Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Threat

Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Threat Part 1 by Tom DeWeese

The battle over Agenda 21 is raging across the nation. City and County Councils have become war zones as citizens question the origins of development plans and planners deny any international connections to the UN’s Agenda 21. What is the truth? Since I helped start this war, I believe it is up to me to help with the answers.

The standard points made by those who deny any Agenda 21 connection is that:

• Local planning is a local idea.
• Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution not a treaty, carries no legal authority from which any nation is bound to act. It has no teeth.
• The UN has no enforcement capability.
• There are no “Blue-Helmeted” UN troops at City Hall.
• Planners are simply honest professionals trying to do their job, and all these protests are wasting their valuable time.
• The main concern of Agenda 21 is that man is fouling the environment and using up resources for future generations and we just need a sensible plan to preserve and protect the earth. What is so bad about that?
• There is no hidden agenda.
• “I’ve read Agenda 21 and I can find no threatening language that says it is a global plot. What are you so afraid of?”
• And of course, the most often heard response – “Agenda 21, what’s that?”

And after they have proudly stated these well thought out points, they arrogantly throw down the gauntlet and challenge us to “answer these facts.”

Well, first I have a few questions of my own that I would love to have answered.

Will one of these “innocent” promoters of the “Agenda 21 is meaningless” party line, please answer the following:

• If it all means nothing, why does the UN spend millions of dollars to hold massive international meetings in which hundreds of leaders, potentates and high priests attend, along with thousands of non-governmental organizations of every description, plus the international news media, which reports every action in breathless anticipation of its impact on the world?
• It if all means nothing, why do those same NGO representatives (which are all officially sanctioned by the UN in order to participate) spend months (sometimes years) debating, discussing, compiling, and drafting policy documents?
• If it all means nothing, why do leaders representing nearly every nation in the world attend and, with great fanfare, sign these policy documents?

Time after time we witness these massive international meetings, we read the documents that result from them, and when we question their meaning or possible impact on our nation, we are met with a dismissive shrug and a comment of “oh, probably not much…”

Really? Then why? Why the waste of money, time, and human energy? Could it be that the only purpose is to simply give diplomats, bureaucrats, and NGOs a feeling of purpose in their meaningless lives, or perhaps a chance to branch out of their lonely apartments? Or could it really be that these meetings and the documents they produce are exactly as we say they are – a blueprint for policy, rules, regulations, perhaps even global governance that will affect the lives, fortunes, property and futures of every person on earth? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Threat Part 2 of 4

By Tom DeWeese                                     

Why the fear of Agenda 21?

Those who simply read or quickly scan Agenda 21 are puzzled by our opposition to what they see as a harmless, non-controversial document which they read as voluntary

suggestions for preserving natural resources and protecting the environment. Why the fear? What exactly bothers us so much? The problem is, we who oppose Agenda 21 have read and studied much more than this one document and we've connected the dots. Many of us have attended those international meetings, rubbed elbows with the authors and leaders of the advocated policies, and overheard their insider (not for public distribution) comments about their real purpose.

Here are a few examples of those comments made by major leaders of this movement as to the true purpose of the policies coming out of these UN meetings:

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." Christine

Stewart (former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

"The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation." Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

"Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the

 United Nations itself." Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

All three of these quotes (and we have many) indicate using lies and rhetoric to achieve their goals, and that those goals include the elimination of national sovereignty and the creation of a "seamless system" for global governance. Again, do these quotes have meaning and purpose -do they reveal the true thoughts of the promoters of these policies, or were they just joking?

For the past three decades through the United Nations infrastructure, there have been a series of meetings, each producing another document or lynchpin to lay the groundwork for a centralized global economy, judicial system, military, and communications system, leading to what can only be described as a global government. From our study of these events, we have come to the conclusion that Agenda 21 represents the culmination of all of those efforts, indeed representing the step by step blueprint for the full imposition of those goals. Here's just a sample of these meetings and the documents they produced:

In 1980, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt chaired the Commission on International Development. The document, or report coming out of this effort, entitled "North-South:

A program for Survival," stated "World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure...not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human dignity, security, justice and equality...The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a 'single community' to develop global order."

That same year Sean MacBride, a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize, headed up a commission on international communications which issued a report entitled "Many

Voices, One World: Towards a New, More Just and More Efficient World Information and Communication Order." The Commission, which included the head of the Soviet news Agency, TASS, believed that a "New World Information Order" was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The report was a blueprint for controlling the media, even to the point of suggesting that international journalists be licensed.

In 1982, Olof Palme, the man who single-handedly returned Socialism to Sweden, served as chairman of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. His report, entitled "Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival," said: "All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control..." The report went on to call for money that is saved from disarmament to be used to pay for social programs. The Commission also proposed a strategic shift from "collective security" such as the alliances like NATO, to one of "common security" through the United Nations.

Finally, in 1987, came the granddaddy commission of them all, The Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development. Headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, the commission introduced the concept of "Sustainable Development." For the first time the environment was tied to the tried and true

Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report, "Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality."

These four commissions laid the groundwork for an agenda of global control; A controlled media would dictate the flow of information and ideas and prevent dissent; control of international development manages and redistributes wealth; full disarmament would put the power structure into the hands of those with armaments; and tying environmentalism to poverty and economic development would bring the entire agenda to the level of an international emergency.

