‘Agenda 21’ a Plan for World Government?

User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:03 pm

PostTue Jun 14, 2011 11:42 am » by Rydher

What is Agenda 21? If you do not know about it, you should.

Agenda 21 is a two-decade old, grand plan for global ’Sustainable Development,’ brought to you from the United Nations. George H.W. Bush (and 177 other world leaders) agreed to it back in 1992, and in 1995, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order #12858, creating a Presidential Council on ‘Sustainable Development.’ This effectively pushed the UN plan into America’s large, churning government machine without the need for any review or discussion by Congress or the American people.

‘Sustainable Development’ sounds like a nice idea, right? It sounds nice, until you scratch the surface and find that Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development are really cloaked plans to impose the tenets of Social Justice/Socialism on the world.

At risk from Agenda 21:

Private Property ownership
Single-Family homes
Private car ownership and individual travel choices
Privately owned farms

The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property. For over thirty-five years the UN has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land;

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 principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.

Source: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I),Vancouver, BC, May 31 – June 11, 1976. Preamble to Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report.; http://the912-project.com/2011/04/sfbay912-develops-education-program-to-protect-private-property-rights%E2%80%8F/

There are two more very good reasons to be wary of ICLEI: George Soros and the United Nations. Soros money has been tracked to funding parts of ICLEI (http://nolathe.net/2010/11/12/iclei-funding-for-1998-1999/):

In 1997, George Soros’s Open Society gave ICLEI a $2,147,415 grant to support its Local Agenda 21 Project

As regards the UN, that organization‘s problems with America’s appreciation of freedom and self-determination is one that needs no explanation.

Currently in California, Agenda 21 is working to implement plans to create plans for sustainable management of ‘open spaces.‘ The definition of what is to be considered an ’open space’ has sparked some heated exchanges between those directing the planning meetings and citizens who want private property rights to be respected and protected. (A Bay Area Tea Party video featuring a Liberal Democrat arguing against ICLEI can be seen at the end of this article.)

This type of global plan could not be implemented without a large and well-funded group pushing through its priorities. For that, Agenda 21 has something called ICLEI or the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. ICLEI is deeply entrenched in America;

ICLEI USA was launched in 1995 and has grown from a handful of local governments participating in a pilot project to a solid network of more than 600 cities, towns and counties actively striving to achieve tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and create more sustainable communities. ICLEI USA is the domestic leader on climate protection and adaptation, and sustainable development at the local government level.

Over six hundred cities,towns and counties in America are members of ICLEI? Do you support your local government agreeing to rules and regulations set up by a UN-based organization that wants private property transferred to government control? If you would like to see if your community is a member of ICLEI, you can visit their website (http://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/iclei-by_region).

Austin, Texas is one city that seems to have fallen for the ICLEI/Agenda 21 and was heavily consuming the ‘Communitariasm’ Kool-aid. A local group called Texans For Accountable Government saw what was happening and attempted to stop the Austin City Council from adopting some Agenda 21-friendly initiatives. One of TAG’s members, John Bush, delivered a succinct presentation on ICLEI and Agenda 21 that was virtually ignored. Watch his short argument against the proposed local law immediately followed by the lopsided vote adopting the plan.

Upload to Disclose.tv

In the world of business Agenda 21 is not a free market friend, preferring PPPs or Private Property Partnerships where the government decides which companies will receive tax breaks and are allowed to stay in business. In light of this realization, the cozy relationship between the current administration and GE (a company that paid no tax in 2010) should raise eyebrows. And the WH efforts to tell Boeing in which state they can operate seems to further bolster the belief that Agenda 21 ideals are already making headway in America.

The seeds for Agenda 21 were planted back in 1987 when the writings of Gro Harlem Brundtland (a woman who at the time was Vice President of the World Socialist Party) caught the eye of the UN. Dr. Brundtland wrote a report for the UN called, ‘Our Common Future’ eventually got into the business of environmentalism as a tool to control all the people of the world and establish a global government. The growth of ICLEI and the framework being put in place by supporters of Agenda 21 appear to be bringing Dr. Brundtland’s ideas closer to reality

In recent months, citizen groups across the country have organized and become involved in the removal of towns and cities from membership in ICLEI. The Roanoke, VA Tea Party is holding a rally this week in an effort to have ICLEI removed from their local government.

