Tag Archives: Agenda 21

TOM DEWEESE: Green New Deal Reveals the Naked Truth of Agenda 21

by Tom DeWeese

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!

For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals.  They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Of course, such harsh terms had to be hidden from the American people if the plan was to be successfully imposed. They called it a “suggestion” for “voluntary” action –  just in case a nation or community wanted to do something positive for mankind! However, while using such innocent-sounding language, the Agenda 21 shock troops lost no time pushing it into government policy. In 1992, just after its introduction at the Earth Summit, Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan into Congress. It’s interesting to note that she boldly called it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In 1993, new President, Bill Clinton ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land. Then the American Planning Association issued a newsletter in 1994, supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning. So much for a voluntary idea!

However, as we, the opponents started to gain some ground in exposing its true purpose and citizens began to storm city halls protesting local implementation, suddenly the once proud proponents lost their collective memories about Agenda 21. Never heard of it! “There are no blue-helmeted troops at city hall,” said one proponent, meaning policies being used to impose it were not UN driven, but just “local, local, local”. “Oh, you mean that innocuous 20 year-old document that has no enforcement capability? This isn’t that!” These were the excuses that rained down on us from the planners, NGOs and government agents as they scrambled to hide their true intentions.

I was attacked on the front page of the New York Times Sunday paper under the headline, “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) produced four separate reports on my efforts to stop it, calling our efforts an “Antigovernment Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory.” The Atlantic magazine ran a story entitled, “Is the UN Using Bike Paths to Achieve World Domination?” Attack articles appeared in the Washington PostEsquire magazine, Wingnut WatchMother Jones, and Tree Hugger.com to name a few. All focused on labeling our opposition as tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs. Meanwhile, an alarmed American Planning Association (APA) created an “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts page on its web site to supposedly counter our claims. APA then organized a “Boot Camp” to retrain its planners to deal with us, using a “Glossary for the Public,” teaching them new ways to talk about planning. Said the opening line of the Glossary, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” The Glossary went on to list words not to use like “Public Visioning,” “Stakeholders,” “Density,” and “Smart Growth,” because such words make the “Critics see red”.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

Local elected officials, backed by NGO groups and planners, began to deride local activists – sometimes denying them access to speak at public meetings, telling them that Agenda 21 conspiracy theory has “been debunked”. Most recently an irate city councilman answered a citizen who claimed local planning was part of Agenda 21 by saying “this is what’s “trending.” So, of course, if everyone is doing it is must be right!

Such has been our fight to stop this assault on our culture and Constitutional rights.

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

Take a good look, those of you who have heard my warnings about Agenda 21 over the years. Do you see the plan I have warned about being fully in place in this Green New Deal?

  • I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and were we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export and even breathe.
  • In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Stay alert. The next step will be to put a ban on the sale of new combustion engines by a specific date and then limiting the number of new vehicles to be sold. Bans on commercial truck shipping will follow. Then they will turn to airplanes, reducing their use. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
  • I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on carbon heating systems, mandating they be turned off during certain hours. Heating oil devises will become illegal. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
  • I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Those in the cities will be ordered to convert their gardens into food producers. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
  • I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.

The Green New Deal will destroy the very concept of our Constitutional Republic, eliminating private property, locally elected representative government, free markets and individual freedom. All decisions in our lives will be made for us by the government – just to protect the environment of course. They haven’t forgotten how well that scheme works to keep the masses under control.

Though the label “Green New Deal” has been passing around globalist circles for a while, it’s interesting that its leaders have now handed it to a naïve, inexperienced little girl from New York who suddenly found herself rise from bartending to a national media sensation, almost over nigh. That doesn’t just happen and there is no miracle here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a created product. They probably needed her inexperienced enthusiasm to deliver the Green New Deal because no established politician would touch it. Now that it’s been introduced and she is set up to take the heat, the gates have swung open allowing forty-five members of Congress to co-sponsor it in the House of Representatives as established Senator Ed. Markey (D-MA) has sponsored it in the Senate. That doesn’t just happen either. Nothing has been left to chance.

Behind the sudden excitement and rush to support it are three radical groups each having direct ties to George Soros, including the Sunrise Movement – which markets itself as an “army of young people” seeking to make climate change a major priority.   Justice Democrats – which finds and recruits progressive candidates, and New Consensus – organized to change how we think about issues. Leaders of these groups have connections with other Soros-backed movements including Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. According to The New Yorker magazine, the plan was written over a single weekend in December, 2018. Ocasio-Cortez was included in the effort, chosen to introduce it. This may be the single reason why she was able to appear out of nowhere to become the new darling of the radical left.

So there you have it — Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal. Progress in the world of Progressives! They warned us from the beginning that their plan was the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”. And so it is to be the total destruction of our way of life.

To all of those elected officials, local, state and federal, who have smirked at we who have tried to sound the alarm, look around you now, hot shots! You have denied, ignored, and yet, helped put these very plans into place. Are you prepared to accept what you have done? Will you allow your own homes and offices to be torn down – or will you be exempt as part of the elite or just useful idiots? Will you have to give up your car and ride your bike to work? Or is that just for we peasants?

Over these years you have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured you their plans were just environmental protection, just good policy for future generations. They have been lying to you to fulfill their own agenda!  Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.

Now, our elected leaders have to ask real questions. As the Green New Deal is implemented, and all energy except worthless, unworkable wind and solar are put into place, are you ready for the energy curfews that you will be forced to impose, perhaps each night as the sun fades, forcing factories, restaurants, hospitals, and stores to close at dusk? How about all those folks forced to live in the stack and pack high-rises when the elevators don’t operate? What if they have an emergency?

How much energy will it take to rebuild those buildings that must be destroyed or retrofitted to maker them environmentally correct for your brave new world? Where will it come from after you have banned and destroyed all the workable sources of real energy? What are you counting on to provide you with food, shelter, and the ability to travel so you can continue to push this poison? Because – this is what’s trending — now! And how is it going to be financed when the entire economy crashes under its weight? Is it really the future you want for you, your family, and your constituents who elected you?