One world, one media, one authority for development, one source of wealth, one international army. The construction of a "just society" with political and social equality rather than a free society with the individual as the sole possessor of rights. The next step was to pull it altogether into a simple blueprint for implementation.

During the 1990s, the UN sponsored a series of summits and conferences dealing with such issues as human rights, the rights of the child, forced abortion and sterilization as solutions for population control, and plans for global taxation through the UN.

Throughout each of these summits, hundreds of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worked behind the scenes to write policy documents pertaining to each of these issues, detailing goals and a process to achieve them. These NGO's are specifically sanctioned by the United Nations in order to participate in the process. The UN views them as "civil society, the non-governmental representatives of the people. In short, in the eyes of the UN, the NGOs are the "people."

Who are they? They include activist groups with private political agendas including the Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy,

National Wildlife Federation, Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the National Education Association, an d hundreds more. These groups all have specific political agendas which they desire to become law of the land. Through work in these international summits and conferences, their political wish lists become official government policy.

In fact, through the UN infrastructure the NGOs sit in equality to government officials from member nations including the United States. One of the most powerful UN operations is the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Created in 1973 by the UN General Assembly, the UNEP is the catalyst through which the global environmental agenda is implemented. Virtually all international environmental programs and policy changes that have occurred globally in the past three decades are a result of UNEP efforts. Sitting in on UNEP meetings, helping to write and implement policy, along with these powerful NGOs are government representatives, including U.S, federal agencies such as the Department of State, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

This, then, is a glimpse of the power structure behind the force that gathered in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for the UN-sponsored Earth Summit. Here, five major documents, written primarily by NGOs with the guidance and assistance of government agencies, were introduced to the world. In fact, these final documents had been first drafted and honed though the long, arduous series of international conferences previously mentioned. Now, at Rio, they were ready for adoption as a blueprint for what could only be described as the transformation of human society.

The five documents were: the "Convention on Climate Change," the precursor to the coming Kyoto Climate Change Protocol, later adopted in 1997; the "Biodiversity Treaty", which would declare that massive amounts of land should be off limits to human development; the third document was called the "Rio Declaration," which called for the eradication of poverty throughout the world  through the redistribution of wealth; the fourth document was the "Convention on Forest Principles," calling for international management of the world's forests, essentially shutting down or severely regulating the timber industry; and the fifth document was Agenda 21, which contained the full agenda for implementing worldwide Sustainable Development.

The 300 page document contains 40 chapters that address virtually every facet of human life and contains great detail as to how the concept of Sustainable Development should be implemented through every level of government.

What did the United Nations believe that process entailed? In 1993, to help explain the far-reaching aspects of the plan, the UN published "Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet." Here's how the UN described Agenda 21 in that document: "Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by  every person on earth...it calls for specific changes in the activities of all people...Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced."  I have never read a stronger, more powerful description of the use of government power.

However, critics of our efforts against Agenda 21 rush to point out that Agenda 21 is a "soft law" policy -not a treaty that must be ratified by the U.S. Senate to become law. So it is just a suggestion, nothing to be afraid of. To make such an argument means that these critics have failed to follow the bouncing ball of implementation.

Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Threat Part 3 of 4

By Tom DeWeese                                    

Following the bouncing ball to implementation

It started when, at the Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush, along with 179 other heads of state signed agreement to Agenda 21. One year later, newly elected President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order # 12852 to create the President's  Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The Council consisted of 12 cabinet secretaries, top executives from business, and executives from six major environmental organizations, including the Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, the World Resources Institute, and the National Wildlife Federation. These were all players in the creation of  Agenda 21 at the international level -now openly serving on the PCSD with the specific

mission to implement Agenda 21 into American policy. It is interesting to note that in the pages of the PCSD report entitled "Sustainable America: A new Consensus for

the Future, it directly quotes the Brundtland Commission's report "Our Common Future" for a definition of Sustainable Development. That is about as direct a tie to the UN as one can get. The PCSD brought the concept of Sustainable Development into the policy process of every agencies of the US federal government

A major tool for implementation was the enormous grant-making power of the federal government. Grant programs were created through literally every agency to entice

 states and local communities to accept Sustainable Development policy in local  programs. In fact, the green groups serving on the PCSD, which also wrote Agenda

 21 in the first place, knew full well what programs needed to be implemented to enforce Sustainable Development policy, and they helped create the grant programs, complete with specific actions that must be taken by communities to assure the money is properly spent to implement Sustainable Development policy. Those are the "strings" to which we opponents refer. Such tactics make the grants effective weapons to insure the policy is moving forward.

From that point, these same NGOs sent their members into the state legislatures to lobby for and encourage policy and additional state grant programs. They have lobbied for states to produce legislation requiring local communities to implement comprehensive development plans. Once that legislation was in place, the same NGOs (authors of Agenda 21) quickly moved into the local communities to "help" local 

governments comply with the state mandates. And they pledged to help by showing  communities how to acquire the grant money to pay for it -with the above mentioned

strings attached.

We're told over and over again that such policies are local, state and national, with no conspiracy of ties to the UN. Really? Then how are we to explain this message, taken from the Federal Register, August 24, 1998, (Volume 63, Number 163) from a  discussion on the EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program? It says,

 "The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program is also a step in Implementing 'Agenda 21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable Development,' signed by the

 United Stats at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. All of these programs require broad community participation to identify and address environmental issues."

