Tag Archives: Kathleen Marquardt

Kathleen Marquardt: THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION = PLANNED DYSTOPIA 5 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

Klaus Schwab has been someone in the background of global machinations for many decades. He is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) which he formed in 1971 (fifty years ago) as an International NGO (one of the way too many “civil society” partners of the United Nations). The majority of these NGOs are there to promote and embed Agenda 21/2030/The Green New Deal into every country, no matter how small, in the world. Schwab’s WEF was set up to push Public-Private Cooperation, in other words, fascism, across the globe.

Kimberly Amadeo, President of World Money Watch defines fascism as: “a brutal economic system in which a supreme leader and their government controls the private entities that own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. A central planning authority directs company leaders to work in the national interest, which actively suppresses those who oppose it”.[i]

To simplify and clarify what Public-Private Partnerships PPPs) are:

In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:

During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”

Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.

Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.

Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:

Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.

Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.

Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.

Tom nails it:  Public/Private Partnerships = Government-Sanctioned Monopolies

It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.

That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.

Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.[ii]

For fifty years the WEF has been using these PPPs to cancel any liberty, individual freedom, and take property rights from individuals. Agenda 21! The Public Private Partnerships are a big tool in relieving us of our property, liberty, and control of our nation. PPPs and Regionalism, with its unelected governing bodies, work hand in hand to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law.

As society breaks down, the globalists welcome the anarchy, chaos, and general social unrest. Next, they need a defining event.

What drew Schwab to set up the WEF?

“The most influential group that spurred the creation of Klaus Schwab’s symposium was the Club of Rome, an influential think tank of the scientific and monied elite that mirrors the World Economic Forum in many ways, including in its promotion of a global governance model led by a technocratic elite. The Club had been founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish chemist Alexander King during a private meeting at a residence owned by the Rockefeller family in Bellagio, Italy.”[iii]

The Club of Rome spelled out what they view as the true enemy:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.[iv]”

Realizing that back in the ‘70s, when the above was written, the masses weren’t yet dumbed-down enough to accept that they needed to join VHEMT, the voluntary human extinction movement. The globalist Marxist Left decided a New Ice Age would fit the bill of a major crisis that only they could fix. Oops, it didn’t happen. So, let’s flip it to Global Warming (to go along with the hole in the ozone. Of course, the Earth wasn’t warming. Tweak that, voila, Climate Change. Ignore the fact that the climate changes four times a year, and sometimes daily.

No matter the science. We are facing an apocalyptic threat.

Maurice Strong, former Undersecretary General of the UN, Sec. Gen. of UN Conference on the Environment, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, was called a visionary and a “pioneer of global sustainable development. He was the secretary-general of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit which unveiled Agenda 21, the culmination of decades of scheming, planning, and cajoling to bring about a global government via the UN. He was also a close friend of Klaus Schwab, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and many of the rogues’ gallery of One-World government advocates.

In interviews that Strong did with two reporters in Canada wanting to write about their golden boy, both times he talked about his vision of the future. The early vision focused on the WEF:

“Each year, the Word Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics, gather in February. to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.

 What if a small group of these world leaders were to form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse? It’s February. They are all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered a panic using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies. They’ve jammed the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries . . . I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”[v]

Does this sound familiar? Sure sounds plausible to me. In his second theoretical vision, Strong dreams, “what if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive those rich countries would have to sign an agreement, reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no”. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, a group decides ‘isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse’.”[vi]

It’s in the works now; it has been for decades. But a statement that most overlook, but it shows that the people on the Left, the globalists, the Fabians, the cultural Marxists, the Communists are all looking for the right bait, the right evil foe to attack.

Strong and Klaus Schwab were good friends; they were also close with David Rockefeller. They were (are, in Schwab’s case) members of that not so secret, secret society, the Bilderburg Group. The Bilderburg Group is approximately 130 political leaders from Europe and North America who meet once a year for informal discussions about major issues. “The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”[vii]

According to Schwab, the fourth Industrial Revolution provides the potential “to robotize humanity, and thus compromise our traditional sources of meaning—work, community, family, identity.[viii]” He also predicts that it will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness.[ix]” And it will “upend the existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering”. That was a statement from 2015, so don’t think he hasn’t been pushing this for a long time. Now his edicts are getting more definitive, “Even our thinking and behavior will have to dramatically shift. We must have a new social contract centered on Social Justice. We need a change of mindset, moving from short-term to long-term thinking, moving from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder responsibility (ed. note: PPPs). Environmental, social and good governance have to be a measured part of corporate and governmental accountability.”[x][xi]

While Schwab is predicting that his Industrial Revolution will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness”, Dr. Anthon Mueller, a German professor of economics, wrote, “The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030 —because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.”

Johnny Vedmore at Unlimited Hangout writes, “At the Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in January 2021, Schwab stressed that the building of trust would be integral to the success of the Great Reset, signalling a subsequent expansion of the initiative’s already massive public relations campaign. Though Schwab called for the building of trust through unspecified “progress,” trust is normally facilitated through transparency. Perhaps that is why so many have declined to trust Mr. Schwab and his motives, as so little is known about the man’s history and background prior to his founding of the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s.”

The Global Technology Governance Summit (GTGS) of the World Economic Forum, meeting in Tokyo (and virtual) the first week of April 2021 has a number of documents to be discussed. One, Harnessing new technologies, states:

“Industry transformation: No industry has been untouched by the global response to COVID-19. The world can no longer operate as it has, and as such markets will have to respond to its new and evolving needs. To survive, every business in the world will have to become a technology company. – Government transformation: The transformation of government will be front and centre in the area of digital infrastructure as technology services become an essential public utility comparable to electricity, water or roads.” In simple terms, Pubic Private Partnerships. The government controls, the businesses follow government orders.

In one of the best articles I’ve read on the Great Reset, Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Great Nonsense of “The Great Reset”, is this:

[S]ocialism . . . is . . . the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with . . . the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment . . . . [C]apitalism must be monitored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism.”    Robert Heilbroner, “After Capitalism,” The New Yorker, Sept. 10, 1990

The above quotation by socialist economist, the late Robert Heilbroner, was written in the context of an article that lamented and mourned the worldwide collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. The great debate between capitalism and socialism was over, he said, and Ludwig von Mises was right about socialism all along, said a man who had spent the past half century promoting socialism in his teaching, speaking, and writing. But do not despair, he told his fellow socialists, for there is one more trick up our sleeves, namely, the Trojan Horse of achieving socialism under the guise of ‘environmentalism.’

“The basic strategy was then, as it is now, to constantly frighten the gullible public with predictions of The End of the World from environmental catastrophe unless we abandon capitalism and adopt socialist central planning. This has always been the one constant theme of the environmentalist movement (not to be confused with the conservation movement which is actually interested in the health of the planet and the humans who occupy it) since the 1960s.  It ignores the fact that the twentieth-century socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China had by far the worse environmental problems on the planet, orders of magnitude worse than in the capitalist countries.”

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller at a 1994 UN Dinner

Can a combination of two fraud emergencies, COVID and Climate Change, be the crises that will usher in the globalist dream of a New World Order? If so, and if the inhabitants of what remains of the free world do not get off their duffs and wake up to this threat, Klaus Schwab et al will have achieved the “global transformation” they have spent 100+ years to achieve.

I for one want to see them fail. We, the useless eaters, the nobodies, can stop them. All we have to do is turn over the rock they are under and let the sun shine in. Most people, if they see the truth, will start thinking.

The World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:

  1. People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
  2. The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
  3. Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
  4. Meat consumption will be minimized.
  5. Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
  6. To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
  7. People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
  8. Western values will be tested to the breaking point.

I cannot believe even half of the American people want to live like that.

We must take back our country a city and a county at a time. All the while, we must get our lesser magistrates to ignore unconstitutional federal laws, throw the bums out of office, and we must educate our children with truth, reason, and sound science.

[i]  Amadeo, K. thebalance.com/fascism

[ii]  Americanpolicy.org/public _private_partnerships

[iii]  Unlimitedhangout.com Schwab

[iv]  Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, p. 85

[v]  Wood, Daniel, West magazine May 1990.

[vi]  Johnston, Jim, British Columbia Report 3, no.22 (May 18,1992).

[vii] Bilderburg Meetings.org

[viii]  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-h         ow-to-respond/

[ix]  Ibid.

[x]  https://www.weforum.org/press/2020/06/the-great-reset-a-unique-twin-summit-to-begin-2021

[xi]  https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/12/26/german-economist-great-reset-will-cause-a-crash-worse-than-1930s/

Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.

Kathleen Marquardt: Cancelling Western Culture Without Guns 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

I know that I am not the only one feeling like I fell down a rabbit hole without taking the appropriate drugs to enjoy it. We don’t realize it, but we are now living in a world that has fallen apart. Our culture has collapsed while we were trying to understand what was happening.

Our leaders are inviting/allowing the destruction — not only of statues, thus our history – but of cities (and then asking the national taxpayers to cover the expense of rebuilding). We are told that healthy people must wear masks and practice social distancing, while the leaders are insisting on putting Wuhan Flu infected patients into nursing homes where the most vulnerable dwell. Mayors are allowing outlaw gangs to destroy their cities, deface property, and threaten citizens – without lifting a finger or speaking out against the illegal acts. People who do protect their property with guns (brandishing, not firing), are raided, their guns are confiscated, and they are being brought up on charges. Most tellingly, very few of our government officials are showing outrage over these actions and fewer (like one, so far) are doing anything to stop the lawlessness. It is as if our so-called leaders are tacitly approving of the mayhem; if not, it doesn’t show.

