U.N AGENDA 21 CLIFF NOTES…..UK SIGNED UPTO, TOO!

Thursday, April 23, 2009
Agenda 21 Cliff Notes

If you don’t understand Agenda 21 and why it is so bad for freedom and life in general, this piece is the absolute best, concise, and informative overview of Agenda 21 that I have encountered. It is a speech given by Tom Deweese in Kallispell, Montana the end of March. Please take the time to read it, you will learn a lot in a short time and for those who know Agenda 21 already, this is a valuable resource to help you in your education of others.

My hat is off to Mr. Deweese. This is nothing shy of excellent! Obviously, because this program is intended to change every aspect of human impact on the globe, there are many more details that could be brought out, but like I said, this is like the Cliff Notes version of Agenda 21, and you definitely come away with the essential points.

The Wrenching Transformation of America

By Tom DeWeese
April 22, 2009

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come a long way to get here and I have such a short time to be with you. So, let’s just get everything out on the table right now, shall we?

I believe the American people, and their every action, are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation.

America is drowning in a sea of rules and regulations, particularly under the guise of “saving the environment.”

We all know something is very wrong and we are trying to fix it.

Many in America attempt to fight against one issue or another as they try to understand what is happening to their country. But most fail to see the whole picture and are being crushed under a well organized “divide and conquer” tactic that keeps them reeling from crisis to crisis.

Tonight, I’m going to try to give you at least a peek at the all-encompassing, gut wrenching national transformation that we face — and, hopefully, help to lift the veil of confusion.

To put things in perspective, here are some questions every American should ask their elected officials – especially those supporting “climate change” legislation.

If it is proven that climate change is not man-made, but natural, will you be relieved and excited to know that man is off the hook?

We’ve been terrorized into accepting that human society was on the brink of extinction because of man-made global warming. We’ve been warned that, unless we take drastic action to reverse it – then islands will disappear, whole cities will be destroyed and polar bears will drown.

So, if it’s not true, will you now help to remove all of the draconian regulations passed during the global warming hysteria? Will you help to restore our Republic with common sense and sound economics?

Their answers to these questions should be very illuminating as to the true agenda they seek to impose.

If they are supporting climate change legislation because of a genuine concern for the environment, then they should now be greatly relieved to know that true science is showing more and more evidence that there is no man-made global warming, and in fact, a natural cooling period has begun.

I have just returned from one of the most important Climate Change conferences ever held. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, more than 700 scientists from all over the world came together to testify that man-made Global Warming does not exist.

Harvard scholar and climate scientist Willie Soon said it best in a recent article he titled, “It’s the Sun, stupid.”

Dr. Mark Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Navel Academy in Annapolis recently wrote, “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.”

Said U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

In the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have expressed their doubts. That’s 12 times the number of UN IPCC global warming alarmists.

Top that with the fact that more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Of course most of the hysteria has been fueled by Al Gore’s Oscar-winning, Nobel prize-winning film “An Inconvenient Truth,” which almost every American school student has been forced to watch endless times in their classroom.

Well, guess what, the government of Great Britain just ruled that the film cannot be shown in English classrooms unless it carries a disclaimer that says the film is full of mistakes and propaganda.

An overwhelming majority of scientist are now telling us that investigative research shows any warming actually stopped in 1999. And, in fact, they say the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural, caused in part by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs.

The Sun storms have ended and now a cooling period has begun.

That’s it. Done. Crisis over. Man is not to blame. Hurray! The nation should be rejoicing.

No need for expensive green cars, mercury-filled light bulbs, special home building materials, expensive alternative energy, no bird-killing windmills, no special energy taxes, no extra government oversight committees, no more global climate change conferences – and no need for a Climate Czar. Carol Browner can go back into mothballs.

We can finally clean out the ten feet of fuel on the bottom of the forests and prevent the massive forest fires. We can reestablish the timber industry and all the jobs that were killed.

We can drill American oil and end our dependency on foreigners who hate us. In fact, that stable source of energy will help restore the Detroit auto industry and all of those jobs. And it will help us to stop funding terrorists. What’s not to like about drilling American oil?

We didn’t need a stimulus package after all – the economy will rebound on its own. We are free. The environment is not in crisis. Rejoice! Rejoice!

That silence you hear is the news media, which refuses to report what any skeptic has to say.

That silence you hear is the lack of effort on Capitol Hill to start to pull back from the climate change hysteria.

That silence you hear is from the White House where President of Change, Barack Obama now has an EPA director, a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) director and a full blown Climate Change Czar, all working to impose huge cut backs in energy use, with more taxes, and more rules and regulations that will bring an already damaged economy to its knees – all in the name of man-made Global Warming – which doesn’t exist.

…And that silence you hear is from global corporations which have bought into Al Gore’s lie and invested heavily in the promised green economy. In fact, their dollars are the only thing green about any of it. Their commercials are promoting the lies and changing our way of life. “Going Green” is the mantra of the day. None of them are about to change any of these policies, simply to accommodate a few inconvenient scientific facts.

