• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
What You Need To Know About U.N. Agenda 21 - And How To Stop It In Your Local Community (INFOWARS.COM)

What You Need To Know About U.N. Agenda 21 - And How To Stop It In Your Local Community (INFOWARS.COM)



Tell Congress: NO AGENDA 21!

Tell Congress: NO AGENDA 21!



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 27

http://www.scoop.it 26
https://twitter.com 1


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    What You Need To Know About U.N. Agenda 21 - And How To Stop It In Your Local Community (INFOWARS.COM) What You Need To Know About U.N. Agenda 21 - And How To Stop It In Your Local Community (INFOWARS.COM) Document Transcript

    • What you need to know about UN Agenda 21and how to stop it in your local community June 28, 2012
    • Tell Congress: NO AGENDA 21! Send letters and e-mails to Congress Right now, forces are working to eradicate the United States Constitution and give regulatory and political power to the United Nations and their vision for a global, one-world government. This is not a conspiracy that MAY happen ... it is in place as you read this.AGENDA 21 is a vast United Nations initiative that may already have been implemented in your town. In the interest of "saving" the Earth and creating a "sustainable" future, Agenda 21 will dictate: • What kind of car you can and cannot drive; • Where and when you can travel; • Where you can live; • What kind of property you can own, if you are allowed to own property; • What size family, if any, you can have The American Policy Center reports that Agenda 21 means that: "every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction." Its true, global warming environmentalism has reached a new level of hysteria. Despite countless arguments against it, the issue is not going away, and its backers are more rabid than ever.Agenda 21 seeks to control how Americans live their lives, presumably in an effortto "save the planet" and "sustain" life on Earth. How did this happen? Slowly, and inrelative quiet, so you wouldnt figure out what was happening and try to stop it!In June, 1992, more than 178 governments - including the United States of America -adopted the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of Principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests at a United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. These were not just typical "go-green" initiatives that would eventually end up being fought through legislation in Congress. It was the beginning of the systematic destruction of freedom for every American citizen.Protect the sovereignty and freedom of all Americans. Sign our petition and send messages to Congress toSTOP AGENDA 21 now!
    • After the 1992 conference, President Clinton established a Presidential Council on Sustainable Development in1995, by executive order. That means you and I did not get an opportunity to reject or support the idea.This was done by executive order for good reason. J. Gary Lawrence, Council advisor to President Clinton, said:"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society. ... This segment of our society who fear "one-worldgovernment" and a UN invasion of the United States...would actively work to defeat [Agenda 21]. So we callour process something else, such as comprehensive planning,growth management or smart growth." One of the planners has said Agenda 21,"...proposes an array of actions which are intended to beimplemented by every person on earth. ... [I]t calls for specificchanges in the activities of all people. ... Effective execution ofAgenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans,unlike anything the world has ever experienced." It sounds like a post-apocalyptic horror film, but this is reality that is unfolding before our very eyes. The United Nations is no friend to our Constitution and our freedom. Their viewpoint is completely anathema to the hard-fought values and principles this country was built upon -- liberty, freedom, individualism. YOU ARE THE ENEMY, according to the United Nations. Your greedy freedom, democracy, and right to wealth must be stopped! You may wonder how a global body could overrule your rights as an American...they believe they can do this because they do not respect the rights you hold. For example, one of Agenda 21s premises is that private property is "a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it." That is why they have no problem placing property restrictions on residents.The U.N. Conference on Human Settlements agrees, stating: "Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice...The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole."
    • We must call on Congress right now to protect our U.S. Constitution, oppose any and all legislation thatcomes before Congress attempting to impose Agenda 21, and demand the education of local governmentson the dangers of Agenda 21 programs. This cannot wait a day longer - the United Nations is activelyworking to gain control over the United States and its political system. SIGN THE PETITION AND SENDMESSAGES TO CONGRESS!Visit this website to sign petition: http://petitions.conservativeactionalerts.com/6674/tell-congress-no-agenda-21/UN Seeks New Powers to Remake World at Rio Sustainability SummitALEX NEWMANThe New AmericanMonday, April 23, 2012The United Nations plans to use its upcoming UN Conference on “Sustainable Development” (UN CSD orRio+20) in Rio de Janeiro to amass a vast array of unprecedented new powers and literally re-shapecivilization, the global economy, and even peoples’ thoughts, according to official documents. All of it will bedone in the name of transitioning toward a so-called “green economy.” Among the new authorities being sought by the world body are global carbon taxes, wealth redistribution amounting to trillions of dollars per year, and a barrage of programs dealing with everything from poverty and education to health and resource allocation. Virtually no realm of human activity will be unaffected by the scheme, which analysts have described as a “mammoth exercise in global social engineering.” The global transformation agenda was laid out in a recently published report entitled “Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy: A United Nations System-wide Perspective.” The document— prepared by a group of more than 35 UN agencies and assorted international institutions under the bannerof the UN “Environmental Management Group” (UNEMG) — explains the goals of the global body’s upcoming“sustainability” summit. The conference marks the 20th anniversary of the 1992 UN Earth Summit thatadopted the highly controversial “Agenda 21.”“Transitioning to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in theway we think and act,” the document explains, calling for greater“education,” information, and “awareness” efforts to help “changeindividual and collective behavior” in lifestyles as well as consumptionand production patterns. The agenda will necessitate “a seriousrethinking of lifestyles in developed countries,” it notes.Cost: Trillions per Year, and Then SomeThe dramatic transformation to a supposedly “green economy” — still largely undefined — will not be cheap.In fact, according to the UN, the price tag will be in the trillions of dollars per year. And consumer prices willhave to increase across the board, too, with food, energy, and housing at the top of the list.
    • “A global transformation towards a green economy will require substantial financial resources,” the document admits, proposing “ecological taxes” as a way to “unlock” the enormous amount of funds needed to redesign human civilization. One suggestion offered in the plan: impose carbon taxes or a cap-and-trade system on the people of industrialized countries to extract some $250 billion per year for the UN agenda. Related article: UN Report for Rio+20 Outlines Top-down “Green” World Order But private capital will play a big role, too. According to the UN, public policy — regulations, mandates, incentives, and more — should be usedto funnel investment money into green schemes on a massive scale. “By fundamentally restructuring publicspending and leveraging private investments towards environmental and social investments, indebtedindustrial countries can expect to find new growth paths that support fiscal consolidation while contributing toa green economy,” the UN claims.The global body estimates that its schemes just in the “green infrastructure” field will end up costing over $1trillion per year. Of course, agriculture and industry need to be “greened” as well, according to the UN. Thetotal price tag is expected to be over $2 trillion of direct spending and wealth transfers per year — notincluding the economic devastation that would result from central planning. The vast majority will be paid bytaxpayers in “developed” countries. However, the UN understands that there may be a limit to how much wealth governments can extract from their populations or divert from investors to be poured into “green” programs. So, to deal with that, the world might have to move toward an international currency that would allow global authorities to finance the schemes by printing money. “In addition, there is a need to identify and develop new sources of international funds at scale that support the global transition towards a green economy,” the document explains. “Efforts need to be made to explore the potential for an innovative use of Special Drawing Rights (SDR), international reserve assets, and pools of concentrated assets to serve the aim of financing green economy investments with attractive social as well as private returns and increasing the provision of global public goods.” SDRs are a proto-global currency managed by the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) based on the value of a basket of major fiat currencies. The global government-promoting establishment and a wide array of national leaders have been demanding for years that SDRs beused as a world currency — eventually displacing the U.S. dollar’s status.The calls for such a monetary transition are only growing louder, but critics are fighting back. Giving globalinstitutions the power to print currency, of course, would provide a potentially unlimited supply of funds totransform the world and erect the global environmental governance structures sought by the UN.
    • Education: Ensuring Future Support CompartmentalizationTo ensure that the global population supports the UN agenda, thecontroversial report notes that “UN entities need to scale up support foreducation” and “culture must be an integrated part of a green economytransition.” The future of humanity — the youth — must be taught aboutthe supposed dangers of theoretical man-made global warming. And childrenmust also learn that the UN is needed to solve the alleged problem.“Climate change education is a particularly important part of qualityeducation,” the report claims without elaborating. And so, the UNeducational scheme “provides people at all levels of education, in particularyouth, with the skills, competencies, and knowledge needed to prepare forgreen jobs and to change unsustainable consumption and productionpatterns.”The commitment to “sustainable development” education “must, therefore, be integrated into educationalcurricula at all levels and in all educational settings,” the report explains. “Communication and media,including the generation of information on sustainable use of resources for poverty reduction and access tosuch information is also important.”Poverty and Green WelfareAccording to the UN, poverty and “sustainable development” are linked. Therefore, the global body mustensure that welfare programs represent an integral part of the so-called “green” economy. “Poverty reductionpolicies should be formulated with a view to encouraging sustainable consumption and production patternsand establishing a green path for future development,” the report notes.Of course, the global transformation is going to leave a lot of people unemployed — and the UN acknowledgesthis, citing the fossil-fuel industry as a prime target for elimination. To deal with the destruction of livelihoodswrought by the “green” schemes, the document calls for welfare programs to support the broad array ofpeople expected to lose their jobs.“Measures to support the most vulnerable groups such as access to a social protection floor and social safetynets are essential to achieve social inclusion, to deal with the restructuring towards a greener economy, andto adapt to climate change,” the report claims. “Coherence between social, environmental, and economicpolicies is needed to maximize opportunities and buffer the social cost of the transition. A transition to a greeneconomy needs to project a vision of a greener as well as a fairer economy and society.”Instead of traditional indicators of human progress and well-being — economic growth, for example — theglobal body intends to roll out new measurements such as the “UN System Environmental-EconomicAccounting” (SEEA). That way, the tremendous loss to be suffered around the world in material well-being canbe camouflaged by claiming that life has improved using other measures – happiness, perhaps, orsustainability.http://www.infowars.com/un-seeks-new-powers-to-remake-world-at-rio-sustainability-summit/
    • Related articles: UN Report for Rio+20 Outlines Top-down “Green” World Order UN Bosses Secretly Plot Global Govt Through “Green Economy” for Rio+20 Ambitious UN Sustainability Conference in Rio to Avoid Climate Talk Exposing the Green World Order UN Plans $45 Trillion Cost for “Going Green” Congress Probes “Green Energy” Loans, Wasted “Stimulus” Socializing at Rio: Socialists Run the Earth Summit Socialist International in Copenhagen: “Birth of Global Governance” Former Obama Green Jobs Czar Works to Endow Earth with Human Rights What are the UN’s Agenda 21 and ICLEI? Rockefellers Fund Global-warming Protests as Earth Cools Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21 From Rio to Copenhagen County in Washington Ditches Sustainable Development WORLD GOVERNMENT: The UN Eco-Agenda for Planetary Control UN Demands $76 Trillion for “Green Technology” Sustainable Development Means a Wrenching Transformation of Your Life Agenda 21 and the Movement Toward a One-World Govt Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death Waking up to a World Currency The Emerging Global FedBEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21 with Rosa KoireFrom: TheAlexJonesChannel | Feb 16, 2012 Alex talks with activist, speaker and blogger Rosa Koire about the United Nations Agenda 21. Koire is a forensic real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation. She is the co-founder of the Santa Rosa Neighborhood Coalition, Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, and the Post Sustainability Institute. She is the author of Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21. Watch the interview: Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/14/lnfReKnmNkQ Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/13/OF3uPzwy69c Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/12/MTdQQ6gEWxU Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/11/2Wg7w1Efv3EVisit: www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.htmlWatch the February 13, 2012 interview: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/2/tqgwf3p7gncPart 2: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/1/Cyujynj0UHUPart 3: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/0/hkwN-T-ZsLAFULL SPEECH ON AGENDA 21, Rio Vista, CA: www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwBZjP062aUOrder Your Copy TodayIf youve been wanting an interesting, clearly written, how-to-manual for identifying and fighting UN Agenda21, here it is.Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21 (paperback) by Rosa Koire is 172 pages of truth. It contains all the information you need tounderstand what is happening in your town, why its happening, who is behind it, and what you can do to stop it. Part history, partcurrent events, part hand-to-hand combat, and part blueprint for keeping your freedom; this is one book that youll put to workimmediately. Boots on the ground and all hands on deck is the order of the day. Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/buy-behind-the-green-mask.html ago
    • Life in America Under Agenda 21 with whistleblower Charlotte IserbytFrom: TheAlexJonesChannel | Feb 13, 2012 | 25,776 views Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in Americasclassrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and researchanalyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the AmericanRed Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium andin the Republic of South Africa. Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to BasicsReform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom:Americas Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet EducationAgreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published inHuman Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressionalhearings.Watch the interview:Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/51/gEfdpC6VjfsPart 2: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/50/puzO-oW9e8cPart 3: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/49/trs7ulKbPZwPart 4: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/48/twemnnvUxbAhttp://www.americandeception.com/http://deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html The Federal Reserve banking system must be abolished and the fraudulent debt it has created for the world repudiated. It’s time to think about creating state run banks similar to those in North Dakota. Banks need to be designed to benefit the public and be honest and equitable in their transactions.
    • WWF Calls For Global Poverty To Save The Planet Part of elite’s “planned-opolis” agenda to reduce living standards Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com Wednesday, May 16, 2012The World Wildlife Fund has released a report which calls for all carbon emissions to be banned by 2050 andfor the entire human population to live in a state of poverty in the name of preserving rare species and savingthe planet. “Extremist green campaigning group WWF – endorsed by no less a body than the European Space Agency – has stated that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world’s wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race’s energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now. Most astonishingly of all, the green hardliners demand that the enormous numbers of wind farms, tidal barriers and solar powerplants required under their plans should somehow be built while at the same time severelyrationing supplies of concrete, steel, copper and glass,” reports the Register.The World Wildlife Fund’s new report, entitled Living Planet Report for 2012, cites its own narrowly definedand agenda-driven ‘Living Planet Index’ to claim that the “overall state of global biodiversity” is in crisis andthat rare species like tigers (presumably not including the ones shot dead by WWF President Prince Philip), arein decline because humans in richer countries enjoy too high living standards.According to the WWF, humans in developed nations are abusing their “ecological footprint” and using more“biocapacity” than they have. The only people operating within their allotted “biocapacity” are poor people inimpoverished countries.The solution? The organization wants to see “inequality adjusted human development” rather than economicdevelopment. Or put another way, the answer is focused around “drastically shrinking the ecological footprintof high income populations”.This is merely a regurgitation of the post-industrial revolution – the planned-opolis – that Malthusian eliteshave been pushing for decades. Using the highly emotive propaganda offensive of rare animal species (sinceglobal warming has now largely been discredited), the WWF calls for virtually all carbon emissions to beabolished by 2050.
    • “For almost all of human history and prehistory we have burned things to generate energy – it is one of thethings that makes us human – but now, within a single generation, that is to almost completely stop. After amillion years, the fires will go out,” writes Lewis Page.This insane drive to ban carbon emissions, the very lifeblood of human development, happiness andprosperity, has parallels with the Forum for the Future proposal, funded by the likes of Bank of America, TimeWarner and Royal Dutch Shell, which advocated the regulation of all human activity by a scientific dictatorshipwhich would restrict car use, impose calorie food rationing, decide people’s future careers for them, andimprison malcontents who don’t conform to the new eco-fascist system within squalid ghettos.The WWF was founded by former Nazi and Bilderberg Group kingpin Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Itscurrent President Emeritus is Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh.Betraying his eugenicist fervor, Prince Philip has repeatedly expressed his desire to see large numbers ofhuman beings wiped out by a deadly virus.“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute somethingto solve overpopulation,” Philip told Deutsche Press Agentur in August 1988.Philip even bemoaned the fact that medical advances had helped alleviate Sri Lanka’s crippling malariaproblem in the 1980′s, brazenly lamenting the fact that less people would die.“Sri Lanka must feed three times as many mouths, find three times as many jobs, provide three times thehousing, energy, schools, hospitals and land for settlement in order to maintain the same standards. Littlewonder the natural environment and wildlife in Sri Lanka has suffered. The fact [is] … that the best-intentioned aid programs are at least partially responsible for the problems,” he said during a University ofWestern Ontario speech in July 1983.In the preface of his 1988 book Down to Earth, Philip spoke of his desire to see humans “culled” throughmeans of population control.“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annualfluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the “cull” to the size of the surpluspopulation,” he wrote.Prince Philip’s brazen bloodlust to see humans culled in large numbers betrays the real agenda behind theWWF’s touchy-feely “green” veneer.The true purpose of the organization is to advance the arcane, authoritarian, and oppressive pseudo-scienceof eugenics behind the thin veil of environmental advocacy.*********************Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com.http://www.infowars.com/wwf-calls-for-global-poverty-to-save-the-planet/
    • Agenda 21: Arizona close to passing anti-UN- sustainability bill By Jim Gold, msnbc.comArizona lawmakers appear close to sending to Gov. Jan Brewer a tea party-backed bill that proponents saywould stop a United Nations takeover conspiracy but that critics claim could end state and cities’ pollution-fighting efforts and even dismantle the state unemployment office.A final legislative vote is expected Monday on a bill that would outlaw government support of any of the 27principles contained in the 1992 United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, alsosometimes referred to as Agenda 21.Senate Bill 1507 was passed by the state Senate last month and received an initial House affirmationWednesday. It is sponsored by state Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, who also sponsored a state birther billthat Brewer vetoed last year."The bill is designed to protect the rights of Arizona citizens and prevent encroachment on those rights byinternational institutions," Burges told msnbc.com in an email. "We have three branches of government andwhen one branch preempts the process through executive orders, the balance of power is lost in theprocess. It is that simple -- no more, no less."At a March 15 hearing on the bill, Burges said an executive order signed by then-President Bill Clinton in 1993started the implementation of Agenda 21 after the Senate refused to pass a treaty ratifying it."Any way you want to describe it, Agenda 21 is a direct attack on the middle class and working poor" through"social engineering of our citizens" in "every aspect" of their lives," she told the hearing.But House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, has a different view.“It’s the most poorly crafted bill in this state,” Campbell told msnbc.com. “It’s so broad and overreaching,we’re not sure what it could impact.”Among the U.N. declaration’s non-binding principles are calls for sustainable development, environmentalprotection, eradicating poverty, eliminating unsustainable production and consumption patterns, economicgrowth and the participation of women in government decisions.“We wouldn’t be able to use CFL light bulbs in state buildings because that would be considered energyefficiency,” Campbell said.Campbell also said that the state’s Economic Security Department, which handles unemployment and welfarebenefits, could be outlawed because it has to do with eradicating poverty.Also, Arizona universities have sustainability programs that could be banned if the bill becomes law, Campbellwarned.Arizona State University has a School of Sustainability, Northern Arizona University offers a masters insustainable communities, and the University of Arizona has an environment and sustainability portal.
    • Brewer, who last spring vetoed Burges bill to require presidential candidates to prove their U.S. citizenship,typically does not comment on legislation until it reaches her desk, her spokesperson told msnbc.comThursday.About the Rio declaration, SB1507 says “the United Nations has enlisted the support of numerousindependent, shadow organizations to surreptitiously implement this agenda around the world.”Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, told supporters in an email that the U.N. declaration “will take away our rights asAmericans by allowing the United Nations to mandate laws on our soil,” the AzCapitolTimes.com reported.“It’s very real and it is happening.”The Times also reported that during House debate Wednesday, Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said thedeclaration is connected to the “occult” of sustainability."The tea party and conspiracy theorists run the state now, Campbell told msnbc.com.See video from the March 15 House Judiciary committee meeting on SB1507 here.http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/26/11415282-agenda-21-arizona-close-to-passing-anti-un-sustainability-bill If I wanted America to FailWASHINGTON, April 22, 2012 – Another “Earth Day” has nearly passed,along with its sanctimonious urgings that we abandon our evil, energy-and chemical-consuming lives in order to “save the planet.” It’s become akey part of today’s secular, socialist faux religion. And in an era ofeconomic deprivation, this nonsense and false piety is becomingincreasingly repugnant.There’s another, more bracing point of view that tracks much better withthe American spirit, and we think it’s best expressed in the followingvideo (with a hat tip to PJ Media).Watch the video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ-4gnNz0vc
    • States Vote to Ban UN Agenda 21 Policies Susanne PoselMay 19th, 20120 Comment Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism May 19, 2012 The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to ban UN Agenda 21 polices. This legislation will prevent local, county and state governments from adopting the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) programs.ICLEI is a UN agency that provides “local” community plans, software and training to townsand cities that pay their dues. Other private organizations in league with ICLEI are:• National League of Cities• International City/County Management Group• National Governors Association• American Planning Group“I know it is totally against our Constitution from reading the U.N. biodiversity assessment,”Rep. Anne Cartwright (R-Alstead), the primary sponsor of the bill. “It’s through local initiativethat it is being implemented in bits and pieces to erode our property rights.”Cartwright believes ICLEI is attempting to remove individual property rights throughsustainable development.Cartwright said: “They are very slowly implementing rules and regulations that have notreached a high level yet. They are implementing it through zoning, planning and regionalplanning things that impact our property rights.”NH is not the only state to pass anti-Agenda 21 legislation.In Kansas a resolution was approved that quashed Agenda 21 from taking over the state.Tennessee also resolved an anti-Agenda 21 resolution that failed to receive Governor BillHaslam’s signature.The Arizona House of Representatives voted down a ban that resembles the NH ban.Louisiana and Alabama have resolutions against Agenda 21 that are still under consideration.Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally byorganizations of the UN, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human beingsimpact the environment.
    • The Agenda 21 plan is to assist in social and economic issues by providing maintainedhealthcare and vaccinations, implement controls on how to govern the populous and makedecisions for the people of the world through actions taken by the UN.Their plans are to focus on the global impact of use of land, education and depopulationthrough control measures. Through the elimination of personal property rights, privateeducation (including homeschooled children) and eugenics (forced sterility), the globalizationof the planet can be achieved.The UN plans to take over conservation and management of resources for their developmentalpurposes. By abolishing personal property rights, the demise of rural area living, removal ofpersonal ownership of natural resources, they will take away the power away from individualsare place it firmly in the hands of governments who have agreed to these controls.Financial independence will be illuminated because dependence on the government keeps thepopulation under its grip. Through monitoring energy usage, behaviors, big brother stylecontrols, and re-education (brainwashing with propaganda); as well as restricting localgovernments by installing their own leaders voted into office by a coerced consensus.America 2050 is an organization sponsored by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, lists 11megaregions in the United States and Canada. A megaregion is typically defined as a chain ofroughly adjacent metropolitan areas. The concept is based on the original Megalopolis model.• Environmental systems and topography• Infrastructure systems• Economic linkages• Settlement patterns and land use• Shared culture and historyMegaregions are needed because the US will be reduced to only 11 regions that will behabitable for humans by the UN’s design. These mega-cities will be connected throughrailways. The general public’s access to free movement across megaregions will be severelyrestricted. Trains will also be used to transport the food and supplies to these areas.Currently, federal government agencies are working with corporations like Amtrak, thehousing and urban development authorizations and farm policies to connect and restrict theneeds of the cities. A high speed rail system is needed to meet the growing movement acrossthe country. This provides freight systems to move directly to ports, pick up their goods andtransport them. Truck Only Tolls are designed to discourage individual movement of goods.The need for traditional truck driving will be a distant memory. Trains are more easilycontrolled by the governing agencies in charge of managing the population of these areas.As states become aware of the underlying meaning behind Agenda 21, they are putting inplace legislation to prevent this takeover of our rights as Americans by the UN.President Obama, a big supporter of the UN’s Agenda 21 initiative, signed the executive orderEstablishing a White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities where he outlinedplans to partner with local communities and the US government to “provide them with
    • comprehensive technical assistance to use and compete for Federal resources”. The USgovernment will then “enable them to develop and implement economic strategies to becomemore competitive, sustainable, and inclusive”.Obama claims that only with regional collaboration and comprehensive planning with the USgovernment will stabilize economic growth, create jobs, and lead to sustainableredevelopment of our American cities. This rhetoric is nearly copied directly from the Agenda21 documents from past Earth Summits.Obama wants to gain governance over resources and implement US government objectivesunder the guise of suggestive communication with state and local governments. Simply put,when the US government provides the financial backing, they can create any outcome theydesire. By using the cloak of sustainability and economic growth, the Obama administration isseeking to obtain voluntary control of our towns and cities from our local governments.As with Agenda 21, this governmental intervention will take all the power out of the localresidents of towns and cities. The US government will have supreme control by way offinancial manipulation. As the local level is forced to change independent strategies, thegovernment will assist the supposed flailing local governments with predetermined andsustainable economic opportunities . . . as long as the local government’s do as they are toldby the Obama administration.Watch Agenda 21 for Dummies: www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TzEEgtOFFlMWrite to your local elected officials, attend community meetings and vote against SustainableDevelopmental plans whenever you can. The more attention we bring to this hidden goal ofthe UN, the less likely we will face a totally controlled future by an international body underthe power of global governance.The time is now; but our time to effectively halt the UN’s takeover is dwindling.http://occupycorporatism.com/states-vote-to-ban-un-agenda-21-policies/
    • Executive Order #13575: Theft of rural and agricultural lands for UN Agenda 21 Friday, July 15, 2011 Watch a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YUSRC-TOjlc Obama recently signed EO 13575, establishing the White House Rural Council. The council is a list of the most aggressive agencies and departments in the US government. The all-inclusive council members represent the very agencies and departments most dedicated to forcing the subjugation of the US to United Nationscontrol. In fact, many of the agencies, departments and organizations listed as Council members are in factcreations of the UN; created for no other purpose than to give the United Nations direct access to the UnitedStates.This council can be viewed as nothing less than the establishment of a domestic terrorism group which willorchestrate the coming assault on private agricultural property owners in an effort to force them off their landand out of production. There was an effort during the Reagan presidency to launch a similar assault onindividual owners of agricultural land which would have displaced more than 2 million people, handing theirland over to others who were more amenable to the government and UN control.Watch a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_juUVKKBw-k&feature=player_embeddedThe new White House Rural Council is led by many of the same government agencies that lead the NationalInvasive Species Council (under the USDA). It is preceded by Clinton’s 1993 creation: President’s Council onSustainable Development. Sustainable development being the cornerstone of UN Agenda 21 mandates fortheft of property from the individual.Next came the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) created by Clinton Executive Order 13112 in 1999 andco-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. NISC members include theSecretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Treasury, Transportation, Health and Human Services, theU.S. Trade Representative (USTR), as well as the Administrators of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development.Stunning in the inclusion of the Department of Defense and NASA, the Rural Council represents the greatestthreat to independent and family farming and ranching and is focused primarily on the heartland…..for now.The actual focus of the Council will be to remove as many as possible from valued agricultural lands across thecountry. Drawing on the Department of Interior and Bureau of Land (mis) Management’s claim that only theycan determine beneficial and/or adequate use of available lands, waters and resources, the Council is set todisplace a large portion of America’s private agricultural operations and the attached property rights,substituting them with Big AG corporate contractors; All for the global economy and to the detriment of lifearound the globe. What isn’t handed over to bio-pirates as a gift will be handed to the UN for their UNAgenda 21 biodiversity/non-human habitat plan.