But, in my humble opinion, one of the most evil things is the ‘cancel culture’. What someone said 30 years ago, is now judged by the most extreme political correctness. So, 30 years ago, a man said he didn’t think women should be in the military. A comment, nothing more. He had no authority to make it an edict. So what? We all have opinions and speak them. But now, he has resigned his position because the cancel culture crew (ccc) attacked him via his employer. Cancel culture threatens the businesses that employ the ‘attackee’ with boycotting and more. Cancel culture is the modus operandi of political correctness. It is insidious. It is like a deadly virus living in your body that you don’t know about until some progressive woke snowflake decides to announce to the world that something you did decades ago is now verboten. Not only is it verboten, but because you committed the thought crime, and even spoke it, years ago you are now to be vilified, unemployed, and you need to kiss (or is it wash) the feet of those who have destroyed your life. And, as it is so much fun for evil people to watch this behavior, they will perpetrate it, too.

Understand that something that was not at all politically incorrect 10, 20, 30, 50 years ago, can now be used against a person. Instead of destroying statues of those who built the Great American Experiment, the ccc (who are by far more vile and dangerous than the KKK) are destroying living beings – for the fun of it. This is ex post facto without law. And political correctness is NOT the law. Being politically correct is supposedly protected by the First Amendment. I have a right to say something that makes you angry; and you have a right to be offended by it. But, so what?

We’ve seen political correctness mowing down businesses, people, statues, and more. Mostly with lies! An early example that crossed my mind is when Greenpeace hired a man to club a baby seal to death while they filmed it and blamed the Inuit sealers. While it was exposed as a ‘hit job’ and even taken to court in Germany, the lie remains in the minds of many. This was cancel culture before it had a name, and it was one of the most egregious examples. But it has been used to destroy so many businesses, people (the ccc love it when humans are destroyed by their actions), and now our culture.

Understand that political correctness is anti-Western culture. The purpose of political correctness is to attack Western culture ideas and ideals. What ideals are those? Individual freedom is the key one. With individual freedom, we are free to think, say, and act as we desire – as long as we do not infringe on others’ freedoms. Political correctness will make us all atomata. We will all wear Mao jackets and pajama pants, believe in the collective will, and have no free will or be allowed to think for ourselves.

First, our culture had to be eroded. Our schools brainwashed our children with lies – yes, lies. Lies about the hole in the ozone, global warming, gender, meat eating, COVID, individual freedom – a whole gamut of issues. Our government has been a major aider and abettor in many of the lies promulgated through the schools, and through the medical societies, courts, and Congress. The scientific community is no exception. Neither are the churches. We are being undermined from every side.

Western Culture is being taken down without a shot being fired. It is being canceled. And most of us don’t even see or understand what is happening. By the time we can comprehend it, it will be far too late.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2020/08/03/cancelling-western-culture-without-guns/

Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.

Kathleen Marquardt: WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING AND WATER IS FOR FIGHTING 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

If whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting, as Mark Twain famously said, then the 2015 Montana Legislature affirmed the truism. Tristan Scott, Flathead Beacon

In the mid-90s, before the Internet, the U.S. government held a meeting via satellite link between Washington, D.C., and cities and towns across western Montana, Idaho, eastern Washington, and Oregon. The subject was the Columbia River Basin.

I was living in Helena, Montana. The meeting was held in a school or some building like a school on a Saturday morning. The room had about a dozen round tables with six chairs each, and we all watched the presentation on a screen. In attendance were the press, people from farming and Ag organizations, local officials and others like me – wanting to know what was afoot.  After the viewing, we had one of those infamous consensus meetings.

The major point of that meeting was that the Columbia River Basin needed to be returned to the state it was before Columbus. In unspoken words, NO WHITE MAN. But a lot more was presented to drown that in political gobbledygook.

Understandably, the global elite want that area to be re-wilded, to be part of the Wildlands Project. But at this meeting/Charrette, they let us know that they would start by removing only the non-indigenous peoples. Plus dams – dams gotta go.

Now, some 25 years later, we are seeing exactly how this is being accomplished via the western Montana portion of the Columbia River Basin Project – the proposed Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Montana water compact.

The fact is, the CSKT Compact has nothing to do with water rights, Indians, culture, fish, or the environment.  It is all about money for a small group of tribal elite and state officials who covet more power, political positions, and power over others. It seeks revenge for spite. Catherine Vandemoer, Ph.D., Sovereign Nation

I have been trying  to put together a short-ish synopsis of the machinations over the CSKT compact. But the backstory is that the feds are using the treaty to bring about the unlawful expansion of the tribal government authority over Non-Indians. “This compact proposes that the State of Montana expand the authority and jurisdiction of tribal governments over non-members and non-Indians where federal law has specifically prohibited it. People, the Montana legislature does not have the authority to remove constitutional provisions and statutory protections from its citizens,  . . .” [1] ,  On top of this, the CSKT Compact, is an attempt to create a new type of federal water right “ . . .using the wording from the Hellgate Treaty that states that the tribes have a right to take fish. And from those simple words that even a horse trainer can understand, the proponents of this compact would like us to believe that the right to take fish, equates to an aboriginal, time immemorial, tribal reserved, federal water right. Again, they are asking the Montana State legislature to conjure up…and I do mean conjure up… a federal water right where currently one does not exist. We simply do not have that authority.” [2]

The compact between Montana, the federal government, and the tribes is so complicated that the fur has been flying for well over a hundred years, and recently, another 1,000+-page compact has been written. I suggest you go to Western Water Rights and watch the video of the Perfect Storm for the full story from the first tribal agreement. It is extremely well laid out.

But here is the dirty, rotten, nasty underbelly of this whole Machiavellian plot. Remember how Agenda 21 was signed in Rio by President George H.W. Bush, but never ratified by Congress? Actually, never even brought up in Congress. Yet, instead, President Clinton put V.P. Al Gore in charge of using the President’s Commission on Sustainable Development to embed all the aspects of Sustainable Development into every department of the federal government.

That same tactic is being used here. Catherine Vandemoer, Ph.D.  Chair, Montana Land and Water Alliance, out of Polson, Montana, wrote me that, “ . . . the state is implementing the CSKT Compact without Congressional approval both on and off the reservation by:

On Reservation—State, BIA, and Tribes implementing CSKT Compact in a federal irrigation project without Congressional approval

State and BIA participating in planning, possible design, funding of projects associated with compact water management plans, including measuring devices, headgate operations,

Tribes aggressively implementing and directing a compliant BIA  how to manage storage and reservoir levels, instream flows, and canal deliveries  according to plans specified in the CSKT Compact appendices which affects water delivery to irrigation and stock,  and violates US-irrigation district contracts.

There is an existing federal operations plan that has not been followed since 2014 because they have been implementing

Off-reservation—State implementing Milltown Dam water right

The compact calls for CSKT “co-ownership” of the water flow from the Milltown Dam water right on the Clark Fork River, and thus “splits” the water right between two tributaries to protect instream flow.

The state had planned to implement this with or without the Compact, but with the Compact they didn’t have to go through their regular permitting process to achieve that transfer of use and point of diversion.

Congress has not approved the compact yet the state water right abstract for Milltown dam listed the co-ownership and compact-related conditions

In 2017 our organization wrote to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) to point out that the compact hadn’t been approved and the abstract was in error, and to inquire as to whether the state was going to go through its regular process

After getting a nasty response, the state changed the abstract to list them as full owner, but indicated as soon as compact passed would be co-ownership.

However, they are implementing that right now without having completed the state process for a change in the use and place of use of the water, which was required without the compact.

You don’t have to understand all those terms, you just need to understand that this project is be embedded into state, tribal, and local governments without Congressional approval, and probably without Congress knowing it is being done. Plus, this is not just about Montana waters, it will have a most destructive affect on all western waters.

The furthest west hatched lines designate the Flathead Indian Reservation Article II Treaty of Hellgate. The green area is what this new compact is turning over to that small reservation to have full control over the waters.

The compact begins with an incorrect definition of the reservation that paves the way for the expansive taking of water within reservation boundaries:  “all land within the exterior boundaries of the Indian Reservation established under the July 16, 1855 Treaty of Hellgate, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through the Reservation.”   

This flawed premise is used to rationalize giving all water running through and under the reservation to the CSKT.

Additionally the compact gives the federal government time immemorial water rights for every drop of water in Flathead Lake, and concedes significant instream flows with various priority dates throughout 11 counties in western Montana in the Clark Fork and Kootenai River basins.

This is a water grab (which becomes a land grab, because you can’t use land that doesn’t have water) the size no one has seen before outside the USSR. Those Americans who think that this has no relevance to them, better think twice – at least. This is not the beginning of the taking of water rights in this country; it is happening all over in various tactics and schemes. But it is the biggest. And it has been in the works for at least 30 years.

You can think, oh well, that’s in Montana; it won’t bother me. I am in Ohio, or Arizona. Understand, this is just the first place – sort of a testing ground. And, no, they don’t need Indian reservations to stage the take-over of water rights. We cannot survive without water so, if you haven’t stood up for your rights before, start now. Whiskey may be for drinking, but let’s see you survive long without water.

[1] Theresa Manzella, member of Montana State House of Representatives, “My testimony to the Montana House on the CSKT Water Compact.

[2] Ibid.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/11/25/whiskey-is-for-drinking-and-water-is-for-fighting/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, REDISTRIBUTING OUR WEALTH BY THE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS. 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

We have been railing against Public/Private Partnerships for many years. This is not a new issue. Many times in the past we’ve tried to inform the public of the dangers of PPPs, but they are complicated and most people today don’t want to take the time to delve deeply into anything that isn’t giving them pleasure. But now is the time to become educated on just one of the ways that we are being bled dry, that our money is being sucked off with huge vacuums and given to those conspiring to destroy America and the great American dream. They are winning because we are too busy, too lazy, too involved in other pursuits to stop them.