Or consider this quote from a report by Phil Janik, Chief Operating Officer of the USDA -Forest Service, entitled "The USDA-Forest Service Commitment and Approach 

to Forest Sustainability" "In Our Common Future published in 1987, the Brundtland Commission explains that 'the environment is where we all live; and development  is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode."  In short, Janik was explaining to his audience (the Society of American Foresters) just where the Forest Service was getting its definition of Sustainable Development -the report

from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

Meanwhile, the NGOs began to "partner" with other governmental organizations like the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors Association, the National 

League of Cities, the National Association of County Administrators and more organizations to which elected representatives belong to, assuring  a near that a near universal message of Sustainable Development comes from every level of government.

Another NGO group which helped write Agenda 21 for the UN Earth Summit was a group originally called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives 

(ICLEI).  It now calls itself ICLEI -Local Governments for Sustainability. After the Earth Summit in 1992, ICLEI set its mission to move into the policy process of local governments around the world to impose Sustainable Development policy.

 It now operates in more than 1200 cities globally, including 600 American cities, all of which pay dues for the privilege of working with ICLEI. Like a cancer, ICLEI begins to infest the local government policy, training city employees to think only

in terms of Sustainable Development, and replacing local guidelines with international codes, rules and regulations.

So it's true, there are no UN blue helmeted troops occupying city halls in America, and yes, the UN itself does not have enforcement capability for this ":non-binding" document called Agenda 21. However, it does have its own storm troopers in the person of the Non-governmental Organizations which the UN officially sanctions to carry on its work. And that is how Agenda 21, a UN policy, has become a direct threat to local American communities.

Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Threat Part 4 of 4

By Tom DeWeese

It's important to note that we fight Agenda 21 because we oppose its policies and its process, not just its origins. Why do we see it as a threat? Isn't it just a plan to protect the environment and stop uncontrolled development and sprawl? As the late Henry Lamb of Freedom 21 put it, "Comprehensive land use planning that delivers sustainable development to local communities transforms both the process through which decisions that govern citizens are made, and the market place where citizens must earn their livelihood. The fundamental principle that government is

empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process...the natural next step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own

the land that the government controls."

To enforce the policy, local government is being transformed by "stakeholder councils" created and enforced by the same NGO Agenda 21 authors. They are busy creating a matrix of non-elected boards, councils and regional governments that usurp the  ability of citizens to have an impact on policy. It's the demise of representative government. And the councils appear and grow almost overnight.

Sustainablists involve themselves in every aspect of society. Here are just a few of the programs and issues that can be found in the Agenda 21 blueprint and can be easily found in nearly every community's "local" development plans: Wetlands, conservation easements, water sheds, view sheds, rails -to- trails, biosphere reserves,greenways, carbon footprints, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage areas and comprehensive planning. Every one of these programs leads to more government control, land grabs and restrictions on energy, water, and our own property. When we hear these terms we know that such policy originated on the pages of Agenda 21,

regardless of the direct or indirect path it took to get to our community.

You'll find Watershed Councils that regulate human action near every trickling stream, river, or lake. Meters are put on wells. Special "action" councils control home  size, tree pruning, or removal, even the color you can paint your home or the height of your grass. Historic preservation councils control development in downtown areas, disallowing expansion and new building.

Regional governments are driven by NGOs and stakeholder councils with a few co-opted bureaucrats thrown in to look good. These are run by non-elected councils that don't

answer to the people. In short, elected officials become little more than a rubber stamp to provide official "approval" to the regional bureaucracy.

But the agenda outlined in Agenda 21 and by its proponents is a much bigger threat that just land use planning. They openly advocate massive reduction of human populations.

Some actually call for as much as an 85% reduction in human populations in order  to "save the planet." David Brower of the Sierra Club said, "Childbearing should

be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license." The UN's Biodiversity Assessment says, "A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion."

They also openly advocate the destruction of modern society as Maurice Strong, the head of the Earth Summit said, "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?

This issue then is not about simple environmental protection and modern planning. It is about a complete restructuring of our society, our values and our way of life. They use as their model an urgency based on global warming and climate change, claiming there is no need for discussion on these dire issues. Yet science is showing more and more proof that there is no man-made global warming. Are we to completely destroy our society based on such a shaky foundation?

And that is just what the proponents are rushing to do.

Barack Obama has issued a flurry of Executive Orders to bypass the Congressional process and dictate sustainable policy. In 2011 Obama issued EO # 13575 creating the White House Rural Council. It brings together 25 Cabinet Secretaries to enforce multi-jurisdictional enforcement of farming virtually controlling every decision for food production. It is a major assault on American farm production intended to enforce Sustainable farming practices. In truth it will only lead to food shortages and higher prices as farmers have no ability to make a decision without the approval of 25 government agencies, working at cross purposes and causing chaos in farm production.

On May 1, 2012, Obama issued EO # 13609, dictating that the government must enforce coordination of international regulatory policy. Those international regulatory policies are UN-driven and the basic translation means enforcement of Sustainable Development policy.

The fact is, we fight Agenda 21 because it is all encompassing, designed to address literally every aspect of our lives. This is so because those promoting Agenda 21

believe we must modify our behavior, our way of doing everyday things, and even our belief system, in order to drastically transform human society into being "sustainable."

