FR Pres. Richard Haas: “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks.” – AND, Trump Hasn’t a Clue!
Quietly, without debate, one of the most dangerous attacks on American freedom and sovereignty is moving through Congress and headed to President Trump’s desk for signing,. The USMCA agreement will create a North American Union worse than the European Union. Yet there is no voice of opposition being heard. My friend Rich Loudenback has written a urgent, detailed report on this looming disaster. He shows clearly that this is not an improvement over NAFTA as claimed. In fact it contains most of the provisions of NAFTA, plus a lot more. It will be a disaster to American industry, especially for agriculture. Efforts to change some of the worst provisions have been ignored. Why do you think Nancy Pelosi has allowed it to pass the House? Please read and share with as many people as possible. This must be stopped now! Tom DeWeese
President Trump is being lied to by his trusted advisors and he is clueless about their deceit. Why is he clueless? Because he can’t possibly be supporting something that is so comprehensively bad for America and even antithetical to his wall. Perhaps he so strongly wants to believe in the USMCA, that he’s been easier to be ‘covertly convinced’ about ‘the deal.’
Lest one good American with his ear can open his eyes before this arrives on his desk, it’s a real ‘done deal.’ It appears he is ready to sign it immediately, leaving with these advisors, his trust. He will be screwed! And America will be ‘transformed’ into a different world.
Believe it or not, I have actually had a couple people tell me they think it’s possible that Trump does know the truth about the USMCA, which would make him also part of the problem. Like most devout Trumpers, I choose to believe that that’s not possible. I am all in for him, but this USMCA just doesn’t comport with his many, many incredible accomplishments and persona projecting American greatness.
Trump’s signing the USMCA will, in fact, be the biggest mistake of his presidency to date and unfortunately will probably become his enduring legacy. He will be ‘The US President That Signed Off America’ to be run by the UN/globalist community steered most largely in America by the clandesant deep state managers at the Council on Foreign Relations in lockstep with their UN/globalist comrades.
Once he signs this monstrosity of deception with all its controlling tentacles that will render our government and our Constitution feckless, President Trump doesn’t get a do-over. He was able to cancel TTP and TTIP because they were still looming bills in congress.
When he signs this as law, that’s it! It has a six year review written into it and an 18 year renewal statement. Trying to get out of it will be like England’s’ BREXIT but tougher, because a lot more money will be easily spent to hold us down since we are the globalists’ biggest threat.
One of many negative issues for the United States is cited by Christian Gomez in his article‘What’s Really in the USMCA’stating, “In the name of protecting fishes and other marine life, the United States would have to surrender its sovereignty over all of its waterways and miles of coastal oceans (including everything under, on, in, and above them) over to the jurisdiction of UN international law.”
What is particularly sickening about this horrendous climax about to befall America is that literally all the supporting conservative talking heads on TV & radio have bought into this because they believe in our great President and don’t fathom that his enthusiasm for it is the product of ingenious ‘stealth programming’ of him by others. Virtually no one has done any vetting. Worst of all, our apathetic citizenry is not present on most issues anymore and totally oblivious on this one since there has been no causations to notice for concern.
How many patriotic Americans are going to tolerate President Trump’s much vaunted USMCA once it begins being implemented by the powers of the UN globalist, once our patriots see what the USMCA really does. It will:
Since this is truly so hard to believe, then do something none of the media talking heads nor, unfortunately, none of the 348 House Democrats and Republicans who just voted ‘YEA’ for the USMCA obviously did not do: Read the damn document!
We should be livid, because they generally like to say they voted for the ‘bait’ woven into the document for them to justify their votes, like they are pearl-like gifts for dairy farmers or other special interests.
This is a national crisis and quite literally nobody is aware of it. We will morph into what will more than likely become the North American Union which will in turn become a segment of the UN run global government, ‘think New World Order.’ Again, should you have doubt, just read the document.
However, it runs for 1,809 pages — 1,572 pages for the treaty chapters, 214 pages for additional annexes, and 23 pages of side letters. Obviously, the mammoth size of the agreement should set off alarm bells that much more is involved than “free trade,” which should mean the absence of government intervention.
A much easier approach to learning all that’s in this scheme to ‘transform’ (sound familiar) America into a member state of a regional UN run government via this fine- tuned instrument of deception and guile, is to look at Christian Gomez’s spectacular expose’ of it in his article What’s Really in the USMCA? – A MUST READ!
Gomez’s genius approach to revealing the USMCA is to expose the UN’s controlling tentacles within the Trojan Horse agreement in his article and then allow you to go to his in-depth ‘USMCA Issues Index’ at the bottom of the article that features links to any of your concerns that take you directly to them in the actual agreement. You will save a lot of time and be convinced quite quickly why this is all a ruse to take utter control of our freedoms and our government rendering The United States of America null & void.
“The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward,” says Gomez.
TREACHEROUS BETRAYAL BY ‘TRUSTED’ ADVISORS:
“A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change.” – Quote from Christian Gomez in his New American Magazine special report ‘USMCA – A TPP Redux?’
Guess who was the chief negotiator in both NAFTA and TPP?
Larry Kudlow, President Trump’s Chief Economic Advisor assures Trump that Lighthizer is the best negotiator we have and the USMCA is just what we need.
Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas said “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP. I suggest the US-Pacific Trade Agreement (USPTA),” Haass said on Twitter, adding, “What matters is that the US joins it; doing so would bolster our strategic position visa-vis China and our economy.” The next day, Haass again took to Twitter, where he reiterated his renewed hope of the United States rejoining TPP. Haass tweeted: “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks.”
The USMCA — the NAFTA replacement — represents the next globalist step toward the economic integration of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into an EU-style North American Union.
Oh, and they said NAFTA would boost our trade in large numbers and add at least 177,000 new jobs. Yet, after having had a trade surplus for years, we immediately went to a $15.8 billion deficit the first year and it has increased every year since and we LOST at least 700,000 jobs stated Robert E. Lighthizer in his remarks on a NAFTA renegotiation, Aug. 16, 2018
Now VP Mike Pence’s office states, “The U.S. International Trade Commission says that within five years, the USMCA could add up to $235 billion in new economic growth and 589,000 jobs to the U.S. economy.
Yet, The United States International Trade Commission website usitc.gov, their article ‘USITC Releases Report Concerning the Likely Impact of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)’ those claims differ markedly: “The Commission’s model estimates that USMCA would raise U.S. real GDP by $68.2 billion (0.35 percent) and U.S. employment by 176,000 jobs (0.12 percent). The model estimates that USMCA would likely have a positive impact on U.S. trade, both with USMCA partners and with the rest of the world. U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (5.9 percent) and $14.2 billion (6.7 percent), respectively. U.S. imports from Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (4.8 percent) and $12.4 billion (3.8 percent), respectively.“ ??? Right.
The late, Professor Robert A Pastor, one of the leading architects of the European Union wrote in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations:“NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”
OUT OF NOWHERE, THE USMCA PUSH HAS STRANGE BEDFELLOW: NANCY PELOSI
Making the strongest of statements on how bad this monstrosity must be, the person that would do about anything to hurt Trump, Nancy Pelosi, all of a sudden is pushing for its passage, in fact, its reported that after having a lot of new Progressive stuff inserted into it at the last minute, she is even now trying to take credit for the bill and its passage. That is all most true Constitutional conservatives should need to hear to ‘catch on.’
If this passes by the Senate and Trump eagerly signing it, there is NO second chance! Trump was able to cancel the TPP/TTIP on the 3rd day of his Presidency because it was still just a bill in progress. Once he signs this giant win for the globalists it would take Congress and Trump to repeal it. Good luck with betting on Congress. This could be tougher to accomplish than BREXIT in England, given the kind of money that would be available for our sorry LOBBYI$T loving legislators and see how frustratingly BREXIT has been going, going and going. It’s possible that spirited American patriots may be more inclined toward civil war than putting up with absolute control by unelected, unaccountable, global elitists who know what’s best about everything for everybody in a Socialist world.
We have almost no time left to wake up Senators and especially President Trump.
I really want to believe in President Trump enough to think he would nuke this masterpiece of sovereignty destroying, evil deception as soon as he recognizes the truths about it.
If we could only find one person who has his ear to open his eyes. In the meantime all we can do is all we can do. Please spread the word and make phone calls ASAP.
Mitch McConnell has said that he won’t bring this up till after impeachment trials in January. But then, he could bring it up tomorrow. I do not trust Mitch McConnell!