    • It is important to understand why all these various agencies were included. This is to bypass non-positive code& title. What could not be codified into public law stands only as prima facie evidence of non-positive code &title.A complete list of all codes & titles can be found here.For the purposes of the Council just created and the Councils set up by Clinton, these agencies circumventConstitutional prohibitions meant to prevent the Federal government from encroaching and expanding itspower unlawfully into these areas: Not one of these Titles can be codified and enacted into public law as theyare outside the enumerated powers of the federal government, and as such, are unenforceable.Title 6 Homeland Security. (formerly Surety Bonds, which was repealed; see Title 31)Title 7 Agriculture.Title 8 Aliens and Nationality.Title 15 Commerce and Trade.Title 16 Conservation.Title 21 Food and Drugs.Title 22 Foreign Relations and Intercourse.Title 30 Mineral Lands and Mining.Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters..Title 42 Public Welfare.Title 43 Public Lands.While many wondered why every alphabet soup agency or department was included in what I consider to be anewly forming government sponsored domestic terrorism organization, it appears obvious to me; Includingevery possible agency and department covers all the bases. If the EPA or BLM can’t terrorize you intoforfeiting your land and your livelihood, there are copious numbers of other agencies who will move in toattack from various angles. Because of the massive number of agencies and departments involved, juststepping out the front door of your farm or ranch house will now be a matter of breaking some rule,regulation or unknown provision that will be the catalyst used to begin the wholesale attack by governmentagents and agencies and none of it will be lawful.The newly formed Rural Council is poised to move vast numbers of family and independent farmers andranchers off their valuable and productive land. This Council which will be used to perform acts of domesticterrorism against US citizens under the guise of “ natural security, land stewardship, conservation, best landpractices, best animal practices, beneficial use of water, restoring agricultural economies, for the greatergood, for all of mankind, saving the environment, and of course the ever changing “global warming/climatechange bs along with other innocuous and non-threatening sounding jingo’s, is the Trojan horse rolling out ofthe United Nations.What is about to take place under the UN’s watchful eye is an unlawful detainer: The Act or judicial fact ofwithholding from a person lawfully entitled the possession of land or goods: Or, the restraint of a man’spersonal liberty against his will. This is a forced taking of private property: an unlawful detainer. And, it isabout to happen with great frequency.New Council or not, it would be a relatively simple matter to halt the coming terrorism by corporate federalagencies against agricultural property owners. Our governors would have only to refuse any contracting withthese federal corporations which would deny them access inside the geographical boundaries of the states. Infact, revocation of previous contracts with these same federal corporations which are in fact, foreign to thestates, could go a long way in repairing the damage done from decades of federal interference.
    • The time worn argument for contracting with federal corporations, is funding. Governors and legislators willclaim that the state will lose mountains of federal funding that the state needs if the contract is refused orrevoked. But….where does that funding come from? From the states via the taxpayers and the fundingmoney is for corporate federal programs. Get rid of the corporate federal programs and agencies, and therewill be little need for funding as the burden on the citizens of the states to comply in exchange for otherwiseunneeded funds diminishes exponentially.The sad truth is that our governors will throw the door wide open to more encroachment and most alllegislators will follow suit. Hard times are coming for the heartland as agricultural land is seized and propertyrights are trashed.The White House Rural Council is in my estimation…….a war council and one which has declared its intentionto mount an attack on property owners across the nation. The most disdainful part of this is that these attackswill be the result of one American turning on the other as lines are drawn between the general public andthose who turned their backs on everyone else while they aligned themselves with terrorists in ourgovernment.______________________________http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtmlUS Code & Title positive and non-positiveClinton’s PCSDIn 1993 with Bill Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) – (this is the direct link toAgenda 21) was established. Here is a list of the major Executive Departments: Executive DepartmentsDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) (HUD)Department of Commerce (DOC) Department of Justice (DOJ)Department of Defense (DOD) Department of Labor (DOL)Department of Education (ED) Department of State (DOS)Department of Energy (DOE) Department of the Interior (DOI)Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Department of the TreasuryDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) Department of Transportation (DOT)Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)ALL of them have a Sustainable Development (SD) plan as required by UN Agenda 21.Marti Oakley‘s article first appeared on Activist Post.Read the article: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/executive-order-13575-theft-of-rural.html
    • Agenda 21 Brainwashing: “Integrating Population Issues Into Environmental Mass Media Coverage” Jurriaan Maessen Infowars.com April 17, 2012 During a discussion at the 1980 Bilderberg conference in Aachen, West-Germany, one participant stood up to make his case for depopulation and the third world. In the Bilderberg notes we read: CFR boss Richard Haass: “The common enemy of humanity is man.” “The speaker (a German participant) went on to say that the leaders of the LDC’s understood that the oil price explosion had hurt the Third World much more than the industrialized countries. And they were beginning to see that they did not have at all the same interests as the oil-producing countries. What they did not perhaps fully understand was what a menace the population explosion was to their countries. It seemed that no one wanted to tell them that-neither the Catholic Church nor others. It would be nearly impossible to feed and employ the future worldpopulation at the rate it was growing. This had to be faced seriously; it could not be solved by talking about“gadgets and gimmicks.”, the German participant concluded.The gadgets and gimmicks the Bilderberger referred to during the 1980 get-together were already in placeduring the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s en were to be expanded with painstaking accuracy by the globalelite in the years and decades to come. To tackle the population problem and convincingly manufacture anongoing crisis in order to justify their plans, they would have to find some pretext, any pretext, on thecondition that it superseded nation-states for their own transnational designs.CFR-head Richard N. Haass offers an insight into the true objective of the environmental argument in a 1991Club of Rome document, ‘The First Global Revolution’:“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a common enemy to unite us, we came up withthe idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit thebill.”As we know, the globalists have decided long ago that the environmental debate is no longer a debate- it hasbeen decreed that the “discussion is over” and everyone should better realize that man is the prime cause forglobal warming on the planet earth, or of any other natural calamity. As long as it serves the double purposeof the elite: to abolish nation-states in favor of a great global government, and reduce the world population inthe same breath. The imagined threat of “international terrorism” being hardly sufficient to justify the drasticmeasures being implemented, another common enemy has presented itself, and that enemy is staring back atyou in the mirror.As numerous meteorologists and climatologists have testified to in recent years, their participation in the UN’sIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been used to back a theory that they themselves did notsupport. And then there are the thousands of meteorologists of good name and standard, who out of scientificrighteousness have stepped forward and presented their facts before the public and scientific community. But
    • it is of no concern to the global elite. They have for a good long time, spanning the last couple of centuries atleast, presided over the politics of eugenics and enforced its diabolical mechanisms with energy, cunning andprecision. It is not an idle use of words, when we identify eugenicists as such, for however just and noble itscloaking makes them out to be, this supposed righteousness is merely a grotesque carnival-costume intendedto shade its true countenance.For an October 1975 ‘International Workshop on Environmental Education’, UN-representative Lars Emmelinwrites: “The adult education effort seems to me most critical. First, because this element- now outside theformal channels of education- will continue to be the decision makers for the next 15 to 20 years, and it iswithin this period that the most critical and disruptive decisions will have to be made. We cannot afford tofocus on youth and let the elders die off before changing our course, which, if time permitted, would be themost efficient way of institutions change.”In choosing its course for mass-indoctrination, the 1975 workshop explores various ways in which the massmedia can be used to “sensitize” the general public in accepting the UN’s long-term ambitions. Under theheadline ‘The Media as Environmental Educators’ (page 4) several options are being presented by one of theparticipants in how the media can best be used:“Discussing the role of media as motivators Sandman concludes that: “Four relatively effective kinds ofenvironmental information are: basic ecological principles; prescriptions for environmental action; earlywarnings of anticipated problems; and assessments of blame for environmental degradation.”’, the reportstates.During an ENESCO-conference in October 1977 held (bizarrely) in Soviet Russia, the Director-General ofUNESCO, Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, “paid tribute to the Soviet Union and to the spectacular results achievedsince the October Revolution in all areas of economic, social and cultural life, particularly in education andscience, and, more especially, in environmental education.”You’re reading it right. Here the good Director-General is paying tribute to a then 60-year old regimeresponsible for murdering many millions of its own people in death camps and deliberate mass-scalestarvation-operations. Yes, “environmental issues” were very high on the agenda of the USSR, very highindeed.After having taken his hat off to his fellow-psychopath, the Director-General plunged into a long andmelodious speech on the importance of the “environment-issue” in the decades to come:“The objectives and strategies relating to the environment and to development had to be linked andcoordinated. (…) It would be the task of education to make people aware of their responsibilities in thisconnection, but in order to do so it must first be reoriented and based on an ethos of the environment” And alittle further on he states: “Environmental education should also promote attitudes which would encourageindividuals to discipline themselves in order not to impair the quality of the environment and to play a positiverole in improving it.”It is true, under the intentionally vague ‘environment’-umbrella one can assemble all kinds of calamities and asmany solutions to combat them.“Work in this programme area”, the report continues, “will be intensified “in the line of the conference’srecommendations and move into a more operational faze. This means, among other activities, “making aidfrom UNESCO available to member states (of the UN) which would like to launch pilot projects”; considering a“bank” of experts on environmental education; augmenting “work in the exchange of experience, in training
    • and in encouraging the production of teaching materials”; and strengthening the Secretariat and UNESCO’sinfrastructure in general for the increased promotion of environmental education..”’In the meeting, the chairman of the conference stressed that no means must or will be shunned in the comingpropaganda war against the people:“Some countries have also taken an interest, as part of in-service training activities, in the environmentaleducation of various social and occupational categories of the population, such as factory workers, farmers,civil servants, etc. Marked progress has been made in the preparation of audio-visual and printed teachingmaterials concerning the environment, and the mass media are being increasingly used for sensitizing andinforming broad sectors of the public about the environment.”In a follow-up conference more than ten years later (this time in Moscow) the Secretary-General of UNESCO,Federico Mayor, discusses “three levels of global education” in regards to the environment. The first, hestates, is the “moral imperative” to reach as many people as humanly possible. The second level is “to harnessschool systems, non-formal learning and informal education to teach and learn about the global issues thatshape and threaten the quality of our lives.” Arriving at the third and last level of global indoctrination, Mayorstates: “The third level concerns the means at our disposal to project a global reach for education through bothsimple and highly advanced existing technologies. (…) the daily newspaper and radio have a crucial role to playin building bridges to the wider world. We must promote these media, defend and expand their freedom andappeal to their professionals at all levels to work with us for global education.”We can hardly accuse the globalists of keeping their plans secret. At every possible UN event or brainstormconference, they openly brag about their plans for the world in quite explicit ways. The Secretary-Generalcontinues about the steps that have to be taken in order to build a “new global perception”:“Our first initiative would be to create a worldwide expert panel of scientists and educators to plan a globaleducation curriculum of practical value and planetary scope.”The Secretary-General forgets to mention here that just such a panel was created two years earlier by the veryorganization he presided over.“Second, putting environmental education at the center of all curricula from kindergarten to higher studies andtraining the teachers and the administrators who can carry the massage into all schools.(..) Third, promoting aglobal civic education by devising teaching methods and materials that emphasize the ethics of worldwidecommunity living.(…) Fourth, teaching the children of the wealthier countries about the conditions of theirbrothers and sisters in the developing world (…) Fifth, working with the mass media and telecommunicationenterprises to produce and broadcast audio-visual packages that introduce audiences, particularly children andyoung people, to the great teachers of this world at al levels and in all cultures (…).”“And finally”, the Secretary-General concludes, “let me make a very immediate and concrete proposal:building on the broadcast of this forum scheduled for tomorrow (…), to create global television learningnetworks on the issues of the human agenda for the next century. This would be an experiment in informalglobal education at its best.”Under the term ‘Information Repackaging’, the UN has published several manuals on this subject, teachingtheir cronies how to most effectively influence public opinion. In a 1986 Manual for Repackaging ofInformation on Population Education, the UNESCO proposes “strategies for integrating population educationinto different subject areas”- one of these being playing into fears on the part of the population in regards tothe subject of their home environment family:
    • “For instance, the effectiveness of fear appeals in changing attitudes and behaviour, such as the adverseeffects of non- or limited access to education and housing facilities with more than two children, depends onthe credibility of the source of information and the extent of general/public support to the message conveyedby a particular piece of information. Fear appeals directed to the welfare of people valued by the receiver ofinformation (e.g. family members, close friends) are also effective.”On page 37 of the manual, under the header “Selective Dissemination of Information (SDI)”, the strategy isfurther elaborated upon:“One SDI package, for instance, focuses on the integration of population education into environmentaleducation. The package contains materials which will help users understand the relationship between man andthe environment, as well as provide insights and actual data on how to plan, teach and implement practicalenvironment/population activities for everyday life.”As we know, the above mentioned gadgets and gimmicks are being incrementally used in the mass media asthe climate change propaganda machine is working overtime. Using the mass media to prepare the populationfor globalist supreme rule is not only an ambitious plan- it reveals the deceitful spirit behind the providedinformation, rivaling the work of Joseph Goebbels and his Department of Propaganda.A March 2009 policy brief by the United Nations Population Division reveals that the long-term plan forworldwide population reduction is not going fast enough according to the social engineers, not by a long shot.Under the desperate headline “What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developedcountries?” this particular policy brief gives an overview of the progress made by developing countries inregards to the globalists set goal of reducing population and proposes several ways of speeding up the death.Richly draped with graphic illustrations on the state of global population and the progress made by the UN tobring back fertility to “acceptable” levels, the policy brief advises an increased effort on the part ofgovernments to commit to a strict family planning- policy and other measures designed to bring a halt to life.“The reduction of fertility could be accelerated if effective measures were taken to satisfy the existing unmetneed for family planning.”After these recommendations, the authors plunge into a long, wailing lament about the slow progress of thedesired culling of the population. They also blame a lack of commitment of the governments concerned and,as expected, they stress the need for a global intervention in order to avoid certain destruction.This recent policy brief was just one out of many in regards to the long-term plan by the elite to significantlybring down the numbers of the existing earth population. From the moment the Rockefeller funded familyplanning-machine was widely kicked off in the 1960s and 70s, numerous meetings have been held in the lastcouple of decades where various strategies were discussed to implement population-reduction on as large ascale as possible. The strategies in question were especially directed towards the third world as the globalistshad virtual carte blanche in the impoverished developing countries. The famous 1994 population conferencein Cairo outlined some of the proposed strategies to be implemented. Then Secretary-General of the UN,Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his opening statement on the International Conference on Population andDevelopment, stated that:“I am not exaggerating when I say that not only does the future of the human society depend on thisConference but also the efficacy of the economic order of the planet on which we live.”
    • During a follow-up-meeting held in New York on December 1994, the United Nations’ participants came upwith some practical solutions to the “population problem”– one of which is the integration of populationissues with matters of “environment” and “human development”:“Several priority areas were identified that needed immediate action by the participants. These includedcreation of awareness of the interrelationships between environment, population and development; advocacy;education; training; population management; gender concerns; monitoring and evaluation; and informationdissemination and networking.”Under the headline “Youth NGOs Agree to Integrate Environment and Population Issues in their Activities”were mentioned the following activities to “guide” the young into the right mindset by, again, mixing inenvironmental issues with population issues:“Among the current issues identified by the Working Group as requiring priority attention were the problemsdealing with population, environment and sustainable development. Hence, a Working Group Meeting of theRegional Consultation of Youth NGOs in Asia and the Pacific was held from 19-21 April 1995 at the UNESCOPROAP to discuss and shape a plan of action integrating issues on environment, population and developmentfor consideration by the youth NGOs. (…) To help them develop a relevant plan of action, the participants wereexposed and sensitized to the current policies and programmes adopted by FAO, UNEP, UNFPA, and UNESCO inthe areas of population, environment and development.”Further on the use of mass-media is being proposed as effective “carriers of population-information” tohammer dehumanization into the collective consciousness:“With more than 2 billion radios in the world, roughly one for every three people, and growing number oftelevisions, the electronic media plays an increasingly important and influential role in building awareness ofpopulation and other development issues.”The report continues with a prime example of predictive programming:“Radio and television soap operas featuring family planning themes, popular songs on population-relatedissues, and phone-in question-and-answer sessions have all had an impact in different countries. The use ofsuch media can be very important where literacy is low or where written information is not widely circulated. ATV soap opera series is credited with bringing thousands to family planning clinics in Mexico, and night-timedrama series integrating family planning themes have proved successful in Egypt, Nigeria and Turkey.”In a January 1994 preparation meeting for the Cairo conference called “Family Planning CommunicationsStrategies Examined” it was discussed how best to use the media in order to create tolerance among thegeneral public and “how attitudes and beliefs could be changed through the innovative use of traditional andmass media.”“The meeting featured case studies and presentations by communication practitioners and covered a widerange of subjects, such as: the use of folk tradition and drama to organize community action in Egypt; the useof micro-communications to encourage acceptance of family planning in the Philippines; the use of traditionaland modern media in Ghana; and the use of songs to propagate family planning messages in Latin America.The success in India and Mexico of radio and television soap operas and films on family planning subjects wasalso discussed.”During the meeting the Executive Coordinator of the ICPD, Jyoti Shankar Singh, stressed the importance ofusing mass media to “convey family planning and reproductive health messages”:
    • “Electronic media, print media (and) interpersonal interventions were all part of the kind of comprehensiveinformation, education and communication (IEC) strategies we need in pursuit of population goals.”In another technical report Guidelines on Basic Education with special attention to Gender Disparities for theUN Resident Coordinator System the message is repeatedly conveyed that:“It is important that information be disseminated through various channels including traditional means andpackaged in various forms to allow both literate and illiterate persons to understand the key messages.”In 1997 the UNFPA organized a Regional Media Seminar on Population and Development for the role of themass media in (euphemistically called) ‘Information Repackaging’ for the Pacific islands. The UN officialsboasted on the success of the seminar:“The seminar brought together journalists in the print and radio media from 9 countries of the South Pacific toexplore both the role and potential of mass media as a vehicle for population advocacy, information,education and communication. (…) The seminar explored the role of the media in developing and packagingpopulation materials for identified target groups. The meeting also provided development partners with anopportunity to forge networks with media personnel and develop effective strategies to better addresspopulation and development goals and accelerate the implementation of the ICPD (International Conferenceon Population and Development) Programme of Action.”In other words: every possible resource should be utilized for propagandizing different target audiences. Butthe people burdened with designing and implementing population education on a large scale emphasized theneed for a common tongue and sequence of arguments with which the different UN-divisions sell the peopleon the idea of dehumanization.“Mr. Michael Vlassoff, Senior Technical Officer, Technical and Evaluation Division, UNFPA, introduced the workof the Working Group on Policy-Related Issues. He explained that the Working Group had decided to addressthe “common advocacy” concern by drawing up a Statement of Commitment that would then be issued by allagencies and organizations involved in the IATF. The aim of such a statement would be to ensure that all UNagencies and organizations use the same language regarding population and development issues.”The report goes on to list these arguments with which populations worldwide should be lured into embracingmodern-day eugenics as a sensible policy:“The “Statement of Commitment on Population and Development by the United Nations System”, drafted bythe Working Group, is divided into three sections: a general introduction stressing the commitment by the UNagencies and organizations to implement ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development); asection on the linkages between population issues and other development issues; and a concluding sectioncalling for global partnership in addressing these interrelated issues.”In short- a great part of the 1990s was occupied with a coordinated mobilization of mass media forpropaganda purposes by the global elite, a test case so to speak, before implementing the same strategiesworldwide in the first decades of the 21st century. The great global warming swindle then was put into action,arriving just in time as the environmental issue to attach the basic message to: there are too many of us- andour numbers should be reduced before the planet is destroyed. Because the warming is global, the responseshould be so as well. However eloquently the message may be presented by hopelessly compliant mediaoutlets, it is the tyrant’s voice we discern amidst the chatter- and all with ears to hear should educate theirneighbor in this all-out information war. Let’s not forget what the elite who have funded the UN from themoment of its very conception have always aspired. In the words of the aristocratic fiend Prince Philip:
    • “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human populationlevels.”Similar/Related Articles 1. The UN, Eugenics and the Mass Media 2. Undermining Human Nature: Mass Media & Eugenics 3. Al Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control 4. Environmental Toxins May be Causing Mass Cancer Wave 5. Eugenics Alert: UN’s Agenda of Population Control Accelerating 6. UK “Green Advsior” Says Population Must Fall to 30 Million 7. Top Professor at Globalist Population Control Summit: “No More Shrouding Our Statements in Code” 8. China says population control key to Copenhagen deal 9. From 7 Billion People To 500 Million People – The Sick Population Control Agenda Of The Global Elite 10. Former UNEP-Chieftain and Bilderberger Admitted to “International Consensus” on Population Policy 11. The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies 12. UN’s World Population Day 2010: Beijing Announces Measures to Stop “Unauthorized Births”http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-brainwashing-integrating-population-issues-into-environmental-mass-media-coverage/All the major problems on the planet can be connected to the deceitful, corrupt international banking cabal. By creating and regulating the value of currency, the banksters have now created a worldwide economiccollapse. Using our own money taken through bailouts, interest and taxation, booms and busts, they plan to own it all! They are working in tandem with the mainstream media, corporations, big-pharma, the military industrial complex and even control Hollywood filmmakers.
    • EPAs Plans for Implementing UNs Agenda 21 Thursday, 03 May 2012 19:00 Written by Larry Greenley One of the most successful grassroots campaigns during the past year has been the Stop Agenda 21 movement both at the local level and state level. However, we havent heard as much about Agenda 21 implementation at the national level.Of course, there were President Bill Clintons establishment of the Presidents Council on SustainableDevelopment by executive order in 1993 and President Obamas "Federal Leadership in Environmental,Energy, and Economic Performance" executive order in 2009. And, many federal agencies have beenincorporating sustainability into various aspects of their organizations. Still, virtually all Stop Agenda 21grassroots activity has been focused on the local and state levels.The establishment of Clintons Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) started a pattern ofdenial by federal government agencies regarding any connection with the United Nations Agenda 21. Eventhough the PCSD was clearly established in 1993 in support of the UNs Agenda 21 and its SustainableDevelopment proposals from the UNs 92 Earth Summit in Rio, the PCSDs statements and documents neverreferred to the UN and Agenda 21.

We have evidence that federal officials were taking pains to make thePCSD appear to be completely separate from the UNs Agenda 21 because J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to thePCSD, said the following in 1998:Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixatedgroups and individuals in our society.... This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and aUN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would activelywork to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21 [Local Agenda 21]. So, wecall our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.This helps explain why virtually all federal activities in pursuit of sustainability rarely make any reference to theUN or the UNs Agenda 21, even though these federal activities are very much in sync with the UNs Agenda21.Nonetheless, there have been very significant developments regarding sustainability at the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) beginning with its 40th anniversary in late 2010. On November 30, 2010, EPAAdministrator Lisa Jackson stated: "Today I am formally requesting President Cicerone and the NationalAcademies convene a committee of experts to provide to the U.S. EPA an operational framework forsustainability that applies across all of the agency’s programs, policies, and actions."Jackson added: "Today we have a new opportunity in front of us. We have an opportunity to focus on howenvironmentally protective and sustainable we can be. You see, it’s the difference between treating diseaseand pursuing wellness."

The National Academies of Science (NAS) responded with a detailed study,Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (aka the "Green Book"), which cost the EPA $700,000, and which was publishedin August 2011. The NAS also produced a five-minute video (see video also below) about this project.
    • Here are some excerpts from the 286-page "Green Book":• "The [UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development] called upon the UN General Assembly totransform its [1987] report into a global action plan for sustainable development. The nations of the world didprecisely that at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, or Earth Summit, in Rio deJaneiro. These nations, including the United States, endorsed a global sustainable development action plan,known as Agenda 21, and a set of 27 principles for sustainable-development, called the Rio Declaration.Together, these agreements modify the definition of development by adding a third pillar — environmentalprotection and restoration — to the economic and social pillars of development."• "First, the committee recommends that EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the Three Pillarsapproach of Social, Environment, and Economic dimensions of sustainability.”• "Sustainability impact assessment is used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposalon the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”Thus, the "Green Book" acknowledges that the nations of the world, including the United States, "endorsed aglobal sustainable development action plan, known as Agenda 21" at the 92 Earth Summit in Rio. Next, theNAS committee recommended that "EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the Three Pillarsapproach of Social, Environment, and Economic dimensions of sustainability.” Which would make the EPAsustainability paradigm exactly in sync with the three pillars of sustainable development agreed upon at the92 Earth Summit. Finally, the NAS proposed a new tool for EPA, the sustainability impact assessment, thatwould be "used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social,environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”Therefore, it is apparent that the NAS "Green Book" is positioning the EPA to become the premier federalagency for implementing Agenda 21 in the United States.

EPA spokesman are wary in this highly-charged, election-year political climate about making any definitivestatement regarding whether and how soon the EPA would adopt the "Green Book" sustainabilitymethodology. However, it is clear from listening to the audio of the November 30, 2010, meeting where theEPA commissioned the NAS to produce a new "operational framework for sustainability" for the EPA that theEPA sees the "sustainability paradigm" as the future for the agency.Moreover, just to keep it real for those of us accustomed to the American way of life, here is what MauriceStrong, Secretary-General of the UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, said in his opening speech to the attendees:“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, theuse of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — arenot sustainable.” (Emphasis added.)

Based on Strongs remarks, it doesnt take much of an imagination to predict just how much downwardpressure on our standard of living would be exerted by a sustainability oriented EPA.

It also doesnt take too much talent at connecting the dots to understand that an EPA based onsustainability, an EPA that wants to pursue wellness, not treat disease, an EPA that wants to use "sustainabilityimpact assessments" to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social,environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability — that would be an EPA that would aspire toregulate in detail virtually every aspect of our lives, thus completely destroying our freedom and prosperity.

    • The point of all of the above is that even though the EPA is already guilty of vastly over-regulating us, an EPAbased on an operational framework of sustainability would be much worse.Theres currently no legislation in Congress to stop the EPA from implementing the UN Agenda 21 concept ofsustainability. Realistically, given the makeup of Congress, theres virtually no chance that a bill could bepassed this year to stop EPA implementation of Agenda 21.However, in light of the rapid growth of the Stop Agenda 21 movement over the past year, and the changesthat will occur with the elections in November, Congress could very well be more likely to initiate and passanti-Agenda 21 legislation in 2013. Click here if you would like to send a message to your Representative andSenators about this issue.Photo at top: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson: AP ImagesThis article (slightly modified) originally appeared under a different title at JBS.org and is reprinted here withpermission. Enron The Smartest Guys in the Room Uploaded by SSBFPakistan on Sep 1, 2011 Enron dives from the seventh largest US company to bankruptcy in less than a year in this tale told chronologically. The emphasis is on human drama, fromsuicide to 20,000 people sacked: the personalities of Ken Lay (with Falwellesque rectitude), Jeff Skilling (he ofbig ideas), Lou Pai (gone with $250 M), and Andy Fastow (the dark prince) dominate. Along the way, we watchEnron game Californias deregulated electricity market, get a free pass from Arthur Andersen (which okays thedubious mark-to-market accounting), use greed to manipulate banks and brokerages (Merrill Lynch fires theanalyst who questions Enrons rise), and hear from both Presidents Bush what great guys these are. Watch the full video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xIO731MAO4&feature=plcp
    • UN Creates New, More Powerful Global Environmental Agency Susanne Posel, Contributor Activist Post Sunday, May 27, 2012 In June of this year, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations (UN) will push for the expansion of their new and improved global environmental agency.The UN Environmental Program (UNEP) will be promoted to “specialized agency” with a new title, UNEnvironment Organization (UNEO).The UNEO will prop up the Sustainable Development division of the UN. The same agency that disseminatesAgenda 21 policies to governments will be centralized into a global agency with powerful internationalbacking.As the unscientific assertions of a global environmental crisis, vanishing biodiversity and over-populationbecome more “urgent” to the UN, the insertion of international governance is being covertly added into themix as the answer to solve all problems worldwide.Through treaties, agreements and institutions, reformation of the UN within the UN has yielded quite aresponse.Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, devised the global sustainability panel that includes more than 50supporters of the creation of UNEO.“One option is the possible transformation of UNEP into a specialized agency of the United Nations. Astrengthened UNEP could enhance coherence between relevant multilateral environmental agreements, andbetter integrate its work with the activities of development institutions, especially the United NationsDevelopment Program,” states one recommendation.The UN is changing the status of the “program” to an “agency” to demand more funding for its initiatives, aswell as to receive more power and autonomy.Although UNEO is slated to be funded entirely by voluntary donation, “assessed contributions” could beallocated to the agency on the basis of success and necessity.Specialized agencies within the UN receive these “assessed contributions” by member states as derived fromfactors such as national income and gross domestic product.