We who oppose it don't believe that the world is in such dire emergency environmentally that we must destroy the very human civilization that brought us from a life of nothing but survival against the elements into a world that gave us homes, health care, food, and even luxury.  Sustainable Development advocates literally hope to roll back our civilization to the days of mere survival and we say NO. Why should we? We have found great deception in the promotion of the global warming argument. We believe in free markets and free societies where people make their own decisions,

live and develop their own property. And we fully believe that the true path to  a strong protection of the environment is through private property ownership and limited government. Those who promote Agenda 21 do not believe in those ideals. And so we will not agree on the path to the future. And our fight is just that -a clash of philosophy. There is very little room for middle ground.

Tom DeWeese is President of the American Policy Center, Editor of The DeWeese Report, and author of the book, “Now Tell Me I Was Wrong.” He has been an activist for the causes of limited government, individual freedom, free enterprise and private property rights for more that 45 years. More information and writings by Tom DeWeese available on his website, www.americanpolicy.org

The Evil Facing America

Sustainable Development  The Evil Facing America-
Part 1 of 4' by Tom DeWeese

I have one thing to tell you. You are not going to win in the manner we are fighting now. Because the other side has cut us up into little pieces. They've divided us and conquered us. They've succeeded because you think your fight is against gun control. Because you think your fight is against bad schools. Because you think your fight is against the Endangered Species Act and roadless programs, and wetlands regulations, and water rights and Heritage Areas. Because you think your fight is against Democrats and not Republicans. Because you think it's a fight between evil liberals and good guy conservatives.

You're wrong. Your fight is against a well-planned, well-orchestrated agenda for the complete transformation of America. And unless you learn that fact now, today...and unless you fully educate yourselves to every aspect of that agenda and fight it on the proper terms... then you cannot win!

I'm here to tell you that every one of these issues you are facing is interrelated. There is an agenda being implemented before your very eyes. It's called Sustainable Development.

And I will tell you now, if you want to keep your guns, your property, your children and your God... if you love liberty... then Sustainable Development is your enemy!

So what is Sustainable Development? Imagine an America in which a specific "ruling principle" is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen.

That principle would be used to consider everything you eat, what you wear, the kind of homes you live in, the method of transportation used to get to work, the way you dispose of waste, perhaps the number of children you may have, even your education and employment decisions.

Sustainable Development is that "ruling principle" for the implementation of what former Vice President Al Gore said we must all suffer through in order to purify our nation from the horrors of the Twentieth Century's industrial revolution.

In his book, "Earth in the Balance," Gore called it a "wrenching transformation of society." Those are pretty powerful words that should concern anyone who values liberty. It's a warning that the rules are changing. That a new power elite is taking control.

Perhaps you are beginning to notice such changes as you go about your daily routine, but haven't understood where those changes, and the ideas behind them, are coming

from. But Sustainable Development is a very difficult concept to grasp. It's written in an almost foreign language -designed to mislead and refrain from alarming you.

Let me put it in the simplest language I possibly can. The Atkins Diet is not sustainable. Now, why do I say that? Because on page 350 of the UN's Global Biodiversity Assessment Report it says that the grazing of livestock, including cows, sheep, goats and horses, is not sustainable. One reason for that concept is because Sustainablists contend that the animals pollute streams and damage the river banks.

Getting us to stop eating beef is a major effort needed to fully implement the Sustainable Agenda. Since they are cowards who fear your reaction to an outright banning of

eating meat, they have to try to trick you into thinking that not eating meat is your idea. So they use scare tactics. For years they have told you that eating meat raises your cholesterol. Fat is bad for you. Meat causes heart attacks. With PeTA's help they were succeeding in turning us all into little sissies eating salads.

Then along comes Dr. Atkins who shows us that a low carb beef diet will help you lose weight in a healthy way. Suddenly the nation has gone Atkins crazy. Beef sales

are sky rocketing. The Sustainablists are in a tail spin. They've lost control of your eating habits.

Now watch what they are doing to get you back on track. Suddenly reports are being published in leading women's magazines about Atkins being dangerous to your health.

Lawsuits have begun to pop up against the diet.

Do you see how it works? That's how the Sustainable Development agenda is implemented. Behavior modification based on fear. Freedom of choice is not part of Sustainable

Development. And so I repeat, -the Atkins Diet is not sustainable.

View this article on our web site: http://americanpolicy.org/2013/10/15/sustainable-development-the-evil-facing-america/

Sustainable Development' The Evil Facing America-

Part 2 of 4 by Tom DeWeese

Now, perhaps you'll understand why there are Sustainable Development papers, guidelines and regulations to impose the ruling principle: On our public education system -to
prepare our children to live in a sustainable world.

On our economy -to create partnerships between business and government, making sure business becomes a tool to help implement the policies

On the environment -leading to controls on private property and business.

On health care -the new drive against obesity is leading directly toward controls on what we eat.

On farming -Sustainable Development policies affect farmers' ability to produce more crops by regulating or banning free farming practices that have fed America and the world for 200 years.

On our social and cultural environment -where political correctness is controlling policy, including hiring practices, immigration policy, multiculturalism, marriage laws, etc.

On our mobility -with emphasis on carpools and public transportation and away from the freedom of personal transportation.

And on public safety -where the rule of law and the court system is being challenged by new regulations that affect the right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizures.

It's important to understand that these leading issues we face today are not just random concerns that find their way into the forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to the policies of Sustainable Development.

And you must understand that Sustainable Development is the official policy of the government of the United States of America -and every state, city and small burg in the nation.