Every industry under attack by this lunacy should now join our efforts to stop it.  Cattlemen, farmers, airlines, the auto industry, realtors, tourist industry, and many more, all will be put out of business – all should now take bold action to immediately kill this plan before it kills your industry. Stomp it so deeply into the ground that no politician will ever dare think about resurrecting it.

For years I’ve watched politicians smirk, roll their eyes, and sigh whenever the words Agenda 21 were uttered. As George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it”. Today I stand vindicated in my warnings of where Agenda 21 was truly headed, because it’s not longer me having to reveal the threat. They are telling you themselves. Here’s the naked truth – Socialism is for the stupid. The Green New Deal is pure Socialism. How far its perpetrators get in enforcing it depends entirely on how hard you are willing to fight for freedom. Kill it now or watch it die.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/02/25/green-new-deal-reveals-the-naked-truth-of-agenda-21/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: SNOWFLAKES OR REASONING ADULTS – IT’S THE PARENTS’ CHOICE

by Kathleen Marquardt

Our nineteenth-century legal theory (individual right, contract, ‘a man can do what he likes with his own,’ etc.) was based on the conception of the separate individual. Mary Parker Follett, The New State

What is more important to people than their children? If people aren’t willing to stand up and fight for their children, we cannot expect them to care enough to stand up for anything else. Anyone who is not homeschooling their children, or working with them daily to undo the brainwashing done at schools, is giving his or her children over to be, at best, useful idiots. You don’t believe this is being implemented now? UNESCO’s Education 2030, goal 4.7:  By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, . . and the promotion of global citizenship.[1]

All those who are complaining about what is wrong need to stand up and do something about it. They don’t have to do it alone; there are organizations out there fighting to get schools back to teaching instead of indoctrinating, others that are working to stop Agenda 21/2030, and those protecting property rights. Every issue has organizations working against the globalism being inculcated on every level of society. But parents must be parents; they must protect their children. Parents need to grow up and man up now, or they must accept the responsibility when their children become snowflakes, because that is the only product coming out of our schools (other than those addicted to the drugs prescribed them for ADD, ADHD, etc., brought on by the ‘teaching’ methods).

Our schools are the breeding ground for anti-individualism.

Throughout the whole cycle of public education the child’s relationship with his family complements and guides his relationship with his peers and school.

When the child is in preschool, his contact with his parents will be fairly intensive. The parents will actively participate in his education and spent considerable time in the institution itself. For this reason the institution should be close to the parents’ residence.

During that time of the child’s education in the general ‘s school community, the relationship with his parents changes in character. Contact becomes less frequent (only a few times a week) and is related to holidays. Hands the interaction of children and their parents make take place either with in the educational institution or in the parents’ home. In either case, it requires a specific and yet to be defined spatial organization. To some up: the first foundations of Communist personality are established in nurseries through the relationship of children with their peers and preschool groups the personality further develop some primary groups during the earliest grades. These are excellently suited to foster the unfolding of all aspects of a child’s potential.[2]

While millions of Americans now homeschool their children, too many more Americans have no idea why these parents are going to the trouble when there are ‘perfectly good schools in every neighborhood’. Twenty years ago Charlotte Iserbyt wrote The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, in hopes of waking up all of America to the mind controlling, morally relativistic, and bringing about radical change to the our educational system.

The system is working exactly as planned; the problem is that the American public has been fooled into thinking the plan is to educate our children. Oh, no. The plan is, as Iserbyt says, “. . . the gradual transformation of our once academically successful education system into one devoted to training children to become compliant human resources to be used by government and industry for their own purposes.”[3]

We are evolving now a systems of ethics which has three conceptions in regard to right, conscience and duty which are different from much of our former ethical teaching: (1) we do not follow right, we create right, (2) there is no private conscience, (3) my duty is never to ‘others’ but to the whole.

Man cannot live by taboos; that means stagnation. But as one taboo after another is disappearing, the call is upon us deliberately to build our own moral life. . . .. It is we by our acts who progressively construct the moral universe; to follow some preconceived body of law – that is not for responsible moral beings.

Teachers no long educate, they are now change agents teaching what the powers-that-be want our children to believe is reality when it is anything but. Again from Iserbyt, “The reason Americans do not understand this war is because it has been fought in secret—in the schools of our nation, targeting our children who are captive in classrooms. The wagers of this war are using very sophisticated and effective tools:

  • Hegelian Dialectic (common ground, consensus and compromise)
  • Gradualism (two steps forward; one step backward)
  • Semantic deception (redefining terms to get agreement without understanding).”[4]

Hegelian dialectic

an interpretive method, originally used to relate specific entities or events to the absolute idea, in which an assertable proposition (thesis) is necessarily opposed by its apparent contradiction (antithesis), and both reconciled on a higher level of truth by a third proposition (synthesis). from the Free Dictionary. Basically, it is like our Congress now – there are two ‘opposing’ sides who pretend to be bitter enemies looking for the best mediated answer. But that answer is where those two sides had decided to end up, but knew that it was not good for the citizens, just themselves, so they did this little dance to distract us from reality.

This war has been going on for over 150 years – talk about ‘gradualism’! From John Dewey, “Upon the ethical side, the tragic weakness of the present school is that it endeavors to prepare future members of the social order in a medium in which the conditions of the social spirit are eminently wanting.”

And John D. Rockefeller, “I don’t want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers.”

As to semantic deception, I’m sure every thinking person can identify it every day as we listen to MSM. It is the NewSpeak of today.

[1] http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656E.pdf

[2] Baburov et al, The Ideal Communist City, pp. 63,64

[3] Iserbyt, Charlotte The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, p. xi, 1999

[4] Ibid, p. xvii

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: GOING AFTER OUR FOOD SUPPLY

by Tom DeWeese

A couple weeks ago, Tom DeWeese sent out a letter about the World Wildlife Fund and beef. It reads in part:

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is one of the top three most powerful, radical, anti-free enterprise, UN environmental groups in the world.

