Photo credit: Ileana Johnson Washington, D. C. |
One month
after the establishment of the United Nations, UNESCO was created by its first
director, Julian Huxley. UNESCO’s first
task was to teach the world’s school teachers how to indoctrinate their
students to become citizens of the world. Judging by the amount of global
citizenship preparedness advertised by colleges and universities in the U.S.
today, UNESCO has been highly successful.
Their materials on the topic of “Toward World Understanding,”
brainwashed many generations in schools around the globe that “nationalism was
bad, and had to replaced with the idea of world citizenship.” (UNESCO
Publication 356, http://freedom.org/reports/unesco356.htm)
The effort
to transform our children into global citizens mutated into the International
Baccalaureate Program, an expensive and highly secretive curriculum from
Switzerland, supported and paid for by local taxpayers. Parents thought that it
was a superior education to our public schools when in reality it is just
another attempt to indoctrinate them into global citizens, devoid of national pride,
American history, and turning them into full supporters of global governance.
The
relentless global governance promoters are convinced that their social
engineering philosophy of collectivism is far superior to our free market
capitalism. They are not dissuaded by the monumental failures of Cuba,
Venezuela, Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Eastern European countries, and
other nations forced to survive on the idea of ‘daddy government knows best.’
With its
final goal of a “global neighborhood” (Our Global Neighborhood, 1995), the
government-managed society rejects the idea of private property and does not
think that controlling the use of private property constitutes taking, despite
the existence of our 5th Amendment which requires that government justly
compensate owners for the taking of their private property.
The final
barrier in the United Nations completion of this global neighborhood is the
voluntary funding for the United Nations. The ideas of creating a global tax
and a global currency have been introduced numerous times. In 2010, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) revealed its plan to create a global
currency.
“International
rules, institutions and practices that limit the behavior of people in the
United States come from international entities such as the UN, UNESCO, UNEP,
UNDP, WTO, ISO and other alphabet bureaucracies,” which creep into domestic
policy via non-governmental organization (NGOs) lobbyists who advocate for
global governance, politicians, federal employees, and delegates to U.N.
meetings. Most in Congress support and promote the principle of global
governance but their constituents have no idea what that means.
Why is
global governance bad? Our system of freedom and self-governance cannot
co-exist in a world governed by the United Nations’ tin pot dictatorships. They believe that “government is the source
of individual rights, and can give or deny those rights to individuals or
organizations as the government deems necessary,” in the interest of the collective.
American
self-governance believes that the Creator is the “source of unalienable
individual rights,” including the right to form a government and limit its
power to the consent of the governed.
We are at
the crossroads of global governance, enabled by the voluntary participation of developed nations, particularly the
United States, who has dragged its citizens into agreements, initiatives, and
partnerships, whereby the voters were never consulted about such partnerships
and initiatives, they were only subjected to the Vision of the globalists, pushed forward by elected politicians’ voluntary
membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).
Our current
government is pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is slim on
trade and heavy on controlling what is left of our manufacturing sector, our
economy, and our sovereignty. If it is so good for America, why were the
proceedings secret? TPP is modeled on the failed European Union system that deprived
28 nations of their sovereignty while seeking to create a huge empire with all
the powers of a single nation but masquerading as a trade organization. The recent
Brexit of the U.K. from this EU union was painfully obvious that the Brits have
had enough of the political and economic control from the technocrats in Brussels.
Plans that
erode our individual freedoms and national sovereignty start at the local level
with promises and euphemisms that are relevant to a particular locality and
sound benign enough to the busy American, preoccupied with making a living and
supporting his/her family.
The visioning process starts at the local
level by a local planning agency (an NGO) or ICLEI itself with a federal grant
attached to it. ICLEI was created in 1990 “to advance the concept of
sustainable development,” the lynchpin of U.N. Agenda 21 of 1992 and now U.N.
Agenda 2030.
Once the
grant is in place, a facilitator is appointed to lead the visioning process of the local community. Participants are
initially chosen carefully in order to support the plan. One local elected
official is also included while the community knows nothing about until the end
of the process. The group may call
itself “Yourtown 2030” and will put forth their pre-planned ideas of what your
town should look like in 2030 in order to have a “sustainable community” and
“smart development.” Anything else is catastrophic for the community.
Any
objections are eliminated by advertising a “consensus.” The goals chosen by this visioning are usually recommendations taken from U.N. Agenda 21 or
the President’s Council on Sustainable Development documents.
Next comes
the plan of action which includes “bike paths, walkways, greenbelts,
conservation areas, high-density areas, mixed-use housing, five minute walk or
bike to work, shopping, and play, urban boundary zones, and other buzz-words
from the sustainable development vocabulary.