In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:

During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”

Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.

Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.

Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:

Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.

Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.

Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.

But again, Tom nails it: Public/Private Partnerships = Government-
Sanctioned Monopolies

It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.

That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.

Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.

Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.(Note Randy Salzman’s article below.)

And Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. State legislatures across the nation are passing legislation, which calls for the implementation of PPPs.

Beware. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.

At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience. Cute little jingles or emotional commercials can be very useful tools to sell a government program.

It is one thing to spell this out. At least it gives you a foundation for what Public/Private Partnerships are. But until you are exposed to an actual project (or rather the ‘conceived’ project), you cannot fathom the intricacies of deceit, collusion, and theft of taxpayer money with which these entities are swindling us, the people.

In a must-read article from Thinking Highways, Randy Salzman’s “A ‘Model’ Scheme? is enlightening and frightening. As the lead-in says, “Salzman’s work is most comprehensive look at the dangers of P3s to date. It’s a must read for citizens and policymakers alike.” Please take the time to read it. I offer some key points from his article:

In the media, congress and across the political world, promoters pushing design-build public-private partnerships (P3s) are still claiming that private innovation is saving taxpayer money, creating good jobs and easing congestion.

In wanting to institute an “Infrastructure Bank” to address America’s “crumbling highway infrastructure,” even President Obama, using New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge as a backdrop, recently encouraged P3 construction with a US$302 billion plan. The president had apparently not read Congressional Budget Office research into P3s, nor heard the Tappan Zee contractor speak at a congressional hearing.

In March, Fluor’s senior vice president Richard Fierce bragged that his company was saving taxpayers US$1.7 billion on the new bridge across the Hudson until one congressman offhandedly remarked that he’d heard the Tappan Zee project would cost US$5 billion, not US$3.1 billion as the contractor had claimed.

Salzman points out that the ‘private’ entities “put up tiny bits of equity, though they impy more becaue they borrow dollars from Uncle Sam that they likey will not repay”; that the state and federal taxpayers are ponying up the 95+% of the bill, and we are also stuck with the cost of the bonds when “the P3 goes bankrupt – as they almost inevitably do – about 15 years down the road.”

Media coverage of P3s over the past decade, furthermore, has been overwhelmingly positive, consistently following the contractor line that private innovation is offsetting significant amounts of expense, improving projects and freeing public dollars for other activities. However, the Congressional Budget Office indicates P3s provide little, if any, financial benefit to taxpayers.

“The cost of financing a highway project privately is roughly equal to the cost of financing it publicly after factoring in the costs associated with the risk of losses from the project, which taxpayers ultimately bear, and the financial transfers made by the federal government to states and localities,” the CBO’s Microeconomic Studies director told congress in March. “Any remaining difference between the costs of public versus private financing for a project will stem from the effects of incentives and conditions established in the contracts that govern public-private partnerships.”

In that congressional hearing, Boston’s Michael Capuano reminded congressmen that “people stole money” in prior equivalents of design-build P3s, and that’s why the highway construction paradigm became “inefficiency intended to avoid malfeasance.”

Read the article – it is eye-opening even for those who understand the concept of PPPs. We the taxpayers are having our wealth redistributed in so many ways, but this is one of the most egregious.

Back to Tom’s speech on Public/Private Partnerships and our Republic:

Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market. Witness the drive for solar and wind power, even though the technology doesn’t exist for these alternative energies to actually make a difference.

Yet, the corporations, in partnership with government to impose these polices, have convinced the American public that this is the future of energy. Rest assured that if any one of these companies had to sell such products on the free market controlled by consumers, there would be very little talk about them.

But, today, an unworkable idea is making big bucks, not on the open market, but in a controlled economy for a select few like British Petroleum because of their partnerships with government.

Public/private partnerships can be used by international corporations to get a leg up on their competition by entering into contracts with government to obtain favors such as tax breaks and store locations not available to their competition, thereby creating an elite class of “connected” businesses.

A private developer, which has entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to its competitors.

The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common domain of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined common good.

The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work. The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities lose control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.

Using PPPs, power companies can obtain rights of way over private land, as is currently happening in Virginia where Dominion Power plans massive power towers over private property – against the strong objections of the property owners.

Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities across the nation, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the nation’s highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.

Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.

Of course, it’s not just American companies entering into PPPs with our government. Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, state and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.

As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, “On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years.”

In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a “no-compete” clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC. (note: the TCC is dead, but just recently I’ve heard it is going to be put forward again.)

So why do so many libertarians and conservatives support the concept of Public/Private Partnerships? By their words they profess to uphold the principles of freedom, limited government, individualism, private property and free enterprise. Yet they embrace a policy that eliminates competition, increases the size and power of government and stamps out the individual in the process.

A recent conference held in Virginia, just outside D.C. by such libertarians was titled “Restoring the Republic.” Yet, they called for open borders and “free trade.”

My question is this: What is the Republic? Is it just a notion floating on air? Something we can’t actually hold in our hand. Is the Republic just an idea? Or is it a thing? A place?

Only one nation was created by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: the United States. We were created as that Republic.” The Constitution defines a government that is supposed to have one purpose, the protection of rights we were born with.

It is true that every person on earth was born with those rights based on the principles of freedom. But only one nation was specifically designed to recognize and protect them: the United States.

If there are no borders, then what is the Republic they want to preserve? How can that be done? The Republic is the land of the United States. The laws of the United States. The judicial system of the United States. The sovereign states of the United States.

Our Constitution directs how we create laws by which we live, right down to the local level. It protects our ability to create a way of life we desire. Our resources, our economy, our wealth is all determined by the way of life we have chosen. And it’s all protected by the borders which define the nation – the Republic. And you can’t “harmonize” that with nations that reject those concepts! Canada is a commonwealth tied to the British Crown; Mexico is socialist.

So again, I ask, if you eliminate all of that by opening the borders and inviting nothing short of anarchy – then how do you preserve the Republic?

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/09/09/public-private-partnerships-redistributing-our-wealth-by-the-millions-and-billions/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: WORLD RELIGION, THE LAST PIECE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH A WORLD ORDER 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” Joseph Stalin

Why a world religion?

“The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.” Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, New Age theologian and Jesuit priest

Marx understood that the state must control the children from infancy in order to instill the values and beliefs that would most benefit a totalitarian state. He also held the mistaken belief that he needed to destroy the churches. That was a mistake. Today, those who are trying to wrest control of the world realize they must control the religions of the world if they are to succeed. To that end, their scheme is to merge all religions together and, using the Hegelian Dialectic, bring them to an all-new world religion. Their journey to this end has taken an enormous amount of work and time, but it seems to be close to paying off.

Who dreams up a one-world religion?

Over the ages many have tried to conquer the world. Today, they are on course to achieving this Machiavellian plot. The Fabians[1], Bilderbergers[2], George Soros, United Nations, US Deep State, and various other nefarious people, groups, and NGOs (non-governmental organizations affiliated with the UN), have learned from Marx and others what is needed to accomplish the control of the world. They have learned from Helena Blavatsky, Annie Besant, Alice Bailey, Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert Muller, Aleister Crowley, and many more (including the ‘enlightened others’ through telepathic means) the teaching of the modern occult movement in the West. I will call them Globalists, because ‘all of the above’ are (or were when they lived) working to bring about a world government backed by a world religion.

As the New Age movement has spread around much of the globe, the easing of social mores, and a ‘let it all hang out’ attitude in movies and songs, a melding stew pot of churches seems to be a natural outcome. Yet it is unfolding, not by any symbiotic interaction, but by great scheming, planning, and seduction.

Those who have been leading us to a world government understand that the beliefs of the people must be erased and replaced in order to exchange the old religions with one that will allow the world leaders to control the worshippers. Bishop William Swing, founder of the United Religions Initiative (URI), decided that, “Since the purpose of religion is the service and worship of God, all religions and spiritual movements need to have a common language and common purpose – for all to worship a shared god.”[3] (emphasis mine)

There are hundreds of religions that have jumped into this pot of religious stew. Here in the United States Bible believing Christians have dwindled in number while many sects are joining the Babel of worshipping, not a god, but a goddess – Gaia, Mother Earth.

Why do they need to erase traditional religious beliefs? In order for Globalists to succeed in their quest for a world government they must accomplish several goals. They label them the 3 Es of Sustainable Development. These three Es are: economy, ecology, and equality. The first, economy, utilizes the redistribution of wealth and destruction of private property rights to annihilate the middle class; the second, ecology, is using the development of the Wildlands Project plus the fake fear of ecological disaster via Global Warming/Climate Change to take away property rights, thus also the liberty of individuals; and the third, equality, is supposed to make all people equal. Not with equal rights under the law, but equal in all other ways — income, status, and religion. In fact, they’d like to make everyone equal in intelligence if that were possible.

“For more than 100 years, visionaries have been dreaming of a day when the world’s religions could work together for peace. That day is coming -soon!” Bishop William E. Swing, United Religions Initiative (URI)

PierreTeilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a high priest of New Age political and religious leaders, believed that “every aspect of existence, from the earth itself to human beings, as moving in a purposeful forward motion to the Omega Point. For him, Christogenesis, the process by which the universe turns completely into Christ, is simply the last phase of evolution. He presented to the people of his day a new world religion he still considered Christian. But it was merely a vehicle for moving humanity into a new theological mindset, one that embraces a false view of a coming golden age. Man’s own divine efforts, of course, would usher in this new age.

