You just can’t make this stuff up

The more you know the harder it is to just condense UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development into a short paragraph. Someone who came to one of our lectures recently said: “Just give it to me quickly, I’m busy.” Who isn’t busy? On the one hand we just want to say: Take my word for it, and on the other hand there are the skeptics who think we’ve made it up since they didn’t read it in the local paper or see it on FoxNewsCNNMSNBCCSPAN.

Everyone is being impacted by it, but since your government uses different names for all of the programs (it’s alphabet soup), you don’t recognize that there is a connection when you hear, for instance:

Your 10-year old child won’t be automatically going to the middle school in your neighborhood but has to apply for admission. S/he may end up across town where you’ll never attend parent/teacher night, never become friends with other parents, and not volunteer in the classroom (and hear the lesson) because you can’t make it home from your job in time.

Your business is being subjected to a Business Improvement Tax by your local government and you have to pay even though your customers now have to put money in the meters, pay huge parking tickets, and can go to the Mall with free parking.

You inherited a piece of land from your folks but now you find out that it’s impossible to build anything on it because the County has an ordinance that won’t allow you to install a septic system on your 40 acres. And the Biotic Resource Corridor that it’s in won’t allow development anyway. And besides you’re in the ‘viewshed’ so bicyclists can look at your land as they ride a nearby trail, and a building would ruin that.

You don’t believe that you’re being ‘forced’ out of your private vehicle but then you notice that even though Libya produces only 2% of the world’s oil your gasoline cost just jumped up 15% since Gaddafi started shouting. You also have noticed that there’s talk about a ‘Vehicle Miles Traveled Tax’ in your town council that would charge you for long commutes. You moved there to buy a house but the market has crashed and you’re not going anywhere for a while.

You, of course, were an avid fan of the Smart Train idea and voted for the 1/4 cent sales tax hike in perpetuity, but now the train is a distant hope since they underestimated costs, and the money went to repair the tracks (for freight) and big pensions for staff. All of those SMART Growth condos by the tracks are now going to hear freight train whistles and smell the fumes 6 feet away.

You’re sick of being called an “Oil Addict” and can’t understand why innovations for energy efficient vehicles have never been funded by your government. Until now, when you can pay $40,000 for a compact that gets 35 miles to the gallon…

You came home from work and noticed that your energy company had installed a SMART METER without asking you, and now you’ve heard that they can shut it off remotely, monitor your use, reduce your allotment, and generally mess with you any time.

You’ve gone from saying you’d never bother to learn computers to checking your email every half hour, and your kids never look up from their I-whatever when you talk to them. Their classrooms are so crammed with kids that even you think remote learning might be a good idea, and, hey, textbooks on-line should save money—they can update them, change them, change history with a click of the mouse—Great!

You just came back from a vacation in Mexico and noticed the retina recognition and fingerprint readers at every customs officer’s station, and it made you nervous. Of course they’re not using them on everyone yet, but how long will it be? You’ve also read that they have miniature drone spy hummingbirds that can fly 8 miles, in and out of windows, and record sound and video! Who? Your government. What else do they have? Do they know you’re reading this?

You go to a neighborhood association meeting out of some sense of civic duty and see that they’re electing officers to the association. You’d like to nominate your neighbor but you can’t because the by-laws say that any candidate has to be okayed by the board first. You try to make a comment but you are boo’d by your ‘neighbors’ in bike helmets and spandex. It’s clear that they have a candidate who will be elected and claim to speak for the entire neighborhood.

Call it Smart Growth. Call it Sustainable Development. Call it Form Based Zoning. Call it Capacity Building. Call it Consensus Building. Call it Green Building. Call it Wildlands. Call it Homelands. Call it Outcome Based Education. ETC. Hey, it’s not “What is Agenda 21″, it’s “WHAT ISN’T AGENDA 21″ It’s not Republican, and it’s not Democrat. It’s not Libertarian, and it’s not Independent. It’s COMMUNITARIAN.

Satisfied? Are we making this up? Have you noticed? So? WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT? Listen, no one is holding a gun to your head; you’re not losing your job if you speak out. Will you please go and talk to your neighbor, friend, co-worker, partner, coach, financial advisor, lawyer, clerk, you get the idea…. SPEAK UP. SPEAK OUT. STOP AGENDA 21 NOW.

General AND Comprehensive: The Plan

We’ve been receiving your emails and answering some questions. Here’s one:

Our county (city, village, township, province) is making a Comprehensive Plan now. What is that? Is it related to Agenda 21?

