Assault on American Sovereignty & Individual Liberty

Great turnout at the special presentation last night - new faces too!  If you were unable to attend the meeting, here is the handout Bob had...

Questions & Answers  -  United Nations Agenda 21

What is “Agenda 21”?

Agenda 21 is an action plan of the UN related to sustainable development and was an outcome of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment.  The UN claims that “implementation by member states remains essentially voluntary”.  President G.H.W. Bush agreed to the “agenda” along with 178 other member nation representatives.  (Source: Wikipedia)

 

What are the “elements” of the Agenda 21 document?

It contains 40 chapters of goals the UN wants to have implemented, both globally and within the USA.  Agenda 21 represents a “way of living” aimed at permanently altering the manner in which humans are governed, live, eat, learn, communicate, manage private property, consume resources such as electricity and water and are monitored without their consent.  Additionally, Agenda 21 places almost all wilderness areas and remote areas as out of bounds and subsequently off limits for all human development.  (Source: Sovereignty.net, 2007)

 

How would adoption of Agenda 21 programs impact Americans?

A far-reaching assessment is contained in a quote from a key UN speaker, Maurice Strong, at the 1992 conference.  He told attendees: “consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air conditioning, and suburban housing, are not sustainable.  A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations…”  Common sense translation: all middle class Americans will have their earning power and consumption habits targeted for a dramatic and drastic reduction.  (Source: Conservative Times.org, June 19, 2007)

 

Why haven’t most Americans heard of “Agenda 21”?

The promoters of Agenda 21 are intentionally keeping the public in the dark regarding the fact that this is a United Nations advocated planning process.  J. Gary Lawrence, Clinton’s Presidential Advisor to the Council on Sustainable Development admitted this subterfuge when he stated: “Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals … who fear ‘one world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States … would actively work to defeat (Agenda 21).  So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.”  The most frequently used “code phrase” for Agenda 21 is “Sustainable Development”.  The UN strategy of “word-smith subterfuge” may be working because more and more US communities are implementing Agenda 21 under the guise of beneficial, non-threatening ideas and words!

 

How is “Sustainable Development” defined?

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  (Source: UN Bruntland Report, 1987)  In reality, Sustainable Development has become a “buzz” term referring to a political agenda -- rather than an objectively sustainable form of development.  In a 2012 speech to the CSPOA (County Sheriffs of America) Tom DeWeese of American Policy Center stated UN Sustainable Development policy represents “the first time that Environment Protection and Human Development were tied to the age old Socialism goal of International Redistribution of Wealth.”  He went on to say: “the key to understanding Sustainable Development lies in its true purpose of controlling all facets of the economy in the name of Environmental Protection.”

 

Why does the UN consider private property ownership to be undesirable?

UN Conference on Human Settlements report states: “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.”  According to the American Policy Center, Agenda 21 means that: “every societal decision be based on environment impact focusing on three components – global land use, global education and global population control and reduction.”

 

Does the UN philosophy of governance conflict with American Sovereignty?

According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights: Government grants, restricts or withdraws rights according to ITS NEEDS.  You and the product of your labor belong to the COMMUNITY.  In stark contrast, refer to the US Declaration of Independence.  The American philosophy believes YOU are born with your rights; government exists to protect YOUR rights … and you and the product of your labor belong to you. (Source: Freedom Advocates, 2007)

 

Should Americans be concerned with UN efforts to grab power and challenge America’s Sovereignty?

William Jasper has been warning about a UN “takeover” for years.  He wrote in The New American:  “The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global – breathtakingly so.  Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra and mountains.  It even has a whole section on regulating and ‘protecting’ the atmosphere.  It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas.  It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production and consumption – in short, everything; there is nothing on, in , over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.”

 

How is Agenda 21 being implemented?

It’s important to state that the U.S. Congress, our official law-making body, has NEVER directly approved U.N. Agenda 21.  Although President G.H.W. Bush signed the original U.N. documents in 1992 that action did not carry the “force of law.” Despite this apparent lack of “legal standing”, the plan contained in Agenda 21 is being vigorously implemented by U.S. federal bureaucracies – as well as other nations.   The U.N. itself has rated U.S. participation as “very good”.  To implement the plan, each nation is required to have a “national coordinating body”.  In the U.S., that function isperformed by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.  (Source: Eco-logic, May/June 1998)

 

What is the Role of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development?