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, in spite of literally thousands of real scientists joining the ranks of the skeptics, Gore just told Congress that the Global Warming crisis is even worse than predicted. Obama, our newly crowned king said, “The science is settled.”

Why do they continue to promote a lie? Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It’s nothing more than the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet by creating a new global economy based on the environment rather than on goods and services.

In fact, the most important debate in the history of the United States is about to begin – it’s the battle over a completely new economic system based on Climate Change called Cap and Trade.

It should be called Tax and Trade as it will force up the price of every item created or run by energy from gasoline to toothpaste to natural gas to hotel rooms, as we sit in our cold, dark homes.

Cap and Trade will throw out the old system of a free market based on goods and services and operate on the idea that CO2 is a pollutant. Instead of money, wealth will be determined by how many government-issued emission permits you own to allow you to operate your business.

In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.

During the Cold War, communists tried to get us to surrender our liberties and way of life for the wisdom of Karl Marx. Americans didn’t buy it.

But now, they have taken the same clap trap and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment – and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bon fire like a good old fashioned book burning — all in the name of protecting the planet.

It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent. But, the devastation to our Liberty and way of life is the same as if Lenin ordered it.

You know, we have a new language invading our government at all levels. Old words with new meanings fill government policy papers. The typical city council meeting discusses “community development,” “historic preservation,” and “partnerships” between the city and global corporations.

Civic leaders organize community meetings run by “facilitators,” as they outline a “vision” for the town, enforced by “consensus.” No need for debate when you have consensus!

People of great importance testify before congressional committees of the dire need for “social justice.”

Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.

What are they really talking about? What mental pictures come to mind when those words are used? George Orwell realized that those who control language and manipulate key phrases can control policy.

The language is being changed and manipulated to quietly implement a very destructive policy. One outlined in a UN soft-law document called Agenda 21, first revealed at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992. The working name is Sustainable Development.

Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda.

I have spent most of the past 12 years studying every facet of this new political agenda which is fast becoming a revolution — touching every aspect of our businesses, our public education system, our private property, our families and our individual lives.

Interestingly, it is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s not liberal or conservative. It is being implemented on a purely bipartisan basis.

It is now the official policy of the United States, put in force by literally every department of the government.

It is the official policy of every state government, and nearly every city, town and county in the nation.

But, I warn you, accepting the perception that Sustainable Development is simply good environmental stewardship is a serious and dangerous mistake.

So what is Sustainable Development? The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society.

To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control.

Keep in mind that America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. But, private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development.

If you doubt that, then consider this quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”

It is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not. It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed. It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers.

Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development. Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase “social justice.”

Some officials try to pretend that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment — just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community. Have you heard that one?

Then ask your local officials how it is possible that the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore. Local indeed.

Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.

The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.

According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: “Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment” (e.g., capitalism, free markets).

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said, “…Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green?

And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped — even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established – and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.

That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy – just in case.

So how is this wrenching transformation being put into place?
There are four very specific routes being used.

1. In the rural areas it’s called the Wildlands Project.
2. In the cities it’s called Smart Growth.
3. In business it’s called Public/Private Partnerships.
4. In government it’s called Stakeholder Councils and Non-elected Boards and Regional Government.

The Wildlands Project was the brainchild of Earth First’s Dave Foreman and it literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land. It is a diabolical plan to herd humans off the rural lands and into human settlements. Crazy you say! Yes. Impossible? Not so fast.

From the demented mind of Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. So now the scheme is international in scope.

But how do you remove people from the land? One step at a time. Let’s begin with a biosphere reserve. A national park will do. A huge place where there is no human activity. How about Yellowstone National Park? Then you establish a buffer zone around the reserve. Inside the buffer only limited human activity is allowed. Slowly, you squeeze until you squash that human activity.

Once accomplished, you extend the area of the biosphere to the limits of the former buffer area – and then you create a new buffer zone around the now larger biosphere and start the process over again. In that way, the Biosphere Reserve acts like a cancer cell, ever expanding, until all human activity is stopped.

And there are many tools in place to stop human activity and grow the reserve.

Push back livestock’s access to river banks on ranches. 300 feet ought to do it. When the cattle can’t reach the stream, the rancher can’t water them — he goes out of business.

Lock away natural resources by creating national parks. It shuts down the mines — and they go out of business.

Invent a Spotted Owl shortage and pretend it can’t live in a forest where timber is cut. Shut off the forest. Then, when no trees are cut, there’s nothing to feed the mills and then there are no jobs, and — they go out of business.

Locking away land cuts the tax base. Eventually the town dies. Keep it up and there is nothing to keep the people on the land – so they head to the cities. The wilderness grows – just like Dave Foreman planned.

