Do you cherish your God-given constitutional right to own property? So do I! UN Agenda 21′s Smart Growth is in full bloom across our nation. In East Tennessee the five county local “Regional ” program is called Plan East Tennessee, (Regional Plan for Livable Communities), a plan which will eliminate private property rights in these five counties. Link<br><br>
It is a plan for Smart Growth. Rosa Koire, author of, “Behind the Green Mask,” defines Smart Growth on her website, as “Human habitation as it is referred to now is restricted to lands within the Urban Growth Boundaries of the city. Only certain building designs are permitted. Rural property is more and more restricted on what uses can be on it.”<br><br>
In my recent article, Taxed Enough Already,
I explained how our former Knoxville City Mayor, Bill Haslam (now
Tennessee’s Governor) hired his Democratic opponent, Madeline Rogero to
work in his Republican Mayoral administration since the election was
very close. He wanted a second term without her running against him.
Rogero is now the new Knoxville City Mayor. While she was in Haslam’s
administration, she apparently received permission and applied for a
federal grant from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. In fact, Governor Haslam has refused to even sign a resolution against Agenda 21 even though a Resolution has absolutely no power of law. <br><br>
These grants, part of the Obama administration’s Partnership for
Sustainable Communities, bring together HUD, the Department of
Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Two types of
grants were awarded — those to update existing plans, and those to
develop sustainability plans from scratch. Knoxville’s Plan ET is from
scratch and Knoxville received $4.32 million from the HUD grant.
Another $2.5 million came from a Consortium of partners which includes non-profits.
<br><br>
Knoxville is also a dues paying member of ICLEI since 2007. From Tom DeWeese’s article, Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson, ” ICLEI – Local
Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for
Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide
“local” community plans, software, training, etc. Additional groups
include American Planning Association, The Renaissance Planning Group,
International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors
Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities,
National Association of County Administrators and many more private
organizations and official government agencies. The Foundation and
government grants drive the process.” <br><br>
Community Forums and The Delphi Technique
From the Plan ET website, “Over
the three-year PlanET process, three phases will lead to a targeted,
meaningful outcome. Phase One (August 2011 – July 2012) will bring East
Tennesseans together to establish a shared identity and vision (alleged data gathering).
Phase Two (April 2012 – March 2013) will take that vision, and while
educating and engaging the public, will develop a shared direction.(framework) Phase Three (January 2013 – December 2013) will produce and report the final product and focus on implementation activities.” (Action plan for Smart Growth) <br><br>
Series II of Plan ET held a week of six forums in every one of the
five “regional” counties (Blount, Knox, (2) Anderson, Loudon and Union)
asking for “community input.” Yet, Plan ET’s definition of “community
input” seems to be neutralization of any expressed opposition to their
plans of eliminating private property ownership under the guise of Smart
Growth. Their “community consensus” is scripted for their
pre-determined outcome via their use of the evil Rand Corporation’s
mind-control Delphi Technique. RAND developed the Delphi method in the
1950s for the U.S. Department of Defense. It was originally intended
for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war. <br><br>
These forums are headed by trained Delphi Technique facilitators at
small table groups of 6 to 8 people. The facilitators or change agents
are always likeable people who will smile and agree with your comments.
The discussion consists of issues previously decided upon by the
leadership of these forums. The facilitator manipulates the discussion
in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints. <br><br>
Rarely does anyone ever challenge the process, thinking they were
probably in the minority with their answers. Actually, the conclusions
were established in the back room long before the meeting ever took
place. The general public believes this program was theirs, but in
fact, the outcomes had all been decided long before the meetings ever
took place. The Delphi Technique is being used again and again to change
our representative republic, given to us by our Founding Fathers, into a
“participatory democracy.” <br><br>
Who Are The Facilitators?
Wallace, Roberts, and Todd
(WRT) architectural firm, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
is the Plan ET partner chosen to head the forums. They are paid $1.7
million to accomplish the pre-determined outcome of these forums through
facilitation of the Delphi Technique. WRT was established in 1963 by David Wallace and they are expert “regional planners” with the firm’s origins rooted in “sustainability.” The American Planning Association
(APA) has continually recognized this firm and their principal leaders
for their contributions to sustainability and Smart Growth. The APA
even has a “Policy Guide on Smart Growth.” In Tom DeWeese’s article, Lies and Doublespeak of the APA,
these APA Sustainablists are teaching their planners to lie through
their teeth to the opposition of their UN Agenda 21 Smart Growth
policies. <br><br>
The American Planning Association and their allies are countering the
anti-Agenda 21 movement with these lies, double speak and stealth. Why?
Aren’t they proud of their policies? I guess Seattle planner J. Gary
Lawrence said it best when he admitted several years ago that “participating
in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out
many…who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking
Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as
comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” Now, even those words have caught up with their secret agenda. So now they’re having to invent more new words. <br><br>
All of the following leaders from WRT are members of the American Planning Association.
The leading facilitator and principal from WRT is John Fernsler. John’s bio states, “John
is particularly adept at creating consensus among competing interests
and in communicating Smart Growth planning concepts to diverse
audiences.” It also states he is adept at helping communities “striving to contain sprawl.” Yes, they don’t want you living in the rural areas, and they hate the suburbs. Plan ET’s website contains pictures of downtown Knoxville,
nothing of the rural community, suburbs, or Smoky Mountains.<br><br>
Fernsler
has been the driving force from WRT since the very first Plan ET meeting
in Knoxville last summer. I met him there and spent an hour talking
with him. He said WRT had just “finished” Austin, Texas. He also said
to me, “Maybe you’d understand a bit better if we called what we’re
doing, “stewardship.” Now I see on their website they are using God’s
Word for “care of the earth” as a euphemistic term for their total
control of our lives and property through Smart Growth. <br><br>
Another facilitator and Senior Associate from WRT is Rob Kern.
Rob’s area of expertise is Transit design (they want us out of our
cars and using public transportation, bicycles, or our feet). He is
also adept, as they all are with Smart Growth planners, in urban design.
(Once again, forget suburbia and rural communities). <br><br>
Another WRT principal is David Rouse. His bio states, “David
has a special interest in planning and design for sustainability,
community engagement in the planning process, and capacity-building for
implementation.” (Capacity building is the stack-em and pack-em
mega multi-family high rises built in the urban landscape after you’ve
been moved off your suburban or rural property.) <br><br>
From WRT’s website, “Principal
David Rouse is one of 11 members of the American Planning Association’s
Sustaining Places Task Force, established earlier this year to address
the use of the comprehensive plan as the leading policy document and
tool to help communities of all sizes achieve sustainability.<br><br>
The Task
Force is part of the Sustaining Places Initiative, announced in March
2010 by APA President Bruce Knight and Chief Executive Officer Paul
Farmer at the United Nation’s Fifth World Urban Forum in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. Sustaining Places
is a multi-year, multi-faceted program to define the role of planning
in addressing all human settlement issues relating to sustainability.”
<br><br>
David Rouse, UN Smart Growth architect of Wallace, Roberts and Todd stated in the Times Free Press newspaper last fall that he is “committed to an open process, and that property rights won’t be impacted without the public’s consent.” (Note: He said “without the public’s consent, not the property owner’s.)
<br><br>
Knoxville’s Metropolitan Planning Commission
Mark Donaldson, the MPC
Executive Director has been at every single forum meeting and is
trained as a Delphi facilitator. At one of the first meetings in Series
I, he did not present himself as Executive Director of MPC, but said he
was Mark from Minnesota. Other members of MPC were also at many of the
Plan ET meetings as well as countless members of Knoxville’s Energy and Sustainability Task Force. Also present at all the Series II forums was Knoxville’s “Regional” Transportation Planning Coordinator, Jeff Welch who, like Mark Donaldson is trained as a Delphi facilitator.
