What Is The EPA’s Real Agenda?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

EPA-logo

Most Americans probably believe that the EPA has the thankless job of trying to protect the environment and the good people of these United States from those that would pollute the air and the waters of our nation; so vital to our health and well being, whether knowingly or unknowingly. That, of course, was their original mandate and, in the early years of the EPA’s existence, that’s pretty much what it did. Then things began to change. Slowly at first and then anything but slowly. Arguably, no other agency of our government has overreached its mandate than the EPA. The hidden costs of this overreach has needlessly driven up your cost of living and has had a negative impact on jobs growth and on the economy in general by making US companies less competitive in this global economy.

The EPA is able to get away with this overreach because Congress has almost no control over regulatory bodies like the EPA. To understand how the EPA became the regulatory predator that it is, you need to understand the concept of “regulatory capture” and once the EPA was captured by environment zealots, connived the diabolical means of bypassing Congressional oversight and public hearings with something called “sue and settle“.

Our friend, AZ leader at Inform The Pundits has recently post an essay that demonstrates a clear example of the EPA promulgating a costly regulation that is not necessary. Do read the entire article. It is very informative. For now, let me offer some observations and then I’ll share some excerpts from AZ’s post.

The UN’s global warming/climate change hoax will likely turn out to be the most costly and harmful scam ever perpetrated on mankind. One need only look at the terrible being paid by our cousins in Europe are paying for falling prey to this hoax. Although the US Congress has never agreed to any treaty in implement the UN”s demands for reducing carbon out put, the plans were put into effect anyway by then President, Bill Clinton. Of course, the captured EPA wasted no time in dreaming up ways to force you, at what ever cost, to comply with these unnecessary regulations. Ironically, the United State has done better at achieving the UN’s goal for carbon reduction than any other country and it wasn’t because of a mountain of new government regulations on power plants and the type of light bulbs you use. The reductions were achieved through the innovation of the private sector in producing ever more cheap natural gas, which is in turn replacing high carbon producing coal use in our nations power  plants. But, the EPA, apparently, is not interested in the facts. they passed their Clean Power Plan anyway.

From the Inform The Pundits article we learn:

The annual “U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide EmissionsREPORT for 2013 was released today by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The United States has reduced CO2emissions by 10 percent since 2005. At the current pace the U.S. will reduce CO2 emissions 30 percent by 2029, one year ahead of the EPA’s proposed plan.

There is no need for a government mandated plan that will drive up electric rates for the average family when the proposed goal is already being met by the private sector.

Further more, Inform the Pundits points out that the US private sector has a long history of reducing the intensity of carbon out put:

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

A commonly held misconception is “decarbonization” is a brand new concept and it’s something that countries need to pursue, but are not doing so now. Decarbonization simply means to remove carbon. Decarbonization, contrary to popular belief, has already been happening in a big way for over 100 years.

The most important form of decarbonization is reducing the amount of CO2-generating energy needed to power an economy. In other words, produce the same amount of goods and services with fewer carbon emissions.

According to today’s EIA report, in the last 65 years the United States has reduced the amount of CO2 emissions needed to produce $1 million worth of GDP, adjusted for inflation, from 1,099 metric tons to just 343 metric tons. That’s a whopping 69 percent drop since 1949!

In the $16 trillion dollar U.S. economy it amounts to 21 billion metric tons of decarbonization savings in 2013 alone. That’s about 22 times more than the 954 million metric tons promised in the Clean Power Plan by the year 2030.

So, why is the EPA pushing a costly plan that clearly is not needed? We can only surmise that the EPA bureaucrats have some other agenda that is driving them. As a proud member of the tin-foil-hat brigade, your humble observer of the asylum we all have to live in has a theory on the real agenda of the EPA and other government agencies. Their hidden agenda is a long-term plan to implement the UN’s Agenda 21 and to bring about a new world order (NWO). For those not familiar with Agenda 21, reading these three sources will are a good place to start your learning process: here, here, and here.

