Sustainable Development is also known as Agenda 21. It is NOT an environmental movement, it IS a political movement which seeks to control the world’s economy, dictates its development, captures and redistributes the world’s wealth on a national, state, and local level.
The process locks away land and resources from use by citizens, and plans a central economy, while controlling industry, transportation, food production, water, and the growth, size, and location of the population.
It is one of several global plans of action designed to create a coalition of government, business, and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) under the auspices of the United Nations. When fully operational, this system of Global Governance, will command a One World Court, a One World Army, a One World Media, etc. all working in lock-step to gain total control over all human activity and all of the Earth’s wealth.
It is hard to believe that something this sinister could be happening right under our noses. However, it is easier to understand when you learn how Agenda 21 has slowly and steadily been implemented for many decades.
Through the second half of the 20th century, the powers that be in the United Nations were crafting documents and treaties to position themselves to implement Agenda 21. These early efforts in 1992 led to the introduction of five key documents at the United Nations Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
The five documents were:
Agenda 21 is a 300 page document that contains 40 Chapters which address virtually every facet of human life and contains great detail as to how the concept of Sustainable Development should be implemented through every level of government. Agenda 21 is the “How To” document for Sustainable Development.
It was at the Rio Summit that President George H.W. Bush, along with the other 178 heads of state, signed agreement to Agenda 21.
One year later, newly elected President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. This council contained 12 cabinet secretaries. Six of them belonged to the Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, the World Resources Institute, or the National Wildlife Federation.
These same groups, called Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s), worked directly with the United Nations to craft Agenda 21, and now were in a key position to put Agenda 21 policies into every single agency in the U.S. Federal Government. This means every federal agency, the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the EPA, are all currently using your tax dollars to undercut our sovereignty and steal our property rights bit by bit.
The United Nations and the Non-governmental organizations that do the “heavy lifting” for the U.N. have been very clever in the ways they have chosen to get people around the world and in the U.S. to accept sustainable development policies.
First, the United Nation created the 3 E’s; social equity, economic justice, and environment justice. The logo below is used to represent Sustainable Development dogma.
By selecting the three terms used for the 3 E’s, the Sustainablists were very clever. They are very good at selecting terms whose meaning seems self-explanatory and sound very positive. Social equity, economic justice, and environment justice are three examples of this. Most people who hear these terms for the first time think they understand what they mean, and with words like “equity” and “justice” in them, think that they are probably a good thing. The reality is quite different for several reasons.
First, the terms themselves vary. Sometimes social equity is called social justice. The same is true of the other two terms. The swapping out of terms is very confusing.
Secondly, just finding agreed upon definitions is very challenging. Of the three, only for the definition of social equity is there some degree of agreement, and even then, when you find a definition of economic justice, the examples cited, sound like the examples given for social justice. This is done by design. Precise use of words, allows everyone to know their true meaning. Agenda 21 is a stealth effort. The less the average citizen knows and understands the better.
So, how do you know the real definitions for the 3 E’s-by working backwards! First you must find examples of the 3 E’s. Remember, “Actions speak louder than words”.
Indoctrination is used to soften up the American citizen to make them receptive to the transformation of a free world into a socialist, sustainable development world. Think of all the commercial and nature shows you have seen pushing the green agenda; think of all the articles our biased media create pushing the green agenda, even various churches push the 3 E’s.
Let’s not forget the schools and colleges that have curricula that has Agenda 21 ideas embedded that are designed to create good global citizens that are willing to give up their individual constitutional rights for the common good in order to protect the environment.
As you combine all of these strategies with the overly generous and trusting nature of most Americans, and the reality that many Americans are not paying any attention to politics, you can then understand why sustainable development policies, which on the surface seem harmless, have soaked into the fiber of American thinking.
The average American thinks that by buying into sustainable development ideas that they are protecting the environment for their children. They do not understand that the proponents of Agenda 21 have a whole different viewpoint. Maurice Strong (Chairman of the 1992 Rio Summit) stated,
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Or the quote by Judi Bari of Earth First,
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecology sound society under socialism. I don’t think it’s possible under capitalism."
The proponents of Agenda 21 may or may not be concerned about the environment, but they all agree capitalism and the American Dream must be eliminated.
Once enough Americans are indoctrinated, it is much easier for the government to get these same Americans to accept the heavy regulatory burden that will be required to fully implement Agenda 21 policies.
The use of thousands of sustainable development regulations is proof that Agenda 21 cannot be implemented voluntarily.
The written regulations began in 1993 when President Clinton created the Presidential Council on Sustainable Development. Through the recommendations of this council Sustainable Development policies were put into every single federal agency. Unfortunately, the efforts to control us now extend beyond the federal government. Grants from the federal government are helping to move Sustainable Development policies into the State and Local Governments. At this point in time, virtually every state or local governments has some type of Sustainable Development regulations on their books.
Amortization of Non-Conforming Use is a particularly evil regulation. If new green home codes are adopted in a community and then applied to older homes (instead of allowing the older homes to be grandfathered), then the owners of the older homes must make the necessary upgrades to come into compliance. Those improvements may create a home that, using today’s term, is under water. Of course, there is always the possibility that the homeowner cannot afford the upgrades. In that case the home may be confiscated.
An equally scary regulation is likely coming down the pike. It is one that will force homeowners to pay a tax based on the amount of impervious surface located on their property. This regulation is based on the idea that an impervious surface, like a roof or concrete driveway, is preventing rain water from absorbing into the ground. Using the Precautionary Principle, just the possibility that preventing water from soaking into the ground MIGHT cause harm to the environment is enough of an excuse to create regulation to prevent it.
Making the situation even worse are the activist judges who are more than willing to uphold any challenges to these sustainable development policies.
Furthermore, our Constitution, culture, and religion have been under attack for a very long time. This is no accident.
Anything that weakens the moral fiber or the finances of America, will contribute to her downfall, and the advance of a One World Order.
The Second Amendment Gun Rights debate is not just over our right to protect ourselves from individuals or a government that may want to harm us. It is also about destroying the Constitution. The same can even be said for political correctness. Political correctness is not about offending others. It is about restricting our first amendment right to express our thoughts freely.
Religion and culture are entwined. Damage one-damage both. The United States is the only country where the Constitution is based on Creator-given rights; the fewer people who believe in God, the fewer people who will understand the importance of rights granted by God, rather than man. If God gives us our rights, then only God can remove them. Also, if religion is eliminated from our culture-another hit to the Constitution there will be no moral compass to guide our citizens. That makes it much more likely that citizens will look to their government for direction.
For example, many people today, by fighting harder to protect an endangered species of animal than protecting the life of an unborn human, prove that they have been indoctrinated to value animal life over human life, and that they have been conditioned to accept the guidance of a government that fights aggressively to keep the funding to Planned Parenthood flowing for abortion services, rather than create policies that support intact families.
To support the reality that human life has little if any value is this quote from Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First.
“Among environmentalist sharing two or three beers, the notion is quite common that if only some calamity could wipe out the human race, other species might once again have a chance.”
Now add to this, if the population has been educated in their schools to be good global citizens, who value diversity and the common good, instead of people who value individual rights and the free market system, then the population may go willingly into a Socialist One World Order without a whimper.