<br><br>
Invitees and Paid Attendees
Here’s the real rub with this whole “community input” nonsense this
UN Agenda 21 Smart Growth bunch is pulling. At the majority of
meetings, there were18 to 23 Plan ET members present who are Delphi
facilitators, along with WRT and MPC staff. Then there were 20 to 25
invitees from local governments including local government Planning
Committees, Community Development, Oak Ridge National Labs, University
of Tennessee, etc. All of these invitees are employed by government and
have a vested interest in this Plan ET coming to full fruition. I have
attended nearly all of the Plan ET forums, and at every table, the
“shills” who were invited answered all the questions with the
pre-determined and ordained outcomes the Smart Growth facilitators
desired. <br><br>
Then there are another 18 to 25 people who know what Agenda 21
really is all about. The majority of meetings have approximately 40 to
45 people, not counting the facilitators, but if those of us against UN
Agenda 21 did not attend, the only people giving “community input”
would be the invited government shills who have a vested interest in
Smart Growth and should not be voting at these Delphi meetings as it is a
conflict of interest! At one meeting, one of the invitees admitted she
was a paid participant. By the way, these attendance numbers were also
given by the Plan ET staff present at all the forums.
<br><br>
At the Plan ET South Doyle Middle School forum on Wednesday, April
25th, I sat across the table from a woman named Linda. She works for
Knoxville County Mayor Burchett’s administration. Her boss, Grant
Rosenberg, Community Development Director, was the invitee, but couldn’t
attend, so he sent Linda. I made a comment about UN Agenda 21 at this
table and Linda adamantly stated that she loved everything about UN
Agenda 21.<br><br>
What a shocker to hear one of these planted shills actually
speak the truth. Most of them tell you they never heard of Smart Growth
or UN Agenda 21. I asked her if she agreed with the 85% population
reduction of Agenda 21 and she answered that was a total lie. How about
limiting our usage of water to 28 gallons a day? She said that was a
lie too. She should have gone to see one of my friends across the room
who had the UN Agenda 21 book with him and he could have shown her the
truth.
<br><br>
At the 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Plan ET forum at the Loudon County Technical
Center on Thursday, April 26th, the leaders of the forum were in a hurry
to usher us out of the building. One of our participants called the
Tech Center the next day and asked if there was a time limit on how long
we could be there chatting after the meeting. The person she spoke
with told her there was no rush to close the building, but the Plan ET
people had been there since 8 a.m. They had actually been taking the
leading children in this Technical Center School and putting them
through the Delphi Technique all day long! <br><br>
These are minor children.
Then she called Public Affairs of Knox County Schools and found out
children in other high schools in these counties were being Delphied as
well. When she asked if the parents had given permission, she was told
the school board had okayed the forums.
Finally, at the last meeting on Saturday morning, April 28th, at Union County High School in Maynardville, Tennessee, (video)
there were only six invited local government employees and about 10 or
12 of us. <br><br>
At one table, one of our people was tossed out of the forum
for asking too many questions. Then his daughter was tossed out. When I
began to scream that this was a community forum and we were allowed to
ask questions, I was threatened with being thrown out. Another woman
was asking questions as well, and Jack Rhyne, the City Manager of
Maynardville, kept pointing at her and telling her to get out. She kept
saying, “No, I want to hear what the gentleman is asking.” Rhyne
actually took her elbow in an effort to grab her and escort her out of
the building when facilitator Rob Kern of WRT stepped in to move her to
another table. As an aside, this woman is a survivor of 9/11 at the
Pentagon.
<br><br>
Conclusion
At the Board of Mayors meeting, which was the kickoff of Plan ET’s
Series II, several of us in the audience stood to ask questions of WRT’s
Rob Kern and the Mayor of Anderson County after the initial
presentation. There must have been 10 or 15 people asking questions and
raising hands and stating they wanted to hear answers. Both the Mayor
and Rob Kern said, “We’ll answer questions outside.” We didn’t want the
questions outside in the foyer, we wanted them in the main room.
Needless to say, these two men ended up running out of the room. At
other meetings they would allow questions after the meeting in a corner
with no microphone, but then we forced open mic questions and there were
plenty.
<br><br>
Our property rights and God-given constitutionally guaranteed
freedoms are being lost at exponential rates today. The 20 year
anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio
occurs next month, June 2012. The planners intend to make UN Agenda 21
into hard law. This plan has existed for decades and was written about
by six Russians in a book entitled, The Ideal Communist City.
It was translated into English in the 60s. It is all about Smart
Growth. I would urge you to buy Rosa Koire’s book, Behind the Green
Mask. It is available on Amazon.com, and from the Post Sustainability Institute and clearly and succinctly tells the whole story of the damnable UN Agenda 21.
Showing posts with label property rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property rights. Show all posts
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Texas Mayor Cancels Agenda 21 Membership
The city of Irving, Texas has officially withdrawn its membership from ICLEI -- the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. This NGO was established in 1990 and is the action division of the policies laid out under the UN's Agenda 21 plan -- the globalist initiative to usher in a post-industrial world for the 21st century through the creation of local laws and requirements for city planning that essentially erase personal property rights and even steal land under a "sustainable" umbrella.
On ICLEI's own website (under the "Programs" section), they state, "Our campaigns, programs, and projects promote Local Agenda 21 as a participatory, long-term, strategic planning process that addresses local sustainability while protecting global common goods." Cities pay dues in order to obtain direction from ICLEI in establishing local policy and law. This is a violation of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 10: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation..." ICLEI receives funding by the David Rockefeller Fund, United States EPA, etc. ICLEI targets mayors -- in the 'Cool Mayor' program, and other local officials to implement Agenda 21. (Source)
The Achilles Heel of ICLEI is exactly what has been targeted by Tommy Gonzalez, the Irving City Manager, and Mayor Beth Van Duyne; namely that local implementation is susceptible to public pressure and principled local officials who can resist the globalist march into their communities.
The resistance must spread, for the world that is planned under the co-opted term of sustainability is nothing short of a futuristic dystopia of people herded into high-density living spaces, rationing of infrastructure and services, removal of personal property rights, and strict government monitoring and control over every aspect of the lives of individuals. It is a collectivist model that is distinctly anti-American, as the Planned-opolis video below demonstrates:
One can immediately sense the anti-entrepreneurial, anti-free market rhetoric that sets up a class warfare argument for proposing solutions that have historically led to a serf-lord relationship under bureaucratic totalitarian regimes. This is, in fact, neo-feudalism.
We should applaud local resistance to the fallacious schemes put forth by fake environmentalism, and assert the need for true sustainable local solutions, not the collectivist doctrine of acquiring the resources and productivity created by individuals only to give it back to us at a fraction of its original worth. For a thorough explanation of Agenda 21, please see the video below. For further reading about the origins of Agenda 21 and its many permutations, please visit Cassandra Anderson's excellent website devoted to these issues at MorphCity.
Please tell us about any initiatives in your city for resisting ICLEI; if not, use this precedent in Irving, Texas as a way to introduce the topic for discussion and educate your neighbors and officials about the insidious nature of what is being paraded as a solution to save humanity, when in reality it is one of the cornerstones that globalist interests are implementing to ensure our permanent slavery
More Agenda 21 Propaganda
Few organizations conjure up as much revulsion in the public mind as the Southern Poverty Law (Lie) Center. Far from representing anything remotely resembling poverty, this is an asset rich organization that continues to raise funds from around the world. These funds are then used to disseminate misinformation and disinformation in an effort to coax the public into fearing people they don’t know and will likely never meet. Still, SPLC compiles and publishes targeted lists of groups and individuals that it apparently, is fearful of.