“Teilhard believed he was giving the world a better Christianity, a religion that blended faith in God with faith in the world.. . . Chardin openly referred to this as the birth of a new faith. In an essay entitled ‘The Stuff of the Universe,’ he makes his view very clear:

“One could say that a hitherto unknown form of religion . . . is gradually germinating in the heart of modern man, in the furrow opened up by the idea of evolution. . . . Far from feeling my faith perturbed by such a profound change, it is with hope overflowing that I welcome the rise of this new mystique and foresee its inevitable triumph.”[4]

To achieve a religion that fits all people, one of the key strategies will be to dumb down enough of society to have critical mass; that is the only way Americans will be willing to having their values, attitudes, and beliefs transformed from free-thinking individualists who put their beliefs in the Constitution and the Rule of Law to preserve Western culture, and become useful idiots to the UN. How do they go about this? Our values, attitudes, and beliefs must be “removed from our minds”. In simple language, brainwashing and programming.

“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas.” [5]

Now we have a UN globalist, Brock Chisholm, admitting that all things we still-reasoning patriotic Americans believe in and hold dear are in need of eradication. Individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas are holding back the New World Order. They must go. But before that, stop and think about those four things. If I were to list the things I feel are most important to me as an individual, those would definitely be in the top five. Yet here is a top UN official saying these must be wiped out of our minds and hearts.

Religious dogmas.

Which religious dogmas did former State Senator Hoagland think need to be ‘removed from the minds of men’?

“Fundamental Bible-believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in.”[6]

In order to wipe out Western Culture and the Age of Reason, truth had to become whatever one wanted it to be. Moral relativism became the meme of the day/year/decade/century. If you look back to the 1990s, you can see that, while our country had been on the road of moral decline for 100 years, it was now in the fast lane going downhill at such a steep grade a crash could hardly be averted. Just watching the political scene: remember Tom DeLay? What he was convicted of is now considered standard operating procedure on Capitol Hill, it would be overlooked; today his actions would be seen as not worth noticing. Now, our kindergarten children are being taught about how to pleasure themselves sexually and are being read to in story-hour by transvestites in flamboyant drag. Christians have joined Jews in being persecuted; in fact, they have become the biggest targeted group for being slaughtered around the world.

Moral relativism was needed to make all people, cultures, and religions of equal value. Social Justice was needed to then make certain people and cultures more equal than others; to prop up ‘lesser’ religions to be equal or better than others; and to denigrate anyone who would want to be a sovereign individual, to stand out from the group.

“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.[7]

But only if you believe in social justice.

If you look around you, you have to see a deeply degraded society.

Social Justice doesn’t just allow/promote this kind of despicable, sickening behavior, it lauds it, so we see it on campuses of so-called higher learning; we see it in our schools, and we see it on the streets and in movies.

How did we get to this point? Easy — via moral relativism: whatever you believe is right, is right for you and can be changed even more often than you change your underwear. There is no line too degraded to cross; there is nothing that shouldn’t be done if it feels good to you. Many people have become like feral animals. The FBI said MS-13 gang members have been known to use machetes to carry out violence. “The MS-13 motto is kill, rape and control,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said during an April 2017 visit to Suffolk County.

MS-13 members engage in a wide range of criminal activity, including drug distribution, murder, rape, prostitution, robbery, home invasions, immigration offenses, kidnapping, carjackings/auto thefts, and vandalism. Most of these crimes, you’ll notice, have one thing in common—they are exceedingly violent.

Social Justice is needed to gut historical religions to the point where they are empty of any value, and replace them with an amalgamated religion of Gaia worship, pantheism, New Age mysticism, Theosophy, Universalism. And Social Justice is needed to rid our schools, libraries, and stores of politically incorrect history, our town squares of statues celebrating our great forebears.

“There will be no new world order without a new world ethic, a global or planetary ethic despite all dogmatic differences.”[8]

Who is behind the new world ethic, the new world religion besides those noted at the beginning of this article?

Today’s Pope is doing the work to transform Catholicism into part of the new world religion, and Christianity is being vilified, disparaged, and described as the evil force behind everything from school shootings to anti-Muslim attacks, to destroying the minds of our children.

Episcopal Bishop William Swing, the President and Founder of the United Religions Initiative, came up with the original vision of URI in 1993, in response to an invitation from the United Nations, which asked him to host an interfaith service honoring the 50th anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter.

“The United Nations telephoned me in 1993 asking if the UN could come back to Grace Cathedral for its 50th Anniversary. Of course!  But…the stated vision was that the UN wanted all of the nations and all of the religions at that big service. An absurd request.  But…some of us spent two years trying to figure out how to get all of the religions shoehorned into that tiny boot. This absurd exercise changed our souls.  When the UN 50th was over, we were intoxicated by a vision.  If there was a United Nations, what about creating a United Religions?”[9]

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle four years later, Swing decided that there was a need to rewrite the “scriptures and theology of all the world’s religions.”[10]

“Maybe we have to take a deeper look at theology. I think that religions are based on assumptions of truth being mediated from the creator to the created. These truths are divinely inspired and sacred for the people who hold them. I think all religions of the world have a blind spot. If there’s a United Religions pursuing a dialog in depth, it begins to ask larger questions and force religions to make larger statements.”[11]

One has to wonder how man can make larger statements than God.

How do the globalists plan on achieving a world religion? I have written about the mind-altering program BSTEP here. This is the modern version of John Dewey’s and the Frankfurt School’s work here. All of this is being carried out in our schools in order to wipe out our children’s values, attitudes, and beliefs, and replace those with the morally relative, political correctness of human animals.

“Global education must prepare our children for the coming of an interdependent, safe, prosperous, friendly, loving, happy planetary age as has been heralded by all great prophets. The real, the great period of human fulfillment on planet Earth is only now about to begin.” [12]

Dennis Cuddy also elaborates on the mind-altering programs of the globalists: “The term ‘groupthink’ used by William Whyte, Jr, in Is Anybody Listening?, in which he described the ‘social engineering movement’ as ‘a machine for the engineering of mediocrity. It is profoundly authoritarian in its implications, for it subordinated the individual to the group.’”

“The year after Whyte’s book was published Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society was published and described how, through education, government ‘could control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.’ The next year (1952), the National Training Laboratories (NTL) became part of the National Education Association (NEA), and in 1962, the NTL published Issues in (Human Relations) Training, in which the editors wrote that human relations or sensitivity training ‘fits into a context of institutional influence procedures which includes coercive persuasion in the form of thought reform or brainwashing.’ (emphasis mine) . . . In 1964, Roderick Seidenberg’s Anatomy of the Future describes how the masses of people could be controlled ‘by the ever increasing techniques and refined arts of mental coercion/ to the level of mindless guinea pigs.”

Now that we have the what, why, who and how, Whenwill the globalists achieve this world religion?

“The time for glorifying the Almighty (male) God who supposedly rules is now over. Some future generation may well be moved to discard the Christian calendar entirely, and rename the year 2000 AD as 1 GE, the first year of the global era. Soon the Lord’s Supper will only signify human fellowship, and Christmas will be a holiday for the celebration of family.”[13]—Lloyd Geering, Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University, Doctor of Divinity, “Protestant heretic”

Once the powers-that-be wipe out our culture by making a world religion that supersedes all others, we will no longer have the moral fiber to resist world tyranny. We will become human animals fighting for scraps and lacking humanity.

They are very close but, hopefully, have not achieved critical mass. I believe that there are a few signs that freedom-loving people are starting to say NO. Brexit and the Gilets Jaunes are two examples. Even in the US we are seeing some push back against the Deep State. Will it be enough?

How do we fight this? Preachers/Pastors/Priests need to be standing in the pulpit condemning this and every other evil going on. No, they do not need to worry about their 501c3 status. They can preach fire and brimstone, they can preach against the sins that are being committed every minute, especially by our political leaders. The only thing they have to be careful of in order to protect their tax-exempt status is they cannot speak out for or against specific legislation/bills or promote individuals running for office. But they’d better start standing up and promoting their Lord and Savior. Christianity is on the auction block. Men of God are you going to stand by and watch it die?

“It matters how you stand.” LaVoy Finicum

[1] https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/george-bernard-shaw-1856-1950-and-the-fabian-society

[2] https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/05/29/a-chart-exposing-how-the-bilderberg-group-controls-the-entire-world/?fbclid=IwAR2-N1l-bugQW0BfYG5xLqsen66EKO7c74gilrie5d_J8sbxSu98GyTtEDA

[3] Swing, William, Bishop, The Coming United Religions, p 63

[4] Kah, Gary H., The New World Religion, p. 68

[5] [5] https://upclosed.com/people/brock-chisholm/

[6] Nebraska State Sen. Peter Hoagland, radio interview, 1983.

[7] George Orwell, Animal Farm

[8] Hans Kung, A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics, explanatory remarks.

[9] Bishop Swing’s Speech at the UN 70th Anniversary and URI 15th Anniversary Celebration, 30 June 2015

[10] Penn, Lee, False Dawn, p. 190

[11] Lattin, Don, interview with William Swing,  “Bishop’s Idea for a Leap of Faiths”, San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 19997

[12] Muller, Robert, New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality, p. 8

[13] Lloyd Geering, Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University, Doctor of Divinity, “Protestant heretic,”

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/07/03/world-religion-the-last-piece-needed-to-establish-a-world-order/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: FORM-BASED CODES: REPLACING THE EVERYDAY AMERICAN CITY WITH THE ‘IDEAL COMMUNIST CITY’ 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

Form-Based Code /fôrm-bāsed kōd/ noun

A form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. A form-based code is a regulation, not a mere guideline, adopted into city, town, or county law. A form-based code offers a powerful alternative to conventional zoning regulation.