    • The more the country can afford, the more the UN takes to fund their international directives. One way of directing funds to the UN is through the usurpation of innovative technologies for the sake of “saving the planet”. There is a call for development and manufacturing of greenhouse safe products; however, the allocation of funding toward research for finding a way to mitigate or even stop climate change effects seems to be left out. The business of climate change is expected to be quite lucrative for those successful at convincing authoritative bodies that these technologies must be purchased by their nation and mandated for use by their citizens. The UN will disburse a global carbon tax , redistribute the world’s wealth and install programs that will place all issues concerning humanity, poverty, the securitization of resources and education under its control and command. They will force ecological taxes to steer large amounts of money into funds designed to redesign humanity, civilization and the planet – and fit them all into their mold. A carbon cap-and-trade tax system for industrial countries could yield $250 billion per year. They also want to take in investment monies to mandate new public policies, regulation and propose incentives “by fundamentally restructuring public spending and leveraging private investments towards environmental and social investments, indebted industrial countries can expect to find new growth paths that support fiscal consolidation while contributing to a green economy.” The US contributed $22.9 million of American taxpayer money to the UN in 2010. That accounted for 9.8% of the agency’s total annual funding. US federal agencies that “voluntarily” gave to the UN are:• The Department of the Interior• Department of State• The Environmental Protection Agency• NASA The creation of a global environmental agency is championed by the European Union, who has been calling for the upgrade of UNEP for quite some time. IN 2007, Jacques Chirac called for the expansion of a “massive international action to face the environmental crisis”, referring to the yet realized UNEO. We are coming to realize that the entire planet is at risk, that the well-being, health, safety, and very survival of humankind hangs in the balance. We call for the transformation of the UNEP into a genuine international organization to which all countries belong, along the lines of the World Health Organization. The ideal that Chirac lead over 5 years ago is now being resurfaced and supported by 46 countries in the European Union, as well as Africa, Latin America and Asia. The US, Russia and China have declined to be part of the push for this monstrous agency that will wield enormous international power over the environment.
    • Chirac, a man-made climate change alarmist, backed the documentation of the UN Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) when they made public a series of reports that claimed the global temperatureswere exponentially rising and those drastic effects would continue for centuries.Obama has followed suit with the UN and created his own environmental organization called the InternationalRenewable Energy Agency (IRENA).IRENA is run like a UN agency, with members’ contributions based on the same criteria as the UN funds theiragencies. IRENA receives American taxpayer money which makes up 22% of its current annual budget.Susanne Posel is the Chief Editor of Occupy Corporatism. Our alternative news site is dedicated to reporting thenews as it actually happens; not as it is spun by the corporately funded mainstream media. You can find us onour Facebook page.http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/un-creates-new-more-powerful-global.html#more------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chart Shows The Bilderberg Group’s Connection To Everything In The WorldThe Bilderberg Group is 120-140 powerful people who meet each year to discuss policy. The meetings are closed to thepublic.This graph we found on Facebook shows the members’ connections to a ton of corporations, charities, policy groups andmedia. Everyone from Eric Schmidt to George Soros is a member. There are tons of conspiracy theories about the group,including that they control the world economy.We took the findings with a grain of salt–after all, it’s easy to trace an individual to a corporation and the graph doesn’tspecify what influence the member wielded.But perhaps it’s a compelling argument for why the meetings should be public. [Click on chart to see full-sized image.]http://www.businessinsider.com/this-chart-shows-the-bilderberg-groups-connection-to-everything-in-the-world-2012-6
    • 10 Reasons Why Reality Is A Collective Dream Saman Mohammadi Infowars.com May 27, 2012The government beast to the people: sleep now, little child. Everything is going to be alright. Mommy and Iare not going to let anyone hurt you. 1. The Western media is keeping mainstream Western consciousness in a state of sleep. It is doing this in order to suppress public awareness of massive crimes against humanity by financial, media, and political leaders in the U.S., England, and Israel. 2. Time is speeding up, and leaving little time for reflection and thinking. The world is changing at a pace that exceeds our ability to grasp what the changes mean for us as individuals and for our collective destiny as a species. The overwhelming sense of lost time is too much to bear for a lot of people, so they get depressed, disengage from the real world, and escape into their fantasy worlds.3. Everything we are led to believe about official reality and official history by society’s institutions is a lie. Asense of meaning to our lives has been lost, and we are desperately looking for answers. Some of us gettrapped in the maze of information, and give up our personal quest for understanding. And some of uscontinue to slog on through the darkness, night in, night out, because we are never satisfied with our currentlevel of knowledge.4. On 9/11, we witnessed the Orwellian leaders of the U.S. and Israel destroy reality and reason, and replacethem with illusion and irrationality. Their political use of terrorism to mentally condition the people of theWest into believing that the threat of terrorism demands their vigilance and sacrifice to the state has createdsocieties of sheep that instinctively react against truth-telling and anti-conformist speech.5. The politicization of news has created a culture of disinformation, distraction, and deception. 24-hour“News” is the most dangerous and lethal thing in the world. Television is a cancer on the mind. Since 9/11,television has been utilized as an instrument of psychological warfare against the people in America, Canada,and other Western countries.6. Esoteric-minded individuals in government, media, secret societies, and Hollywood are pursuing a secretpolitical and religious agenda. Deception and secrecy are instrumental to their demonic mission. Theircommitment to suppressing historical facts and objective reality is total and absolute.7. Movies are more than entertainment, they are a subversive and successful form of mass programming.Hollywood is a dream factory, and its dreams become reference points for people, media, and politicians. On9/11, responders and survivors said that they felt like they were in a movie. There are so many more examplesof this social, cultural, and psychological phenomenon.
    • 8. Seeing life as a dream is a trick of the mind. For the criminals of the world, especially those who controlgovernments and financial companies, being separated from reality allows them to engage in illegal activitieswith an exaggerated sense of confidence. The state terrorists who did 9/11 feel untouchable because theirabsurd lie has been mindlessly accepted as an objective fact by the majority of the world, rather than as anevil deception. They are the masters of reality, and they know it, which is why they are not afraid to stageanother false flag event in the West to justify another criminal war.9. Consensus reality under a system of dictatorship is reached at through the use of terror and systematicpropaganda. How do we arrive at a consensus on public policy and government spending programs in ademocracy? Idealistically, through intense debate, political dialogue, public education, and public discussion.But that is not what happened in the days and weeks after 9/11.Western nations arrived at a consensus about the threat of terrorism after the shadow governments of theUnited States and Israel committed the biggest act of terror in history. The consensus reality we have livedunder since 9/11 is a collective spell, and a long nightmare. The social fruits of this collective spell are death,poverty, and misery.The propagandists who work for Washington, London, and Tel Aviv are masters at devising an “internationalconsensus” on political and military objectives, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Syria, or Iran.But they don’t use logic and reason to win over the world, instead, they use big lies and false flag terrorism tointimidate nations into accepting their twisted version of reality.10. Regimes of terror and fraud create a collective dream state to limit the consciousness of the people sothey do not wake up and realize the magnitude of the crimes that have been committed against them whilethey slept. The propagandists of totalitarian regimes of terror are constantly engaged in a war on collectivememory. Their target is the collective psyche of the society. And they use all kinds of psychological, military,and scientific techniques to realize their goal of creating a dispirited, unconscious, ignorant, fearful, andpsychologically traumatized population.But there is a way out of our collective nightmare. We can reject the terror-based consensus reality that hasbeen constructed by the tricksters behind the 9/11 events. We can dream a new dream.Saman Mohammadi’s post first appeared on his blog, The Excavator.
    • Big Green Oil Money: WWF founded and run by Royal Dutch-Shell Oil Patrick Henningsen Infowars.com April 13, 2012If any person or group dares to question the great global warming and climate change orthodoxy, green clericswill first attempt to discredit them – normally by leaping across the table and pointing the finger of shameright in their face, exclaiming, “You’re funded by Big Oil!”That makes it all the more ironic when you consider who first funded, and later ran the great global flag shipfor the modern green movement…Donna Laframboise‘s recent article entitled, The WWF’s Vast Pool of Oil Money chronicles the rise the globalistgreen charity – seeded with funding from global petroleum giant Royal Dutch Shell, who’s former President of15 years, John Loudon, later served as president of WWF International for four years after that.In 1961 Shell Oil forked-out the handsome sum of £10,000 to help found WWF-UK, money that in today’sterms equates to £418,000 – or $663,000 (see the historical calculator here).But that’s only the beginning. WWF continued to ride the wave of oil cash for the next 40 years – from giantslike BP, Shell and others, until the year 2000. Not surprisingly, self-appointed socialist technocrats at Greenpeace dictate on their own website that the idea of free speech no longer applies when it comes to the climate debate, and will often attack climate skeptics based on their alleged connections to ‘Big Oil’. According to the charity Greenpeace: “There’s a difference between free speech and a campaign to deny the climate science with the goal of undermining international action on climate change… Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation andpropaganda.”Their own militant stance makes it all the more interesting that Greenpeace itself is funded by Standard Oilmoney, and so is Sierra Club – according to the watchdog website Activist Cash. See for yourself: Rockefeller Brothers Foundation Greenpeace $1,080,000.00 1997 – 2005 Sierra Club $710,000.00 1995 – 2001 ACORN $10,000.00 2002 – 2002
    • Rockefeller Family Fund Greenpeace $115,000.00 2002 – 2005 Sierra Club $105,000.00 1996 – 2002 ACORN $25,000.00 1998 – 1998 Rockefeller Foundation Greenpeace $20,285.00 1996 – 2001 Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Sierra Club $38,250.00 1997 – 2000Suffice to say that the neither of these champions of climate change and global government – the WWFand Greenpeace, would exist without all that juicy Big Oil Money.One last inconvenient truth should be mentioned here. The unofficial leader of the global warmist movement,Al Gore, is also heavily invested in, and is doing massive deals with – Big Oil.Estimates put Gore’s wealth holdings in Occidental Petroleum upwards of $500,000 in stocks and shares,which stands to reason why Gore fixed up the deal to sell the country’s US Naval Oil Reserve… to OccidentalPetroleum – in a no bid contract, naturally.Still, so many people admire Al Gore so for all wonderful his ‘envronmental credentials’.Or could it just be a case of the bland leading the blind?http://www.infowars.com/big-green-oil-money-wwf-founded-with-money-from-royal-dutch-shell/-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • UN’s 2012 “Earth Summit” Devised To Disembowel Sovereignty, Impose Absolute Rule Jurriaan Maessen Infowars.com May 28, 2012 In the run up to the next Earth Summit to be held in Rio in June of this year, the global leviathan that is the United Nations bares its teeth. A continuing stream of publications is pouring down from every corner of the transnational community, in essence calling for global governance of the environment as well as a stark reduction in the global human population. These two items are very much intertwined, according to the growing pile of UN papers flying from the supranational tree, all basically stating that the first is necessary in order to facilitate the latter. One of these leaves circles down to us from the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) displays acollection of “key messages” written by the usual suspects, such as dedicated man-hater Paul Ehrlich, eco-terrorist James Lovelock and NASA’s own mad-as-hell environmentalist James Hansen. Their joint statementtitled “Environment and Development Challenges: The Imperative to Act was clearly designed to inspire theUN and its upcoming confab to make haste with global government. In their manifesto the impatient fiendscall for a global implementation of population policies and rights being trampled upon in order to addresswhat they call “the population issue”:“The population issue should be urgently addressed by education and empowerment of women, including inthe work-force and in rights, ownership and inheritance; health care of children and the elderly; and makingmodern contraception accessible to all.”, they write.“Globally, we must find better means to agree and implement measures to achieve collective goals.”The authors go on to assert that “in the face of an absolutely unprecedented emergency, society has no choicebut to take dramatic action to avert a collapse of civilization. Either we will change our ways and build anentirely new kind of global society, or they will be changed for us.”Decrying that “funding (for worldwide fertility control) decreased by 30% between 1995 and 2008, not least asa result of legislative pressure from the religious right in the USA and elsewhere”, the authors call for“education and planning needed to foster and achieve a sustainable human population and lifestyles.”Now what do you think this means exactly, a sustainable human population? James Lovelock in 2009 gave usthe answer, called for the culling of the population with a desired outcome of 1 billion people worldwide.Watch the video: www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dBUvZDSY2D0#!
    • Lovelock also arrogantly stated in 2010 that humans are too stupid to prevent climate change- thereforegovernments worldwide, preferably a one world government, must prevent it for them.Of all the eco-fascists penning down proposals, Paul Ehrlich may be considered the most bloodthirsty of thebunch- with his continuing insistence on massive population reduction. Few people need to be reminded ofthe words he wrote in Ecoscience which he co-authored with John P. Holdren, the current White Housescience czar. To highlight a few of these:“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more thanmost proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, andsocial questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appearto be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiffrequirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despitevarying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant sideeffects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”Remember this when you read his proposals for a global society necessary to “address population issues”. Alsoout of Ecoscience:“… Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, mighteventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population,resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development,administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at leastinsofar as international implications exist.”This suggestion might well come to pass, considering the statements issued by an organization calling itself the“Regeneration Project”, when recently it suggested in their manifest Bringing Rio Closer that the UN SecurityCouncil expand its mandate “to include environmental issues and security issues related to the environment”as well as “an International Court for the Environment (ICE) to settle disputes related to the environment andinternational environmental law.”“global institutions”, they say, “will be responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring sustainabledevelopment policies going forward. Currently left largely to UNEP and the UN’s Commission on SustainableDevelopment, there is a desire by many to strengthen the authority of these institutions and/or create a newWorld Environment Organization (WEO).”The group also called upon governments and NGO’s to create “personal carbon quotas, essentially makingcarbon a new form of currency for Individuals.”A global carbon policy, in other words, enforced by a global carbon court. Furthermore, the group advocatesimplementation of population stabilization policies at the upcoming summit:“Securing commitments from governments to try to stabilize global population”, the document reads.Stabilize the global population no less, and using UN member-states (governments) as the enforcers of policiesdesigned to achieve that goal. Here we have yet another example of key globalist players proposing far-reaching measures to exercise control over the masses, not for the sake of control itself (that’s something forthe minor psychopaths that play along), but with the objective of culling the human population globally.
    • Another measure proposed by the Regeneration Project:-Establishing a World Environment Organization (WEO)The envisioned “Planetary Regime” is nearing when we take into consideration this set of proposals issued bythe group. We might be surprised were the group not co-sponsored by the United Nations EnvironmentalProgramme (UNEP) and the World Bank. We have come to expect such things from these organizations. It wasthe World Bank which back in 1984 suggested (page eight) that “drastic steps” may be necessary if developingnations do not comply with their population control directives.It was not the first time that the Regeneration Project sought to cull the human population. In their paperUnfinished Business the group, consistent with the Georgia Guidestones, advises governments to keep thepopulation under a certain number:“(…) stabilizing population to not more than eight billion people”, the Unfinished Business report explains.Another concept that has been thrown out there, is that humanity has now entered a new geological era,dominated not by natural processes, but by man. This new age, ominously dubbed “the Anthropocene” canonly be reversed, the UN says, when transnational rule wipes out sovereign rule- a suggestion that has adistinct tyrannical ring to it.Watch the video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvgG-pxlobk&feature=player_embeddedThis particular promo, designed to prelude the Earth Summit, has been put out by a team of UN-sponsoredscientists. The website associated with the “short film” states it has been set up by “researchers andcommunicators from some of the leading scientific research institutions on global sustainability.”The “leading scientific institutions” the website mentions are visible at the credits-page, namely: theStockholm Environment Institute, the Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Stockholm University and otherorganizations aimed at promoting global governance.The film itself follows the same old tiresome script we’ve heard so often from the mouths of neo-eugenicpropagandists: too many people, shrinking icecaps, rising sea levels and all the rest.In an very recent paper by Colorado state university professor Philip Cafaro titled Climate ethics andpopulation policy, the term “Anthropocene” pops up once more- and once again the finger is explicitly pointedtowards humanity as the prime evildoer. Citing the UN’s debunked Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange, the professor paints a picture of gloom and doom (page 57):“Scientists now speak of humanity’s increased demands and impacts on the globe as ushering in a newgeological epoch: the Anthropocene. Such selfish and destructive appropriation of the resources of the Earthcan only be described as interspecies genocide.”He of course forgets to mention that if there’s one thing constant about climate, is that it changes constantly.Furthermore, the idea that CO2 emissions have any significant impact on the earth’s atmosphere has reallybeen put back on the fiction-shelf where it belongs :“It is past time to acknowledge the immense injustice toward other species represented by climate changeand other human assaults on the biosphere”, the professor goes on to say: “and to reform our environmentalethics and behavior accordingly.”
    • What the professor means when he writes “behavior”, is not just some friendly “family planning”- campaign.He actually writes that in order to prevent global Armageddon, only the most draconian policies will do:“Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventingcatastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers (emphasis added)may be necessary in order to do so.”An important distinction. It is one thing to end growth. It’s quite another thing to reduce current humannumbers.“(…) we are more likely to achieve a decent future for the world’s poor if we end global population growth asquickly as possible. In fact, reducing the human population may be necessary in order to achieve such afuture.”, the professor repeats himself on page 54.Cafaro regards the issue as an ethical one- and stresses once again that nothing less than a significantreduction in the current human population is necessary.“My first substantive assertion in the second half of this paper is as follows”, he writes. “The consensusregarding acceptable limits to global climate change demands, at a minimum, that we take steps to endhuman population growth. Indeed, taking such limits seriously probably supports significantly reducing thesize of the current global human population. Given the role population growth has played and will play inaccelerating climate change under business as usual, no less cautious policy would appear to pass ethicalmuster.”Decrying that “the IPCC’s position seems to be that population control is too controversial to discuss.”, theprofessor goes on to say that “(…) the failure to address population issues distorts our judgments regardingjust what we should do to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and what constitutes a fair internationaldivision of labor regarding these efforts.”As Cafaro continues his case for stringent population policies worldwide, he touches upon the inevitablequestion whether to implement such policies by force or on a voluntary basis:“(…) the question of coercion may not be avoidable forever. It is an article of faith among many progressivewriters in this area that voluntary methods are sufficient to limit populations to acceptable levels, but thatprobably does not hold true for all times and places, and it may not hold true for the world as a whole in the21st or 22nd centuries.”The professor then argues that for any population policy to be effective, it has to be done by coercion:“China’s policies have largely stabilized its population, while some nations that rely solely on non-coercivemeasures, like India, continue to balloon.”The professor can of course not wholly avoid the issue of free will perhaps revolting against a UN enforcedglobal population-reducing assault:“True, for many people, telling them what kind of car to drive or how many children to have will seem anintolerable infringement of their rights. But then we should move expeditiously to put non-coercive or lesscoercive incentives in place that achieve the desired ends. If these prove insufficient, then we may have toaccept stricter limits on our freedom to consume or to have children.”