A very important part of the strategy of Agenda 21 is to encourage (read force) to leave rural areas and suburbs and to go to high density population centers. One of the ways the EPA can achieve this goal is to drive (candidate Obama said skyrocket) of electricity by any means necessary. Once the electricity price has the public screaming for relief, there will begin a propaganda campaign to convince the public that the high cost is due to the enormous line loses that occur because electricity is pushed through thousands of miles of power lines to serve the rural communities and the suburbs. They will promote moving the now clean gas burning power plants into the major cities and people will flock to the cities to avoid the onerous electricity cost associated with living outside of the cities. Once that is achieved, then come the access and use restrictions on rural lands. The minions will be stacked and packed in the high density population centers and only the oligarchs and the political elites will be able to enjoy now pristine countryside.

No, this will not happen in the next year or two. The socialist/Marxists are very patient and are accustomed to playing the long-game. Your grandchildren or for sure your great-grandchildren will live to see the fruits of Agenda 21 unless it can be stopped. Who is going to stop it? Will the GOP, if they gain control of Capitol Hill, roll back decades of bad regulations and laws? Don’t count on it. The real power in America belongs to the unelected bureaucrats. In my opinion, today’s federal bureaucracy is the closest thing I know of to a perpetual motion machine.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

.

.

.

Share

Resource Post: Agenda 21 Explained

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

What is Agenda 21?  How does it affect you?  All that and more is in the following video…

Agenda 21 is perhaps the most stealthy threat to freedom, if not life itself.  So, while the video is on the long side, it is rather important to watch.

H/T: The Right Scoop

Share

Glenn Beck on Agenda 21

Share

Glenn Beck has some rather well made, and very creepy, commercials on Agenda 21.  Take a look for your self…

There are a number of links on the site regarding Agenda 21, I’ll be posting a compilation later.  Let’s just say that you ought to know what Agenda 21 is, and how it will one day affect you.

Share

Regionalism (Agenda 21) and Governor Chris Christie

Share

Regionalism is the concept that the suburbs, through their taxes, should support the costs of their nearby city core. It comes straight out of the UN Agenda 21 where they use terms like “smart growth” and “sustainable development” or “sustainable living”. Regionalism is a favorite of “Community Organizers” like you know who. So, why is Governor Chris Christie of New Jersy, a darling of many conservatives and a keynote speaker at this year’s Republican National Convention supporting regionalism in his state? We will get to that in a moment. First, let’s review what “regionalism” is all about.

I first posted on the subject of regionalism about three weeks ago. In this post, I parsed an article at National Review by Stanely Kurtz on his new book,  Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities. Quoting myself from that post:

Have you ever heard of the concept of “regionalism”? I vaguely recall reading that term in some research I did a while back on Agenda 21. Mr. Kurtz explains that Obama learned to embrace regionalism from his Chicago community organizing mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation. “Regionalism” is the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools, housing, transportation, and above all taxation. Kurtz says that the relationship with his community organizing mentors continues to this day.

Via Real Clear Politics,  came across another article about the Kurtz book at New Geography that is excellent and I hope you will bookmark it and read at your leisure if you want to know more about “regionalism”.  This article has some very interesting and important data. Take a look at this quote and the graph that follows:

Opponents of the suburbs have long favored amalgamating local governments (such as cities, towns, villages, boroughs and townships). There are two principal justifications. One suggests “economies of scale” — the idea that larger local government jurisdictions are more efficient than smaller governments, and that, as a result, taxpayers will save. The second justification infers that a larger tax base, including former suburbs, will make additional money available to former core cities, which are routinely characterized as having insufficient revenues to pay for their services. Both rationales are without foundation.

As you can see, bigger is not necessarily better and more efficient. The cities studied do not have a revenue problem. They have a spending problem. Sound familiar?

What does this regionalism have to do with Governor Chris Christie?  Fox News has he story. It seems that cash strapped Camden, New  Jersey, one of the most crime ridden and dangerous cities in the United States, is planning to do away with their police force and let the county provide that service.

