Tag Archives: Agenda 21

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