    • Another a bunch of scientists involved with the “Planet under Pressure” confab- one of whom stated earlierthat questioning “climate change” equals serious mental illness- is featuring the Anthropocene-filmprominently on its website, in addition to calling for global government to stem the tide of “human-inducedclimate change”.As part of the State of the Planet Declaration issued by the UN-backed organization, a collection of high-levelscientists now pushes the idea of global governance, calling it “Earth System Governance”. The declarationreads:“Governments must take action to support institutions and mechanisms that will improve coherence, as wellas bring about integrated policy and action across the social, economic and environmental pillars. Currentunderstanding supports the creation of a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integratesocial, economic and environmental policy at the global level. There is also strong support for strengtheningglobal governance by including civil society, business and industry in decision-making at all levels.”Again: a Planetary Regime by any other name…In a separate policy brief put out by the same confab titled Transforming Governance and Institutions for aPlanet under Pressure the initiators again openly promote the emergence of global government when theywrite under the header “Prepare Global Governance for a Warmer World”:“At the global level, the institutional framework seems ill prepared to cope with the consequences of massiveglobal change that will affect such major systems as food, water, energy, health and migration, and theirinteractions. While massive changes, for example in sea level, may not be imminent, future dangers can beminimized if institutional reform is planned and negotiated today. Global adaptation programmes thus needto become a core concern of the UN system and governments.”It has of course been exhaustively documented that if there’s one thing constant about the climate, is that itchanges constantly. Furthermore, the idea of world government is much older than any global warming-crazethe elite have come up with. As lord Christopher Monckton points out, the UNEP and other agencies withinthe UN system are just extra bureaucracies that are out to ruin individual freedom, replacing real liberty withthe artificial sort under an planetary rule. Furthermore, all this emphasis on culling the population must giveeven the most gullible reader pause.This article first appeared on Jurriaan Maessen’s website www.explosivereports.com
    • Agenda 21 for Public Officials Uploaded by Lentenlands on Nov 8, 2011Watch the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fFIcZkEzc8IWhat is agenda 21? What is Smart Growth? What issustainable development? This video provides adescription of Agenda 21/sustainable development andhow it affects your property rights.While it is important to be good stewards of our planet,the sustainable development movement has been co-opted by an aggressive agenda to rewild America (TheWildlands Project) and reduce automobile usage andunnecessary travel by gradually shifting people into highdensity urban areas supported by mixed use dwellings(Smart Growth.)Often the planning process to meet these objectives confiscates private property rights throughimminent domain or conservation easements. The outcome is not a safer planet, but rather, anunrecognizable nation most would strongly oppose. When advanced community by community, mostdo not realize the bigger picture.Please share this video with your friends and get the word out that our American Freedoms are beingthreatened!Some Resources:www.freedomadvocates.org/www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-UN-Agenda-21-Stop-ICLEI/284021125057www.jbs.org/issues-pages/stop-agenda-21http://smashabanana.blogspot.com/
    • Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Threat Tuesday, May 29th, 2012The battle over Agenda 21 is raging across the nation. City and County Councils have become war zones ascitizens question the origins of development plans and planners deny any international connections to theUN’s Agenda 21. What is the truth? Since I helped start this war, I believe it is up to me to help with theanswers.The standard points made by those who deny any Agenda 21 connection is that: • Local planning is a local idea. • Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution not a treaty, carries no legal authority from which any nation is bound to act. It has no teeth. • The UN has no enforcement capability. • There are no “Blue-Helmeted” UN troops at City Hall. • Planners are simply honest professionals trying to do their job, and all these protests are wasting their valuable time. • The main concern of Agenda 21 is that man is fouling the environment and using up resources for future generations and we just need a sensible plan to preserve and protect the earth. What is so bad about that? • There is no hidden agenda. • “I’ve read Agenda 21 and I can find no threatening language that says it is a global plot. What are you so afraid of?” • And of course, the most often heard response – “Agenda 21, what’s that?”And after they have proudly stated these well thought out points, they arrogantly throw down the gauntletand challenge us to “answer these facts.”Well, first I have a few questions of my own that I would love to have answered.Will one of these “innocent” promoters of the “Agenda 21 is meaningless” party line, please answer thefollowing: • If it all means nothing, why does the UN spend millions of dollars to hold massive international meetings in which hundreds of leaders, potentates and high priests attend, along with thousands of non-governmental organizations of every description, plus the international news media, which reports every action in breathless anticipation of its impact on the world? • It if all means nothing, why do those same NGO representatives (which are all officially sanctioned by the UN in order to participate) spend months (sometimes years) debating, discussing, compiling, and drafting policy documents? • If it all means nothing, why do leaders representing nearly every nation in the world attend and, with great fanfare, sign these policy documents?Time after time we witness these massive international meetings, we read the documents that result fromthem, and when we question their meaning or possible impact on our nation, we are met with a dismissiveshrug and a comment of “oh, probably not much…”
    • Really? Then why? Why the waste of money, time, and human energy? Could it be that the only purpose is tosimply give diplomats, bureaucrats, and NGOs a feeling of purpose in their meaningless lives, or perhaps achance to branch out of their lonely apartments? Or could it really be that these meetings and the documentsthey produce are exactly as we say they are – a blueprint for policy, rules, regulations, perhaps even globalgovernance that will affect the lives, fortunes, property and futures of every person on earth? Which is it? Youcan’t have it both ways. Why the fear of Agenda 21?Those who simply read or quickly scan Agenda 21 are puzzled by our opposition to what they see as aharmless, non-controversial document which they read as voluntary suggestions for preserving naturalresources and protecting the environment. Why the fear? What exactly bothers us so much?The problem is, we who oppose Agenda 21 have read and studied much more than this one document andwe’ve connected the dots. Many of us have attended those international meetings, rubbed elbows with theauthors and leaders of the advocated policies, and overheard their insider (not for public distribution)comments about their real purpose.Here are a few examples of those comments made by major leaders of this movement as to the true purposeof the policies coming out of these UN meetings:“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity tobring about justice and equality in the world.”Christine Stewart (former Canadian Minister of the Environment)“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations.It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmentalcooperation.” Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.“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.” Report from the UNCommission on Global Governance.All three of these quotes (and we have many) indicate using lies and rhetoric to achieve their goals, and thatthose goals include the elimination of national sovereignty and the creation of a “seamless system” for globalgovernance. Again, do these quotes have meaning and purpose – do they reveal the true thoughts of thepromoters of these policies, or were they just joking?For the past three decades through the United Nations infrastructure, there have been a series of meetings,each producing another document or lynchpin to lay the groundwork for a centralized global economy, judicialsystem, military, and communications system, leading to what can only be described as a global government.From our study of these events, we have come to the conclusion that Agenda 21 represents the culmination ofall of those efforts, indeed representing the step by step blueprint for the full imposition of those goals. Here’sjust a sample of these meetings and the documents they produced: • In 1980, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt chaired the Commission on International Development. The document, or report coming out of this effort, entitled “North-South: A program for Survival,” stated “World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure…not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of
    • greater human dignity, security, justice and equality…The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a ‘single community’ to develop global order.” • That same year Sean MacBride, a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize, headed up a commission on international communications which issued a report entitled “Many Voices, One World: Towards a New, More Just and More Efficient World Information and Communication Order.” The Commission, which included the head of the Soviet news Agency, TASS, believed that a “New World Information Order” was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The report was a blueprint for controlling the media, even to the point of suggesting that international journalists be licensed. • In 1982, Olof Palme, the man who single-handedly returned Socialism to Sweden, served as chairman of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. His report, entitled “Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival,” said: “All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control…” The report went on to call for money that is saved from disarmament to be used to pay for social programs. The Commission also proposed a strategic shift from “collective security” such as the alliances like NATO, to one of “common security” through the United Nations. • Finally, in 1987, came the granddaddy commission of them all, The Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development. Headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, the commission introduced the concept of “Sustainable Development.” For the first time the environment was tied to the tried and true Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report, “Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”These four commissions laid the groundwork for an agenda of global control; A controlled media woulddictate the flow of information and ideas and prevent dissent; control of international development managesand redistributes wealth; full disarmament would put the power structure into the hands of those witharmaments; and tying environmentalism to poverty and economic development would bring the entireagenda to the level of an international emergency.One world, one media, one authority for development, one source of wealth, one international army. Theconstruction of a “just society” with political and social equality rather than a free society with the individualas the sole possessor of rights. The next step was to pull it altogether into a simple blueprint forimplementation.During the 1990s, the UN sponsored a series of summits and conferences dealing with such issues as humanrights, the rights of the child, forced abortion and sterilization as solutions for population control, and plansfor global taxation through the UN.Throughout each of these summits, hundreds of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worked behind thescenes to write policy documents pertaining to each of these issues, detailing goals and a process to achievethem. These NGO’s are specifically sanctioned by the United Nations in order to participate in the process. TheUN views them as “civil society, the non governmental representatives of the people. In short, in the eyes ofthe UN, the NGOs are the “people.”Who are they? They include activist groups with private political agendas including the Environmental DefenseFund, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Zero PopulationGrowth, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the National Education Association, an d hundreds more. These
    • groups all have specific political agendas which they desire to become law of the land. Through work in theseinternational summits and conferences, their political wish lists become official government policy.In fact, through the UN infrastructure the NGOs sit in equality to government officials from member nationsincluding the United States. One of the most powerful UN operations is the United Nations EnvironmentalProgram (UNEP). Created in 1973 by the UN General Assembly, the UNEP is the catalyst through which theglobal environmental agenda is implemented. Virtually all international environmental programs and policychanges that have occurred globally in the past three decades are a result of UNEP efforts. Sitting in on UNEPmeetings, helping to write and implement policy, along with these powerful NGOs are governmentrepresentatives, including U.S, federal agencies such as the Department of State, Department of Interior,Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the U.S. ForestService, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.This, then, is a glimpse of the power structure behind the force that gathered in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for theUN-sponsored Earth Summit. Here, five major documents, written primarily by NGOs with the guidance andassistance of government agencies, were introduced to the world. In fact, these final documents had been firstdrafted and honed though the long, arduous series of international conferences previously mentioned. Now,at Rio, they were ready for adoption as a blueprint for what could only be described as the transformation ofhuman society.The five documents were: the “Convention on Climate Change,” the precursor to the coming Kyoto ClimateChange Protocol, later adopted in 1997; the “Biodiversity Treaty,” which would declare that massive amountsof land should be off limits to human development; the third document was called the “Rio Declaration,”which called for the eradication of poverty throughout the world through the redistribution of wealth; thefourth document was the “Convention on Forest Principles,” calling for international management of theworld’s forests, essentially shutting down or severely regulating the timber industry; and the fifth documentwas Agenda 21, which contained the full agenda for implementing worldwide Sustainable Development. The300 page document contains 40 chapters that address virtually every facet of human life and contains greatdetail as to how the concept of Sustainable Development should be implemented through every level ofgovernment.What did the United Nations believe that process entailed? In 1993, to help explain the far-reaching aspects ofthe plan, the UN published “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet.” Here’s how the UNdescribed Agenda 21 in that document: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to beimplemented by every person on earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…Effectiveexecution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has everexperienced.” I have never read a stronger, more powerful description of the use of government power.However, critics of our efforts against Agenda 21 rush to point out that Agenda 21 is a “soft law” policy – not atreaty that must be ratified by the U.S. Senate to become law. So it is just a suggestion, nothing to be afraid of.To make such an argument means that these critics have failed to follow the bouncing ball of implementation. Following the bouncing ball to implementationIt started when, at the Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush, along with 179 other heads of state signedagreement to Agenda 21. One year later, newly elected President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order # 12852to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The Council consisted of 12 cabinetsecretaries, top executives from business, and executives from six major environmental organizations,including the Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, the World Resources Institute, and the National Wildlife
    • Federation. These were all players in the creation of Agenda 21 at the international level – now openly servingon the PCSD with the specific mission to implement Agenda 21 into American policy.It is interesting to note that in the pages of the PCSD report entitled “Sustainable America: A new Consensusfor the Future, it directly quotes the Brundtland Commission’s report “Our Common Future” for a definition ofSustainable Development. That is about as direct a tie to the UN as one can get. The PCSD brought the conceptof Sustainable Development into the policy process of every agencies of the US federal governmentA major tool for implementation was the enormous grant-making power of the federal government. Grantprograms were created through literally every agency to entice states and local communities to acceptSustainable Development policy in local programs. In fact, the green groups serving on the PCSD, which alsowrote Agenda 21 in the first place, knew full well what programs needed to be implemented to enforceSustainable Development policy, and they helped create the grant programs, complete with specific actionsthat must be taken by communities to assure the money is properly spent to implement SustainableDevelopment policy. Those are the “strings” to which we opponents refer. Such tactics make the grantseffective weapons to insure the policy is moving forward.From that point, these same NGOs sent their members into the state legislatures to lobby for and encouragepolicy and additional state grant programs. They have lobbied for states to produce legislation requiring localcommunities to implement comprehensive development plans. Once that legislation was in place, the sameNGOs (authors of Agenda 21) quickly moved into the local communities to “help” local governments complywith the state mandates. And they pledged to help by showing communities how to acquire the grant moneyto pay for it – with the above mentioned strings attached.We’re told over and over again that such policies are local, state and national, with no conspiracy of ties to theUN. Really? Then how are we to explain this message, taken from the Federal Register, August 24, 1998,(Volume 63, Number 163) from a discussion on the EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program? Itsays, “The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program is also a step in Implementing ‘Agenda 21, theGlobal Plan of Action on Sustainable Development,’ signed by the United Stats at the Earth Summit in Rio deJaneiro in 1992. All of these programs require broad community participation to identify and addressenvironmental issues.”Or consider this quote from a report by Phil Janik, Chief Operating Officer of the USDA – Forest Service,entitled “The USDA-Forest Service Commitment and Approach to Forest Sustainability” “In Our CommonFuture published in 1987, the Brundtland Commission explains that ‘the environment is where we all live; anddevelopment is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode.” In short, Janik wasexplaining to his audience (the Society of American Foresters) just where the Forest Service was getting itsdefinition of Sustainable Development – the report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.Meanwhile, the NGOs began to “partner” with other governmental organizations like the U.S. Conference ofMayors, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of CountyAdministrators and more organizations to which elected representatives belong to, assuring a near that a nearuniversal message of Sustainable Development comes from every level of government.Another NGO group which helped write Agenda 21 for the UN Earth Summit was a group originally called theInternational Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). It now calls itself ICLEI – Local Governments forSustainability. After the Earth Summit in 1992, ICLEI set its mission to move into the policy process of localgovernments around the world to impose Sustainable Development policy. It now operates in more than 1200cities globally, including 600 American cities, all of which pay dues for the privilege of working with ICLEI. Like
    • a cancer, ICLEI begins to infest the local government policy, training city employees to think only in terms ofSustainable Development, and replacing local guidelines with international codes, rules and regulations.So it’s true, there are no UN blue helmeted troops occupying city halls in America, and yes, the UN itself doesnot have enforcement capability for this “:non-binding” document called Agenda 21. However, it does have itsown storm troopers in the person of the Non-governmental Organizations which the UN officially sanctions tocarry on its work. And that is how Agenda 21, a UN policy, has become a direct threat to local Americancommunities. Why we oppose Agenda 21It’s important to note that we fight Agenda 21 because we oppose its policies and its process, not just itsorigins. Why do we see it as a threat? Isn’t it just a plan to protect the environment and stop uncontrolleddevelopment and sprawl?As Henry Lamb of Freedom 21 puts it, “Comprehensive land use planning that delivers sustainabledevelopment to local communities transforms both the process through which decisions that govern citizensare made, and the market place where citizens must earn their livelihood. The fundamental principle thatgovernment is empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process…the naturalnext step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own the land that the governmentcontrols.”To enforce the policy, local government is being transformed by “stakeholder councils” created and enforcedby the same NGO Agenda 21 authors. They are busy creating a matrix of non-elected boards, councils andregional governments that usurp the ability of citizens to have an impact on policy. It’s the demise ofrepresentative government. And the councils appear and grow almost overnight.Sustainablists involve themselves in every aspect of society. Here are just a few of the programs and issuesthat can be found in the Agenda 21 blueprint and can be easily found in nearly every community’s “local”development plans: Wetlands, conservation easements, water sheds, view sheds, rails – to- trails, biospherereserves, greenways, carbon footprints, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmentalprotection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage areas and comprehensive planning. Everyone of these programs leads to more government control, land grabs and restrictions on energy, water, andour own property. When we hear these terms we know that such policy originated on the pages of Agenda 21,regardless of the direct or indirect path it took to get to our community.You’ll find Watershed Councils that regulate human action near every trickling stream, river, or lake. Metersare put on wells. Special “action” councils control home size, tree pruning, or removal, even the color you canpaint your home or the height of your grass. Historic preservation councils control development in downtownareas, disallowing expansion and new building.Regional governments are driven by NGOs and stakeholder councils with a few co-opted bureaucrats thrownin to look good. These are run by non-elected councils that don’t answer to the people. In short, electedofficials become little more than a rubber stamp to provide official “approval” to the regional bureaucracy.But the agenda outlined in Agenda 21 and by its proponents is a much bigger threat that just land useplanning. They openly advocate massive reduction of human populations. Some actually call for as much as an85% reduction in human populations in order to “save the planet.” David Brower of the Sierra Club said,“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” The
    • UN’s Biodiversity Assessment says, “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the presentNorth American material standard of living would be 1 billion.”They also openly advocate the destruction of modern society as Maurice Strong, the head of the Earth Summitsaid, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bringthat about?This issue then is not about simple environmental protection and modern planning. It is about a completerestructuring of our society, our values and our way of life. They use as their model an urgency based onglobal warming and climate change, claiming there is no need for discussion on these dire issues. Yet science isshowing more and more proof that there is no man-made global warming. Are we to completely destroy oursociety based on such a shaky foundation?And that is just what the proponents are rushing to do.Barack Obama has issued a flurry of Executive Orders to bypass the Congressional process and dictatesustainable policy. In 2011 Obama issued EO # 13575 creating the White House Rural Council. It bringstogether 25 Cabinet Secretaries to enforce multi-jurisdictional enforcement of farming virtually controllingevery decision for food production. It is a major assault on American farm production intended to enforceSustainable farming practices. In truth it will only lead to food shortages and higher prices as farmers have noability to make a decision without the approval of 25 government agencies, working at cross purposes andcausing chaos in farm production.On May1, 2012, Obama issued EO # 13609, dictating that the government must enforce coordination ofinternational regulatory policy. Those international regulatory policies are UN-driven and the basic translationmeans enforcement of Sustainable Development policy.But, again, skeptics of our fears of Agenda 21 continue to argue that it is all voluntary and if the US or localgovernments want to enforce it they are free to do so – nothing to fear but ourselves. Well, even if that weretrue, that’s all about to change. On June 15 – 23, international forces are again converging on Rio for Rio+20.The stated intention is to complete the work they began in 1992.Specifically called for is a UN treaty on Sustainable Development. If passed by the Senate and signed by theObama Administration, that will eliminate any ambiguity about where the policy is coming from. Moreover,documents produced so far for the summit call for a global council, new UN agencies, budgets and powers,and “genuine global actions” in every nation – to ensure “social justice,” poverty eradication, climateprotection, biodiversity, “green growth,” and an end to “unsustainable patterns of consumption.” Again,thousands of NGOs, diplomats and world leaders will spend a lot of money and time in the Rio+20 effort. Is itall just for fun, or does it have a purpose with strong consequences for our way of life?The fact is, we fight Agenda 21 because it is all-encompassing, designed to address literally every aspect of ourlives. This is so because those promoting Agenda 21 believe we must modify our behavior, our way of doingeveryday things, and even our belief system, in order to drastically transform human society into being“sustainable.”We who oppose it don’t believe that the world is in such dire emergency environmentally that we mustdestroy the very human civilization that brought us from a life of nothing but survival against the elementsinto a world that gave us homes, health care, food, and even luxury. Sustainable Development advocatesliterally hope to roll back our civilization to the days of mere survival and we say NO. Why should we? Wehave found great deception in the promotion of the global warming argument. We believe in free markets and
    • free societies where people make their own decisions, live and develop their own property. And we fullybelieve that the true path to a strong protection of the environment is through private property ownershipand limited government. Those who promote Agenda 21 do not believe in those ideals. And so we will notagree on the path to the future. And our fight is just that – a clash of philosophy. There is very little room formiddle ground.The United States has never been part of a global village in which rules for life have been handed down bysome self-appointed village elders. We are a nation of laws that were designed to protect our right to ourproperty and our individual life choices while keeping government reined in. We oppose Agenda 21 preciselybecause it represents the exact opposite view of government.http://deweesereport.com/category/68-june-2012/Posted in #68 June 2012 | No Comments »
    • How to Fight Back Against Sustainable Development By: Tom DeWeese of the American Policy CenterSustainable Development:For the past fifteen years my efforts against Agenda 21and sustainable Development have been single-minded– get the message out to tell people about what it is andwhy it is dangerous to our way of life. All of ourmaterials, special reports, hand outs, speeches, radioand television interviews and DVDs have been createdfor that purpose.However, we have had so much success over the pastyear in getting that message out that we are now facedwith a new problem. People are getting the message.They know what the problem is. So they are asking the next logical question – how do we fight back? Itsounds like and easy question to be put to someone like me who has worked on the issue and sounded thealarm for so long. But in fact, actually having success in organizing people to fight Sustainable Developmentin their local communities is a very new thing.I could blow smoke at them and pretend I know the answer.That would just be sending lambs to the slaughter. It’s easy to stand in front of a friendly audience anddazzle them with facts and figures, get them riled and then tell them to charge down to city council as Imake a quick exit from town. And I have done that many times. The truth is, however, I have never stood infront of city councils or county commissions and endured their sarcasm as I tried to question their policiesor explain where it comes from.So, now, as more and more call my office asking what to do next, I felt itwas vital that I learn first hand how to fight back and then share that experience to make our fight moreeffective and eventually successful in stopping Sustainable Development. That’s what I’ve been doing in mylocal community for the past five months. I’ve also been traveling across the state of Virginia, working withlocal activists in their communities and learning from them. Recently I joined fellow Virginia activist DonnaHolt as we presented the case against sustainable development to the staff of Virginia Attorney General KenCuccinelli. We have also been successful so far in working with theVirginia legislature to move a bill that willend mandatory comprehensive development plans in local communities. The sustainabilists have beenusing legislation passed in Virginia in 2007 as an effective weapon to force the policy on local communities.It hasn’t passed yet, but we forced it out of committee over the objections of the VA Speaker of the House.That alone was a victory in that it started debate on the issue, something that has been missing at the statelevel. Such legislative action can serve as a model for legislators around the nation.The fight has only begun,but I and these fellow activists are learning a lot. So, to help all of the movement to take on the fight in theircommunity, I want to share what we’ve learned so far.Be aware of the world in which your elected officials live:To begin the effort to fight back against Sustainable Development it is vital to first understand the massivestructure you are facing. You need to know who the players are and you need to understand the politicalworld your officials are operating in. This may help you to understand that perhaps they aren’t all evilglobalists, but, perhaps, good people who are surrounded by powers that won’t let them see the reality ofthe policies they are helping to implement. I’m certainly not making excuses for them, but before you rushin and start yelling about their enforcing UN policies on the community, here are some things you shouldconsider. In most communities, you mayor, city council members and county commissioners areautomatically members of national organizations like the National Conference of Mayors, National League
    • of Cities, and the national associations for city council members, and the same for commissioners. Those inthe state government also have the National Governors Association and state legislators have their nationalorganization. For the past fifteen years or more, each and every one of these national organizations havebeen promoting Sustainable Development. The National Mayors Conference and the Governors Associationhave been leaders in this agenda, many times working directly with UN organizations to promote the policy.This is the message your local elected leaders hear; from the podium; from fellow officials from othercommunities; from “experts” they’ve been told to respect; in committee meetings; from dinner speakers;from literature they are given at such meetings. They are told of legislation that will be soon beimplemented, and they are even provided sample legislation to introduce in their communities. There isalso a second horde involved in the sustainablist invasion – state and federal agency officials including EPAagents; air and water quality agents; Interior Department officials, HUD officials, energy officials, CommerceDepartment officials, and on and on – all targeting your locally elected officials with policy, money,regulations, reports, special planning boards, meetings, and conferences, all promoting the exact sameagenda. And don’t forget the news media, both locally and nationally, also promoting the Sustainablistagenda, attacking anyone not going along, ready to quickly use the “extremist” label. The message is clear –Sustainable Development is reality – politically correct, necessary, unquestionable, and it has consensus.Is your head spinning yet?Think of the affect all of this has on a poor local official who just thought he would run for office and servehis community. This is his reality. This is what he thinks government is supposed to be because, after all,everyone he is dealing with says so. Now, as he is surrounded by all of these important, powerful folks,along comes a local citizen who tells him that some guy named Tom DeWeese says all of these programs arefrom the UN and are taking away our liberty. Who? He said what? Come on, I’m not doing that. And I don’thave time to talk about it. I have another meeting to go to. If we are doing to successfully fight Agenda 21, itis vitally important that we all recognize this reality as we plan to deal with it and defeat it. With that inmind, I offer the following ideas.How to fight backResearch:Don’t even begin to open up a fight until you know certain details. First who are the players in yourcommunity? What privately funded “stakeholder” groups are there? What is their agenda? What othercommunities have they operated in? What projects? What results? Who are their members in yourcommunity? Are they residents or did they come from “out of town?” (That could prove to be valuableinformation later in the fight). Finding this information may be the hardest of your efforts. They like tooperate out of the spotlight. It’s not likely that the town will carry official documentation of who it isworking with. It probably will require that you attend lots of meetings and hearings. Take note of who isthere and their role. Do this quietly. Don’t announce to the community what you are doing. Don’t makeyourselves a target. You may have to ask questions and that may raise some eyebrows. But stay out of theway as much as possible.Second, get all the details on the plans your community is working on. Has there already been legislationpassed? Most of this information can be found on the town website. Knowing this information will help youput together a plan of action. Once you have it, you can begin to take your fight public. With theinformation you have gathered, begin to examine the effect the policies will have on the community and itsresidents. Find who the victims of the legislation may be. This will be of great value as you confront citycouncil. People understand victim stories – especially if it is them. It is the best way to undermine theprocess.
    • You will find that Conservation Easements have raised taxes as much of the county land is removed fromthe tax rolls – someone has to make up for the lost revenue and the payment of easements. Are“stakeholder” groups helping to get landowners to sign up for the easements – and if so – do they get anykind of kickbacks? Who are getting the easements? You may find the rich land owners have found a greatloophole to cut their own property taxes as the middle class pays for it. Does the community plan call forreduction of energy use? If so, look for calls for energy audits and taxes on energy use. The audits mean thatthe government has set a goal to reduce energy use. It will follow that government agents are going tocome into your home to inspect your energy use. Then they are going to tell you what must be done in yourhome to cut usage. That will cost you money. Don’t fall for the line that it is all voluntary – to help you savemoney. They haven’t gone to this much trouble to be ignored. Regulations are not voluntary.These are just a couple of examples of what to look for as you do your research. There are many more,including meters on wells to control water use, smart meters on your thermostat to take away your controlof your thermostat; non elected boards and councils to control local development and implement smartgrowth, leading to population growth; Public/Private Partnerships with local and large corporations to “goGreen;” creation of open space; pushing back live stock from streams, enforcing sustainable farmingmethods that restrict energy and water use in farming practices; and much more. It all leads to higher costsand shortages, in the name of environmental protection and conservation. Your goal is to stop SustainableDevelopment in your community. That means to stop the creation of non-elected regional governmentcouncils that are difficult to hold accountable. It means to stop local governments from taking state andfederal grants that come with massive strings attached to enforce compliance. And it means you mustsucceed in removing outsider organizations and Stakeholder groups that are pressuring your electedofficials to do their bidding.Civic Action:Armed with as much information as you can gather (and armed with the ability to coherently discuss itsdetails) you are ready to take you battle to the public. First, it would be better for you to try to discuss itprivately with some of your elected officials, especially if you know them. Tell them what you have foundand explain why you are opposed. First discuss the effects of the policies on the average citizen. Explain whythey are bad. Slowly being the conversation around to the origin of such polices – Agenda 21 and the UN.Don’t start there. It is important that you build the case to show that these policies are not local, but part ofa national and international agenda. If this conversation does not go well (and it probably won’t) then youhave to take it to the next level – to the public.Begin a two fold campaign. First, write a series of letters to the editor for the local newspaper. Make surethat you are not alone. Coordinate your letters with others who will also write letters to back up andsupport what you have written. These will generate more letters from others, some for your position andother against you. Be prepared to answer those against you as they are probably written by those“Stakeholders” who are implementing the policies in the first place. This may be a useful place for you touse what you’ve learned about these groups to discredit them.Second, begin to attend Council meetings and ask questions. The response from the council members willdetermine your next move. If you are ignored and your questions met with silence or hostility, prepare anews release detailing your questions and the background you have as to why you asked those questions.Pass the news release out to the people at the next meeting as well as the news media. Attend the nextmeeting and the next demanding answers. Be sure to organize people to come with you. Don’t try thisalone. If necessary, have demonstrators outside city hall carrying signs or handing out flyers with the nameand picture of the officials who won’t answer your questions along with the question you asked – includingthe details you have about the policy.
    • The point in all of this is to make the issue public. Take away their ability to hide the details from the public.Expose the hoards of outsiders who are dictating policy in your community. Force the people you elected todeal with YOU – not the army of self-appointed “stakeholders” and government officials. Shine a very rightspotlight on the rats under the rock. If the newspaper is with you, great, but you will probably find it withthe other side. It may be difficult to get a fair shake in the newspaper or on radio. That’s why you deliveryour news releases to both the media and the public. Get signs, and flyers in stores if necessary. And keep itup for as long as it takes. Have the tenacity of the folks in Egypt who would not leave the demonstrationuntil they had acquired victory.The final step is to use the energy you have created to run candidates for office against those who haveignored and fought you. Ultimately, that is the office holders worst nightmare and may be the mosteffective way to get them to respond and serve their constituents.Fighting ICLEIIf ICLEI is in your city, the details about Agenda 21 and the UNconnection is easier. Your community is paying them dues with your taxdollars. Here is how to handle them: if your council derides yourstatements that their policies come from the UNs Agenda 21, simplyprint out the home page from ICLEI’s web site – www.iclie.org. This willhave all of the UN connections you’ve been talking about, in ICLIE’s own words. Pass out the web pagecopies to everyone in the chamber audience and say to your elected officials, “don’t call me a radical simplyfor reporting what ICLEI openly admits on its own web site. I’m just the one pointing it out – you are theones who are paying our tax dollars to them. ”Then demand that those payment stop. You have provenyour case.Stopping Consensus MeetingsMost public meetings are now run by trained and highly paid facilitators whose jobs is to control themeeting and bring it to a preplanned conclusion. If he is good at his job, the facilitator can actually make theaudience think the “consensus” they have reached on and issue or proposal is actually their idea. This ishow Sustainable Development is being implemented across the nation, especially in meetings or planningboards that are advertised as open to the public. They really don’t want you there and the tactic is used tomove forward in full view of the public without them knowing what is happening. There is nothing free oropen about the consensus process. It is designed to eliminate debate and close discussion.To bust up the process you must never participate, even to answer a question. To do so allows thefacilitator to make you part of the process. Instead, you must control the discussion. Here is a quicksuggestion on how to foul up the works. Never go alone to such a meeting. You will need at least threepeople – the more the better. Do not sit together. Instead, fan out in the room in a triangle formation. Knowahead of time the questions you want to ask: Who is the facilitator? What is his association with theorganizers? Is he being paid? Where did these programs (being proposed) come from? How are they to befunded?One question to ask over and over again, both at facilitated meetings and city council meetings, is this:“With the implementation of this policy, tell me a single right or action I have on my property that doesn’trequire your approval or involvement. What are my rights as a property owner?” Make them name it. Youwill quickly see that they too understand there are no property rights left in America.By asking these questions you are putting his legitimacy in question, building suspicion among the rest ofthe audience, destroying his authority. He will try to counter, either by patronizing and humoring you, atfirst, or, then becoming hostile, moving to have you removed as a disruptive force. That’s where the rest of
    • your group come in. They need to back you up, demand answers to your questions. If you have enoughpeople in the room you can cause a major disruption, making it impossible for the facilitator to moveforward with his agenda. Do not walk out and leave the room to him. Stay to the end and make him shutdown the meeting.In conclusion…These suggestions on how to fight back are, admittedly, very basic and elementary. They are meant only tobe a guideline. You will have to do your homework and adapt these tactics to your local situation. Thesetactics are designed to create controversy and debate to force the Agenda 21 issue out of the secretmeetings and into public debate where they belong. Many of these same tactics can be used at all levels ofgovernment, right up and into the state legislature. Our plan is to demand answers from elected officialswho want to ignore us. They must be taught that such actions have consequenceshttp://whatisagenda21.net/how_to_fight_back.php
    • High-speed rail funding must be stopped By Ryan Townsend · Daily Trojan Posted April 17, 2012 at 9:05 pmRick Santorum’s decision to suspend his presidential campaign last week has positioned former MassachusettsGov. Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee for the 2012 election. And with recent pollsshowing Romney neck-and-neck with President Barack Obama, many citizens and legislators are beginning toconsider the future of green-lit government projects. Nowhere is this fear more tangible, or more relevant, than in the current California high-speed rail proposal, a gargantuan $70-billion project that would create a 520-mile line of electrified track from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The project, which was approved Thursday after many years of opposition, would be an absolute financial disaster for California. If elected president, Romney should immediately withdraw all federal funding for this nonsensical project and encourage California legislators to shelve the idea altogether. If current American railways are any indication of this line’s potential to succeed, the project should be stopped immediately. According to the Bureau of Transportation’sstatistics, rail and mass transit receive considerably larger federal subsidies on a per passenger-mile basis thanany other forms of transportation. In spite of all these subsidies, only 30 million Americans rode Amtrak lastyear.In particular, the California high-speed rail project has been an absolute public embarrassment.A few months ago, the price approximation swelled from a $30-billion proposal to a $98-billion proposal. Afterhasty revision, legislators were able to slice $30 billion off the price tag. The plan now stands at $68.4 billion —still $25 billion more than what voters approved four years ago — thanks to the implementation of a “blendedsystem.” Under this system, high-speed trains would share tracks now used by commuter trains.But the new proposal also removes stops in Sacramento, San Diego and Anaheim — three destinations thatwere heavily used to sell the project to voters in 2008.The ballooning price tag is not the only part of the proposal that has come under fire. This project has beenexpedited through the use of imploded and biased numbers. In 2008, the Reason Foundation, a public policythink tank, published a report estimating that the rail would see only 24 to 30 million riders in 2030, far belowthe 65.5 to 96.5 million rider estimates that were touted by the California High Speed Rail Association. Andthese numbers came out before the project scrapped San Diego and Anaheim from the proposal. Officials arestruggling to find a new way for the system to turn a profit.Beyond the ample statistics that illustrate the futility of this project, we should look to common sense.Proponents of the project have argued that the railway will allow millions of L.A. residents to spend the day inSan Francisco and vice-versa.