It is completely bi-partisan. It is being equally implemented by Republicans and Democrats. No matter the outcome of any election -the Sustainable Development agenda moves forward unabated.

What I am telling you here today is that Sustainable Development isn't just some land use policy. It is a complete transformation of American society; away from the rule of law; away from the ideals of property ownership, free enterprise, free travel and even free association.

Sustainable Development. It's a life plan. Planned by someone else. Not you.

View this article on our web site: http://americanpolicy. org/2013/10/15/sustainable-development-the-evil-facing- america/

Sustainable Development: The Evil Facing America-

Part 3 of 4 by Tom DeWeese

Sustainable Development is not a myth, or a theory or a conspiracy -as I've heard some in our own movement call it. Since the 1970's literally hundreds of issue papers, charters, guidelines and treaties have been presented at scores of international meetings, each becoming a building block in the creation of what would eventually become Sustainable Development.

Finally in 1992 the UN's Earth Summit in Brazil brought all of these ideas together in two major documents called "Agenda 21" and the "Biodiversity Treaty." Here the ideas were officially presented to world leaders that all government on every level, needed to be transformed into top-down control over housing, food production, energy, water, private property, education, population control, gun control, transportation, social welfare, medical care, and literally every aspect of our lives.

To get the full picture, add to these the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, both of which create UN-mandates on abortion, child rearing and government interference on families.

In 1993 President Clinton created the President's Council on Sustainable Development. From that Council came a flood of policy papers and recommendations to enforce it as government policy.

And the Clinton Administration didn't need Congress to get into the act. All Cabinet officials had to do was change some wording of existing programs and reroute already-approved

funding to begin to implement the agenda -without Congress and without debate. Former Commerce Secretary Ron Brown told a meeting of the President's Council that he could
implement 67% of the Sustainable Development agenda in his agency with no new legislation. Other agencies like Interior, EPA, HUD and more did the same thing. To help it all along, Clinton issued a blizzard of Executive Orders.

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative was born that way. So were roadless policies designed to stop logging in national forests. National parks have become core biosphere

reserves designed to shut out any human activity. And the buffer zones around them are designed to shut off existing human activity, allowing the core to continually grow like a cancer tumor.

Any possible excuse to control human development or activities began to sprout up -from rails-to trails bikeways -to wet lands regulations -to historic preservation projects. Endangered species, real or made up, have been used to close down industry and steal private lands. Valuable natural resources have been locked away in national parks and preserves.

In this way an international agenda to transform the world into global governance under Sustainable Development policy took hold and became official policy of the United States of America.

The red states from the 2000 election are made up of the desperate Americans who rushed to the polls hoping to get a breath of fresh air -a champion to turn these smothering policies around. But in four years, other than throwing a few bones on roadless areas, President Bush has yet to undo a single Clinton Executive Order on Sustainable Development. It is still the official policy of the United States government.

Every day more of the agenda is implemented. This is what you are fighting at home-no matter what the issue. Almost every community in America now has some sort of

"visioning statement" designed to control development and property use, while dictating rules for business, transportation, water use, food production, and much more.

Our public schools have been transformed, away from academic institutions, becoming, instead, factories that pump out a worker class to fill the needs of a centrally-controlled sustainable economy.

Christianity has come under attack because it is the foundation of Western civilization, which is the root of the ideas of limited government and individual freedom. Those

ideals must be crushed in the new Sustainable world where individual thought would turn the well-ordered society of Sustainable Development into chaos. And in such a world, you dare not have any armed citizens. As I said, it is all one crushing transformation stemming from Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development.

View this article on our web site: http://americanpolicy.org/2013/10/15/sustainable-development-the-evil-facing-america/

 

Sustainable Development' The Evil Facing America-

Part 4 of 4 by Tom Deweese

It's a House of Cards and They Know It!

But so many of us fail to see that. We just focus on our one issue, refusing to see that we are fighting a massive power structure. Do you think it's just a coincidence that school curriculum makes no sense? If so, you're looking at it all wrong. You still think the schools are supposed to teach your children academics. You think your job is just to fix some misguided policies. The fact is the public school system is working perfectly for what it was designed to do. And, if you understand the Sustainablist agenda, it will all make perfect sense.

Do you think it's just a coincidence that all of these environmental regulations have popped up to lock away the land? Read Agenda 21 and you will find that every issue your facing, from endangered species, to wetlands, to grazing policy to water policy to smart growth to the expansion of national parks are all described in detail.

Read it and everything will be as clear as a road map. Ignore it and you will be rolled on your single issue.

If you don't grasp the fact that you are dealing with an agenda that is driving all of these issues -and that they are not just single issues -then you cannot win! I am not saying change the issues you are involved in. Of course, keep fighting on your individual issues as you always have, but just know that there is an over-all agenda behind your adversaries.

Can you imagine what we could do if we all "got it"? If we all came to the realization that we are fighting the same foe, the same agenda? Divided we lose. United we can blow down their house of cards. Because that's what it is, a house of cards built on lies and very bad policy.

Do you know that, as we sit here feeling down and somewhat hopeless, that the other side is terrified of you? They fear that you will finally understand their agenda and that you will unify and begin to fight back as an effective force rather than in a bunch of splinter groups.

