The White House Millennium Call to Kids

with excerpts from Brave New Schools
by Berit Kjos ~


The White House, September 1999

. . .When President Clinton and I created the White House Millennium Council, we invited all Americans to join us in activities that embody our national theme, "Honor the Past - Imagine the Future." JumpStart2000 will encourage teams of students and their adult sponsors to explore, to analyze and to propose solutions to the problems facing our nation's communities. . . . Through JumpStart 2000, young people can experience the excitement of learning science and will recognize as well its great capacity to improve people's lives. . . .

Hillary Rodham Clinton


Agenda 21 for kids

"THE NEW MILLENNIUM waits around the corner, and with it comes a challenge to every student in the country…."

This call from Parade magazine (September 19) summons students from kindergarten through the 12th grade to share in a millennial project called "JumpStart2000: Your Chance to Build a Better Century." It’s simple. They just need to –

form or join a team of four
find a trusted adult coach (not their parents), and
start looking around at "the trees, the air. . . health conditions, the economy . . . " for an environmental or social problem to solve – something that will "build a better century."

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Or does it? The answer depends on the chosen topic, the adult coach, and how well students can separate the facts from all the politically correct government propaganda. Parade's list of suggested topics – "Problems That Concern Us" – sheds some light on the political agenda behind this campaign:

"Too many people… not enough food…bad air… polluted waterways… hatred and bias… violence… too much garbage… inadequate fuel… poor access for many to quality medical care… the constant threat of war… crowded, low-performing schools… What worries YOU most about your world—or the world at large? And what ingenious ideas do you have to solve the problem? Tell us!"

"Us" refers to the sponsors which include the White House Millennium Council, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Science Board (NSB), react magazine, "and of course, America’s schools." The official website for JumpStart2000 shows how to get started. Pointing to a set of links, it offers this advice:

"If you visit only one site, make it this one! With an extensive list of links to science-related Web sites, it's the perfect stop on your way to defining a problem and then conducting your preliminary research."

If you follow their links, you can reach a site which lists five questions. Take time to ponder the subsequent "scientific" experiment used to direct students to the "right" answer:

Student Questions
1) What was the purpose of the first Earth Day?
2) What were the major environmental problems in this country in 1970?
3) What are the major environmental problems here now?
4) What are the major environmental problems worldwide?
5) In what countries do people consume the most?

Goal: To observe and compare the impact of humans on the natural environment.

Materials: 8 meters of string, chalk, note pad, pencil, magnifying glass, field guide to insects if possible, thermometer

1. Choose a one meter by one meter square of cement or asphalt. This could be a sidewalk, driveway, or school playground.
2. Cut four meters of string and mark the perimeter of the square. Trace the square with a piece of chalk.
3. Observe the square for ten minutes, three times a day.
4. Count the number of total plants, the number of different types of plants, the number and type of insects either on the ground or in the air.
5. Record the ground temperature.
6. Repeat your observation for five days and keep an accurate field journal of your notes.
7. Choose a second location which is as natural and as untouched by humans as possible.
8. Repeat the same procedure that you used for the meter square of asphalt.
9. Record all of your observations for one week.
10. Create data graphs and tables to show the comparison between the numbers of plants and animals as well as the difference in temperature for each location.
11. What conclusions can you draw about the impact of human development on the natural environment?

It’s not hard to guess what children might conclude. Most have never sat near the window on a cross-country flight. They don’t realize that streets and cities are little more than dots in the vast panorama of forests, fields, deserts, lakes and mountains. Nor do they know that a few sharp taps on most asphalt or concrete surfaces will send a stream of ants rushing out through cracks to scout for danger. In other words, the above experiment doesn’t even show the truth about the human impact on the square meter of pavement – not to mention the true impact on all the rest of our natural environment.

But never mind. Truth isn’t the point of this experiment. The real goal is to involve each student in the consensus process, in political activism, and in "serving the community." Most such projects teach them to act collectively, to scorn contrary opinions, and to think within politically correct boundaries. It will be up to concerned parents and other adults to provide the information that keep our children within factual boundaries. That’s our millennium challenge. Hopefully, some answers to the above questions will help.