It comes in many names and many programs. Heritage areas, land management, wolf and bear reintroduction, rails to trails, conservation easements, open space, and many more.

Each of these programs is designed to make it just a little harder to live on the land – a little more expensive – a little more hopeless. Now tell me how they can deny that the process is herding people into human habitat areas?

Today, here in your area, one of the latest Wildlands scheme is called Yukon to Yellowstone or Y2Y — a 2000 mile no-man’s land corridor from the Arctic to Yellowstone.

The second path is called Smart Growth. After they herd you into the city, they have more plans for you in regimented and dense urban communities. They put a line around the city and tell you no growth can take place outside that line. Urban sprawl, they say disdainfully.

They refuse to build more roads as a ploy to get you out of your car into public transportation, restricting mobility. Those able to build apartment houses may find it impossible to provide parking – we don’t want any stinking cars!

Because there is a restriction on space inside the controlled city limits there is a shortage of houses, so prices go up. That means populations will have to be controlled, because now there is a shortage of land.

Third, inside the human habitat areas, government is controlled by an elite ruling class called stake holder councils.

These are mostly Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, who, like thieves in the night, just show up to stake their claim to enforce their own private agendas.

The function of legitimate government within the system will be simply to enforce the dictates of the councils.

The councils are unelected, but all powerful. They are controlled by a small minority in the community. They will make you ask permission for anything necessary to live in the community. They can dictate the kind of building materials you may use in your home – or whether you can build on your property at all.

Then, if they do grant a permit for building, they might not decide to let you acquire water and electricity for your new home – and they may or may not give you a reason for being turned down.

They can even dictate that you get the proper exercise – as determined by the government. San Francisco has built a new federal building – the greenest ever built. But the elevators will only stop on every third floor so riders are forced to use stairs – for their own health, of course.

These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a State Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and then implement a predetermined outcome. Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy.

The fourth path is Public/Private Partnerships. Today, many freedom organizations are presenting PPPs as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.

In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-compete clauses and specific guarantees for return on their investments.

That means they can charge what they want and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise. And it is these global corporations that are pushing the green agenda.

For example, using government to ban its own product, General Electric is forcing the mercury-laden green light bulb on you, costing 5 times the price of incandescent bulbs. Such is the reality of green industry.

PPPs are building the Trans Texas Corridor, using eminent domain to take more than 580,000 acres of private land – sanctioned by the partnership with the Texas government.

And PPPs are taking over highways and local water treatment plants in communities across the nation. It is not free enterprise, but a Mussolini-type fascism that will only lead to Tyranny. And it’s all driven by the Agenda 21 blueprint of Sustainable Development.

Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life. Local communities are now being targeted by international forces. Here’s how.

In June 2005, I reported on the UN’s efforts to recruit the nation’s mayors to directly impose Sustainable Development policy into our local communities. The mayors were invited to attend the UN’s World Environment Day conference in San Francisco.

The mayors weren’t there to simply discuss policy, they actually committed to an agenda with specific goals. As part of their participation, the mayors were pressed to commit to specific legislation and policy goals by signing a slate of UN accords. Two documents were presented for the mayors’ signature.

The first document was called the Green Cities Declaration, produced by the United Nations Environment Programme. This document was essentially a statement of principles which set the agenda for the mayors’ assigned tasks.

The Declaration is amazingly bold in that it details exactly how the UN intends to implement a very specific agenda in every town and city in the nation. The final line of the Declaration explained the UN’s goal very explicitly: “Each year cities shall pick three actions to adopt as policies or laws.”

The second document signed by the mayors was called the “Urban Environment Accords.” The document includes exactly 21 specific actions (as in Agenda 21), for the mayors to take — controlled by a time table for implementation.

For example, under the topic of energy, action item number 1 called for the mayors to implement a policy to increase the use of “renewable” energy by 10% within seven years. Energy action item numbers 2 and 3 dealt with reducing energy consumption.

These action items are classic examples of the UN trying to go around the U.S. Congress and federal energy policy and force a backdoor implementation of the UN’s Kyoto Accord, which the U.S. has never ratified.

Perhaps the most egregious action item offered in the Urban Environmental Accords dealt with the topic of water. Action item number 19 called for adoption and implementation of a policy to reduce individual water consumption.

The UN document begins by stating: “Cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per day will adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by 10% by 2015.” There is no scientific basis for the 100 liter figure other than to employ a very clever use of numbers to lower the bar and control the debate over water consumption.

You must be aware that 100 liters is equal to about 26 GALLONS per person, per day. According to the UN, each person should have less than 26 gallons each day to drink, bathe, flush toilets, wash clothes, water lawns, wash dishes, cook, take care of pets, and more.