Call and log your opposition to this American sovereignty killing bill, the USMCA:
President Trump at 202 456-1111 or 456-1414
Your Senators at 202 224-3121
Your Representatives at 202 225-3121- Ask how your representative voted!
Rich Loundeback: An Idaho native, Rich spent 40+ years in sales, management, and publishing. He worked at factory and distributor levels in the high-end appliance industry, published a trade newspaper and worked for a management consulting company covering 9 states and 4 provinces of Canada. After living in 6 mostly southeastern states and working in all but Maine and Hawaii, he retired in 2009 in Hayden, Idaho and began writing again and now serves as the North Idaho editor for Gem State Patriot News.
MADRID — To deal with the alleged “climate emergency,” reducing the number of people on the planet is high on the agenda among activists and speakers at the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit. The growing extremism and even paranoia among population-control advocates, who worry that more people will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, is reaching deafening levels. But the establishment media is largely keeping silent.
The advocates of population control and population reduction are divided, though, on what particular peoples and groups should be targeted most heavily. One key speaker at the UN summit said “white men” and especially Americans and Swedes must stop having babies. An exhibitor promoting “sustainable development,” meanwhile, argued that Africans and Asians ought to be the key target of the depopulation. Others think all of the above.
What means should be used was also a subject of debate. Some activists and speakers promoted propaganda, indoctrination, tax-funded contraception, abortion, ubiquitous birth-control availability, and even coercive population-reduction measures. Others say even more drastic means are needed to deal with the “emergency.” One UN speaker went even further earlier this year, suggesting that actually “killing” people could be on the table.
A major speaker at the UN summit, Oscar-winning director Michael Wadleigh (shown above) of “Woodstock” fame, minced no words in an interview with The New American. “Don’t have children — and I’m looking at you, white man,” he said on camera, speaking in a deep voice, echoing comments he made in high-profile official speeches at the summit.
The reason why it is so important to reduce the population of Europeans and their descendants is because their nations are more developed and they consume more resources, he said. Even Scandinavia and Sweden, which have a “clean” image, are destroying the planet, Wadleigh continued, warning that average Swedes consume 40 times more than average Tanzanians. Even socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is not radical enough on these issues, he said.
“If you were into population control or population reduction, which is good idea worldwide, you should go to Sweden, because if your efforts resulted in one less baby in Sweden, that would be equal to your efforts to go to Africa and reduce populations by 46 percent, sorry, by 46 people in Africa,” said the director turned population-control activist, who spoke just a few hours prior on the same stage as former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
Wadleigh, who has one child and works closely with the UN, crunched the numbers and became convinced. “So where does it make sense to start your population reduction efforts? Start with the people who are the highest per capita emitters, if your goal is to reduce climate change and unsustainable development,” he explained, without noting that the environment in more developed countries such as Sweden, America, Switzerland, Japan, and so on is generally far cleaner than in Third World nations.
Prominent population-control advocates such as neo-Malthusian Paul Erlich of “Population Bomb” fame and Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren have offered radical ideas on this subject. In their 1977 book EcoScience, the duo — who at the time were peddling “global cooling” alarmism — discussed mandatory abortions and adding “sterilizing agents” to the water supply as potential tools for bringing population levels under control.
When asked if those ideas might be going too far, Wadleigh smiled and responded: “You haven’t heard me talk yet!” The ultra-left-wing UN speaker, a fan of communism, did not elaborate on how much further he would be willing to go to reduce human numbers, before going on to speak about what he sees as over-consumption.
In one of his UN talks from one of the most prominent stages in the entire convention, Wadleigh emphasized the need for government coercion to achieve his vision. One of his main messages was the need to drastically reduce consumption. “We can no longer do this voluntarily,” said Wadleigh, pining for a global government that he said did not yet exist. “Make it a law, not a voluntary action.”
A few hours later, former Senator Kerry took the same stage to bad-mouth America and lie about all sorts of things. Among other “climate whoppers,” he claimed that solar energy was now cheaper than traditional forms of energy “by every metric.” If that were true, everybody would be using it, of course.
Rather than targeting Western nations — virtually all of which have birth rates at less than replacement levels — others in Madrid for the COP25 proposed targeting Third World populations. Alejandro Moran Rodriguez, for example, a UN volunteer at the COP25, was manning a booth promoting the UN’s controversial “Sustainable Development Goals.” He told Rebel News that countries in Africa and in Asia should be high on the list for population-control, because they do not have “that culture.” And so, governments must “manage their population,” he said, calling for UN enforcement of contraception.
Another UN speaker also veered into the highly controversial and sensitive area. Self-described “Eco-Social Strategist” Stuart Scott with the group Scientists Warning, who gave almost a dozen talks and press conferences throughout COP25, spoke on topics such as “Too Many Of Us.” “It is undeniable that humanity’s footprint is the number of us times the consumption,” he said, adding that concerns over upsetting religious people were holding back necessary discussions on how to limit the number of human beings on the planet. The Christian Bible, for example, calls on people to “be fruitful and multiply.”
But Scott does not think that is a good idea at all. Pointing to Project Drawdown, Scott suggested that “educating females” and making tax-funded “family planning” available to them would be among the top three ways to reduce CO2 emissions if combined into one package. “The topic [of population control] needs to be part of the negotiations,” he argued. “We are making tiny progress…. Our request — it should be our demand, but I’m not the one making the demand — is that the UN put it on the agenda.”
Of course, Communist China’s coercive population-control regime literally includes kidnapping pregnant women and killing their pre-born children. When asked if the regime had gone too far in its efforts, Scott did not say. “Even though China relaxed its one-child policy, it’s birth rate has not gone up the way they thought it would,” he said, hopefully, suggesting that fears about climate change were causing women not to have children.
While controversial, Scott’s efforts have been endorsed by everyone from prominent global-warming scientist James Hansen and neo-Malthusian Ehrlich to organizations such as 350.org, Friends of the Earth, and Citizens Climate Lobby, which has former Secretary of Treasury and State George P. Schultz on its advisory board. Erlich, one of Scott’s supporters, has been one of the most vocal advocates of reducing human numbers. Scott even spoke on a panel with Hansen during COP25.
This zealotry for reducing the number of people on the planet has become a common theme at UN gatherings. Earlier this year, at the 68th UN Civil Society Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, one speaker went further than most would dare to in public. After speaking on a panel with UN Assistant Secretary-General Satya Tripathi, Global Initiative for Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP) Executive Director David Michael Terungwa dropped a bombshell. “We can’t kill them all,” he said, twice, laughing.
Before that, at the COP24 in Poland last year, Al Gore trumpeted the theme. Among the solutions to the supposed “climate crisis,” Gore touted more and stricter population-control policies by government. Perhaps oblivious to the ghoulishness of his words, Gore praised the population-control regime operated by the government of India, which has been widely condemned as abusive and coercive. Showing a graph of China’s population, he also celebrated the policies of the mass-murdering dictatorship in Communist China.
However, showing a graph of Africa’s population, Gore suggested that Africans were still having far too many babies for planet Earth to sustain in the face of supposed “climate” change. Despite lip-service to the pope and Catholicism, Gore demanded, among other tactics, that contraception be made “ubiquitously available” all over the world. The goal: Help reduce the number of children, and especially Africans.
The New American asked Democrat presidential candidate and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for his desire to have Big Government disarm you and regulate everything from Big Gulps to salt content in food, for his thoughts on the population-control subject. “Thank you, have a nice day,” he responded with a strange grin. His handlers promptly rushed in — “he’s not taking interviews right now” — before his armed security, looking grumpy, whisked him away.
Children are already being bombarded by UN propaganda at school and in official UN publications. The goal: convincing students that having babies is bad for the planet. The the 1994 UN-produced book Rescue Mission: Planet Earth : A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21, the UN’s self-styled “education” agency teaches children that “the planet groans every time it registers another birth.” And that is just the start of what critics say is the anti-human, anti-Christian, anti-freedom propaganda that has been peddled by the UN to children for decades now.
During the recent debate on a whether or not to declare a “climate emergency,” German Members of the European so-called Parliament expressed deep unease over the declaration. The reason is that the German term for emergency, der Notstand, is associated with a Nazi law adopted by Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party to consolidate power.
The UN summit, led by international socialists such as Antonio Guterres, appears to be hoping for vast new powers to deal with this supposed “climate emergency.” And at the top of the list will be reducing the number of people on the planet, by any means that they consider necessary.
In September of 2000 the UN held its Millennium Summit in New York City to announce its 8 goals to impose the transformation of the world under Sustainable Development.