For a better understanding of Agenda 21 and ICLEI we suggest: The American Policy Center offers a one-page primer on Agenda 21 (http://americanpolicy.org/sustainable-development/agenda-21-in-one-easy-lesson.html/).

From the Bay Area Tea Party we offer a long-form video covering Agenda 21:

Upload to Disclose.tv

The featured speaker at the Tea Party meeting, Rosa Koire, is a liberal Democrat who understands that Agenda 21 will destroy America as we know it. Rosa’s website, DemocratsAgainstAgenda21.com is also worth a visit.

H/T to the tireless members of the SFBAY 9-12 organization for all of their information sharing on the topics of ICLEI and Agenda 21.

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/

Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:33 am
Location: USA

PostTue Jun 14, 2011 12:45 pm » by Blondie1w2000

Scary stuff.

I bet the people who wrote and want to implement Agenda 21 plan on keeping their OWN private property. I heard about 2-3 years ago, Bush Jr bought acres and acres of land in Argentina. Fucking hypocrites.

User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:03 pm

PostSun Jul 31, 2011 6:45 pm » by Rydher

An update for anyone following this or maybe hasn't heard about it.

Agenda 21 Update: Family Farms Are Under Attack

Is the US government starting to implement the policies of the United Nation’s plan for global management of people and resources known as Agenda 21? The latest efforts out of the Department of Transportation (DOT) seem to indicate this is happening. And they are starting by targeting America’s farming communities with costly and oppressive regulations.

In Late May, the DOT proposed a rule change for farm equipment (http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/31/2011-13035/regulatory-guidance-applicability-of-the-federal-motor-carrier-safety-regulations-to-operators-of), and if it this allowed to take effect, it will place significant regulatory pressure on small farms and family farms all across America – costing them thousands of dollars and possibly forcing many of them out of business. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), wants new standards that would require all farmers and everyone on the farm to obtain a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate any farming equipment. The agency is going to accomplish this by reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).

(It is also important to note here that DOT Secretary Ray LaHood holds a seat on the newly created White House Rural Council (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-the-new-white-house-rural-council-uns-agenda-21/). A powerful group whose members have ties to George Soros and The Center For American Progress.)

The move by the DOT appears to be “legislation through regulation.” By reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Vehicles, the federal government will now be able to claim regulatory control over the estimated 800,000 farm workers in America, at the same time, overriding the rights of the states.

This proposed change literally means family farms could no longer legally allow young workers, not old enough to drive and seniors who no longer drive on the public streets, to operate a tractor… even on the family’s private property.

Waco, TX television station KXXV has the story:

Upload to Disclose.tv

The proposed change also means ANYONE driving a tractor or operating any piece of motorized farming equipment would be forced to pass the same rigorous tests and fill out the same detailed forms and diaries required of semi-tractor trailer drivers. This reclassification would bury small farms and family farms in regulation and paperwork.

Some of the additional paperwork and regulation required:

Detailed logs would need to be kept by all drivers – hours worked, miles traveled, etc.
Vehicles would have to display DOT numbers
Drivers would need to pass a physical as well as a drug test – every two years.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation (WFBF) (http://dairybusiness.com/headlines/farm-bureau-opposes-dot-changes-regarding-farm-trucks) is one of many farm organizations not happy about the idea and has sent the DOT a letter expressing this opinion:

“WFBF opposes any change in statue or regulatory authority that would reclassify implements of husbandry or other farm equipment as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs)”

WFBF Director of Governmental Relations Karen Gefvert (http://www.wisfarmer.com/editorial/125569148.html) continues, explaining the excessive cost to farmers if this allowed to move forward:

“The proposed guidance by the FMCSA would result in an initial increased cost to each Wisconsin farmer and employee of $124 just for the CDL license, permit and test; not to mention the time and cost for the behind-the-wheel training that is several thousand dollars.”