And WWF has succeeded in taking over the American Cattle industry!

The WWF has forced cattlemen to follow radical Sustainable rules through the establishment of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

They are getting away with this industry grab because the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is now under the control of the World Wildlife Fund.

And the WWF’s Sustainable Roundtable now controls the beef packing industry which in turn controls the entire beef retail market. Cattlemen either toe the WWF dictates or are cut out of the industry.

That means cattlemen must follow massive regulations in order to produce American beef.

These rules ignore that fact that American cattlemen have always produced the highest grade of beef in the world – simply by using a process that has been used by their forefathers for generations.

The real result of these rules isn’t to produce a better beef product – but to destroy small producers and drive the industry to the massive corporate farms that can afford to play ball with the World Wildlife Fund.

Eventually, the WWF goal is to destroy the entire beef industry.

The World Wildlife Fund has openly stated its opposition to beef production. They insist that to “Save the Earth it is demanded that we change human consumption habits away from beef.” 

Here is what they said in a recent WWF report:

“Meat consumption is devastating some of the world’s most valuable and vulnerable regions, due to the vast amount of land needed to produce animal feed.”

This is the growing threat of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development and its stated purpose to “reorganize human society.”

And this is how they do it – one industry at a time.

In 1992, I wrote the following article for Putting People First, an organization I founded to combat the lies and aims of the animal rights movement. Animal rights is a false front; it is an attack on humans while pretending to care about animals. The leaders have no use for animals other than to change our culture and control our food supply. Many environmentalists and animal rightists go back and forth across the line that might separate them. For example, Paul Watson looked into the eye of a dying whale and saw that the whale “had pity for us.” Many ALF (Animal Liberation Front) ELF (Earth Liberation Front) members are the same people; terrorism on behalf of animals is as comfortable for them as on behalf of Gaia/mother earth.

“ANIMAL RIGHTS” HIDES UNDER ENVIRONMENTALISM

During the past two years, Putting People First has reported on arsons, bombings and attempted murder by “animal rights” activists. Our exposure of their terrorism has helped awaken the public to the true agenda of what we call the animal cult.

But as the morally bankrupt ideology of animalism has been exposed, its apologists have gone to ground, seeking cover under the more publicly-acceptable guise of “environmentalism.”

Most members of Putting People First consider themselves environmentalists, because we support wise use and conservation, and oppose environmental destruction (just as we support animal welfare and oppose animal abuse).

However, we also oppose attempts to remove people from the natural equation. We believe that only man can use science, reason and common sense to husband animals and other resources to the benefit of people, animals, and our common environment.

And the difference between conservation and “environmentalism” is no less than the difference between animal welfare and “animal rights.”

Jeremy Rifkin’s new vegetarian manifesto Beyond Beef hides its message behind a pseudoenvironmentalist facade. The supposedly “mainstream” Chesapeake Bay Foundation shared the podium with PeTA at “Vegetarian Expo ’92.” The radical Humane Society of the United States now calls its school-infiltration arm the National Association for Humane and Environmental Education. And the terrorist manual A Declaration of War by “Screaming Wolf’ is subtitled “Killing People to Save Animals and the Environment.”

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

I think the clearest example of the unity of environmentalism and animalism is the close relationship between the terrorist Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the “ecotage” group Earth First! These groups have been working together at least since 1987, when arsons at a California meat processing plant and livestock facility were claimed as joint ALF/Earth First! actions.

Since then. Earth First! Journal has published several laudatory articles about ALF, including one featuring Rod Coronado, the FBI’s leading suspect in several recent arsons. The March 1992 issue carried a terrorist “how-to” article with the ALF byline. The Journal is best known for trying to recruit “terminally ill AIDS patients” for “eco-kamikazee missions.”

Earth First! founder David Foreman is the former chief lobbyist for the Wilderness Society. He says, “Mankind could go extinct and I for one would not shed any tears.” Regarding the Ethiopian famine, Foreman gave this advice: “The worst thing we could do in Ethiopia is give aid. . .. The best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let people there starve.”

“As radical environmentalists, we can see AIDS not as a problem, but as a necessary solution,” says Foreman. “AIDS is a good thing, because it will thin out the population,” he adds. “If the AIDS epidemic didn’t exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent one.” And indeed, Earth First! Journal has solicited donations toward the development of what it calls “a species-specific virus to wipe out the human race.”

Foreman’s magazine Wild Earth recently opined that “phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth, social and environmental.” Foreman is not alone in this opinion. “Somewhere along the line—at about a million years ago, maybe half that—we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the earth,” writes David Graber, a biologist with the National Park Service. “Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”

Earth First! is best known for tree-spiking, although four of its leaders were recently convicted of conspiracy to sabotage a nuclear power plant in Arizona. Two Earth First! members, Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney, were seriously injured when a bomb they were transporting exploded prematurely in Bari’s car in Oakland, California. B­ari and Cherney’s legal fees were paid by Greenpeace, on whose board sits Earth First! co-founder Michael Roselle.

Sierra Club lobbyist David Brower openly defends Earth First!, saying, “They’re not terrorists. The real terrorists are the polluters, the despoilers.” Brower argues that childbearing should be “a punishable crime against society unless the parents hold a government license.” All potential parents, he says, should be “required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

According to Brower, “I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded the Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.”

Just as “animal rights” terrorists and their apologists infiltrated and took over many traditional animal welfare groups and local humane societies, so have anti-human “Greens” infiltrated and taken over many traditional conservation groups.

It is time to flush these varmints out. We have had great success educating the public about the difference between animal welfare and “animal rights.” Now it is time to educate them about the difference between conservation and “environmentalism.”

In 1992, the National Cattlemen’s Association (NCA) was run by true pioneers and American patriots. Like many organizations that represent meat, milk, circuses, rodeos, zoos, medical research, wool, leather, fur, silk, and pet ownership, the NCA has been co-opted one way or the other to turn it’s back on those who they represent; those who built and feed America.