Yes. A Comprehensive Plan is also called a General Plan, and is mandated/required by State law. It is a long range plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction. It may be called Your Town 2020 or 2035, or something similar. You get it from your Community Development/Planning Department. The law requires specific contents of the General Plan (transportation, biological resources, community develoment, energy, and our personal favorite; the Socioeconomic Element.

The Socioeconomic Element will generally include: Community participation (Delphi meetings), Public Safety (Community Oriented Policing), Environmental Justice (curbing or eliminating industry), Child Care (child endangerment/family law), Education (indoctrination), Economy (picking winners and losers), Parks and Recreation (bike lanes).

The General Plan/Comprehensive Plan is adopted by your municipality after lots of meetings where the public is invited and those who are ‘team players’ and toadies are identified and honored as ‘community leaders.’ Those who raise objections are also identified. The General Plan will be used to deny property owners the right to use their land as it was previously zoned, and will identify the rights of the community as ‘balancing environmental protection with the needs of present and future residents for housing, jobs, and recreation, and on the need for transportation options to reduce dependence on automobile use.’ (Quote from Marin Countywide Plan, Marin County, California) Note the word “balancing”. That’s a key jargon word for Communitarians. It means that your individual rights are not as important and will be disregarded for the ‘community’s rights.’

This is the idea of planning a sustainable community. It is an ideology that was formed by people with little or no real-world experience in farming, industry, or property development. It forms the framework and justification for many of the restrictive laws and regulations that strangle opportunity for all but the chosen few. It is a land use plan but it extends far beyond the boundaries of the property lines into the life decisions we make. As with everything impacted by Communitarianism, the governing body knows better than the individual how life should be lived. The General Plan is the method, the document, the comprehensive design for living that is imposed upon us. With our input, they assure us. You’ll hear this: ‘This is YOUR plan. We are just responding to what YOU want.’

In this way, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is implemented and justified for the masses.

Why Communitarianism threatens a free society

I have been reading articles by Amitai Etzioni, the professor at George Washington University, who is the director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies.  He founded the Communitarian Network, a non-profit ‘dedicated to the moral, social, and political foundations of society,’ and is the world’s leading proponent of communitarianism.

It doesn’t do you much good to criticize a theory without thorough research into it, so I’m doing my homework.

An article by Etzioni in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs entitled The Common Good and Rights, A Neo-Communitarian Approach (Winter/Spring 2009), is a concise argument for the central tenet of communitarianism: The common good must be a central part of our public morality, and human rights  and liberty must be subsumed into the service of all members of the society.  This is what he calls ‘balancing.’

Etzioni states that where there is no ‘community’ the people are disaffected, lonely, anti-social, alienated, and prone to finding artificial community such as gangs and militias.  Without community, in his view, there are no informal social controls that will serve to enforce the moral code and commitments of the residents. The antidote, he says, is to produce a community that uses censure, or pressure, to control behavior.

Here’s an example of what’s wrong with that concept.

Now, in an open society, such as the one we are now building, a gay person can live freely in many places.  An outsider just 25 years ago (and of course, still, in many places), a gay person is now able to form loving attachments without fear of job loss, loss of children, or shunning by society.  But if you take a look at the ‘community’ of Etzioni’s making, you’re looking at America in the 1950’s.  At a society that can shun you, shame you, reject you, attack you, and claim it’s for the common good.  And they truly believed that.  And many of them were good people.  And still are.  And if you define the common good as producing uniformity, and regulated, wholly expected results, then I suppose homosexuality is not in line with the common good.  But why would you want complete uniformity in your culture?  There is a perceived threat.  Whether it’s valid or not, the group can decide to reject and stigmatize a whole segment of the population.  For the common good.

Now, this is the kind of thing that was done in the name of religious prosecution.  Community morality.  How many have been persecuted or killed because they didn’t have the right religion?  This empowers mob rule.  Enforcement of morals outside of the law is not serving the Constitution of the United States.  Etzioni says that common moral beliefs make a community.  That sounds like a religion. Like environmentalism?  Has ‘green’ been hijacked and transformed to a secular religion?  Is it being used as an excuse and justification for restriction of individual rights?  Etzioni is defining the community as the planet.  The global village.  So, by extension,  just your use of the resources on the planet can endanger it, and make you a threat to the common good.

Your rights have been ‘balanced’ against the rights of the community as determined by some.  Whoever is the most dominant group.  Some group is going to be making these decisions.  How is the good of the community determined?  By the Delphi Technique?