Several years ago, I wrote a series of articles for News with Views, explaining Sustainable Development. Today two of them are popping up regularly in the media. Back when I wrote these two articles, people would not believe that all this planning and organizing could have been dreamed up by the Power Elite, let along set down as part of the blueprint for Agenda 21.

Read that definition above of Form-based Code again. Note: “a regulation, not a mere guideline for every city, town, or county”. And “a powerful alternative to conventional zoning regulation”. You be it is. The only good I can see from this is that we can get rid of 90% of the staff on our planning commissions – everything will be spelled out for us by the Power Elite. There will be no exceptions.

Today, A Southern California county put the finishing touches on a first-of-its-kind wildlife corridor Tuesday that will protect important pathways for animals to pass between critical habitats and into Los Padres National Forest. This is part of the Wildlands Project. “The main aim is to provide restrictions on development to provide adequate pathways for wildlife to pass through rural and semirural parts of Ventura County. Guidelines under the new zoning ordinance include restrictions on outdoor lighting, fencing and other development that could hinder animals. Waterways will also gain a 200-foot buffer to protect animals from human incursion.” (boldface mine.) Straight out of the Wildlands Project.

  • Then there is this from Tom DeWeese: Chicago, Illinois: So-called “affordable housing” advocates have filed a federal complaint against the longtime tradition of allowing City Aldermen veto power over most development proposals in their wards, charging that it promotes discrimination by keeping low-income minorities from moving into affluent white neighborhoods. Essentially the complaint seeks to remove the Aldermen’s ability to represent their own constituents.
  • Baltimore, Maryland: The NAACP filed a suit against the city charging that Section 8 public housing causes ghettos because they are all put into the same areas of town. They won the suit and now the city must spend millions of dollars to move such housing into more affluent neighborhoods. In addition, landlords are no longer permitted to ask potential tenants if they can afford the rent on their properties.
  • Oregon: Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives Tina Kotek (D-Portland) is drafting legislation that would end single-family zoning in cities of 10,000 or more. She claims there is a housing shortage crisis and that economic and racial segregation are caused by zoning restrictions.

Where does this come from? 

AGENDA 21: THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
PART 6

By Kathleen Marquardt
June 27, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Part 6 The Transect

“In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” -George Orwell, author and Fabian Socialist

In my article, “Incrementalism, Regionalism and Revolution,” I briefly touched on planning and quoted from author, Jo Hindman. She will again help me explain what is happening vis a vis Urban Renewal and metro-planning. From her book, Blame Metro, we read, “Much is written about the incognito warfare on United States soil which public officials and their accomplices are waging to wrest private property from landowners. The strategy is to make property ownership so unbearable by harassment through building inspections, remodeling orders, fines and jailings, that owners give up in despair and sell to land redevelopers at cut-rate prices. Positive municipal codes are the weapons in the warfare.”[1]

Note, Hindman wrote that in 1966, yet it fully applies to today’s attacks on private property; many of the same strategies are being used, they just “changed the names to protect the guilty.”

Hindman writes, “‘Strengthening county government’ is a hackneyed Metro phrase indicating that the Metro take-over has begun. . .. Planning assistance subsidized by Federal money leads small cities and counties into direct obedience under a regional master plan. Land use rights are literally stolen (ital. mine) from landowners when zoning is applied to land.”[2]

In 1949, the Communitarian forebears of today’s planners wrote the original plans that were designed to free us of our property under the National Housing Act. Back then it was the American Society of Planning Officials,[3]the American Institute of Planners, and the National Planning Association. Today it is the American Planning Association (APA), which was formed in 1978 by combining the American Institute of Planners and the Society of Planning Officials. As you can see by their footnote, the APA brags that they were meddling in our private affairs since 1909, in fact here are the exact words, “On May 21-22, 1909, 43 planners met in Washington, D.C., at the first National Planning Conference. This event is considered to be the birth of the planning movement in America.” A sad day for the American Republic.

Mimicking today’s ICLEI V.P. Harvey Ruvin, the 60s’ American Institute of Planners “makes no bones about its socialist stance regarding land; its constitution states AIP’s ‘particular sphere of activity shall be the planning of the unified development of urban communities and their environs and of states, regions, and the nation as expressed through determination of the comprehensive arrangement of land uses and land occupancy and the regulation thereof.[4] . . .The present-day crew of planners, drawing no line between public and private property, believe that land-use control should be vested in government and that public planners should have sole right to control the use of all land.”[5]

That is not just similar to what is going on today; that is exactly what is happening. Why? Because the sons, daughters and cronies of the puppeteers that were pulling the strings back in the beginning and middle of the 20th Century are pulling the strings of today’s planners. We just have a new generation of the same treacherous, thieving scheme updated with new-fangled, high-tech sounding names for the same old land (and people) control mechanisms.

THE TRANSECT

A 2002 APA Journal article gives the original meaning of transect as: a cut or path through part of the environment showing a range of different habitats. Biologists and ecologists use transects to study the many symbiotic elements that contribute to habitats where certain plants and animals thrive.

Planners took that technique, one that was designed for studying flora and fauna, and tweaked it to apply to humans. I would say the tweak was more a wrenching, actually it is more in the line of suspending critical thinking to superimpose the artificial and nonsensical process of the transect on humans and their mobilization.

Under the biological study, a transect shows where certain flora and fauna thrive, exist somewhat readily, or barely subsist in the different habitats from (get description i.e., arctic to tropical). With great literary(?) license, planners take the definition of biologic transect and, like Oliver Stone, rewrites history, these planners are rewriting biology; they want to play an active role in the phylogeny of homo sapiens, in fact they want to devolve it. One of the problems here is that their fairy tale is being used to take property rights (and thus liberty) from man and make him a slave. Laws should not be based upon make-believe. Yet this country, no the entire world, is being redesigned using Communitarians’ far-fetched, pseudo-utopian desires to sate the global elites’ desire to control the entire globe.

Look at their definition of transect for people and land planning: “Human beings also thrive in different habitats. Some people prefer urban centers and would suffer in a rural place, while others thrive in the rural or suburban zones. Before the automobile, American development patterns were walkable, and transects within towns and city neighborhoods revealed areas that were less urban and more urban in character. This urbanism could be analyzed as natural transects are analyzed.”[Link]

To compare humans in differing habitats with flora or fauna is preposterous hubris, and especially because the planners are using apples and oranges: “some people prefer urban centers and would suffer in a rural place,” does not mean the same thing as the biology transect means. The suffering would be a mental fabrication and would be such that to call it suffering in the same sense as plants or animals outside their natural habitat is absurd.

The planners also extol the virtues of the time before the automobile, “American development patterns were walkable, and transects within towns and city neighborhoods revealed areas that were less urban and more urban in character. This urbanism could be analyzed as natural transects are analyzed.” As if what we have today is “unnatural.” What these planners keep forgetting (and want us to forget also) is that we humans are part of nature and thus what we are and what we do is natural. Unlike other animals, we humans have a moral and cognitive brain. Our brain is what provides us with the necessary tools we need to survive and prosper, and one of those tools is the automobile.

So we have a convoluted, computer-modeled construct of what the entire ecosystem of the world should be and is called the Transect. But as with everything else in this New World Order NewSpeak, that really isn’t the truth. No, they did not sit down with the details of biological transect and translate it via computer modeling to a human/development version. What they did was take The Ideal Communist City[6] and figured out how to sell it to the American public by superimposing it over their Transect model.

The APA describes the Transect as “a geographical cross-section of a region used to reveal a sequence of environments. For human environments, this cross-section can be used to identify urban character, a continuum that ranges from rural to urban. In transect planning, this range of environments is the basis for organizing the components of the built world: building, lot, land use, street, and all of the other physical elements of the human habitat.[7] Pay close attention to that last sentence, “the basis for organizing the components of the built world.” In my understanding of English, that means telling us where each component of our lives goes; we don’t get to choose where we build our homes unless they in the area designated by planners. I am not misreading that because that same sentence continues, “building, lot, land use, street, and all of the other physical elements of the human habitat(ital. mine).” Sounds fairly simple to me, we will be told what and where we may build or even if we may build, and how we will live in that habitat.

To continue from the APA article, “In transect planning, the essential task is to find the main qualities of immersive environments,[8] …. Once these are discovered, transect planning principles are applied to rectify the inappropriate intermixing of rural and urban elements — better known as sprawl. This is done by eliminating the ‘urbanizing of the rural’. . . or, equally damaging, the ‘ruralizing of the urban’.

into discrete categories. This approach is also dictated by the requirement that human habitats fit within the language of our current approach to land regulation (i.e., zoning).”[9]

The discrete categories of the transect continuum run from Rural Preserve, Rural Reserve, Sub-Urban, General Urban, Urban Center to Urban Core. Understand that the Rural Preserve is the Wildlands, the area humans will be forbidden to enter, and the Rural Reserve will be the connecting corridors to the Reserve area, i.e., corridors for fauna movement and human use will be highly restricted.

Remember, as I pointed out at the beginning of this article, the Communitarians, or global elites, introduced the zoning and planning systems used in this country. Now that they have gotten the American public inured to “planning,” they want to move us to the next step — where they plan every aspect of our lives through planning. To do so, they have to pretend that the original zones and plans came from us, the people, so they can say they need to throw the old ones out and introduce a whole new system. We are told, “The most important obstacle to overcome is the restrictive and incorrect zoning codes currently in force in most municipalities. Current codes do not allow New Urbanism to be built, but do allow sprawl. Adopting a TND ordinance and/or a system of ‘smart codes’ allows New Urbanism to be built easily without having to rewrite existing codes.”