As you can see, both animal rights and the so-called environmental movement are not friends of humans, animals, or the earth. But they are double-teaming us to take away our rights and freedoms.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/01/04/going-after-our-food-supply/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: A Challenge to The American Planning Association

A Challenge to The American Planning Association- 

“…it’s interesting to note that the American Planning Association is part of the Planners Network.”

by Tom DeWeese

In nearly every community of the nation the policy called Sustainable is the catch-all term for local planning programs, from water and energy controls to building codes and traffic planning. The term “sustainable” was first used in the 1987 report called “Our Common Future,’ issued by the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development (UNCED).  The term appeared in full force in 1992 in a United Nations initiative called Agenda 21.

According to proponents, the official definition of Sustainable Development is “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  In 1993, the UN further described its purpose, saying, “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” The most often used phrase to describe Sustainable policy is that it’s a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”

These are strong pronouncements concerning our future. How could such ideas be imposed? Who could coordinate such an effort to reorganize our entire society? There are many private non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government agencies involved in creating and implementing the national sustainable policy program on the state and local levels. But there is one that seems to stand in the center of them all.

The American Planning Association (APA) is the premier planning group operating across the nation. It has a long history in the development process, thus is trusted by elected officials to be a responsible force as they spread the gospel of “common sense” community planning to assure healthy, happy neighborhoods from which all may benefit. Above all, the APA strenuously denies any connection to the United Nations or any silly conspiracy theories like the so-called Agenda 21! Everything the APA promotes, they assure us, is based on local input for local solutions to local development planning. Here is a solid group you can trust!

So, it’s interesting to note that the American Planning Association is part of the Planners Network. The network is officially run by a group called the Organization of Progressive Planners. According to the Network’s website, it’s “an association of professionals, activists, academics, and students involved in physical, social, economic, and environmental planning in urban and rural areas, who promote fundamental change in our political and economic systems.”

On a visit to the website PlannersNetwork.org, one will find in its Statement of Principles this quote: “We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources…and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society … because the free market has proven incapable of doing this.”

That statement is advocating redistribution of wealth, social justice and even aspects of psychological manipulation, also called social engineering. That, then, is what nearly every planning group in nearly every community advocate in their planning programs. It is clearly the official policy of the American Planning Association. Still the APA insists that its planning has nothing to do with Agenda 21, even though APA’s planning goals are the exact goals of Agenda 21, and its undated version called the 2030Agenda.

Tactics used by the American Planning Association

Okay, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. How do planning groups like the APA really control opinions and gain support for their planning ideas? How do they overcome the fears as they impose plans that destroy private property and change the entire structure of the community?

Here’s a recent example:

A few years ago, with great fanfare, the American Planning Association (APA) reported results of a survey the group had conducted, “Planning America: Perceptions and Priorities,” showing that the anti-Agenda 21 “crowd is slim.” Said the report, only 6% of those surveyed expressed opposition to Agenda 21, while 9% expressed support for Agenda 21 and 85%, “the vast majority of respondents, don’t know about Agenda 21/2030.”

Typically, APA is using the survey to formulate the image that opponents to Agenda 21/Sustainable Development are just a lunatic fringe with no standing and of no consequence in the “real” world. They continue to portray Agenda 21 as simply a 20- year-old idea, and just a suggestion that planners and local governments might consider.

However, a closer look at the full survey, plus additional APA reports reveal some interesting and, in some cases, astounding facts.

First the survey:

It was designed to show public support for “Planning.” This has become an obsession with the “planning community” because of the growing opposition to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development.

According to the APA, the findings of the Survey reveal that: only one-third believe their communities are doing enough to address economic situations; it says that very few Americans believe that market forces alone (the free market) improve the economy or encourage job growth; 84 % feel that their community is getting worse or staying the same; community planning is seen as needed by a wide majority of all demographics.

Those are pretty astounding findings. It looks like these “honest” planners have their fingers on the pulse of the nation. Well, not so fast. Let’s look at the actual questions the APA asked to get these results.

For example, Finding #4: Community planning is seen as needed by a wide majority of all demographics (79% agree; 9% disagree; and 12% don’t know). Wow!

But here is the actual question that was asked: “Generally, do you agree or disagree that your community could benefit from a community plan as defined above?” The definition provided in order to answer the question was this: “Community planning is a process that seeks to engage all members of a community to create more prosperous, convenient, equitable, healthy and attractive places for present and future generations.”

Asking the question in that manner is akin to holding up a picture of a rent-a-wreck car,  along side one of a Ferrari and asking which one would they want to drive. Give me the pretty one please – say 79%. In fact, in some actual planning meetings they do just that – hold up a picture of the downtown area depicting decaying, dreary buildings versus one of a shining, beautiful utopia, and they literally say, “which one do you want?” If the answer is (of course) the pretty one, then, YES, the community supports planning!

It’s obvious that the APA is playing word games with its surveys and definitions of planning. No wonder such an overwhelming majority answer in the affirmative to such questions. And, yes, maybe a lot of Americans don’t know what Agenda 21 really is. However, if the APA asked real questions that gave a solid clue as to the planning they actually have in mind, it’s fairly certain they would get a much different response – whether the person answering had ever heard of Agenda 21 or not.

For example, listed below are some sample questions that could help the APA take the real pulse of the community – if they wanted to be honest. I challenge the American Planning Association to ask

THESE questions in their next survey:

10 Real Questions Planners Should Ask the Public

1. How do the citizens feel about planning policy that forces them to move from their single- family homes with the garage for the car/s and a backyard for the kids to play with the neighbor kids? Do they want to live in a high-rise where they have to take their kids down 12 flights of stairs and walk to the designated play park? Do they still support such “Planning?”

2. How do the citizens feel about planning with a goal to eventually ban cars? This will be accomplished by planning programs that will narrow or eliminate roads, making it harder to drive cars, then eliminates parking spaces, then forces cars to “share the road” with bicycles and foot traffic as regulations are put in place to make it illegal to even pass this slower traffic? Do they still support such “Planning?”