Our constitution guarantees individual rights for a reason.  Because they are the first thing to go when a community takes on the role of the arbiter of behavior.

I do not feel comforted by the idea of community rule.  I have been at the receiving end of community attack.  Abuse.  Cruelty.  Why?  Because I dared to speak out about what was wrong.  Are these the people we want dictating what is for the good of the community?  The only way you can get to what Etzioni is talking about is to overthrow our entire system of law.  Our constitution and legal system are based on individual rights.

In Etzioni’s article he states:
“The neo-communitarian position seeks to understand as well as design society in light of the inevitable conflicts between rights, which privilege the person, and concerns for the common good, which privilege the community or society.”

Did you catch that? Design society in light of the inevitable conflicts between rights and the common good.

Re-Designing society. This is happening now.  In your town.  Right in your neighborhood association, your PTA, your city council, your place of worship, your local planning department, your schools.  This is not a remote, scholarly concept.  This is being imposed and enacted across the nation.

The overthrow of our legal system is in progress by the election of politicians  and judges who support communitarianism and Agenda 21.  For the common good.

You asked for it: What can I do about Agenda 21?

First take a deep breath and realize that you are not alone in this.  There are people all over your state, all over America, all over the world, who are with you.

If you’ve read our site, http://www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com, and read the links you are probably feeling upset and concerned about your future and the future of your country.  Good.  There are a lot of issues that make it into the news but UN Agenda 21, communitarianism, and sustainable development/SmartGrowth doesn’t show up much.  So you’re shocked about it.  You may even be hoping that it’s nothing, that it will blow over, that you don’t have to do anything about it.  But this is real and your voice is needed.  

You may be looking for a leader.  Take a look in the mirror.  This is the real face of grassroots.  YOU.

To start, the best thing you can do is to read more and open your eyes to the workings of your town.  You’ve heard the slogan “Think Globally, Act Locally”?  Take that to heart, to the real heart of what you see.  Take your local paper.  Read it.  So many of us take the New York Times or the San Francisco Chronicle but not our local paper.  It’s a rag, we say.  Who cares?  You should. Up above we said that UN Agenda 21, communitarianism and sustainable development/SmartGrowth don’t show up much in the paper, but they do, every day.  If you’re paying attention and reading intelligently.  Articles about redevelopment projects, bicycle boulevards, neighborhood summits, neighborhood elections, neighborhood revitalization projects, neighborhood stabilization projects, visioning, local boards, smart growth projects, low-income housing subsidies, transportation grants, green building retrofit programs, well monitoring, SMART electric and gas meters, and the people who object to them come out every day.  Connect with those people.  Tell them about UN Agenda 21.  Be a bridge.  

If you’re a sceptic, and you should be, keep reading and asking the questions.  Be a sharp researcher.  If you read about a group that is advocating for SmartGrowth, for instance, take a look at who’s in the group.  Google the names of the people running the organization.  Follow those links.  Who funds them?  What influence do they have on your community?  For instance, in our town, Santa Rosa, CA, there is a group that is trying to develop new neighborhood associations in conjunction with the City so that they can hand-pick neighborhood ‘leaders’ and shut out other voices.  It’s called the Neighborhood Alliance, a group founded by the local president of the UN-USA Association.  Didn’t know there was a local chapter of the United Nations in your town?  Neither did we.  What else?  The other founder is the director of advocacy for the California Lung Association.  A check of that group shows that they lobby the legislature for smart growth (that term means multi-story residential condos stacked on top of retail stores next to railway lines, proposed rail lines, or transit corridors; the preferred development style for Agenda 21).  Surprised?  We were.  That explained why the Board of the neighborhood association went nuts when my partner was elected neighborhood president.  They threatened her with a trial to remove her when they found out she and I had organized a group and sued to stop a local redevelopment project.  You get the point.  

Connect with others who are feeling that their property rights are being limited or taken away through excessive regulations.  Most people who do own property don’t own more than their own home, but if you do own a piece of improved or vacant land, whether it is rural, urban, suburban, commercial, residential, or industrial, you’ve been affected.  And you probably know it.  So do others in your situation.  Political parties are a diversion.  Don’t make that an issue.  You’ll find allies by watching the Planning Commission meetings on your local cable station, or by going down to the meetings yourself, listening for a few weeks, giving your card to those who are in a similar situation, and meeting them.  Tell them about UN Agenda 21.