In response, on September 7, 2000, as nearly every head of state and world leader gathered at the United Nations headquarters, the American Policy Center (APC) held a news conference on Capital Hill calling for an end to the United States membership in the UN. To back up its demands, APC delivered more than 500,000 petitions in support of Rep. Ron Paul’s National Sovereignty Restoration Act (HR 1146).
The petitions, weighing more than 1.5 tons, served as the backdrop for the news conference as Rep. Paul and the late Rep. Helen Chenoweth-Hage spoke to reporters about the threat of the UN to the United States. More leaders who spoke at the event, Hosted by APC president Tom DeWeese, included the late Henry Lamb of Sovereignty International, Constitutional expert Herb Titus, the late Kent Snyder of the Liberty Study Committee and Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival.
The News Conference was aired to millions over the CSPAN cable network and helped APC launch a renewed war against the UN’s relentless drive for global governance.
This video of that 2000 news conference is especially significant as Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Ala) has now introduced his bill, called the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 204), to again call for the United States to Exit the United Nations. It’s time to renew the fight to stop the UN’s drive for global governance.
MY ADDRESS TO THE COLORADO INDEPENDENT CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION
I’m not a cattleman and I’m not going to pretend I know everything you are facing. But I do know that the major weapon being used against your industry is the misnamed control devise called Sustainable Development. I know why and I know who the players are. I hope I can leave you today with some ideas on how to fight them.
To begin, let’s set the terms and make one thing very clear. The use of the word sustainable may sound like a comfortable term, not threatening. After all, you, your parents, and those before them have probably been successfully working the same land for decades. That’s true sustainability. But that is not what it means to those forces pushing that term today. Sustainable today means sustained control. Sustained power. And very soon – sustainable poverty for many.
Most people immediately equate Sustainable Development with environmental policy. Of course, concern for the environment is the justification most often used for its implementation. But, in fact land, and economic control are at the heart of Sustainable policy and, assuming it is simply good environmental stewardship proves to be a serious and dangerous mistake.
The term “Sustainable Development” was born on the pages of the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. It is basically the policy for the implementation of Agenda 21 which came along in 1992. The announced purpose of Agenda 21 was a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”.
Now to make this blue print effective they needed us to voluntarily give up our liberties. What could be such a powerful threat to get us all to do that? Well, how about the threat of Environmental Armageddon? It doesn’t matter how many rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on! Climate change is the tool of choice to scare us all into voluntarily surrendering our liberties to this BLUEPRINT to change human society. And that’s why they will not give up on this scam – no matter how much true science debunks it.
If you doubt that then let me share this quote from Christina Stewart, the former Canadian Minister of the Environment: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” That “justice and equality” she speaks of is redistribution of wealth – which means socialism. Sustainable Development is not just a conservation policy to assure we are good stewards of the land: rather, it affects every corner of our lives.
The Sustainable ground troops are made up of hundreds of Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), including the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund. They, and hundreds more like them, helped to write Agenda 21.
How many of you have heard of the Wildlands Project? In the 1980s one of the most radical environmental organizations emerged – named Earth First! Its leader was Dave Foreman. Earth First! saw themselves as “Eco-Warriors” the Esprit de Corp of the radical environmental movement. Monkeywrenching was their tactic of choice. Sabotage. They destroyed mining equipment, blew up power transmission lines and spiked trees. That little bit of fun meant they drove a spike into a tree. When the timber company then cut the tree down and sent it to the mill, as the saw blades hit the spike they would explode. Timber production stopped! Victory for the Eco Warriors.
Forman had big plans. He said, “My three main goals would be to reduce human populations to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full compliment of species, returning throughout the world.” Do you see any room for you and your cattle in that vision?
Oh, but these were just the ravings of a radical lunatic – not to be taken seriously. Well…not so fast! You see, Foreman’s ideas became the basis for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. “Rewilding” became the term to lock away over 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way if was before Christopher Columbus came this way. No human activity. No roads. No homes. No industry. That became the basis for the whole Sustainable movement.
Foreman got specific about how he saw YOUR future. “Our vision is simple. We live for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska. When gray wolf populations are continuous from New Mexico to Greenland.”
One of Foreman’s fellow Earth First!ers said, “The native ecosystems and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.” You see, this “vision” became the driving force for the entire radical environmental movement. It was first expressed in the 1970s in the UN’s Habitat 1 Conference that said, “Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” That’s how you reorganize human society.
Thomas Lovejoy, a Clinton appointed Science Advisor to the Department of Interior said, “We will map the whole nation…determine development for the whole country and regulate it all.” That is Sustainable Development.
Why is the excuse of environmental protection their most diabolical weapon? Because the environment doesn’t obey political boundaries. Rivers run through many towns and states. Then we have the corridors of crops and wildlife patterns. So environmental protection becomes the perfect excuse to move national sovereignty out of the way and open the borders to the “natural migration” of people.
On the county level we then have a need for a coalition of multiple counties working together on “mutual” needs, thus reducing your power at the ballot box to elect the kind of local government you desire. Then there is the matter of that boundary around your house – your private property – that the community needs to control – just to protect the environment, of course.
It is essential that every American understands that these leading issues we face today are not just random concerns that accidentally find their way into the forefront of political debate. They are all interconnected to be policies of Sustainable Development and the restructuring of our way of life. Their selected tactic is to control the land, water, energy, and population of the Earth. To achieve these ends requires, among other things, the destruction of private property rights and elimination of every individual’s ability to make personal life-style choices, including personal diet. That’s why the American Beef Industry is such a tasty target.
Of course, no totalitarian-bound movement would ever put their purpose in such direct terms. That’s where the environmental protection excuse comes in. Instead, American cattle producers are simply assured that no one wants to harm your industry, just make it safer for the environment. The gun industry might recognize that such an assurance sounds a bit familiar. Same source, same tactics, same goals.
Enter Bill Clinton’s President’s Council on Sustainable Development, (which was created a year after Agenda 21 to assure it’s policy of Sustainable Development became the rule of law). The President’s Council included representatives of most federal agencies, many of the NGOs who helped write Agenda 21 at the UN level, and representatives of global corporations. The President’s Council laid out the “Principles of Sustainability” called “Our Vision of a Sustainable United States of America.”
To carry out these plans, the President’s Council created a task force called the Sustainable Agriculture Task Force. The purpose, according to the report – “The Sustainable Agriculture Task force is developing an integrated vision of sustainable Agriculture, focusing on sustainable production practices and systems. The Task force will recommend goals and actions in the areas of agriculture-related research and education, technology, and farming practices and system to the Council for National Action Strategy.” So the offered solution to “fix” the beef industry is “sustainable certification”. All the cattle growers have to do is follow a few simple rules and all will be fine, peaceful, and profitable.
Now, enter the World Wildlife Fund and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB). The task force led the way to its creation. In all of their “expert wisdom” based on this Taskforce, here are some of their reasons why they claim the beef industry is not sustainable.
Deforestation – the claim is that farm animals require considerably more land than crops to produce food. The World Hunger Program calculated that if the land was used to grow grain and soy instead of cattle the land could provide a vegan diet to 6 billion people. Do you get that – a vegan diet!
Of course, as I’m sure you know, most grazing land in the U.S. cannot be used for growing food crops because the soil wouldn’t sustain crops. It’s also interesting to note that in Brazil, the WWF managed to force that government to lock away almost 50% of that nation’s land into unusable parks. Now they are working on that same goal in the American west.
Fresh Water – they claim that the America diet requires 4,200 gallons of water per day, including animal drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, etc. Whereas a vegandiet only requires 300 gallons per day. Apparently they don’t plan to irrigate the land to grow wheat or to wash the vegetables.
The interesting thing about this detail is that the actual sustainable policies they are enforcing to fix this problem destroy the small family farms in favor of the very giant corporate factory farms they profess to oppose.
Food Productivity – say the Greens, food productivity of farmland is falling behind the population and the only option, besides cutting the population, is to cut back on meat consumption and convert grazing lands to food crops. However, the only places where such shortages may exist are in totalitarian societies where government is controlling food production and supplies – Just like the Green’s plan for sustainable beef.
Global Warming – here we go! Say the Greens, global warming is driven by energy consumption and cows are energy guzzlers.
But there’s more to the story. Cow flatulence! A single dairy cow, they claim, produces an average of 75 kilos of methane annually. Meanwhile, environmentalists want to return the rangelands to historic species, including buffalo. And a buffalo, grazing on the same grass on the same lands, would emit about the same amount of methane. It’s a non-issue.