President Clinton established the Council to “forge a consensus among the various stakeholders (government, business and industry, private citizens, labor, etc.) and create a viable sustainable development strategy that articulated the interests and concerns of all groups.”  Rather than discussing and agreeing or revising the U.N. plans in public by elected officials, all federal agencies have now adopted this “consensus” process – in order to by-pass Congress and other elected bodies.  The Council itself is comprised of 28 appointed individuals, carefully selected because of their known support for Agenda 21. NGOs (non-government organizations) play a vital role in the consensus process.  NGOs partner with federal agencies … receiving federal funds to generate support for specific objectives.  One example involves Planned Parenthood – a 1996 U.N. report stated: “most family planning interventions are conducted by NGOs such as Planned Parenthood. “  The report also pointed out: “the U.S. spent $25 million ‘on the development of new contraceptive methods” … and it credited the U.S. Dep’t. of Human Services for changing America’s attitude about contraceptives … “policy has shifted from discouraging contraception on the basis of age and marital status to promoting it to all who do not have access to service”.  (Source: Sovereignty.net)

 

How is Agenda 21 being implemented on a local level?

Implementation is through NGOs “partnering” with governmental organizations including: U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Governors Assn., National League of Cities, National Assn. of County Administrators and more organizations – thereby assuring a universal (“controlled”) message of Sustainable Development at every level of government.  Another NGO group, which helped write Agenda 21, was known as International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).  It retains the name “ICLEI” but next to their logo is the descriptor – Local Governments for Sustainability.  Note the intentional omission of any “international” or U.N. connection.  The mission of ICLEI is to encourage and direct the policy process of local governments to impose Sustainable Development policy.  ICLEI currently operates in 600 American cities – all of which pay dues for the “privilege” of working with ICLEI.  Like a cancer, ICLEI infests local government policy, training city employees to think only in terms of Sustainable Development, and replacing local guidelines with international codes, rules and regulations.  This is how U.N. policy has become a direct threat to local American communities.  (Source: Conservative Times.org, 6/19/07)

 

Has Agenda 21 been implemented by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)?

EPA is a major conduit for the programs and policies to flow into the U.S., without the benefit of Congressional debate or even much oversight.  Many of the initiatives are introduced by NGOs, funded by EPA through their “Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program”.  There is a lot of secrecy regarding these grant awards.  In 1997, EPA reported 42 “Challenge Grants” but chose not to report the name of the organization that received the money or how much money was awarded. (Source: Sovereignty.net)  The EPA has adopted “sustainability impact assessments as their basic tool for issuing draconian regulations.  It is no longer an agency that protects the environment but an agency to destroy capitalism and take away American citizens’ property rights, while pushing them further away from access to wilderness areas.” (Source: Canada Free Press, 5/6/12)

 

Has increased criticism of the EPA during the Obama Administration been justified?

The EPA has apparently been “playing favorites” to the detriment of the U.S. Coal Industry.  They recently held 12 hours of hearings in favor of a regulation that analysts have concluded would kill the building of new conventional coal plants.  The hearing participants included representatives from the NAACP, Sierra Club, Environment Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace.  The regulation that these lobbyists were asked to critique would negatively impact coal producers … while favoring Natural Gas producers.  The Sierra Club received $26 million over four years from Natural Gas companies to battle the coal industry.  Obama’s energy policies have “favored” the natural gas energy initiatives of major campaign donors – including: Warren Buffett, George Soros and T. Boone Pickens.  Columnist Ed Morrissey wrote that Obama “wants to drive up energy costs in order to make his favored alternatives somewhat competitive.” (Source: Daily Caller, 5/24/12)  Steve Milloy, of JunkScience.com, opined that: “Over the past three years, the Obama EPA has conducted a scorched earth campaign against fossil fuel producers and users, especially with the coal-fired power industry, with multi-billion dollar rules that provide no meaningful environmental or public health benefits.”  (Source: Washington Times, 2/21/12)

 

Does the Obama Administration  have sinister plans “waiting in the wings” should he win a second term?