    • I question the lure of such an opportunity. What USC student would spend five hours of his or her Saturdaytraveling on a train to spend a few hours in San Francisco? Why would anyone pay a large fare to travel bytrain to either city when they could fly to that destination in under an hour for approximately the same price?I don’t think most Californians would even be willing to make the roundtrip flight. Sure, security is a hassle atairports, but similar measures could very well be implemented for this railway. And if a plane breaks down,you can almost always catch another flight. If the train breaks down, you don’t have a whole lot of options.The Obama administration has already promised $3.3 billion toward initial construction of the railroad. Thecurrent business plan anticipates $20 billion or more in additional government funding over the next decade.Fortunately, Republicans in Congress have been able to temporarily block future federal spending for theproject.The rise of the railroad in the 19th century propelled the American economy to incredible heights. But the IronHorse has had its time and should remain in its own sector of history.The decision to stop the California high-speed rail project is clear. At the very least, this project needs to goback to the drawing board before legislators proceed to saddle our state with even more debt.http://dailytrojan.com/2012/04/17/high-speed-rail-funding-must-be-stopped/ California High-Speed Trains: Visual Tour http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nx8rNysZSI&feature=BFa&list=UUEBwb6m9O6TVgR6RYKVyUPg AND http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSLXWRfFsxY&feature=endscreen&NR=1
    • The Master Plan: Agenda 21 in Action By Clint Richardson Wednesday, April 18th, 2012The Master Plan, as referred to in the title of this writing, meanssomething other than what it seems.In fact, now that I am starting to understand the full agenda, theuse of the “Master Plan” by local and state governments isperhaps the most dastardly representation of Agenda 21 toolsand principles I’ve come across to date.A basic tenet of the implementation of United Nation’s (Agenda21) world-wide program entitled “Sustainable Development” isto replace the many declarations of rights and privileges called“constitutions” of the many countries with one global charter. This constitution of the Earth, called the‘Declaration of Human Rights”, has one very important distinction between itself and that of the U.S.Constitution: the critical altering of individual rights so that the good of the collective people and the statehave absolute rights over the individual people. In essence, the concept of natural or God-given rights areerased within this global charter.This video presentation is critical to understanding Agenda 21: Agenda 21 for Public Officialshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fFIcZkEzc8IIn essence, the rights of the people to have private property must be eroded or stripped, making all ownershipof any property a part of the “community”. Only then can the global Agenda 21 Sustainable Development takea root where once there was individual rights and property. And only by making private property into public(community) property, can the State and local governments justify the legal theft of that property in the nameof the people.The “Master Plan”, as stated above, is one of the most useful tools in this takeover and subversion of privateproperty rights for individuals.What is the Master Plan?Each municipality (city), county, and State government generally have something called the Master Plan on fileat their offices or city halls; a literal drafted blueprint for the future construction of roads, bridges, schools,and other “public” and “private” infrastructure for which the government has planned to build.The only problem is… the Master Plan and its creators don’t care if your land, home, or business is locatedwhere this future construction is planned to be built. And through the use of the abusive powers of eminentdomain with the BAR’s “due process” establishing “just compensation”, the governments of the States,counties, and municipal corporations (cities) grant themselves complete autonomy and overpoweringauthority to take the property of anyone that stands in the way of completing the Master Plan – all in thename of “community development”.
    • Like anthills or moles holes, the property of Americans everywhere is being pre-meditatively squashed for thecrime of having their foundations within the future expansion of the Master Plan.Now, it is very important to understand where this idea stems from, and that it is fully supported from thehighest levels in government; up through to the federal government and the United Nations. In fact, thispractice of legally stealing land and property from the people is actually one of the standards and practicesrecommended by the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) – a very powerful organization.When we go to the GFOA website, we find that this non-governmental organization (NGO) is a privateassociation for which many local, state, and federal financial officers hold membership within. And we alsofind that this organization is heavily steeped in United Nations and Agenda 21 planning principles.This particular link brings us to the recommendation by the GFAO to local and state governments on how touse their Master Plans as a standard and practice (best practice) for stealing the peoples private property forfuture economic development:Source: www.gfoa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1600Begin Excerpt from the GFOA:BEST PRACTICEThe Role of Master Plans in Capital Improvement Planning (2008) (CEDCP)Background.Many governments establish long-range strategies focused on community development and sustainabilitythrough the use of Master Plans.1 As blueprints for the future, these plans identify economic, land use, andinfrastructure development and/or redevelopment, which may include transportation, housing, and publicfacilities. Master Plans, most frequently coordinated by the local government’s planning department withbroad community participation, identify jurisdictional needs ten to twenty-five years into the future.Regular updates to these plans are imperative to ascertain development or infrastructure needs as localconditions change.Master Plans are the foundation for: • the development of physical plans for sub-areas of the jurisdiction; • the study of subdivision regulations, zoning standards and maps; • the location and design of thoroughfares and other major transportation facilities; • the identification of areas in need of utility development or extensions; • the acquisition and development of community facility sites; • the acquisition and protection of open space (private lands); • the identification of economic development areas; • the incorporation of environmental conservation (Agenda 21 Sustainable development); • the evaluation of short-range plans (zoning requests, subdivision review, site plan analysis) and day-today decisions with regard to long-range jurisdictional benefit; and • the alignment of local jurisdictional plans with regional plans (i.e. organized crime).In addition to a long-range Master Plan, governments utilize Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) to identifypresent and future needs requiring capital infrastructure. Such plans operate for a shorter duration, oftenthree-to-five years, and list the projects and capital programs planned for the community with correspondingrevenues and financing sources. Paying attention to financial factors during the development of master plans
    • allows for a smoother transition of long-range plans to implementation and lessens the impact on the CIP andfuture operating budgets. Subsequently, to adequately guide the fiscal, operating, and land use needs of thecommunity, finance officers should use Master Plans as a framework for capital project requests that go intothe CIP.Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recognizes the role of Master Plansas one of the CIP’s important elements and recommends that governments consider the following:1. Master Plans should provide a vision for capital project plans and investments…2. Governments should make capital project investment decisions that are aligned to their long-rangeMaster Plans…3. The finance officer should play an active role in the early planning process…4. Financial factors should be considered as part of the development of Master Plans…Approved by the GFOA’s Executive Board, February 22, 2008.1 – Jurisdictions may refer to Master Plans by various names, including Comprehensive Plans or GeneralPlans. This Recommended Practice utilizes the title Master Plans to denote the long-range plans (10 – 25years) that act as a framework for capital project requests that direct the Capital Improvement Plan.–End ExcerptNow, to help you to understand how this recommended “best practice” is most likely being utilized in yourState or municipality, I would like to explain how this is being used where I live, in Draper, Utah (Salt LakeCounty).In the historic Draper area, one of the wealthiest areas in the Salt Lake area, sits one of the oldest farms inDraper’s history, the Fitzgerald farm. This farm has cows, sheep, and horses on over 100 acres. It used to be aworking dairy farm as a milk supplier to the local Costco chain, until this small family farm was pushed out ofthe business by some of the larger dairy providers in the area. Not by coincidence, the Winder Farms Dairy is avery large supplier of milk in the Salt Lake valley.The Deseret News in Salt Lake City reports:WEST VALLEY CITY — Winder Farms will celebrate another milestone today, Oct. 11, its 130th birthday.Over its 13 decades, the local company has established a rich history and legacy. It is also a family business,with a sixth generation now involved.Besides the dairy business, the Winder family has a lesser-publicized legacy — it has produced 10 electedofficials in Utah, as well as one general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.The following is a list of the Winder family’s 10 elected officials over the years, plus four other prominentfamily members. (An asterisk by the name means the person is still living):
    • John R. Winder (British immigrant, Mormon pioneer and LDS general authority) — Salt Lake City Council(1872-78), Salt Lake County assessor and collector (1870-84), president of Utah State Fair Board (1866-1900)William C. Winder (son of John R.) — President of Utah State Fair Board (1919-37)George Winder (son of William C.) — Utah State House of Representatives (1935-37), president of Utah StateFair Board (1930s and 40s)Shirl Winder (son of William C.) — Utah State House of Representatives (1921), Utah State Senate (1923-25)Ed Winder (son of William C.) — Granger-Hunter Improvement District trustee (1960s)Ned Winder (son of Ed) — president, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce; Utah State Senate President; and SaltLake Area United WayRichard Winder* (son of Ed) — Granite School Board, president of Granite School Board (1966-67, 1971-72)Judge Dave Winder (son of Ed) — U.S. district judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter (1979-2009)Pete Winder* (nephew of Shirl, Ed and George) — original West Valley City Council (1981-87)John Winder* (descendant of John R. Winder) — Sandy City Council (1982-2006)David B. Winder* (nephew of Shirl, Ed and George) — Gov. Mike Leavitt’s cabinet, director of Community &Economic Development, (1997-2002); and special assistant to the Governor (2002-2004)Kent Winder* (son of Ned) — Taylorsville City Council (1996-97); chairman of the board, ChamberWest (1996-97); and Granger-Hunter Improvement District trustee (2008-present)Mike Winder* (son of Kent) — West Valley City Council (2006-2010), mayor of West Valley City (2010-present), and Utah Board of State History (2005-present)Jim Winder* (son of Judge Dave) — Salt Lake County sheriff (2007-present)Jim Winder is now the county Sheriff. If you aren’t familiar with my toils with this completely corrupt Sheriff,know that he succeeded after his election in dissolving the entire Sheriff’s Department, and implemented anew corporate structure called the Unified Police Department (UPD), which made the former Sheriff’sdeputies into county municipal police. Winder accepted this corporate structure as the elected Sheriff, andgave up his authority and autonomy as Sheriff (America’s last hope) by agreeing to be CEO of this UPD underthe authority of the county council and the mayor of the county.Please see my research on Jim Winder “The Sheriff Who Sold His County”, click here:http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/the-sheriff-who-sold-his-county/http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/salt-lake-county-mayor-admits-to-cafr-fund-wealth/http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/an-inteview-with-the-sheriff-who-sold-his-county/https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/special-districts-and-service-areas/ (VERY IMPORTANT)
    • Mike Winder was on the city council of what is known in Salt Lake County to be the most corrupt of theincorporated municipalities in the county, especially the courts.This information is important to understand, as when sometimes secret no-bid contracts are given to privatecorporations after the land and property of the people is taken or force-bought through intimidation by thegovernments and local city councils and mayors, we find that these corporations are often friends or family ofthe councilmen and mayors enforcing the eminent domain. They often take more land than they need fortheir master plan, and then sell off that land to developers and businesses. And of course one of the jobs ofthe Sheriff of the county is to enforce state liens and sales of the peoples property, whether its a “bank-owned” foreclosure or eminent domain property. So organized crime in Salt Lake County, as you can see, isoften a family affair. And it is much easier when the Sheriff’s Department has been “federalized” into a state“incorporated” district.Now, back to our good Irish farmer…This farm, which has been in the Fitzgerald family for many, many generations – since before the “Draper” citycouncilman’s and mayor’s parent’s-parents were even born – has over the years been slowly taken by theDraper City Corporation and the State of Utah. Bit by bit, these government entities have used therecommended Best Practices of utilizing the Master Plans to forcibly dismantle and steal the land and propertyof the Fitzgerald family farm.Firstly, it is important to know that over the years, people have built their homes all around the Fitzgeraldfarm, and that it is now completely surrounded by these neighboring home’s backyards, except along the mainroad. This raises these homes property value. But it is also important to know that the majority these“neighbors” will not lift a finger to help this family retain its working farm, and some of them actually supportthe city and state in its organized criminal effort – at least they did until they realized a train station and traintracks was being planned to pass right by their peaceful homes. One might consider that they deserve whatthey are getting as such good neighbors!Step 1) The city first approached the farmer about selling part of his farmland a part of his frontage land alongthe road (byway) of the farm. Though the farmer consented to the sale, the Municipal Corporation was theonly entity that made an offer. In other words, the City was quite clear that this “deal” would be a no-bid orsingle-bid transaction. The farmer could not sell to another interested developer or buyer. This land waseventually turned into the City Hall Offices, coincidentally where the Master Plan for Draper City is nowhoused. The house that originally stood on this land was relocated by the city and is used by the citiesChamber of Commerce. And to add insult to injury, the Draper council and newspaper still refers to this stolenhome as “The Historic Fitzgerald Home”.Step 2) Next, the Master Plan was changed to show a K-6 grade school complete with parking lot, playground,and a large soccer field on the farmers property; and the farmer was again approached by the city to purchaseanother swath of land. Though the Fitzgerald family didn’t necessarily want to sell this land, as it was growingalfalfa to feed its cows, horses, and sheep and to sell to other farmers – and had been in the family for over100 years – the city council was very clear that it was going to purchase this land whether the farmer wishedto sell it or not. After all, it was in the communities interest to force a private property owner to forcibly sellhis land or face eminent domain proceedings. The school was then built on a closed court street, causingmajor traffic problems and dangerous conditions for the children.(Note: Farms are dirty places. They have scrap metal, old machinery and tractors, and out of use stainless steelmilk machines laying around, among other supplies. But one of the tactics used by the city was to order thefarmer to clean up his private property, and to hall away some of the scrap. If he didn’t obey the city, they
    • threatened massive fines and fees. Once the sale of property was complete, the threats and intimidationceased.Step 3) The City once again approached the Fitzgeralds’ to sell even more acreage from their farm. This time,the master plan showed other community services. The farmer once again agreed to sell so that the DraperCity Library could be built.Step 4) Next to the Library, the Farmer yet again agreed to sell about an acre of his land so that a seniorcitizens center could be built according to the Master Plan. Important to consider, this non-frontage 1 acresold for about $200,000.At this point, knowing that eventually this whole farm would definitely be taken by the City, developers (whowere friends with the councilmen and the mayor) started approaching the farmer so as to buy the land inorder to develop it. And it is important to note that these types of housing developments are sometimespurchased and built despite the fact that the city’s Master Plan shows something different planned for thisland in the future. The developer doesn’t care, as he will get paid to build the houses regardless. The City oftenallows this to happen and issues all the necessary permits despite its foreknowledge that it will confiscate thenew development and the land according to this Master Plan scheme. After all, these developers are friends ofthe family, and sometimes are even family themselves. And so the properties that are build are then stolen bythe city or state through eminent domain, and perfectly good houses or businesses are condemned anddestroyed.Step 5) The farmer owned 15 acres across the main street, where more alfalfa was growing. But the State andthe City had made different plans for this land, and the Master Plan shows this area as a parking facility for thefuture site of a public transportation railroad – a light-rail system. The owners of an Associated Farming grocerwas also put on notice that eventually their property would be taken. The Farmer has received word that theCity was looking to eminent domain further into his frontage land, and that his family home was in theproposed taking – an historic adobe home that is over 100 years old where the farmer’s retired father andmother now reside on the family land. But this alfalfa field across the street was even more valuable, as itsboarder faced an even more well-traveled frontage road that was highly sought after to build commercial realestate upon, meaning that the price on this property should be enormous. The State valued this property atover $5 million dollars in its evaluation, before the eminent domain proceedings began. But the county/Cityappraiser contracted to attain the actual “fair value” of the property – what the constitution of the UnitedStates refers to as “just compensation” in the 5th Amendment (the takings clause) – decided to assign only avalue of just over $2 million. And in the end, after the attorneys squabbled, the farmer received about $2.5million for the State-stolen land, despite the fact that the state appraisal showed its true value at over $5million. Remember, just one acre fetched $200,000 without having access to a major 4 lane business road. TheState “TRAX” station and railway is currently under construction, and has been the cause of many similareminent domain cases throughout the county. To add insult to injury, once the land was already force-purchased by the government, they charged the farmer for a bridge that had to be built over an alreadyexisting eight-foot wide irrigation ditch to the tune of several hundred-thousand dollars.Step 6) The current Master Plan on display at the Draper City Hall shows several new roads going throughseveral parts of the farm. These roads do not exist today, and the farmer has not been contacted about thebuilding of these roads… yet. The farmer was recently forced to allow the City to build a blacktop bike/naturepath through the middle of his field, along with fences and a bridge so that the farmer could get his equipmentand tractors to the outlaying fields. He will have to sell off some of his cattle now, since the hey supply cannotbe kept up to support his animals now that over 20 acres of farmland have been legally stolen by theorganized crime syndicate called the City/State. And the farmer and family are quite sure that the farm willdefinitely be taken through eminent domain at some time in the very near future – a families heritage literally
    • destroyed in the name of the community through the use of Best Practices of the GFOA and the UnitedNations Agenda 21 principles.It is also important to note that when the city attorneys and council conduct these types of transactions, thevictims of these organized crimes receive what can only be called a “gag-order” until the eminent domaintransaction is complete. This ensures that other interested developers or potential buyers of the propertycannot and will not be allowed to place another higher bid in for the property, making the transaction a no-bidcontract. You could call this a monopoly on theft. But it is also important to understand that instead ofreturning the unused portion of this land (that the State/City will not use), some of this land that was takenfrom the farmer by the State/City will be sold for a profit to interested developers along the main frontageroad for businesses to be built. And chances are that a bond will be issued with taxpayer money to completethe construction of this infrastructure. The farmer will not see a penny of the profit from this transaction.Please note that the same intimidation techniques used on this farmer can be much, much worse, as in thecase of Andrew Wordes, as reported by Natural News and the Health Ranger:http://www.naturalnews.com/035524_Andrew_Wordes_Roswell_chickens.htmlThis is the crime of the century. It is perfectly legal. And it will not stop…And this, ladies and gentleman, is the Master Plan.Do you know what yours is?The real question is: When will you, the People start defending each others property from your elected cityand state representatives, before you become the neighbor that nobody cares about or helps?And what good is the second amendment if the people don’t ever use it for its real intended purpose – to fightfor your rights and the rights of others?We pay this “right” lip service,but never prove ourworthiness to keep it.And now the United States isjust one of the many UnitedNations.How very sad…–Clint Richardson(realitybloger.wordpress.com)–Wednesday, April 18th, 2012
    • The Dirty Secrecy of Clean Energy Costs MARCH 19, 2012 By DAVE ROBERTS“Sunshine is the best disinfectant,” said Supreme Court JusticeLewis Brandeis regarding the need for governmental transparency– but apparently not when it comes to solar power and otherrenewable energy sources. California has embarked on anambitious, unprecedented program to provide one-third of itspower from renewable energy sources by 2020. It’s likely to beexpensive replacing oil and cheap natural gas with costly,inefficient solar and wind power. But Californians aren’t being toldhow much extra they’ll have to pay.“I don’t understand what the size of the bill will be for it all,” said Robert Michaels, a Cal State Fullerton professor ofeconomics and an energy expert. “Basically, what’s happening is everybody is being kept in the dark about this. Allegedlybecause it’s necessary to maintain competition among projects. It’s a drama that none of us is allowed to see, and noneof us is allowed to get the figures on.”Many of the purchase power agreements for renewable energy projects are coming in at above the market rate forenergy — a cost that will be passed on to ratepayers. But the amount is known only to the California Public UtilitiesCommission, which keeps the figures under wraps for years.The CPUC approves nearly every renewable project that comes before it, regardless of cost. But that’s not how it wassupposed to be. The enabling legislation in 2002 for what is known as the Renewables Portfolio Standard, SB 1078,required that the cost of proposed renewable projects be compared to the market price of energy, and thatprocurement be restricted if the project’s price is too high. It also provided for above-market costs to be paid from astate-controlled above-market fund, rather than passing the extra cost on to the consumer.This was reaffirmed in follow-up legislation. In 2006, SB 107, by State Senator Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, increased andaccelerated the renewable target goals while continuing to limit procurement if prices were too high. Likewise in 2007with SB 1036 by then-Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland. And similarly in last year’s SBx1 2 by Simitian.But as the pressure has increased to meet the state’s renewable energy goals, the prices have also increased — andcost-containment has gone by the wayside like a golden eagle after flying into a windmill blade.The average bids for solar projects doubled while wind projects increased about 50 percent from 2005 to 2007,according to the CPUC’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates in a report last August titled “The Green Rush.” Fifty-ninepercent of renewable contracts have been awarded at above-the-market rates in recent years, with PG&E leading theway with 77 percent of its contracts.But what about that above-market fund that was supposed to pick up the tab for the high-cost contracts? As of lastAugust, $773 million had been allocated — but a whopping $6 billion is needed to pay for all of the above-marketcontracts that have been approved. Michaels said that fund has since run out of money.Pay for It“Essentially you now have no choice but to pay whatever the contract price is for the renewable,” he said. “Renewableenergy in California means wind and solar. Wind is expensive and solar is astronomical, particularly for the power youget. So what you have got now is a more interesting problem: People are not allowed to find out what the actual bills forthese projects will be. The reason is because the PUC has agreed with utilities complaining, ‘We can’t let ordinary people
    • know what the price of these things are, because you can cause competitive problems and it can result in price fixing’ —or something like that.”Michaels cited what he called an “outrageous project” — PG&E’s solar project in the Mojave Desert. The plant couldcost an estimated $1.6 billion while generating only 250 megawatts. Although scheduled to be completed it 2014, it maynot be hooked up to the electrical grid until 2018 after needed upgrades are made.Likely emboldening PG&E to lay out that kind of money for a questionable project is that it comes with a $1.2 billion loanguarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. That’s the same DOE that provided a $535 million loan guarantee forSolyndra.“That’s a staggering amount to pay for the kind of power you are getting — it only works when the sun is shining,” saidMichaels. “The Division of Ratepayer Advocates is very upset about all of this. But there’s nothing that can be doneabout it. This is only the start. When we get closer to the 33 percent requirement, it’s just going to get worse, becausethe resources will be even more expensive.”Shortly after the PUC approved PGE’s 25-year contract for the Mojave project in November 2011, the Division ofRatepayer Advocates sent out a press release headlined, “DRA Troubled By Continued CPUC Approval of OverpricedRenewable Projects.” It pointed out that the CPUC had also recently approved the overpriced North Star Solar project inFresno. Both approvals ignored the legislative directive to contain costs.“The Commission has the power to keep the cost of renewable energy reasonable,” said DRA’s acting Director, JoeComo. “Instead … it is signaling to the market that California will accept overpriced renewable energy, and that it iswilling to lock customers into higher rates for decades to come. I agree with Commissioner [Mike] Florio [the only voteagainst the Mojave project], who said that we should be getting twice the amount of renewable energy for the price ofthis contract.“The CPUC must get serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and it can’t do that byignoring the costs. DRA strongly supports the state’s renewable energy goals, but fears that customer backlash againsthigh energy bills will hurt the state’s efforts. Sending a message to renewable energy developers and investors that thecost of renewables must be reasonable will support the effort to reach California’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas. Wesimply can’t afford to do otherwise.”Encouraging DevelopmentOne of the encouraging developments in renewable energy recently is the significant price drop for photovoltaic energydue to the increased production of solar cells (ironically a contributing factor in Solyndra’s demise because its productswere made at a higher price). The cost of these systems dropped 19-23 percent in California (depending on the size ofthe system) from late 2008 to mid-2010. But, at the same time the utility bid prices for photovoltaic systems actuallyincreased, according to the DRA.Also concerned about the increased cost of renewable energy is the state watchdog agency the Little HooverCommission. It held a hearing Feb. 28 at which Commissioner David Schwarz asked what can be done to get the CPUC toput the brakes on the renewable energy “spending binge.”Matt Freedman, an attorney for The Utility Reform Network, responded, “The era of approving overpriced renewablegenerators has passed. Most were in 2008, 2009. For years the PUC has pretty much approved whatever the utilitieswanted. It goes to the oversight of utilities by regulators who feel it’s their job to give the utilities what they want whenthey want it. There’s been a spending binge.”But that binge may not be over, according to Como, who said, “The commission has accepted all but two contracts in thelast several years. There have been about 170 contracts from 2003, and only two have been rejected. It does speak a lotto the fact that there are political and other pressures that go into the final decision other than ‘best fit, least cost’analysis. I think we are still looking at contracts that are overpriced. The prices are confidential. But we do look at thetrends.”
    • Schwarz accused Como’s group of not sufficiently advocating for ratepayers by not fighting the confidential pricingsystem. “Aren’t you doing your constituents a disservice?” Schwarz asked. “I would like to see confidentiality lifted so wehave transparency.”Como responded, “I’m in support of modifying confidentiality, not lifting it. Three years of confidentiality may be toolong. Six months to a year would be good. Nevada doesn’t have a confidentiality cloak on its procurement.”Asked what the cost impact will be to customers in order to achieve the 33 percent goal, Como said, “It’s probably about5 to 7 percent on a typical bill of a customer. The above-market costs that we have identified, that’s probably what theimpact will be.”Cost UnknownBut Freedman said that no one knows how much it’s going to cost. In 2009, a consultant estimated there would be a 7percent increase, but that study is already out of date because “all of the assumptions are totally wrong in respect toprice. For example, it was thought solar thermal, big mirrors in the desert, was going to be the primary way we wouldreach the 33 percent target. It assumed 7,200 megawatts of solar thermal. Half of that has been canceled. It assumedphotovoltaics would cost between 29 and 47 cents a kilowatt-hour. We have been looking at prices in the 11-to-14 centrange approved last year. They are lower today than last year, and it looks like they will be going lower still. Every long-term model ends up being wrong. In the field of renewables, we have seen a very dynamic market with extremely fast-changing prices, more than anybody could ever predict.”The energy experts are confident that California will be able to meet the renewable energy goal by 2020. The bigquestion remains the size of the bill that Californians will get stuck with.“It would be wonderful if we can make this work,” said a dubious state Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Carlsbad, who is also a LittleHoover commissioner. “To me right now the bottom line is what is the cost to the user. Particularly in a state where wehave the second-highest unemployment in the country, where privately a very senior official in this government hassaid, ‘We all know the real rate of unemployment is closer to 17 percent,’ where the human cost is really, really, reallydifficult, and at the same time when we have some companies leaving. I just think at the end of the day we need toknow: Can we deliver this in such a way that it doesn’t hurt jobs? We’ll see.”http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/03/19/the-dirty-secrecy-of-clean-energy-costs/--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Watch Hacking Democracy: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVTXbARGXso
    • CA Energy Schemes: ‘We are getting fleeced’ April 5, 2012 By Katy GrimesThe California Air Resources Board has created a stealthy new corporation in Delaware. The Western Climate InitiativeInc., which will manage cap-and-trade programs, even has its own form of currency.WCI Inc. says it exists “to perform administrative and technicalservices to support the carbon trading market, including marketmonitoring of allowance auctions, and market trading ofcompliance instruments.”“CARB is creating a whole new currency with these pollutioncertificates,” explained Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-DanaPoint. “Initially the state was to unite with other Western states toreduce the purported menace to the future of our planet,” Harkeysaid. “However, our partners determined that they would prefernot to tackle the issue during a recession; the cost of making theirstates less competitive in a tough business environmentoutweighed the benefit.”Harkey has been trying to get her legislative colleagues tounderstand that the “fix,” setting a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, with increasing populationon the horizon, “is guaranteed to cost employers and everyday people more for the electricity and products they need.California’s only remaining partner is the Canadian province of Quebec.”At a recent legislative hearing with CARB officials, Harkey asked why WCI was registered in Delaware and not inCalifornia. But CARB’s Richard Corey couldn’t provide a legitimate reason. “WCI is an established … it’s a program to linkwith others,” Corey said. “Many California companies are incorporated in Delaware, like Chevron and Disney,” Coreyadded. “And the Delaware incorporation law is taught in law schools around the country. It was on the advice ofcounsel.”“California has Sunshine laws and open hearing regulations,” Harkey said. “We have public funds we are dealing withhere, not like Chevron or Disney.” Harkey noted that Delaware is not subject to California state open meeting orsunshine laws, leaving many questioning why the WCI opted for such secrecy.The WCI Board of Directors is made up of Matt Rodriquez, the newly appointed secretary for the CaliforniaEnvironmental Protection Agency; James Goldstene, CARB chairman and CEO; and the equivalent officials for theCanadian provinces of British Columbia and Quebec. No other America states are involved.The Fleecing GameImagine 50 million Californians living on less water and electricitythan 38 million Golden Staters do now. That’s the scheme beinghatched by some state officials and legislators. With the state’spopulation growing at about 3.4 million a decade, the 50 millionfigure should be reached around 2040.Instead of addressing the historic economic and energy problems inthe state, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown continues to push the High-Speed Rail plan. This week its supposed cost was scaled back from$98 billion to a mere $68 billion.