Of course, it is impossible to create a One World Order if borders are not eliminated. You might ask yourself, are the European Countries really sovereign anymore now that they have formed the European Union? After all, they all share the same currency, have a free flow of people across their borders, and share many of the same regulations and socialist policies.
Then there is the North American Continent, where treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement and our very open borders threaten the sovereignty of the U.S. You might ask yourself, if countries “voluntarily” combine with other countries to make a larger governmental entity, would that not make it much easier to combine those blocks into a one world government?
However, we must not forget that the U.S.’s government was designed to be strongest at the local level. Federal policies have resulted in cash starved local governments. That makes the local governments easily bribed with grant money-not just grant money from the states and federal government but also from Regional Governments.
Regional governments are cropping up at an amazing speed. Over time, might these regional governments with their unelected boards, using our tax dollars, strip away the sovereignty of our city and county governments, and thereby undermine our 250-year-old political structure, consequently making it easier to ease the U.S. into a Global Governance System?
A country loses control of its destiny when it loses control of its finances. We, like Greece, must dance to the tune that others play, if we are allowed, or even pushed over the edge financially and cannot pay our debts to foreign countries, cannot maintain a strong military, cannot pay our enormous entitlements. Is it not conceivable that outside powers could force us to merge with them? Or perhaps our own people will willingly, in a belief that the United Nations is our friend, push for this solution.
“Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, 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 principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.” - The preamble to The Vancouver Action Plan approved at Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (31 May to 11 June 1976).
This quote is compelling evidence that the goal of the United Nations is to eliminate private property around the globe in order to use it for the “common good”. The only thing different today, than 40 years ago, is the rate at which land is being taken from the American citizen and the number of ways this is made to happen.
Through many venues, including but not limited to local, state and federal regulations and programs, private property rights of rural land owners are incrementally taken – stolen. This is in compliance with The Biodiversity Treaty, which is one of three treaties foisted on America at the Agenda 21 conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
The treaty, while not fully ratified, is being implemented through the Executive branch of government. This treaty spawned the Wildlands Project. The intent of the Wildlands Project is to gain control over, and then return at least 50% of the rural land in the U.S. to the condition that predates Columbus’s arrival.
The strategies used to remove the landowner from his land include, but are not limited to, the following:
Land is taken…
… by denying water and/or grazing rights to farmers and ranchers or limiting their use of pesticides and herbicides, which in turn will force the farmers and ranchers out of business, causing the land to possibly fall into the hands of the federal gov’t.
… when Wilderness Areas, Parks, etc. are established. Not only the land is out of production, but, the mineral resources underground or forest above can also be made off-limits for development.
… by expanding the legal definition of a wetland. By making any trickle of water or puddle a wetland, the EPA can prevent the development of the land and all the land around it. This makes the land worthless and easy to acquire by sundry entities including the gov’t.
… when an endangered species is located within a forest. Then large areas around this area are made off-limits to development, and once again, the land loses its value and is easily acquired by gov’t.
… by the direct taking of land through eminent domain.
… when Road RIP, a non-governmental organization, was created for the sole purpose of removing existing roads and preventing the construction of new roads into wilderness areas. Then humans are locked away from land that was once served by roadways.
… when urban boundaries are created around a town, beyond which development may not occur and/or utilities may not be provided. This will destroy the economic value of the rural lands around the town. Comprehensive Land Use Plans in existence today and their policies are creating this scenario.
… when the government declares land part of a flood plain, then forces the homeowners to give up their homes. The homes are then destroyed and the land is not allowed to be developed. The government gets a 2-fer if the land is along a river. Then, not only is the land off-limits to development, the government has total control of the river and the priceless water it contains.
… when a land trust purchases private property rights from a land owner for promises from the land owner to do certain environmentally friendly things. In return the land owner and his heirs are then able to stay on this land in perpetuity.
Unfortunately over time, the land trust may make more and more environmental demands on the landowner, until the landowner can no longer make a living off of the land. With all the restrictions placed on the property, no one but the government may be willing to buy it. These agreements are called Conservation Easements.
President Obama has greatly advanced the locking down of rural America through Executive Order 13575 with its far-reaching consequences.
This EO was signed in 2011 and created the White House Rural Council. This council requires every federal agency in the U.S. to over-see all the food, fiber, and energy needs for all the rural sustainable communities. Across the U.S. this E.O. affects 16% of the population.
It is worth spending some time discussing some of the key plans of those who push the Sustainablist agenda and what they have in mind for the vacated rural land.
If a very large area, usually at least 5000 acres, of land can be freed of human activity then a core area can be created there. This is where the large predators, like wolves, cougar, grizzly bear, etc. have been or will be reintroduced.
The human-free land that connects the cores are called corridors. Around the corridors and cores are buffer zones, where…
“Only human activity compatible with protection of the core reserves and corridors would be allowed.” - Mission Statement to the Wildlands Project.
As the carnivore population increases, it may become necessary to enlarge the core areas, and consequently also so the buffer zones, to meet the increased range needed by the carnivores. This process of relocating the human population, in order to create habitat for the wildlife is called the Wildlands Project.
This planning for where to relocate humans in order to create the cores, corridors, and buffer zones began in the United States several decades ago. We know this because in 1994 the U.S. Senate was scheduled to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty. During that year, Dr. Michael Coffman pounded the capital with e-mails and calls, and before ratifying the Biodiversity Treaty Dr. Coffman presented a copy of the Biodiversity map to his Senator, who showed it to the Senate. The Senate Majority leader took the treaty off of the calendar and it was never ratified.
1994, the first time the Biodiversity Map was presented to the general public, was most of 20 years ago. Since then, the Sustainablists have been very busy thinking and re-thinking the best way to work around the Congress to implement the un-ratified Biodiversity Treaty and to keep the Wildlands Project advancing. If you would like to see a possible recent version of the Wildlands Map, you might want to Google “America 2050-megaregions” and take a look at a possible updated version of the “1994 Michael Coffman map”.
This kind of land acquisition is occurring all over the globe in order to prepare the world for, as Al Gore said, “The wrenching transformation of society” or stated more clearly by John Davis, editor of Wild Earth Magazine)…“Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrial civilization? Most assuredly.”
Since the founding of this country it has been known that man cannot be free without the ability to own property. George Washington said, “Property rights and freedom are inseparable.” John Adams said, “Property must be secure or liberty cannot exist.”
The proponents of United Nations Agenda 21 understand very well that ownership of land provides wealth and security to those who control it. A government that denies land ownership to its citizens is knowingly reducing its citizenry to little more than serfs dependent on their government for their every need.
Sustainability, as defined by the 1987 United Nations report is: “development that meets the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Using the words of Maurice Strong, who was Secretary of the 1992 U.N. Summit that was held in Rio de Janeiro, “the consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioners, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
In other words, for Agenda 21/Sustainable Development to be fully implemented, Americans must give up the American dream and embrace the life style foisted upon them by the radical leftist Sustainablists.
To create sustainability in the human settlements, there will be rules and regulations to control use of all resources; air, land, water, energy, and all resources underground. These rules are included under the heading of “Smart Growth”.