Not long ago many farmers were being harassed by government agents over pollution in streams running through their land. The government charged that the cattle were the cause and demanded they build a fence to keep the cattle from the stream. They demanded, they harassed, and they threatened. Then they found that the pollution wasn’t being caused by the cows, rather the source was feral hogs. Of course, an environmentalist, who has never worked a ranch or farm and rarely comes out of his New York high-rise, might not know that.
So, these are some of the reasons why it’s charged that beef is unsustainable and must be ruled, regulated and frankly, eliminated. These are charges brought by anti-beef vegans who want all beef consumption stopped. In cahoots, are environmentalists who seek to stop the private ownership and use of land under the excuse of environmental protection.
And the sad fact is, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the organization many have been trusting to represent your interests, has betrayed you by allowing itself to be used as the Judas Goat to lead the industry to sustainable slaughter.
To bring the cattle industry into line with this world view the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has accepted the imposition of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, which is heavily influenced, if not controlled, by the World Wildlife Fund, one of the top three most powerful environmental organizations in the world and a leader of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), which basically sets the rules for global environmental policy.
This is the same World Wildlife Fund that issued a report saying, “Meat consumption is devastating some of the world’s most valuable and vulnerable regions, due to the vast amount of land needed to produce animal feed.” The report went on to say that, to save the Earth, it was vital that we change human consumption habits away from meat. Again, the fact is, most land used for grazing isn’t capable of growing crops for food.
Regulations using these principles impose a political agenda that ignores the fact that smaller, independent cattle growers have proven to be the best stewards of their own land and that for decades have produced the highest grade of beef product in the world. Instead, to continue to produce you will be required to submit to a centralized control of regulations that will never end and will always increase in costs and needless waste of manpower.
To follow the sustainable rules and be officially certified, you, as a cattle grower, must agree to have much of the use of your land reduced to provide for wildlife habitat. There are strict controls over water use and grazing areas. This forces you to have smaller herds, making the process more expensive and economically unviable for the industry. In addition, there is a new layer of industry and government inspectors, creating a massive bureaucratic overreach, causing yet more costs for you.
The Roundtable rules are now enforced through the four packing companies that control the entire American beef market. Your ability to get your cattle to market is getting harder every day – unless you comply with rules that are simply designed to put you out of business. And yet, if you do comply, you will certainly go out of business.
Do you understand the game that is being played on you? You are not supposed to win – you are supposed to quietly comply and then die. You cannot reason with them. You cannot compromise with them. You follow their rules. They own the game.
So as the packers, Cargill, Tyson, JBS and National Beef, force their expensive, unnecessary, and unworkable sustainable certification on American cattlemen, they are systematically bringing in cheaper product from other countries that don’t necessarily adhere to strict, sanitary, safe production. As a result there is a noticeable rise in news reports of recalls of diseased chicken and beef in American grocery stores. They get away with this ruse because their first step was to remove the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) from the packaging in stores so consumers have no idea where the product is coming from.
This, then, is the situation that is threatening the American beef industry. If one reads the documents and statements from the World Wildlife Fund, the United Nations Environment Program, and others involved, it is not hard to realize that the true goal is not to make beef better, but to ban it altogether. And believe it or not, the fact that some of the beef sold in stores is becoming lower grade and even diseased, works in the Sustainablist’s favor too – because the ultimate goal is to stop the consumption of beef. So fear is a valuable tool.
The question must then be asked, why is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association allowing this to happen, and indeed, joining with the Sustainable Beef Roundtable to force these policies on its members? The answer is actually quite tragic. They have beaten you into submission with that word Sustainable. American ranchers, farmers and livestock growers have been targets of the environmental and animal rights movements for years.
You just want to be left alone to work your farms and herds like your forefathers have done for more than a century. But the pressure is growing day by day. So, many have come to believe that if you just go along – put the sustainable label on your product — then this pressure will stop. In short, it would be a pressure valve release.
I’m sorry to tell you that it is not a release. Compromising and trying to play ball with these zealots is not going to make it go away. You must understand that the goal is not about improving your industry or environmental protection. The tragic reality is this is a drive for the destruction of your industry. Remember, the UN calls this the reorganization of human society. You and your way of life are to be reorganized to fit their view of human existence.
The attack has now grown to major proportions with the Green New Deal. Beefeaters have no place in the sustainable paradise of city apartment dwellers who accept government controls to choose for them what they are permitted to eat.
R-CALF USA, the courageous group leading the fight to save you, has managed to slow the Sustainable capture of the industry. But the packers’ control is a major roadblock if you can’t reach the market. R-CALF has filed Abuse of Conduct suits to shed light on the anti-trust activities of the monopoly tactics of the packers. It’s a good and valuable start.
However, the beef industry cannot recover on its own. Your story must be told to the consumers. They must become outraged about the real reasons prices are soaring and quality is going down, as the danger to their own health is increasing. You must focus on how to get your message out to consumers that a force is loose in our country that is robbing them of the freedom of choice for their own dinner plate, perhaps even for their own health. You know these facts – but the average American doesn’t. Now how do you do that? You are in a crisis situation. That calls for drastic, creative measures.
You must get dramatic to get the attention of consumers. You must get the American people to understand the threat to the beef industry. I have a modest little suggestion as to how you can get the attention of the entire nation – and start a nation-wide discussion on your plight.
Here is my modest suggestion to help you get the public’s attention. Start a cattle drive right down the main street of cities across the country. Drive your cattle right to city hall or the state capital. As you pass through town people are going to be very startled and curious, to say the least. Take advantage of that by passing out leaflets that tell them why you are doing this.
Now that you have everyone’s attention, tell your story. Hold a news conference right there on the steps of city hall or the state capital. In that news conference, demand that “Country of Origin” labels be put on all beef products so you know where your food comes from.
Second, demand that the Department of Agriculture reject this sustainable myth and protect the American free market that has always provided superior products.
Third, expose the packers by name. Help the American consumer become your ally in every grocery and steak house in the nation. Demand American beef for Americans! So, if they see that cute little WWF panda on the label – they’ll drop it like a hot potato.
Above all, publicly call out the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to get its collective head out of the sand and join you before the entire industry is destroyed. Expose the fact that the NCBA is working directly with your mortal enemy, the World Wildlife Fund, which believes that beef consumption must be stopped in order to save the earth.
At your news conferences ask this question of the NCBA: Why would the WWF be welcomed into any part of your industry? It means they can effectively destroy you from the inside. And that is exactly what they are doing.
Can you imagine the impact this would have if you had five cattle drives in five cities in one day? It would get international attention. The only way you can survive is to fight.
I know some of you may be thinking this idea of a cattle drive is over the top. Perhaps it will cause more trouble than it’s worth. Well, just a few weeks ago several thousand farmers in the Netherlands staged a protest over similar government restrictions on their industry by blocking the roads into The Hague. The resulting traffic jam brought nearly the entire country to a halt. And the people supported the framers. The national government immediately reacted and called an emergency meeting to discuss the situation. The point is you must do something dramatic to get the nation’s attention!
So-called sustainable policy is not a free market. It is a government-sanctioned monopoly that is little short of a criminal enterprise. This is a dark, evil force with a one-sided goal designed to put you out of business and control or destroy your industry.
If you intend to survive, you must all become modern day Paul Reveres. That means taking direct, creative action. The very future of our nation and its ability to feed itself, while remaining free and strong, depends on the choices you make today. As martyred rancher LaVoy Finicum said, it matters how you stand!
Where is the Republican Party? As insanity spews out of the Democrat Party, the long-time overseer of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty has no response, no unified plan to counter the Democrats, and, indeed, seems confused by the Socialist antics. The only part of the long-lost Republican cause that seems to be functioning is their near hysterics over the massive funds the Democrats are raising. Said a recent such Republican fund letter, “I’m hoping you have the courage and determination to fight for what we believe in.”
Of course, if the Republicans had the courage and determination to fight over the past two years for “what we believe in,” their fund-raising would be soaring. Instead they run candidates with nothing to say, seemingly clueless to the massive assault on our liberties. Now they wonder why they are being ignored in the elections.
Earlier this year I addressed the leadership of the Constitution Party. I presented them with the real agenda of the Democrats and I asked this question, “Do you want to be the majority party?” They answered with a resounding YES! I then gave them a strategy to win. It occurs to me that all freedom-loving Americas, no matter what party, can benefit from this strategy to use in their own local elections.
So, here is the speech I presented to the Constitution Party. Now, understand your true enemy, take these ideas, drain the swamp in your city or state, and take American back!
My Address to the Constitution Party Leadership
There has always been some kind of force loose in the world seeking domination over others. They built armies to invade, break things and kill people in order to grab resources, build wealth and power, enslave people and conquer.
