|Rubber-Stamping Agenda 21 Starts in Scott County|
|Commentary/Politics - Editorials|
|Written by Kathleen McCarthy|
|Wednesday, 16 February 2011 05:30|
How’s this for a conspiracy theory? A global agenda, unveiled in 1992 during the United Nations Conference on Environment & Development (UNCED, also known as the Rio Earth Summit), that is being progressively implemented in every level of government in America through a United Nations (UN) initiative called Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Agenda 21, as it is referred to in the UN’s own documentation (UN.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21), is “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts [sic] on the environment.”
Its purpose: to centrally own and control the planet’s resources under the guise of “smart planning” and “sustainable development.” In fact, for most UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Agenda 21 is synonymous with sustainable development.
The two primary goals of Agenda 21 are to (1) decrease the world population to “sustainable” levels as a means to effectively control labor, the planet’s number-one resource, and (2) eradicate individual property rights via comprehensive land-use planning that dictates land use according to a global master plan that includes control of everything from food to health to energy to security, and the list goes on.
Locally, in Scott County, the slow incremental steps of this globalist agenda are wide open for all to see. On February 3, the Scott County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt the state of Iowa’s “Smart Planning Principles” as part of its Comprehensive Plan. The language of such principles sounds laudable on the surface: collaboration, efficiency, diversity, revitalization. Who could not be for these principles?
On January 20, the county staff explained that adopting these principles was a requirement to be eligible for future state and federal sustainability grants. The fine print the county staff would prefer you don’t read is that the resolution adopts Iowa Code 18B Land Use, which reads in part:
“Governmental, community, and individual stakeholders, including those outside the jurisdiction of the entity, are encouraged to be involved and provide comment during deliberation of planning, zoning, development, and resource-management decisions and during implementation of such decisions. Individuals, communities, regions, and governmental entities should share in the responsibility to promote the equitable distribution of development benefits and costs.”
This language reinforces what many critics of Agenda 21 are concerned with: Accepting state and federal grants eventually leads to ceding local authority to more centralized regional councils of unelected governments – with the authority to levy more taxes (Does SECC911 ring any bells?) so they may further their top-down goals.
Supervisor Larry Minard addressed this concern prior to his vote, stating: “If such an organization does develop that relates to planning and other issues that might come before it ... the state will decide that and they will decide whether it’s a taxable organization or it doesn’t tax. They will decide what’s going to happen; we won’t. But I can guarantee you that if we have that organization that Scott County will be a participant and play an active role. And we will do what ... allows our people to have that quality of life that we think they should have.”
Coming down the pipeline soon is the county’s “Sustainability Plan” (funded by a federal grant), which if approved will be another brick in the wall of Agenda 21 implemented locally in Scott County.
This global-to-local strategy began with President George H. Bush as the signatory for the U.S., one of 178 nations that adopted Agenda 21 at UNCED. In 1993, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) submitted House Joint Resolution 166 for the implementation of Agenda 21, but it failed. So President Bill Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) via an executive order to implement Agenda 21 that same year.
It is important to note that Congress has had no say in the matter because Agenda 21 is considered to be a “soft-law policy recommendation” requiring no ratification because it does not qualify as a “treaty.” Soft-law policies are not internationally binding but can find easy application through local legislation.
For most Americans, it is inconceivable that our own government would be party to any program or process, such as the United Nations’ Agenda 21, specifically designed to reduce population and eliminate private-property rights. Yet this is exactly what is taking place across our land, and around the globe. It is a long-range plan that is methodical and precise in its execution.
Sadly, like most effective conspiracies, many participants are not even aware of its existence as they propel much of this nefarious agenda forward through local, state, and federal programming in our schools, land-use agencies, county and city services, health and emergency-management processes, and, most critically, our courts.
The most widely used tool for implementing Agenda 21 locally is through stakeholder councils, which are charged with creating consensus on some project, typically the result of a perceived crisis in the community, such as a poor water-management system or high population density. (Supervisor Minard believes 350 humans per square mile is one such problem in terms of sustainability in Scotty County.)
Once a project has been identified, NGOs, regional councils of governments, not-for-profits, etc. have a vast stock of sustainable-development cookie-cutter solutions available through the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). That organization was launched in 1990 at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future and has its headquarters in Toronto, Canada, with branches worldwide, including in Berkeley, California.
ICLEI’s sole mission is to assist local governments, such as counties and cities, by providing policy recommendations for implementing sustainability programming. ICLEI was instrumental in writing a portion of the Agenda 21 handbook, specifically Chapter 28, and in the formulation of Local Action 21 Strategies that ensure the “unwavering, systematic implementation of local action plans over the next decade,” as reported in ICLEI’s Motto, Mandate, Movement (2003).
Agenda 21’s primary directive is for human wants, needs, and desires to conform to the views and dictates of the planners. According to Harvey Ruvin, vice chair of ICLEI and clerk of the circuit and county court of Miami-Dade County, Florida: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” (For more information, see Understanding Sustainable Development: Agenda 21 at FreedomAdvocates.org.)
Rather than all men being created equal – with government’s role to ensure each individual’s rights are not violated – “equity” will be accomplished by implementing international economic order and transferring resources from developed countries to undeveloped countries. Because the United States has a higher standard of living than most countries, developed or not, our standard of living must decrease to bring about international economic balance. That is what is meant by redistribution of wealth. Instead of utilizing private enterprise, however, the redistribution is taking place utilizing public/private partnerships. This model is accelerating and will soon appear to be the norm rather than the exception.
Public/private partnerships are antithetical to free enterprise. Big business melds with big government to form the unholy alliances that corrupt competition. The lethal combination of economic power and government force inevitably leads to tyranny, and clearly defines nearly every democracy on the planet, past and present.
Agenda 21 is primarily implemented through a network of agencies that provide carrots in the form of federal and state grants dangled in front of mostly unsuspecting bureaucrats and elected politicians who consider themselves omnipotent budget managers instead of upholding individual’s personal-property rights as their oaths of office dictate.
Institutional laziness that infects every level of U.S. government makes formulaic programs even more attractive to bureaucrats and politicians because all the heavy lifting is already done. The funding abounds via tax-funded agencies and foundations. So that just leaves the quid pro quo or the necessary pay-to-play, which is, simply put, the sacrificing of Americans’ unalienable rights – namely property rights that are forsaken so that massive amounts of land can be transferred, bought/sold, and/or controlled for the use of a global central-planning cabal.
Most nations are enthusiastically on-board with Agenda 21 because they have far less to lose and much more to gain. This is not the case in America. We have everything to lose and nothing whatsoever to gain. Perhaps that’s why Agenda 21 is such a stealthily crafted conspiracy, one that has plausible deniability as long as you don’t read any of the fine print. Be clear here: The “planners” are literally banking that you won’t.
written by Cheryl Pass, February 25, 2011
Added...to previous comment
written by Cheryl Pass, February 25, 2011
written by Elliott, June 19, 2011
Tags See All Tags