In the latest example of a cash-strapped municipality taking drastic measures to deal with swollen public sector liabilities and shrinking budgets, the city plans to disband its 460-member police department and replace it with a non-union “Metro Division” of the Camden County Police. Backers of the plan say it will save millions of dollars for taxpayers while ensuring public safety, but police unions say it is simply a way to get out of collective bargaining with the men and women in blue.

[…]

The department has been under the control of the state since 2005, when a power struggle between then-Mayor Gwendolyn Faison and the department prompted Faison to ask the state to take over. That arrangement is set to expire and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has thrown his support behind the transition to county control, which he indicated will help keep costs down.

“A county police force that has a reasonable contract, and that’s going to provide a huge increase in the number of police officers on the streets here in Camden, is a win for everybody,” Christie said at a recent event at Rutgers-Camden University, where he signed a reform bill for higher education. “I’m willing to put my name on the line for this concept.”

The good Governor may regret putting his name on the line for “this concept”. Is Christie stupid? Has he gone over to the other side? Although I am not a big fan of Chris Christie, I don’t think he is stupid nor do I think he is a liberal in disguise. My guess is that like so many of our fellow Americans, I suspect that Christie is unaware of Agenda 21, Smart Growth, Sustainable Living, and Regionalism. These concepts receive the support of Democrats and Republicans, as well as, liberals and conservatives because the projects and the ideas being pushed always sound so good. Christie and the county surounding Camden had better wake up. I predict that the people of the suburbs of Camden are going to get screwed. They will eitheer pay higher taxes to cover the cost of policing Camden, or they will do with less services in their own areas. And, I doubt that Xamden will do any better in the end.

While we are rightly focused on the coming elections and the economy and our own well being and that of the nation, other Marxist leaning folks are going about the implementation of Agenda 21 and all of its nice sounding programs. Some of us are working hard to educate the people. But, to me, it is inexcusable that someone like Chris Christie doesn’t know what is happening under his own nose. This man was being pushed by many conservatives to run for the Presidency. Mit Romney considered him as a potential running mate. But, maybe I shouldn’t be so hard on the Governor.  I have no reason to believe that Romney and Ryan are any more aware of the dangers of Agenda 21.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Equalizing Outcomes “Obama Style” Think Sustainable Living ala Agenda 21

Share

The closest thing to work Barack Obama has ever done was when he was a “Community Organizer” in Chicago. If he is reelected, he plans to capitalize on that experience.

I came across a very scary National Review  article that was reblogged at John Malcolm’s place. And, I thank him. The NR article is by Stanley Kurtz and is an adaption from his book  Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities.

Have you ever heard of the concept of “regionalism”? I vaguely recall reading that term in some research I did a while back on Agenda 21. Mr. Kurtz explains that Obama learned to embrace regionalism from his Chicago community organizing mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation. “Regionalism” is the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools, housing, transportation, and above all taxation. Kurtz says that the relationship with his community organizing mentors continues to this day.

The alliance endures. One of Obama’s original trainers, Mike Kruglik, has hived off a new organization called Building One America, which continues Gamaliel’s anti-suburban crusade under another name. Kruglik and his close allies, David Rusk and Myron Orfield, intellectual leaders of the “anti-sprawl” movement, have been quietly working with the Obama administration for years on an ambitious program of social reform.

But, how could this possibly be pulled off?

One approach is to force suburban residents into densely packed cities by blocking development on the outskirts of metropolitan areas, and by discouraging driving with a blizzard of taxes, fees, and regulations. Step two is to move the poor out of cities by imposing low-income-housing quotas on development in middle-class suburbs. Step three is to export the controversial “regional tax-base sharing” scheme currently in place in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area to the rest of the country. Under this program, a portion of suburban tax money flows into a common regional pot, which is then effectively redistributed to urban, and a few less well-off “inner-ring” suburban, municipalities.