While actual groups do exist that are quite obviously built around hatred or intolerance of other sectors of the population, it is highly doubtful that the government or law enforcement needs the assistance of SPLC to identify them. As SPLC has acquired its massive wealth through selling their own brand of hatred for profit, doubtless they should top the list of possible suspects.
A recent article on the SPLC site entitled “Antigovernment Conspiracy Theorists Rail Against UN’s Agenda 21 Program” is indicative of the level of paranoia and the collusion within SPLC and government agencies to control public information. In this particular article, SPLC is forced to admit that the opposition to UN Agenda 21 is not just the result of those “dangerous, right wing extremist, anti-government” Tea Party’ers.
It appears a fair number of Democrats are also opposed to the UN plan to break the US into regions, the focus of which is dispensing with local governments and individual property rights. This is unfortunate as SPLC has spent a great deal of time targeting and maligning Tea Party groups contributing heavily to the misconception that those in the Tea Party were somehow extremist in their views. Then again, anyone who supports property rights, the Constitution and the right to self determination must seem extreme to the anti-American collective that is SPLC.
Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, is a large and growing group of progressive, liberal, left of center groups who have also identified Agenda 21 as a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of the United States. Now, in the paranoid fantasies of SPLC, these Democrats are to be viewed as, “dangerous, extremist, and anti-government individuals” along with the Tea Party.
The SPLC claims:
“In the last several years, an obscure United Nations accord called Agenda 21 has emerged as something of a unified field theory for the antigovernment movement. On its face, Agenda 21 does nothing but provide countries and communities with a set of principles to grow smartly — a plan, in short, to fight overpopulation, pollution, poverty and resource depletion.”
“On its face”, ( a very telling opening statement). Agenda 21 does far more than providing a set of principles to grow smartly. In fact, the intent of Agenda 21 is nothing short of control….of everything.
Agenda 21 is far from obscure, non-binding or non-threatening. Funding for this “obscure” plan is routinely added to the federal budget. Grants, subsidies, and other funding are provided to communities on the local level to establish Agenda 21 mandates. Maybe SPLC never heard of ICLEI? All these offers of funding ICLEI initiatives are masked behind phony environmental concerns, global harmonization agreements and other intrusive regulations and rules all intended to create “wildlife corridors, bio-diversity zones, and non-human habitat”. It also includes land use codes erected to limit the use of the land being taxed and paid for by individuals. This interference amounts to massive penalties, fines, fees and other costs arbitrarily foisted on property owners to limit the full use of their land and eventually to force them off their land.
The United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) 1993
The 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment, otherwise known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, hosted by United Nations leader Maurice Strong, produced the Convention on Biological Diversity. The senate at that time asked to see the document on biodiversity and was told by the UN that it did not exist.
George HW Bush declined signing the treaty. Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1993 even though he lacked authority to enter into the treaty with out ratification of the states.
“It was first proposed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1981. The land use policies required by the treaty were also expressed in dozens of other UN documents and at other UN conferences, and incorporated into the agendas of NGOs for implementation through programs and legislation at the local, state, and federal level long before the Treaty was ever presented to the world.“
It is obvious that SPLC also either missed totally or chose to ignore this little gem from the UN:
Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development. This is Agenda 21 on steroids.
Agenda 21, the United Nations action plan, is cited throughout the Covenant. Agenda 21’s objective is communally and collectively owned and managed land.
For example, the U.N. conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I). pdf
Here is an excerpt from the Preamble:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice…”
“This preamble sets the stage for 65 pages of very specific land use recommendations. Among the many recommendations are:
• A-1. Redistribute population in accord with resources
• D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources
• D-2. Control land use through zoning & land-use planning
• D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government
• D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform
• D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights which should be held by a public authority.
This established the direction of the U.N.’s recommendation.”
On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…”
U.S. agencies that are members of IUCN are:
U.S. Departments of State,
Commerce,
Agriculture (Forest Service),
Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and,
The National Park Service)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
These agencies are also on the White House Rural Council which was recently established to deal with rural property and economies.
The Covenant is also described as “a blueprint for an international framework (or umbrella) agreement” to remain a “living document” (we can change it at any time to suit our needs) until it is adopted as the basis for multilateral negotiations.
President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order #11647 on February 10, 1972, which divided the United States into 10 “standard Federal regions” at the insistence of the UN.
SPLC might be familiar with the Council of Governors appointed by Obama through Executive Order, to facilitate the activation of regional government as opposed to local and state.
10 governors appointed by Obama are:
Governor James Douglas (R-Vermont) *Co-chair
Governor Chris Gregoire (D-Washington) *Co-chair
Governor Brad Henry (D-Oklahoma)
Governor Jay Nixon (D-Missouri)
Governor Martin O’Malley (D-Maryland)
Governor Janice Brewer (R-Arizona)
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia)
Governor Michael Rounds (R-South Dakota)
Governor Beverly Perdue (D-North Carolina)
Governor Luis G. Fortuno (R-Puerto Rico)
This is about Development. And it is also about social engineering and the eventual control of vast areas of land within the geographical boundaries of the United States, by the United Nations.
It appears that much of the back ground research, and/or a total lack of integrity in reporting is apparent in most of the material SPLC produces.
In the final statement of this piece of black propaganda from SPLC is this:
There seems to be an even better question: Is there something real to fear in Agenda 21 — or is it just another bogeyman of the politically paranoid?”
I have an even better question:
With the amassing of huge sums of money and assets, is it possible that SPLC forgot to fund a research department? Or: Is it more likely that SPLC is just doing one of those things it gets paid to do? i.e, attacking anyone who disagrees with government as they help to facilitate anti-American agendas emanating from the UN?
This may come as a strange concept to the tin foil hat wearer’s at SPLC; We have a right to disagree with the government, and to express those disagreements publicly. That does not make us extremists, dangerous, or anti-government. It does however, indicate that we are reticent to accept bad government.
Whether Democrat or Republican our objections to the implementation of foreign agreements and instruments that deprive us of our property rights, that infringe on our liberty is based on actual documents produced by the UN and by our own government. Obviously, SPLC chose to ignore or to marginalize these same documents, apparently lacking the collective intellectual capacity to either recognize or understand what was before them.
Opposing the interference of non-US organizations which are attempting to dictate how we live and using their own documents as evidence of what they have planned for us, does not make us conspiracy theorists. Calling it a theory ignores the facts; it ignores the existence of the mountains of documents. A [theory] in the sense that SPLC is using the word implies there is no evidence to support the opposition’s positions. This kind of [theory] exists only if you have no evidence of your position. Unfortunately for the SPLC, their malignant nature is exceeded only by their lack of due diligence. But apparently, promoting un-American interests pays well.
The lack of ethical reporting and comprehensive analysis by SPLC appears to be nothing more than black propaganda produced by a band of paranoid fanatics whose extremist attitudes and declarations make them dangerous to the public at large. By the governments own standards SPLC is guilty of disseminating misinformation and disinformation to the public at large with the intent of altering and changing social and political beliefs.
According to Homeland Security, this would put SPLC in the category of domestic terrorists.
While actual groups do exist that are quite obviously built around hatred or intolerance of other sectors of the population, it is highly doubtful that the government or law enforcement needs the assistance of SPLC to identify them. As SPLC has acquired its massive wealth through selling their own brand of hatred for profit, doubtless they should top the list of possible suspects.
A recent article on the SPLC site entitled “Antigovernment Conspiracy Theorists Rail Against UN’s Agenda 21 Program” is indicative of the level of paranoia and the collusion within SPLC and government agencies to control public information. In this particular article, SPLC is forced to admit that the opposition to UN Agenda 21 is not just the result of those “dangerous, right wing extremist, anti-government” Tea Party’ers.