We’ve lived through such threats from megalomaniacs like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin. Secret societies have plotted to gain power in different ways.
In every case the efforts have failed. No one has ever managed to rule the entire world. In some cases they just pushed too far, too fast. Or they miscalculated the weather conditions in the lands they intended to control. It’s incredible to note that both Napoleon and Hitler failed to remember that Russia has a severe winter which ultimately led to their downfall and defeat.
However, what if such power mongers could find a way to keep their aggression under wraps and out of sight from those they intended to conquer – until it was too late.
Better yet, what if they could actually get their targeted victims to help them achieve control over them? No armies. No shots fired. Instead the victims quietly pull in the Trojan Horse and celebrate its arrival!
What if there was a way for a small, dedicated group to rule the world by simply organizing under a single unifying plan, accepted by everyone as fact and necessary?
Acceptance of the plan would see every nation voluntarily surrendering its independence and sovereignty to the aggressors!
What could possibly be such a powerful message that some of the world’s oldest and proudest nations would do that? What could get the world’s strongest religions to turn their back on their most fundamental beliefs? What would get the freest nation on earth to join in and agree?
How about the threat of Environmental Armageddon! Who could oppose saving the planet? Only selfish zealots who refuse to give up their creature comforts would oppose efforts to save Mother Earth! It doesn’t matter how many rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on.
The truth it, that’s exactly the force you and I are facing today as it drives, almost unopposed to change our life style, economic system, and system of government.
The Club of Rome, one of the main forces behind this hidden plan to rule the world openly explained their tactic and goal saying, “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Diabolical! Turn man against himself so that he voluntarily submits to subjugation. The threat of global warming became the weapon of choice.
And it doesn’t matter if true science refuses to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scaremongers.
Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change told us outright what the real goal of the threat of Environmental Armageddon truly is. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” Of course, she means free enterprise.
The blueprint for the implementation of this grand plan was revealed in 1992 at the UN’s Earth Summit. It was called the Agenda for the 21st century – or just Agenda 21.
From its inception in 1992, at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”
The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals. They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.
So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities, and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice.
Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.
Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
The policy of Agenda 21 is called Sustainable Development. You hear the term used in every part of our society, from community development to production of our food supplies, to manufacturing of nearly every product.
While sold as a means to secure a happy, healthy future of equality for all as it protects the environment, sustainable development policy, as it is enforced in every single community in the nation, has proven to be a direct attack on free enterprise, private property, and individual choice in our lives. It is the epitome of tyrannical, out of control government.
Ironically, its perpetrators were quite open and honest in their plans. We just didn’t want to listen.
The official report from the UN’s Habitat 1 Conference explained the reasons for the attack on private property. It said, “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subjected to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” That is a direct attack on the entire American economic system
But it gets even clearer. Peter Berle of the National Audubon Society said, “We reject the Idea of Private Property.”
Thomas Lovejoy, science advisor to the Department of Interior admitted, “We will map the whole nation…determine development for the whole nation, and regulate it all.”
Harvey Ruvin, the Vice Chairman of ICLEI said, “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.”
That is Agenda 21!
For over twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and it’s policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.
Now, the Sustainable forces have taken their plans to the ultimate, inevitable point. No longer are they trying to hide its true goal – global domination. Now we have the Green New Deal.
I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and were we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export, and even breathe.
In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on energy use, mandating power be turned off during certain hours. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.
In short, the Green New Deal represents the largest step ever taken by the Socialists/ Sustainablists forces that have been pushing Agenda 21 for 27 years.
But just as I was met with scoffing and charges of being a conspiracy scaremonger, the Green New Deal has now been met with scoffing and lack of concern. When I said the Green New Deal was the most radical step to enforce Agenda 21, many of my own supporters sent me snarky emails laughingly telling me that, “This is too nuts to ever be made into law!” Ha Ha!!!!
Then the laughing really started when the Republican-controlled Senate brought the Green New Deal up for a vote and the tally was 57-0. They didn’t even vote for it themselves, went the joke. Such a silly, stupid little girl, they said with great hilarity!
Leaders of many establishment conservative organizations in Washington, DC laughed too.
Well, the fools are the Republicans, and the establishment Conservative Movement in Washington, DC, which have failed to understand the determination of these forces behind that “silly little girl.” They set a trap and the Republicans marched right into it.
What really occurred is that this Green New Deal pushes the radical agenda way beyond anything ever imagined by Republicans and conservative leadership. In short, the Socialist Democrats made a classic negotiating tactic. They came to the table and delivered the most radical, complete, all-inclusive agenda for the total take-down of the American Republic, our free enterprise system, our property rights, and our way of life.
The Republicans were completely unprepared for it. Since they have ignored my warnings for 27 year, the Green New Deal sounded too nuts. Too far out. No one would fall for it. They laughed and dismissed it without a thought. The Senate vote showed them!
But watch what has happened since the Senate vote and the laughing began. One hundred Democrat Members of Congress have signed on to the House bill. Almost every one of the 20+ Democrat presidential candidates is talking about it. The news media is filled with stories on pieces and parts of the Green New Deal. The discussion is growing.
But here’s the kicker – here’s where the laughing stops as the Republicans fall into the trap!!! Florida Republican Representative Matt Gaetz announced that he is working on the Green REAL Deal!!! Says Gaetz – his bill will be more reasonable. In the Senate, Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander is countering with his “Manhattan Project for Clean Energy.” The difference? Almost nothing! Senator Lindsey Graham said “We owe it to the country to have an alternative to the Green New Deal.” He said he was frustrated because large parts of the Republican Party still resist the idea of climate change legislation.
Sen. Graham and other faltering Republicans seem to not understand that any attempt to provide “an alternative to the Green New Deal” means an automatic endorsement of the radical and wrong-headed leftist environmental movement.
This is exactly what the Democrats where counting on. They made an outrageously radical proposal that moves the agenda miles down the road and then – to be more “reasonable” the stupid Republicans join right in with just a little smaller proposal. That’s how we lose our nation – by being “reasonable” to tyrants.
The fact is, almost 50% of the Green New Deal is already in the works. California has set a deadline to force homeowners to install wind and solar power as traditional energy sources of oil and gas will be phased out within ten years.
In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the City Council is moving to eliminate zoning protections for single-family homes, calling such protections “racist.” That same attack on single-family homes is taking place in the Oregon state legislature, the Chicago city council, and the Baltimore city council, to name just a few. This marks the drive to abolish private property rights.
Smart Growth programs are in every city in the nation – targeting the elimination of private cars for transportation, in favor of public buses, trains, and bikes — just as called for in the Green New Deal.
Landlords are being targeted as the drive is on for rent controls – even as government is piling on the costs through higher taxes and more and more controls on energy use. How long can the landlords hold out?
And now comes this news. As the Congress, news media, and presidential candidates debate the “good ideas” of Green New Deal, New York City Mayor William De Blasio has rushed to introduce his own version. It’s a bundle of ten bills designed to meet the massive reduction of energy use called for in the UN’s Paris Climate Agreement which President Trump refused to join. Among its provisions are a ban on glass skyscrapers, hot dogs, and massive cut backs in energy use. Just as called for in the Green New Deal, the legislation seeks to eliminate more than one million cars from the road.
State by state, city by city, the radical provisions of the Green New Deal are being put into force – or at least openly considered. Controls on what we eat, how we live, and how we move about. Call it Agenda 21 or the Green New Deal – it’s a disaster to our economy and our way of life. It’s happening at a rapid rate. So who is laughing now?
The challenge to us is, what do we do about it? The fact is, every political party is talking about taxes, healthcare, immigration, and gun control. But no party is addressing the pain of the ranchers who are under siege of the federal government that is taking their land and their water.
No political party is talking about the attack on our food supply such as the World Wildlife Fund’s take over of the beef industry. Yet we are getting reports daily now of dangers found in diseased beef.
No political party is talking about the over-taxing, and destruction of single-family homes and neighborhoods.
No political party is even discussing the destruction of our local system of government through the establishment of non-elected regional councils. These councils are eliminating political boundaries and the power of locally-elected representatives. The American system is disappearing in silence.
No political party is talking about the massive influence and control of the private, non-governmental organizations and planners that have invaded every single level of government, pushing these insane policies we now recognize in the Green New Deal.
NGOs are deeply entrenched in Congress, every state legislature and every county commission and city council. There they lobby, push, demand, and intimidate to get your elected officials to make their private agendas law. The fact is they are not government agencies and they have no power unless your elected officials give it to them. And they have no intention of giving up their power.