[…]

The centerpiece of the Obama administration’s anti-suburban plans is a little-known and seemingly modest program called the Sustainable Communities Initiative. The “regional planning grants” funded under this initiative — many of them in battleground states like Florida, Virginia, and Ohio — are set to recommend redistributive policies, as well as transportation and development plans, designed to undercut America’s suburbs. Few have noticed this because the program’s goals are muffled in the impenetrable jargon of “sustainability,” while its recommendations are to be unveiled only in a possible second Obama term.

Long time followers of Conservatives on Fire know that I am supporting Mitt Romney; but he was not was not the person I wanted to be our candidate for President. I do not agree, however, with my libertarian friends that Romney would be as bad or worse than Obama.Romney may not be a conservative but we know that he bends like a reed in the direction the wind is blowing. Our job is to make sure that wind is blowing  from the Tea Party members of the House and Senate. We need to elect more Tea Party candidates this election cycle and again in 2014 and 2016 and etc. If we can elect enough conservatives to the House and Senate, Romney will willingly move in their direction. Obama must be defeated!

On a side note, I was talking the other day with my sister, whom I love dearly. She is five years my senior, she is a widow, and she has a steady boyfriend who is in his eighties. She and her boyfriend both live on UAW pensions and Social Security. They are both life long Democrats but both totally disengaged from politics. Because I know my sister always votes straight Democratic ticket, I never talk politics with her. But, this time I decided to tease her a little bit and I asked her how she was going to vote this election? Her response was that she didn’t even know who was running but that she would vote Democrat as usual. So, I said: “You are going to vote for Obama again?” Her answer was very interesting. She said: “no, no, no we are not voting for Obama. He has lost our votes.”  What this means is that my sister and her boyfriend will vote for every Democrat on the ticket in Michigan but they will not vote for Obama. They won’t vote for Romney either. And, I’m thinking there may be a lot of Democrats like my sister and her boyfriend. I hope so!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Remember When Commies Were Called Reds? Now Their Favorite Color Is Green

Share

To me the words communist and socialist and liberals and progressives are interchangeable. Most progressives/liberals are offended when referred to as socialist and even more so when referred to as communist. I don’t do it to offend those on the left. I do it because there is no other end for their agenda than extreme socialism or communism. In this day and age, their agenda is not for the state to take over all means of production via expropriations, ala Chavez, but to gain effective control of the means of production through regulatory law and crony socialism. Yes “crony socialism” and not crony capitalism as so many have erroneously called it.

The biggest socialist/communist organization in the world, also known as the United Nations, went “green” almost twenty years ago as the primary means of promoting their world-wide socialist agenda for wealth redistribution. Their principle and most effective weapon is their Agenda 21 plans for the world, which relies heavily on environmental policies to eventually gain total control of land and water and, thereby control over all of humanity. I don’t know how successful they have been in other countries but they are making great strides here in the United States. They are so proud of their green socialism; Ban Ki-Moon and the UN Security Council are thinking about changing their blue helmets for, you guessed it, green helmets. (Source)

The UN’s Agenda 21 policies were unconstitutionally introduced into America by Bill Clinton. Because the UN is not popular with many Americans,  the progressives in our government don’t use the name Agenda 21. They have been very creative in coming up with more palatable names such as Smart Growth and Sustainable Living and many others. But what ever they call it, the goal is the same. Under the guise of protecting the environment, the government is instituting incremental socialism by placing more and more restrictions on land use and water use while at the same time hindering the development of cheap fossil fuels for energy production. Incrementally, Americans are being forced to lower their standard of living.  Incrementally we will forced to live in less and less space, to consume less and less energy and food,  and through restriction on the use of ever-growing “public” lands our ability to move about states and our country will be restricted. I am not touting some conspiracy theory folks. This has been going on for years now and under the Obama regime it has picked up speed.