Did you know that the web has been burning up with e-mails and memos about Freedom 21 meeting here this week in Reno, at the Nugget? You see, the Nugget was the site of a series of meetings in the nineties called the Wise Use Movement. Those meetings were the first attempts for property rights advocates, and ranchers, and the timber, mining industries to organize and fight back. Those meetings were what brought e and lots of other folks in this room into the fight.

The Sustainablists did everything possible to vilify us as violent reactionaries who just wanted to pave the Earth. They call us the "astro-turf crowd." Now, here we are again with some of the original organizers of the Wise Use Movement on our program. That has set off the alarm bells in Sustainablist circles.

But now there are three times more of us and we're not just ranchers and timber people. I believe that the inclusion of Niger Innis and the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) is one of the most important developments in the past ten years for our movement. In addition, we've joined forces with Second Amendment advocates and academic education activists and many more.

Down at the politburo their heads are spinning. One of the groups which has been sending out hysterical briefing memos on Freedom 21 is the Anti-Defamation League, one of the most vicious groups in the nation. There are many more such groups involved, but I have personally seen those from the ADL, so I mention them. They view themselves as the keepers of moral thought and they view you as equal to the KKK.

View this article on our website: http://americanpolicy.org/2013/10/15/sustainable-development-the-evil-facing-america/

Note...from Andy Stephens, GoPatriots.com Washington State

As a citizen of this once great nation, your rights are continuously being eroded, undermined and taken away. Your ability to control your individuality, environment and personal liberties are being circumvented and are disappearing daily under the guise of environmental regulation, building restrictions and regulation, farm and agricultural and recreational development, wetland controls, plus a myriad of other regulatory legislation and bullshit bills under the pretense of public good and well-being.

This strangulation of your rights is not accidental and can be changed. Your voice and vote can make a difference but before we as individuals undertake to slay this dragon it is incumbent upon each of us to become informed and understand the enemy behind the veil.

Andy Stevens... Webmaster, Skagit County GOP, Anacortes Tea Party Patriots, Washington State, Visit us at Go-Patriots [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001iPNnXy4Q677_kEPD3uWZt8e5zEXVxmT8tI4lRzJuYR4mRe14y0YGpkKeEWs3OXyiYuDAovzYXjjcEnWR0CAOjTqtR7ImdK

ObamaCare Treason

“This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism.” By Wayne Allyn Root

There are two major political parties in America. I’m a member of the naive, stupid, and cowardly one. I’m a Republican. How stupid is the GOP? They still don’t get it. I told them 5 years ago, 2 books ago, a national bestseller ago ("The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide"), and in hundreds of articles and commentaries, that ObamaCare was never meant to help America, or heal the sick, or lower health care costs, or lower the debt, or expand the economy. The GOP needs to stop calling ObamaCare a “train-wreck.” That means it’s a mistake, or accident. That means it’s a gigantic flop, or failure. It’s NOT.

This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism. It’s not a failure, it’s Obama’s grand success. It’s not a “train-wreck,” ObamaCare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us, to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept big government. Obama’s hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky -- a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky’s stated advice was to call the other guy “a terrorist” to hide your own intentions. To scream that the other guy is “ruining America,” while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again…in every sentence of every speech…that you are “saving the middle class,” while you are busy wiping out the middle class. The GOP is so stupid they can’t see it. There are no mistakes here. This is a planned purposeful attack.

The tell-tale sign isn’t the disastrous start to ObamaCare. Or the devastating effect the new taxes are having on the economy. Or the death of full-time jobs. Or the overwhelming debt. Or the dramatic increases in health insurance rates. Or the 70% of doctors now thinking of retiring- brining on a healthcare crisis of unimaginable proportions. Forget all that.

The real sign that this is a purposeful attack upon capitalism is how many Obama administration members and Democratic Congressmen are openly calling Tea Party Republicans and anyone who wants to stop ObamaCare “terrorists.” There’s the clue. Even the clueless GOP should be able to see that. They are calling the reasonable people…the patriots…the people who believe in the Constitution ... the people who believe exactly what the Founding Fathers believed…the people who want to take power away from corrupt politicians who have put America $17 trillion in debt…terrorists?

That’s because they are Saul Alinsky-ing the GOP. The people trying to purposely hurt America, capitalism and the middle class…are calling the patriots by a terrible name to fool, confuse and distract the public. ObamaCare is a raving, rollicking, fantastic success. Stop calling it a failure. Here is what it was created to do. It is succeeding on all counts:

1. ObamaCare was intended to bring about the Marxist dream -- redistribution of wealth.

Rich people, small business owners, and the middle class are being robbed, so that the money can be redistributed to poor people (who vote for Democrats).

Think about it. If you’re rich or middle class, you now have to pay for your own health care costs (at much higher rates) AND 40 million other people’s costs too (through massive tax increases). So you’re stuck paying for both bills. You are left broke. Brilliant.

2. ObamaCare was intended to wipe out the middle class and make them dependent on government.

Think about it. Even Obama’s IRS predicts that health insurance for a typical American family by 2016 will be $20,000 per year. But how would middle class Americans pay that bill and have anything left for food or housing or living? People that make $40K, or $50K, or $60K can’t possibly hope to spend $20K on health insurance without becoming homeless.

Bingo. That’s how you make middle class people dependent on government. That’s how you make everyone addicted to government checks. Brilliant.

3. As a bonus, ObamaCare is intended to kill every decent paying job in the economy, creating only crummy, crappy part-time jobs. Why? Just to make sure the middle class is trapped, with no way out. Just to make sure no one has the $20,000 per year to pay for health insurance, thereby guaranteeing they become wards of the state. Brilliant.