In the words of a former Alaskan Governor: “You Betcha.”  They are seeking ratification of five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and challenge our democratic institutions.  When treaties are ratified, they gain the same status as Constitutional Law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures … and their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.  The five treaties are: 1) International Criminal Court; 2) Small Arms Control; 3) Outer Space Code of Conduct; 4) Rights of the Child; and 5) LOST (Law of the Sea treaty).  (Source: thehill.com, 2/7/12)

 

What could be the impact of the International Court treaty?

President G.W.Bush refused to support this treaty – Sec. Hillary Clinton has reversed the Bush policy.  The Leftists who support the treaty want to create a new crime of “aggression”, which is essentially going to war without UN approval.  If we submit to the International Court’s jurisdiction, our presidents and cabinet officials could be criminally prosecuted.  In essence, our ability to wage war could be vetoed by the likes of Russia or China.  This is only one example of how such an action would jeopardize American Sovereignty.  (Source: thehill.com, 2/7/12)

 

What is the significance of the Small Arms Control Treaty?

Wave ‘goodbye’ to your Second Amendment rights.  Most small arms deals don’t come from individuals or private firms – they come from governments – specifically the U.S., Russia, China and Israel.  However, the treaty only applies to private citizens – stopping exportation of small arms.  Some are concerned that the treaty is actually a “back door” way to require national gun registration – leading to federal firearm regulation.  It would also require registration of ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired.  (Source: thehill.com, 2/7/12)

 

What in the world is the Outer Space Code of Conduct agreement?

Under the guise of stopping debris from accumulating in outer space, the European Union has enlisted Sec. Hillary Clinton’s help to enact a Code of Conduct.  This code would prohibit activities that might result in “space littering”.  It’s difficult to find fault with this objective but the background behind it tells a more complete story.  The code might inhibit or prohibit the US from deploying anti-missiles on space platforms – denying us a key weapon we might need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats.  European Leftists reacted angrily when President G.W.Bush opted out of the ABM treaty banning defensive weapons.  Now they seek to re-impose it via the Space Code.  (Source: thehill.com, 2/7/12) 

 

What’s behind the Rights of the Child movement?

It began with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.  This was an attempt to designate the UN as having supreme authority over children’s rights.  The USA is the ONLY nation in the world that has not ratified this agreement.  Let’s examine why we have chosen not to act.  Our core objection relates to provisions that would negatively impact American Sovereignty and Parental Rights.  If ratified it would become binding on all American judges.  It would give an unelected 18-member panel of internationalists the ultimate authority with respect to our children.  Most (95%) of our family law emanates from our states.  Since the treaty is a US obligation, and thus a matter of federal jurisdiction, it would produce the largest power shift from the state to the federal level in US history.  Additionally, it would make the Government, and not parents, the first and final caretakers for America’s children.  (source: parentalrights.org)  Sec. Clinton is also negotiating an agreement obligating rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations.  This provision could create litigation grounds to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations.   (Source: thehill.com, 2/7/12) 

 

What do we LOSE by Ratifying the LOST treaty?

The fight over LOST (Law of the Sea Treaty) goes back three decades to when President Reagan rejected it warning: “no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth’s surface over to the Third World”.  The Reagan Administration considered LOST as an “effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states – and most especially the United States.”  (Source: townhall.com, 5/25/12)   LOST would give the UN control of mineral and oil exploration, fishing, and passage through oceans and connected waterways.  Because the UN wants control and free sharing of proprietary technology, there is push-back against the treaty.  (source: Canada Free Press, 5/6/12)   LOST would also “redistribute wealth” from rich to poor nations.  Does anybody really care about our federal debt??  Larry Bell, Forbes Magazine columnist, reports that “as much as 7% of US government revenue that’s collected from oil and gas companies operating off our cost” … would be meted out to “poorer, landlocked countries.” This confiscatory act of “environmental justice” would siphon billions, if not trillions, away from Americans.  International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes.  There would be no opportunity for court appeals in the US.  (Source: townhall.com, 5/25/12)

 

Is the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) planning even more land takeovers?