For most of the last eighteen years, implementation  of  Agenda 21,  via Smart Growth plans and Communities for Sustainable Living programs, have focused on urban areas. But now, under  Obama , more emphasis is being directed at rural America.  Remember the Food Safety Modernization Act passed last year? If not, please Google it.  And, recently President Obama created his White House Rural Council.  And now we learn tha the Department of Transportation (DOT)  is writing regulations to force all operators of farm equipment to have a commercial drivers license. Bob Mack of the Be Sure You’re RIGHT, Then Go Ahead blog has an excellent post today that touches on these issues.

But there is more! Listen up those of you who like to hunt. You are about to be pissed off. Obama is now using the USDA, the Forest Service and the BLM to restrict your access to public lands that you have hunted for years. The PPJ Gazette has the story. Read it and weep!

Folks, a coup d’etat is taking place in America and the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist/Communist are the only ones aware of it. The rest of us are lost in our blissful ignorance. WAKE UP AMERICA!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

Covert Operations of the UN’s Agenda 21 and Their Agents for Sustainable Development

Share

What is Agenda 21 and what is Sustainable Development? If you don’t know, then welcome to the club. I was only recently made aware of what they are by Cheryl Pass of the My Tea Party Chronicle blog. Cheryl has written three recent articles on this subject that are, in my opinion, must reading.  One was written on March 5, 2011, one on March 6, 2011 and. the most recent article was written on March 8, 2011. Apart from being typically well written, there are numerous useful links, which give the reader a chance to  take a mind opening journey of what for most people is an unknown and un-heard of world of deceit and deception. For me it has become a long journey that I am purposely taking in small steps.

From Cheryl’s March 5 article we have this brief introduction to Agenda 21:

Briefly, Agenda 21, which debuted in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, is a United Nations action plan for worldwide environment and development. It is a comprehensive blueprint for actions to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by governments and organizations connected to the United Nations in every area where “humans affect the environment.” (Funny, I can’t think of a human life that does not have any affect on the environment, so that pretty much covers every living, breathing human being on the planet.) The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 with someone called Maurice Strong as the primary author. (Please research Maurice Strong, also.) Because Agenda 21 is an anti-private property rights agenda and would likely bring about resistance from Constitutional. freedom-loving Americans, the initiatives now carry lots of utopian sounding names such as: Smart Growth, Sustainable Development, Lands Conservancies, Greenways, Livable Communities, etc.

From Wikipedia we have this description of Sustainable Development:

Sustainable development (SD) is a pattern of resource use that aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come (sometimes taught as ELF-Environment, Local people, Future). The term was used by the Brundtland Commission which coined what has become the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”[1][2]

Sustainable development ties together concern for the carrying capacity ofnatural systems with the social challenges facing humanity. As early as the 1970s “sustainability” was employed to describe an economy “in equilibrium with basic ecological support systems.”[3] Ecologists have pointed to The Limits to Growth,[citation needed] and presented the alternative of a “steady state economy[4] in order to address environmental concerns.

The field of sustainable development can be conceptually broken into three constituent parts: environmentalsustainabilityeconomic sustainability andsociopolitical sustainability.

And from another source we have this on Sustainable Development:

Here’s what Maurice Strong, socialist, senior adviser to the Commission on Global Governance and driving force behind the concept of “sustainability”, said when introducing the term at the 1992 Rio Conference (Earth Summit II):  Industrialized countries [Americans] have “developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma.  It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption pattern of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable.  A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”  Strong also explains in an essay that the concept of sovereignty has to yield in favor of the “new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.

So what is it that the UN and their environmental wackos want from countries like the United States? They want to drastically reduce the impact of the human race on the planet , specially in the developed countries and they want to make all people equal (wealth redistribution). I’m not kidding. Look a this article by Donna J. Holt at RightSideNews.Com.  Donna presents a detailed history of Sustainable development and Agenda 21 going back to 1974. But for now, just take a look at this map and what it implies:

Note: The ratification of the Biodiversity Treaty, Agenda 21, was never voted on by Senate after Dr. Michael Coffman presented this map of the proposed development of the “wildlands” under Agenda 21 in the United States.