Smart Growth regulations fall primarily into three categories that are all designed to modify human behavior.
1. Regulations to discourage travel and the ownership of automobiles.
2. Regulations that discourage you from having children.
3. Regulations that will discourage you from using water, land, energy, and the consumption of materials, whether it be toilet paper or materials to build a home.
Here are some of the ways Smart Growth would control life and development in the human settlements. Note that all of these fall into one or more of the three categories discussed above, and that ALL of the items listed below are impacted if energy resources are rationed.
Establishing boundaries around the city and preventing any development outside the perimeter is a Smart Growth tactic. This creates a situation where land inside the human settlement is at a premium, while land outside the boundary has little if any value. This in turn will cause land prices, land taxes, and congestion within the perimeter to increase, but a decrease in the size of homes and number of children. Smaller homes and fewer children will also decrease energy usage.
Another Smart Growth strategy is to not expand the width or length of highways in an attempt to create congestion and an unpleasant driving experience. Allowing bikes to travel on these inadequate highway systems will further force the issue.
Creating rules to prevent the building of garages on new homes will discourage automobile ownership and save on building materials.
The installation of Smart Meters is a particularly contentious Smart Growth issue. Smart Meters can monitor and/or remotely turn off home appliances when the utility company decides the consumer is using too much energy. Further, the radio frequencies given off by these Smart Meters are associated with a variety of health issues.
Restricting the mining, drilling, refining, and/or transporting of fossil fuels will increase the cost curve for electricity, gasoline, natural gas, etc., which will in turn force conservation by the users.
Smart Growth regulations may eliminate from the market place all appliances except those that radically control energy and resources like water and electricity. Everyone is familiar with low flow toilets which, while they may save on water, often function poorly.
Sometimes when regulations cannot create the desired change, grants and subsidies are used instead. When the government steps in to drive change in this way, the free market is eliminated.
An example of this is how the government has, through subsidies, encouraged the development of alternative energies while applying onerous regulations on the fossil fuel industry. At some point, when the cost of fossil fuels increase enough, and the cost of alternative energy decreases enough, alternative energy will be cost competitive. However, at that point in time, the cost of all energy sources will be artificially high forcing conservation by consumers.
Then again, expensive energy is seen by the proponents of Agenda 21 as a good thing, as shown by this quote from Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mt. Institute.
“It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Smart Growth policies are also being used to design new road projects. Many of the projects are driven by grants from the federal government sometimes funneled down through Regional Government. One of these projects is called Complete Streets. Below is a paragraph, which can easily be found on the Internet, from the Complete Streets Coalition. It reads…
"Creating “Complete Streets” means those transportation agencies must change their approach to community roads. By adopting a “Complete Streets“ policy, communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists – making your town a better place to live."
There are many things about this single paragraph that are concerning. First, it says that “transportation planners MUST change their approach to community roads.” Whatever happened to local government control? What happened? Grants happened! The federal government is using your tax dollars to entice the local government to build the infrastructure for future human settlements where walking, bicycling, and mass transit will be the primary modes of transportation. Further, while sidewalks and bicycles may make sense in a populated area, “Complete Streets“ is pushing for sidewalks and bicycles paths in rural areas as well.
The local government may find that, by the time the cost of the bicycle paths and sidewalks are figured against the added grant money, the grant money went mostly to build road features that were unnecessary for rural use, while in exchange the government sold its autonomy for a too narrow road. By the time sidewalks and bike paths are added, even to a narrow road, the overall width of the roadbed will have increased, causing homeowners along the length of the project to lose parts of their front yards. This can have a negative impact on their property values. Since much of the land in the United States will be off-limits to humans, it will require that humans be limited to procuring that which they need to survive from the land near to the human settlements.
Imagine a shooting target like a bulls-eye with three consecutively smaller rings. The inner ring represents the area populated by humans. The ring that surrounds the inner ring is called the food shed. That is where all the food and fiber for the human settlement should be procured, of course, only through strictly approved and monitored methods of sustainable farming. The outside ring is the woodshed, where certain environmentally friendly human activities can occur. Beyond that lies the re-wilded land containing the buffer zones, cores, and corridors. These are off limit to humans. Travelling from one human settlement to another may incur fines, as the human will have, by passing through an environmentally delicate area, caused some degree of harm to the environment.
The loss of the rural lands for traditional farming, coupled with the design of future high density human settlements and the relatively small area of land around them for the raising of food, could create quite a dilemma for a human settlement that needs food to survive.
An idea being strongly forwarded by the proponents of Agenda 21 to replace traditional farming is vertical farming in multi-storied greenhouses. The claim is that food could be grown year round, isolated from disease and pests, and there would be a reduction in transportation costs.
If given a bit more critical scrutiny, one might ask how would a multi-storied green house be immune to pests and diseases when anyone who has ever raised a house plant knows that, at times, the plants get mites even under the strictest conditions. One might also wonder, because this technology is a long way from production, if a lot of folks might die of starvation unless the switch-over from traditional farming to vertical farming is done in an extremely gradual and thoughtful way. However, as population reduction is a major goal of the proponents of Agenda 21, it makes one wonder if a situation resulting in mass starvation is not considered, by them, as a good outcome.
And then there is the never-ending litany over Greenhouse Gas emissions. Let’s take a look at the following,
“Buying local food within a foodshed can be seen as a means to combat the modern food system and the effects it has on the environment. It has been described as “a banner under which people attempt to counteract trends of economic concentration, social disempowerment and environmental degradation in the food and agricultural landscape. Agriculture production alone contributes to 14% of anthropogenic (= “manmade”) greenhouse gas emissions. The food system’s contribution of greenhouse gases contributes to the global issue of climate change. More attention is being paid to possibilities for reducing emissions through more efficient transport and different patterns of consumption, specifically, an increased reliance on local foodsheds.” (Peters, 2008)
First, it is easy to see that as usual, the environment, in this case Global Warming and Climate Change, is the supposed excuse for this radical reconfiguring of man’s life style. Yet it remains to be seen if the globe is actually warming, and if so, whether man’s activity is responsible for the warming. A lot of doubt is cast when you see quotes like this one from Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation)…
“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.”
The second thing worth noting is it is easy to see that Agenda 21’s 3 E’s, social, economic, and environmental justice, are all behind this effort to force a food-fiber-woodshed-human settlement model on mankind.
This is Agenda 21 social engineering at its best-or worst depending on how you look at it. Simply put, the folks behind this are retraining humans like we are lab rats.
A Public Private Partnership is sometimes referred to as a PPP or a 3P.
The definition for a Public Private Partnership is an exclusive partnership between a public entity and a private entity that uses the financial resources of the private sector to carry out the legal activities or functions of the public sector. 3P’s do not work in a free market way where competition decides who wins and who loses.
This is because a 3P company is granted special privileges by the government, such as the liberal use of eminent domain, tax breaks, subsidies, “front of the line” for permits, and freedom from certain regulations, etc. Hence the company accepting the “goodies” is the “Private” part of the Public Private Partnership, while the government granting the “goodies” is the “Public” part of the Partnership.