Reprinted with permissionl — © 2009 Tom DeWeese – All Rights Reserved

Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia, and can be reached at (540) 341-8911. His email address is ampolicycenter@hotmail.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , and APC’s website is www.americanpolicy.org.
Posted by Dreen at 4:05 AM

http://truth-farmer.blogspot.com/2009/04/agenda-21-cliff-notes.html

BNETS ARTICLE REGARDING THE UK POPULATION IN 2007 WAS REMOVED AFTER POINTING OUT IT STOOD AT 80 MILLION PLUS- THIS MAY ALSO FOLLOW! BRITAINS AGENDA 21- SOMETHING ELSE MINISTERS REMAIN STUM ABOUT—-FATSO TWO JAGS PRESCOTT MENTIONED PPP AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT- BUT NO DETAIL………………….PPP BETTER KNOWN AS SOFT FASCISM!!

Digging For Victory – allotments in British towns
Ecologist, The, March, 2001 by Michael Wale
1 2 3 4 Next
BRITAIN’S ALLOTMENTS CAN PROVIDE THE ULTIMATE EXAMPLE OF AFFORDABLE LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION. BUT THEY ARE UNDER THREAT FROM DEVELOPERS, SAYS MICHAEL WALE.

ANYONE WHO HAS ever lived in or visited a British town or city will have come across allotments, even if they don’t know it. And those strange patchworks of cultivated soil, potting sheds and pathways play a more vital role than most people might imagine in the cohesion of local communities, recreation, and environmental protection.

Allotments are a fundamental part of urban life. There are over 300,000 of them in Britain, and their creation can be traced back to the enclosures between 1750 and 1860, when common rights to the use of land were eliminated with parliamentary backing. The ultimate result of this theft of common land from communities was the 1908 Smallholdings and Allotments Act, which came about as a result of years of pressure from ordinary people for a share in the land again. The Act required local councils to provide land for the creation of allotments. There is still a standard size for a plot as defined by this act — 10 rods — about 250 square metres.

But in recent years this vital patchwork of urban land, accessible to all, has come under increasing threat from property developers and sloppy local councils, who see the value of allotments only in the potential for building executive homes on them. Fortunately, though, the allotments movement is fighting back.

THREATS

As a result of the 1908 legislation, most allotment land is controlled by local authorities. But there is also a chunk of it in private hands, and it is this land that is most at risk from increasingly grasping developers, who see much inner city allotment land as a waste of space. Over the years, for example, both British Rail and the Church of England have regularly sold off their allotment plots, choosing to take the money instead, and ignoring any social duties they might have had to the local communities which relied on the land.

Perhaps partly as a result of this loss of allotment land, public interest in the cultivation of allotments dipped during the 1970s and 1980s, leading some to predict that they would soon disappear altogether. But, gradually, in the 1990s, a succession of food scares affecting meat and eggs (salmonella, BSE, listeria and the rest), worries about GM crops, and the ongoing boom in organic food drove up the waiting lists for plots all over the county. The result now is that allotments are firmly back on the agenda as part of the vital heart of our towns and cities — much to the chagrin of many developers.

Despite the increasing numbers of land-grabbing property men and compliant planning committees and departments, events taking place on the international political stage in the early 1990s would eventually come to the rescue of the British allotment movement. It all started in Rio de Janeiro, the venue in 1992 for the Earth Summit. At the Summit, the British Government, like many others, signed up to Agenda 21, the international agreement aimed at protecting the global environment.

Two thirds of Agenda 21′s targets must be applicable at local level — ‘Local Agenda 21′ — and some councils and individuals across Britain have used this agreement to achieve very real improvements in their local urban environments. Among these changes are the promotion, protection and rejuvenation of allotments.

For example, I recently received a four-page ‘Agenda 21′ colour brochure from Ealing Council in West London, where I live. It was headed, perhaps unsurprisingly, ‘Acting locally, thinking globally’, and a role for allotments was clearly spelt out: ‘An allotment strategy is being developed’, it said, ‘setting out the council’s plans to help more people to grow their own food.’ It is not the only local council to commit itself to this sort of allotment promotion.

And it’s not just at local level that allotments are being promoted. The Government, recognising the pressures of the developers on allotment societies, set up a select committee to look into the whole question. It produced its report in 1998, a weighty volume containing much common sense from those who gave evidence, and well guided by its chairman, Labour MP Brian Donohoe, who represents an Ayr constituency in Scotland, and whose father had an allotment during Donohoe’s childhood.

The report showed that more than 75 per cent of allotment plotholders said the reason they were there was because of their desire for fresh food, an aspect particularly valued by people who had allotments because they wanted to grow organic food, or were concerned about modern food production methods. It was also noted that allotments provide an important and cheap source of fresh food for poorer people.

The report also discovered that the modern allotment had social values as well as environmental ones; as anyone who has ever worked on or visited an allotment can testify. In a world in which social cohesion and neighbourly co-operation are becoming increasingly rare, it can be truly inspiring to see the way that allotment plotholders coexist. Every age and every culture is there, and everyone helps each other, with advice and with gifts of seeds, spare produce etc.