    • To fund his pet choo-choo, now he’s pushing a cap-and-trade program to sell carbon credits.Brown and public employee unions have also proposed a $9 billion tax-increase ballot initiative.California is no longer a manufacturing leader, but is leading the country in manufacturing schemes.SchemesTop of the list of schemes is cap-and-trade, or emission trading–a way to tax residents and businesses by another name.Throw in renewable energy mandates and the implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, andit’s clear state leaders are closing their eyes as theCalifornia Express runs off the rails.Legislators are still too busy patting themselves on theback for passage of the extreme Renewable PortfolioStandard last year. But lawmakers will soon be forced toaddress the impending energy crisis their own laws caused.That’s because their renewable energy mandates won’t beable to power the Golden State.You Pat My Back, I’ll Pat YoursThe California Independent System Operator, is a quasi-governmental agency which regulates the reliability of thestate’s energy grid. In a recent study, it warned that, as California tries to meet the stringent requirements of theRenewable Portfolio Standard of 33 percent renewable energy production, “so does the need for flexible capacityresources.”The study continued, “Integrating a 33 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard creates several new challenges forthe ISO. Among these challenges is ensuring that the ISO has sufficient flexible capacity to address the added variabilityand unpredictability created by intermittent resources.”The “intermittent resources” referred to by CalISO are wind, solar, algae, ethanol and all other earth-friendly fuels.While they are not consistently reliable energy sources, most can serve as intermittent alternatives.The 33 percent figure is the highest in the country after the Legislature pushed through and passed the environmentallyrestrictive Renewable Portfolio Standard. It mandates that California obtain 33 percent of all electricity from renewableresources by 2020. This figure includes all of the energy purchased outside of California. Energy experts say thatCalifornia purchases more than 30 percent of its energy from out of state.Carbon Trading SchemeIt appears that CalISO doesn’t believe that meeting the 33 percent renewable energy mandate is possible. Its study said,“California is making plans to link the cap-and-trade system with that of Quebec in 2012, under the auspices of theWestern Climate Initiative, but challenges remain as allowances trade at record lows.” So far, no other countries areinterested in participating in trading carbon credits.However, the California-Quebec relationship is not trading apples-to-apples: Quebec gets 97 percent of its energy fromhydroelectric sources. California is trying to reduce traditional electricity production, including hydroelectric power, andinstead replace it with as much “renewable” energy as possible from wind and solar, algae and ethanol. But energyexperts have been saying in recent months that California’s energy demand is too much for the alternative energy andlower usage standards.Additionally, Quebec has only 80 regulated industries; California regulates more than 300 industries.
    • “This will create the largest carbon market in North America and provide a model that can guide future efforts toestablish a creative road map for future national approaches in Canada and the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gasemissions,” said Western Climate Initiative Inc. co-chairmen James Goldstene, executive officer of the California AirResources Board, and Jim Whitestone of Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, at a recent hearing about cap-and-trade.CARB officials plan on giving away free carbon allowances for the first auction “to the State’s large industrial emitters aswell as the State’s electric utilities in order to reduce the economic impact of the cap-and-trade program,” a backgroundpaper explained.But it appears that state officials have quietly recognized that selling carbon credits could actually do more damage tothe state. The first carbon auction has been postponed from August to after the November election – with littlecomment, and no fanfare.Carbon CurrencyCalifornia’s new cap-and-trade program places a limit on greenhousegas emissions from the businesses and entities responsible forapproximately 80 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.CARB will issue carbon allowances to these businesses and entities,which will be able to turn around and sell them to other businesseson the open market.The “cap” is the state-imposed limit on businesses that emitgreenhouse gasses, and the “trade” is the sale of carbon credits toother businesses. It’s the ultimate example of the government picking which businesses get to survive, and which willnot, because not just anyone can purchase or sell carbon credits. Only the businesses chosen by CARB get to sell, andprofit, from selling carbon credits to polluters.Businesses will be limited on how many credits they can purchase. If a business produces more carbon emissions thanthe state allotted, CARB will issue stiff fines and penalties. Or the business can just reduce their production output andlose money instead.Cap-and-trad emission credits are not a new scheme. For years, the state’s many air quality management districts havebeen requiring certain polluting businesses to purchase “clean air credits” from larger government approved companies,which were allowed to purchase up most of the credits. It’s a government run pay-to-play scheme.“The capital gains from trading in the new currency of pollution ‘allowance certificates’ could very well create the nextboom and bust cycle for our state if the scheme works as planned,” Harkey said. “With the creation of a carbon marketfor pollution, California will be monetizing pollution and charging businesses and residents for the air we breathe. Weare getting fleeced.”http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/04/05/ca-energy-schemes-we-are-getting-fleeced/
    • Lord Monckton Debunks Global ‘Warming’ MARCH 22, 2012 By KATY GRIMESA visit to California from Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,promised to be full of his telltale wit, knowledge and controversy, as well as plenty ofscience. Lord Monckton did not disappoint.As California is on the verge of its first cap-and-trade carbon auction,Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, invited Lord Monckton toaddress the Legislature, and arranged for him to make severalpresentations throughout California over the next few days.Grove sent out invitations to each of the 120 state legislators, but only ahandful of Republicans accepted to participate in the hearing. And onlyone Democrat attended the hearing — Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood.Monckton’s message is important as well as scientific: Most climatechange science is bogus, and California can and should stop the questfor ending climate change on our own before the state’s economy iscompletely destroyed. Monckton has consulted many governmentsaround the world about climate change. Monckton, together with Tom Tanton, a renewable energy expert and special consultant to the energy and technology industries, testified to a packed room in a special legislative hearing Wednesday on climate change and carbon trade. Tanton and Monckton gave an even more detailed presentation at an event later that evening.New California Tax SchemeI’ve had to sit through several years of legislative hearings lacking in science, facts and detail about the sourcesof climate change. After that, Monckton’s presentation about how the global warming hysteria began, howthe data and science was altered and why they hysteria continues was fascinating and refreshing.As California prepares for its first cap-and trade-auction in August, taxpayers and utility customers should allbe concerned and not worry about being called “deniers.”As I wrote in California Remedy For Eco-Guilt about AB 32′s implementation and upcoming cap-and-tradeauctions, ”Instead of providing affirmative plans to accomplish this feat, and answers to legislators’ questions,it became abundantly clear that no one in the state has a handle on the implementation of AB 32, the GlobalWarming Solution Act of 2006, or the potential repercussions from the vast law.”
    • Most notably, Tanton and Monckton warned taxpayers that, because Gov. Jerry Brown decided to monetizeCO2 carbon emissions, and plans to tax utility customers, business owners and taxpayers for the emissions,the state stands to take in an extra $1 billion in revenues.The new revenue stream is not new money coming into the state, but an additional $1 billion from the sameold sources – businesses, manufacturers, utility customers, homeowners, property owners, automobileowners and taxpayers.Overall, if California continues down the road of selling and trading carbon emission credits, it will cost thestate $450 billion by 2020. Monckton found that even with $450 billion spent, the impact to curb total globalemissions will be close to nil – just 0.4 percent will have been abated.Just the Science, PleaseMonckton went through an elaborate presentation and showed the data, charts and graphs originally used bythe United Nation International Panel on Climate Change, when it concluded that man-made global warmingmust be stopped. But Monckton found that the original science and data had been altered in order to furtherthe agenda, and force the West to comply with the international rules. Monckton also showed the altereddata, and the changes were staggering and obvious.Tanton said that California is already the third best state in the United States in the carbon intensity of oureconomy. The United States is four times better than China, and better than the average of all other countries.Even with this information, Tanton warned that cap-and-trade is going to come at a very high cost toCalifornians. Families will be forced to pay thousands of dollars more out of their budgets each year, and thestate will lose more than 100,000 more jobs in 2012 – on top of the 650,000 manufacturing jobs lost since AB32 was made law.By 2020, California stands to lose more than 1 million more jobs, just because of the state’s climate changelaws.“This state grew because of manufacturing,” said Sen. Wright. “If we want a policy of no manufacturing, thewe should tell the rest of the manufacturers, instead of bleeding them dry – tell them ‘you should get out.’”A 2011 Rasmussen poll found that 69 per cent of 1,000 respondents believed it at least “somewhat likely” thatclimate scientists had falsified their research data to support the case for catastrophic human-caused globalwarming. Forty per cent of respondents said falsification of research data was “very likely.” Only 22 percent responded that they were sure that climate scientists had not falsified data.California Over-RegulationCalifornia already suffers from over-regulation. Monckton and Tanton addressed California’s 40-year ban onmost offshore drilling, despite the 15 billion barrels of oil available. Their concern, besides the decisions madeon faulty and fraudulent science, is that California already suffers from record unemployment, high taxes anda $6 billion deficit, and is facing a potential unfunded pension meltdown.According to Monckton and Tanton, adding more taxes onto the backs of business owners and utilitycustomers will only cause the wealthy and more employers to flee California.
    • “Rich Californians are fleeing the state, taking their jobs with them,” said Monckton. “Intel says it will neverbuild another plant here; Globalstar, Trizetto, and eEye fled in just one month; Boeing, Toyota, Apple,Facebook, and DirecTV have all fled,” said Monckton, referring to expansions by those companies, althoughsome of their headquarters remain here. “The wagons are heading east.”http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/03/22/lord-mockton-debunks-global-warming/Also Read: Democrats in the Legislature Chicken Out of Climate Debate With Lord Monckton
    • California counting its carbon tax riches May 29, 2012, By Katy GrimesWhile the rest of the country shuns carbon trading schemes, California politicians continue to embrace theconcept, and are forging ahead with a Cap and Trade carbon trading system. But eight states have droppedout of California’s Western Climate Initiative, leaving many scratching their heads in wonderment, as onlyCalifornia and Quebec are left alone to solve the world’s globalwarming and climate change issues.But instead of being a real innovator and helping businessessincerely lower emissions, California looks as if it is desperatelyclinging onto the notion that we can lead the rest of the world incontrolling climate change, and behaving as a Nation State.Why Quebec?Cap and Trade was first concocted by the United Nations as a wayto financially benefit from selling carbon offset credits. Vice-President Al Gore was already part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which helped seal thedeal in the 1990′s through the Clinton administration’s involvement in the Kyoto Protocol, which mandatedthat nations reduce or offset carbon emissions.This scheme must have been irresistible to the California Legislature, which passed AB 32, California’s GlobalWarming Solutions Act, in 2006. The original plan was to create a giant climate change coalition with otherstates and provinces from which carbon trading and taxing would emanate. But one by one, states havedropped out, citing the difficult economy and cost to manage such a program.But not California.“Linking with Québec is a significant advance in California’s efforts to fight climate change and steer oureconomy toward a clean energy future,” said CARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols. “Linking provides more optionsto California businesses and lays the groundwork for other partners to join with us. This sends a strongmessage to two national governments that now is the time to support innovation, energy efficiency and thedevelopment of clean technologies.”But Quebec is not even a trading partner with California.Counting the chickens before they are hatchedAs part of his 2012-13 state budget, Gov. Jerry Brown made a gigantic assumption that the state will see $1billion in cap-and-trade revenue. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office warned that this is a dangerous budgetgimmick and an unstable calculation.The California Air Resources Board passed cap-and-trade regulations in 2011 as part of its effort to implementAB 32. The air resources agency was granted authority by AB 32 to develop “market mechanisms” to reduceemissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
    • To achieve this, CARB developed its Cap and Trade program, and named 300 industries as the polluters, whichwill be required to buy carbon credits from the state in order to continue doing business in California.When more closely examined, Cap and Trade appears to be a wealth redistribution program, by imposing acarbon tax on mostly private businesses, as well as utilities. Economists have warned that it will sendbusinesses in California packing for other states.While CARB continues to insist that Cap and Trade programs have been a smashing success, programs inEurope and the Northeast have failed, resulting in business closures and downsizes, and fewer tax revenues.Spain nearly went bankrupt with its green energy programs, by killing more jobs than it created. Many warnthat Cap and Trade has failed every time it has been implemented, especially in the European Union andJapan.But CARB will have to rely on companies to honestly report their emissions, which undoubtedly will lead togaming the system, and cheating.At a recent Assembly hearing on Cap and Trade, Assemblyman Brian Jones tried to put CARB’s role intoperspective. But his objections were met with steely resistance from Assembly Democrats. ”It is my perceptionsince I’ve been elected and serving here for 14 months that CARB is a rogue agency” Jones said. “I want toreaffirm and state emphatically that CARB’s authority derives from this Legislature. It doesn’t derive on itsown.”“Your commissioners are not elected by the public or the voters of this state. We are elected by the voters ofthis state,” Jones continued. “And this Legislature has given over to CARB some authority that I believe CARBhas run away with, and I am only hopeful that my colleagues in this committee and the rest of this Legislaturewill also come to the same conclusion that I’ve come to and soon realize that the authority of CARB comesfrom this Legislature, and we will start to rein that in and protect the voters and the public interest in thisstate.”Global warming and political influenceIn February, China ordered its airlines to ignore the 2008 European Union law which imposed a carbonemission tax on all flights traveling to and from the EU.Moving in opposite directions, China continues to build coal plants, while California continues to enforce strictregulations to limit traditional forms of energy production, and encourage solar, wind along with otherenvironmentally friendly alternatives.Recent political history helps us understand how Cap and Trade works, and the political influence derived fromits programs.The now-defunct Chicago Climate Exchange, was founded by Chicago Board of Trade chief economist RichardSandor, former Goldman Sachs & Co. CEO Hank Paulson, and former Vice President Al Gore, and startedtrading in 2003. The CCX received start-up funding from the Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001, during whichtime then-Senator Barack Obama sat on the board of directors.The CCX had more than 400 members, which included corporate giants, auto manufacturers, universities,large utilities, and even Amtrack.
    • The CCX was estimated to make $10 trillion a year, and explains why California politicians continue to pledgesupport for California’s carbon trading program. But the CCX was closed down because the voluntaryparticipation of its members waned as other carbon registries entered the market. The Climate Action Reserveand American Carbon Registry continue to operate.Cap and Trade revenue hearingCARB’s Board of Directors held a hearing last week to discuss the anticipated revenues from upcoming Capand Trade auctions, and how they planned to spend the windfall monies.“We are looking for synergy and consensus,” CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols said at the hearing. Nichols saidthat in the transportation sector, efforts to capture the synergies have been successful, “which will help tomake our state more competitive.”Nichols reported that CARB does not know how much money will come in from carbon trading auctions, butthe CARB Board estimates “several billion dollars each year.”CARB invited two panels to participate in the hearing, made up of mostly environmentalist stakeholders, withthe exception of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, the lone voice for business.Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, expressed her concerns at the hearing about how the Cap andTrade program will work, and whether the program will actually result in lower greenhouse gas emissions, asmandated by AB 32. Harkey suggested that it may just be a scheme to allow vast sums of money to changehands, with investors eventually getting rich off of market speculation, and with no improvement in thereduction of emissions.Harkey warned that CARB was entering the sophisticated financial world of derivative markets and hedgederivatives, where investors get involved in betting, trading and profiting on the value of carbon credit shares.She warned that such sophisticated financial dealings should be managed by specialists, and not a stateagency tasked with a mission of cleaner air.Ignoring all warningsTwo years ago, the Christian Science Monitor published a joint investigation with the New England Center forInvestigative Reporting, which found that existing carbon trading schemes were just another way to makemoney. “Carbon offsets are nothing more than the environmental equivalent of financial derivatives: complex,unregulated, unchecked and – in many cases – not worth their price,” the investigation reported.“They are buying into projects that are never completed, or paying for ones that would have been doneanyhow,” the investigation found. “Their purchases are feeding middlemen and promoters seeking profitsfrom green schemes that range from selling protection for existing trees to the promise of planting new onesthat never thrive. In some cases, the offsets have consequences that their purchasers never foresaw, such aserecting windmills that force poor people off their farms.”Instead of heeding the many warnings, California is moving ahead at rapid speed to implement the first Capand Trade auction in November.As with most schemes, the catch is in the amount of empathy and guilt the con artist can elicit. Buying carbonoffsets may ease eco-guilt, but experts have concluded that it will do absolutely nothing to lower the world’scarbon emissions, particularly as California goes it alone. http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/05/29/california-counting-its-carbon-tax-riches/
    • Obama Administration Still Pressuring Congress to Ratify LOST Susanne Posel, Occupy Corporatism May 27, 2012 The Obama administration is still pressuring Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST); citing that without the treaty , the US military is at an increasing risk of confrontation while at sea. At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting, senior defense officials like General Martian Dempsey, chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff claimed that “If we do not ratify overtime, what would happen is that we put ourselves at risk of confrontation with others who are interpretingcustomary international law to their own benefit.”“If we are not a party to this treaty and can’t deal with it at the (negotiating) table, then we have to deal withit at sea with our naval power,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said. “And once that happens, you clearlyincrease the risk of confrontation.”Panetta along with Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, tried to entice the panel, claiming that LOST would bringhuge economic and military benefits to the US government.However, the dispute quickly came up against the same protests that have blocked the treaty’s ratification inthe US.“My problem is with sovereignty,” Republican Senator Jim Risch said, nonchalantly glancing through the pagesof LOST. “There’s 288 pages here, and as you read it, there’s some good stuff in here. But if we have to give upone scintilla of sovereignty that this country has fought, has bled for. . . I can’t vote for it.”LOST encompasses “all ocean space, with all its uses, including navigation and over flight; all uses of itsresources, living and non-living, on the high seas, on the ocean floor and beneath, on the continental shelf andin the territorial seas…. The Convention is widely recognized by the international community as the legalframework within which all activities in the oceans and the seas must be carried out.”LOST will install a 200-nautical-mile (370-km) of elite economic zones that create coastal states rights ofexpansion and exploitation of natural resources. The ability of other countries to navigate, overfly and laycommunications cables across the regions would rest in the hands of the UN.LOST would give the UN authority over everything above and below the seas and oceans of the world. UnderLOST, there will not be an ability to veto as with the UN Security Council.The 62nd UN General Assembly Plenary meeting recorded this statement with regard to LOST: “The Assemblyhad before it a 22-part resolution on oceans and the Convention on the Law of the Sea … by which it wouldcall on States to harmonize, as a matter of priority, national legislation with the provisions of the Conventionand, where applicable, relevant agreements and provisions…. The Assembly then adopted the resolution by arecorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against . . .”
    • Lawmakers and defense officials said the treaty would strengthen the military’s hand in dealing with growingpowers like China and Russia and others that have joined the convention and are seeking to establish claims inthe Pacific and Arctic.At a prior hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January of 2012, Hilary Clinton remarkedthat the ratification of LOST is a priority for her “because it is long overdue”.Clinton scoffed and made light of LOST , alluding to the conspiracy theories of world government by saying:“Honestly, I don’t know where these people make these things up.”In Section 106 of the bill to ratify LOST is the power to engage the executive branch of our US government toapply LOST through executive orders, regulations, directives and/or delegations of authority.Obama signed his executive order Stewardship of the Oceans, Our Coasts and the Great Lakes and the InterimReport of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (IOPTF).The purpose of IOPTF is to adhere to LOST. The report will provide the framework for planning andconservation, economic endeavors, user adherence and sustainable use; as well as social justice, as dictatedby LOST and the UN. An estimated $900 million will be used for the implementation of a global approach toour land, oceans, coastal areas and Great Lakes.The US Senate is expected to vote on LOST next month. More committee meetings and hearings may occurprior to the vote.The Obama administration is pressuring Congress in all ways they can to get this UN treaty ratified becauseonce it is law in America, the UN will finally have their grip on our Constitutional Republic.http://occupycorporatism.com/obama-administration-still-pressuring-congress-to-ratify-lost/
    • LOST is Centralized Control of the World by the UN Susanne Posel Jun 9th, 2012 Occupy Corporatism June 9, 2012The UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) will deliver American sovereignty and seven-tenths of the world’ssurface through allocation of oceans and seas to the UN by way of the entanglement of global bureaucracy.Over three decades ago, then President Ronald Regan rejected LOST, saying “no national interest of theUnited States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the ThirdWorld.”The writers of LOST want to give the UN power to draw oceanic boundaries to impose environmentalregulations and restrict business on the high seas.LOST would give critical US naval and drilling operational decision making and final word to the UN.Regan believed LOST was an “effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states— and most especially the United States.”On Capitol Hill, supporters of LOST include Senators Richard Lugar (who now heads the Senate ForeignRelations Committee), Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Trent Lot.The coalition of the US Navy, multi-national oil corporations led by Shall and radical environmentalist lawyersare providing advocacy for the UN’s usurpation of our individual rights as an independent nation.Big oil supports LOST because of its provisional extension of jurisdiction over the continental shelf beyond thecurrent 200 mile limit.However, LOST requires that royalties of between 1 and 7% be paid to the International Seabed Authority(ISA) on the value of oil and minerals produced from those waters.Effectively, the UN would regulate offshore and deep-sea production all over the world. The financing wouldcome from American taxpayers. The taxation collected by the ISA would be redirected to the UN.Larry Bell of Forbes magazine wrote that “as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collectedfrom oil and gas companies operating off our coast” and then reallocated by the UN to “poorer, landlockedcountries.”In the name of environmental justice, trillions of dollars would be siphoned from Americans.
    • Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta believes that “the time has come” for the Senate to ratify LOST. Panettasaid about LOST: “Not since we acquired the lands of the American West and Alaska have we had such anopportunity to expand U.S. sovereignty.”The US Navy supports LOST because it supposedly classifies navigational rights and freedoms that would assistthe US Navy in key operations; however there is no need to ratify a treaty that empowers the UN to governthe US Navy to do what they already do. The necessity of an international body to give the US militarypermission to perform as it normally does is ludicrous.Still, the US Navy and Joint Chiefs of Staff forcefully repeat to Congressional committees that LOST is crucial tothe success of US military operations.The US Navy contends that LOST will preserve American freedom of transit in dangerous waters, such as theStrait of Hormuz and the South China Sea.Panetta retorts: “How can we argue that other nations must abide by international rules when we haven’tofficially accepted those rules?”For decades, admirals have warned that the US cannot guarantee navigational rights without ratification ofLOST through Congress.In 1995, one admiral wrote: “This may be our last opportunity to ‘lock in’ those critical navigational andoverflight rights.”In 2007, a vice chief of Naval Operations stated to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “We need to lock inthe navigation and overflight rights and high seas freedoms contained in the Convention while we can.”LOST will give the UN jurisdictional claim that may interfere with navigation of the seas by military orcommercial ships. The Freedom of Navigation Program provides the US diplomatic protest through the StateDepartment when warships are prohibited from navigating foreign waters. LOST would remove the US Navy’sright to diplomacy by right of global and international governance.Under LOST, since the UN has no navy, America would be expected to protect the world’s sea lanes andpunish piracy by mandate of international law.The International Tribunal of LOST (ITLOS) would have jurisdiction over “maritime disputes”. This tribunal of21 members resides in Hamburg. ITLOS’s judgments could be enforced against Americans, but not appealed inUS courts.Maritime disputes would essentially be turned from accidents at sea between ships, to issues of globalwarming with power to create binding mandates on climate change.Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation published a paper that outlines how radical environmentalistlawyers and climate change alarmists could use LOST to file lawsuits to advance man-made climate changeagendas.John Bolton, former UN ambassador, asserts LOST has become more dangerous “with China emerging as amajor power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activitiesand do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.”In 2010, Obama issued an executive order National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts and GreatLakes that seized total control from states and localities for “conservation, economic activity, user conflict andsustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes.”