These corporations force their competitors to play on an unlevel playing field. This is called Corporatism, Crony Capitalism, or more commonly “choosing winners”, and undermines the free market system on which our prosperity rests. This can over time cause the creation of government sanctioned monopolies in selected segments of the economy.
The corporation, because of all of the “goodies” it has received from the government will have a stronger bottom line. In return the corporation will allow the government to tell it what to produce. The corporation in return will have the job of promoting its government approved products through its many advertisements. These advertisements not only increase the corporation’s bottom line, but serve as a vehicle for the indoctrination of the citizen to accept whatever the government is pushing. In this way the company’s bottom line benefits; while the government watches the company do the government’s bidding, and the public is limited to, or indoctrinated into, buying artificially expensive products that would not be successful in a true free market system. Add to this, the corporation is most likely using your tax dollars and if the corporation fails, the tax dollars disappear.
These Green Sector jobs are especially worrisome because it appears that Sustainable Development policies are designed to destroy, through unreasonable regulations, certain existing industries, like the coal companies, which will then be replaced by new “green” industries created with federal subsidies paid for by the taxpayers.
Of course, it’s not just American companies entering into PPPs with our government. Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, state, and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.
“As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, “on a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road, an Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years”. (Tom DeWeese/American Policy Center from his Stop Agenda 21 Tool Kit)
Perhaps most worrisome of all are PPPs that involve the infrastructure (roads, sewer systems, water supplies, water treatment facilities, etc.) of a community. Many communities are cash strapped and are always looking for ways to raise money. With that in mind, communities may be tempted to sell and/or lease (often for very long periods of time) parts of their infrastructure. Not only do they get cash but they no longer are required to maintain expensive infrastructure.
However, when government is in charge of a community’s infrastructure, there is an implied responsibility to maintain it to an acceptable degree while at the same time minimizing the tax/service fee burden, if for no other reason, if this doesn’t happen, elected officials become unelected ex-officials.
If public infrastructure is sold off or leased to a private entity, the cost of service to the taxpayers is subservient to the corporation’s need for profit. The private entity is not electable, so if rates soar, un-electing the heads of the corporation is not an option. Even more concerning is if a foreign entity buys/leases the infrastructure they are even less likely to have the best interest of the American taxpayer in mind. In addition, profits from these ventures are likely to leave the U.S.
Taking this one step further, it might be suggested, that when governments lose control of their infrastructure they will also lose control of their governing ability and will no longer remain accountable to their taxpayers. You might even say, as did President Clinton, that we are “reinventing government”.
Another 3P concern with Public Private Partnerships is that over time, due to the uneven playing field, fewer and fewer small businesses are able to survive. This works very well for a government that is trying to destroy the free market. This type of government does not want competition. It wants control. The fewer companies that exist, and the more compliant to government demands they become, the greater is the control of the government over the market place.
Unfortunately for the economy, small business is the driver of the economic engine. Therefore, the citizen’s will have diminished opportunity for prosperity as the economy falters. The ultimate goal of a government that is implementing sustainable development is to lower the standard of living and diminish the consumption of goods by its citizens. Reducing the chance of success for our small businesses will certainly stall our economy, reduce the living standard of America, while advancing the Agenda 21 goal of decreasing consumption habits in the U.S.
3P’s can exist on the highest level of our government as shown by the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). NAFTA was touted as a way to make the U.S. more competitive with Asia and Europe by combining the economic strength of the U.S. with that of Canada and Mexico. Instead NAFTA caused U.S. jobs to go overseas, real wages in the U.S. to drop, an increase in our trade deficit, and an enrichment of select corporations. In other words, NAFTA redistributed American wealth overseas. Further, it was designed to blur our national borders and weaken our sovereignty. Can you say North American Union?
Validation of this can be seen in this quote by Henry Kissinger in July 1993:
"It [NAFTA] will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of the free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere. [NAFTA} is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.”
As one looks at the financial crisis in which one finds the United States, whether one sees this as a bad or a good thing depends on one’s point of view. If the federal government wishes to create voluntary compliance at a local level with certain federal goals, would not making grants available to cash-starved local governmental entities, grants with strings attached, not be an effective way to create compliance? Making matters worse is that the grant money the government uses to create local compliance is your tax dollars.
The federal government has many grant programs. One of those programs is the called the Sustainable Development Challenge Grant program.
If a citizen should go on the Internet to 45156 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 1998 / Notices, Environmental Protection Agency, a citizen could find some very interesting information- information in this case about the Sustainable Challenge Grants for the fiscal year 1998. In this document it says,
“that the EPA is soliciting proposals for these grants, as one of President Clinton’s ‘high priority’ actions as described in the March 16, 1995 report, Reinventing Environmental Regulation… the Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program challenges communities to invest in a sustainable future that links environmental protection, economic prosperity, and community well-being”
In other words, Sustainable Development Challenge Grants are being administered by the EPA, an environmental agency, as bribes by the federal government to institute actions that foster the 3 E’s of Sustainable Development on a local level.
Continuing to quote from this document,
“In keeping with this philosophy, the EPA will implement this program consistent with the principles of Executive Order 12898, ‘Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations’ (February 11, 1994). The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant program is consistent with other community-based efforts the EPA has introduced, such as Brownsfields Initiative, Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, Project XL, the President’s American Heritage Rivers Initiative, Watershed Protections Approach"
This section of the document makes two things very clear. First that through the Challenge Grant program the EPA has the Federal Government’s full permission to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Secondly, that there are many other federal grant programs administered by the EPA to forward social, economic, and environmental justice, on the taxpayer’s dime, not just the Challenge Grant Program.
What makes this document so really, really important though, is that it provides irrefutable proof that the United States Government is forcing, through regulations and de facto bribery, the implementation of Agenda 21. The following quote from this document provides the smoking gun directly connecting the Federal Government to the implementation of Agenda 21.
“The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant program is also a step in implementing ‘‘Agenda21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable Development,’’ signed by the United States at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992”.
This one sentence makes two critical points. First, that Sustainable Development is the exact same thing as-a synonym for-Agenda 21. So any time Sustainable Development is referenced, always remember that it is a substitute for the words “Agenda 21“.
Secondly, through its own document the Federal Government is admitting that it is indeed, through the Challenge Grant Program, implementing Agenda 21, a United Nations directive. Remember that Agenda 21 was a treaty that was never ratified by Congress. So the implementation of Agenda 21 is in direct violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States, which says…
“No State shall without the Consent of the Congress,…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. That means that our federal government is implementing an illegal set of actions counter to our Constitution.” (Also see Article IV, second paragraph of the U.S. Constitution.)
The Challenge Grant Program proves that the federal government cannot further the 3 E’s or implement Agenda 21 by regulations alone. It requires the use of grants to create compliance and the appearance that America is anxious and willing to sacrifice her freedom in order to save the environment and the collective. However, the true fact is that most State and local governments are simply so desperate to keep their roads paved and lights on, that they will not look too closely at the strings attached to the offered grants . The result is that the Agenda 21 train races down the track towards completion.
One final thought on grants; if all the grant moneys currently being paid out, were combined, and then used to reduce the federal deficit, might not the federal deficit melt away? In other words, might the massive amount of money used for grants to encourage social justice and green programs not be the very reason our federal deficit is so very large?