3. How do the citizens feel about planning that enforces the creation of light- rail public transportation with a limited number of riders – yet cost overruns could triple or quadruple their taxes so much that it would literally be cheaper to buy each potential rider a brand new Rolls Royce, and even throw in a chauffeur for good measure? Do they want to live without a car that would take them wherever they want to go, be it the grocery or the beach, on their schedule instead of a government created train or bus schedule? Do they still support such “Planning?”

4. How do the citizens feel about planning with today’s mandatory smart meters that can overcharge users by 284%? What if such planning forced you to buy all new appliances which can be controlled and even turned off by the utility company without warning – all to enforce energy-use levels as required by arbitrary and unsubstantiated “planning standards,” Do they still support such “Planning?”

5. How do the citizens feel about planning that forces taxpayers to pay for plug-in stations for electric cars that hardly anyone wants or uses, for the specific purpose of eventually forcing people to buy electric cars? Do they still support such “Planning?”

6. How do the citizens feel about planning that creates non-elected boards, councils, and regional governments to enforce their UN-inspired policies, which actually diminish (if not eliminate) the power of the local officials they elected, severely reducing citizen input into policy? Do they still support such “Planning?”

7. How do the citizens feel about planning that forces all housing to conform to specific government design, including projects of multi-family buildings that are forced into their neighborhoods, resulting in the reduction of property values and freedom of choice as to where and how each may live? Do they still support such “Planning?”

8. How do the citizens feel about planning that enforces international building codes and international electrical and plumbing codes designed to require major retrofitting in existing and new buildings to comply, including enforcing every building to look alike, have the same setbacks and even the same trees and shrubs. The result is the creation of a one size fits all society, ignoring local needs and desires of the residents? Do they still support “Planning?”

9. How do the citizens feel about planning that forces rental property owners and landlords to take in tenants that can’t afford their properties, so that they are forced to accept far less income for their investment, which will mean they cannot afford to maintain the property and earn their living,  thereby destroying the rental industry and reducing housing choices? Do they still support “Planning?”

10. How do the citizens feel about planning that uses the power of eminent domain to take property and destroy small, locally owned businesses from lower income and ethnic neighborhoods, forcing the former residents into federal housing programs where their only option is to rent rather than having the chance to build equity and personal wealth through home ownership in the American Dream? Do they still have compassion for such “Planning?”

These are the realities of Sustainable Development planning programs, usually under the term Smart Growth. These policies are taking over local governments across the nation and the victims are mounting. Yet the planners ignore these results as they get fat off the federal grants that enforce the Sustainable plans.

Challenge the American Planning Association to stop whitewashing their plans into sounding like innocent, non-intrusive local ideas for community development. Ask the questions so that they reflect the real consequences of the plans, and then see if the 85% now are so eager to ignore the effects of Sustainable Development. The number one truth about the Sustainable policies that the APA imposes on every community is that none of it is LOCAL!

There is only one right approach for a community to come together to discuss and solve common problems: open discussion, honest debates and votes, and above all, a full concentration on the protection of private property rights as the ultimate decider.

This article is taken from information included in Tom DeWeese’s new book, “Sustainable, The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property, and Individuals.” Book details and ordering may be found at www.sustainabledevelopment.com

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/04/04/a-challenge-to-the-american-planning-association/?mc_cid=6366d56868&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Tom DeWeeese: Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society

Sustainable Development-Code for Reorganizing Human Society 

by Tom DeWeese

It’s in every community in the nation. We hear it talked about in county commission meetings and state legislatures. It’s even used in advertising as a positive practice for food processing and auto sales. It’s used as the model for building materials, power sources and transportation policy. It’s sold as the bold visionary plan for the future. The nation is being transformed under the banner of “Sustainable Development.”

We are assured by elected officials that Sustainable Development is simply a tool or a guideline to help direct the carefully-planned growth of our cities and rural areas while protecting our natural resources for future generations. “We must guard against a chaotic, unregulated growth in our cities,” say its earnest proponents as they sell the concept through familiar, non-threatening words and beautiful pictures.

Citizens are assured by their community leaders that all such plans are just local, local, local, created with the participation of the whole community. Sustainable Development policy, they say, is just an environmental land conservation policy, a sensible development policy. Sustainable…what’s wrong with that?

Read Tom Deweese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

As usual, the answers are hidden in the details. Are we hearing the truth? What are the consequences of the policy that has taken over every level of government? Are there hidden dangers most just can’t see? Or, as its proponents claim, is opposition to Sustainable Development really just a silly, overblown conspiracy theory found in a twenty-year-old meaningless document called Agenda 21?

The UN’s Brundtland Commission on Global Governance described Sustainable Development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future.” It’s just common sense to assure we don’t overuse our resources, say proponents. If everyone will do their part, we can achieve total sustainability.

A couple of years later, in 1992, at the UN’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates approved a plan describing in great detail how to meet those future needs. They issued a document called Agenda 21, which the UN labeled as a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The UN sold Agenda 21 as a “soft law” policy, meaning it was an idea that nations would need to take up and impose through their own mechanisms.

To that end, in 1993, newly elected President Bill Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Serving on the Council were the representative of nearly every federal agency, along with representatives of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) who had helped to write Agenda 21 on the international level. Also on the Council were representatives of major global corporations. Their task was to create the policies to turn the Agenda 21 goals into official government policy and provide the means to fund it.

The President’s Council released a report describing its Sustainable Development goals, saying, “Sustainable communities encourage people to work together to create healthy communities where natural resources and historic resources are preserved, jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure, education is lifelong, transportation and health care is accessible, and all citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives.”    