It appears a fair number of Democrats are also opposed to the UN plan to break the US into regions, the focus of which is dispensing with local governments and individual property rights. This is unfortunate as SPLC has spent a great deal of time targeting and maligning Tea Party groups contributing heavily to the misconception that those in the Tea Party were somehow extremist in their views. Then again, anyone who supports property rights, the Constitution and the right to self determination must seem extreme to the anti-American collective that is SPLC.
Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, is a large and growing group of progressive, liberal, left of center groups who have also identified Agenda 21 as a clear and present danger to the sovereignty of the United States. Now, in the paranoid fantasies of SPLC, these Democrats are to be viewed as, “dangerous, extremist, and anti-government individuals” along with the Tea Party.
The SPLC claims:
“In the last several years, an obscure United Nations accord called Agenda 21 has emerged as something of a unified field theory for the antigovernment movement. On its face, Agenda 21 does nothing but provide countries and communities with a set of principles to grow smartly — a plan, in short, to fight overpopulation, pollution, poverty and resource depletion.”
“On its face”, ( a very telling opening statement). Agenda 21 does far more than providing a set of principles to grow smartly. In fact, the intent of Agenda 21 is nothing short of control….of everything.
Agenda 21 is far from obscure, non-binding or non-threatening. Funding for this “obscure” plan is routinely added to the federal budget. Grants, subsidies, and other funding are provided to communities on the local level to establish Agenda 21 mandates. Maybe SPLC never heard of ICLEI? All these offers of funding ICLEI initiatives are masked behind phony environmental concerns, global harmonization agreements and other intrusive regulations and rules all intended to create “wildlife corridors, bio-diversity zones, and non-human habitat”. It also includes land use codes erected to limit the use of the land being taxed and paid for by individuals. This interference amounts to massive penalties, fines, fees and other costs arbitrarily foisted on property owners to limit the full use of their land and eventually to force them off their land.
The United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) 1993
The 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment, otherwise known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, hosted by United Nations leader Maurice Strong, produced the Convention on Biological Diversity. The senate at that time asked to see the document on biodiversity and was told by the UN that it did not exist.
George HW Bush declined signing the treaty. Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1993 even though he lacked authority to enter into the treaty with out ratification of the states.
“It was first proposed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1981. The land use policies required by the treaty were also expressed in dozens of other UN documents and at other UN conferences, and incorporated into the agendas of NGOs for implementation through programs and legislation at the local, state, and federal level long before the Treaty was ever presented to the world.“
It is obvious that SPLC also either missed totally or chose to ignore this little gem from the UN:
Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development. This is Agenda 21 on steroids.
Agenda 21, the United Nations action plan, is cited throughout the Covenant. Agenda 21’s objective is communally and collectively owned and managed land.
For example, the U.N. conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I). pdf
Here is an excerpt from the Preamble:
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice…”
“This preamble sets the stage for 65 pages of very specific land use recommendations. Among the many recommendations are:
• A-1. Redistribute population in accord with resources
• D-1. Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources
• D-2. Control land use through zoning & land-use planning
• D-3. Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government
• D-4. Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform
• D-5. Owner rights should be separated from development rights which should be held by a public authority.
This established the direction of the U.N.’s recommendation.”
On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…”
U.S. agencies that are members of IUCN are:
U.S. Departments of State,
Commerce,
Agriculture (Forest Service),
Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and,
The National Park Service)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
These agencies are also on the White House Rural Council which was recently established to deal with rural property and economies.
The Covenant is also described as “a blueprint for an international framework (or umbrella) agreement” to remain a “living document” (we can change it at any time to suit our needs) until it is adopted as the basis for multilateral negotiations.
President Richard Nixon issued Executive Order #11647 on February 10, 1972, which divided the United States into 10 “standard Federal regions” at the insistence of the UN.
SPLC might be familiar with the Council of Governors appointed by Obama through Executive Order, to facilitate the activation of regional government as opposed to local and state.
10 governors appointed by Obama are:
Governor James Douglas (R-Vermont) *Co-chair
Governor Chris Gregoire (D-Washington) *Co-chair
Governor Brad Henry (D-Oklahoma)
Governor Jay Nixon (D-Missouri)
Governor Martin O’Malley (D-Maryland)
Governor Janice Brewer (R-Arizona)
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia)
Governor Michael Rounds (R-South Dakota)
Governor Beverly Perdue (D-North Carolina)
Governor Luis G. Fortuno (R-Puerto Rico)
This is about Development. And it is also about social engineering and the eventual control of vast areas of land within the geographical boundaries of the United States, by the United Nations.
It appears that much of the back ground research, and/or a total lack of integrity in reporting is apparent in most of the material SPLC produces.
In the final statement of this piece of black propaganda from SPLC is this:
There seems to be an even better question: Is there something real to fear in Agenda 21 — or is it just another bogeyman of the politically paranoid?”
I have an even better question:
With the amassing of huge sums of money and assets, is it possible that SPLC forgot to fund a research department? Or: Is it more likely that SPLC is just doing one of those things it gets paid to do? i.e, attacking anyone who disagrees with government as they help to facilitate anti-American agendas emanating from the UN?
This may come as a strange concept to the tin foil hat wearer’s at SPLC; We have a right to disagree with the government, and to express those disagreements publicly. That does not make us extremists, dangerous, or anti-government. It does however, indicate that we are reticent to accept bad government.
Whether Democrat or Republican our objections to the implementation of foreign agreements and instruments that deprive us of our property rights, that infringe on our liberty is based on actual documents produced by the UN and by our own government. Obviously, SPLC chose to ignore or to marginalize these same documents, apparently lacking the collective intellectual capacity to either recognize or understand what was before them.
Opposing the interference of non-US organizations which are attempting to dictate how we live and using their own documents as evidence of what they have planned for us, does not make us conspiracy theorists. Calling it a theory ignores the facts; it ignores the existence of the mountains of documents. A [theory] in the sense that SPLC is using the word implies there is no evidence to support the opposition’s positions. This kind of [theory] exists only if you have no evidence of your position. Unfortunately for the SPLC, their malignant nature is exceeded only by their lack of due diligence. But apparently, promoting un-American interests pays well.
The lack of ethical reporting and comprehensive analysis by SPLC appears to be nothing more than black propaganda produced by a band of paranoid fanatics whose extremist attitudes and declarations make them dangerous to the public at large. By the governments own standards SPLC is guilty of disseminating misinformation and disinformation to the public at large with the intent of altering and changing social and political beliefs.
According to Homeland Security, this would put SPLC in the category of domestic terrorists.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Agenda 21 On Steroids
'The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development is Agenda 21 on steroids. If you take the word “Environment” out of the title (which seems to be thrown in to placate you), and call this the International Covenant on Development, you will more clearly see the intent of this manifesto.
The Covenant is intended to become a binding Global Treaty and the template for international law. International attorneys have been hammering this out for about 16 years. The 4th draft was issued in 2010.
The Covenant is about control of development, and social engineering, by the United Nations. Remember, the United Nations is a trade organization funded by money from corporations, organizations and associations funded by corporations, and foreign governments.'
The Covenant claims control of “areas beyond national jurisdiction, high seas and outer space.” (Article 3) The stated reasoning for this declaration of control of everything is because the global environment is a “common concern.”
The Covenant demands laws and regulations that “integrate” international law for ALL forms of physical planning. (Article 41) This includes town and country planning, ALL infrastructure (including highways, railways, waterways, dams, harbors, etc.), aquifers, drainage basins, coastal and marine areas and “any other areas constituting biological units.” It covers allocation of municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry and other uses. It even “encourages” parties to limit their subsidization of private enterprises, including agricultural subsidies.