It is impossible to create a One World Order unless borders are completely eliminated. Take the European Union as an example. All the nations of the European Union share the same currency, have a free flow of people across their borders, have a central tax system with the means to enforce collections, and a common court system. That said, are they really sovereign anymore? Do their borders serve any function anymore? After all, there is a reason they are called the European Union.
Then there is the North American Continent, where treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement and our open borders threaten the sovereignty of the United States. Once borders become irrelevant, then to all extents and purposes, the affected countries have been combined into one larger political entity. At that point, would that not make it much easier to combine a number of these larger blocks of countries into a one world government? There are also boundaries between local governmental entities, like cities, townships, and counties, and these boundaries, too, are under attack.
To understand this, we must not forget that the United State’s government was designed by the founders to be strongest at the local level. Because the local governments are desperate for cash, it is not difficult to make them accept grants with strings attached. It is not just grant money from the States and federal government that can tempt the local governments, but also grants extended from Regional Governments. Regional Governments are cropping up at an amazing speed.
Below is a list of regional governments in Ohio that belong to the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC).
OKI-Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana)
Below is the mission statement for NARC (National Association of Regional Councils).
As a national public interest organization, NARC works with and through its members to:
* Shape federal policy that recognizes the increased value of local intergovernmental cooperation;
*Advocate effectively for the role of regional councils in the coordination, planning and delivery of current and future federal programs;
*Provide research and analysis of key national issues and developments that impact our members; and
*Offer high quality learning and networking opportunities for regional organization through events, training and technical assistance.
When you read NARC’s Mission Statement, it is easy to see that NARC (National Association of Regional Councils) is the “gate keeper” for the information, money, and power that are being directed downward from the federal government to the regional governments who then decides how best to direct it to the local government.
In other words, the local government, which was meant from the founding of this country to be the “dog” and not “the tail”, is now subservient to all layers of government above it through grants that the regional government offer to the local government. Put another way, just as Presidential Executive Orders can make the Congress irrelevant, so can regional governments make local government irrelevant.
Regional governments can also be a threat to boundaries between states. Notice in the list of Ohio regional governments provided, one of them, OKI, straddles three state lines, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. One would have to question how in the world a regional government could answer to three different state’s regulations. Conversely, one would wonder how, if a legislature in one State passes a new law, how that new law could be implemented and prosecuted in a different State. The answer… only if, at some point in time a One World Order makes the State borders become irrelevant.
This quote from the UN Commission on Global Governance, makes the case. It says…
“Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.”
And then there is a new unholy alliance that has been created in recent years and enhanced by Executive Order 13602.
*Executive Order 13602, signed by President Obama in March 2012, gives Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) the authority to engage in city, community, and regional planning to “augment their vision for stability and economic growth…” This EO insures that “Federal assistance is more efficiently provided and used.” HUD now has the ability to create regulations to enforce local and regional planning that the government feels is beneficial to the fiscal stability of the U.S.
This E.O. increases the likelihood that various federal agencies, working hand in hand with regional government, will make local government compliant to Sustainable Development policies. The series of steps goes like this;
tax payer dollars are given by the Feds to the Dept. of Transportation (DOT) or the EPA, who directs them to Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who directs them down to the Regional Governments, who dangle them with Sustainable Development strings in front of the faces of local governments to create compliance by the local governments to the Sustainable Development policies of the Feds.
An example of how this alliance works and will forward the building of the human settlements is seen by looking at The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111‐117), where a total of $150,000,000 was provided to HUD for a Sustainable Communities Initiative.
HUD, then, established grant programs to improve regional planning efforts that integrate housing and transportation decisions, and to increase the capacity of municipal, regional, and state government to change land use and zoning practices. Of that total [$150,000,000], $100,000,000 was made available for the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program, $40,000,000 for Challenge Planning Grants, $8,500,000 for a joint HUD and DOT research and evaluation effort, and up to $1,500,000 for HUD’s Transformation.
In plain terms, what HUD is doing, once the money is funneled down to it, is to funnel the money down to the unelected boards of the Regional Governments, who in turn will provide grants to local governments to create “equitable” high density housing complete with sidewalks and bike paths, likely using the Complete Street design near public transit lines. In this way, once humans are forced off of the rural lands by the Wildlands Project the human settlement infrastructure will be in place and social, economic, and environmental justice will have been achieved.
Further, once humans arrive in these newly designed human settlements, their need for cars will be minimized or eliminated because of the bike paths, sidewalks, and nearby transit lines. The high density of humans will also allow for excellent surveillance and control by the government.
Has the Federal Government manufactured this crisis in education, so that at the appropriate time, and it could be argued that now is that time, the Federal Government could ride to the rescue and create the solution-a Nationalized Education System from birth to career used to indoctrinate our children to be good global citizens with the appropriate skills to meet, not their needs, but those of the centralized government?
Keep in mind that there are many things, outside of the classroom, that can affect a child’s chances of learning, such as the destruction of our families, Constitution, and Christian faith. Many of these have been, if not caused by the government; exacerbated by the government. These ideas have a significant role to play in their negative effect on a child’s ability to learn. Today the family structure is too often in disarray. Without a stable home life, it is difficult for the child to focus on his learning and further, if there is only one parent in the home, supervision of the child’s behavior and homework is especially challenging.
Have you seen how the role of women in society today has been elevated until the perception is that women can and should do it all? It might be asked; do women really want that much responsibility, and does the family benefit when it is implied that men have little importance either at home or in the workplace?
This elevation of women in the workplace has nothing to do with women, and everything to do with Agenda 21. Agenda 21 states that educated women tend to have fewer children. So if Sustainable Development policies can increase the socioeconomic status of women, who then will produce fewer children, causing the population to decrease, the Sustainabilists will have achieved their primary goal. If the family is destroyed in the process, and children are too distracted to pay attention in school, that is simply the price that must be paid to advance Sustainable Development policies.
Add to the destruction of the family unit, Christianity is under attack. Christianity teaches many key lessons that give society a value-driven citizen. Christianity teaches to not lie or steal.
Furthermore, our Constitution and the brave men that worked so hard to create that amazing document are now being relegated to the back seat on the history bus. These fine men believed in limited government, the importance of owning property, and the value of self-reliance. By ignoring the contributions of these men to society our children are prevented from using them as positive role models and learning the lessons they taught. This makes it much easier for our educational system today to teach instead that private property must be given up for the good of the collective and that dependence on the government is desirable.
Towards the end of the 20th century the stage was set. The crisis in education was evident enough to the public that big government felt it could receive a mandate to make reforms in education. Congress passed three key educational laws during the Clinton Presidency; they were the, “Goals 2000 Act“, “School-to-Work-Act“, and the “Improving America’s Schools Act “of 1994. Those were followed by the passage in 2001 of George W. Bush’s, “No Child Left Behind”. Bush, while passing the “No Child Left Behind” ACT (NCLB), openly agreed to work with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the education arm of the United Nations, to work towards common goals in education. In other words, as directed by Chapter 36 of Agenda for the 21st Century (aka Agenda 21), Bush was promising that the United States was fully on board with integrating Sustainable Development ideas into the classrooms of America.