You might get a shock, as we did sometimes, when you think you’re meeting with allies but find out that you’re mistaken.  Take the chance.  Spread the word.  

Yes, it takes some courage to point out actions being taken by your neighbors, by your town council, and by your community when you feel alone.  Try to get a small group together.  Here’s an example of a small group that has made a big difference.  Or maybe you’ll just have one other person. Go to your neighborhood visioning meetings.  Remember though, they use tactics like the Delphi Technique at local meetings to marginalize dissent.  You can learn very effective ways to monkey-wrench their tactics here.  Go to the City Council meetings and get used to speaking out.  It’s kind of scary at first but go for it.   It’s tremendously engaging to become involved locally.  It’s your town—Get Involved.  But don’t let them snow you.  Or use flattery to turn you.  Don’t be fooled.  

When you’re discussing UN Agenda 21 with people who are part of the sustainability movement think about their arguments.  Are they logical?  If they advocate for high density development in the center of your town, ask them: Why do you support vertical sprawl? Ask them: Did you know that low-income housing developments do not pay property tax?  Did you know that they do not contribute to paying for city services?  Ask them: Did you know that property taxes on new developments in an area that has been declared blighted contribute very little to the schools, hospitals, police and fire? The majority of their property tax is diverted to the Redevelopment Agency to pay off redevelopment bonds. If they bring up issues that raise questions for you, research the answers.  Use it as a learning opportunity.  

Here’s a way for your voice to be heard in every newspaper and magazine in the nation:  Go on their online sites and comment on articles related to UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.  Most sites will allow anonymous posting, if you wish to be anonymous.  

Do you subscribe to a newsletter?  Write something for it.  Go ahead!  Do your best and don’t worry if you don’t get it all in there.  

Start a blog.  Just do it, it’s easy!  Weebly is a terrific web-building site.  It’s free and you can easily have a website and blog in about 5 minutes.  As you learn more, post it.  Link to others.  Get support by finding others, like us, who have awakened to UN Agenda 21 and Communitarianism.  

Do you have a community media center in your town?  At the college or high school there may be a local TV cable station with classes in how to do a local TV show.  It’s fun, you learn a lot, and you get your show on the air.  Try a ‘man on the street’ show.  Ask everyone you meet:  ‘Did you know that (your town) was a member of ICLEI?’ or ‘Did you know that sustainable development is a United Nations plan?’

There’s an election coming up.  Go to the forums.  Ask:  ‘What is your position on UN Agenda 21?’  Hold up a sign.  Find out if your town or county is a member of ICLEI.  Ask: ‘What is your position on ICLEI?  Will you commit to KICK ICLEI out of our community?’  

Don’t look for a hero, don’t expect someone to do it for you.  You are joining a huge worldwide genuine grassroots movement.  Being green is using energy efficient ways to conserve, and using intelligent means to preserve our lives on the earth.  You don’t have to lose your rights and give up living with a personal vehicle, a private home, modern conveniences, and good food.  We’ve been told by local groups that they don’t want electric vehicles to be successful because that will stop people from getting out of their cars and onto bikes.  That even if all electricity came from renewables that people having personal vehicles are ‘anti-social’ and that streets should be bike only or removed.  

If you’ve been identifying yourself as progressive ask what that means.  Ask yourself what it means.  Think about it.  In your mind, move into a condo.  Get rid of your car and ride a bike.  Take your time thinking about this.  Stop eating any food that was not produced locally (within 25 miles).  Limit your water usage to 10 gallons per day.  Pay a carbon tax for any trip you take.  Wash your clothes and bedding by hand and hang them up to dry (try this for a month).  Perform your hours of mandatory volunteer work.  What does it mean to be progressive?  Are you a liberal?  We can own the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, too.  It’s ours.  We’re a big country with a lot of room and a lot of resources.  We’re cleaning up our pollution, we’re reducing our energy use, we’re more efficient with our water.  We are a nation of rights.  Not republican or democrat rights.  National, civil, rights. 

Remember The Who?  ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ is a great tune by the great left radical, Pete Townshend.  Read the lyrics:
 

We’ll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again

Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that’s all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain’t changed
‘Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no! 

I’ll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?