Answer: To build worldwide awareness of an environmental crisis. While many partipated out of true love for nature, its most powerful visionaries used it to initiate a publicity campaign that would persuade the masses to consent to another, less publicized objective: a system of global governance that would manage human as well as natural resources. (For Earth Day history, visit the official International Earth Day site)

To understand the global politics behind the environmental movement and the curricula it feeds to our schools, take a look at the social ambitions that drive it. Its agenda was formed during the sixties, when four overlapping anti-establishment groups joined to form the Green Party in Germany: radical feminists, Marxists (the new Left), peace-niks (the anti-war movement), and hippies seeking spiritual enlightenment. Militant U.S. "Greens" formed a similar agenda: radical population control, a global welfare system (eliminating capitalism), planetary governance (including national disarmament), and earth-centered spirituality.

This blend of four counter-culture philosophies helps explain why earth-centered spirituality and Marxist economics pervade environmental teaching -- and why Earth Day is now generally celebrated on April 22, Lenin's birthday. Consider the sobering fact that William Reilly, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency,stated that private ownership of land is a "quaint anachronism." 2 According to former Washington governor Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, he sought the "repeal of the Fifth Amendment to make it easier for government to seize private land."3

Do you see what happened? Environmental education was rooted in political ideology, not facts. Now as then, it is taught by manipulating a child's feeling, not by feeding their rational mind. You can debate an issue through facts and logic, but you can't easily change a person's feelings. When a discussion moves beyond facts and logic, there is no common ground for rational communication

The nature of the particular crisis didn’t matter as much as the reach of its publicity, as long as it served to motivate people to support or submit to the new agenda. Fear served the purpose better than facts. So back in 1970, our media and schools painted scary images of nuclear holocausts, starvation due to overpopulation, and global cooling – the threat of a new ice age. Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider summarized the agenda well:

"On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but--which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people, we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.1

Genuine concern for the environment is good and needful. But when environmental education whether in classrooms or through national projects such as JumpStart2000 substitutes pseudo-science for factual evidence, it leaves children vulnerable to all kinds of social myths and false solutions. When it makes political activism a requirement for saving the earth, it turns children into puppets serving the global agenda.

Please don’t stop treasuring and caring for God's resources. As stewards of creation, we don't have license to waste or abuse any part of nature. We should minimize use, reuse as much as possible, plant trees, and do all we can to show our gratefulness for the wonders God has created. Just be aware of the facts, so that your family can make wise decisions--and counter some of the myths and assumptions taught to our children and their peers.



Answer: According to green activists, the major problems of the nineties have included Global Warming, polluted air and water, and "ozone holes." The last one has virtually disappeared from the mainstream media since the political battle was won, the Montreal Protocol was signed, and the process of phasing out chlorofluorocarbons began. But the mysterious "ozone hole" illustrates the deception. For a glimpse into the minds of some key architects of the environmental agenda, look at this statement from the prestigious and powerful Club of Rome:

"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.… All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." 4

The most powerful member of the Club of Rome is Maurice Strong, 5 head of the 1992 UN (Rio) Conference on Environment and Development which produced the global action plan, Agenda 21. It’s a bit too complicated for children, but students can catch the U.N. vision through a picture book titled, Rescue Mission Planet Earth: a children's edition of Agenda 21. Not only is it written for children; it is also written by children--"in association with the United Nations."

One of Rescue Mission Planet Earth's well-tutored authors, 14-year old Rekha Menon from India, learned to battle the mythical "ozone hole." She blames the "First World" for introducing destructive luxuries like refrigerators. Her clever rhyme tells us that "fluorocarbons from the fridge make ozone holes we cannot bridge..." 6

The surrounding text is more specific: "The Ozone layer is an essential protective filter in the upper atmosphere that surround the Earth. As long as human life has existed, it has protected us from the harmful ultraviolet rays coming from the Sun. When these rays get through the atmosphere they damage crops, destroy living cells and cause skin cancer. During the last 20 years, ozone levels above Antarctica have decreased by nearly 40% each springtime. It's all caused mainly by our use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC).... The consequences are catastrophic: about 100,000 people die each year from skin cancer.... ALL CFC-use must be stopped immediately!" 7 (Emphasis in the original)

What are the facts? Actually the ozone "hole" is not a hole at all. It is a seasonal thinning discovered back in 1956 by Dr. Gordon Dobson, 8 explains Dr. Edward Krug, who has degrees in environmental and soil sciences and is listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering. Each spring, after the long sunless southern winter, the ozone layer thins over the Antarctica. Conversely, it always expands after the southern summer when ultraviolet radiation once again creates ozone. (The media didn't tell you that the "hole" closes each year, did it?) The annual thinning varies from year to year. In fact, less ozone was measured in 1985 than in 1990 though more freon (CFC) was used. 9 Do you wonder why? Scientific data indicate a strong consistent correlation between ozone depletion and major volcanic explosions and other natural factors. 10

Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences, former Chairman of the Defense Science Board, and recipient of the National Medal of Science shares those concerns. He writes,

"That natural factors may be involved in the variations in the ozone layer is clearly understood by most atmospheric scientists. Unfortunately, this fact was omitted, presumably intentionally, from the summary which accompanied the master report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.... It was prepared by a special group of participants who apparently had a personal interest in recommending tighter environmental controls.... Moreover, the speed with which the Montreal Protocols are being put into effect is entirely unjustified in view of the enormous price society will pay in cost, convenience, and health....