 

The areas you see in red represents wilderness reserves which will be off-limits to humans. Areas in yellow represents highly regulated buffer zones where human existence will be greatly restricted. The areas in green represent zones for normal use of high density mixed use urban areas. This is where you’ll be allowed to live.

Six months after his inauguration, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President’s Council On Sustainable Development on June 29 1993.

The Council’s Membership included:

• Twelve Cabinet-level Federal Officials
• Jonathan Lash, Pres. World Resources Institute
• John Adams, Ex. Dir. National Resources Defense Council
• Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Pres. Zero Population
• Michelle Perrault, International V.P., Sierra Club
• John C. Sawhill, Pres. The Nature Conservancy
• Jay D. Hair, Pres. World Conservation Union (IUCN)
• Kenneth L. Lay, CEO, Enron Corporation
• William D. Ruckelshaus, Chm., Browning-Ferris Industries & former EPA Administrator

Their purpose was to translate the recommendations set forth in Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government. They created the American version of Agenda 21 called “Sustainable America – A New Consensus”.

In Cheryl’s article of March 6, you’ll learn just what “A New Consensus” means. How environmental groups and NGOs are using Federal grants to convince local governments that there is a consensus in their community that support the recommended project where in fact there is no such consensus. Ever hear of The Delphi Technique? Check it out and learn how to defend you community against this cancer.

This post is already long and I’ve only been able to give you a broad brush picture of what Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is about. Please bear with me because I’m about to make it much longer by reprinting an entire article from the March 2010 Idaho Observer by Anne Wilder Chamberlain. I think if you will take the time to read this piece it will clarify what so many of our communities and for that matter are country are up against. Pay special attention to the missions of the various groups involved.  I’ll look forward to your thoughts on Sustainable Development. In the future I will make post on this issue of more reasonable length. This is an important issue and I think it deserves the attention of the blogosphere.

Smart Growth and Your Local University:“Building Sustainable Communities Initiative”

by Anne Wilder Chamberlain

The sleepy little (ex)-timber community of Priest River, Idaho, lies in the northern part of the Idaho Panhandle – a designated “red zone” in the Wildlands Project and in the very heart of the Y2Y corridor (see “Yukon to Yellowstone,” Jan. 2010 I.O.). This town of approximately 2000 has been devastated by governmental regulations on harvesting timber from its forest service land as well as the drop in the market due to the national housing collapse. Over 500 timber workers and support lost their jobs in the last year. So with a promise of $168,000 in U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Agriculture grants towards eco-development of the town, local government paid $10,900 to the University of Idaho Bioregional Planning Department – for the second time – to be the recipient of its Building Sustainable Communities Initiative (BCSI) “brainstorming sessions.” The meetings are facilitated by professionals to help in Priest River’s “visioning process.” However, so far the meetings have not included brainstorming sessions on how to create jobs.

The BCSI program is supported in part by the Idaho Department of Commerce, the Idaho Department of Labor, the Resilience Alliance, the American Planning Association (APA), and Second Nature.

APA states on its website that “among the highlights of the Obama administration’s FY 2011 budget request are: $4 billion for a new National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund; $527 million for new sustainable communities initiatives at the Department of Transportation; $150 million for HUD’s (Housing and Urban Development) sustainable communities grant program; $250 million for the new Choice Neighborhoods program at HUD; $10 million for smart growth technical assistance at EPA; $1 billion for the Housing Trust Fund; …and a near doubling of funding at HUD for research and technical assistance,” along with over $1.2 billion in other HUD and transportation grants funded by you, the taxpayer.

Second Nature’s mission is “to accelerate movement toward a sustainable future by serving and supporting senior college and university leaders in making…sustainable living the foundation of all learning” in higher education “by modeling ways to eliminate global warming emissions.”

It is funded by the Kresge Foundation, a $2.8 billion private foundation that in 2008 awarded 342 grants totaling $181 million “to influence the quality of life for future generations.”