There’s nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again
Don’t get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Speak out about UN Agenda 21.   Stop the loss of your rights

What do global warming, global governance and sustainable development have to do with the proposed Ground Zero mosque

By: Douglas J. Hagmann, Senior Investigator Homeland Security
 

Report of Investigation Park 51

What do “global warming,” “global governance” and “sustainable development” have to do with the proposed “Ground Zero mosque?” One would think absolutely nothing; however investigation into the money, organizations and people behind the project has uncovered some revealing and disturbing connections.  An extensive analysis of these findings provides the missing insight into the larger agenda, motives and modus operandi associated with what is now known as the Park51project. It also reveals the reasons behind the persistence of the insipid and insulting project and why it remains viable in the face of such visceral opposition.

Those who oppose the construction of an Islamic center in close proximity to Ground Zero are legitimately upset by the hubris of Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf and his associates, and his lack of class and sensitivity exhibited by their insistence to continue forward despite the plaintive objections of those most affected and victimized by the terrorist attacks. Some in opposition appear perplexed that the individuals behind the project have not relented or even acquiesced to open dialogue about moving the Islamic center due to the volatility created by the project. To date, overtures made by the governor of New York as well as members of the clergy have been quietly rebuffed by the people behind the project. If building bridges and fostering goodwill is, in fact, their objective, it is reasonable to question their reluctance and outright refusal to mitigate any ill will by reconsidering the location of the Islamic center. For the purpose of a comprehensive investigation, it is not only reasonable, it is imperative.

Opposition to the Islamic center to date has been limited to information that is known or has been most easily uncovered about Imam Abdul-Rauf and the Cordoba Initiative. That Abdul-Rauf has suggested that the 9/11 attacks were a result of American foreign policy and his refusal to characterize Hamas as a terrorist organization should themselves be sufficient reasons to cause any person of reasonable sensibilities to oppose the construction, especially at this location. Yet, those behind the project, as well as those in support of the project do not appear to be adversely affected and remain undeterred. Once again, it is an investigative imperative to determine why.

Despite such obviously controversial positions, Abdul-Rauf presses forward with the approval of political leaders from Barack Hussein Obama to Michael Bloomberg. Together with many in the corporate media, project supporters deflect from the core issue into a specious constitutional argument relating to freedom of religion, despite the fact that no one is preventing Islam from being practiced in the United States. The issues are even further diluted and deflected by those who insist that the project is neither a mosque nor will it be located at Ground Zero. While both assertions might be considered technically accurate in the eyes of Western thought and culture, they are nothing more than frivolous defenses at best and intellectual deception at worst.

Those who espouse such defenses either fail to understand or deliberately refuse to address the iconic Islamic symbolism behind the “9/11 Victory Mosque.” That the planned venture is technically outside of the footprint of the former World Trade Center complex is offered as a legitimate defense, which might hold true if one is to be so myopic as to disregard the Muslim world view.  Perhaps that is the reason for the project makeover that began with the changing of the name from the Cordoba House to Park 51. It is not a likely coincidence that once the symbolic nature of Cordoba became more widely known, those behind the project opted to promote a more secular version of the initiative, while concurrently expunging certain elements relating to Islamic Shariah law from their web site.

Despite the plentiful amount of information developed by independent researchers, bloggers, and commentators that has been published about the questionable associations of project front man ABDUL-RAUF over the last few weeks, he continues to travel to the Middle East as an emissary of America at the behest of the Obama/Clinton State Department. Ostensibly, his purpose is to “discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance” with Islamic leaders in Muslim countries.  Despite his questionable associations, the U.S. State Department is steadfast in their support of his goodwill tour.

Not only is the U.S. State Department unwavering in their support in spite of such controversy, they are invoking an unprecedented shroud of secrecy over the trip. When questioned about the content and message of Abdul-Rauf’s goodwill tour, U.S. State Department Spokesman Phillip Crowley curiously cited a 62 year-old law, erroneously claiming that the law shields Rauf’s message from the American public – at least by way of government web sites – as cited in this article published Tuesday by the editor of Family Security Matters.

It is clearly evident that there is something very disturbing taking place behind the scenes that is permitting this “duck or bleed” approach being employed by politicians and lawmakers. It is only when we investigate deeper into the people and groups behind this assault on American sensibilities and “follow the money” do we find the nefarious nexus of “Cap and Trade globalists,” Progressives” and Islamic leaders who are pushing for a “one world” religion.

The latter group, including foreign entities and governments, is working to replace our Judeo-Christian heritage with Islam as the dominant religion of America and Shariah in place of the U.S. Constitution. It is being conducted under the pretext of interfaith dialogue and unity, an objective for which Feisal ABDUL RAUF and his closest associates have been groomed.