Through a myriad number of rules, NCLB, attempted to force the schools and teachers to accept the responsibility for student’s performances. There were many rules about what would happen if schools did not improve the required amount in any given year. The pressure on the schools to improve the student’s performances was huge. While scores often improved, in the case of Ohio, the improvement was so great that it looked suspicious. It came, then, as no surprise that in 2012, a group of Ohio school districts began to be investigated for fudging their numbers.
No Child Left Behind did not require that States participate; however, the federal funds were withheld if the States did not. At least NCLB did not attempt to force a Nationalized Educational System. It left at least some of the decisions to the States.
It is important for citizens to remember that the founders wanted education to be a State issue. In that way, each State could decide what was best for their citizens. It also allowed a citizen, who was dissatisfied with the way their State handled education, to move to another State to be serviced.
In 2007 the efforts to create a Nationalized Educational System called the Common Core began. Common Core Standards were written with the help of a $100 million dollar donation from the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation, along with other grant money provided by our tax dollars that were passed out by the federal government via the U.S. Dept. of Education.
Two separate sets of States combined efforts to either participate in the Smarter Balanced Assessment approach or the Partners for Assessment of Colleges and Careers (PARCC). Ohio is a member of PARCC, which is being pushed by Linda Darling Hammond, a colleague and friend of the infamous radical Bill Ayers.
Just because a State, like Ohio, is part of the Consortium, does not mean it is automatically signed up to adopt these standards. That requires that the government do what it does best- use our tax dollars to entice the States to adopt this new set of standards. So, $4.35 million dollars from the 2009 Stimulus Bill was used to create the Race to the Top Competition (RTTT).
To enter the competition, to possibly earn money and waivers to some of the No Child Left Behind mandates, a State must accept the Common Core Standards, in this case SIGHT UNSEEN, as the standards had not yet been written.
One of the most successful government strategies for implementing new ideas with minimum back lash is to do it as quickly as possible before opposition can be rallied. This ploy was used very effectively in the case of Common Core.
The States were rushed to judgment when the Race to the Top applications became available in November of 2009, but were due back by January 2010. During this time, few State legislatures were open for business, so the State officials, if they choose to sign on, would have to do so without the approval of their State legislatures.
It was not until two months later, in March of 2010, that the draft standards for Common Core were available for reading. The final Common Core Standards came out three months later in June. The States had two more months to make their final commitments by August of 2010, as to whether they wished to abide by requirements of the CC standards.
It is important to point out that standards are not curriculum; however, standards drive the curriculum. Standards are a little like the frame of a house. The frame of a house decides what the house will look like. In that same way, standards decide what the curriculum looks like and what kinds of things will appear on the tests. Standards drive the educational experience for the student and, ultimately, how well or poorly the student will be prepared for his career and life. Just because the government was heavy-handed in the development and acceptance of the Common Core, that does not necessarily mean it is going to turn out badly, does it? An inventory of the concerns about Common Core should serve to provide that answer.
Once a State adopts Common Core, the State and parents have control over only 15% of the curriculum, although they will pay for 100% of the expense. In essence, the State and the parents have lost virtually all control over the education of the students in their State. This goes against the 10th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution that gives control of education to the States. Further, CC violates three federal statutes; the General Education Provisions Act, the Dept. of Education Organizational Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
The tests that will go along with CC standards will be very expensive, as the students must take them on computers. The purchase and maintenance of all of this technology makes the donation by the Gates Foundation look like an example of Crony Capitalism. The expense of this program will increase even more because all of the tests are to be graded by hand. All these people will have to be hired, trained, and paid for their service.
Possibly more worrisome is that the government is constantly pushing social equity. Couple this with the fact that each student will be identified by any number of non educational markers, like ethnicity, religion, and gender. Might those, who are hired to grade these tests, be tempted or encouraged to add to or subtract from the test scores to balance out for any social inequalities?
You might also wonder, if this government, that is equally interested in achieving economic justice, might not use the data like ethnicity, gender, religion, etc., that is being compiled and stored on each student, to decide at the end of the student’s education, whether that student should or should not be eligible for higher paying jobs?
And compiling and storing data on our children they are. Whether it is legal or not is somewhat questionable. In the past sharing of student personal information with the federal government was illegal. However; both consortiums, Smarter Balanced Assessment and Partners for Assessment of Colleges and Careers, are both contractually obligated to the federal government to give this information to the Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, and Dept. of Health and Human Services. Additionally, now that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act has been gutted, many of the records are being funneled by the states directly to the feds, which somehow makes this OK.
There are significant concerns about the height of the hoop through which our students using CC will be expected to jump. CC at this time only applies to a school’s Math, Language Arts, and English curricula. It is expected that later, all areas of the curricula will be affected. While proponents say the standards are rigorous, some of the harshest critics were those who were on the validation committees for Math, Language Arts, and English.
Dr. James Milgram of Stanford University, the only math person on the validation committee, said that our kids will be two years behind when they graduate, compared to the most successful countries, and that it would be unlikely that they would be ready for university level math after completing Common Core.
Dr. Sandra Stotsky, who served on the English validation committee refused to sign off on the English standards, saying that they will not prepare the students for college, and that she thought that the highest reading level was on about a 7th grade level.
Assumptions would be that most students upon high school graduation would be able to attempt a 2 year college using these standards. One of the major concerns is that there will be 50% less classical literature in English classes and no British literature, except for a small amount of Shakespeare. In its place will be nonfiction informational text, like manuals, brochures, and even menus. In addition, teachers are being discouraged to give historical context and/or to encourage passionate readings of great historical works like the Gettysburg Address. This is likely to cause the best teachers to quit, and the lesser teachers who remain to be retrained to teach the nonfictional material.
If there is total uniformity, and the education is mediocre in all states, then students will have no choice but to participate in a uniformly mediocre educational experience. Not even home schoolers or private schools will be exempt from the CC standards. The ultimate irony is that those that are pushing the hardest for CC are the same folks who criticize anyone who does not embrace diversity, yet CC’s whole strategy is to eliminate diversity in the classroom. The only way for a State to sidestep CC is if their legislature never adopts it or if they repeal it.
If the main reason for creating CC was to create uniformity across State lines-for which there is no data showing it works for large countries like the U.S., and to create a more rigorous academic curricula, which there is no reason to believe is the case, then why is there such a push to implement CC by the school year 2014-2015? The answer, as with most of our problems today, comes back to Sustainable Development/Agenda 21.
Those that were once called Socialists, but are now called Progressives, have long attempted to replace the free market with a managed economy where educational and job opportunities are under the strict control of a centralized economy. In that way, the government can insure that social, economic, and environmental justice is always achieved, so that ethnicity, gender, and religious, inequalities can be redressed, perhaps through advantageous job opportunities. Thus today’s youth will be tomorrow’s cogs in the industrial machine controlled by big government and at the mercy of social, economic, and environmental justice.
There are two types of Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs)…
Let's learn about Advocacy NGOs, as they are the type of NGO that is forwarding Agenda 21 policies around the globe.
So, what is an Advocacy NGO?