4. ObamaCare is intended to bankrupt small business, and therefore starve donations to the GOP. Think about it. Do you know a small business owner? I know hundreds of them. Their rates are being doubled, tripled and quadrupled by ObamaCare. Guess who writes 75% of the checks to Republican candidates and conservative causes? The GOP.

Even if a small business owner manages to survive, he or she certainly can’t write a big check to the GOP anymore. Money is the “mother’s milk” of politics. Without donations, a political party ceases to exist. Bingo. That’s the point of ObamaCare. Obama is bankrupting his political opposition and drying up donations to the GOP. Brilliant.

5. ObamaCare is intended to make the IRS all-powerful. It adds thousands of new IRS agents. It puts the IRS in charge of overseeing 15% of the U.S. economy. The IRS has the right because of ObamaCare to snoop into every aspect of your life, to go into your bank accounts, to fine you, to frighten you, to intimidate you. And Obama and his socialist cabal have access to your deepest medical secrets. By law your doctor has to ask your sexual history. That information is now in the hands of Obama and the IRS to blackmail GOP candidates into either not running, or supporting bigger government, or leaking the info and ruining your campaign. Or have you forgotten the IRS harassed, intimidated and persecuted critics of Obama and conservative groups? Now Obama hands the IRS even more power. Big Brother rules our lives. Brilliant.

6. ObamaCare is intended to unionize 15 million healthcare workers. That produces $15 billion in new union dues. That money goes to fund Democratic candidates and socialist causes -- thereby guaranteeing Obama’s friends never lose another election, and Obama’s policies keep ruining capitalism and bankrupting business owners long after he’s out of office. Message to the GOP: This isn’t a game. This isn’t tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism. This isn’t a train-wreck. It's purposeful suicide. It's not failing, it's working exactly according to plan. Obama knows what he’s doing. Stop apologizing and start fighting. Oh and one more thing…Conservatives ain't “terrorists.” We are patriots and saviors. We represent the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. We are the heroes and good guys. Unless you get all this through your thick skulls, America is lost…forever.

Source: Wayne Allen Root, http://rootforamerica.com/

Published October 21, 2013

 

The Fed's Failed Strategy Is Dying a Slow Death

The shift in expectations for the Federal Reserve to taper its  quantitative-easing program has been nothing short of breathtaking over the  past several weeks.

In the wake of the Fed's surprise September decision to postpone the start of that process, Wall Street's short-term thinkers did a complete 180.

They went from predicting a near-immediate start to tapering to predicting that tapering wouldn't start until well into 2014, perhaps as late as June.

[Editor's note: To learn how the Fed's new policy can hurt your investments, click here for an audio extra.]

One market watcher at Deutsche Bank went so far as to literally suggest the Fed should ask itself: "Why bother to taper at all ?"

Me? I've tried for several months to take a longer-term view and not be swayed by every market gyration. I've also tried to be as crystal clear as I can about something very important: The ongoing rounds of QE have been positively useless when it comes to bolstering the "real" economy.

[While there was no clear signal on when the Fed might scale back QE, the post-meeting statement was more bullish on the economy than some were expecting.]While there was no clear signal on when the Fed might scale back QE, the post-meeting statement was more bullish on the economy than some were expecting.

The Fed, over several years and a few trillion dollars of bond  buying, has failed to deliver GDP growth of 3 percent, 4 percent, 5 percent or  more, growth that would represent a strong recovery. The Fed has failed to spur companies to add 300,000 or 400,000 jobs a month. And the Fed has failed to trigger huge growth in durable-goods orders, lift consumer sentiment or give us 1990s-style manufacturing or service-sector strength.

Instead, the economy has gradually healed over time on its own. It isn't growing at a brisk pace, but it isn't shrinking either. There's nothing out there to justify the lowest level of interest rates in history, for the longest period of time in history. Nor is there anything going on to justify  the same kind of massive money printing we saw in the depths of the Great  Recession in 2008.

So what did QE "accomplish"?

It managed to inflate the biggest bond bubble in the history of the world. That sucked in millions of investors, who collectively shoveled roughly $1.4 trillion into bond mutual funds and ETFs chasing performance — just like they poured money into tech  stocks in the late 1990s.

The threat that can make you 10 times richer over the next five years

Wars and rumors of war in the Middle East have already boosted many natural resources and energy stocks. But that's nothing compared to what will happen  when a series of cascading regional wars break around the globe, triggering one  of the greatest profit opportunities in a hundred years.

Internal Sponsorship

The problem is that bubbles and bubble-inducing policies can't continue forever. They eventually reach a point where they collapse under their own weight. I believe we saw the first phase of that collapse this spring, and  now, the second phase of that collapse may be about to get under way.

That brings me to this week's Fed meeting. As expected, the  central  bank on Wednesday did nothing in terms of changing policy — it  maintained the $85-billion-a-month pace of asset purchases. And, as expected, the Fed continued to talk about maintaining relatively easy policy.

But I believe the post-meeting statement was actually more bullish on the economy than some were expecting. The Fed said that "the Committee sees the downside risks to the outlook for the economy and the labor market as having diminished, on net, since last fall." And also that "the Committee sees the improvement in economic  activity and labor market conditions since it began its asset-purchase program  as consistent with growing underlying strength in the broader economy."