As the plan
is near completion, the group starts feeding information to the press in the
local media. Public events are held that gloat over the righteous sustainable
development and sustainable communities. The elected official on board with the
visioning plan is “expected to convince the majority of the governing board to
adopt the plan of action.”
Glossies
will be printed and mailed out to the population, convincing the community that
their visioning plan will make the
community better in the 21st century if they protect the environment
by reducing their carbon footprint, their commute, their car use, their
suburban living, and other activities that make life fun and free, but, the
world will be a better place for all.
The elements
of the plan are never really publicly debated before elected officials, and, it
is too late to oppose it once it is so heavily publicized. The private
landowners are usually never consulted, nor are the taxpayers. Many times, once
the plan has been adopted and implementation has begun, the community starts
feeling the pain of the visioning plan.
Local comprehensive land use plans are often so restrictive, the farmers can no
longer use their pastures, their lakes, their land, their water to grow food,
or plant crops.
This brings
me to my own back yard where Supervisor Frank Principi has embarked on the plan
of “Smart Development for a More Connected Community.” His flier describes the “Smart Development in
New Woodbridge,” as connectivity. “In this type of development, communities are
designed to be more compact, easily and safely transversed by foot or bicycle.
Great thought is given to how “people will live, work and play in their
neighborhoods.” In his and Agenda 2030’s
idea, Smart Development will be mixed housing, townhomes, single family homes,
stack and pack apartments, with “employment opportunities in close proximity to
these homes, which in turn are conveniently located to amenities such as
schools, parks, entertainment, mass transit, churches, and shopping.”
He is
concerned about your quality of life, “fostering a sense of community, (supporting
the local community because you won’t be able to go very far), reducing commute
times, promoting walking and biking and lessening environmental impact.” He is
proposing a “50-mile pedestrian and bicycle network” as well as eliminating
“sidewalks to nowhere.” You just can’t walk every which way you want, you must
be on approved paths. These are specific goals listed in U.N.’s Agenda 2030.
Supervisor Principi
states that funding to “build our network” (who is we) will come from
“developer proffers, state and regional grants, and local tax dollars.”
I’ve lived
in the area for eight years, I am a very well-informed citizen, yet I’ve never
heard specifics on Supervisor Principi’s plan until now. However, in this
brochure, he is announcing a town hall series on transportation, education, and
development. The plans are already in place, now he has to inform us about
them.
The first town hall is
entitled “Get Woodbridge Moving.”
“New Woodbridge: Vision & Economic Impact” is advertised for
November 10, 2016. “Classroom
Overcrowding: Rethinking School Development” will be addressed on December
8, 2016.
Prince
William County is overrun with illegal aliens that comprise most of the 40
percent population growth as published in the last census. Additionally,
unaccompanied minors of school age have overcrowded our schools and drained the
budget for special teachers who speak the obscure languages of some of these
children.
Frank
Principi talks about the “Region’s Global Reach” and the “Global Cities
Initiative Report,” all elements of the globalist U.N. Agenda 2030.
Describing
the area’s longest commute among its peer regions, Principi stated,
“Strengthening infrastructure connections globally while improving connectivity
regionally could facilitate increased global trade and investment.”
If you are
scratching your head with that statement, you are not alone. Principi encapsulates this region’s visioning plan, “The central pillars of the vision for a New Woodbridge – Smart Development, Better Transportation and Strong Neighborhoods – reflect the top concerns and goals that community members express for our neighborhoods.”
In most
neighborhoods people don’t even know their closest neighbors, apartments are
built all over the place to handle the influx of newcomers, legal and illegal,
roads are inadequate, there are no alternate routes to major highways, and
congestion is the norm. Would walking and bicycling, more government control,
and “strong neighborhoods” resolve these issues?
The American
Planning Association, one of the main vectors of sustainable development change
in this country has a host of definitions and requirements for any inhabited
place in the country as to how the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) should
be implemented according to a specific blueprint designed years ago by the U.N.
Agenda 21 planners in Rio.
The
neighborhoods must “promote or protect air and water quality, protect
groundwater resources, and respond to the growing threat of climate change,” a
threat that is not real. “Green infrastructure” must be used, such as “local
tree cover mitigating heat gain.” Communities must “utilize measures or
practices to protect or enhance local biodiversity and the environment.” https://www.planning.org/greatplaces/neighborhoods/characteristics.htm
At the end
of the day, none of these plans are really about improving the lives of the people;
they are about herding humans into small areas where they are more easily
controlled by the government.
Every human
wants their community to thrive, to be safe, and desire clean air and water,
but at what cost are we going to reorganize and socially engineer our cities,
towns, communities, and way of life in order to fit a master plan designed by
people who are only interested in saving the planet from an imaginary global
warming and by controlling the population that they deem to be a threat to our
planet.
No comments:
Post a Comment