The only way we can toss them into the street is to elect people who understand their tyrannical agenda and will take strong action to remove them from the halls of government.
Democrats empower them. Republicans are clueless. Libertarians are pathetically confused by the whole process, continuing to believe that Public/Private Partnerships are free enterprise.
The Constitution Party is the only party that understands what needs to be done. You’ve never had a better opportunity to grow and change things and achieve your mission to restore the Constitution.
Do you, as a political party, want to get the attention of millions of Americans who are suffering from this government over-reach? Do you want to defeat the socialist democrats and the ‘Me Too’ Republicans? Do you want to restore the American Republic?
Then get mad and be the party that takes on these issues. Thousands of victims are desperate to hear any elected official, any party, even mention these policies that are overrunning every single city, county, and state.
They are losing everything. They have been shut out of the American dream. And if they hear you take on these issues in upcoming campaigns at every level of government – they will flock to you. Americans are starting to wake up to these dangers and they desperately want a new voice that stands for freedom!
Run candidates for city council, county commission, and the state legislatures, who will articulate these issues. Make it your mission to run these enemies of freedom out of town on a rail.
Speak to these victims – these desperate Americans. Name the names of the NGOs – challenge them. Challenge their policies and their funding sources. Show the pubic what a danger they are. And then challenge your opponents as to why they are giving these NGOs such power and influence.
Elected officials keep referring to these NGOs and planners who live off the federal grants as “stakeholders.” They are not stakeholders! You are the stakeholoders. They are carpetbaggers – there to grab everything they can.
Paint a clear picture as to what life in American will be like under these policies. Will every choice Americans make in their lives be like a visit to the DMV? Make your opponents responsible for their own policies. Put their names to them. Make them defend their plans.
Help the people see the truth! That’s how you drain the swamp and restore the United States of America!
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?
In 2006, I was surprised to find myself sitting at a formal dinner in the middle of a 200-year-old debating society at Cambridge University in England. In a few minutes I, and five others were about to engage in a debate over the usefulness of the United Nations. But here, for a few minutes longer, at the long dinner table with the crisp, white tablecloth, I was sitting next to one of my fellow debaters, Salis Shetty, the head of the UN’s Millennium Project.
I had ignored him through most of the dinner, but with just a few minutes left before the debate I finally turned to him and said, “You realize you don’t have a prayer, don’t you?”
He looked at me and asked, “About what?”
I replied, “Ending poverty by 2015 through the use of redistribution of wealth.” (That was one of the eight listed goals of the UN’s Millennium Project, accepted by world leaders in 2000.)
He said, “Yes, I know.”
I began to talk with him about the need to help the poor escape from poverty on their own rather than being condemned to life-long bread lines. I talked about the need to establish private property rights as a means to build wealth. I mentioned that there was estimated to be almost $10 trillion in “dead capital”(property in the world that no one is allowed to own or invest in). That’s enough capital to help a lot of poor people break out of their dire situation.
Mr. Shetty looked at me as I made these observations and said, “Hernando de Soto.”
“Yes!” That’s exactly whom I was quoting. De Soto is an economist from Peru who has made it his life’s work to help end poverty in the world by promoting private property ownership.
To my amazement Mr. Shetty looked at me and said, “I have associates who are looking on this (de Soto’s ideas) favorably.” Just as he said those words, the call came for us to head to the debating hall for our event. Of course we were on opposite sides.
As soon as the debate was over (I was outnumbered five to one, as usual) I made a beeline to Mr. Shetty and said, “You and I started a conversation and I want to finish it.” A few weeks later I traveled to New York City to meet with him in his UN office. During that meeting, he told me that, in his city in India, the local government was beginning to go over property records and officially register ownership, something that had never been done before. The result was that the economy of the community was starting to improve.
That is exactly the point that Hernando de Soto is making as he travels the world meeting with national leaders. The core reason for poverty is bad government. In most of the world, people may “own” their homes, perhaps via an underground economy, but they have no official records through the government to prove it. Without that official proof or registration, they have no means to use the property for equity loans and investment, so it is essentially dead capital, as de Soto has labeled it.
In his book, “The Mystery of Capital, Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else,” de Soto explains the major difference between the American system and most other nations of the world. Here, every single piece of privately held property — homes, even large equipment, is registered. In fact, the County Registrar’s office is one of the most important tools of freedom because it’s where every American can prove ownership of their property. Because of that system, average Americans can use their property as a tool to obtain loans. At least 60% of American companies have been started thorough equity loans on private property. And those privately held companies went on to employ about 60% of the American workforce. That is how private property ownership made the United States the richest nation in the world, almost over night. Lack of such a system is the reason much of the rest of the world fell into extreme poverty. In those cases the people have no way out of poverty and are forced to rely on government handouts.
De Soto’s book was called “The blueprint for a new industrial revolution,” by the Times of London. Today de Soto travels the world, meeting with world leaders who seek his guidance on how they can end poverty in their nations. Yet, when he tells them the secret is private ownership of property, many balk, telling him with a troubled smile, that the people in their nations “just aren’t ready for such a policy – they don’t understand the concept of private property ownership.” So the promise of a great new financial revolution that could spread wealth and freedom to every corner of the world never gets off the ground.
A few years ago I had the great privilege of a private meeting with Hernando de Soto. He told me a story of one such meeting he had with a national leader. He’s been in enough meetings with world leaders that he can now almost anticipate what they are going to say. In this particular meeting, he said he knew the leader was going to tell him that his people just weren’t ready for private property ownership. So, before the meeting, de Soto sent a team into the neighborhood around the presidential palace and knocked on doors to ask the people if they owned their homes. Every single one of them said yes, they owned their home. So de Soto’s team members asked each to produce any kind of evidence they might have to show that ownership. They did. It might have been a bill of sale, a receipt or even a copy of a will. In any case, they had something to prove their ownership in a country where property ownership was not supported by the government.
De Soto took copies of these items with him to the meeting, and before the discussion could begin about how the people of his country didn’t understand private property ownership, Hernando de Soto spread his evidence on the table and said to the leader, “your people understand property ownership, now let’s discuss how they can legally own it and build capital from it.”
There are three main reasons the world has not experienced de Soto’s new financial revolution. First is bad government led by dictators who refuse to give up their power over the people by supplying them the means for ending poverty. Poverty is very helpful to dictators because poor people are powerless to rise up against them. Poverty is also convenient to rouse the rabble against political opponents and spread fear.
Those who are barely hanging on from meal to meal are easy to scare with threats from any proposal that dares to differ from the redistribution schemes, even if, in the long run, that would be the best means for them to find a way out of poverty. The Left has used this fear effectively to build hate and resistance against those who promote free enterprise.
The second reason the world is sinking into ever greater poverty is the Environmental movement- the new-style dictatorship that actually prefers people to remain poor, living in mud huts with no infrastructure, running water or electricity. That, they claim, is sustainable.
Believe it or not, there is a worldwide Sustainable Development policy to prohibit funding of development projects in Third World countries if the projects don’t fit the environmental agenda. It’s called the Equator Principles. According to their own documents, the Equator Principles were established in association with the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation in 2003. They have been adopted by at least 73 financial institutions around the world, covering over 70% of international projects such as dams, mines, and pipelines. At least three leading American financial institutions are associates of the Equator Principles, including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup.
In short, such policy actually leads to what can only be called Environmental Racism. A few white, rich people who live in luxury in their first-world nations have made a determination that some who now live in mud huts with no indoor power and no clean running water, must stay that way because these elites have determined it is more ‘sustainable” for the planet.
Stopping development for the poor has become a major drive by Sustainablists. At the Earth Summit in 1992, Chairman Maurice Strong famously said “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Zero economic growth is the announced goal to assure their well-ordered sustainable society stays dormant, thereby assuring their control. Of course, the result will only be more poor people – all in the name of saving the environment.
But fear not, these same power mongers aren’t satisfied to condemn just those already living in poverty. Apparently they are so determined to control every human action on the planet that they are equally happy to condemn the rest of us to such a future – for the planet, of course. Author Ted Trainer has written a book entitled “Transition to a Sustainable and Just World,” which is really nothing more than a blueprint for establishing Marxist principles into your local community. In the book Trainer writes, “The alternative has to be the simpler way, a society based on non-affluent lifestyles within mostly small and highly self-sufficient local economies under the local participatory control and not driven by market forces or the profit motive, and with no economic growth. There must be an enormous cultural change away from competitive individualistic acquisitiveness.” The call for zero economic growth was also heard at the UN’s Rio+20 Summit in 2012. Trainer’s motto for us all is that “you must live on less!” That is their definition of Sustainable Development. Of course they only mean this future for you and me, not the powerful elite.