Smart Growth and the Wildlands Project: Humans will be caged, while animals run free

The Wildlands Project is the plan to eliminate human presence on “at least 50 percent of the American landscape,” wrote Reed Noss, Science Editor for Wild Earth, the Wildlands Project publication.

On March 3, Obama identified 14 pieces of land for another federal unilateral land grab – more than 10 million acres in the Western U.S. – to place under the “protection” of the Department of the Interior. The federal government already owns approximately 650 million acres nationwide, including about 80% of Nevada and 63% of Utah. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out the loss from this land grab of jobs in ranching, forestry, mining, and energy development and the related loss of tax revenue needed for schools, firehouses etc., and proposed a constitutional amendment to block it (defeated 58 to 38).

Sustainable Development is the plan to accomplish global control, using land and resource restrictions as well as “social transformation through education”. The transfer of land from citizen control to government control makes it easy for government and its partners – Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), certain foundations, and certain corporations – to control what we have, what we do, and where we go. The transformation of free societies into collectivized ones ensures the presence of a ruling elite, which, by definition, excludes all but a very select few.

The land use element calls for the implementation of two action plans designed to eliminate private property: the Wildlands Project and Smart Growth. Upon implementation of these plans, all human activity is subject to control.

The Wildlands Project (see Dec 2009 I.O.) seeks to collectivize all natural resources – like water – and centralize all use decisions under government direction. Tools include the Endangered Species Act, various “conservation easements,” growth management plans, and direct land acquisitions.

The Wildlands Project is inextricably tied to its urban counterpart, Smart Growth. As human beings become barred from rural land (and lose their property due to foreclosure), human activity will be concentrated in urban areas. Through taxpayer-subsidized Smart Growth complexes, the infrastructure is being created for a post-private property era. Sometimes called “comprehensive planning,” Smart Growth is the centralized control of every aspect of urban life: energy and water use, population control, public health and diet, resources and recycling, “social justice” and education, toxic technology and waste management, transportation, and economic activity.

A typical day in the Orwellian society created by Smart Growth would consist of an individual waking up in his government-provided housing unit, eating a ration of government-subsidized foods purchased at a government-sanctioned grocery store, walking his children to the government-run child care center, and boarding government-subsidized public transit to go to his government job.

Smart Growth policies:

  • A transportation plan that reduces mobility and forces people to live near their work in heavily-regulated feudalistic “transit villages.”
  • Tax-subsidized, government-controlled, mixed-use developments called “human settlements,” like developments in Portland, Oregon where the lure of paying as little as $150 per year in taxes on properties valued at $1.5 million has led to high occupancy.
  • Settlements distinguished from one another by how useful the citizens are for society. The Smart Growth plan for Richland County, SC, distinguishes between “employment-based villages,” and “non-employment-based villages,” with special gated communities for the wealthy individuals overseeing the plan, and “non-employment” villages located in former slums.
  • Heavy restrictions on most development with the exception of that constructed and managed by government “partners” where extremely dense development is promoted.
  • Rations on public services such as health care, drinking water, and energy resources. According to the Global Water Supply and Assessment Report (2000), reasonable access to water in urban areas is defined as “the availability of 20 litres per capita per day at a distance no longer than 1,000 metres.”

The Talloires Conference

In 1990 representatives from universities around the world, including the University of Idaho, met in Talloires, France and signed the Talloires Declaration, a ten-point action plan for colleges and universities committed to promoting education for sustainability and environmental literacy.

The conference was organized and hosted by Tufts University President Jean Mayer and sponsored by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. After a keynote address by Maurice Strong, secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (June 1992), the universities developed their series of recommended actions. As university leaders, they were considered uniquely positioned as “universities educate most of the people who develop and manage society’s institutions.”

The Talloires Declaration “inspired other such official declarations” including the Kyoto Declaration of the International Association of Universities (11/93) and the Student Charter for a Sustainable Future (United Kingdom, 7/95).