The Covenant covers everything.
In Article 34, “TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT,” (the operative word being trade), “sets out the duty to cooperate and establish and maintain an international economic system” with global rules of trade. The Covenant defines “duty” as a legal obligation. What do you think an “international economic system” is?
The Covenant is issued by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and the ICEL (International Council on Environmental Law).
The IUCN
On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…”
Agenda 21, the United Nations action plan, is cited throughout the Covenant. Agenda 21’s OBJECTIVE is communally and collectively owned and managed land. This is communism.
U.S. agencies that are members of IUCN are: U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies are also on the White House Rural Council.
The Covenant
1) The Covenant is to remain a “living document” until it is adapted. (A “living document” can change at any time.)
2) The Covenant is intended to be a MINIMUM set of obligations.(Article 64)
3) The Covenant states “No reservations may be made to this covenant.”
(Article 76) (This means you can’t opt out of anything.)
4) The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be the Depository of this treaty (Article 78) (So who do you think will be running this show?)
Also in the Covenant:
Article 11 – This is about eradication of poverty. Sounds nice, but when this document, or Agenda 21 (which it cites) brings up “equity” or directing social and economic needs in an “equitable manner,” this is communism.
Article 16 – This is about consumption and production patterns (think Smart Meters being installed on your homes and offices) and the “importance and power” of multilateral development banks and “regional” economic integration organizations. This ties into Article 28, which requires surveillance (again, think Smart Meters being installed on your homes and offices), and management of processes and activities, but as of yet, “no specific rules to identify or evaluate” this. (Hold your breath for the 5th Draft.)
Article 29 – Is about “harmonization” and anything that can “help eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade.”
Article 30 (p.99) – Humans are defined as “organisms,” and as if this weren’t funny enough, it is followed by “Control” should “involve limiting the increase in numbers and spread of the organism by appropriate elimination, removal or other measures.”
Article 33 – This is about providing for long term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity” of the environment.
Article 36 – This is about Military and Hostile Activities. (Does the US have to ask permission from the UN to declare war?)
Article 39 – This is about management plans for harvestable transboundary biological resources, which would establish quotas and seasons for permissible taking. (Who gives this permission?)
Part VIII. – IMPLEMENTATION AND COOPERATION – stresses the importance of implementation of ALL obligations of the Covenant and the principal of general international law, including procedural obligations.
These “procedural obligations” are:
Article 67 – Parties submit periodic reports to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the measures they have adopted, progress made, and difficulties encountered in implementing their obligations under this Covenant.
(Like from pesky Americans who fight for their Constitution.)
Article 69 – Settlement of disputes – to be submitted to either an arbitral tribunal, including the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or to judicial settlement, including the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Article 70 – Review Conference. Secretary-General of the UN convenes a conference every 5 years to review implementation of the Covenant.
Article 71 – If you want to amend any part of this Covenant, you have to submit it to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
(What about our Congress? Will there be anything left for them to do? Will they lose their jobs?)
Article 43 – This obligates parties to cooperate in the formulation of international rules and standards, which is called “harmonization.”
Article 48 – This is about biotechnology, and requires sharing the “benefits,” defined as research and development results, royalties, access and transfer of technologies.
Article 63 – Parties are encouraged to become parties of treaties furthering the objective of this Covenant. (This means the UN is going to shove the Covenant down your throats one way or another.)
Who wrote the Covenant?
The Covenant was launched at the UN Congress on Public International Law in 1995. The Second Edition was presented to UN Member States at the 54th UN General Assembly. The Third Edition was presented to UN Member states at the 59th UN General Assembly. The 4th Edition (this one) was presented to UN member states at the 65th UN General Assembly.
The United States of America is a UN Member State.
The Covenant is intended to become a binding Global Treaty and the template for international law. International attorneys have been hammering this out for about 16 years. The 4th draft was issued in 2010.
The Covenant is about control of development, and social engineering, by the United Nations. Remember, the United Nations is a trade organization funded by money from corporations, organizations and associations funded by corporations, and foreign governments.'
The Covenant claims control of “areas beyond national jurisdiction, high seas and outer space.” (Article 3) The stated reasoning for this declaration of control of everything is because the global environment is a “common concern.”
The Covenant demands laws and regulations that “integrate” international law for ALL forms of physical planning. (Article 41) This includes town and country planning, ALL infrastructure (including highways, railways, waterways, dams, harbors, etc.), aquifers, drainage basins, coastal and marine areas and “any other areas constituting biological units.” It covers allocation of municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry and other uses. It even “encourages” parties to limit their subsidization of private enterprises, including agricultural subsidies.
The Covenant covers everything.
In Article 34, “TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT,” (the operative word being trade), “sets out the duty to cooperate and establish and maintain an international economic system” with global rules of trade. The Covenant defines “duty” as a legal obligation. What do you think an “international economic system” is?
The Covenant is issued by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) and the ICEL (International Council on Environmental Law).
The IUCN
On the IUCN website, it states: “IUCN links its Mission to the paramount goals of the international community on environment and sustainable development, in particular Agenda 21…”
Agenda 21, the United Nations action plan, is cited throughout the Covenant. Agenda 21’s OBJECTIVE is communally and collectively owned and managed land. This is communism.
U.S. agencies that are members of IUCN are: U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These agencies are also on the White House Rural Council.
The Covenant
1) The Covenant is to remain a “living document” until it is adapted. (A “living document” can change at any time.)
2) The Covenant is intended to be a MINIMUM set of obligations.(Article 64)
3) The Covenant states “No reservations may be made to this covenant.”
(Article 76) (This means you can’t opt out of anything.)
4) The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall be the Depository of this treaty (Article 78) (So who do you think will be running this show?)
Also in the Covenant:
Article 11 – This is about eradication of poverty. Sounds nice, but when this document, or Agenda 21 (which it cites) brings up “equity” or directing social and economic needs in an “equitable manner,” this is communism.
Article 16 – This is about consumption and production patterns (think Smart Meters being installed on your homes and offices) and the “importance and power” of multilateral development banks and “regional” economic integration organizations. This ties into Article 28, which requires surveillance (again, think Smart Meters being installed on your homes and offices), and management of processes and activities, but as of yet, “no specific rules to identify or evaluate” this. (Hold your breath for the 5th Draft.)
Article 29 – Is about “harmonization” and anything that can “help eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade.”
Article 30 (p.99) – Humans are defined as “organisms,” and as if this weren’t funny enough, it is followed by “Control” should “involve limiting the increase in numbers and spread of the organism by appropriate elimination, removal or other measures.”
Article 33 – This is about providing for long term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity” of the environment.
Article 36 – This is about Military and Hostile Activities. (Does the US have to ask permission from the UN to declare war?)
Article 39 – This is about management plans for harvestable transboundary biological resources, which would establish quotas and seasons for permissible taking. (Who gives this permission?)
Part VIII. – IMPLEMENTATION AND COOPERATION – stresses the importance of implementation of ALL obligations of the Covenant and the principal of general international law, including procedural obligations.
These “procedural obligations” are:
Article 67 – Parties submit periodic reports to the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the measures they have adopted, progress made, and difficulties encountered in implementing their obligations under this Covenant.
(Like from pesky Americans who fight for their Constitution.)
Article 69 – Settlement of disputes – to be submitted to either an arbitral tribunal, including the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or to judicial settlement, including the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Article 70 – Review Conference. Secretary-General of the UN convenes a conference every 5 years to review implementation of the Covenant.
Article 71 – If you want to amend any part of this Covenant, you have to submit it to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
(What about our Congress? Will there be anything left for them to do? Will they lose their jobs?)