    • Obama installed a National Ocean Council (NOC), a 27 member group that will implement ocean managementplans “in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the SeaConvention.”NOC is chaired by John Holdren , Obama’s Science Czar, (who supports eugenics, mass sterilization and forcedabortions; as well as geo-engineering for the sake of saving the planet) and Nancy Sutley, White House onEnvironmental Quality.The NOC also seats Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The EDF is known forsupporting draconian declines of commercial fishing ships and leisure fishing to pursue centralized control.Elisabeth Mann Borgese, co-author of LOST is quoted saying: “He who rules the sea, rules the land.”LOST gives all-encompassing power and global governance over the world’s water sources in the name ofenvironmental protection.http://occupycorporatism.com/lost-is-centralized-control-of-the-world-by-the-un/
    • Climate Change Alarmists Leading the World Toward Global Governance Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism June 6, 2012 Climate change alarmists are hard at work, pushing their agenda of man- made global warming which ultimately leads to global carbon taxing through the governance of the UN. Daniel Sarewitz , professor of science and society and co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, asserts that: “There is not any serious debate about whether anthropogenic climate change is happening. Scientists are certain about that, and it is unfortunate that the national debate is lagging so far behind.”The move toward convincing the general public that man-made CO2 is responsible for global warming partially stemsfrom a study from 2000 which was co-authored by James Hansen, a prominent eco-fascist.Hansen’s team admits that “rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases . . .not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols.” And then admonishes that the method of controllingemission output should “focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed anddeveloping countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.”As Hansen states that global warming is not man-made, he still desires to see global governance over emissionsregulation and carbon taxation mandated by international law to reduce this imaginary problem.The debate over climate change originated with the 2007 report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC). The IPCC emphatically concluded without empirical scientific data, but rather projected conjecture used to createcomputer models that claimed human activity was the sole cause of the earth’s rising temperature.The IPCC is concerned about the world’s governemnts not cutting carbon emmissions enough to reduce the CO2 outputinto the atmosphere.John Reilly , co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Joint Program on the Science and Policy ofGlobal Change and an expert on climate economic models believes this is the crux of the problem. Reilly blames thegovernments and their leaders for failing to take the appropriate steps to reduce emissions; in particular China and theUS.He claims that the European Union has rising greenhouse emissions that they have failed to deal with “properly”.In 2009, Reilly and colleges from MIT collaborated with researchers from Penn State, the Marine Biological Institute inMassachusetts and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They decided to create computer models for climatechange projections with the same major flaw that the IPCC made in their models; they did not account for the erraticweather patterns indicative to earth.Their findings were published , which claimed that large amounts of greenhouse gases would cause the median globaltemperature to rise over 5 degrees Celsius by 2100. This was a dramatic difference from the IPCC’s assertion that therise in global temperature would be 3.5 degrees Celsius.The study also falsely asserted that:
    • The Arctic would warm up 3 times as predicted by the IPCC• Severe weather patterns would emerge• Ocean levels would raise dramatically• The oceans would endure acidificationReilly proudly touted: “The IPCC suite of scenarios provide … a bit too rosy of a picture. Our study shows that withoutaction, there is virtually no chance that we won’t enter very dangerous territory.”This year, MIT conducted another “ projection ” that warned if countries did not achieve emissions cuts, as theypromised the UN, then the world’s temperature would raise by over 4 degrees.Quite a scare tactic.John Christy , atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, IPCC author in 2001 and a well-knownskeptic of human-caused climate change, said: “I’m surprised there are those who think the IPCC is too conservative. Ithink the simple evidence is very clear—the IPCC models overestimate the warming of the climate system.”The IPCC has not commented on their erroneous climate change models.The IPCC’s task was not to create accurate predictions about how the earth would be affected by man’s influence on thebiosphere. Their purpose was to engage the world’s governments in a game of control and relinquish of power to theUN over an assumption that could not be verified.Or so they thought.Through the use of geo-engineering (chemtrails) governments have been dumping massive amounts of pollutants intothe upper atmosphere that has caused the thunderclouds to trap heat which has had a dramatic effect on the surfacetemperature.After spending more than a decade observing the glaciers in Greenland, scientists have concluded that they are notmelting with the veracity that climate change alarmists would have us believe.This means that the warning of several feet of rising seas that were purveyed by Al Gore in his film An InconvenientTruth, will actually only be a significant rise by inches.According to a study published in the journal Nature, plants are flowering up to 8 times faster than were projected. Theauthors of the study admit that their previous summations were incorrect and based on erroneous information providedby the IPCC.Data from NASA satellite, Terra, showed that the earth is naturally expelling heat out into space from the upperatmosphere. This cracks the crux of the climate change alarmist’s theory that the earth’s temperatures are risingbecause the heat is trapped.However, to counter this natural phenomenon, the excessive use of chemtrails has been deployed by governments ofindustrialized nations to “cause the problem” they claim is the fault of man’s CO2 emission.The UN’s agenda, through the IPCC, globalist colleges like MIT and Penn State, and those scientists that have beenbought off to assist in purveying false data as empirical scientific research are scaring both world leaders and the generalpublic into buying their climate change nightmare for the purpose of usurping international control over sovereignnations.So far,unfortunately, they have been quite successful.http://occupycorporatism.com/climate-change-alarmists-leading-the-world-toward-global-governance/
    • AB 32 Cap and trade hearings high on speculation, low on details May 3, 2012 By Katy GrimesSACRAMENTO — A recent poll about the implementation of AB 32 shows that California voters and taxpayersaren’t real crazy about cap and trade or regulatory reporting regulations. Cap and trade programs mandatereduced emissions, while providing a trading mechanism for emissions “credits.”Despite the entire program being speculative, and the dismalpoll results, the California Air Resources Board is moving aheadwith a cap and trade program and its first carbon auction inNovember.Additionally, a strange informational hearing about cap andtrade took place Wednesday in the Senate Select Committee onCalifornia and Mexico Cooperation. More of a dog-and-ponyshow to gin-up interest in cap and trade, the hearing wassupposed to be about California and Mexico becoming carbontrading partners.But Mexico does not have a cap and trade program, does not have a climate change law in place like AB 32,and pulled out of the Western Climate Initiative.AB 32 PollThe poll, authored by the AB 32 Implementation Group, submitted the polling information to the CARB, but itappears that CARB has turned a deaf ear on Californians.The poll found:* Support for AB 32 has declined since 2008, with a slim majority of voters still in favor.*California voters are unwilling to pay more for energy and other essentials in order to fund GHG reductionpolicies.* Nearly two-thirds of voters oppose CARB’s proposed cap and trade auction and less than a majority ofinformed voters support cap and trade in general as currently planned.* Two‐thirds of voters think California is seriously on the wrong track.* Only about a third of voters have a favorable view of the Legislature.And once California starts down the path of carbon trading, there is no going back.
    • Cap and Trade and MexicoCurrently, the cap and trade program can’t support itself. Despite this, Gov. Jerry Brown, state legislators andCARB are trying to push this aggressive and untested program alone, despite a shaky economy.Yet the hearing was held as if California and Mexico are forging ahead as part of the Western ClimateInitiative.WCI Inc.As I reported last month, the California Air Resources Board has created a stealthy new corporation inDelaware. The Western Climate Initiative Inc., which will manage cap-and-trade programs, even has its ownform of currency.WCI Inc. states that it exists “to perform administrative and technical services to support the carbon tradingmarket, including market monitoring of allowance auctions, and market trading of compliance instruments.”Initially, California was to unite with other Western states to reduce carbon emissions and put an end to globalwarming. “However, the partners determined that they would prefer not to tackle the issue during arecession,” Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, recently explained to me. “The cost of making theirstates less competitive in a tough business environment outweighed the benefit.”Harkey has been trying to get her legislative colleagues tounderstand that setting a goal to reduce greenhouse gasemissions to 1990 levels, with California’s increasingpopulation, is guaranteed to cost employers and everydaypeople more for the electricity and products they need.That’s also one reason why so many businesses are alreadyleaving the state.Last November, New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, Oregon,Montana and Utah all pulled out of the Western ClimateInitiative. Despite the exodus, California formally launched itsown cap and trade system on January 1, 2012, with a veryambitious target of carbon emissions reductions of 80percent by 2050.California’s only remaining partner in the Western Climate Initiative is the Canadian province of Quebec. Theprovince is expected to launch its own scheme in 2013, which is said to link with California.And this is where things start to get sticky. Once California links with another carbon trader, we can no longermake changes to the plan. It has to be right the first time.If our trading partners offer more carbon allowances to their businesses and industries than California does, itwill hurt our competitive advantage, similar to the way higher in-state taxes already hurt California businessescompeting against businesses in other states.And it is important to note that the California-Quebec relationship is not trading apples-to-apples. Quebecgets 97 percent of its energy from hydroelectric sources. California is trying to reduce traditional electricityproduction, including hydroelectric power, and instead replace it with as much “renewable” energy as possible
    • from wind and solar, algae and ethanol. Energy experts have been saying in recent months that California’senergy demand is too much for the alternative energy and lower usage standards.Additionally, Quebec has only 80 regulated industries. California regulates more than 300 industries.Hearing from the playersThe requisite climate change supporters spoke at the hearing. One was Gary Gero, with Climate ActionReserve, formerly known as the Climate Action Registry. He said Climate Action Reserve is the largest offsetsregistry in North America, with nearly 500 offset projects in four U.S. states and Mexico, and has certifiedmore than 24 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emission reductions.Gero called for forest protocols, livestock protocols and ozone protocols, and is looking to be “the largestliquid North American carbon market.”Jim Gonzales with the Renewable Energy Accountability Project, a national environmental organization, saidhe thinks a California-Mexico offset program is in the cards. However, many question the validity of this sinceMexican industry is currently much less regulated than California businesses and industry, and Mexico doesnot have the strict pollution standards California is famous for.California Air Resources BoardNo hearing about climate change would be complete without testimony from CARB. Much of this hearingcentered around CARB’s mandates and future implementation policies.Richard Corey with CARB gave his usual song-and-dance about CARB’s great work. Corey gave an overview onthe implementation of AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, as well as the 2008 scopingplan, and the Renewable Portfolio Standard of 2011.“Cap and trade acts as an economy-wide backstop,” Corey said. “We will work with other greenhouse gasemission markets and can trade allowances with each other.”But the most important point Corey made is that CARB sets all of the carbon allowances.With the upcoming first carbon auction in November, committee members wanted to know how this wasgoing to impact industries within their districts, suddenly faced with being forced to implement new programsor fined for carbon emissions.Corey said that CARB is allowing free emissions for the first period, but in the second trading period, emissionswill be charged.“A lot of industries in my district have already spent millions of dollars to clean up their act to lower emissions,and pushed it as far as the science will go,” Sen. Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres, told Corey.Cannella was concerned that businesses have already made substantial reductions on their own, and will bepunished by CARB with even stricter emission reductions. And if that is the case, the fear is that businesses willcontinue to flee the state.Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concerned with the Mexico and California relationship, andwhy Mexico is no longer an “observer” of WCI Inc.
    • Corey couldn’t answer why Mexico left the WCI, but talked about the law just passed by the MexicanLegislature, similar to AB 32. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has not signed the bill yet.Dutton grilled Corey about the purpose of WCI Inc., and why CARB incorporated WCI in Delaware.Corey insisted that WCI Inc. is just an administrative function for the cap and trade program, but did notspecifically address why it is incorporated in Delaware and not in California. However, he did admit that WCIInc. will be facilitating the carbon auctions, proceeds of which will go to California.Dutton wanted to know under what authority WCI Inc. was created. Corey said that embedded in AB 32 wasauthorization for CARB to create WCI Inc, and offered to provide Dutton more information after the hearing.Cap and TradeCalifornia’s new cap and trade program places a limit on greenhouse gas emissions from the businesses andentities responsible for approximately 80 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. CARB will issuecarbon allowances to these businesses and entities, which will be able to turn around and sell them to otherbusinesses on the open market.The “cap” is the state-imposed limit on businesses that emit greenhouse gasses, and the “trade” is the sale ofcarbon credits to other businesses. Only the businesses chosen by CARB get to sell carbon credits to polluters,and profit from doing so.Businesses will be limited on how many credits they can purchase. If a business produces more carbonemissions than the state allotted, CARB will issue stiff fines and penalties. Or the business can just reduce theirproduction output and lose money instead.Mexico Cap and TradeDr. Luis Farias, the president of Mexico’s Sustainability Commission, testified that in Mexico, it will be theprivate sector which makes the investment needed into alternative energy. Farias said that there are 431projects currently under way in Mexico.But in what sounded like a warning to California, Farias said that we need to find a way to increase rather thanretard business growth. “All offsets are not created equal,” Farias said. “Standards and protocols are onething, implementation is another.”Alfonso Lanseros, president of CO2 Solutions in Mexico, gave a lengthy, highly technical presentation aboutthe opportunities for California’s technology and labor in Mexico’s renewable energy development.Wrapping up the hearing was Dorothy Rothrock with the California Manufacturers and TechnologyAssociation. Rothrock acknowledged that California has already passed AB 32 and now we must deal with it.But she said that there is a “great tension” in the implementation process, which does not have to be there.Rothrock warned that, as California heads for the carbon auctions, it is important to keep in mind thenecessity for our businesses and industries to remain competitive. If they cannot, less capital will be available,and it is likely that other states will not join us as trading partners.
    • However, if California does this right, we could be the leader. “We’ve a great history of imposing requirementson ourselves. We can help others get up to our standards, rather than continue to hammer on ourselves,”Rothrock said.And Rothrock warned that linking with Quebec is a problem. “They are distant, and not a trade partner ofCalifornia,” she said. “We can’t make changes after linking with anyone.”As the hearing ended, Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, said he had more questions, not fewer, after hearing allof the testimony. He said much more research was needed before California moves forward with a cap andtrade program.Assemblywoman Harkey opined that, if California starts to bleed more businesses, then create more carboncertificates, we will create inflation and the carbon certificates will be devalued. “I would hope that the Senateand Assembly hold banking and finance hearings to tell us how this would work,” Harkey said. “Who will be incharge behind WCI Inc.? We need to move slowly so we don’t get hosed in the meantime.” Food safety bill invokes Codex harmonization and grants FDA authority to police food safety of foreign nations(NaturalNews) Of all the talk about S.510, virtually no one has actually read the language in the bill -- especially not those lawmakerswho voted for it. The more you read from this bill, the more surreal it all becomes. For example, did you know theres a global FDApower grab agenda hidden in the Food Safety Modernization Act? Keep reading and Ill quote text straight out of the bill itself.Section 305 is entitled "BUILDING CAPACITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WITH RESPECT TO FOOD SAFETY" and it gives the FDAauthority to set up offices in foreign countries and then dictate the food safety plans of foreign governments. It says, specifically, onpage 217 of the bill (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr2751eas/pdf/BILLS-111hr2751ea...):Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030863_food_safety_bill_Codex_Alimentarius.html#ixzz1wZQCYNiZ
    • CA stands alone in ending global warming May 7, 2012, By Katy GrimesI’ve always believed that everything is economic. It appears that this is true, even with climate changemandates. But even insolvency may not be an important enough reason for global warming apologists inCalifornia to stop implementation of AB 32 and upcoming carbon auctions.It’s over, over thereBritish Columbia is now questioning the future of the climate initiatives it enacted.Quebec’s greenhouse gas reporting data has been so erratic, it won’t be clear whether the mandates haveactually achieved the reduction targets set by the 2006-2012 Climate Action Plan.The U.S. climate change policy was shelved by the feds, and the Western Climate Initiative is down to twomembers — California and Quebec — after six U.S. states withdrew last November.What will it take for California Democrats, Gov. Jerry Brown, the California Air Resources Board and legislativeglobal-warming “experts” to admit that California’s climate change policies need to be shelved as well?Because if they don’t admit this soon, and scrap plans for the upcoming carbon auctions, we can only concludethat they want to destroy the once Golden State.“In an annual report, Michael Samson, the Canadian province’s acting auditor general, said Quebec’sgreenhouse gas reporting data has been erratic to the point where it won’t be clear whether it has achievedthe reduction target set out in its 2006-2012 Climate Action Plan,” Point Carbon website reported.“Samson said the province too often relies on reporting that is ‘anecdotal,’ and cannot be verified, and saidnew policies are needed.”This will undoubtedly impact California. The inability of Quebec to report its emissions accurately andconsistently is a big red flag, because California and Quebec are planning on linking their carbon markets nextyear, in an attempt to create the world’s second largest carbon-emissions trading scheme.Is this plan based on reality, or is it ego-driven?The planned carbon trading markets are purely speculative, and could be the death blow to Californiataxpayers.
    • We can thank Brown, who decided to monetize CO2 carbon emissions, and plans to tax utility customers,business owners and taxpayers for the emissions. His theory is that the state stands to take in an extra $1billion in revenues with the carbon credit sales.But the new revenue stream is not new money coming into the state, and instead is an additional $1 billionfrom the same old sources — businesses, manufacturers, utility customers, homeowners, property owners,automobile owners and taxpayers.Predictability, climate change supporters go silent when the results of their efforts are discussed. Overall, ifCalifornia continues down the road of selling and trading carbon emission credits, it will cost the state $450billion by 2020, and only 0.4 percent of total global emissions will have been abated.The Falsified Data is Still FalseA 2011 Rasmussen poll found that 69 per cent of 1,000 respondents believed it at least “somewhat likely” thatclimate scientists had falsified their research data to support the case for catastrophic human-caused globalwarming. Forty per cent of respondents said falsification of research data was “very likely.” Only 22 percentresponded that they were sure that climate scientists hadnot falsified data.The data from international climate scientists is still falsified.California’s diesel emission regulations were falsified. Andthe hysteria and hype is being pushed by those who stand togain financially.An industrious reporter put together a report and photos ofhow climate change scientists have falsified even the“official” temperature readings. His photos highlight thelocations of official climate thermometers located indifferent cities throughout the world. The thermometerswere intentionally placed near air conditioning units which emit heat, at airports where they received blasts ofheat from jet engines and against protected walls, where warmth from cement, bricks, and the sun’sreflections produce heat.The totalitarian statists in government don’t give a hoot about climate change. Its just a convenient vessel forexpanding government and government control over the people.These same people also love to use children and minorities as props for their statist policies.And now California is truly alone in the end global warming game. Voters and taxpayers must make this stop.We know that the mental midgets in our government won’t put an end to their gravy train.www.calwatchdog.com/2012/05/07/ca-stands-alone-in-ending-global-warming/
    • Just Say No to Big Brothers Smart Meters: The Latest in Bio-Hazard Technology by Orlean KoehleWhat is a SmartMeter? It is one that contains RF (radio frequency) so that it can be remotely controlled andread. No longer will a meter reader have to come to your home to read the meter. It will all be done remotely.When all is in place, the smart meter will not only keep track of how much electricity you are using, but it willbe able to control, regulate, and ration your use of that electricity. If "big brother" decides that you are usingtoo much heat in the winter time, or too much air conditioning in the summer time, or using too much hotwater in your showers or washing machine (even if you are willing to pay for that extra usage), that use ofpower will be automatically turned down. A future goal is to have - by 2012 - all appliances replaced withthose containing RF so that the smart meter can speak to your appliances and turn them off in peak hours - foreven more regulations and controls.Get a free copy: www.scribd.com/sharlenemusic/d/66132059-Just-Say-No-to-Big-Brother-s-Smart-Meters-The-Latest-in-Bio-Hazard-Technology-by-Orlean-Koehle
    • ICLEI is a Conspiracy and Thats No Theory By Stacy Lynne Friday, 20 August 2010 14:06Conspiracy: An illegal, treasonable, or treacherous plan to harm or destroy another person, group or entity;an agreement manifesting itself in words or deeds and made by two or more persons confederating to do anunlawful act or use unlawful means to do an act which is lawful; a combination of persons banded togetherand resolved to accomplish an evil or unlawful end. (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary)Theory: Imaginative contemplation of reality.Fact: Something that has actual existence; an actual happening in time or space; physical actuality or practical experience as distinguished from imagination, speculation or theory. Congested Laurel Street in front of Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. This four lane road was reduced to two lanes in August 2010. Vehicle driving lanes were removed so that bicycle lanes could be added in the center of the road. Bike lanes were already present on each side of the road. Arapahoe County, Colorado and ICLEI Arapahoe County, including, but not limited to, the cities of Aurora,Englewood and Littleton, are participating members of the foreign organization called the InternationalCouncil for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Taxpayer money is used for annual dues, to pay cityemployees who work for ICLEI’s programs, and for programs such as government-owned bicycle businesses.Bicycles are a Big DealICLEI Charter 1.7, Principle 14 says, “Integrate into formal education and lifelong learning the knowledge,values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.”ICLEI member cities focus their efforts on ecomobility, multimodal transportation, transit oriented design andmultiple other ways of changing your ability to travel by use of personal vehicle. This is accomplished bymaking driving more expensive and difficult while simultaneously spending millions of taxpayer dollars ongovernment-owned walking, biking and mass transit projects. Emissions from vehicles are blamed by ICLEI asbeing a primary source of man-made global warming.Scientific studies show that global warming is a natural and cyclical occurrence and man-made emissions areminiscule in proportion to natural sources.ICLEI uses a “precautionary approach” to decision-making: if knowledge, facts and science do not support orshow justification for an idea or action then the best course is to act radically and rapidly to preventsomething which could or might occur.The City of Fort Collins pays a “bicycle coordinator” a yearly salary equivalent to a police officer. The duties ofthe city bike employee are to teach people of all ages how to ride bicycles. He has a focused partnership withthe school district (Principle 14).
    • The City of Denver, under the direction of ICLEI’s 2009 Cool Mayor, John Hickenlooper, is enacting foreignmandates and spending taxpayer money on bicycles. Denver’s bike sharing program received $210,000 oftaxpayer money in 2009. This money was given to the City of Denver through a federal block grant. ICLEIrequires member cities to adopt multi-modal transportation policies and bicycle programs meet thoserequirements.Greenprint Denver is a document produced by ICLEI. Two of ICLEI’s goals include eliminating personal vehicleuse and reducing private ownership of property. These two goals are being accomplished through city-ownedand operated bicycle programs and by claiming private property through eminent domain. Transit orienteddesign is ICLEI’s policy of building high density multi-use building on property which is sometimes claimedthrough eminent domain. These buildings are designed in areas which make vehicle travel difficult. Walking,biking and mass transit become top priority budget items. High density housing communities are typically toosmall and cost-prohibitive for families.ICLEI cities systematically and methodically make owning and driving a personal vehicle more difficult andexpensive. They accomplish this by removing parking spaces and driving lanes, increasing parking fees and carownership taxes. Privately owned automobile dealers and bicycle shops are adversely affected by thisgovernment interference.Media Coverage of ICLEI ICLEI is successful in part because they operate largely out of public view. ICLEI is highly organized and when exposed, calls on its associates to conduct focused campaigns in an attempt to ridicule and silence the people who are reporting facts. The Fort Collins Coloradoan belongs to ICLEIs Climate Wise program. The Denver Post is owned by Media News Group. The Santa Cruz Sentinel, also a long-time ICLEI member city is owned by Media News Group. Media News Group is ranked high on the Carbon Capture Report.What is Wrong with ICLEI?ICLEI is a foreign organization on a mission to transform local governments. Each ICLEI mandate, policy andagenda is based on the principle that the collective good is more important than individual rights; this is indirect opposition to the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence.ICLEI is a Conspiracy and Thats No Theory by Stacy LynneView Stacy Lynnes ICLEI presentation here.http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/illegitimate_government/iclei_is_a_conspiracy_and_that%27s_no_theory_20100820423/
    • SOUNDS LIKE SCIENCE FICTION...OR SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY... BUT IT ISNT.UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, allwater, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, and allhuman beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.Have you wondered where these terms sustainability and smart growth and high density urban mixeduse development came from? Doesnt it seem like about 10 years ago youd never heard of them and noweverything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county andstate and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies toalign themselves with...what?First, before I get going, I want to say that yes, I know its a small world and it takes a village and were allone planet etc. I also know that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people,and that as cumbersome as that can be sometimes (Donald Rumsfeld said that the Chinese have it easy;they dont have to ask their people if they agree. And Bush Junior said that it would be great to have adictator as long as he was the dictator), we have a three branch government and the Bill of Rights,Constitution, and self-determination. This is one of the reasons why people want to come to the US, right?We dont have Tiananmen Square here, generally speaking (yes, I remember Kent State--not the same, andyes, an outrage.) So Im not against making certain issues a priority, such as mindful energy use, alternativeenergy sponsorship, recycling/reuse, and sensitivity to all living creatures.But then you have UN Agenda 21. What is it?Considering its policies are woven into all the General Plans of the cities and counties, its important forpeople to know where these policies are coming from. While many people support the United Nations forits peacemaking efforts, hardly anyone knows that they have very specific land use policies that they wouldlike to see implemented in every city, county, state and nation. The specific plan is called United NationsAgenda 21 Sustainable Development, which has its basis in Communitarianism. By now, most Americanshave heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21.In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decisionmaking in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of theirland and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to giveway to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should berounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close toemployment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out howmost of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.
    • U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected. Itcalls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more,a redistribution of wealth. Although people around the world aspire to achieve the levels of prosperity wehave in our country, and will risk their lives to get here, Americans are cast in a very negative light and needto be taken down to a condition closer to average in the world. Only then, they say, will there be socialjustice which is a cornerstone of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.Agenda 21 policies date back to the 70s but it got its real start in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeirowhen President Bush signed onto it. President Clinton signed it later and continued the program in theUnited States. A non-governmental organization called the International Council of Local EnvironmentalInitiatives, ICLEI, is tasked with carrying out the goals of Agenda 21. Over 600 cities in the U.S. aremembers; our town joined in 2007. The costs are paid by taxpayers.Its time that people educate themselves and read the document and related commentary. After that, get acopy of your city or countys General Plan and read it. You will find all sorts of policies that are nearlyidentical to those in U.N. Agenda 21. Unfortunately, their policies have advanced largely unnoticed and weare now in the end game. People need to identify their elected officials who are promoting the U.N.spolicies and hold them accountable for their actions. Only when weve identified who the people are andwhat they are trying to do will we be able to evaluate whether or not we approve of the policies they areputting forward. Some people may think its appropriate for agencies outside the United States to set ourpolicies and some people will not. The question is, arent Americans able to develop their own policies?Should we rely on an organization that consists of member nations that have different forms ofgovernments, most of which do not value individual rights as much as we do? Its time to bring U.N. Agenda21 out in the open where we can have these debates and then set our own policies in accordance with ourConstitution and Bill of Rights. ***Ok, you say, interesting, but I dont see how that really affects me. Here are a few ways:No matter where you live, Ill bet that there have been hundreds of condos built in the center of your townrecently. Over the last ten years there has been a planning revolution across the US. Your commercial,industrial, and multi-residential land was rezoned to mixed use. Nearly everything that got approvals fordevelopment was designed the same way: ground floor retail with two stories of residential above. Mixeduse. Very hard to finance for construction, and very hard to manage since it has to have a high density ofpeople in order to justify the retail. A lot of it is empty and most of the ground floor retail is empty too.High bankruptcy rate.So what? Most of your towns provided funding and/or infrastructure development for these privateprojects. They used Redevelopment Agency funds. Your money. Specifically, your property taxes. Noticehow theres very little money in your General Funds now, and most of that is going to pay Police and Fire?Your street lights are off, your parks are shaggy, your roads are pot-holed, your hospitals are closing. Themoney that should be used for these things is diverted into the Redevelopment Agency. Its the only agencyin government that can float a bond without a vote of the people. And they did that, and now yourepaying off those bonds for the next 45 years with your property taxes. Did you know that? And by the way,even if Redevelopment is ended, as in California, they still have to pay off existing debt--for 30 to 45 years.So, what does this have to do with Agenda 21?Redevelopment is a tool used to further the Agenda 21 vision of remaking Americas cities. Withredevelopment, cities have the right to take property by eminent domain---against the will of the property
    • owner, and give it or sell it to a private developer. By declaring an area of town blighted (and in some citiesover 90% of the city area has been declared blighted) the property taxes in that area can be diverted awayfrom the General Fund. This constriction of available funds is impoverishing the cities, forcing them to offerless and less services, and reducing your standard of living. Theyll be telling you that its better, however,since theyve put in nice street lights and colored paving. The money gets redirected into theRedevelopment Agency and handed out to favored developers building low income housing and mixed use.Smart Growth. Cities have had thousands of condos built in the redevelopment areas and are telling youthat you are terrible for wanting your own yard, for wanting privacy, for not wanting to be dictated to by aCondo Homeowners Association Board, for being anti-social, for not going along to get along, for notmoving into a cramped apartment downtown where they can use your property taxes for paying off thathuge bond debt. But its not working, and you dont want to move in there. So they have to make you.Read on.Human habitation, as it is referred to now, is restricted to lands within the Urban Growth Boundaries of thecity. Only certain building designs are permitted. Rural property is more and more restricted in what usescan be on it. Although counties say that they support agricultural uses, eating locally produced food,farmers markets, etc, in fact there are so many regulations restricting water and land use (there are sceniccorridors, inland rural corridors, baylands corridors, area plans, specific plans, redevelopment plans, hugefees, fines) that farmers are losing their lands altogether. County roads are not being paved. The push is forpeople to get off of the land, become more dependent, come into the cities. To get out of the suburbs andinto the cities. Out of their private homes and into condos. Out of their private cars and onto their bikes.Bikes. What does that have to do with it? I like to ride my bike and so do you. So what? Bicycle advocacygroups are very powerful now. Advocacy. A fancy word for lobbying, influencing, and maybe strong-armingthe public and politicians. Whats the conection with bike groups? National groups such as CompleteStreets, Thunderhead Alliance, and others, have training programs teaching their members how to pressurefor redevelopment, and training candidates for office. Its not just about bike lanes, its about remakingcities and rural areas to the sustainable model. High density urban development without parking for carsis the goal. This means that whole towns need to be demolished and rebuilt in the image of sustainabledevelopment. Bike groups are being used as the shock troops for this plan.What plan? Were losing our homes since this recession/depression began, and many of us could neverafford those homes to begin with. We got cheap money, used whatever we had to squeak into thosehomes, and now some of us lost them. We were lured, indebted, and sunk. Whole neighborhoods areempty in some places. Some are being bulldozed. Cities cannot afford to extend services outside of theircore areas. Slowly, people will not be able to afford single family homes. Will not be able to afford privatecars. Will be more dependent. More restricted. More easily watched and monitored.This plan is a whole life plan. It involves the educational system, the energy market, the transportationsystem, the governmental system, the health care system, food production, and more. The plan is torestrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms, and take away your voice. One of the ways isby using the Delphi Technique to manufacture consensus. Another is to infiltrate community groups oractually start neighborhood associations with hand-picked leaders. Another is to groom and train futurecandidates for local offices. Another is to sponsor non-governmental groups that go into schools and trainchildren. Another is to offer federal and private grants and funding for city programs that further theagenda. Another is to educate a new generation of land use planners to require New Urbanism. Another isto convert factories to other uses, introduce energy measures that penalize manufacturing, and set energyconsumption goals to pre-1985 levels. Another is to allow unregulated immigration in order to lowerstandards of living and drain local resources.