"To summarize, there is reason, based on sound scientific work, to express doubt that we are in immediate danger from either global warming or depletion of the ozone layer as envisaged by some extreme activists in the environmental movement."

Let's take a look at the theory of Global Warming and the common belief that it is caused by human activity. "Ever walked into a greenhouse?" ask the authors of Rescue Mission Planet. "It's steamy, humid and it doesn't let up. That's how our world could be in a few decades in the grip of the 'greenhouse effect.' Gases produced when fossil fuels are burned keep the Sun's heat in and don't let it escape back into space. That's good up to a point; it gets to be a problem if we keep too much in. We fry! The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide...." 12

What are the facts? MIT climatologists Reginald Newell, Jane Hsiung and Wu Zhongxiang tell us that "There appears to be little or no global warming over the past century." 13 The popular belief in global warming is based on computer models that fail to consider a variety of annual and cyclical factors that effect climates around the world far more than human activity ever could: clouds, the eleven-year sunspot cycle, the gravitational pull of the moon, volcanic activity, El Ninos, the sun's magnetic field, storm tracks, etc. These and other factors interact with each other to create the patterns and cycles of change and turbulence. In comparison to these natural and cyclical forces, human influences becomes miniscule.

Ignoring most of those natural factors, NASA scientist James Hansen told the U.S. Congress during the scorching summer of 1988 that he was "99% confident" the current heat wave demonstrated the greenhouse effect. A 1989 Forbes article full of facts that refute the myth of global warming describes the media response--and its blinding effect on public opinion.

Even though the vast majority of the climatological community was outraged by Hansen's unproven assertions, environmental advocate Stephen Schneider notes in Global Warming, "Journalists loved it. Environmentalist were ecstatic." ...By the end of 1988, with Hansen and Schneider's enthusiastic support, global warming was deeply embedded in the public consciousness. 14

In spite of the world's fear of carbon dioxide, science shows that a rise in CO2, the major "greenhouse gas", would help food production. In a report on the Greenhouse Effect, Dr. Sherwood B. Idso, President of the Institute for Biospheric Research, explains that "a simple doubling of the air's CO2 concentration, increases the productivity of essentially all plants by about one-third, while decreasing the amount of water they lose through evaporation by an equal amount. These effects essentially double the water use efficiencies of all plants, making them more productive and drought resistant." 15

The editors of The Economist seems to agree. "Environmentalists are dismayed," they wrote in an April 1995 issue. "Their efforts to scare the world over global warming seems not to have worked.... Some areas of the world would benefit from a warmer climate." 16

So why are government and media scientists so insistent that our world will overheat? Many care more about their government funding or their political agenda than about genuine science. "There's a selective use of facts," said S. Fred Singer, atmospheric and space physicist at the University of Virginia. "Nobody tells an untruth, but nobody tells the whole truth either. It all depends on the ideological outlook... A lot of scientists promote the greenhouse effect because of increased funding." 17



Answer: They change from year to year, but we can expect to hear more about melting ice caps and rising sea levels, population control, disarmament, peacemaking and conflict resolution at every level of society.

Our Troubled Skies, one of the texts in "Our Only Earth Series, A Curriculum for Global Problem Solving" warns students about rising sea levels caused by human activity:

"Scientists predict that various forms of air pollution may cause global temperatures to rise, the oceans to expand and flood coastal lowlands, interrupting natural food chains, and cause widespread skin cancer among humans." 18

Since such a global catastrophe is sure to evoke strong feelings, the warning is repeated in many forms and places. In Rescue Mission Planet Earth, José Luis Bayer from Chile tells the world's children that the "use of fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas) results in acid rain and the greenhouse effect: hurricanes, floods and the rising of the sea level.... The sea level is rising at ten times its natural speed. This can result in whole countries disappearing!" 19

What are the facts? According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, of the hundreds of glaciers it monitors worldwide, 55% are not melting – but advancing! 20 Cooling trends in many parts of the world more than balance slight warming in other parts. "If the earth is warming," asks Craig Rucker, co-founder of CFACT, "why did USDA "Plant Hardiness Zone Maps" have to be revised from 1965 to 1990 to account for increased cooling? In other words, some plants that could easily grow in the Carolinas in the in 1960’s can now be grown in Florida because of colder temperatures."20 It doesn’t make sense.