Article 43 – This obligates parties to cooperate in the formulation of international rules and standards, which is called “harmonization.”
Article 48 – This is about biotechnology, and requires sharing the “benefits,” defined as research and development results, royalties, access and transfer of technologies.
Article 63 – Parties are encouraged to become parties of treaties furthering the objective of this Covenant. (This means the UN is going to shove the Covenant down your throats one way or another.)
Who wrote the Covenant?
The Covenant was launched at the UN Congress on Public International Law in 1995. The Second Edition was presented to UN Member States at the 54th UN General Assembly. The Third Edition was presented to UN Member states at the 59th UN General Assembly. The 4th Edition (this one) was presented to UN member states at the 65th UN General Assembly.
The United States of America is a UN Member State.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Agenda 21 Imposes Will On 9 Million Bay Area Citizens
Did you know that if you oppose Agenda 21 stack & pack housing, the loss of private property rights, and if you think that forcing the population into sequestered high density population centers and limiting your right to travel freely….you must be Tea Party’er. Apparently, this is a bad, bad thing according to some.
Even if you attend and oppose this UN agenda implementation, and are not affiliated with the Tea Party, you must be a rabble rouser of some kind. It couldn’t possibly be that you understand what is actually happening and object.
The biggest problem the public faces in these rigged meetings, is that the meetings are ADD meetings. Already Done Deals.
Each of these meetings is filled with Agenda 21 supporters who shill for the meeting leaders. You aren’t supposed to know that the “public” sector of these meetings is chock full of these shills in an effort to try and make it appear that the public overwhelmingly supports the efforts to establish ONE BAY AREA…a new United Nations region.
In what has to be the largest series of public meetings in various towns and counties in California, residents are again Delphi’d as they are divided into groups headed by facilitators of Delphi control techniques and herded into “stations”. “Stations” is the new buzzword for breaking the public group into smaller more manageable groups sequestered in individual rooms. This makes the job of the facilitator in steering the group towards predetermined “solutions” while at the same time convincing the group that it was their idea, far easier.
Transportation is one of the pivotal points in establishing stack & pack housing under UN Agenda 21 and limiting freedom to travel is key. About 51:51 minutes into this fiasco, we are treated to the visual aids in the transportation station. Please note in the first video the subliminal graphics at this juncture. The graphic shows two hands: one holding a gas pump and the other a map of the world. Did you get the message?
It gets even more nauseating as these rigged meetings progress.
Every effort is made to intimidate the public including having attendees stalked by police.. Time limits on speaking to make sure no one gets to say too much in opposition. Forcing those who wish to speak to sign up…….they want these people identified.
The transportation commission has unilaterally made the decision to move ahead with ONE BAY AREA affecting 9 million people.
Lots more videos on above link
Even if you attend and oppose this UN agenda implementation, and are not affiliated with the Tea Party, you must be a rabble rouser of some kind. It couldn’t possibly be that you understand what is actually happening and object.
The biggest problem the public faces in these rigged meetings, is that the meetings are ADD meetings. Already Done Deals.
Each of these meetings is filled with Agenda 21 supporters who shill for the meeting leaders. You aren’t supposed to know that the “public” sector of these meetings is chock full of these shills in an effort to try and make it appear that the public overwhelmingly supports the efforts to establish ONE BAY AREA…a new United Nations region.
In what has to be the largest series of public meetings in various towns and counties in California, residents are again Delphi’d as they are divided into groups headed by facilitators of Delphi control techniques and herded into “stations”. “Stations” is the new buzzword for breaking the public group into smaller more manageable groups sequestered in individual rooms. This makes the job of the facilitator in steering the group towards predetermined “solutions” while at the same time convincing the group that it was their idea, far easier.
Transportation is one of the pivotal points in establishing stack & pack housing under UN Agenda 21 and limiting freedom to travel is key. About 51:51 minutes into this fiasco, we are treated to the visual aids in the transportation station. Please note in the first video the subliminal graphics at this juncture. The graphic shows two hands: one holding a gas pump and the other a map of the world. Did you get the message?
It gets even more nauseating as these rigged meetings progress.
Every effort is made to intimidate the public including having attendees stalked by police.. Time limits on speaking to make sure no one gets to say too much in opposition. Forcing those who wish to speak to sign up…….they want these people identified.
The transportation commission has unilaterally made the decision to move ahead with ONE BAY AREA affecting 9 million people.
Lots more videos on above link
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Agenda 21 Exposed As Evil
'It has been reported that the Republican National Committee passed a resolution exposing Agenda 21 for what it is: a disregard for American freedom, private property rights, and a key player in the Leftist move toward a one world government. Agenda 21 (ICLEI) assaults the very foundation of America. The RNC has not yet made an official statement or released the resolution. We call on the RNC to release this immediately, and we salute the individuals who signed this document.'
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Supreme Court Slams EPA
Idaho couple Mike and Chantell Sackett have battled the Environmental Protection Agency for four years in an attempt to build a home on property they own that the EPA has dubbed “protected wetlands.” Finally their case made it way to the Supreme Court, where several justices took up their cause and slammed the EPA for its “heavy-handed enforcement of rules.”
During Supreme Court arguments, the couple explained that they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. In 2005, they purchased the land for $23,000 and two years later planned to build a three-bedroom home on it. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land with dirt and rocks in preparation for building.
It was at that point that three EPA officials showed up and asserted that the property was protected wetlands. They then ordered the workers to stop when they discovered that the Sacketts had no permit. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that led to the court case. Before the case reached the Supreme Court, lower courts had told the Sacketts that they could not challenge the EPA’s order.
A wetlands biologist did in fact advise the Sacketts in 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land; however, another wetlands consultant told them in 2010 that the first assessment was wrong.
Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart asserted that if the Sacketts “had wanted a judicial resolution of the coverage question without subjecting themselves to potential penalties, they could have filed a permit application before discharging, they could have gotten review there. All we‘re saying is they can’t discharge fill, wait to see whether EPA notices, and then insist upon immediate judicial review if EPA notices and objects.”
But EPA critics assert that the agency has too many regulations and too much bureaucratic red tape put in place without any real authority.
The Blaze provides some background:
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they‘re doing and repair the harm they’ve caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.
Several conservative Supreme Court Justices blasted the Environmental Protection Agency for what they deemed overreach in the Sackett case.
Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the EPA’s “high-handedness” when it comes to dealing with private property, and Samuel Alito called the agency's actions “outrageous,” charging that “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States." Alito was particularly incensed by the fact that the Sacketts had to wait to be sued by the EPA before they could even challenge the agency regarding the wetlands on their property. He observed,
You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: "You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to. You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”
Justice John Roberts bemoaned the fact that most people would be hesitant to even challenge the agency’s determination because of the potential fines associated with it. “Because of the administrative compliance order, you’re really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren’t going to say, ‘I’m going to risk the $37,000 a day,'" he insisted. “All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it’s never going to be put to the test.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced the opinion that he was unsure just how far the Supreme Court could go in its ruling, because those who do not comply with the directions of government agencies often receive citations. “Health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say: ‘Unless you fix this, I’m going to give you a citation.’ Fire inspectors, the same thing,” he noted.
The Sacketts indicate that they are not trying to take away the EPA’s power. Instead, their lawyer Damien Schiff asserts, “Let EPA administer the act and issue compliance orders. But let’s also give homeowners a fair shake, too. Let them have their day in court to contest what the agency has done.”