If you go to the link above, you will see that New Urbanism (transect planning plus) deals with everything but property rights. (Actually property rights are verboten in this not-so-brave new world they are bringing us, so they ignore them because property rights will not exist in the not to distant future if we do not put a stop to this.) It is Sustainable Development written in capitals and boldface. And how do they plan on doing this? The most effective way to implement New Urbanism is to plan for it, and write it into zoning and development codes. This directs all future development into this form.

Note: “directs all future development into this form.”

The new planning codes they want: Smart Codes. What are they?

Footnotes:

1.  Hindman, Jo, Blame Metro, Caxton Press, 1966, p. 21.
2. Ibid. p.80.
3. Within APA would be a professional institute — the American Institute of Certified Planners — that would be responsible for the national certification of professional planners. “Although AIP was incorporated in 1917 (as the American City Planning Institute, renamed the American Institute of Planners in 1939), and ASPO in 1934, we actually trace our roots further back to 1909 and the first National Conference on City Planning in Washington, D.C. From that and subsequent conferences, the organized planning movement emerged, first through our two predecessors and, since 1978, through APA.” (from APA website)
4. AIP Constitution (1960).
5. Hindman, Blame Metro, p.116.
6. Baburov, et al, The Ideal Communist City, i Press Series on the human environment, 1968.
7. “Transect Planning,” Duany, Andres and Emily Talen. APA Journal, Summer 2002, Vol. 68, No. 3, p.245.
8. a term borrowed from “the notion of virtual reality. . .. When these virtual environments are successful, they are said to be immersive — virtual models that function as if they were actual environments.”
9. Ibid, p.247.

AGENDA 21: THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
PART 7

The Smart Code

[Note: Part 6, “The Transect,” should be read before reading this article to get full understanding of SmartCode.]

One of the most fundamental requirements of a capitalist economic system—and one of the most misunderstood concepts—is a strong system of property rights. For decades social critics in the United States and throughout the Western world have complained that “property” rights too often take precedence over “human” rights, with the result that people are treated unequally and have unequal opportunities. Inequality exists in any society. But the purported conflict between property rights and human rights is a mirage. Property rights are human rights. –Arman Alchian

“The SmartCode is a form-based code that incorporates Smart Growth and New Urbanism principles. It is a unified development ordinance, addressing development at all scales of design, from regional planning on down to the building signage. It is based on the rural-to-urban transect rather than separated-use zoning, thereby able to integrate a full range of environmental techniques. Because the SmartCode envisions intentional outcomes based on known patterns of urban design, it is a more succinct and efficient document than most conventional codes.“ (To download SmartCode, go down to smartcode version 9.2 and click on it.)

The American Planning Association brags that their “definition emphasizes comprehensive planning that results in a unique sense of community and place, preservation of natural and cultural resources, of the expansion of transportation and housing choices beyond what we have now and we also emphasize the promotion of public health and healthy communities, which is an issue that has just begun to surface over the past two years.”[1]Understand that the “transportation and housing choices beyond what we have now” refer to walking, biking, rail and stack-em and pack-em housing. We have all those means of transportation now but we are not utilizing them as the APA and other Sustainable Development proponents would like because they are either expensive, impractical or unappealing to us. There is stack-em and pack-em housing already in large cities and in slum areas. Right now, most people chose what kind of housing they want and many chose single family homes in suburban (aka sprawl in Greenspeak) and rural areas — anathema to Smart Growth promoters. Also we want to retain our individual freedom which would negate being forced into communal housing with the associated communal living requirements of Smart Growth.

You may notice that they (Sustainablists, Commutarians) keep touting that people are moving from the rural and suburban areas into the cities at great rates “because they want the infrastructure and amenities available there.” I am not sure that people are moving into cities (yet) in any great numbers, but those groups, let’s call them Sustainablists, not only want to drive people into the cities (so they can be more easily controlled), and they are writing the planning to do just that. Looking at areas around the country, they are succeeding because they have established planning commissions in every city, town and county.

“The SmartCode is a form-based code, meaning it envisions and encourages a certain physical outcome — the form of the region, community, block, and/or building. Form-based codes are fundamentally different from conventional codes that are based primarily on use and statistics — none of which envision or require any particular physical outcome.”[2] Right, conventional codes, the codes used now, do not require all buildings, streets and towns to look alike.

“The SmartCode is a tool that guides the form of the built environment in order to create and protect development patterns that are compact, walkable, and mixed use. These traditional neighborhood patterns tend to be stimulating, safe, and ecologically sustainable. The SmartCode requires a mix of uses within walking distance of dwellings, so residents aren’t forced to drive everywhere. It supports a connected network to relieve traffic congestion. At the same time, it preserves open lands, as it operates at the scale of the region as well as the community.”[3] Go back and look closely at what was said: “. . . guides the form of the built environment, . . .” just as I said above, they are making all buildings the same.

And remember, in Part 6, The Transect, I quoted the the APA , “In transect planning, this range of environments is the basis for organizing the components of the built world: building, lot, land use, street, and all of the other physical elements of the human habitat. (emphasis mine)”[4]

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)

“Local governments use TDR programs to mitigate the economic impact of land use regulations, specifically to compensate landowners for perceived partial takings (Johnston and Madison, 1997). This planning tool offers landowners a way to recapture some lost economic value when a property is downzoned[1] from residential use to agricultural use for preservation purposes.” Note the two phrases: “to compensate landowners for perceived partial takings” and “to recapture some lost economic value when a property is downzoned.” They are inferring that takings are a figment of the property owners’ imaginations and with the “recapture of some lost value” admitting that they are not going to compensate owners with the full value of their property.

Some of the things the SmartCode does:

  • “It utilizes a type of zoning category that ranges systematically from the wilderness to the urban core.”[5]In other words, it encompasses the entire land mass.
    • “It enables and qualifies Smart Growth community patterns that include Clustered Land Development (CLD), Traditional Neighborhood Development (TNDTM), Regional Center Development (RCD), and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD).”[6]
    • “It integrates the scale of planning concern from the regional through the community scale, on down to the individual lot and, if desired, its architectural elements.”[7] In other words, every aspect of development and they want to chose your appliances also.
    • “It integrates methods of environmental protection, open space conservation and water quality control.
    • “It integrates subdivision, public works and Transfer of Development Rights(TDR) standards.
    • “It encourages specific outcomes through incentives, rather than through prohibitions.”[8] The intention is to make using SmartCode easy and standard codes difficult so that people are inclined to take the path of least resistance — not realizing what it means for property rights and individual freedom. “Encouraging specific outcomes” should scare the devil out of you. Why would they want specific outcomes for every person in America?

As I noted near the beginning of this article the APA brags that their “definition emphasizes comprehensive planning that results in a unique sense of community and place, preservation of natural and cultural resources, of the expansion of transportation and housing choices beyond what we have now and we also emphasize the promotion of public health and healthy communities, which is an issue that has just begun to surface. . . .” What the meaning is that humans will no longer own their own homes instead we will be herded into the “unique sense of community and place” which is the stack-em and pack-em Smart Growth communal habitats. The healthy communities are Commutarian, Sustainablist versions of healthy, but healthy for whom? Not for individuals who believe in free will, individual freedom and the right to private property. In these new “healthy communities” you will be told what is healthy and what is not and you will not be given the choice of deciding for yourself if you want to follow the leader. You think Bloomberg’s soda ban is draconian, just wait.

In Part 8 I will go deeper into SmartCode.

Footnotes:

1. American Institute of Certified Planners, Green Infrastructure, “Smart Growth Codes,” Transcript p5, January 21, 2004.
2.Center for Applied Transect Studies, SmartCode, p V.
3. Ibid
4. “Transect Planning,” Duany, Andres and Emily Talen. APA Journal, Summer 2002, Vol. 68, No. 3, p.245.
5. Center for Applied Transect Studies, SmartCode, p VIII
6. Ibid
7. Ibid
8. Ibid

AGENDA 21: THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
PART 8

By Kathleen Marquardt
October 2, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Much is written about the international cold war, but little about the incognito warfare on United States soil which public officials and their accomplices are waging to wrest private property from landowners. Jo Hindman, 1972, Blame Metro, p31.

Objectives

10.5 The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources. In doing so, environmental, social and economic issues should be taken into consideration. In more specific terms, the objectives are as follows:

(a) To review and develop policies to support the best possible use of land and the sustainable management of land resources by not later than 1996. Agenda 21, Earth Summit, p.85

Today (1995), some 70 years after (Herbert) Hoover‘s committee drafted the standard acts,[1] another, similar effort is taking place: the American Planning Association’s GrowingSmart project.[2]

In Part 6, I discussed the Transect which is a system to divide the land of our country (and the world) into the Wildlands devised by Arne Noss (deep ecologist) and Dave Foreman (radical environmentalist), but under deceptive, seductive names. You can read how a New Urbanism posted story titled “Transect applied to regional plans,” describes it:

“The Transect has six zones, moving from rural to urban. It begins with two that are entirely rural in character: Rural preserve (protected areas in perpetuity); and Rural reserve (areas of high environmental or scenic quality that are not currently preserved, but perhaps should be). The transition zone between countryside and town is called the Edge, which encompasses the most rural part of the neighborhood, and the countryside just beyond. The Edge is primarily single family homes. Although Edge is the most purely residential zone, it can have some mixed-use, such as civic buildings (schools are particularly appropriate for the Edge). Next is General, the largest zone in most neighborhoods. General is primarily residential, but more urban in character (somewhat higher density with a mix of housing types and a slightly greater mix of uses allowed).

