Globalist Agenda 21, Now Agenda 2030, Continues Undeterred

President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14199, withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that are contrary to the Interests of the United States. It is a start, just like getting us out of the WHO, but unless President Trump’s Executive Order is translated into law, it can and will be rescinded one day by the next Democrat President. Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States – The White House

To allow sustainable development, the lynchpin of U.N. Agenda 21, into all levels of government, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12852 in 1993. This created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development which made sure that all 17 SDGs (Sustainable Development goals) of U.N. Agenda 21 were implemented into all federal agencies.

If Bill Clinton’s executive order is not overridden, the globalist agenda will continue undeterred, no matter what President Trump’s administration does. Key Events to the Implementation of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development | Agenda 21 Course

If local and state governments do not shut down metropolitan planning organizations, regional planning organization, real estate planning organizations, and area transportation authorities, American taxpayer dollars will be used at the local level to deploy the globalist agenda.

The globalist agenda has been put into operation around the country since President Bush Sr. has signed the United States into U.N. Agenda 21 in 1992 and President Clinton codified it into every federal agency, department, infusing Sustainability into everything every agency does.

In 1996 the President’s Council of Sustainable Development submitted Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment. Its objective was to create consensus among the many groups that were attempting to take over the world’s economy using Agenda 21. Key Events to the Implementation of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development | Agenda 21 Course

At the Johannesburg Summit in 2002, Colin Powell said that the U.S. was on board with U.N. Agenda 21. The U.S. Conference of Mayors created in 1997 the Joint Center for Sustainable Development and in 2001 the National Governors Association endorsed Smart Growth.

At that time, the federal government owned 33% of all land in the U.S. while state and local governments owned another 10%. We also know that since then Bill Gates acquired agricultural lands in the U.S and became the largest farm landowner in the U.S., with 275,000 across several states. Why a computer businessperson would buy so much agricultural land is an interesting question. Whoever controls the land, water, and the food supply controls the people. 'Why Are You Buying Up So Much Farmland?' — Bill Gates Owns 275,000 Acres Across the U.S. But Says: 'There Isn't Some Grand Scheme Involved'

In 2011 President Obama signed Executive Order 13575 to create the White House Rural Council and to require every agency in the U.S. to oversee “all food, fiber, and energy needs for all the rural sustainable communities across the U.S., affecting 16% of the United States.”

Since the United Nations adopted in 1974 the idea that in this New International Economic Order the government should control the economy, our freedoms and private properties have been squeezed bit by bit, a death of freedom by a thousand paper cuts.

Then the same United Nations followed in 1976 with the statement that “land cannot be controlled by the individual because land represents wealth and it is a social injustice for it to be owned by the individual.”

In 1987 the Brundtland Commission coined the phrase "sustainable development.” This commission detailed how “to take control of the world’s economies and to redistribute the wealth.”

And the last nail in the coffin of global economic freedom came in 1990 when the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), now known as Local Governments for Sustainable Development, was founded at the World Congress for Local Governments for a Sustainable Future at the U.N. in New York.

Thus, began in earnest everything Sustainable, Green Growth, Smart Growth, smart meters, green energy via wind turbines and solar panels, fifteen-minute cities, walkability, smart education, smart housing, and biking everywhere to save the planet from bogus global warming that has been disproven time and time again by real science, not science ‘consensus.’  Consensus is agreement between like-minded people, not science. agenda 21 key word - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements 

Butler on Business, Water Use Control, 10-23-13

My radio segment with Alan Butler on Water use control vis-à-vis Agenda 21, October 23, 2013. I come on at the 43 minute mark.
http://host1.cyberears.com//22230.mp3

Zoning Laws, Conservation Easements, and the Right to Your Land

I believe so strongly that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) pursue the path to confiscate land from American landowners and farmers under the guise of zoning laws, environmental preservation, and eminent domain that I wrote about Martha’s Plight and her Liberty Farm in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” http://www.amazon.com/U-N-Agenda-21-Environmental-ebook/dp/B009WC6JXO/ref=tmm_kin_title_0

Martha’s 70 acre farm is located in Fauquier County, a rural community not far from Washington, D.C. The rich soil is ideal for growing grapes and agriculture in general. Martha bought her farm with an agricultural conservation easement.

A conservation easement is a contract between a private property owner and a land trust. Conservation easements are signed because some people want to protect their property from unwanted development in the future but they also want to retain ownership of the land. The donation of an easement to a land trust may give financial advantage to the donor.  The conservation easement is passed on to any future owners of that land.