At issue is whether the EPA is acting outside the bounds of its authority. However, government agencies for years have increased their authority through the process of regulations. Conservative writer Mark Steyn explains:
For more and more Americans, law has been supplanted by “regulation” — a governing set of rules not legislated by representatives accountable to the people, but invented by an activist bureaucracy, much of which is well to the left of either political party. As the newspapers blandly reported in 2010, the bureaucrats weren’t terribly bothered about whether Congress would pass a cap-and-trade mega-bill into law because, if faint-hearted Dems lose their nerve, the EPA will just “raise” "standards” all by itself.
Because the bureaucrats who operate these agencies are appointed, not voted on by the American people, citizens find themselves in a quagmire when told to comply with the rules imposed by these unelected officials.
Critics note that the EPA’s heavy-handed influence is not limited to just the building of homes. They point out that because EPA regulations have blocked the building of new coal mining plants and caused many existing ones to shut their doors, the agency is nearly putting the coal industry out of business.
The EPA acquired a great deal of authority under the Clean Air Act, which permits it to regulate greenhouse gases. The agency posted a statement on its website last year indicating that it would introduce new standards and move unilaterally to clamp down on greenhouse emissions from power plants and oil refineries.
EPA administrator Lisa Jackson asserts that the plans are meant to cope with so-called climate change: “We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans.”
Meanwhile, as the EPA’s regulations are strangling other industries, the size and scope of the agency burgeons as a result of its regulatory overreach. The EPA has stated that in order to carry out all the terms of the Clean Air Act, it would have to hire 230,000 more federal bureaucrats.
During Supreme Court arguments, the couple explained that they had no reason to suspect there were wetlands on their property. In 2005, they purchased the land for $23,000 and two years later planned to build a three-bedroom home on it. Workers spent three days filling in just under a half-acre of land with dirt and rocks in preparation for building.
It was at that point that three EPA officials showed up and asserted that the property was protected wetlands. They then ordered the workers to stop when they discovered that the Sacketts had no permit. Six months later, the EPA sent the order that led to the court case. Before the case reached the Supreme Court, lower courts had told the Sacketts that they could not challenge the EPA’s order.
A wetlands biologist did in fact advise the Sacketts in 2007 that their property was a wetlands and that there were wetlands on three sides of their land; however, another wetlands consultant told them in 2010 that the first assessment was wrong.
Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart asserted that if the Sacketts “had wanted a judicial resolution of the coverage question without subjecting themselves to potential penalties, they could have filed a permit application before discharging, they could have gotten review there. All we‘re saying is they can’t discharge fill, wait to see whether EPA notices, and then insist upon immediate judicial review if EPA notices and objects.”
But EPA critics assert that the agency has too many regulations and too much bureaucratic red tape put in place without any real authority.
The Blaze provides some background:
The EPA issues nearly 3,000 administrative compliance orders a year that call on alleged violators of environmental laws to stop what they‘re doing and repair the harm they’ve caused. Major business groups, homebuilders, road builders and agricultural interests all have joined the Sacketts in urging the court to make it easier to contest EPA compliance orders issued under several environmental laws.
Several conservative Supreme Court Justices blasted the Environmental Protection Agency for what they deemed overreach in the Sackett case.
Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the EPA’s “high-handedness” when it comes to dealing with private property, and Samuel Alito called the agency's actions “outrageous,” charging that “this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States." Alito was particularly incensed by the fact that the Sacketts had to wait to be sued by the EPA before they could even challenge the agency regarding the wetlands on their property. He observed,
You think maybe there is a little drainage problem in part of your lot, so you start to build the house and then you get an order from the EPA which says: "You have filled in wetlands, so you can’t build your house; remove the fill, put in all kinds of plants; and now you have to let us on your premises whenever we want to. You have to turn over to us all sorts of documents, and for every day that you don’t do all this you are accumulating a potential fine of $75,000. And by the way, there is no way you can go to court to challenge our determination that this is a wetlands until such time as we choose to sue you.”
Justice John Roberts bemoaned the fact that most people would be hesitant to even challenge the agency’s determination because of the potential fines associated with it. “Because of the administrative compliance order, you’re really never going to be put to the test, because most land owners aren’t going to say, ‘I’m going to risk the $37,000 a day,'" he insisted. “All EPA has to do is make whatever finding it wants, and realize that in 99 percent of the cases, it’s never going to be put to the test.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy voiced the opinion that he was unsure just how far the Supreme Court could go in its ruling, because those who do not comply with the directions of government agencies often receive citations. “Health inspectors go into restaurants all the time and say: ‘Unless you fix this, I’m going to give you a citation.’ Fire inspectors, the same thing,” he noted.
The Sacketts indicate that they are not trying to take away the EPA’s power. Instead, their lawyer Damien Schiff asserts, “Let EPA administer the act and issue compliance orders. But let’s also give homeowners a fair shake, too. Let them have their day in court to contest what the agency has done.”
At issue is whether the EPA is acting outside the bounds of its authority. However, government agencies for years have increased their authority through the process of regulations. Conservative writer Mark Steyn explains:
For more and more Americans, law has been supplanted by “regulation” — a governing set of rules not legislated by representatives accountable to the people, but invented by an activist bureaucracy, much of which is well to the left of either political party. As the newspapers blandly reported in 2010, the bureaucrats weren’t terribly bothered about whether Congress would pass a cap-and-trade mega-bill into law because, if faint-hearted Dems lose their nerve, the EPA will just “raise” "standards” all by itself.
Because the bureaucrats who operate these agencies are appointed, not voted on by the American people, citizens find themselves in a quagmire when told to comply with the rules imposed by these unelected officials.
Critics note that the EPA’s heavy-handed influence is not limited to just the building of homes. They point out that because EPA regulations have blocked the building of new coal mining plants and caused many existing ones to shut their doors, the agency is nearly putting the coal industry out of business.
The EPA acquired a great deal of authority under the Clean Air Act, which permits it to regulate greenhouse gases. The agency posted a statement on its website last year indicating that it would introduce new standards and move unilaterally to clamp down on greenhouse emissions from power plants and oil refineries.
EPA administrator Lisa Jackson asserts that the plans are meant to cope with so-called climate change: “We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans.”
Meanwhile, as the EPA’s regulations are strangling other industries, the size and scope of the agency burgeons as a result of its regulatory overreach. The EPA has stated that in order to carry out all the terms of the Clean Air Act, it would have to hire 230,000 more federal bureaucrats.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Missoulsa MT Illegally Forces Agenda 21 On Protesting Citizens
MISSOULA, MT - In a move that would have made Joseph Stalin jealous, the City Council of Missoula, Montana on Monday approved the use of local tax dollars to an organization out of state known as ICLEI (International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives).
The ICLEI board can be found directly under the treasonous United Nations Agenda 21. The council room was almost in uproar as over 50 voices that opposed the funding of dues to the UnConstitutional initiative fell on deaf progressive "public servants'" ears.
"I am concerned that (the) Missoula City Council may be moving in a direction that could ultimately affect my property rights, which are guaranteed to me by both the Montana Constitution and the Constitution of the United States," Trish Auras said during the council's Monday night meeting. "Before you agree to paying dues to ICLEI, I would like somebody on the council to assure me that my property rights will not be affected in any way. Can you do that? Anybody?"
"(But) our forests are being killed by beetle kill related to climate change. Our rivers are heating up. Our glaciers are melting," Robin Saha, said. Saha's opinion can't be taken seriously though. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to the mismanagement of Federal lands over the theory of man-made climate change. When you compare the beetle kill in State lands that are managed by timber industry in Montana to Federal lands that are not managed, more trees are falling victim to nature in Federal jurisdiction rather than State territory.
Regardless of the majority of people's testimony against the ICLEI proposal, the sum of $1,200 will be taken directly out of the business and other tax funds and put in the hands of bureacrats. Money will go to "paying dues" to stop man-made Climate Change. Expect more city zoning, less property rights, and the gradual implementation of smart grid technology that can give a bureacrat the power to spy on how much energy you use in your house, and even turn off your power grid altogether.