At the urban end of the spectrum are two zones which are primarily mixed use: Center (this can be a small neighborhood center or a larger town center, the latter serving more than one neighborhood); and Core (serving the region — typically a central business district). Core is the most urban zone.” (ital. mine)

Michael Coffman’s Wildlands Map, calls the zones by different names (protected instead of rural preserved, corridors for rural reserve, etc) but the results are the same: people in cages and animals having the run of the country, with 50% of American land off limits to humans.

How is all this to be done? According to Agenda 21, by “Promoting application of appropriate tools for planning and management

10.8 Governments at the appropriate level, with the support of national and international organizations, should promote the improvement, further development and widespread application of planning and management tools that facilitate an integrated and sustainable approach to land and resources.” One of the tools, of course, is SmartCode.

SmartCode is defined in a pamphlet of 72 pages; there is no way all of it can summarize all of it in this article but I am going to give some highlights (?) (in ital) with page numbers so you can look them up with the accompanying information:

  • The provisions of this Code, when in conflict, shall take precedence over those of other codes, ordinances, regulations and standards except the local health and safety codes. p2 In other words, this code is to be the law of the land, both literally and figuratively.
  • INTENT

The Region a. that the region should retain its natural infrastructure and visual character derived from topography, woodlands, farmlands, riparian corridors and coastlines. b. that growth strategies should encourage Infill and redevelopment in parity with new communities. p2 In real terms, build in the cities (up when you can’t go out), but have the rest of the area as pristine as possible, no matter how many homes you have to raze.

The Community

  • that neighborhoods and regional centers should be compact, pedestrian-oriented[3] and Mixed use.
  • that neighborhoods and regional centers should be the preferred pattern of development and that Districts specializing in a single use should be the exception.
  • that ordinary activities of daily living should occur within walking distance of most dwellings, allowing independence to those who do not drive.Think about how cities like Knoxville, Los Angeles, even Bethesda, MD, will have to be almost totally redeveloped to achieve this goal. The costs will be astronomical. (Consider also the psychological cost of everyone having to live identically to everyone else.)
  • that the region should include a framework of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems that provide alternatives to the automobile.

The Block and the Building

  • that civic buildings should be distinctive and appropriate to a role more important than the other buildings that constitute the fabric of the city.Reminiscent of Nazi German: government is the most important entity thus their buildings should reflect that sentiment.
  • that the harmonious and orderly evolution of urban areas should be secured through form-based codes. p3 I recommend that you check out The Ideal Communist City by Alexei Gutnov et al. to see what is envisioned to replace our often beautiful, sometimes eclectic cities and towns; harmonious and orderly means cookie-cutter, stack-em and pack-em buildings with zero personality. Forget gingerbread, forget picture windows; even a Potempkin Village is out of the realm of our new reality.
  • that the transect Zone descriptions on table 1 shall constitute the intent of this code with regard to the general character of each of these environments. p4.

TAKE NOTE

  • twenty years after the approval of a regulating plan, each transect Zone, except the t1 natural and t2 rural Zones, shall be automatically rezoned to the successional (next higher) transect Zone, unless denied in public hearing by the legislative body. p 5. Read that closely; after 20 years of Sustainable Development there will be far few humans, thus the space set aside for their habitation can be reduced, eventually eliminating all areas of habitation except the infill growth sector (core); the other zones will eventually revert to t1 and t2, wildlands and corridors.
  • regional plansshall integrate the largest practical geographic area, overlapping property lines as necessary and municipal boundaries if possible. p5. (led by unelected councils)..
  • the areas to be designated preserved open sector (o-1) shall be mapped using the criteria listed in section 2.3. the outline of this sector is effectively the rural boundary line, which is permanent. (bold, mine) p6. It is only permanent vis a vis human encroachment; the line with be drawn ever outward as humans are removed.
  • A system for the gradual transfer of Development rights (tDr) shall be established and administered for the purpose of transferring development rights from the reserved open sector (o-2) to the Growth sectors as set forth in section 2.4.3.
  • the preserved open sector shall consist of open space that is protected from development in perpetuity.(bold, mine)
  • the preserved open sector includes areas under envi-ronmental protection by law or regulation, as well as land acquired for conservation through purchase, by easement, or by past transfer of Development rights. p6
  • the reserved open sector shall consist of open space thatshould be, but is not yet, protected from development. p7. (Like PacMan they will get to it eventually.)
  • the reserved open sector is a transfer of Development rights (tDr) sending area, for the gradual sale of rights for development in the controlled Growth sector and the intended Growth sector. An owner who has purchased such development rights may exceed the allocated Densities of new communities as set forth in section 3.8 and table 14b. Areas from where development rights have been transferred shall be designated Preserved Open Sector.The Planning Office shall maintain a record of such transfers, updating the regional map accordingly. p7
  • the restricted Growth sector shall be assigned to areas that have value as open space but nevertheless are subject to development, either because the zoning has already been granted or because there is no legally defensible reason, in the long term, to deny it.(bold, mine) Within the restricted Growth sector, clustered land Development (clD) shall be permitted by right. p7.
  • lawn shall be permitted only by Warrant. p13.(This doesn’t mean you can plant a garden where your lawn once was.)
  • the public Frontage shall include trees planted in a regularly-spaced Allee pattern of single or alternated species with shade canopies of a height that, at maturity, clears at least one story. p13. (Look at the plans, they dictate where trees are to be placed and which species are allowed.)
  • Designations for Mandatory and/or recommended retail Frontage requiring or advising that a building provide a Shopfront at Sidewalk level along the entire length of its private Frontage. the shopfront shall be no less than 70% glazed in clear glass and shaded by an awning overlapping the Sidewalk as generally illustrated in Table 7 and specified in Article 5. The first floor shall be confined to retail use through the depth

There is so much more and you can download the entire SmartCode, go about halfway down the page linked here.

We Americans (and the rest of the world, yes, but right now I am most concerned about the fate of the once freest country every conceived by man) are being forced, incrementally, into slavery or death. So many good, well-meaning people say, “Don’t worry, when they come for my property I will meet them with my guns.” If only it were that simple.

Instead we are being moved out of our property through fees, taxes, regulations and zoning. By the time the powers-that-be decide it is time to bring out the guns, most of us will not be living that once-great American Dream with a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot. We will be in high-density, stack-em and pack-em housing sharing our meager food and water (if we have any) with too many other people as well as rats and other vermin.

This is probably our last chance to stop Agenda21 Sustainable Development and the global elites. We must do it at the local level, halting the regionalization before it becomes what it is intended: socialism, communism, whatever.

I watch my neighbors buying more and more toys and fancier cars, adding ever more elaborate detailing to their heavily-mortgaged homes and enjoying the mindless pleasures offered them by mainstream media. Ignorance might be bliss at this moment, but what will it be like when the financial collapse hits?

May the Lord help us, we don’t seem to be doing the job.

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/04/02/form-based-codes-replacing-the-everyday-american-city-with-the-ideal-communist-city/https://americanpolicy.org/2019/05/15/red-flag-laws-double-speak-for-gun-confiscation/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: RED FLAG LAWS – DOUBLE SPEAK FOR GUN CONFISCATION 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Kathleen Marquardt

When I went to pick up my concealed carry permit at the Sheriff’s office in Montana, I was asked if I would wait a few minutes because the sheriff wanted to talk to me. I wondered if he was going to impress on me the importance of being careful, that a handgun was a dangerous weapon, or something to that effect. He came out of his office and thanked me for getting my permit, stating that I was the only one who could save my life. He added that the police are not responsible for protecting us, they only respond after we call, and that is often too late.

So we need to realize that we are our own protectors. With that in mind, I posit that the Second Amendment is needed now more than it has been in a long time. All these actions attempting to take away our right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property, are very dangerous in today’s world.

Do you scoff? Am I being paranoid? Let me give you an example on which I rest my case. This is from JUSTIA’s Warren v. District of Columbia (see footnote 1):

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas’ second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas’ screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren’s call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a “Code 2” assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as “Code 1.” Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas’ continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as “investigate the trouble” it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent’s apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse[1]

Appellants’ claims of negligence included: the dispatcher’s failure to forward the 6:23 a.m. call with the proper degree of urgency; *3 the responding officers’ failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside; and the dispatcher’s failure to dispatch the 6:42 a.m. call.[2]

Now tell me that we don’t need guns, that the police will be there to save the day. They may save the day, but they very well might not save us or our loved ones.

On top of that, they aren’t even held accountable when they ignore calls for help; they behave as they did in the above case. The attorney for the women cited the Civil Rights Act of 1981, Section 1983, as follows:

42 U.S. Code § 1983.Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309 (c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)

If you read the Code, you might believe that anyone acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, who causes someone to be deprived of any right

shall be held liable. Wow! Sounds great. But . . .. The big BUT. No, the Code doesn’t have a but, but a but is perceived to be in the Code by our courts today.

 Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro, (and Wilfred Nichol in another case) sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individuals who were suing the police department, and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A panel decided that Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings, while unanimously concluding that Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed, and affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of her complaint. The full court, on petitions for rehearing, canceled the panel’s decision, stating, “After re-arguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for complainants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal”.

In other words, the police do not have to protect us, and even after some Keystone Kops behavior are not responsible for any harm done by their negligence.

So what does this have to do with Red Flag laws? Everything!