It all sounds pretty neat. Nothing to fear here! It sounds like Utopia is truly ours for the taking. Again, what are the details? How do we put such ideas into action? What are the consequences? Is the environment better off? Are we better off? Well, let’s take each of these glowing ideas one at a time and just see where it all leads! CONTINUE READING

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2017/07/10/barbarians-at-the-school-house-door/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: Agenda 21/2030 Foreshadows Convention of States

Agenda 21/2030 Foreshadows Convention of States – “Every state in the U.S., every nation on the planet that had signed onto U.N. Agenda 21…”

by Tom DeWeese

The recently installed speed tables around the mall are too high, the asphalt around is crumbling, and deep pools of rain water are gathering around them as there is no proper drainage. These were totally unnecessary; on any given day traffic is backed up and very slow, nobody is speeding. They were installed to make it more difficult for people to use their cars to go shopping; the regional planners want residents to use the new Metro line and the bus lines already in existence. They want to “nudge” Americans out of their cars.

The entire area is now extremely congested thanks to the many high-rise, mixed-use apartments overbuilt to suffocating capacity. The construction of the Metro line eliminated more driving roads and businesses.
The EZPass lanes from the Beltway were reallocated without much input from the American taxpayers and given to investors who now scalp drivers during rush hour by as much as $30 per 8-mile commute one way. Because the average commuter cannot afford such confiscatory rates, now the interstate is even more congested.

Before EZPass, when the lanes were HOV, anybody could use the lanes for free during non-rush hours and during rush hour if they had 2-3 occupants per car. It seemed very equitable; these roads were built with taxpayer’s money. The investing group claimed that they had spent a few billions in improvements.

Bicycle paths are being built everywhere, downtowns are closed to traffic completely, streets are narrowed to make driving more inconvenient, parking lots are eliminated, parking garages charge exorbitant fees, and high-rises are built without any parking spaces, all in an effort to discourage Americans to own a car and eventually to force them into public transportation.

New York boasts 400 miles of bike paths; they have transformed Times Square into a pedestrian zone, “equity of space” as planners said, where everyone can relax and spend quality time with each other rather than alone in cars, driving all the time. What if one needs to rush somewhere?

Read 
Tom DeWeese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

Millennials are first in line to advocate for bike paths, but I don’t see any of them biking to work on the dangerous Beltway to and from D.C.; they are usually alone in their Beamers.
I am familiar with the proletariat masses having no cars during my years of living under a communist regime. We stayed close to home, within a 40-mile radius by bus or train, or as far as we could bike, or our feet could carry us. But the ruling elite had chauffeurs, elegant cars, and planes at their disposal.

Progressives are telling us or forcing us to tighten our carbon footprint belts; use less water, less air conditioning, less electricity; eat less meat; drive tin can Smart Cars; and build tiny apartments, while they live in mega mansions by the sea, sail in huge yachts, ride in limos, jet around the world to resorts and climate change conferences, and own many expensive cars running on fossil fuels.

Most people don’t know that all these changes are deliberate and have been implemented for decades under the aegis of United Nations’ Agenda 21/2030 and sold to Americans as Sustainable Development, regionalism, and Smart Growth/Green Growth, encompassing every facet of our lives.

Every state in the U.S., every nation on the planet that had signed onto U.N. Agenda 21 in 1992 is now a victim of Sustainable Development, the lynchpin of U.N. Agenda 21/2030, of social engineering, of regionalism, of urbanism, and of the “nudge” out of cars and into public transportation, buses, light rail, and long distance trains. Read More

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2017/05/26/agenda-212030-foreshadows-convention-of-states/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: The Renewed Drive to Exit the United Nations

 The Renewed Drive to Exit the United Nations – “The United Nations, internally, is a mess. It now finds itself buried under scandals.”

by Tom DeWeese

Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers has introduced a new bill (H.R. 193) to end U.S. membership in the United Nations. The bill is the reintroduction of his American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 1205) from the last Congress. And of course, that was basically the same bill introduced year after year by former Congressman Ron Paul. In the past, both Paul’s and Roger’s bills have been ignored by Congress, but things are changing. Americans are beginning to understand the UN threat. Obama has actually stood before the UN General Assembly and called for Americans to surrender our national sovereignty to this world body.

As Obama worked feverishly to build UN intrusion into our lives through actions like Agenda 21 and by joining the UN’s Strong Cities Network to militarize our police, the rest of the world has started to revolt against UN global policies that are destroying their national independence and economies.

The Brexit vote in England was the shockwave heard around the world. The European Union is the first such organization of the UN’s goal to create such unions in every region of the world, including North and South American Unions; an Asian Union and so forth. The EU was to be the wave of the future. England struggled under its shackles until it could no longer stand it and so revolted. As the vote came in suddenly other members of the EU started thinking – if England can escape, why not them? Suddenly the global New World Order juggernaut has begun to show cracks.

Meanwhile France is about to elect its own Trump-style president ready to pull back its global policies as Italy rebels in its own way. Worst of all for the UN globalists, their one excuse for power, Climate Change, is being discredited as President Elect Trump prepares to throw out the Paris Treaty along with the TPP.

However, it was the most recent Obama shenanigans in allowing a massive UN attack on Israel over its settlements in favor of a non-existent Palestine that has created the strongest ever anti-UN sentiment in the U.S. Pulling back on paying UN dues has been expressed by several in Congress as support for such a sentiment has begun to grow across the nation. Without the United States and its money the UN is nothing. It will cease to exist in a very short time, just as did the old League of Nations.

Now, to feed that growing sentiment Congressman Rogers has again introduced the legislative means to make it happen. This time more and more Americans are listening. To help readers understand why the UN is such a threat to our nation and freedom-loving people everywhere, I am reissuing my opening statement given in a debate over the UN before the 200 year old English debating society, Cambridge Union in 2006. At the time I was debating the former UK Ambassador, Lord David Hanney; the head of the Liberal Party and member of Parliament, Simon Hughes; and the head of the UN Millennium Project, Salil Shetty.

Representative Mike Rogers’ H.R. 193 must now be seriously considered and passed by Congress. The time is finally here to make a strong stand to get the United States out of the United Nations.

Opening Statement by Tom DeWeese: Before the Cambridge Union Society, Cambridge University–October 26, 2006

“This House believes that the United Nations is a dead loss.”
 It is reasonable that honest, compassionate people seek a means for governments to come together to discuss and air their differences. It is also reasonable that honest, compassionate people should desire some way to voluntarily pool resources to provide charitable aid to those who are starving or are victims of natural disaster.