More importantly, the Fed mentioned in a couple of places that fiscal policy was the problem. That suggests to me that the Fed thinks market players should stop counting on monetary policy to solve the economy's woes. The statement also reminded investors that "asset purchases are not on a preset course, and the Committee's decisions about their pace will remain contingent on the Committee's economic outlook as well as its assessment of the likely efficacy and costs of such purchases."

In short, I've been reading and analyzing Fed statements and speeches for a long time. I can tell you that many on the Fed have clearly been nervous about the bubbles their policies are inflating, and clearly want out of QE.

This week's statement did nothing to dispel that belief. As a matter of fact, it went out of its way to gloss over the economic impact of the government shutdown, to reiterate that QE has costs, and to make it abundantly clear that QE is not on a pre-set course.

So, no, I do not believe QE will go on forever. I do not believe tapering is off the table until kingdom come. Instead, I believe QE will likely  die a slow death over the coming months and that, afterward, the Fed will be  forced to actually raise short-term interest rates sooner than the market  currently expects.

That's why I remain extremely leery of many fixed-income investments.  It's also why I'd rather direct my funds to specific stocks and sectors that have little or no interest-rate exposure, and that do not need massive infusions of QE to deliver solid results.

 
The investment strategy and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's and do not necessarily reflect those of any other editor at Weiss Research or the company as a whole.

Source: Money and Markets <eletter@e.moneyandmarkets.com>

The Fed's Failed Strategy Is Dying a Slow Death,
Mike Larson, Date: Friday, November 1, 2013

Benghazi SNAFU

Bombshell Report: Delta Force was in Tripoli at the Time of Benghazi Attack

The Washington Times reports that contrary to what Barack Obama and Leon Panetta have said, there were 8 special forces commandos in Tripoli the night of the attack, just 400 miles away. They were made up of Delta Force, the country's leading counterterrorism force and Green Berets. Two of the Delta Forces volunteered to go to Benghazi, along with 5 private contractors. Both have been quietly awarded medals for their bravery for turning back the attackers.

Delta Force is trained as a quick response force and assuming they could be ready in an hour, they could have been in Benghazi within three hours. This bolsters testimony given by Gregory Hicks that Lt Steve Gibson was prepared to relieve Benghazi, but was told to stand down. Pentagon spokesman, Major Rob Firman, stated:

“They weren’t told to stand down. They were simply told not to go to Benghazi. They were told to go to the airport in Tripoli to provide security there.”

The administration was able to hide the involvement of Delta Force using vague wording. The timeline mentioned that the relief flight from Tripoli contained " two  Department of Defense " employees. The official State Department report on Benghazi mentioned "2 Department of Defense workers", but conveniently left out the fact that they were  special forces.

The Washington Times reports that sources directly familiar with the attack, told them there was a force of eight men made up of Delta Force and Green Berets, who were in Tripoli to confiscate weapons and to abduct terrorists, as well as helping to train Libyan forces.

The two special operations soldiers arrived in time to drive the terrorists back and to avoid further casualties. Both men were awarded medals for valor for the engagement.

One source told the Times:

“Yes, we had  special forces in Tripoli, and two in fact did volunteer and engaged heroically in the efforts to save Americans. The others were asked to stay behind to help protect Tripoli in case there was a coordinated attack on our main embassy.

“The remaining [forces] were ready to dispatch the next morning, but by that time American personnel had been evacuated to the airport, local militias had provided additional security and it was determined there was no need for them to be dispatched at that point.”

The Pentagon claims that they did not disclose the actions of the two commandos because we didn't have a Status of Forces Agreement in place. But the Libyan government warned of the attack and at that time was amendable to aiding the United States.

That night has become famous for what the administration and the Pentagon did not do, which is to send troops and warplanes from outside the country.

The fact that the two did make it to Benghazi, undercuts the carefully controlled message from the White House in the weeks leading up to the election. The administration has already admitted that parts of the story they told was "misleading." What else is there we don't know?

Retired Army Col. Ken Allard observed:

“On the one hand, it is an indictment of the lack of contingency planning by both CIA and DoD, especially given the rising threat profiles in Libya that were well understood — and appropriately reported back to D.C. by agency reps on the ground. So why weren’t there more than just two Delta Force guys to send? Above all: Where were the air and naval resources that should have routinely been included in any contingency planning worthy of the name?”

The originally story put out by the White House through Susan Rice, was that it was a demonstration against a twelve minute Internet film, even though they knew almost immediately that it was terrorists. The administration also said there were no assets in the area, which the latest revelations reveal as less than honest.

Deputy Chief of station in Tripoli, Gregory Hicks, sent the reinforcements in cooperation with the CIA. That means on a night when Panetta claimed he didn't have enough information to commit troops, Hicks thought he did.

There are no official reports on what the two did, but we do know that another person from that flight, ex-SEAL Glen Doherty, was on the roof manning a machine gun until three mortar shells landed on the roof, killing him and Woods.

It looks like someone has some explaining to do.

Source: Washington Times, October 30, 2013, examiner.com

Suggested by the author

John Kerry Stonewalls on Benghazi

Chris Matthews unloads over Benghazi

President Obama allows Benghazi suspects to Walk

Benghazi Whistleblower's Lawyer Makes Bombshell Accusation!!!

CBS says Obama administration pressuring Benghazi survivors not to Talk