    • All of this sounds unbelievable until you have had direct experience with it. You probably have, but unlessyou resisted it you wont know its happening. Thats why wed like you to read our blog The Way We See It(click here). Go to the section in the blog (look on the right side under Categories) called Our Story. Youllget a look at how two unsuspecting people fell into a snake pit and survived to tell about it.www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.html Final Warning: A History of the New World Order (Illustrated Edition) The definitive resource on the origin and history of the movement toward one- world government. This is the rogue Illustrated Edition and contains 2000 pictures. Its 90 mb’s and worth every minute! Download a free copy: http://www.scribd.com/DavidARivera/d/6491259-Final- Warning-A-History-of-the-New-World-Order-Illustrated-EditionIt’s the bankers or us!What you need to know as the international bankers crash theworld’s economy.Here is an interactive magazine called It’s the Bankers or Us! featuring insightfuldocumentaries and in-depth, non-mainstream news articles to help youunderstand the perils of the real banking and financial system. This is a crashcourse uncovering the chicanery of the private Federal Reserve Bank, the UnitedNations and Agenda 21, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (that trackthe hidden wealth of government), Wall Street, and the Corporation Nation. Thisis jaw dropping information that you won’t find on TV or in your newspaper.You will discover how the mainstream media is completely owned and controlled by the "international elite", and thatthey do not report any meaningful news and are fully engaged in mind control and propaganda.Download a free copy: www.scribd.com/doc/64021159/Its-the-Bankers-or-us
    • El Dorado County folks riled by U.N. agenda for sustainable growth By Carlos Alcalá calcala@sacbee.com Published: Thursday, May. 24, 2012 The United Nations is haunting El Dorado County.Critics of a 20-year-old U.N. document called Agenda 21 are becoming more vocal, blaming it for any numberof ills in the county.Agenda 21 came out of a United Nations conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It recommends a framework fornations to develop and grow sustainably – that is, with minimum damage to the environment.Although it was accepted by presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, it carries no force oflaw here.According to local critics, however, Agenda 21 is environmental extremism responsible for U.S. Forest Serviceroad closures, onerous regulations on family farms, high-density low-income housing projects, a ban on dredgemining, a Highway 50 wildlife crossing, unemployment and maybe even traffic roundabouts.Those issues resonate with many of El Dorado Countys 180,000 residents. The county has growing suburbsnear its border with Sacramento County, but is largely rural, and largely federal forestland, as it climbs theSierra to Lake Tahoe.The issue has become so heated that the Mountain Democat newspaper in Placerville is publishing a four-partseries on Agenda 21. The headline to kick off the series dubbed the U.N. measure "Central Planning onSteroids.""It mixes environmentalism and socialism," said Kathleen Newell, one of 14 people who spoke against Agenda21 at an El Dorado County Board of Supervisors meeting May 15. An anti-Agenda 21 resolution was on thecalendar for that day, but was tabled.Three supervisor candidates – George Turnboo, Sue Taylor and Ron Mikulaco – attended the meeting tocondemn Agenda 21.Supervisor John Knight, who placed the resolution on the calendar, said in an interview that he wasnt sure hefully understood Agenda 21. But he said he actually supports the kinds of regional planning critics blame onthe U.N. measure."I dont see any connections at all," Knight said, with respect to the United Nations controlling El DoradoCounty deliberations.
    • He said he brought the resolution because he had heard constituents concerns about Agenda 21 and felt theyhad to be addressed. It was withdrawn, he said, because the county counsel had concerns about wording.There are no plans to bring it back.Only one member of the public defended Agenda 21 at the supervisors meeting."What I hear is a lot of fear and misunderstanding," said Jamie Beutler, emeritus chair of California Democratsrural caucus. "Frankly, I dont see what it has to do with anything on the local level."Agenda 21 promotes concepts such as focusing growth in urban areas, preserving natural areas for wildlifeand decreasing pollution. Beutler lauded some of its principles, which include national sovereignty combinedwith the responsibility to prevent environmental damage to neighboring countries."What in this principle violates or does harm to the interests of the people of El Dorado County?" she asked.But critics see Agenda 21s fingers in a recently approved Sustainable Communities Strategy approved by theSacramento Area Council of Governments, under Senate Bill 375. The state law authored by Senate PresidentPro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by favoring certain kindsof development.The six-county region will grow by 900,000 people by 2035, according to SACOG."Theyre going to take it down to where everybody will have to ride buses and public transportation," saidJudy Mathat, a supporter of supervisor candidate Turnboo. She said she has worked to raise the alarm aboutAgenda 21 since the 1990s.Turnboo has heard the message. "Basically what they want to do is bring a lot of people out of the rural area,give it back to wildlife," he said.Critics of Agenda 21 and SACOG often refer to "stack em and pack em" housing, because of incentives forconcentrated housing along transportation corridors."This is all about moving toward one-world government," Mathat said. "Were a pawn. Our presidents apawn."The lines connecting Agenda 21 to federal, state and local government are vague. Critics such as Taylor saydecisions made in Congress or by the president show its sway.Mathat compares the failure to see the connections to a parable about catching wild pigs. The parable says ifyou put corn out for the pigs to eat and build an enclosure one wall at a time, the pigs will be fenced in beforethey know it."Im seeing what I think is three sides of the pen," she said."It does have a kind of conspiracy theory flavor," said Michael Barkun, an emeritus professor at SyracuseUniversity who studies such movements. "Theres no semblance of truth about it," he said.Supporters of sustainable growth say communities are adopting the strategy on its own merits, not as a resultof marching orders from the U.N. Steinberg pointed out that SB 375 requires regional agencies only to make aplan, not to adopt specific regulations.
    • "That government is making people give up their suburban lifestyle, that is just false," he said.Instead, the SACOG plan coming out of SB 375 is based on incentives for certain types of development andincludes support for rural residential areas, said Matt Carpenter, SACOG director of transportation services."Its corn," Mathat says of the state and SACOG incentives, referring to the pig trap.The issue has not arisen only in El Dorado County. Several state governments have taken up the matter,though it appears none has approved measures against Agenda 21.In the Bay Area, sustainability planning has met with similar criticisms from people affiliated with the tea partymovement, said Steinberg. But he said he had not heard specifically of Agenda 21 before a reporters call.Criticism of Agenda 21 is supported by organizations including the John Birch Society, and is widespreadenough that the American Planning Association has felt compelled to create a "Myth and Facts" sheet aboutAgenda 21.That has, in turn, spawned online attempts to debunk the fact sheet.http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/24/4512939/el-dorado-county-folks-riled-by.html#storylink=misearch By Eduardo DiBaia / Associated Press file, 1992At a 1992 United Nations event known as the Earth Summit, Brazils president signs a document as hesapplauded by the U.N. secretary-general at right. Critics say the summits Agenda 21 sets extremeenvironmental goals that threaten rural residents.Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/24/4512939/el-dorado-county-folks-riled-by.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy
    • REVOLT AGAINST AGENDA 21 March 17, 2011 By Rretta The County Commissioners of Carroll County, Maryland, have launched a revolution against the United Nation’s Agenda 21. They shut down the county’s Sustainable Development Office, terminated its manager and then terminated the county’s contract with ICLEI, an international organization dedicated to pushing the UN Agenda 21. They also rejected the County’s Comprehensive Development Plan, which was nothing more than a “sustainable development” scheme written by ICLEI that violated private property rights and the U.S. Constitution.Every patriot in this country needs to stand behind these brave individuals in Carroll County. You can email J.Douglas Howard at dhoward@ccg.carr.org; Haven Shoemaker at shhoemaker@ccg.carr.org; Robin BartlettFrazier at rfrazier@ccg.carr.org; David Roush at droush@ccg.carr.org; Richard Rothschild atrrothschild@ccg.carr.org. If you prefer to write them the address is 225 N. Center Street, Westminister,Maryland 21157. Richard Rothschild is working with the American Policy Center on a DVD that will be sent toelected officials and activists around the nation as a teaching tool to build even more opposition to Agenda 21.ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives was founded in 1990, as a membership,nonprofit international organization. They changed their name in 2003 to Local Governments forSustainability committed to working with local governments in advancing climate protection and sustainabledevelopment. There are local Virginia offices of ICLEI in Arlington, Abingdon, Alexandria, Augusta County,Blacksburg, Charlottesville, Carroll County, Dumfries, Falls Church, Harrisonburg, James City County, Lexington,Loudoun County, Lynchburg, Norfolk, Richmond, Roanoke County, Roanoke City, and Warrenton.ICLEI receives its funding by membership dues from local governments, grants from the EPA, the Departmentof Energy, and other federal agencies and fundraising from the Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse, Local Agenda 21, the Cities for Climate Protection, the Turner Foundation, the UN DevelopmentProgramme, the Rhoda Goldman Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation Fund, the Tides Foundation, theDavid Rockefeller Foundation, and the Pew Foundation to name a few. Of course, George Soros being heavilyinvolved in the United Nations also donates funds from his Open Society Institute.ICLEI also partners with other organizations to promote sustainable development and climate protection. TheUnited Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), Metropolis, World Economic Forum, the Clinton ClimateInitiative, the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat),the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the UNConvention to Combat Desertification, the Un Millennium Development Goals, the Johannesburgh Plan forImplementation, the Climate Group, the World Bank, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the RenewableEnergy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, the Global Footprint Network, and the International Center for
    • Sustainable Cities. If you look at financing of these nonprofit agencies, you will find George Soros and hisOpen Society Institute, the Rockefeller Foundations, the Tides Foundation, etc.Sustainable development is a socialist trap. In most communities, your mayor, city council members andcounty commissioners are automatically members of national organizations like the National Conference ofMayors, the National League of Cities, and national associations for city council members and countycommissioners. Governors and state legislators have their own national organizations. For the last 15 years ormore each of these national organizations have been promoting “sustainable development“.The National Mayors Conference and the Governor’s Associations have been the leaders in pushing Agenda21, many times working with international organizations like the ICLEI or UN organizations to promote policyand provide sample legislation. In turn, state organizations and federal agenices such as the EPA, theDepartment of Energy, HUD, the Commerce Department are targeting your local elected officials with policy,money, regulations, reports, special planning boards, conferences, etc. all pushing Agenda 21.WE MUST FIGHT BACK WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME TO KILL AGENDA 21. Research is the first step. Check outyour local government web page – Find out who the players are in your community – what privately fundedorganizations are working with your elected officials – what sustainable development plans do they have.Attend your local city council or board of supervisors meetings and ask questions.Remember, they work for you. Write letters to your local paper, engage local patriot groups, educate yourneighbors, and write your state and federal representatives. Together, we can defeat this.In 2007 Virginia passed the Urban Development Areas (UDAs) legislation mandating that localities with agrowth rate of 15% or a growth rate of 5% with at least 20,000 population must designate at least 1 UrbanDevelopment Area in a comprehensive plan by 2011.During the 2011 General Assembly Session HB 1721 was introduced to make UDAs optional rather thanmandatory. While the bill passed the House, it died in the Senate Local Government Committee. All 8Democrats in the Committee voted against sending it to the Senate floor for a vote. They were Louise Lucas(18th), Henry Marsh (16th), Patsy Ticer (30th), Roscoe Reynolds (20th), Toddy Puller (36th), Mark Herring(33rd), Mamie Locke (2nd), and David Marsden (37th). Maybe these districts need new Senate representation!http://www.franklincountyvapatriots.com/2011/03/17/revolt-against-agenda-21/
    • NEW: Cap & Trade parasite bill signals civil war on business May 31, 2012 By Wayne LusvardiSpeaker John A. Perez’s push of Assembly Bill 1532 through theState Assembly on Tuesday, May 29, signals a shift from regulationof air pollution to an outright civil war on business and industry inCalifornia.AB 1532 is not content with just using pollution taxes collectedunder California’s Cap and Trade emissions trading program to lower water, power, and natural gas bills forratepayers, due to the looming higher price of green power. Rather, AB 1532 will directly use Cap and Tradetaxes to parasitically transfer jobs taken from the private sector, to political pork jobs in the public sector. Itcould also end up circumventing the limitation of new taxes of Propositions 13 and 26. The passage of AB 1532is a provocative act that crosses the line between regulation and outright plunder of the private sector forpublic sector make work green jobs programs.AB 1532 passed the State Assembly by a 47 to 26 vote. The record of who voted for or against AB 1532 wasnot available online as of the writing of this article.AB 1532 is a parasitical public sector jobs grabCap and Trade is a set of regulations under California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 — AB 32 — toreduce air pollution by requiring industries and public utilities to buy pollution permits, also called pollutioncredits or allowances.In reality, Cap and Trade is a program to socialize water, power, and natural gas rates to shift the comingburden of the high cost of green power onto the middle class. Thus, the enormous taxes collected under theCap and Trade program were to be rebated to utility ratepayers to socialize the “rate shock” of green power.But AB 1532 takes this one step further by using Cap and Trade taxes to fund local governments and createparasitical green jobs programs.AB 1532 will not backfill jobs lost in those industries directly affected by California’s Cap and Trade pollutionpermit trading law. Instead, it will create another self-perpetuating bureaucracy of political patronage andjobs programs under the guise of “clean tech” industries and air pollution reduction programs.AB 1532 will divert “investment towards the most disadvantaged communities in the state.” It will also fund“small businesses, schools, affordable housing associations, water agencies, local governments, and othercommunity institutions (including public universities) to benefit from statewide efforts to reduce greenhousegas emissions.”In other words, AB 1532 is just another tax to fund government and public schools, and redistribute jobs inreturn for political patronage. It is an end run around Prop 13 and Prop 26, both of which require a two-thirdsvote for any tax, fee, levy, or tax allocation.
    • Price of pollution permits will go up even without gaming systemOnce established, it will incentivize government gaming of the Cap and Trade system to inflate the price ofpollution credits. According to energy consultant Robert Lucas of the California Council for Environmental andEconomic Balance, government gaming of the Cap and Trade system will likely double the annual amount oftaxes collected under Cap and Trade regulations. Cap and Trade taxes would be expected to rise from $6.25 to$12.5 billion per year — or from $50 to $100 billion over the next 8 years.Even if government does not game the system to its taxing advantage, the program is supposed to reduce thenumber of pollution permits each year as air pollution is improved. The fewer the permits, the higher the pricefor the pollution permits, and the greater the pollution taxes collected. By design, there will be about 15percent fewer pollution permits available to trade by the year 2020. Thus, pollution permit prices will likelyrise without any gaming of the system. What is made to look like the workings of the so-called pollution creditmarket will actually be a structured way to inflate the price of pollution permits.Reduce production or ration public utilities?If, however, there are no credits to buy because there is no more pollution that can be realistically reduced,then industries and utilities may offset their pollution by planting trees or burying carbon in the ground. Moreof a false economy will be created and expanded.But this will do little to reduce air pollution as long as population policies under AB 375 — the anti-urbansprawl bill — continue to divert growth to urban air basins that trap pollution. The solution to pollution isdilution, not concentration.Or if all else fails, industries and utilities can simply reduce production or call for rationing of water, power,and natural gas. Clean air at any cost.AB 1532 is point of no return — the “Pottery Barn Rule”The next step with AB 1532 will be its review in the state senate. Under Senate President pro-tem DarrellSteinberg, this is likely to result in passage and forwarding to Gov. Brown for signature. The legislature andgovernor are likely to pass AB 1532 before political redistricting may change the composition of thelegislature.AB 1532 has fired the first symbolic shots in a civil war of what is permitted under the Global WarmingSolutions Act — AB 32. Several nonprofit liberal think tanks have rendered quasi-legal opinions thatCalifornia’s Cap and Trade taxes cannot be used beyond providing utility ratepayers with rebates. ButAssembly Speaker John Perez has signaled he is going to push the legal limits of what can be funded with Capand Trade taxes.In the ancient Roman Empire, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River with his army, thus signaling civil warwith the Roman Senate. At Fort Sumter, the South fired the first shots in the Civil War between the North andSouth states. California State Assembly Speaker John Perez has crossed the point of no return with AB 1532,signaling a war on California’s business, industry and the middle class.Gen. Colin Powell once cited what is called the “Pottery Barn Rule” about starting an unpopular war: “if youbreak it — you buy it.” And Assembly Speaker John Perez and the Democratic Party are about to buythemselves a civil war chock full of unforeseeable consequences. http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/05/31/cap-trade-parasite-bill-signals-civil-war-on-business/
    • California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California • Statewide Analysis - California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project • Eco-regional Analyses Within California • Western States • Grant Funded Connectivity Research California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected CaliforniaThe California Department of Fish and Game and the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) commissioned a team ofconsultants to produce a statewide assessment of essential habitat connectivity by February of 2010, using the best availablescience, data sets, spatial analyses and modeling techniques.The goal was to identify large remaining blocks of intact habitat or natural landscape and model linkages between them that need tobe maintained, particularly as corridors for wildlife.Over sixty federal, state, local, tribal and non-governmental organizations collaborated in the creation of : 1. A statewide wildlife habitat connectivity map using a Geographic Information System (GIS) based modeling approach; 2. An assessment of the biological value of identified connectivity areas; and 3. A strategic plan that helps varied end users interpret and use the statewide map and outlines a methodology necessary for completing connectivity analyses at finer spatial scales.Products Geographic Information System (GIS) Data • BIOS Web Site, with links to view the GIS layers in an online map viewer and download the GIS data. Final Report • California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California (37 Mb PDF) • Appendix B In Spreadsheet Format (Excel) - Detailed Characteristics of Essential Connectivity Areas • Appendix C in Spreadsheet Format (Excel) - Detailed Characteristics of Natural Landscape Blocks • Lookup Table for Column Labels - Detailed Characteristics of Natural Landscape Blocks (PDF) Support Materials • Fact Sheet (PDF) • Executive Summary (PDF, 7 pages with map) • What It Is/ What It Is Not (PDF) • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Data (PDF) • Technical Presentation (PDF) o Speakers Notes for Presentation (PDF) • CalTrans Web Site - with links to videos of recorded meetings, agendas, summaries, handouts, and presentations. http://dfg.ca.gov/habcon/connectivity/
    • 10 Ways to Stop Being a Slave and Bring Down the Pyramids of Control Activist Post Thursday, May 24, 2012 There are very real conspiracies in the world, and those conspiracies are always conducted by people "in the know" against those who are ignorant or naive of backroom machinations. Past slavery was largely based on force (thus was much more obvious), but modern-day slavery is actually more widespread because global slave masters use all of the scientific tools at their disposal to win hearts and control minds, convincing us that our hands and feet are free, so we must be living self-directed lives. There are signs that the mind-pyramids that technocrats have built to enforce their 21st-century global plantation slave system are crumbling as they press harder upon our cognitive ability to make sense of words and actions. The owners of the shoulders on which the structure of tyranny is supported are beginning to leave in droves. The pyramids are falling as slaves begin to recognize their unconscious effort, and consciously encourage others to find a different line of work Here are 10 ways that you can help collapse all of the pyramids of control. Anthony Freda Art1. Media and Intelligence - Information is knowledge and knowledge is power -- this is where it all starts. Turnoff the TV, stop passively receiving information that turns you into an idiot at the teat of the "idiot box." Getcreative: start a blog, a neighborhood newsletter, radio show, public access TV or YouTube channel, writeencouraging letters to companies you appreciate and nasty ones to those you boycott; DO something;anything to increase awareness. Homeschooling is another great way to help short circuit the negativeinfluences of systematic programming. Even if you dont agree with homeschooling, or are not able, there areconcepts that you can help introduce into your public school to enhance education. Intelligence - there aretechnologies to thwart constant surveillance, as well as low-tech solutions to high-tech tyranny. The Internet isbeing used to surveil the public, but it also provides an opportunity for the public to surveil and report the realcriminals. Use the system against itself.
    • 2. Health and Agriculture - Why do tyrannical systems always move to declare methods of independence suchas farming, vitamins, raw milk, and natural medication like cannabis as underground contraband systems thatthreaten the health of society? Clearly because this is a cornerstone of freedom. Learn to make your ownmedicines, trade on the underground, support other states (and countries) who have embraced food freedom,and stand your ground by forming local community resistance against food and health tyranny. Moreover,simply making your mind and body stronger by pursuing what is natural and healthy will give you more powerto challenge the system in every other way.3. Energy and Technology - Support true economic development and pursue open source solutions to alltechnological problems that can affect humanity on the widest scale. These are the technologies that havebeen suppressed in the past, their creators destroyed; but now there are too many people pursuing goals tofree humanity. Embrace innovation and technology, but only as it leads to self-empowerment, self-determination, and genuinely helps the human and environmental condition. There are reportedly many free-energy patents being kept from the public. These technologies cant be kept secret forever as long as theInternet remains free and open. Support all efforts to maintain Internet freedom and the right to pursueinnovation.4. Mobility and Flexibility - Always be willing to adapt and move. The structure of tyranny might be global, butthere are always pockets of freedom that tyranny ignores -- normally based on economic interest. Becomeadaptable, dont buy into the "American Dream" of having possessions to define your self-worth. Once youdiscard the unimportant things, look for specific towns, states, or countries to escape economic decline andthose which promote freedom. Its a difficult decision to pick up and move, especially when extended familycomes into play, but discuss your ideas and the evidence for your concerns openly and honestly, and be thefirst to pioneer the building of a new future -- if things begin to collapse in earnest, you will soon be soughtafter by those who once doubted your "crazy" reasoning.5. Prepare for the Worst - Along the same lines as being mobile and flexible, make sure that you store enoughsupplies to get through a few months or more of tough times. The current system relies on your dependenceand they can easily control those who live just-in-time lifestyles. Most people dont realize how much they"need" the system until something like a blizzard knocks out their power and wipes out the grocery storeshelves. Its wise to store back-up food, have the ability to produce food, gather tools and other items neededduring power outages or other disasters, and actively pursue any and all other survival prepping and self-sufficiency techniques.6. Refuse to Pay Unjust Debt - This is a moral decision based on the information that much of what wascreated to be a "loan" was based on a predatory system. As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse, andthat is duly noted, but when confronted with an enemy that has deliberately contrived devious ways to stealproductivity and the fruits of honest labor, then the principle of justifiable self-defense is invoked. Forgetabout your credit score; it is the invisible chain that keeps you in prison. Refuse to pay debts that you knowwere fraudulently imposed. Remember, the banks never had the money they "lent" to you in the first place;they created it out of nothing to buy your servitude. If you are hesitant to simply quit paying the criminalbanks, then learn how to reduce your exposure to all debts.
    • 7. Create New Banking Systems - We have seen economic collapse taking down countries like dominoesacross the third world, and now the first. These money junkies cannot and will not stop. It is up to us todevelop systems which permit us to completely withdraw our support for the current system and shield usfrom manipulated collapses. This may be the most productive way to break free from modern slavery;whether its switching to local credit unions, storing precious metals instead of cash, engaging in bartersystems or using alternative currencies, or supporting full-blown monetary reform.8. Learn a Skill - Learn as many skills outside of your day job as possible. This can be as simple as giving moreattention to your hobbies like fishing, hunting, gardening, painting, blogging, tinkering on cars, building things,sewing, cooking, etc. Whatever useful skill youre most passionate about, learn more about it, become anexpert at it, and acquire the necessary tools to start a side business with it. By doing this, youll reduce thedependence on your job and find much more fulfillment in life. Remember, skills are the only form of wealththat cant be taken from you. Additionally, form clubs or partnerships with your neighbors and share your skillsand tools to form a stronger community that will be resistant to whatever the systems of control throw yourway.9. Boycott - Activists have enjoyed many recent victories through boycott, most notably the rapid removal of"pink slime" meat from major supermarket chains following public outcry once they became aware of theproduct. It goes to show that the public still holds the power over corporations, but the masses must beeducated before theyre moved to action. Not you though. Readers of this post know exactly what companiesto boycott and why. Start living your principles and follow through on your knowledge. Voting with yourdollars DOES work, but not if the aware crowd refuses to do it.10. Taxes - Taxes are the most controversial of all -- the one that catches the most flak, so the one that mustbe most directly over the target. How do you feel knowing that money is extracted from you by force to beinjected into systems around the world that create violence, rip apart cultures, and put us on a path ofcomplete annihilation and self-destruction? This is slave-like thinking in its highest form of denial. NoConstitution of any country anywhere in the world openly recognizes that it is lawful to forcefully extractmoney you have earned enslaving you for life to kill others with it, upon penalty of imprisonment. Its the finalchain to be broken, and is admittedly the thickest. But how can a machine be built without the funding tobuild it? The entire prison system we see around us has been built with our own money. Did you authorize it?Did you authorize the preemptive wars, bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, the high-tech surveillance grid thatenslaves you?Significantly, these are all things you can do on your own. You dont need to influence politicians, or ignite amass protest, or wait for an uprising. There is no cavalry coming. You are the change you seek. Get out thereand become more self-reliant and the system will lose its grip on you. If enough of us do this, the system willfall apart by its own unsustainable making. Refuse to be a slave today and unchain others by sharing thisarticle and implementing the tips on this list.http://www.activistpost.com/2012/05/10-ways-to-stop-being-slave-and-bring.htmlRead other articles by Activist Post HERE.
    • More information www.jbs.org/tags/agenda-21 and americanpolicy.org/ and www.freedom21.orgwww.eagleforumofcalifornia.com/ and www.citizensagainstmoraldecline.com/ and www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/index.html