But let's pretend that global warming is a reality and the earth warms by 3-8 degrees--the maximum even the most dramatic doomsayer is likely to predict. Would the oceans rise and flood the land?

The reason given for this frightening scenario is a major meltdown of the polar ice caps. But the temperature around the Antarctica usually hovers around 50 degrees Celsius below freezing. A five degree reduction would still leave the ice intact at a chilly -45 degrees. No melt down!

What about the Arctic icebergs to the north. Wouldn't all those icy peaks melt into the ocean and add to the volume? A simple family experiment would disprove that myth. Put some ice cubes in a glass of water. Mark the water level. Let the ice melt. Check the water level. Did it change? Of course not. Since ice expands when it freezes, it contracts when it melts. The ice only fills the space it originally replaced. Melting ice has no effect on ocean level.

If anything, rising temperatures would lower the ocean level and widen seashores. Think about it: Warm air causes evaporation--and, in turn, brings rain, fills reservoirs, helps farmers, and shrinks deserts (which are dry because they get little rain, not because they are hot). "Extreme global warming," says Dr. Krug, "...would probably induce a modest drop in sea level as more water gets stored on land.... Not only would the world's great desert be greened, but marginal dry lands would also be transformed into moister pasture plus cropland. " 21

But Dr. Krug's data is shunned by the mainstream media. It clashes with the global agenda. As columnist Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, wrote some years ago,

"Has Paul Ehrlich or the Worldwatch Institute been discredited by the repeated failures of their hysterical [environmental] predictions? . . . Being factual does not matter to those who are politically correct. Some of the bolder members of the anointed have openly expressed the view that various racial charges which turned out to be hoaxes do not bother them because these charges serve to raise consciousness." 22



Answer: In the Western world where standard of living is highest, and America is considered the biggest culprit of all.

Clean Sweep, an environmental curriculum published by the Iowa Department of Education, is full of fun cartoons and creative classroom exercises. But it demonstrates the same biased information and politicized solutions found in other environmental curriculum across the country. Take a look at one of the lessons.

The "learners" divide into two groups. One group, the people of the earth, sit on chairs in a circle representing the Earth. The others, the "unborn" people of the world, wait on the sidelines "to be born." In the center of the circle the learners have piled things like aluminum cans, foil, plastic bags, paper clips, glass bottles, etc.

When the music plays, the children mill around looking for natural resources. When it stops, the children sit down and collect stickers that represent consumption of a particular resource. To demonstrate the rising world population, new children are "being born" and added to the group using the dwindling resources. When all the stickers on a chair are taken, the chair is removed. Learners without a chair must find someone willing to share their chair or lap. Guess what happens. The world runs out of resources.

Like the computer models used to predict climate change, the game doesn't match reality. This exercise is designed to change attitudes, not show real life. Therefore, it teaches neither scientific facts nor social statistics. What it does is far more dangerous than what it omitted: it gives children a new exaggerated and alarming view of an imagined reality--one designed to stir fear and anger. The children felt the imagined dangers. They wanted to do something about them. Here's how the "Questions" manipulate those feelings:

1. What would happen if the game continued....?
2. Was it sometimes difficult finding someone to share a chair or lap? (Do countries have difficulty sharing resources?)
3. How did it feel to be crowded on one chair?
4. Is there a similar problem on our Earth? Are some nations using resources more rapidly than others?
5. How could we alleviate the stresses on our natural resources? (reducing consumption on gasoline, slowing global population growth.... and of course recycling whenever possible.) 23

To make sure the learners understand that America is the villain of the world, this variation and question is added: "The U.S.A. uses over 20% of the world's resources, so the U.S.A. could always have first chance at a chair and would not have to share. How do the others feel toward the U.S.A. in this game?"

Do you wonder what global and economic alternative to capitalism the Iowa Department of Education might be advocating?


RESISTING ENVIRONMENTAL MYTHS. To withstand the classroom and peer pressures to accept the scary environmental scenarios and their global "solutions", your children need to....