Yes, this happened in the District of Columbia, but that isn’t the only jurisdiction that has courts coming down with the same decision. What does that tell you?

It tells me that I want to be armed. And wish I had an AR-15. Pepper spray would have been as good as a squirt gun for those women. But what does this have to do with red flag laws?

John R. Lott Jr, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and an expert on gun rights, writing in the Washington Times on the Red Flag gun laws states, “. . . the laws are more complicated than usually discussed in the press. Depending upon the state, anyone from a family member, intimate partner, ex, house or apartment mates, or police can file a complaint. Under Colorado’s proposed law, anyone can make a phone call to the police. They don’t even have to be living in the state. There is no hearing. All the judge has before them is the statement of concern.” He also pointed out, “It has always been possible to take away someone’s guns, but all 50 states have required testimony by a mental health expert before a judge. Hearings could be conducted very quickly in urgent cases, But gun control advocates argue that it’s important to not even alert the person that his guns may be taken away. Hence, the 5 a.m. police raids.

“When people really pose a clear danger to themselves or others, they should be confined to a mental health facility. Simply denying them the right to legally buy a gun isn’t a serious remedy. If you think that you are any more likely to stop criminals from getting guns than illegal drugs, good luck. The same drug dealers sell both and are a major source of guns. And there are other weapons such as cars.

Despite the sacrifices, the evidence shows no benefits from these laws. Looking at data from 1970 through 2017, Red Flag laws appear to have had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault or burglary. There is some evidence that rape rates rise. These laws apparently do not save lives.”

Lott mentioned that, “Depending upon the state, anyone from a family member, intimate partner, ex, house or apartment mates, or police can file a complaint.” That is scary enough; if an ex or even an angry or jealous family member wanted to, they could file a complaint. But we now live in very fluid times. Sue, a friend called me last week and related what had happened to her. Her daughter, Kerry, left a frantic text message that she needed her to come right away. Sue called Kerry to find out what was happening. Kerry was at a minor-league baseball game, enjoying herself and had no emergency. Sue called the police who told her that there is an app you can get that lets you use other people’s phone numbers. It happens that Kerry has a bit of a stalker situation at her work and she suspects that he is the one that made the call. But as the police told them, there is no way to trace who made the call.

I can easily imagine someone like that Red Flagging her. Or, there is another scenario I can imagine happening (and I don’t have much of an imagination or I’d be writing fiction and selling lots of books). That is someone(s) wanting to break into your house to rob you or worse, do to you what those men did to Carolyn Warren, above. With such open Red Flag laws, they can disarm you by cop. This isn’t farfetched. The police would take your guns and, by the time you got the situation rectified, you might be dead.

Because we humans need to protect ourselves and we aren’t born with claws, enormous teeth, or venom, we must use tools to protect ourselves. The quintessential tool is a gun. It’s easy to use and carry, and it is effective – both as a weapon and a deterrent. Plus, people have a choice whether they want to have and use guns or not.

And it has been a basic right. But right now, our right to own guns is being eroded faster than California’s bullet train. Not in one fell-swoop, but chipping away, one new law after another so that the powers-that-be will not have to come after our guns because we will have given them up with each new gun-grab.

There are people who are mentally unfit and are dangerous, who shouldn’t be allowed guns, and we need to find ways to protect society from them. But disarming the country is not the answer.

In reality, the Red Flag laws are being driven by emotion, not reason and logic. Gun owners, gun supporters, and freedom lovers need to stand up and bring common sense back to the dialog. This is truly an issue of protecting our lives, our families, and our property. We cannot, we must not, allow unsupported emotions to drive the day.

[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2019/05/15/red-flag-laws-double-speak-for-gun-confiscation/

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography

Kathleen Marquardt: SNOWFLAKES OR REASONING ADULTS – IT’S THE PARENTS’ CHOICE 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

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

Kathleen Marquardt: Political Correctness, just one tool in the arsenal of Sustainability 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Political Correctness, just one tool in the arsenal of Sustainability- “Besides that loss of free speech on college campuses, we have social justice dictating what can, can’t, and must be done.”

by Kathleen Marquardt

“At its worst, political correctness is nothing different from Orwell’s Newspeak – an attempt to change the way people think by forcibly changing the way they speak.” Urban Dictionary

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.”    Chester M. Pierce, Harvard psychiatrist, speaking as an expert in public education at the 1973 International Education Seminar.

The “Dear Hillary” letter, written on Nov. 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), lays out a plan “to remold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone,” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.”

Tucker’s plan would change the mission of the schools from teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce boards. Nothing in this comprehensive plan has anything to do with teaching schoolchildren how to read, write, or calculate.

Twenty-seven or eight years ago, I was interviewed by a reporter at the Sacramento Bee about my articles challenging the thinking of animal rights. The reporter said to me, “But they are politically correct and you are not.” I agreed, saying that if anyone ever called me politically correct, it would be time to slit my throat.

Why do I bring this up now? Back then I didn’t realize where p.c. was going; now it is full-force tyranny. Am I exaggerating? Few people who do not back socialist-leaning thought are allowed to speak on our campuses of ‘higher learning’, many sporting bumper stickers pro Trump or Christianity or pro life have their cars keyed or spray painted. You don’t hear about that happening when one has a coexist bumper sticker.

Political Correctness has become a tool, one of many in the arsenal of global tyranny. It is a tool that could not have been used 40 or 50 years ago; most people still had rational, thinking brains. Since my interview with the Sacramento Bee, the road to hell – or global government – or the death of Western Culture — has gotten so steep we may not be able to stop it or even slow it down.

Do I exaggerate? You tell me. Besides that loss of free speech on college campuses, we have social justice dictating what can, can’t, and must be done. Many campuses require you to intuit someone’s arbitrary choice of gender so that you may properly address them (it would take a perfect clairvoyant to achieve this). Let’s move on to the important stuff – academic learning, or the lack thereof.

College students used to take a liberal arts degree in their undergraduate work to give them a well-rounded base. Now that and most other true academic learning has been ditched for social justice studies, sustainable studies, gaming studies – anything that is anti Western Culture, anything that makes one unemployable, anything that dumbs down the next generations.

Textbooks are full of misinformation, propaganda and lies. Classic literature is banned for using outdated words. Books are ignored or shunned for promoting morality, literacy, reason, common sense, and civility. And while our institutes of higher learning preach, “question authority”, they don’t actually teach questioning anything but Western Culture and its values. They certainly don’t teach students to question the professors’ authority. No longer do students debate tough issues; no one wants to take the side of the non-politically correct.

How did we get from the Declaration of Independence to the State of Political Correctness? One major contributor was the book, The Ideal Communist City, (a design for No Child Left Behind, Common Core and all the other aliases of behavior modification of children) said here in public education, “The best opportunity for contact among children of preschool age occurs in the nursery, which is the best setting for developing the child’s imitative powers and individual activities. He expresses his inclinations most freely here, and his egocentricity is least harmfully repressed. The positive value of group activity, of course, is fully realized only when it is organized and directed by educators who have benefited from advanced social training.”

Or look at this from the BSTEP program our government (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) hired Michigan State University to design. “A small elite will carry society’s burdens. The resulting impersonal manipulation of most people’s life styles will be softened by provisions for pleasure seeking and guaranteed physical necessities. Participatory democracy in the American-ideal mold will mainly disappear. The worth and dignity of individuals will be endangered on every hand. Only exceptional individuals will be able to maintain a sense of worth and dignity.”

Let’s not overlook UNESCO, here, “As long as a child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world-mindedness (one-world order) can produce only precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism (nationalism). We shall presently recognize in nationalism the major obstacle to development of world-mindedness.” UNESCO publication #356, “In the Classroom: Toward World Understanding”

It took only about half the lifetime of our country to get us here.

In 1918, Mary Parker Follett wrote, in The New State, group organization – the solution of popular government, “The training for the new democracy must be from the cradle – through nursery, school and play, and on and on through every activity of our life. Citizenship is not to be learned in good government classes or current events courses or lessons in civics. It is to be acquired through those modes of living and acting which shall teach us how to grow the social consciousness. This should be the object of all day school education, of all night school education, of all our supervised recreation, of all our family life, of our club life, of our civic life.

“When we change or ideas of the relation of the individual to society, our whole system of education changes. What we want to teach is interdependence, that efficiency waits on discipline, that discipline is obedience to the whole of which I am a part.. . . when we know how to teach social discipline, then we shall know how to ‘teach school.’ The object of education is to fit children into the life of the community.” P.363

So, according to Follett, our lives must focus completely on losing our individual rights and work to subordinate any freedoms we might consider to the cosmic one-ness, the group. The thought of that (if there are thinking minds left) would drive most of us to suicide.

John Dewey, the reformer of the education system, said, “I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. I believe that education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.”

“Humanist Manifesto” (1933) co-author Dewey calls for a synthesizing of all religions and “a socialized and cooperative economic order.” [1]

America cannot last under this. Our country is based on Western Culture, Judeo/Christian Values, the Rule of Law, and other rational, reasoning social institutions. As we eradicate morality, common sense, values, attitudes, and beliefs, we become no different than the animals. Look at Venezuela. Do we want that at a magnitude of the nth degree? If not, now is the time to wake up, stand up, and speak out. We don’t have much time left. Look at the streets of San Francisco, Chicago, Nashville, New York, Los Angeles. Is this what we want to call our civilization?

[1] Deanna Spingola, The New World Order, Programming the Masses

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/09/10/political-correctness-just-one-tool-in-the-arsenal-of-sustainability/?mc_cid=8dfab2085a&mc_eid=210870cea5

Read Kathleen Marquardt’s Biography
« Older Entries