Martha Boneta repaired the historical barn, built an apiary, harvested hay, grew herbs, and rescued 165 animals, sold chicken, duck, turkey, emu eggs, candles made from beeswax, birdhouses, and fiber from llamas and alpacas. Although holding a business license, she was harassed, the license was not renewed, and a trench was dug to prevent parking on her property because it obscured the view shed.

Piedmont Environmental Council decided to rezone her property for alleged “violations” found during unannounced inspections. They settled the law suit in 2011.

The Fauquier County Board of Supervisors changed the zoning laws to ban Martha’s sale of fruits, vegetables, beverages, and other crafts in her farm store. The supervisors also passed an ordinance to force wineries in the area to close at 6 p.m. and to prohibit the sale of food unless the wineries obtained special permits from the zoning administrator.

Martha put a lot of hard work to breathe life into the previously abandoned property. It was her life-long dream to farm. She was not going to give up that easily. She became a property rights advocate and activist in Virginia, speaking at every venue and opportunity against the insidious U.N. Agenda 21, enabled at the local level by unscrupulous supervisors who had bought into the Agenda 21 environmental land grab.

The “visioning committee consensus” of ICLEI was nothing more than the wishes of a few global elites, telling each community across the country what was best for their citizens in terms of land and water use, keeping the environment as pristine and wild as possible, without the “destructive” encroachment of humans. As Americans became more aware of their true internationalist intent, ICLEI changed its name to Local Governments for Sustainability.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of national, regional, and local government associations who promote “sustainable development” and protection of the environment because of the man-made global warming that does not exist. The focus is to limit economic and agricultural development in developed countries, a forced sustainable de-growth through EPA regulations and local board of supervisors’ zoning laws, and “regionalism” at the federal level, intruding on every facet of human life. http://www.icleiusa.org/

A lot of Virginians testified in support of HB1430 (The Boneta Bill), The Right to Farm Act, which passed the House of Delegates 77-22 in February 2013 but was blocked by the Senate Agricultural Committee by a vote of 11-4. Delegate Scott Lingamfelter promised to reintroduce the bill next year.

Martha’s source of trouble at the local level during 2009-2011 was Fauquier County zoning supervisor Peggy Richardson, who was IRS commissioner under President Bill Clinton.

It must have been absolute coincidence that Martha’s tax returns for 2010 and 2011 were audited by the IRS. This was the timeframe when her farm operations were dissected and her legal battles ensued. Martha Boneta believes that it was a “coordinated effort” to confiscate her farm through rezoning.

Zoning supervisor Richardson told TheWatchdog.org, “I could understand, given the external climate, that people might think there is something amiss. I think that’s a stretch, but I understand why people might feel this way. Coincidences do happen.” http://watchdog.org/91068/former-irs-commissioner-says-tax-audit-of-virginia-farmer-a-coincidence/

Martha wrote, “IRS came with a camera to the farm but I do not know what was photographed.  The IRS agent watched me put freshly harvested eggs into cartons and feed emus. Asked me about "boarding" farm caretakers -- very odd and unusual especially since ‘boarding’ a farm caretaker is identical to what PEC (Piedmont Environmental Council) complained and sued me over. Particularly odd since there is nothing in my (tax) return that has anything to do with ‘boarding’ labor for example.”

Joseph Farah writes that Margaret “Peggy” Richardson “was in charge when I exposed Clinton’s political abuse of the IRS. She was forced to resign and now she is on the Piedmont Environmental Council.”

http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/i-hate-coincidences/#8L0Ov7YSR5UiJVYB.99

If you think Martha Boneta’s case is an isolated incident of “conservation easement,” think again. Take for instance the case in Alameda County, California. The deceptively named Measure D, “Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative,” pushed by Oakland mayor Jerry Brown and the Sierra Club passed in November 2000. Most ranchers had no idea what they voted for - the restrictive use of thousands of acres of private land by the county.

Property owners lived on the land but could not make any changes or improvements to it without prior approval by the Board of Supervisors. Ranchers paid taxes on 100 percent of the land but could only develop 2 percent.

Chuck Moore, owner of Graceland Equestrian Center, petitioned during a hearing on January 8, 2013, to expand a covered area on his property to store hay for his horses.