While ABDUL RAUF and his associates are working to install Shariah in the U.S., the former group is engaged in the systematic effort to destroy the current religious and moral structures as a means to facilitate their objectives of control and domination. The Progressives and globalists are exploiting this transformation for their own agenda, which is the implementation of global governance. That is exactly what can be found when the layers of deception and distraction are carefully and methodically pulled back and the prospective money sources are identified.

IMPORTANT: Download the complete report in PDF Format (Complete with flowcharts) for complete report.

SUMMARY

We are fighting a multi-pronged enemy in the West and specifically, in the U.S. It is not just Islam, although Islam is the effective conduit.

Evidence suggests that it is the ultimate goal of ABDUL RAUF and his associates to install Sharia law in the United States, not to co-exist with Civil or Common law, but to
replace it. To generate financial support for this and future endeavors, he must first show the Islamic nations that he can succeed in the installation of an iconic symbol of Islamic victory at Ground Zero. That he can succeed where others (such as Saudi prince Al Waleed bin Talal) failed at Ground Zero.  That, of course, explains the “duck or bleed” approach by ABDUL RAUF and secular, non-Islamic supporters. To do so, however, he must first convince his most obvious potential detractors – the Christians and the Jews – that his objective is to build bridges and work closely with other religions. Hence, Americans see support from a broad array of Christian and Jewish leaders that have fallen for the trance-invoking mantra of “interfaith dialogue.” It is merely a ruse, albeit an effective one.

The Progressives, including those who want to initiate a more secular government, see organized religions (especially Christianity and Judaism) as impediments to their goals. They see the opportunity to water down the religions through the fallacious tenets of “interfaith dialogue.”  Accordingly, they are prepared to fund such objectives through NGOs and other organizations under the umbrella of the United Nations.

Interfaith dialogue is toxic to America and American core religious values and Judeo-Christian principles. It is a Trojan Horse that will facilitate the Progressives in power – and those behind the power – in the United States, to become subjugated to global governance. That, of course, explains the presence and financial support of environmental groups teaming up with such unlikely partners.

We cannot afford to be myopic at this point. We must identify and fight against all of the enemies of America. Failing to recognize the larger picture makes the fight less effectual.

Follow the footprints of International money.

Listen or download the three-hour show that walks the listener through the “money behind the mosque:”


Click on the above graphic – scroll to August 20, 2010 and download the three hour segments.

Consider the following diagram that outlines the money behind the New York City Islamic center, and use the hyperlinks to secure detailed information about each individual or organization:

Doug Hagmann  Bio Doug Hagmann
Most recent columnsCopyright © Douglas Hagmann
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.

Sonoma County Asthma Coalition—a smokescreen for SMART GROWTH?!

Why is this important? Because it’s a seemingly innocuous group, with a ‘positive’ healthy message, that is actually a Smart Growth lobbying group. The group includes Michael Allen–Democratic Candidate for 7th Assembly District (California), under investigation for serious conflict of interest charges, and the Accountable Development Coalition, a communitarian group that demands payments from developers for not obstructing projects, and which inserts itself into the government process to crowd out actual community voices. The Sonoma County Asthma Coalition actually pressures for zoning changes, general plan development, and redevelopment to implement smart growth/sustainable development. This is UN Agenda 21 at work in a local community.
Some of the issues they lobby for:
Using code enforcement (with police powers) to change from complaint-driven code enforcement to pro-active mandatory annual inspections of housing units
Advocating for the SCEIP program (Sonoma County Energy Independence), a boondoggle which has had a tremendously negative impact on the potential for refinancing all properties in Sonoma County (pop. 500,000)
Requiring mandatory ‘green building’ standards for Sonoma County. Smoke-free housing ordinances or nuisance laws giving tenants affected by secondhand smoke legal recourse.
The American Lung Association of California is a proponent of ‘smart growth’ and co-sponsored the New Partners for Smart Growth conference in Florida. People have no idea that some of the so-called ‘neighborhood leaders’ dictating smart growth are paid lobbyists.

Do you have a branch in your community? Have you taken a look at your local Lung Association? The following link takes you to the Sonoma County Asthma Coalition “Planning Healthy Communities” page.

And, since you were wondering what the larger context is for this, take a look at the sponsors of a New Partners for Smart Growth conference—the purpose of which is to extol the virtues of sustainable Agenda 21 development. You’ll find the National Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the National League of City Managers, Fannie Mae, the US Defense Department, the EPA, Bank of America, the US Department of Transportation…it goes on.