The science is in on climate change, and humans are the biggest contributor; at least that is the mindset of most of the Mayor John Engen, council member John Wiener, and many other globalist public servants that sit on the city council board. Disasters that were once thought to be natural are now being labeled as directly caused by man and the greenhouse gases that his consumption produces.
This treasonous move is in direct violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights, as City Council has enforced the religious theory of anthropogenic climate change. It also slaps Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution to the ground.
The ICLEI board can be found directly under the treasonous United Nations Agenda 21. The council room was almost in uproar as over 50 voices that opposed the funding of dues to the UnConstitutional initiative fell on deaf progressive "public servants'" ears.
"I am concerned that (the) Missoula City Council may be moving in a direction that could ultimately affect my property rights, which are guaranteed to me by both the Montana Constitution and the Constitution of the United States," Trish Auras said during the council's Monday night meeting. "Before you agree to paying dues to ICLEI, I would like somebody on the council to assure me that my property rights will not be affected in any way. Can you do that? Anybody?"
"(But) our forests are being killed by beetle kill related to climate change. Our rivers are heating up. Our glaciers are melting," Robin Saha, said. Saha's opinion can't be taken seriously though. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to the mismanagement of Federal lands over the theory of man-made climate change. When you compare the beetle kill in State lands that are managed by timber industry in Montana to Federal lands that are not managed, more trees are falling victim to nature in Federal jurisdiction rather than State territory.
Regardless of the majority of people's testimony against the ICLEI proposal, the sum of $1,200 will be taken directly out of the business and other tax funds and put in the hands of bureacrats. Money will go to "paying dues" to stop man-made Climate Change. Expect more city zoning, less property rights, and the gradual implementation of smart grid technology that can give a bureacrat the power to spy on how much energy you use in your house, and even turn off your power grid altogether.
The science is in on climate change, and humans are the biggest contributor; at least that is the mindset of most of the Mayor John Engen, council member John Wiener, and many other globalist public servants that sit on the city council board. Disasters that were once thought to be natural are now being labeled as directly caused by man and the greenhouse gases that his consumption produces.
This treasonous move is in direct violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights, as City Council has enforced the religious theory of anthropogenic climate change. It also slaps Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution to the ground.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
North Dakota Initiative To Ban Property Taxes
North Dakota citizens may abolish property taxes, allowing them more control over government spending. Nearly 30,000 signatures were collected to place the people's initiative on the ballot in June, 2012 that would constitutionally abolish all property taxes in North Dakota.
This landmark measure supports property rights, small government and freedom advocates around the country.
If the initiative is successful, North Dakota will be the first state to abolish all property taxes, both state and local, and will provide a model for the other states to do the same. North Dakota may be the first state to kick off the property rights revolution!
Since 1978 the state legislature has amended, altered or "reformed" property tax 134 times.
This tells us that the tax cannot be fixed.
Legislation to abolish property tax was introduced in the 2009 legislative session. The bill was defeated. There was even an attempt to turn the bill into a study to investigate the issue and that even failed.
Since the initiative qualified for the ballot, several city and county groups have come out in opposition to the measure, in direct violation of state law. The hysteria coming from government leaders include threats that this will be the end of public education, fire and police protection will be terminated, and there will be no more roads (remember that roads are funded through the gas tax).
If the measure passes, two very important issues will be addressed in order to pare down the size of government and spending:
1. The initiative mandates that schools and local governments must be "fully and properly funded" before the state can address any other budgeting (like special interests).
2. The measure also states that all "legal obligations" must be funded. Legal obligations are:
A. Statutory -- the things that the state has directed local government to fund.
B. Contractual obligations -- spending that the counties and cities have taken on through contracts like bonds, special construction, etc.
After schools, local governments and legal obligations are funded and the real debate begins! Does the city, county or state have the obligation to fund a museum or an art festival? Most people would say 'no'. Does that mean that the local government can't fund museums or art festivals? This is an issue of real self rule and local control. If the people really, truly feel they must have a museum or a new hockey rink, then they can vote themselves a new tax to fund it—a sales tax or user fee or special assessment or whatever. They just can't fund it with property tax.
This landmark measure supports property rights, small government and freedom advocates around the country.
If the initiative is successful, North Dakota will be the first state to abolish all property taxes, both state and local, and will provide a model for the other states to do the same. North Dakota may be the first state to kick off the property rights revolution!
Since 1978 the state legislature has amended, altered or "reformed" property tax 134 times.
This tells us that the tax cannot be fixed.
Legislation to abolish property tax was introduced in the 2009 legislative session. The bill was defeated. There was even an attempt to turn the bill into a study to investigate the issue and that even failed.
Since the initiative qualified for the ballot, several city and county groups have come out in opposition to the measure, in direct violation of state law. The hysteria coming from government leaders include threats that this will be the end of public education, fire and police protection will be terminated, and there will be no more roads (remember that roads are funded through the gas tax).
If the measure passes, two very important issues will be addressed in order to pare down the size of government and spending:
1. The initiative mandates that schools and local governments must be "fully and properly funded" before the state can address any other budgeting (like special interests).
2. The measure also states that all "legal obligations" must be funded. Legal obligations are:
A. Statutory -- the things that the state has directed local government to fund.
B. Contractual obligations -- spending that the counties and cities have taken on through contracts like bonds, special construction, etc.
After schools, local governments and legal obligations are funded and the real debate begins! Does the city, county or state have the obligation to fund a museum or an art festival? Most people would say 'no'. Does that mean that the local government can't fund museums or art festivals? This is an issue of real self rule and local control. If the people really, truly feel they must have a museum or a new hockey rink, then they can vote themselves a new tax to fund it—a sales tax or user fee or special assessment or whatever. They just can't fund it with property tax.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
NM & Sheriff Trounces Fed law
NOTE: Possibly the most important video you will ever watch.
New Mexico just proved that State law trumps unconstitutional federal regulations and that the power of the sheriff is superior over federal agencies. This is the power of the Tenth Amendment!
Ten years ago, when Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson was Governor of New Mexico, he signed into law a bill authorizing New Mexico to cut trees and thin overgrown forests that can prevent uncontrollable wildfires. This law applies to federal lands when federal agencies neglect or mismanage forests and put lives at risk.
The US Forest Service, under the USDA, allowed the Lincoln National Forest in Otero County to become dense and overgrown and it was a life-threatening hazard. The agency refused to remediate the problem.
Otero County decided to put the State law to thin out the forests to the test and notified the feds. The US Forest Service threatened to ARREST Congressman Steve Pearce and Otero County Commissioners! Otero County Sheriff Benny House reportedly advised the feds that if they made any arrests, he would then arrest the feds on kidnapping charges.
On September 17th, keeping his Oath of Office to the Constitution and the People, Sheriff Benny House and his SWAT Team protected the tree cutters. The feds backed down! The feds were absent from the Tree Party Rebellion. This is because within the county, the sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in the land.
Cheers, New Mexico!! The model that New Mexico and Sheriff House established can be replicated in other states when the feds overreach their authority.
Federal agencies are party to a sinister plot for total control and depopulation through the United Nations, called Agenda 21 Sustainable Development. Many federal employees who enforce bad environmental policies may not realize they are really enforcing UN Agenda 21. Part of this plot is the Wildlands Project designed to remove humans from rural lands and allowing forests to grow out of control, even when forest fires threaten human life.
Another example of the expansion of the Wildlands Project is road closures on federal land in order to declare the area a wilderness area and off-limits to humans. According to the 1964 Wilderness Act (PL88-577), no land can be designated a Wilderness area unless it is “roadless.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)