The Sierra Club objected by stating that “The Board has a free hand to further restrict the use of land but it does not have a free hand to loosen the restrictions measuredly imposed on the development and use of land.” They insisted that “open space must be saved,” which begs the question, “Saved from what? Horses?”

The Supervisor, seeking to avoid litigation, suggested an insane solution. The rancher should purchase more property and donate it to the Sierra Club as “open space.”

The narrator asked pointedly, “Are we a nation that respects private property and individual rights or are we slaves to the government and special interest groups like the Sierra Club?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYMmePre-VI

This question can be easily answered by perusing the Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development (DICED). It is the Environmental Constitution of Global Governance. The Draft Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in U.N. Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution. https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20//content/documents/IUCN+Intl+Covenant+on+Env+and+Dev+EPLP-031-rev3.pdf&embedded=true

Martha Boneta’s and Chuck Moore’s battles are two examples of thousands across the country who are fighting their local zoning czars for economic freedom, the use of their land, property rights free of intrusive, photographed, unauthorized, and illegal, often in the middle of the night land and home inspections, and the freedom to engage in unencumbered agricultural activities from environmental groups funded by wealthy globalists who would rather see humans disappear or moved into government approved urban ghettoes or zones where they can be better controlled and corralled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Sustainability Shoe Dilemma

A beautiful pair of sandals caught my eyes. The beading design on top in red, white, and black reminded me of an African motif I had seen on Nat Geo years ago. The flat shoe had an elegant zipper in the back, adding it a touch of modern and chic. I decided to try them on.

The box was rather interesting; it looked like a beige paper-wrapped package that arrived from Kenya, with embossed fake postage, stamped, Nairobi. The sender’s address in the upper left hand corner was the information that it contained a pair of sandals shipped from Kenya via Spain. A brown map of the world showed the red route that the “authentic Maasai design” sandals had traveled to make it into this beige box.

Touting that “another world is possible,” these intricate sandals were “ornamented in Kenya” and made in Spain. The box also told me that each sandal was “embroidered by a Maasai woman from Kenya in the shade of an acacia tree.”

“Each bead, which reflects the essence Maasai culture tradition and craft skills, has been placed with the spirit of hope and enthusiasm for a prosperous, sustainable future. Thank you for supporting this initiative.” Didn’t Native Americans use beading as well?

I became intrigued when I saw the word “sustainable.” The price seemed rather steep, $200, but they were very comfortable and flexible. I ordered a pair in my favorite design color, teal, and waited.

When my box arrived, I opened the package with anticipation and was instantly disappointed when the content revealed a different pair with the exquisite beaded design of the American flag. I love and respect our flag. I believe that it is sacrilegious to wear the flag on your feet. The flag is made to be flown and draped over the caskets of heroes, not to be used as a door mat, bathing suit, swim trunks, or shoe ornaments.

But I found a glossy inside talking about the story of this brand. This was no ordinary shoe. It was a project developed by the non-governmental organization (NGO) called ADCAM (Association for Development, Alternative Trade and Microcredit) which “specializes in empowering women in developing countries and focuses on establishing stable trade channels with developed nations.”

I was getting warm and fuzzy when the brochure said that when we, the often maligned and “greedy” capitalists, buy these expensive shoes, we are supporting the NGOs vision of “Corporate Social Responsibility,” collaborating with communities that need corporate social responsibility most, and we are pioneering the NGOs quest for developing fair trade.

Here I was, supporting the initiative of integrating United Nation’s desire of Sustainability with comfortable shoes and fashionable bags. Bingo! The Maasai preserved their traditions and lifestyles and I got the light and color of Africa for $200. How clever!

The brochure said, “The Maasai tribe is one of the most threatened on the planet according to the UN” and the international sales revenue from the shoes and bags “pays fair wages to support 1,600 families with stable source of income that allows them to obtain basic needs items such as food and medicines.”

If the 1,600 women received income from just nine pairs of sandals, it is $1,800, exceeding Kenya’s per capita income of $1,700 a year. According to the International Monetary Fund, Kenya is at number 154 out of 183 countries in per capita income. By now, if the shoes sold well, the Maasai families in the project and their tribe should be quite well off. They kept accounting and orders straight even though they do not have computers or technological literacy.

There is even an Ambassador of the Maasai Project for the 2013 collection, who apparently visited the women in Kenya and Tanzania who make the beading by hand. “The women shared with Olivia, their hopes and dreams for taking this project forward in a sustainable way and for making the beautiful sandals and bags available throughout the world.”