Indeed this is the image of the United Nations that has been sold to the world since its inception.
It is not, however, the reality. The world is in chaos and, quite frankly, it’s the UN’s fault. It gives validity to zealots and petty bigots. It helps to keep tyrannical dictators in power. It gives a voice to international terrorists.

Delay. Negotiate. Recommend. Study. Reconsider. Do nothing. This is the game the UN has played in nearly every international crisis. It is the reason North Korea remains a threat after 50 years. It is the reason Zimbabwe’s murderous Robert Mugabe is able to steal his election and then steal the land of white property owners, drive the nation into economic ruin and starvation without an international protest, boycott, or sanction. Instead, Mugabe is given a voice in the UN’s Sustainable Development conference in South Africa.

It is the reason why the Chinese government is able to ignore UN rules not to its liking — while growing as an international military and economic threat. And it is the reason why a terrorist nation like Syria can be given a seat on the UN’s Human Rights Council. The United Nations, internally, is a mess. It now finds itself buried under scandals. It has Oil-for-Food scandals. Smuggling scandals. And theft scandals.

Peace keeping missions actually bring fear to the local citizens they are supposed to protect. Rob, rape and pillage seem to be the UN’s modus operandi. How can we be surprised by such revelations? Who has the power to oversee and control its actions? The people don’t vote on UN actions. The media has little access behind the scenes. Who audits the accounting books?

Of course, even its supporters will readily agree that such problems exist. They are quick to jump in and call for “reform.” However, when talking reform, one must be very careful of what the word may mean.
UN reports on reform don’t indicate a simple desire to plug holes in UN spending — or to clear up scandals. Quite the contrary. According to Kofi Annan, Maurice Strong and many others, reform means global governance.

Since its inception, the UN has advocated the desire to eradicate sovereign nations — while imposing what it calls “world-mindedness.” A 1949 UNESCO document said, “nationalism (is) the major obstacle to the development of world-mindedness.” In the 1990’s, Maurice Strong said, “it is not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation/states, however powerful.”

There in lies the true goal of the United Nations. And that belies its public image as simply a place where nations may come to air their differences and act responsibly. Instead, the UN is openly working to gain power for itself in order to become independent and supreme over its member nations.

To do that it needs the power to tax. On September 19th (2006) plans were approved to begin the creation of a global tax, mostly through airline tickets to help pay for the treatment of aids. They of course euphemistically call it a contribution. There are several other tax schemes on the UN wish list, including a carbon tax on Co2 emissions, a currency tax on transactions of foreign currency exchanges, and taxes on the Internet, to name a few. If the UN gains the power to tax and the enforcement power necessary to collect them, then the UN will become an unstoppable force in the world. A monster free from its chains.

Read 
Tom DeWeese’s book, “Erase: A Political Thriller”

And, of course, the UN wants its own military. It already has its own court. These three things; the ability to collect taxes to provide nearly unlimited funds from independent sources; the ability to enforce its will with a military force; and a court system to impose its own brand of justice, are all that is required to create a government.

Imagine a world run by the justice of China, with the economics of Cuba and the military might of the United States. Such is the world of the future under United Nations global governance. Public relations propaganda aside, clearly, the United Nations wants to be much more than a place where nations can come together to air their differences under a voluntary membership association.

The truth is, today, fifty years after the inception of the United Nations, the international community is a dangerous place. Today the world has more wars, more poverty and more suffering that anytime in human history. Obviously, the United Nations is irrelevant as a body to deliver world peace. Just as obviously, the UN is more interested in meddling in the sovereign affairs of nations, seeking to impose its own agenda over development, production and what it calls social equity in a drive to set itself up for global governance.

Using images of dire environmental emergencies or life-threatening diseases or starving children, the UN promotes an agenda which really seeks to redistribute the world’s wealth. Its only answer is government control – and confiscation of individual wealth and property.

Nowhere is there mentioned in a single UN document that I have read an advocacy for the right to own private property. In fact, quite the opposite is the case as nearly every UN document, report, working paper, program, treaty, protocol, declaration and resolution is dedicated to the confiscation, redistribution, regulation and tax of someone’s property.

It is a fact that the inability to own private property creates poverty. It is also a fact that confiscation of private property never helps to eradicate poverty. It is bad economic policy. Yet that is the UN’s only solution to the massive suffering throughout the world. Take it from one source to give to another. And that, I contend, is the very root of the suffering – not the solution.

The UN was wrong from its very beginning and wrong now because it has always sought to interfere with national sovereignty rather than to provide a unique forum to help keep the peace. The United Nations is not “dysfunctional” as some “reformists” have claimed. It is a criminal enterprise in which no moral nation should ever participate, let alone perpetuate.

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

COP21: It’s All about Power

COP21: It’s All about Power

by Bill Lockwood

It’s all about power. It always has been. From the beginning American Constitutional ideals were cherished precisely because they unchained the God-given freedom that European power-brokers and monarchial governments had disallowed. The current shredding of the Constitution via Climate Change hysteria promoted by President Obama at the United Nations Climate Summit (COP21) in Paris and the resulting crystallization of World Government brings us back to the power of kings and queens. It never has been about climate or greenhouse gases, but control.

Genius of the Constitution
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, boiled down the entire genius of the Constitution in Federalist #45. “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite. The former [powers of the federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with the last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”

Federal government power was to remain restrained by defining its authority and listing its several powers. This grant by the people defined exactly the role it was to play. Article 1, Section 8 sets forward approximately 20, that is only TWENTY, powers delegated by the people to the federal government. Madison continues regarding the numerous and indefinite powers granted to state governments. “The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperity of the state.”