Such ideas of destroying human civilization are, in fact, rampant throughout the Green movement. Paul Ehrlich, professor of Population Studies at Stanford University demanded that “a massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Apparently, the advocates of such a desire to make us all poor have missed a very important fact. Only in wealthy nations do people have enough money and time to worry about protecting the environment. The poor worry only about one thing – survival. It is also in the poorest areas where population numbers explode. In rich, secure nations populations are actually going down. So it would seem logical that if one wants to protect the environment and reduce populations then Capitalism would be the economic system of choice. But of course, none of this is really about helping the poor or the ecology. It’s about power.
The third reason for depressed economies and a growing number of poor is what I call the “Compassion Cartel.” Government, private charities and foundations have made poverty big business. It’s the excuse for nearly every governmental spending program. Help the poor! Tax the rich! How dare they get wealthy while others suffer? And the preferred way to eliminate poverty is redistribution of wealth. It’s easy to convince someone to donate to a cause when emotions and guilt are employed. Reason and rational thought take a backseat.
Back to my debate in Cambridge: After the debate was over, the hosts sponsored a reception. As I entered the door, I was confronted by one of the students, who asked with puzzlement – “sir, you really don’t believe in redistribution of wealth?”
I answered, “No, it’s theft.”
And she said, “But if you have more than you need, shouldn’t you share it with someone who needs it?”
I said, “Why should I?”
She looked like I had slapped her. Here she was, one of the bright young students at one of the great schools in the world, and she had never heard an argument against redistribution of wealth or for a free market. As I spoke to her, giving detail after detail about how a free market and property can eliminate poverty, more than 50 other students began to gather around.
I explained that if I take money from each of them today to feed someone more unfortunate, then tomorrow they will need another meal –and again the next day, and the next. You have gained nothing in the battle to help them, other than to delay their agony another day. At best you have offered a band aid. At worse, such policy doesn’t prevent poverty. Something else is causing that poverty and you haven’t addressed it. So, tomorrow there will be more poor, and more the next. And each time you will be forced to provide more and more aid from your now dwindling funds, until one day you too may find yourself forced to be in the receiving line. When I finished my explanation there was a moment of silence and then the young student said, “What an interesting point of view. How can I learn more?”
I wanted to scream “Economics 101!”
Today, anyone who points out such economic facts in a failed welfare system is called heartless and probably racist. What kind of evil person calls helping the poor theft? Well, take a good look at the world we live in. According to Mr. Shetty’s Millennium Project, there are currently 1.2 billion people living in poverty. Fifty thousand deaths a day occur worldwide as a result of poverty. Every year more than 10 million children die of hunger and preventable diseases. More than half the world’s population lives on less that $2 per day and 800 million people go to bed hungry every night.
To combat all of this we have the Compassion Cartel. We have thousands of charitable organizations and faith-based programs designed to feed the children, along with education programs designed to create awareness of poverty and starvation. Their ads run on television nightly pulling at our heartstrings to “do something.” Most of these charities have built huge private organizations, with highly paid administrators working out of impressive buildings with large staffs. That doesn’t include the huge government programs operating at an even larger scale on your tax dollars. As I said, poverty is big business.
Every politician preaches the gospel of helping the poor and as a result, more than half of every American’s pay check disappears into government coffers even before it hits our own pockets. Billions of dollars of aid pour into federal and international programs to distribute to countries around the world to help feed the poor. Poverty reductions have been set. Goals have been announced, Deadlines for ending poverty have been determined and every national and international leader has signed documents to pledge that poverty must be eradicated. In 2015 it was called Agenda 2030. In 2019 it’s called the Green New Deal.
What is the result of this worldwide focus on poverty? Well, we have more poor! It’s a growth industry. Why? Because not one of these programs offers a single plan to allow the poor to help themselves. Instead, the Compassion Cartel has sentenced every single poor person in the world to a future of life-long breadlines, allowing them to be victims of demagogues, con artists and harsh, hopeless, futureless lives. There is no consideration for their goals and dreams and no real understanding of the hopelessness of their lives. And the middle class of once wealthy nations like the United States is quickly dissolving under the burden of the redistribution schemes. Result – more poor in our once proud nation.
If the self-proclaimed compassion industry had true concern for the poor, it would begin an international drive to empower the poor by allowing them to build their own wealth – thereby getting themselves off of the breadlines.
Hernando de Soto has offered that way. He has called for the establishment of private property rights that would allow people around the world to build personal wealth and the ability to invest in new enterprises that would, in return, employ more, help build infrastructure to allow still more to have electricity, heat, cooling and clean water in their homes, improving health and the quality of their lives. Step by step these improvements would lead to creating more wealth worldwide, reducing the burden on the rest of us, and in turn, help all of us build even more wealth, strengthening quality of life. Help the poor help themselves and it will also help you. That is a winning compassion for all.
But to take such a step would require a rejection of socialism and an embracing of capitalism. And that, says the Compassion Cartel, can never be allowed, because that would lead to empowering individuals to control their own lives. Instead, in the name of compassion, sustainable oppression in a well-ordered society is so much more efficient.
The American beef industry has long been a tasty target of the environmentalists and their allies in the animal rights movement. To understand the reason is to know that protecting the environment is not the goal, rather the excuse in a determined drive for global power. Their selected tactic is to control the land, water, energy, and population of the Earth. To achieve these ends requires, among other things, the destruction of private property rights and elimination of every individual’s ability to make personal lifestyle choices, including personal diet.
Of course, no totalitarian-bound movement would ever put their purpose in such direct terms. That’s where the environmental protection excuse comes in. Instead, American cattle producers are simply assured that no one wants to harm their industry, just make it safer for the environment. The gun industry might recognize that such assurance sounds a bit familiar. Same source, same tactics, same goals.
So the offered solution to “fix” the beef industry is “sustainable certification”. All the cattle growers have to do, they are assured, is follow a few simple rules and all will be fine, peaceful and profitable. Enter the players: the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB), and the U.S, Department of Agriculture.
First, let’s reveal the Sustainablists’ stated problems with the beef industry. What’s not sustainable about raising beef? According to the environmental “experts”, there are ten reasons why the meat industry does not meet sustainable standards:
Deforestation – the claim is that farm animals require considerably more land than crops to produce food. The World Hunger Program calculated that if the land was used to grow grain and soy instead of cattle the land could provide a vegan diet to 6 billion people. Do you get that – a vegan diet! The fact is, most grazing land in the U.S. cannot be used for growing food crops because the soil wouldn’t sustain crops.
Fresh Water – they claim that the America diet requires 4,200 gallons of water per day, including animal drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, etc. Whereas a vegan diet only requires 300 gallons per day. Apparently they don’t plan to irrigate the land to grow wheat or to wash the vegetables.
Waste Disposal – factory farms house hundreds of thousands of animals that produce waste. They claim these giant livestock farms produce more than 130 times the amount of waste humans do. The interesting thing about this detail is that the actual sustainable policies they are enforcing to fix this problem destroy the small family farms in favor of the very giant corporate factory farms they profess to oppose. In addition, those global corporations which join the Green cabal have the ability to ignore many of the “sustainable” restrictions, unlike the small, family farms that are much better at protecting the environment on their own.
Energy Consumption – For the steak to end up on your plate, say the Greens, the cow has to consume massive amounts of energy along the way as the cattle are transported thousands of miles to slaughter, market, and refrigerate. And let’s not forget, the meat must then be cooked! Well this transportation argument is a direct result of the existence of a limited few packing companies in cahoots with the Green Lords that dictate the market as they work against a more decentralized, local industry. Meanwhile, last time I checked, Tofurkey – made from soy — also has to be cooked!
Food Productivity – say the Greens, food productivity of farmland is falling behind the population and the only option, besides cutting the population, is to cut back on meat consumption and convert grazing lands to food crops. As noted in point 1, most grazing land cannot be converted. Everything dealing with the sustainable argument is based on some unseen crisis. Yet we do not have a world-wide food shortage or pending famine. In fact, the media is persistently reporting “price-depressing crop surpluses.” The only places where such shortages may exist are in totalitarian societies where government is controlling food production and supplies – kind of like the Green’s plan for sustainable beef.