I am not sure how the project is moved forward in a sustainable way, but I wondered how much these women were paid in fair wages, what is their definition of a fair wage, and why is the Maasai tribe the most endangered in the world.

According to one site, eco-tourism prompted big government to create parks and reserves without the input and consent of the indigenous people.

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/maasai.htm

The Maasai and other pastoral groups squeezed off their lands created their own NGOs in order to go to court to defend their land rights. Isn’t the government ultimately responsible for the social welfare of their people? Why do United Nations and NGOs step in to demand social responsibility from corporations and citizens of other countries?

The dilemma is that part of me applauds the idea of helping employ women in dire living conditions and poverty, but part of me is repulsed by the “sustainable eco-chic” label, the NGOs demanding social responsibility, the United Nations forcing Agenda 21 policies on developed countries, and, most of all, by the blatant disrespect for the American flag.

How much of the profit is actually shared with the Maasai women who do such tedious and labor intensive bead work? One magazine claims that “all profits from the sales of the Maasai Project are put towards the creation and further development of these community projects that support the Maasai Mara National Reserve in both Kenya and Tanzania.”

http://myculturemagazine.com/pikolinos-these-shoes-arent-just-made-for-walking/

Ultimately, I venture to say, the women’s lives in Kenya will probably be less enriched than the coffers of the NGO and the Spanish brand that sells the sandals world-wide. 

It is glitz, glamor, and greed, carefully packaged in the brochure with tug-at-your-heart strings propaganda. A quote from Wangari Maathai, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004, appears at the end of the glossy. “Until you dig a hole, you plant a tree, you water it and make it survive, you haven’t done a thing. You are just talking.” What does this have to do with selling expensive sandals? Regretfully, I returned the shoes.

 

How Many People Can the Planet Sustain?

As a college student I was fascinated by David Attenborough’s Living Planet. He was my hero. I was certainly disappointed when I learned that he has joined the chorus of global warming alarmists who turned into climate change scaremongers when it became evident that the planet has actually cooled in the last sixteen years. Of course the planet’s climate has changed for billions of years and it has nothing to do with human activity or their existence..

Climate change environmentalists choose to mix catastrophic weather events with climate whenever it is convenient to their message, so long as there is a progressive faux science “consensus” and their global warming/climate change guru, Al Gore, agrees. Never mind that science is based on fact not on “consensus.” And the facts and data must not be manufactured to fit political agendas.

In a Malthusian style, David Attenborough describes humans in less than favorable words – plague, hordes. “We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.” (Radio Times as quoted by The Telegraph)

Thomas Robert Malthus wrote in 1798 in “An Essay on the Principle of Population” that population growth would prevent advancement to utopian society: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” He was certainly proven wrong.

A patron of the Optimum Population Trust, Sir David Attenborough speaks against “the frightening explosion in human numbers” and the need for sex education and voluntary ways of limiting population in developing countries. Another patron of note is Dame Jane Morris Goodall, the famous anthropologist who studied chimpanzees for 45 years.

The Optimum Population Trust website (http://www.populationmatters.org/) displays a world population clock and promotes a sustainable future, sustainable consumption, family planning, conservation of the natural world, ending population growth, gender equality, and living within one’s means. Sustainability, as they see it, has to “address poverty, gender inequality, natural resource limits, climate change, biodiversity loss, and population density. These goals are also part of the U.N. Agenda 21.   

Sir Attenborough provides Ethiopia as a convenient example of famine caused by “too many people there” who cannot support themselves. However, as societies become more civilized, better educated, technologically advanced, and richer, do they not produce smaller families who live longer and healthier lives?

“Attenborough seems to have a Malthusian dislike of the human race.” (Harry Mount, The Telegraph, January 22, 2013)

We are not a plague on the earth. We have actually eradicated the plague that killed millions in the Middle Ages and we have helped billions of humans double their life expectancy.

Proponents of global warming conveniently forget that from 1350 until around 1850, Europe went through a period called the Little Ice Age – this was during a time when human industrial scale activity barely existed.

Napoleon’s retreating Grande Armée encountered a terrible cold in Russia and many soldiers perished from exposure to these extreme temperatures, as well as starvation because the much shorter growing seasons made it impossible to have enough food for an invading army, coupled with typhus spread by lice. In 2001, thousands of skeletons were found in Vilnius, Lithuania, the remains of Napoleon’s soldiers. (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/pandemics/2012/12/napoleon_march_to_russia_in_1812_typhus_spread_by_lice_was_more_powerful.html)

The Optimum Population Trust boasts that “Our vision is of a global population size enabling decent living standards and environmental sustainability.” Who is going to decide the optimum population number, how will the excess population be disposed of, what are the parameters of decent living standards, and of environmental sustainability? Who chose these people to be the arbiters of human life and death, caretakers of the planet, and controllers of our happiness and of the future? Must we adopt the cruel and murderous one-child policy of China?