1 2 3 4 Next

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2465/is_2_31/ai_71634863/

The UN Plan for Food and Land
by Berit Kjos, 1996

For background information, read Local Agenda 21 & The UN Plan for Your Mental Health
Home

——————————————————————————–

“At the World Food Programme we have recognized what a valuable tool food aid can be in changing behaviour. In so many poorer countries food is money, food is power. … Yes, it’s bribery. We don’t apologize for that.”3 Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the World Food Program.

“We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.”1 Carl Amery, German Greens

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”2 Prince Philip of Great Britain, leader of World Wildlife Fund

——————————————————————————–

“Where the Buffalo Roam: Reclaiming the Great Plains.” This title for the cover article in a TWA magazine intrigued me. Flying east across the Great Plains toward Minneapolis, I scanned the quilt-like farmland below and wondered which part might be reclaimed for the bison.

The article began with a full sized picture of an old red barn in a golden field. “An abandoned farm in Mayville, North Dakota,” explained the caption, “signifies the decline in self-sustaining agriculture on the Great Plains.” Under a photo of grazing buffaloes was written, “Buffalo are integral to the region’s health.” Abandoned farms in Mayville? No health without bison?

Since my husband grew up in Mayville, I knew well that no one abandons farms in this fertile valley. But contrary facts matter little to political activists with a green agenda. These deceptive photos help “prove” the existence of a crisis. They provide the persuasive “information” needed to “raise consciousness”, produce consensus, validate centralized land management, and speed compliance with unthinkable controls. I read on:

“Human design, not natural selection, will be responsible for the great buffalo herds of the 21st century. They are part of a plan to reconstruct nature already well along in the initial stages of implementation.”

The grander scheme, led by President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) together with the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, means restoring wolves, owls, snails, bugs and bacteria to an idealized version of their former state. Whole ecosystems, not just parts, must be reconstructed-often at the expense of private landowners.

With the United Nations’ World Food Summit (WFS) on my mind, I pondered an obvious paradox: How would UN visionaries and their environmental partners reconcile (1) their desire to return fertile farmland back to buffalo grazing land with (2) their demand for a global welfare systems promising “food security” for all?

Reconstructing Nature

The vision of buffalo herds roaming free throughout the plains was birthed by academics Deborah and Frank Popper in distant New Jersey. They interpreted statistics showing reduced population in many rural communities to mean that farming the Plains had been an “ill-conceived” notion from the beginning. “The best use for the Great Plains”, argued the Poppers, was to ban farming altogether, create a “Buffalo Commons”, and restore the land to its original condition. Other land-use planners from distant states agreed. But farmers were afraid .

“We’re tremendously concerned about losing our property rights,” said Mike Schmidt, a South Dakota rancher. “Right now, two things are particularly scary for us-endangered species and wetlands Essentially, they can determine how you use your land.”

Schmidt has reason to fear. The “Buffalo Commons” envisioned by idealistic planners is huge enough to touch everyone. “To really do any good, we have to plan over large geographies,” says Bruce Stein, the director of external affairs for conservation science at the Nature Conservancy, a powerful advocacy group for ecosystem planning. “A natural system needs room to function.”

A “healthy Great Plains would encompass every square meter of the Plains, from the prairie provinces of Canada through Oklahoma and Texas,” added Glen Martin who wrote the TWA article. It would include Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas as well as the “adjacent ecosystems, such as the boreal forests of northern Michigan and Minnesota and aspen groves of the eastern slopes of the Rockies. Some Great Plains species need more than one habitat to thrive.”

So do some humans, but that matters little.

Aware of opposition, restoration scholars are willing to start small: by connecting big chunks of biodiverse ecosystems with corridors to aid animal migrations. This agenda matches that of The Wildlands Project conceived by convicted “eco-warrior” Dave Foreman who co-founded the militant eco-group Earth First and serves on the board of the Sierra Club.

“Embraced by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), The Nature Conservancy, UNPED (United Nations Environment Programme), UNESCO, and the Sierra Club,” says Henry Lamb, publisher of éco-logic, “the Wildlands Project wants to return ‘at least 50 percent’ of the land area in America to ‘core wilderness areas’ where human activity is barred.”4

These “core wilderness areas”, Lamb explains, would “be connected by corridors” and “surrounded by buffer zones” in which there may be managed human activity providing that biodiversity protection is the first priority.” 5

Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) shares Henry Lamb’s concern. In June 1996, he introduced “The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act.” It would have protected private property owners and required Congressional approval of international land designations in the US-something most Americans would have taken for granted. But it failed to pass-in spite of his persuasive words to the House of Representatives:

More and more of our nation’s land has become subject to international land-use restrictions… A total of 67 sites in the United States have been designated as UN Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites. These programs are run by UNESCO-an arm of the UN… The Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a single U.S. law or even an international treaty. That is wrong. Executive branch appointees… should not do things that the law does not authorize.