Brian Sussman, meteorologist-turned-journalist, published a book entitled: Eco-Tyranny.  In the book he reveals secret memos from inside Obama’s BLM outlining a covert plan “to pursue a program of land consolidation” for the federal government to secure tens of millions of acres of land that will be permanently out of reach for entrepreneurs, business-men and private citizens.  Because ecosystems defy “jurisdictional boundaries” the memo outlines strategies by which the federal government can “rationalize and consolidate” its fragmented landholdings in order to properly “manage at scale.”  Sussman cautions that it would give government an almost unlimited justification to seize private property adjacent to “treasured lands.”  Obama is not waiting for Congress to consider this plan – he has already issued an Executive Order entitled: “America’s Great Outdoors Initiative.  The Federal Government already controls more than 50% of the land in eleven Western states – and nearly one-third of our national land mass.  This enforces the opinion of many that UN Agenda 21 has already taken firm hold in the US.  (Source: World Net Daily, 4/16/12)

 

What about individual State land use edicts that sync with Agenda 21?

Close to bankruptcy, the State of California continues to stroll down the ‘yellow brick road’ travelled by environmental wackos.  In Southern California, over 50% of all new housing will be known as “transit villages” where people live close to work, don’t have cars, and are forced to live in small residences.  These will be required to have at least 30 housing units per acre.  New rules in the San Francisco Bay Area will require 20 housing units per acre.  This is 5 times the present ratio.  This means condos, apartments and duplexes – and planners will cut off development outside of existing cities.  California passed two Acts dramatically impacting land use.  The Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (2008) being implemented by land use planning boards to mandate most new development be close to downtown and discourage automobile use.”  Just another example of Agenda 21 implementation!  (Source: teapartyeconomist.com, 4/13/12)

 

Doesn’t the UN realize the current world’s financial crisis?

The dream of “poverty eradication” is being wrapped in a Green Blanket.  The cost of “going green” continues its steady climb with every new UN edict – while the downward economic spiral of Western nations is disregarded by UN bureaucrats.  The UN is now demanding an “investment” of $1.9 trillion per year in “green technology” to meet goals set by internationalists.  The UN would redistribute at least 50% of the funds to “developing countries to meet their rapidly increasing food and energy demands through the application of green technologies.”  What more and more climatologists are calling the “shaky science of global warming” is being ignored at the UN.  The very real problem for environmentalists and internationalists is that nations may no longer be willing to sacrifice their future for the sake of a theory that appears to be steadily unraveling – except in the minds of those who stand to profit from green technologies and wealth redistribution.  (Source: The New American website, 7/7/11)

 

It’s Their Future, What do America’s Youth Believe?

As Aristotle pointed out: “All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth.”  Agenda 21 proponents are extremely aware of the importance of indoctrinating the youth re: environmental causes.  Chapter 25 of Agenda 21 calls for the need to: “enlist and empower children and youth in reaching for sustainability.”  Public School curriculum finds the doctrines of Sustainable Development incorporated in virtually every subject.  French classes teach “saving the Earth” … Economic classes feature lectures discouraging individual initiative and decrying private ownership … History classes obscure the importance of America’s Founding Documents … and mandatory “service-learning” programs enlist students to work in government-approved Sustainable Development projects.  The Agenda 21 goals are ardently supported by the majority of Left-Leaning American Educators at all levels. 

While taxpayers foot the bill for government education, parents are increasing shut out of decisions crucial to molding the child’s mind.  At a recent event in Bend, Oregon (BEND 2030 group sponsored) you could get an idea of what’s happening in Central Oregon.  The audience contained a disproportionate number of high school and college students who readily bought into the “green ideas” and “sustainable development”.  One of the chief sponsors just happened to be OSU.

 

Has our Federal Government been actively “promoting” Agenda 21 to the general public?

In a report to the UN relating to US progress on Agenda 21 promotion, the State Dep’t. wrote: “At the primary school level, school curricula have already been reviewed and revised … at the secondary level, the revision of school curricula is being undertaken currently to address environmental and development as a cross cutting issue … the US has been involved in several awareness raising programs and activities aimed at the population at large – Earth Day, industry supported campaigns, Ad Council, Program KAB, Arbor Day, GLOBE program, Discovery Channel, National Geographic programs, CNN, ZooQ, As it Happens, and water clean-up programs.”   The UN Commission on Sustainable Development reports that in America, “the national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programs as Goals 2000 and School to Work.”  The National Environmental Education Advisory Council to the US Dep’t. of Education consists of eleven individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator.  NGOs are well represented on this “council”.  (Source: sovereignty.net)

 

Are there State movements or efforts to counteract Agenda 21?