The Club of Rome and United Nations with all their wealthy and famous patrons and supporters are the arbiters of our population size, our right to inhabit the planet, and the life style we have chosen for ourselves given our modern society. “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” (United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment)

The Club of Rome is less generous with its demographic estimation, …"the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” (Goals of Mankind)

The Club of Rome, in its search for a common enemy to fit their agenda in order to control the world’s population through the United Nations, came up with the idea that “pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine would fit the bill and are caused by human intervention.” The sad thing is that low information humans believe everything without questioning.

 

UN Agenda 21 - Got Milk, Cheese, and Hot Dogs?

Exiting the Metro at Union Station in D.C. on my way to a TV interview on UN Agenda 21, I spotted three ads on both sides of the wall close to the escalators where they could not be missed. I turned around and froze - I could not believe my eyes what the ads were advocating. Few bothered to read them in their hurried passage.

The first ad showed the portrait of a Pennsylvania family with two kids who were saying, “Let’s move milk out of school lunch” A much smaller print said, “One in eight Americans is lactose intolerant.”  Really? Because 12.5% of the population is lactose intolerant we must now remove milk from everyone’s diet because the 12.5% are not smart enough and would drink something that would cause them to be sick? Should we take all peanut butter out of consumption because some people are allergic to peanuts? Is there perhaps a more onerous reason why we would want to ban anything that comes from animals, especially cows because they are the primary “emitters” of methane gas, a gas blamed for global warming by the left?

The second ad, with a smiling 9 year old girl from Georgia said, “Let’s move cheese out of my school lunch.” Much smaller letters proclaimed, “Most cheese is 70% fat.” Would the food police go next after all products that contain cheese? Do we need the nanny state to tell us what to eat? Should we be using children as pawns to advance liberal agendas?

In the third ad, a 6 year old boy from New Jersey says, “Let’s move hot dogs out of my school lunch.” In smaller letters, the ad continues, “Processed meats increase colorectal cancer risk.” Aren’t most meats, by definition, processed? Should all humans become vegetarian or vegan?

The three ads are sponsored by Let’sReallyMove.org, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a pro-vegan group. I have no problem with people following a vegan diet, other than the fact that they look kind of ashen, waxy and sickly. Millions of Americans, however, prefer to get their protein from meat, cheese, eggs, and milk. Besides, there are not enough vegetables cultivated on the planet and grasses to satisfy all demand from 7 billion humans, domesticated animals, and wild animals. In liberal opinion, which ones should be sacrificed first through starvation, humans or animals? Do humans take a back seat to nature as animals gain rights and can sue us as part of the planetary stewardship?

UN Agenda 21’s 40 chapters outline human activities and decisions that are not sustainable based on environmental impact on global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction: family unit, farming, commercial agriculture, livestock, pesticides, herbicides, grazing cattle, irrigation, paved roads, private property, fossil fuels, golf courses, ski lodges, consumerism, logging, dams, reservoirs, fences, and power lines.

Food must be controlled through regulations and interdiction of agriculture achieved through water control, land usage control, genetically engineered seeds that do not germinate again after the first year’s crop, pesticides and herbicide use. The planet must be de-populated to manageable levels, no more than a billion people, and the family unit must be restructured. As Harvey Rubin, the Vice Chair of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) now called Local Governments for Sustainability, has said, “Individual rights must take a back seat to the collective.” Is that not communism but on steroids?

Education curricula must purposefully dumb down education for Sustainable Development. Agenda 21 for Dummies quotes, “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM)

Good stewards of the planet, young and impressionable students have to “construct [their own] understandings of reality and [realize)] that objective reality is not knowable.” The aim of education is the knowledge not of facts but of values.” (‘Constructivism’ as defined and quoted in Agenda 21 for Dummies You Tube video)

Suddenly, foods that have sustained generations around the globe, preventing malnutrition, calcium deficiency, osteopenia, and osteoporosis are now maligned by the nanny state, by the elites who know what is best for us. Is it any wonder that we are skeptical?