…the power to make all rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is vested in the Congress… Yet the international land designations under these programs have been created with virtually no congressional oversight.6

Even so, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, like the other national CSDs around the world, continues to pursue its intrusive plan for land management based on UN guidelines. It suggests using government regulations, tax incentives and disincentives, the media, and persuasive “scientific” information to manage lands, people, communities, consumption, transportation, and knowledge.

Its authors include Bruce Babbitt (Secretary of the Interior), Jay Hair (former National Wildlife Federation president who formed a partnership with John Denver’s New Age-globalist organization Windstar), Madeline Kunin (Deputy Secretary, Department of Education), and Timothy Wirth (Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs).

Its “principal liasons” include the EPA, The Nature Conservancy, and the Sierra Club-the same organizations that support the Wildlands Project. In light of this liason, ponder the comment by Wildlands Project Director Reed Noss: “The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.”7

Even when people are starving?

Managing Food

“World leaders will assemble in Rome from 13 to 17 November, 1996, making a public commitment to action to eliminate hunger,” stated the official “Brochure” available on the World Food Summit’s world wide web page. “As preparations for the Summit proceed, world grain stocks have dwindled to dangerously low levels… a reminder of the fragility of food supplies in a world that must produce more each year to feed a rapidly increasing population. An estimated 800 million people still are chronically undernourished. The agreements reached at the Summit will place food at the top of the global agenda alongside peace and stability.”

The “agreements” are a two-part contract: the World Food Summit (WFS) Document and the Plan of Action. Signed by the participating nations, this contract holds nations accountable for fulfilling their assigned part of the UN agenda. Under the noble banner of “civic government”, it links local and international NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) directly to UN agencies, bypassing Congress and state legislatures that cling to old notions of sovereignty.

The real issue is control. Who will manage and monitor the global production and distribution of food? How will they manage information, motivate the masses, and establish consensus and solidarity?

Just as US educators promise “local control” while implementing the global education plan, so the WFS acknowledged national sovereignty, but mandated compliance. Each nation that signed the contract agreed to a monstrous system of old and new UN resolutions starting with Commitment One: “We will ensure an enabling political, social, and economic environment designed to create the best conditions for the eradication of poverty and for durable peace .”

What does that mean? The Marxist economics and social “equality” touted by the UN?

The jubilant reception of Fidel Castro and his hard-line Communist message gives a clue to the world’s hostility toward Western capitalism and free enterprise. No wonder the WFS contract tells nations to “reallocate resources” as “required to ensure food for all” (#59,e) -not through foreign aid, but through total worldwide social and economic transformation.

During a televised “World Food Summit Preview”8 featuring U.S. Under-Secretary of State Timothy Wirth and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, a reporter asked if the US might be “negotiating away some rights” and “accepting restraints on what we can plant, what fertilizers we can use, what chemicals we can use on the land.”

Obviously irritated by the question, Glickman, who heads the US delegation to the WFS, answered, “We were never headed in that direction. We would never have accepted that!” Yet, minutes later, he mentioned his plan to restrict the use “of pesticides, herbicides and insecticide.”

The WFS contract doesn’t detail the specific “preventative measures”. Apparently, the more sensitive parts of the agenda were discussed in settings less open to critical eyes. As a UN news release suggested, the gathering of international leaders “might yield more than the summit itself”:

Canadian Agriculture Minister Ralph Goodale told reporters that he hoped to have unofficial talks. ‘Part of what will happen in Rome,’ he said, ‘apart from the official agenda, is a great deal of corridor conversations, which on occasion can be more valuable than the official proceedings.’9

Monitoring everything

Far more sobering than the stated goals and steps is the establishment of a legal framework for global governance. Most official contracts signed by nations at former UN Conferences reach beyond stated topics such as saving the earth, protecting the children, eradicating poverty, empowering women, and feeding the poor. Those issues fit into a larger context which involves a vast “systemic” plan for global transformation — a reality which begs the question: Could each current issue simply be the “crisis” needed to persuade the masses to accept totalitarian controls?

For example, the WFS contract calls for “protecting the interests and needs of the child consistent with the World Summit for Children [and] the Convention on the Rights of the Child.” (#17) Are children’s rights being used as a smokescreen that justifies government plans to develop “human resources” without hindrance from parents with contrary beliefs and values?