Global Warming– here we go! Say the Greens, global warming is driven by energy consumption and cows are energy guzzlers. But there’s more to the story. Cow flatulence! A single dairy cow, they claim, produces an average of 75 kilos of methane annually. Meanwhile, environmentalists want to return the rangelands to historic species, including buffalo. And a buffalo, grazing on the same grass on the same lands would emit about the same amount of methane. It’s a non-issue.
Loss of Biodiversity– What are some of the examples the Greens give for loss of biodiversity? Poaching and black market sale of bushmeat including everything from elephants and chimpanzees to birds??? Please explain what this has to do with the American cattle industry – other than a pure hatred of anyone who eats meat of any kind. And that, of course, is the argument from the animal rights/vegan wing of the Green movement that is leading the assault on cattle.
Grassland Destruction– apparently this is based on the Green premise that domesticated animals like cows replaced bison and antelope, which, in turn, caused a loss of biodiversity of species. I’ve got two pieces of news for you. First, the Native Americans so revered by the Greens, hunted bison before the white man arrived. Take a trip to Bozeman, Montana and see the cliff where they used to run entire herds to their death, not just selectively choosing a few to eat. Second, the Greens, not the cattle ranchers, forced the reintroduction of wolves, and that has caused a near annihilation of the antelope and elk herds.
Soil Erosion – the Greens claim that U.S. pastureland is overgrazed, causing soil erosion. In truth, a great many of today’s cattlemen are third and fourth generation on their land. Those ranches could not have existed for over a hundred years if they were so careless in taking care of the land. It is vital to their survival to assure the land stays in good shape. Of course, an environmentalist who has never worked a ranch or farm and rarely comes out of his New York high-rise might not know that.
Lifestyle Disease– this is my favorite of the reasons why beef is supposedly unsustainable. In short, it’s because of stupid people! This one is blamed on “excessive” consumption of meat, combined with environmental pollution and “lack of exercise” leading to strokes, cancer, diabetes and heart attacks. So it’s the beef industries fault that people eat too much and refuse to exercise. The solution – ban meat consumption. Yet, doctors are now realizing that meat eating is not the problem, carbs are.
So, these are the ten main reasons why it’s charged that beef is unsustainable and must be ruled, regulated and frankly, eliminated. These are charges brought by anti-beef vegans who want all beef consumption stopped. In cahoots, are global Sustainablists who seek to stop the private ownership and use of land, all hiding under the blanket excuse of environmental protection.
To bring the cattle industry into line with this world view the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has accepted the imposition of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, which is heavily influenced, if not controlled, by the World Wildlife Fund, one of the top three most powerful environmental organizations in the world and a leader in the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), which basically sets the rules for global environmental policy. This is the same World Wildlife Fund that issued a report saying, “Meat consumption is devastating some of the world’s most valuable and vulnerable regions, due to the vast amount of land needed to produce animal feed.” The report went on to say that, to save the Earth, it was vital that we change human consumption habits away from meat. As pointed out earlier, the fact is most land used for grazing isn’t capable of growing crops for food. Further, to have the WWF involved in any part of the beef industry is simply suicidal.
It’s interesting to note that the “Principles for Sustainable Beef Farming,” issued for the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef by the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Working Group (SAI), follow the exact guidelines originally presented in the United Nations’ Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development blueprint. Agenda 21 divided these into three categories including, Social Equity, Economic Prosperity and Ecological Integrity. Using almost identical terms, the SAI plan for Sustainable Beef uses the following headings for each section of its plan: Economic Sustainability, Social Sustainability, and Environmental Sustainability.
Under Social Sustainability are such items as Human Rights, Worker Environment, Business Integrity, and Worker Competence (that means that workers are required to have the proper, acceptable sustainable attitudes and beliefs). Under the heading Environmental Sustainability are Climate Change, Waste, and Biodiversity, for the reasons already discussed.
Regulations using these principles impose a political agenda that ignores the fact that smaller, independent cattle growers have proven to be the best stewards of their own land and that for decades have produced the highest grade of beef product in the world. Instead, to continue to produce they will be required to submit to centralized control by regulations that will never end and will always increase in costs and needless waste of manpower.
To follow the sustainable rules and be officially certified, the cattle growers must agree to have much of the use of their land reduced to provide for wildlife habitat. There are strict controls over water use and grazing areas. This forces the growers to have smaller herds, making the process more expensive and economically unviable for the industry. In addition, there is a new layer of industry and government inspectors, creating a massive bureaucratic overreach, causing yet more costs for the growers.
The Roundtable rules are now enforced through the packing companies. You see, the cattlemen actually have no direct market. Instead, they first bring their product to feedlots for final preparation. The feedlots then sell the cattle to the packers. The packers are the ones who then have direct contact with stores, restaurants and other entities that actually buy the beef. The packers are a major force in the Roundtable, working side by side with the WWF, and so dictate the rules to the feedlots to comply with sustainable certification for the cattle they will buy from the growers. If the beef they obtain isn’t grown according to the sustainable beef principles then the packers refuse to buy it. That has quickly put smaller feedlots out of business. Consequently, it also destroys the cattle growers who rely on the feedlots to take their product.
There are only four main packing companies in the United States. These are Cargill, Tysons, JBS and Marfrig. These packers have already successfully taken control of the hog and poultry industries. Tysons is now raising its chickens in China to ship here. JBS and Marfrig are both from Brazil. It’s interesting to note that one of their first tactics was to remove the country of origin labeling from the packaging so that consumers have no idea where their product is coming from. So as the packers force their expensive, unnecessary, and unworkable sustainable certification on American cattlemen, they are systematically bringing in cheaper product from other countries that don’t necessarily adhere to strict, sanitary, safe production American producers are known for. As a result, there is a noticeable rise in news reports of recalls of diseased chicken and beef in American grocery stores.
Some cattle growers have tried to fight back by creating new packing companies to compete and provide an honest market. However, the costs to do so are huge, as high as $50 million. One such company called Northern Beef Packers was formed, using all the latest state of the art, high-grade processing. The four established packers reacted by drastically reducing their prices to the grocers, thereby destroying any hope of establishing a market for the new packing company.
This then is the situation that is threatening the American beef industry. If one reads the documents and statements from the World Wildlife Fund, the United Nations Environment Program and others involved, it is not hard to realize that the true goal is not to produce a better grade of beef, but to ban it altogether. The question must then be asked, why is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association allowing this to happen, and indeed, is joining with the Sustainable Beef Roundtable to force these policies on their members?
The answer is actually quite tragic. American ranchers, farmers and livestock growers have been targets of the environmental and animal rights movements for years. They are beaten down. Like the rest of us they just want to be left alone to work their farms and herds like their forefathers have done for more than a century. But the pressure is growing day by day. So, they have come to believe that if they just go along – put the sustainable label on their product — then this pressure will stop. In short, they see it as a pressure valve.
The reality is it’s not going to go away because the goal is not environmental protection, rather the destruction of their industry and control through what the UN calls the reorganization of human society. The attack has now grown to major proportions with the Green New Deal. Beef eaters have no place in the sustainable paradise of city apartment dwellers who accept government controls to choose for them what they are permitted to eat.
There are efforts to fight back. A group of cattlemen has organized under the banner of R-CALF (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund) and they have managed to slow the Sustainable capture of the industry. But the packers’ control of the industry is a major roadblock if the cattlemen can’t reach their market. R-CALF has filed Abuse of Conduct suits to shed light on the anti-trust activities of the monopoly tactics of the packers.
However, the beef industry cannot recover on its own. There must be outrage from the consumers who are facing higher prices, possible inferior meat, and the danger of disease because of this sustainable tyranny. If you want the right to your own food choices instead of the dictatorship of radical Greens, then get mad. Demand that “Country of Origin” labels be put on all beef products so you know where your food comes from. Demand that the Department of Agriculture rejects this sustainable myth and protects the American free market that has always provided superior products.
The so-called sustainable policy is not a free market. It is a government-sanctioned monopoly that is just short of a criminal enterprise. Stand with American farmers and cattlemen. If Americans don’t fight back now we will lose the freedom to our own dinner plates in the name of sustainable lies.
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.
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
By Kathleen Marquardt
June 27, 2012
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.”
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.”
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. . . .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.”
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.
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 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. 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, …. 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).”
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?
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
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.”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.” 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.” 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)”
“It utilizes a type of zoning category that ranges systematically from the wilderness to the urban core.”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).” • “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.” 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.” 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.
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.
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
AGENDA 21: THE END OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
By Kathleen Marquardt
October 2, 2012
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.
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, another, similar effort is taking place: the American Planning Association’s GrowingSmart project.
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.
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.
that neighborhoods and regional centers should be compact, pedestrian-oriented 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.
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.
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.