Know science facts that (1) provide evidence against false scenarios and (2) show genuine problems and practical solutions. In addition to the eco-myths listed earlier, they need to know that we are not running out of natural resources, that farmers can produce far more food than they do today, and that "we even have a national glut of landfill capacity."24

Understand some of the political visions which fuel the environmental movement.

Remember that classroom computer models don't simulate the real world. At best they match the standard environmental philosophy. The programmers determine what the computers will demonstrate.

Realize that our schools and government are manipulating science to fit political purposes, then guard against deception."Executive Order 12498 allows scientific research to be skewed 'for conformity with administration policy'." One result: researchers are "forbidden to collect data on a range of sensitive topics." 25 That executive order was revoked by President Clinton's EO 12866, which is mentioned in Section #8 of Clinton's EO 13132 on Federalism. Authority to control research is included under its broad and ambiguous power to impose its federal policies everywhere.

Pray for discernment and be willing to follow God’s way, no matter what.

God told man to take care of His beautiful planet. (Genesis 2:15) To do our part, we need to heed the Maker--not earthy spirits. When he put humans in charge of his creation, 26 He wanted us to love and care for it as He would, not abuse it. He wants us to see the world through His watchful eyes and value all life as He does. His Word tells us how. It warns us against mistreating animals, wasting trees, and squandering His resources. Before the watchful eyes of the world, we need to model grateful appreciation for God's gifts. "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To him be the glory forever." (Romans 11:36)


1. Jonathan Schell, "Our Fragile Earth," Discover (October 1989); 44.
2. Dixy Lee Ray, Environmental Overkill (Washington: Regnery Gateway, 1993), 101.
3. Ibid.
4. Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution (New York: Pantheon Books, 1991), 115.
5. Maurice Strong was vice-president of Dome Petroleum (by age 25), first executive director of the UN Environmental Programme, founder of Planetary Citizens, director of the World Future Society, founder and co-chair of the World Economic Forum, member of the Club of Rome, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and Aspen Institute, and member of the UN Commission on Global Governance. He heads the Earth Council, which works with the UN to implement an Earth Charter—a global code of conduct based on earth-centered spirituality and globalist values. Its publication, Earth Ethics, suggests that apes, our "fellow animals", should be treated as "full members of the community of equals."
6. The Children of the World, in association with the United Nations, Rescue Mission Planet Earth (New York: Kingfisher Books, 1994), 65.
7. Ibid., 10.
8. Dr. Gordon Dobson wrote a review of his ozone discovery in the March 1968 issue of Applied Optics. Cited in "Fact Sheet: A Hole in the Ozone" by Edward Krug, Ph.D.
9. New York Times, October 12, 1990.
10. For more information and specific data, contact CFACT .
11. Dr. Frederick Seitz, Global Warming and Ozone Hole Controversies: A Challenge to Scientific Judgment (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall Institute, 1994), 25, 27, 33.
12. Rescue Mission Planet Earth, 13.
13. Warren T. Brooks, "The Global Warming Panic," Forbes (December 25, 1989), 97.
14. Ibid., 98.
15. Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D., "The Greenhouse Effect: Just A Lot of Hot Air." CFACT, Washington, D.C.
16. "Stay cool," The Economist (April 1, 1995); 11.
17. "Facts and Fiction of Global Warming," The San Francisco Chronicle, February 4, 1991.
18. Linda MacRae-Campbell and Micki McKisson, Our Troubled Skies (Tuscon: Zephyr Press, 1990), 6.
19. Rescue Mission Planet Earth, 45.
20. Quoted from a personal fax from Craig Rucker, CFACT. For more facts that counter eco-myths, yet expose genuine concerns, contact CFACT and their team of respected scientists at P.O. Box 65722, Washington, D.C. 20035. They also have a great video for classroom use.
21. "Climate History Invalidates Global Warming Models: Part II," Environment Betrayed (January 1994); 8.
22. Thomas Sowell, "The right to infiltrate," Forbes (March 13, 1995); 74.

Iowa Department of Education, Iowa's Clean Sweep, (Des Moines: Department of Education, 1992), 4-5.
23. Robert Lilienfeld and William L. Rathje, "Six Enviro-Myths, The New York Times, January 21, 1995.
24. "Censored Science," The Observer [London] , April 24, 1994.
25. Genesis 1:19, 26.

For more information on this topic, read Chapter 5 of Brave New Schools.

| Home | Armor of God | Christian Persecution | His Word | Our Articles |

| Books / Videos | Links |