Tennessee’s House of Representative passed a resolution (March 2012) recognizing the “destructive and insidious nature” of Agenda 21 calling it “a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control.”  A report on MSNBC.com (4/26/12) stated that Arizona lawmakers were close to sending Gov. Brewer a bill that proponents say would stop a UN takeover conspiracy.  The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Judy Burges, called Agenda 21 “a direct attack on the middle class and working poor” through “social engineering of our citizens in every aspect of their lives.”  It’s interesting to note that Arizona State Univ. has a School of Sustainability … Northern Arizona Univ. offers a Master’s in Sustainable Communities … and University of Arizona has an “environment and sustainability portal.”

 

Are Local Communities involved in anti-Agenda 21 efforts?

There are communities that are leaving ICLEI.  It began in Jan. 2011 with Carroll County, Maryland cancelling their ICLEI membership, terminating the contract of the county’s sustainable development director, and sending the county planning commission back to the drawing board with instructions to resubmit plans that did not violate private property rights.  Following Carroll County, came Amador County (CA) ending ICLEI membership; then Montgomery County (PA)  … Edmond (OK) … Las Cruces (NM) … Spartanburg (SC) … Albermarle (VA) … James City (VA) … Lexington (VA) … Plantation (FL) … Clallam (WA) … Monmouth (NJ) … Carver (MA) … Chatham (NC) … and Somerset (NJ).  Unofficial reports indicate that at least 54 communities have withdrawn from ICLEI.  In addition, ICLEI had set a goal of 1000 American city members by 2015 – indications are that only 17 new cities joined ICLEI during the past year – yielding a net reduction of 37 cities.  (Source: New American website, 2/24/12)

 

Are there any Citizen groups working to counter Agenda 21?

A growing number of Tea Party-related groups are informing the public about the dangers of the plan.  On another front, Bonner County (ID) plans to establish a Property Rights Council.  It would be an official arm of the county government, complete with full-time employee and a selected council of citizens who would oversee all county legislation and regulations to assure they didn’t violate private property rights.  This idea is spreading across the nation – because it makes sense.  (Source: New American website, 2/24/12)

 

Where do the major Political Parties stand on the issue of Agenda 21?

There is a website called “democratsagainstunagenda21” but the Democrat Party has never opposed the plan.  In contrast, the Republican Party National Committee passed an “Anti-Agenda 21” Resolution (1/12/12).  This will be used to convince lawmakers that Agenda 21 is a serious enough threat that one of the two major parties now understands and opposes it.  The resolution is also a major weapon for local activists, who, until now have fought alone, with Leftists constantly labeling them as “fringe conspiracy theorists.”  (Source: New American website, 2/24/12)

 

What are some of the key points of concern to “DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21”?

According to their website, “the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners.  It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control … moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation …UN Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected.  It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth …only then, they say, will there be social justice which is a cornerstone of the UN Agenda 21 plan.”  In referring to “Redevelopment as a tool used to further the Agenda 21 vision of remaking America’s cities”, the website states: “with redevelopment, 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 … in some cities over 90% of the city area has been declared blighted … the property taxes in that area can be diverted away from the General Fund … money gets redirected into the Redevelopment Agency and handed out to favored developers building low income housing and mixed use … Smart Growth … (Agenda 21) is “a whole life plan.  It involves the educational system, the energy market, the transportation system, the governmental system, the health care system, food production, and more.  The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms, and take away your voice.”  (Source: democratsagainstunagenda21.com)

 

What can YOU do to fight against Agenda 21 and help American retain its Sovereignty?

It begins with communication.  Educate your friends and neighbors about the dangers inherent in this plan.  Contact and inform your elected officials (who often appear to be oblivious to the situation).  Vote to support candidates at local, county, state and federal levels who promise to fight against this liberty-depriving plan.  Write letters to the local newspaper editor.  Attend meetings of “Environmental Interest Groups” and Planning Commissions – and speak up!  Consider establishing or becoming a member of a local Property Rights Council.  Whatever you do – be a difference maker!