|Does The New “White House Rural Council” Equal the UN’s Agenda 21?|
|Commentary/Politics - Guest Commentaries|
|Written by Mike Opelka|
|Thursday, 30 June 2011 05:11|
On June 9, President Barack Obama signed his 86th executive order, and almost nobody noticed.
Executive Order 13575 is designed to begin taking control of almost all aspects of the lives of 16 percent of the American people. Why didn’t we notice it? Weinergate. In the middle of the Anthony Weiner scandal, as the press and most of the American people were distracted, Obama created something called the White House Rural Council (WHRC).
Section One of 13575 states the following: “Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.”
Warning bells should have been sounding all across rural America when the phrase “sustainable rural communities” came up. As we know from researching the UN plan for “sustainable development” known as Agenda 21, these are code words for the true, fundamental transformation of America.
The third sentence also makes it quite clear that the government intends to take greater control over “food, fiber, and energy.”
The last sentence in Section One further clarifies the intent of the order by tying together “access to the capital necessary for economic growth ... health care and education ... .”
The new White House Rural Council will probably be populated by experts in the various fields that might prove helpful to the folks who live and work outside of large urban areas, right? Well, Tom Vilsack, the current secretary of agriculture, will chair the group, but let us review the list of members appointed to serve on this new council; according to the order, the heads of the following groups have been appointed:
(1) the Department of the Treasury (Timothy Geithner).
(2) the Department of Defense (Robert Gates).
(3) the Department of Justice (Eric Holder).
(4) the Department of the Interior (Ken Salazar).
(5) the Department of Commerce (Gary Locke).
(6) the Department of Labor (Hilda Solis).
(7) the Department of Health & Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius).
(8) the Department of Housing & Urban Development (Shaun Donovan).
(9) the Department of Transportation (Ray LaHood).
(10) the Department of Energy (Steven Chu).
(11) the Department of Education (Arne Duncan).
(12) the Department of Veterans Affairs (Eric Shinseki).
(13) the Department of Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano).
(14) the Environmental Protection Agency (Lisa Jackson).
(15) the Federal Communications Commission (Michael Copps).
(16) the Office of Management & Budget (Peter Orszag).
(17) the Office of Science & Technology Policy (John Holdren).
(18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy (R. Gil Kerlikowske).
(19) the Council of Economic Advisers (Austan Goolsbee).
(20) the Domestic Policy Council (Melody Barnes).
(21) the National Economic Council (Gene B. Sperling).
(22) the Small Business Administration (Karen Mills).
(23) the Council on Environmental Quality (Nancy Sutley).
(24) the White House Office of Public Engagement & Intergovernmental Affairs (Valerie Jarrett).
(25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs, and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the president or secretary of agriculture may, from time to time, designate. (Chris Lu [or virtually anyone to be designated by the 24 people named above]).
It appears that not a single department in the federal government was excluded from the new White House Rural Council, and the wild-card option in number 25 gives the president and the agriculture secretary the option to designate anyone to serve on this powerful council.
Within the 25 designated members of the council are some curious ties to Agenda 21 and the structure being built to implement it:
Valerie Jarrett served on the board of something called Local Initiatives Support Corportation (LISC). LISC uses the language of Agenda 21 and ICLEI as its Web page details work to build “sustainable communities.”
Melody Barnes is a former vice president at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress.
Hilda Solis in 2000 received an award for her work on “environmental justice.”
Nancy Sutley served on the board of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District and was one of the biggest supporters of low-flow toilets that are now credited with costing more money than expected while causing some nasty problems.
Is it possible that concerns about 13575 are just typical anti-government paranoia? Let us review the mission and function of WHRC: “The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities.”
“Economic prosperity” and a better “quality of life” – that all sounds fairly innocent and well-intentioned. But continuing deeper into the order we find the council is charged with four directives. The first: “(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America.”
The vague language here sounds non-threatening. But is there a hint here that a “rural stimulus plan” might be in the making? Will the federal government start pumping money into farmlands under the guise of creating “economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America”? It is difficult to discern as the language is so broad.
We continue with the functions of the WHRC: “(b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications-services providers, research and land-grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.”
Virtually every aspect of rural life seems to now be part of the government’s mission. And while all of the items in (b) sound like typical government-speak, you should be alarmed when you read the words “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs). NGOs are unelected but typically government-funded groups that act like embedded community organizers. And NGOs are key to Agenda 21’s plans.
Continuing: “(c) coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas.”
That one sounds very similar to the language found in Agenda 21 – managing the population in both rural and urban areas, with a focus on controlling “open spaces.”
Finally: “(d) and identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation-related activities.”
This function of Executive Order 13575 ties energy development with outdoor recreation and “other conservation-related activities.” When did outdoor recreation become a conservation related activity?
The United Nations has pushed its sustainable-development program for almost 20 years. The UN “social justice” blueprint Agenda 21 requires governments to control almost all aspects of an individual’s life but has recently met with substantial resistance in America. There are many examples from around the country of efforts to remove local governments from ICLEI and of opposition to Agenda 21’s influence over local policy and governance.
Carroll County, Maryland: Starting in February 2011, all five newly elected county commissioners, led by Richard Rothschild, voted to become the first county in the nation to end the ICLEI contract.
Amador County, California: The Mother Lode Tea Party led the successful effort to remove ICLEI form Amador County.
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Activists Ruth Miller and Maggie Roddin have raised awareness that led to the removal of ICLEI.
Edmond, Oklahoma: Molly Jenkins motivated 200 people to attend the city-council meeting and demand action against ICLEI.
Spartanburg, South Carolina: City-council member Roger Nutt successfully directed the effort against the program, and Spartanburg became the sixth community to kick out ICLEI in a vote of 6-0 (with one abstention).
There have also been anti-ICLEI rallies held in several cities in the past month.
There appears to be a developing grass-roots movement to reject programs such as Agenda 21. It remains to be seen if these groups might also reject Washington-based control over rural lands, such as the council created by Executive Order 13575.
As long as there’s not another Weinergate, maybe they’ll notice.
Mike Opelka is a displaced Midwesterner in New York City working as the newsletter editor and writer-at-large for TheBlaze.com.
Tags See All Tags