Sustainable Development-A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

Sustainable Development – A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

By clicking on the links provided you can see influential leaders who have been actively guiding the emergence of the environmental movement describe their true beliefs and agenda in their own words. But how can they possibly bring about the global political, economic, social and religious transformation they desire? The tool employed must be so potent and pervasive that it reaches into every area of society, from local community groups to sovereign governments and multinational corporations. It must have the power to enforce binding international agreements, exert stringent controls over human activities and yet still be acceptable to the general population. It must become so entrenched in legislation and business practice that its necessity is barely questioned.

Such a tool exists. They have been carefully shaping and nurturing its progress for decades. It is known as the doctrine of Sustainable Development. We are all aware of need to address environmental problems such as water and air pollution, and dwindling natural resources, but Sustainable Development is exerting draconian controls and influence far beyond those required for effective environmental management.

The concept of ‘environmental sustainability’ was first brought to widespread public attention in 1972 by the Club of Rome in their book entitled The Limits to Growth. The official summary can be read here. The report basically concluded that the growth of the human population, and an increase in prosperity, would cause an ecological collapse within the fifty years. The book is considered to be the most successful environmental publication ever produced and propelled the Club of Rome to its current position of an environmental thought-leader and a major consultant to the United Nations.

It has been translated into more than forty languages and sold more than 15 million copies. Throughout the 1970s and 80s the concept that humanity was irreparably damaging the earth gained credence and facilitated the formation of mainstream and activist environmental groups. The Club of Rome has been calling for “a Masterplan to guide world development” since its very inception.

In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. According to this master plan diversification among cells is determined by the requirements of the various organs; the size and shape of the organs and, therefore, their growth processes are determined by their function, which in turn depends on the needs of the whole organism. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world systemNow is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system. ” – Mankind at the Turning Point, CoR, 1974

Interestingly, just prior to the birth of “Sustainable Development” a well-dressed, articulate man visited a small construction company in Georgia, USA, and announced that he wanted to build an edifice to transmit a message to mankind. He said that he represented a group of men who wanted to offer direction to humanity, but to date, more than two decades later, no one knows who he really was, or who he represented. The stranger gave the company very detailed design documents and stated the money was not an issue.

The “Georgia Guidestones” were completed six months later in 1980. As noted in the Wikipedia entry “The content of the message bears a remarkable resemblance to the so called Earth Charter, a statement of vision of the Earth Charter Initiative of Mikhail Gorbachev (Green Cross International) and Maurice Strong (Earth Summit).

The monument stands high on a hilltop, and is almost twenty feet tall. It is made from five granite slabs that weigh more than 100 tons, with a capstone connecting the slabs. A message consisting of a set of ten guidelines or principles is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages, one language on each face of the four large upright stones. Moving clockwise around the monument from due north, these languages are: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Russian. The message in English reads:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the earth – Leave room for nature.

A shorter message appears on the four vertical surfaces of the capstone, again in a different language and script on each face. The explanatory tablet near the Guidestones identifies these languages/scripts as Babylonian Cuneiform (north), Classical Greek (east), Sanskrit (south), and Egyptian Hieroglyphs (west), and provides what is presumably an English translation: “Let these be guidestones to an age of reason.” The Guidestones have become famous as ‘America’s Stonehenge’. The origin of the Stones remains a mystery but the implications of these guidelines, especially the first two, are disturbing to say the least.

Sustainable Development is a doctrine devised by the former Prime Minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland. The UN Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, asked Mrs. Brundtland to chair a World Commission focusing on “long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond.” She was asked “to help formulate a compelling call for political action on behalf of the environment”. Members of the ‘Brundtland Commission’ came from 21 nations, more than half in the developing world. After three years, including public hearings in the capitals of 15 countries, what now is often called simply the ‘Brundtland Commission’ published a report titled Our Common Future.

Over the course of this century, the relationship between the human world and the planet that sustains it has undergone a profound change,” said the report. “When the century began, neither human numbers or technology had the power radically to alter planetary systems. As the century closes, not only do vastly increased human numbers and their activities have that power, but major, unintended changes are occurring in the atmosphere, in soils, in water, among plants and animals, and in the relationships among all of these. The rate of change is outstripping the ability of scientific disciplines and our current capabilities to assess and advise.