As of January 2008, the Talloires Declaration has been signed by more than 360 university presidents and chancellors at institutions in over 40 countries across five continents.

Visioning and Stakeholder Councils In local communities, such as those in North Idaho, Sustainable Development is carried out using stakeholder councils: events organized to give community members a “stake” in the control over some local project. A typical meeting is run by a trained “facilitator,” whose job is, not to make sure all views are entered on the record, but rather, to guide the group to a predetermined consensus. The Agenda 21 advocates systematically promote their own ideas and marginalize any opposition, particularly that of individuals who advocate the freedom to use and enjoy private property. The facilitator will record “good” ideas and allow criticism for “bad” ones.The result of the stakeholder council is called a “consensus” or “vision statement”, and is typically approved by local governments without question, requiring citizens to submit to the questionable conclusions of a non-elected authority that is not accountable to the voters and may not even be from the region.“Visioning” events are generally initiated by local public officials, local or regional NGOs, or by the United Nations co-opted higher education system. It is important to remember that the same universities that are offering “sustainability” events have biotech labs that artificially manipulate seed for the financial benefit of large conscienceless corporations like Monsanto. Participating Departments of the Univ. of Idaho BCSI include the College of Agricultural & Life Sciences, of which the Univ. of Idaho Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering is a part. Biological (i.e. genetic) engineering manipulates seeds to withstand large amounts of highly toxic herbicides; to kill insects and change the bacteria in our gut; and to be unable to self-replicate, thereby destroying the sustainability of small communities and farmers worldwide.

Land rights

The good news is that the “visioning process” doesn’t always work. One Sustainable Development stakeholder meeting in Greenville, SC was adjourned with the admission by the facilitator that they had not reached the consensus needed to support the predetermined plan. It goes to show that if attendees are aware of UN methods and are definite in protecting their rights, these plans will fail.

[See how to break “The Delphi Technique”, Jan. 2010 I.O.]

Pete Simmons, property rights lawyer from the State of Washington went up against his county’s application of Washington State’s Growth Management Act (GMA), which “requires all cities and counties in the state to designate and protect wetlands…and other critical areas…, plan for urban growth, [and] …adopt comprehensive plans.” He succeeded by studying the State Constitution, which reads, “All political power is inherent in the people…the purpose of government is to protect and maintain individual rights.”

Today the Stevens County Comprehensive Plan holds “private property rights free from intermeddling by outside government and interest groups.”

Conclusion

Sustainable Development advocates are often unaware that the natural consequence of their environmental, social equity, and “new economy” movement is tyranny. If we understand the threat and face the challenge squarely, the deceptive fraud of Sustainable Development will come to light.

We must:

  • Respect each other; the road to liberty requires a conscious decision to defend our neighbor’s right to life, liberty and the use and enjoyment of his property.
  • Know the Declaration of Independence and our State Constitution – the principles of our Republic – and commit to securing the blessings of liberty for posterity.
  • Work to eliminate harmful indoctrination in schools by taking charge of our children’s education.
  • Advocate Freedom Locally: Hold elected officials accountable to the Constitution that is being undermined by federally coordinated grants; awaken genuine free-enterprise business people to the threat posed by United Nations-sponsored “Sustainability.”
  • Reject government-funded conservation agreements: i.e. federal, NGO, or foundation grants, and ‘comprehensive’, ‘community’, Smart Growth, or Wildlands planning.
  • Support the repeal of the Endangered Species Act
  • Expose NGOs that are working to undermine the American vision by promoting a global political agenda that is contrary to the ideas of liberty. The information regarding Agenda 21 and “Educating the Youth” are excerpted from Mike Shaw’s booklets, Understanding Sustainable Development Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, Global to Local Action Plans, available for $3.00 each from Freedom Advocates, P.O. Box 3330, Freedom, Calif. 95019 (831) 685-2232www.freedomadvocates.org

Original Post: Conservatives on Fire

Share