State government power, as oppose to the federal government oversight, was to care for the concerns of individuals and families and communities. Why? For the simple fact that one might be able to affect a change at local levels much more simply than at a federal level. This is the essence of freedom. Are there concerns about education? About energy? About banking? About the marketplace? About jobs and salary? These are to be local concerns. Handled at a state and county level. James Wilson, a Constitutional delegate from Pennsylvania, member of the Continental Congress, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and one who ranked as the “foremost in legal and political knowledge …acquainted with man, … and all the political institutions of the world in detail” observed this regarding FREE GOVERNMENTS:

When you examine all its parts, they will invariably be found to preserve that essential mark of free governments …” — What is that MARK of ALL FREE GOVERNMENTS? Having examined all governments of the world, what did Wilson say was that insignia of freedom? “ … a chain of connection with the people.” A chain of connection with the people is the key to retaining freedom. Conversely, allowing power and control to gravitate to the federal level results in the loss of freedom—let alone empowering an international body of unelected bureaucrats which will manage the economies amongst nations–all in the name of “saving the planet from pollution and greenhouse gases,” as proposed by Obama at COP21. This is a certain recipe for rampant tyranny.

President Obama’s supporters love to cheer him on by reminding us that he is a “Constitutional lawyer.” Nonsense. He has only studied “case law” and that as a means by which he can overturn Constitutional freedoms. He only knows enough to get our nation into trouble. The blueprint for World Government ruled by unelected socialist, Marxist, and Muslim elites is now in its final stages and the Paris Summit is all about that.

Maurice Strong
As this article is being composed, news comes of the death of Maurice Strong, the globalist who is most responsible for empowering the “deadly agreement” called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, having served as the UN Secretary General during 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. One hundred sovereign nations signed it.

It reads like a dream-come-true to all the Stalins, Mao’s, and Hitler’s of the world. Note particularly the portions which herein have been bolded. Can any clearer statement of grasping for power be composed? “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth…It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…Effective execution of AGENDA 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced—a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.” (Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet)

In an article written by Antonio Scorza this week is included this personal reflection from Maurice Strong. It mirrors the “Strategy to Save the Planet.” A map for an all-powerful one-world-government.Strong opined, “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental co-operation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of global environmental security.” Most pundits are getting it wrong. Obama is not more interested in the Environment than the personal safety of Americans. He burns more jet fuel than any of us. His agenda is POWER.

Back to Homepage

 

Restructuring HUD

RESTRUCTURING HUD

by Bill Lockwood

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government … (Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801).

From the days of the Progressives in the late 19th century until today, the march of failed ungodly socialism as a government concept continues unopposed in any meaningful manner. The History of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is a perfect example. Beginning in 1892 when Congress appropriated $20,000 for the Secretary of Labor to “study slums” in American cities through the Public Works Administration of Franklin Roosevelt which Hamilton Fish (R-NY) rightly called “a concrete example of the socialistic tendencies of the New Deal,” the American experiment in freedom is foundering because of government interference programs such as HUD.

But no matter. Utopian meddlers such as President Obama continue pushing headlong toward a totalitarian cliff of destruction.  Adding more regulations supposedly designed to help “diversify” America’s wealthier neighborhoods, he recently announced a new HUD program aimed at ending deep-rooted racial and financial segregation in America. As every other unconstitutional federal agency and program, HUD’s mission has now mutated its purpose. Under Obama’s leftward lead HUD moves from “assisting” the impoverished to restructuring neighborhoods along racial lines. A good reason why government should not be in the redistribution business to begin with.
The result of Obama’s proposal is not hard to see. First, the continuing erosion of freedom. As Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) observed in response, “American citizens and communities should be free to choose where they would like to live and not be subject to federal neighborhood engineering at the behest of an overreaching federal government.” Gosar is courageously leading an effort in the House to block the massive Obama regulations.
Second, the continuing erosion of Americans’ property values. Much of what drives real estate value and cost is the “quality of the surrounding property.” As one blogger wrote, “Wedging lower cost housing into expensive neighborhoods will not result in more minorities living in expensive neighborhoods – it will instead result in there being no such thing as an expensive neighborhood anymore.”

But more than that. Obama’s new HUD scheme will literally disintegrate home equity. Many families have tied their life-savings into home equity and property value as an investment for future retirement or to pass it along to their heirs. But, just as the printing of paper currency by the FED unfairly erodes the value of my dollar in a savings account, so forcibly restructuring neighborhoods violates the very purpose of good government—the protection of my labor.
Third, the continuing theft of the American worker. According to the Cato Institute the public housing subsidies, rental assistance, and housing finance activities have proven to be costly and damaging to the economy. The department’s poor management and misguided policies have led to fraud, corruption, and waste. The department will spend $42 billion in 2015, or about $341 for every U.S. household. It employs 8,600 workers and operates 116 subsidy programs.”
Each and every dollar HUD spends is unconstitutionally confiscated from the American taxpayer but its burgeoning budget reflects the nature of socialism.

What Does Freedom Look Like? The Cato Institute website summarizes well. “The Department of Housing and Urban Development intervenes in housing and community activities that should be the responsibility of local governments and the private sector.”
To see what freedom looks like– for regrettably, Americans need to be reminded at this point– glance at the churches. What population mixes are there? A typical residential southern community will have a large proportion of minorities and western neighborhoods are heavily influenced by the Hispanic population.  Government may mix them all together in housing, but left to their own free choice, as in the places they choose to worship, the picture looks very different.

It is possible in one community to worship with a mixed-race congregation but at the same time in the same township one may find several black churches, white churches, Hispanic churches or Asian churches. Why is this? Left alone, which is the proper role of government, some people prefer mingling among people with whom they feel they have more in common. This is the result of individual free choice and not government “churching.”

For example, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is listed as part of the fellowship affiliated with the United Church of Christ denomination. The denomination as a whole is “predominantly white.” Yet, the Trinity Church, in which the Obama’s held membership under Jeremiah Wright, is “predominantly black.” This grouping is the outcome based upon freedom.
Typical for liberal Democrats and socialists, the Obama’s appreciated the free choice, but through HUD are denying other Americans that same freedom in choosing a place to live.

Back to Homepage