They are groups of people with specific political agendas, who want to get the government to force YOU to do whatever they wish. To be an NGO for the United Nations the organization must complete paperwork with the United Nations to become officially sanctioned by the U.N.
*The largest NGO is Amnesty International with a membership of 1.8 million members.
*The 3 NGOs with the greatest impact on the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the arm of the U.N. that deals with environmental policy are…
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
World Resources Institute (WRI)
International Union for Conservation and Nature (IUCN)
And then there is the infamous NGO called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) whose main function is to design ways to force Sustainable Development into local government policies. The list provided below lists some of the more familiar Non Governmental Organizations.
National Audubon Society
The Nature Conservancy
Nat’l Wildlife Federation
Zero Population Growth
The Sierra Club
The Nat’l Education Association
The Environmental Defense Fund
NGOs are the “worker bees” for the U.N. Without the NGOs it is doubtful that Agenda 21 could have been implemented around the world.
Here are some of the things the NGOs, in their worker bees function, do for the United Nations.
1. Working closely with United Nations Environmental Program, the NGOs write policies that combine their political agenda with that of the U.N. Agenda 21. For example an NGO like Zero Population Growth would have no problem writing policy for United Nations Environmental Program that would go right along with Agenda 21’s desire to control population, as that is also the goal of the NGO called Zero Population Growth.
2. The NGOs work to get the policy adopted by one or more U.N. organization for consideration at a regional conference.
3. The NGOs convince the delegates at the regional conference to adopt the policy.
4. The NGO writes a legally drawn up policy statement on the issue. This document is called a “Convention”.
5. The NGOs lobby to get the delegates at the conference to adopt the Convention.
6. The Convention is sent to National Governments to be ratified.
7. Once the Convention is ratified, it becomes international law.
8. Then the NGOs go into full swing lobbying, in our case Congress, to write national laws that comply with the treaty. It is not uncommon for key leaders of these radical NGOs to be appointed to Presidential Councils, creating a direct, official connection between the U.N. and our federal government, and an even greater likelihood that the policy will be written into law. This was the case with Clinton’s Presidential Conference on Sustainable Development in 1992 (see Lesson 1).
9. Once national laws are created and passed, the NGOs go to State governments and lobby them to pass state laws that comply with the national laws.
However, since the Federal Government is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from writing laws that dictate local policy, the NGOs must take a different tack when trying to force Agenda 21 ideas into local government.
So to “encourage” local governments to comply with Agenda 21 policies, NGOs lobby Congress to include special grants to help States and communities fund Agenda 21 policies. In this way, your federal tax dollars are funneled down to the local level to help implement Agenda 21/Sustainable Development policies, which are designed to…
* Steal your private property right
* Control all human behavior
*Control the business sector
* Destroy our representative republic
* Indoctrinate our Children in order to create good global citizens
* Create social, economic and environmental justice.
Should a community or State refuse to participate “voluntarily”, local chapters of the NGOs are trained to go into action. They begin to pressure city councils or county commissioners to accept the grants and implement the policies. Should they meet resistance, the NGO begins to issue news releases telling the community their elected officials are losing millions of dollars for the community. The pressure continues until the grant is finally taken and the policy becomes local law.
It is now easy to see why the NGOs can be compared to worker bees. The NGOs do the heavy lifting required to implement Agenda 21 throughout the globe.
Understanding the Delphi Method and How It is Used to Dupe the Citizen and Undermine the Power of the Local Government
It may not be necessary for an NGO to send anyone to your city or county to create compliance to Sustainable Development Policy. Not if your city or county has hired one or more city planners who have been exposed to the American Planning Association’s (APA) “Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook”.
The American Planning Association’s Guidebook was paid for by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other federal agencies, using your tax dollars. This massive 1500 page compilation of boilerplate legislation and planning practices guides planners on ways to implement the principles of United Nations Agenda 21 in your local communities.
There are over 16,000 certified planners in the United States. The APA helps planners learn what some many consider a manipulative method of reaching consensus about community concerns. This method goes by a number of names including the Delphi Method, Consensus Planning, or Visioning.
A planner runs this process in such a way as to allow citizens to think that they are giving input into their communities; input that will help lead the community to an acceptable solution to a community problem. Whereas in reality the data the citizen is providing is minimized in such a way as to allow the pre-determined outcome that the Planners desired all along to be realized. In this way, citizens will be made to believe that green space, bicycle paths, and walking trails were the top concerns of the community because the data will have been manipulated by the planners to create the Sustainable Development desired outcome.
This explains why around the country, small towns and large, are adopting plans for their communities that have similar sounding names, like Vision 2020, and that are following very similar Sustainable Development plans. Columbus, Ohio has the Columbus 2050 plan. Here is an excerpt from their home page…
“If there’s one reoccurring theme throughout the entirety of the Columbus 2050 document, it’s sustainability. It’s a word that gets thrown around a lot, and the definition can vary wildly, but the local leadership at the Urban Land Institute sees it primarily as a call to personal and community responsibility.”
“At its most basic, sustainability means living within your means and can be applied to individuals, businesses and governments,” says Reidy. “For individuals, it can be living closer to the workplace or community centers, eating locally raised foods, consciously minimizing energy use – at work, home and in modes of transportation.”
“While the Columbus 2050 document may lack the visions of flying cars and Jetsons-like fashion, it does provide a solid foundation for smart growth, and the building blocks that can potentially shape Central Ohio to be globally competitive for decades to come.”
How is it possible that a country with such diverse communities, could achieve such uniformity in terminology, strategy, and future community planning, unless “the fix is in”-unless City Planners schooled by the American Planning Association’s influence are not “guiding” the process to create a predetermined outcome.
This process makes a mockery of our representative government. Through the use of the Delphi Method only an illusion of a functional representative government exists. In reality decisions that should be reserved for the citizen are stolen by unelected city planners. This in turn destroys the power of our local representative government and instead places the power into the hands of the unelected City Planners.
”In summary, put in simple street language, the procedure really amounts to a collection of NGOs, bureaucrats and government officials, all working together toward a predetermined outcome. They have met together in meetings, written policy statements based on international agreements, which they helped to create and now they are about to impose laws and regulations that will have dire effect on people’s lives and national economies. Yet, with barely a twinge of conscience they move forward with the policy, saying nothing. No one objects. It is understood. Everyone goes along, because this is a barbaric procedure that insures their desired outcome without the ugliness of bloodshed, or even a debate. It is the procedure used to advance the radical, global environmental agenda: Agenda 21.” - Tom Deweese/American Policy Center from the Stop Agenda 21 Tool Kit
We can hope that the politicians, with no push from the people, will on their own find out, learn about, and address Sustainable Development through appropriate legislation. If hoping for something worked, we would all have won million dollar lotteries by now. No, hoping isn’t the answer. Only if enough Americans are educated to understand what Agenda 21 is, how it has been implemented, and then choose to engage our politicians in order to create enough “pressure” to force the politicians to stop passing Sustainable Development policies and to instead sponsor Anti-Agenda 21 Legislation, will we be able to throw off the shackles that are currently being created for the American people.