This sentiment strongly echoes the Limits to Growth published by the Club of Rome nearly twenty years previously. It also surmised that “major, unintended changes are occurring in the atmosphere, in soils, in waters, among plants and animals. Nature is bountiful but it is also fragile and finely balanced. There are thresholds that cannot be crossed without endangering the basic integrity of the system. Today we are close to many of those thresholds.

In issuing a call for various actions, the report offered a now-famous definition of what it referred to as sustainable development: “A form of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The Brundtland Commission called for an international conference to be convened “within an appropriate period” after the presentation of its report to review progress and create a follow-up structure.

That conference, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, or Earth Summit, was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. At the Rio ‘Earth Summit’, representatives of more than 170 nations, including the United States, agreed to work toward sustainable development of the planet. More specific agreements, most not legally binding, focused on topics of global significance such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, management of the earth’s forests and the responsibilities and rights of nations. A global plan of action developed in Rio was titled Agenda 21, referring to the 21st century.

At the opening session of the Rio Earth Summit Maurice Strong, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Secretary-General, bemoaned the world’s “explosive increase in Population” and warned “we have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control. Population must be stabilized and rapidly.” His speech also stated that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place 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.

Mr Strong has since stated that “The United States is the greatest threat to the global environment. It is guilty of environmental aggression against the planet” and “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?

Sustainable Development, as outlined in Agenda 21 and the subsequent Earth Charter, is the driving force behind what Al Gore calls a “wrenching transformation” that society must endure to repair what he perceives as the damage of the 20th century’s Industrial Revolution. It is the same Industrial Revolution that gave us modern transportation, medicine, indoor plumbing, healthy drinking water, central heating, air conditioning, and electric light. Sustainable Development is not about environmental clean up of rivers, air and litter. It is an all-encompassing socialist scheme to combine social welfare programs with government control of private business, socialized medicine, national zoning controls of private property and restructuring of school curriculum which serves to indoctrinate children into politically correct group think.

Immediately following the publication of Brundtland Commission report and the Earth Summit many governments swiftly enacted draconian legislation to empower the Sustainable Development doctrine. This followed a common formula of establishing regional or federal authorities that were given sweeping powers to control activities on private property. In Europe nearly every imaginable activity, no matter how benign, now requires and environmental impact assessment to be submitted to a committee which then imposes its own controls on the proposed activity. The UN regularly audits member countries and reports on their progress in implementing Agenda 21.

The primary tools used by the UN to force governments to implement its Sustainable Development agenda have been The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank states that Sustainable Development is its “global strategic priority” and all government loans are tagged with the requirement to introduce approved environmental legislation and strict monitoring. Even if repayments are met these loans can be foreclosed if the environmental targets are not met within the required timeframe.

In his book, Earth in the Balance, Al Gore insists “We must all become partners in a bold effort to change the very foundation of our civilization. We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization.” Sustainable Development advocates seek oppressive taxes to control and punish behavior of which they don’t approve and there is much these advocates disapprove, including air conditioning, fast foods, suburban housing and automobiles. Every aspect of our lives is affected by Sustainable Development policies. It is top-down control from an all-powerful central government, specifically the United Nations which seeks to assert such control.

The philosophy behind Sustainable Development is to foster a mentality of guilt in people over the use of natural resources. Every time one starts their car… every time one turns on the tap… remember, be sustainable! Don’t exceed your allotment of resources…. We all must learn to live the same, think the same and most importantly… be sustainable! We are encouraged to calculate our ‘ecological footprint’, or more recently, our ‘carbon footprint’. Using a humble incandescent light bulb is now considered a crime against the planet by some. During the recent Earth Hour there were people in my city banging on their neighbours door telling them to switch off their lights. This collective guilt trip is being used to develop the global consciousness. Even back in 1974 the Club of Rome stated in Mankind at the Turning Point:

A world consciousness must be developed through which every individual realizes his role as a member of the world community… If the human species is to survive, man must develop a sense of identification with future generations and be ready to trade benefits to the next generations for the benefits to himself. If each generation aims at maximum good for itself, Homo sapiens are as good as doomed

The next revolution in the Sustainable Development saga appears to be the use of Global Warming hysteria to implement a global carbon tax or carbon credit trading system. This will give the United Nations, or whatever hierarchy oversees the system, complete control of the worlds economy. Fossil fuels are the life blood of any economy. One barrel of oil contains 23,000 hours of human work output. Controlling the amount of oil that can be consumed, and taxing its consumption, will complete the Sustainable Development agenda of controlling and reducing human activity in order to protect Mother Earth from her greatest enemy – humans!

Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor
.“

– Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,378 other followers