In a 1993 speech at the International Development Conference, James P. Grant, past executive director of the United Nation’s Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said-

Children and women can be our Trojan Horse for attacking the citadel of poverty, for undergirding democracy, dramatically slowing population growth and for accelerating economic development.10

The WFS contract asked governments, “in partnership with all actors of civil society” to “establish legal and other mechanisms, as appropriate, that advance land reform.” (#15, b) Could this mean the rights of the poor, especially of women, to “access to land” might be emphasized over and above the property rights of present land owners? The UN contract signed at Women’s Conference in Beijing indicated such a “right”, and the WFS affirmed that suggestion: “Support and implement commitments made at the Fourth World Conference on Women.” (#16,a)

Nations that signed the WFS contract agreed to Commitment 7: “implement, monitor, and follow-up this Plan of Action at all levels in cooperation with the international community.” President Clinton took a big step toward fulfilling his part through Executive Order 13011. Creating a massive information technology management system linked to international systems, it helps federal agencies — FBI, CIA, FEMA, EPA and Departments of State, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior, etc. — exchange and monitor information around the world.

According to UN guidelines, all people and all places would be monitored — schools, homes, workplaces…. All who violate the new standards for tolerance, gender equity, or sustainable living at home or at work would be tracked through the vast UN-controlled data system.

Globalist leaders know that only a new set of beliefs and values will prepare the Western world to accept what Al Gore calls “sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society.”11 The 3 E’s of Sustainable Development (Environment, Economy, and Equity) must become the world’s central organizing principle. Every nation must submit to a “system-wide coordination within the framework of the coordinated follow-up to UN conferences” Resident UN coordinators would guide and monitor “the allocation and use of financial and human resources” (#59,h,e), while nations with representative government would yield their sovereignty to a monstrous multilevel global bureaucracy controlled by socialist UN rulers.

All this would be hard for Americans to swallow unless persuasive and strategic information can change their minds. So the UN calls for “system-wide advocacy” to guide its agenda through the “difficult times of economic transition, budget austerity and structural adjustment” ahead. (#59,m,n)

“Improve the dissemination and utilization of information and data needed to guide and monitor progress” states the contract. (#59,c) The validity of new data matters less than its power to stir feelings and motivate the masses to accept the new socialist criteria for economic equality.12 As Stanford University environmentalist Stephen Schneider said, ‘we need to get some broad based support. We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we might have….”1

To rally public support, advocacy must outweigh integrity. Last April a public health agency told its employees to dispose of any data that contradicted politically correct policies and conclusions. A memo to employees of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 13 told workers to discard all documents “which contain other policy proposals not adopted or reflected” in its final policy decisions. “Only those communications which are reflected or embodied in the final decision or document shall be kept on file.”

What counts is the appearance of consensus — the key to managing people through “civic government.” To ensure conformity to UN policies at every level of society, the “WFS Plan of Action builds on consensus reached.” (#10) This strategy, which uses planned dialogues and politically correct data to create a collective mindset, is already being used in American schools, workplaces, communities, and government agencies. It is promoted through UN literature, the US Department of Education’s Community Action Toolkit, and Sustainable America, the 1996 report by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. In fact, the worldwide “human resource” management system envisioned by socialist leaders decades ago is almost in place.

Managing people.

“Raise the global profile of food security issues through system-wide advocacy,” states the WFS contract. (#58.12) It uses words such as advocacy, civil society, participatory, and empowering to indicate the strategic blend of propaganda and dialogue used around the world to win grass-roots public support for the global agenda.

At each level of society, facilitators are being trained to use the consensus process. Emotional phrases such as “food insecurity” and “vulnerability information” evoke the public sympathy needed to change attitudes and spur desired action.

The WFS contract states, “To prevent and resolve conflicts peacefully and create a stable political environment, through a transparent and effective legal framework governments. will reinforce peace, by developing conflict prevention mechanisms promoting tolerance. Develop policy making processes that are democratic, transparent, participatory, empowering.” (#14)

“Promoting tolerance” is key to the paradigm shift from biblical to earth-centered beliefs and values. The 1995 UNESCO Declaration on Tolerance, signed by member states, defines tolerance as “respect, acceptance and appreciation” of the world’s diverse cultures and lifestyles-an attitude that “involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism.” It is “not only a moral duty, it is also a political and legal requirement.” Since “intolerance is a global threat,” UNESCO demands an international “response to this global challenge, including effective countermeasures.”

Why discuss tolerance, consensus building, compromise, and conflict resolution at a UN summit on food? The answer is two-fold. First, UN leaders warn us that intolerance causes conflict, which hinders food production and causes poverty. Second, since intolerance implies resistance to the new global values and solidarity, it is a threat to the implementation of the whole UN plan. Therefore intolerance must be quenched, while “tolerance promotion and the shaping of attitudes. should take place in schools and universities… at home and in the workplace.”14

The solution, as you saw, is the consensus process, also called conflict resolution, Hegelian dialectics, and the Delphi Technique. To unify people who embrace opposing values, the public must be engaged in “participatory” dialogues. Led by trained facilitators, these dialogues produce the collective thinking which prods participants beyond the old truths into the ambiguous realm of imagination and evolving truths.