Pressure from the educated citizens can be applied on every level of government; local, State, and national. This will not be an easy task, nor a quick task, but if we as a nation wish freedom for ourselves and the generations to come, we must accept this challenge. But for this challenge to be successful, we must be smart about how we go about tackling Agenda 21, because if we make mistakes, we will at the least miss an opportunity to create positive change.
What ICLEI is, and What ICLEI does
First, the following facts are certainly true and need to be understood by all anti-Agenda 21 activists: ICLEI is a UN NGO organization that helped write Agenda 21 for the 1992 Earth Summit and then set, as its mission, to bring Agenda 21 policy to every city in the world. It does this by meeting with local officials, signing contracts with them to set standards for energy and water use, building and development codes, farming policy, etc. It brings in training for city hall staff; soft ware to manage the programs; guidelines for legislation; networking with other communities, other NGO and Stakeholder groups and other agencies of State and federal government. They reach out to other public officials in the communities, including newspaper editors, school superintendents, local college presidents, and chamber of commerce leaders – all designed to assure everyone who helps make decisions and policy in the community are on board. And of course, ICLEI leads the officials to the most important ingredient to impose Agenda 21 – money – grant money that comes with specific strings to guarantee that Agenda 21 is enforced.
That grant money is like heroin in the veins. Once there, the addiction and dependence is in force. Once ICLEI has done its job, the community is hooked, and an entirely new attitude and community atmosphere of top-down control is enforced by the government. ICLEI’s influence basically creates an entirely new culture in the community where it becomes natural and basically unquestioned to expect local government to be involved in every aspect of your property, job, family and your whole life.
What to Do and Not Do When Dealing with ICLEI
Now, that’s what ICLEI does and that’s why we targeted it and why it is so dangerous. However, the manner in which we expose and oppose ICLEI is very important. First, ICLEI is NOT the United Nations, as many have claimed before city councils. It is a private organization with its own agenda – of course it is promoting Agenda 21. But to say the city council is paying dues to the UN is just not accurate.
Another misconception is that ICLEI IS Agenda 21 and if the community stops paying dues and ends their contract with ICLEI the battle is over. The fact is ending the contract with ICLEI is just the first punch. From there you must be active in an effort to undo any programs ICLEI helped put in place. That includes…
1. …changing the very culture of City Hall and its ICLEI trained staff.
2. … It means an active campaign to dismantle non-elected boards and councils that are the prime source for enforcement of policy.
3. …It means removing your community from regional government councils.
4. …And it probably means electing new officials who oppose the Agenda 21 policy and have the ability and courage to stand up to an assault by federal and state agencies who will not be happy that you are rejecting their agenda. And through all of that you will have to be prepared to counter the attacks from the entrenched NGOs and the lackeys down at the local paper. Withdrawal from the drug of Agenda 21 can be deadly.
Outsmart the Opposition by Employing Common Sense
Finally, there is a more effective way to attack Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development polices in your community, at least initially. You may be fired up about the UN, but others are not. Rather than rushing into city hall and immediately start accusing them of implementing a UN program, take some time to research the policy being proposed or implemented. Determine the effect it will have on the community or your property. Who else will be affected and how? These are the victims of the policy and the most likely to support your efforts to stop it. In that way, you will recruit new people to the cause. You will find it much more effective than sounding like a rabid bear growling about the UN.
For example, smart meters or energy audits affect everyone in town. What is the problem: government is dictating your energy use that you are paying for. It is a violation of your right to choose how much energy you are willing to buy. It denies you the right to determine how warm or cool your house will be. It denies you the choice of taking a hot shower or not. It even affects your health if you can’t get warm enough – or if you are denied access to hot water, allowing germs to grow.
Such an argument will gain more support for your cause across the city and across party and philosophical lines than rushing to bring up the UN? Yes, the policy certainly did originate in the bowels of the UN. But why are we opposed to it – because of what it does to us. And that is the place to start to oppose it. As people come to your side, if they want to know more, then will be the time to teach them the rest of the story about Agenda 21 and its UN origins.
So, focus on the victims and the impact the policy will have on the well-being of the community and you. Question how they intend to enforce the policy (such as having government agents come into your home). Make your officials explain that. They won’t want to. This will show the heavy hand of control required to make the policy work. Put the officials on the defensive over their enforcement efforts and watch them retreat as it’s exposed.
Ask your County Commissioners this question: “Name one thing I can do on my property without your permission.” To answer that question honestly will force them to admit that under these policies there is no private property. The important message here is to keep your fight local to stop their global agenda.
Agenda 21 is a vast, complicated structure. The organizations promoting it number in the thousands and include Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), public policy groups, federal, State, and local agencies, self-proclaimed “stakeholders,” Congress, the White House, 50 State houses, and your local officials. You can’t fight them all individually. Instead, fight the policy and watch them come out of the woodwork to challenge you. By attacking the policy you have made them defend it and you will have shaped the debate. Then we’ll see who is really wearing the tin foil hats.
Regardless of whether you are trying to remove your town from membership in ICLEI or trying to stop your town from taking grants from regional governments, you must determine a strategy for success. It would be great if there was one way to move forward to fix this mess, and that way forward would guarantee success. Every town and every issue will require careful thought on how to move through it to success. It will, in most situations, be easier if you can round-up the troops. If you can create a coalition of people from businesses, as well as average citizens, and the more the better, you can more easily delegate the work, have a greater pool of resources, and be able to create a greater show of force. This is the ideal situation. However, in a situation in which you find that there is not an ability to gather a larger group, a small group can make a big difference. It will require greater work on the part of each individual, and there will be no “show of force”, but there are still possibilities. A smaller group is indeed less intimidating. That may keep the officials from going on the defense-not a bad thing. It also forces the small group to create “relationships” with those in “power”. If you can keep cool, and argue using logic and facts, you may create key alliances with these folks. Once you have one or two of them on your side, they then become allies in influencing the remaining “non believers”. Further, you are a “lean, mean, fighting machine”. These situations can change on a dime, and if there are only a few of you engaged in stopping Agenda 21 policies in your community, you can make decisions and adjustments rapidly.
Before you can employ any strategies, you need to be educated on the structure of your government and the key players in your government. For example, in my city of about 15,000 citizens, there is a mayor, city council, city administrator, full-time Planning and Zoning Director, a Planning and Zoning board, a Planning and Zoning Appeals Board, a Parks and Recreation Board, a Water and Sewer Board, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea-lots of layers of government. You will need to decide which of these pieces-parts of the government you wish to monitor and effect.
You will be sitting in a lot of meetings, while you try to decide how to respond to the drama that plays out-and drama it is. There is more drama in politics than any soap opera you have ever watched. Also, it is really important to stay for the WHOLE meeting. Just because nothing of importance seems to be going on early in the meeting, does NOT mean that a “big” event will not occur later in the meeting! If nothing else, those in charge of the meeting respect the citizen that “hangs in” for the whole meeting, which in turn allows the citizen to more easily build the required relationship with the officials in charge of community decisions.
One last point on local government. Do not forget your school system. Everything said so far applies to trying to put our school boards on notice. It is just as important, and it could be argued that it is more important, that we reform our schools. There is a saying that says “our children are our future”. If that is the case, our future is about to be determined by the decisions we make-or don’t make-to save our children today from a corrupt educational system.