to substitute "workable" or "affordable" or "viable" when what I mean is, in fact, sustainable.
 
"Sustainable" ought to mean that there's a reasonable expectation that something that's workable, affordable, viable, salable, etc., this year, will be those things in future years too. For example, in Made in the U.S.A., when describing a competing department store chain that initially spread faster than Wal-Mart but frequently went out of business after a Wal-Mart moved into a town where the other store had been thriving, Sam Walton could have been paraphrased as asserting that his ways of doing business were more sustainable than the other guy's.
 
"Sustainable development," however, nearly always means plans for redesigning whole towns and neighborhoods to conform to Agenda 21, and/or preventing farmers from earning an honest living on their land. This is the definition of "sustainability" that presupposes corrupting governmental influences--Agenda 21 is an un-American proposal to counteract the benefits of American Democracy, by preventing Americans from doing what works for us so that we'll "share equally" in the misery of the totalitarian countries.
 
(Note, however, that this web site does not take the position that everything Americans do is or has been what worked for us. We have had boom-and-bust cycles caused by unsustainable business and agricultural practices, and we do need to learn from those, and avoid repeating them...we just don't need to substitute the unsustainable experiments that have failed whole other countries for the ones that have merely failed farmers and companies in the U.S.)