The ground rules demand that everyone participate and find “common ground.” They forbid dissent and argument, no matter how unsound the “scientific” evidence used to back the preplanned consensus. “Adversarial processes” must be replaced with “collaborative approaches to resolving conflicts” through “education, information and communications” until “people, bonded by a shared purpose”15 learn to comply.

It’s already happening across America. Young and old are being trained to blend their values, adapt their beliefs, think as a group, and conform to the new standards. Like other nations, America is following the Pied Piper into a new world order whose architects may sound wise and compassionate, but are neither rational, factual, honest or tolerant.

Population Control

Notice the paradoxes. The United Nations promises human rights, but mandates social engineering. It promises peace, but creates conflict. It touts science, but twists it into propaganda. And it pledges food security, but limits land use. How, then, can it reconcile its vision of a global welfare system with its green agenda, including the huge Biosphere reserves?

The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) suggest an answer: simply cut the world population by about 80%-or return to a feudal lifestyle (no cars, planes, air conditioners ) Meeting the need for “scientific and technical assessments” mandated in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity,16 the GBA estimates that,

“…an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people…. In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion [people].17

For globalist leaders such as Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth, the process is too slow. “We hope the senate will… ratify the Biological Diversity Treaty which is essential to all the issues,” he told the above reporters, “[and to the] continuing emphasis on the increasing need for population stabilizing … ” A crusader for Malthusian economics and China’s one-child family planning, Wirth has indicated that by protecting women fleeing China’s oppressive abortion policies, “we could potentially open ourselves up to just about everybody in the world saying ‘I don’t want to plan my family, therefore I deserve political asylum.”18

Wirth’s views may sound too radical for consensus, but that depends on whose voice is heard. UN leaders tells us that solving the world’s problems must involve the participation of all members of society, but they demonstrate the opposite. They promise to include everyone — global and national leaders, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), women, youth and “other sectors of civil society”– if they share their vision. But dissenters are left out.

Today’s typical consensus process allows resisters a moment to expose themselves, but it refuses to record their objections. So does the new civil society. “Bella Abzug’s NGO Forum will submit a document supposedly representing 1,200 NGOs and millions of persons worldwide,” observed Eagle Forum leader Cathie Adams, “The supporters of that document claim to represent the world’s civil society. It’s interesting, though, that conservative groups like Eagle Forum have experienced tremendous harassment regarding accreditation for the Rome event. Clearly, the ‘new civil society’ cannot accommodate traditional family values. The radical feminists are extremists attempting to stifle any conservative views.”19

So do the socialists behind the UN agenda. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State “In our state, naturally, there can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism.” 20

Exclusion and hostility have pursued Jews and Christians throughout history. Biblical values simply don’t fit a world that has turns its back to God. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own,” Jesus told His friends. “Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you…. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you… because they do not know Him who sent Me.”

Moments later, Jesus encouraged His friends with a promise:

“These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” (John 15:19-21, 16:33) In a world of confusion, conflict, and catastrophe, He alone offers the hope, strength, and guidance that can bring victory over evil.

——————————————————————————–

For practical information about the U.S. implementation of the U.N. agenda for educating the masses, read Brave New Schools

——————————————————————————–

Endnotes:

1 Kathleen Marquardt, “Are Your Ready for Our New Age Future?” Insider’s Report, American Policy Center (703-925-0881), December 1995; p. 3.

2 Ibid.

3 Catherine Bertini, Executive Director of the World Food Program, Beijing, World Conference on Women, Sept.1995. Read her whole message at http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/conf/fwcw/conf/una/950906150325.txt.

4 Henry Lamb, “Rewilding America,” Eco-logic (November/December 1995)

5 Ibid.

6 Don Young, Statement on H.R. 3752 in House of Representatives, September 12, 1996.

7 Henry Lamb, “Rewilding America,” Eco-logic (November/December 1995)

8 CNN, November 8, 1996.

9 WFS News release: Rome, November 10, 1996.

10 Joan Veon, Compilation of the Beijing Draft Document Grouped by Perceived or Stated Goals (Olney, MD: TWG, Inc., 1995),i.

11 Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), p. 274.

12 All these points will be validated with quotes from the PCSD or WFS Plan of Action.

13 This agency evaluates the risks of chemical pollutants and assists the state Environmental Protection Agency in writing regulations supposedly needed to protect public health.

14 Declaration on Tolerance, UNESCO.

15 The President’s Council on Sustainable Development, Sustainable America, 112-113.

16 Article 25 (2a)

17 Lines 1782-1786

18 Robert James Bidinotto, “Environmental Freedom’s Foe for the Nineties,” The Freeman (November 1990), p. 418. Cited by The Environmental Policy Task Force News, Washington, D.C. (202-543-4779).

19 Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum Press Release, November 13,1996.

20 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 5, p. 164.

1 Jonathan Schell, “Our Fragile Earth,” Discover (October 1989); 44.

http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/Food-Land96.html

WELCOME TO THE FABIAN NWO!!!