Additionally, Illinois farmers believe this regulation will also force new restrictions on trucks used in crop-share hauling. (One estimate claims more than 30% of Illinois farmers utilize shared land.) These crop-share trucks are typically limited-use vehicles that often travel fewer than 3000 miles each year, mainly hauling crops from the fields to nearby grain elevators. To require them to follow the same rules as semis would also mean a farmer would be forced to purchase substantial insurance.

The Hancock Journal-Pilot covered the story:

Earlier this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) began to define crop-share tenant farmers as “for-hire“ carriers and implements of husbandry as ”commercial motor vehicles.“ The ”for-hire” designation for crop-share tenant farmers would have a dramatic effect on farmers because it voids exemptions from the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) program and would require a minimum of $750,000 in insurance coverage for the farmer.

The DOT is holding hearings for public comment on the topic, but only through Monday, August 1st and farmers all across the country are rightfully concerned. No matter what the feedback is from the people who actually grow the food, it appears that the DOT’s mind is made up. Just last week, DOT Administrator Anna Ferro posted an Op-Ed (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2011/USDOT-and-America-Farmers.aspx) addressing the controversial regulation. The opinion piece closes with this statement:

Everyone in this Administration – from President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary LaHood on down – is committed to the long-term success of America’s agricultural industry. In many ways, agriculture is the backbone of our economy – feeding hundreds of millions of Americans and billions more around the world. As the largest user of freight transportation in the nation, the agricultural industry is also one of USDOT’s most important constituents. We hope that this comment period is the start of a new and productive relationship. We may not ultimately agree on every issue, but we will always listen — and do our best to help America’s farmers succeed.

(A personal aside, when someone tells you, “We may not ultimately agree on every issue, but we will always listen… ” it has always been my experience that they are going to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. The “listening” was just to make you feel better.)

The FMCSA has said their intent is to create uniformity in way federal safety regulations are carried out across America. The farming community and many of the states that would be affected by this change feel differently. Almost to a man, the farming community believes this to be a local issue, best handled by state governments, and not some Washington DC agency.

To make a comment to the DOT visit – http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket site. Or you can fax your comments here 1–202–493–2251.

H/T – All the active Farm Bureaus working to protect their rights and states rights. And to the ever-vigilent “Resist UN Agenda 21” groups (you know who you are)

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/agenda-21-update-family-farms-are-under-attack/

User avatar
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:03 pm

PostThu Mar 15, 2012 8:59 pm » by Rydher

Feds Attack Family Farms. . . Again

Last summer The Blaze reported on the Obama administration’s double-pronged attack on family farms. This was seen in the new set of regulations coming from both the DOT and the Department of Labor.

The main focus of the new regulations proposed last year was on the operation of farm equipment. The DOT was trying to mandate that anyone operating a piece of mechanized farm equipment be subject to the same rules that apply to drivers of semi-tractor trailers. These changes would have essentially blocked all young people who work on family farms from operating even the smallest tractor or truck, unless those people would be able to pass the stringent tests and maintain the detailed logs that are required of truckers.

These rules would also open the door for the potential unionization of all farm workers in America. Even family farm workers.

During the comment period for the proposal, the outcry from the farming communities seemed to bring clarity to the situation. However, the DOT and Labor Departments continued churning in the background, writing new and different rules that would soon surface. In August the new rules were posted. They proposed barring anyone under the age of 16 from performing dangerous jobs, like driving tractors, handling pesticides and even branding cattle. A december 1st deadline for public comments was set and the public responded with more than 18,000 comments.

After December 1, 2011, a bi-partisan group of 28 Senators and 70 members of the House sent a letter to the Secretary of Labor, complaining about the new rules and asking that they be withdrawn until such time as the Labor Dept can prove the rules will significantly improve the safety of youth workers while having no significant economic impact on the farms.

The Des Moines Star Register’s coverage featured some significant passages from the letter:
“After having additional time to review the Proposed Rule and compare the proposed changes to existing statutory law, regulations, and the Department’s existing interpretive documents, we believe initial concerns were well-founded. As a result of these concerns, we request the Department withdraw the Proposed Rule in its entirety,” the Senators state in a letter to Secretary Solis. “It is puzzling why the Department would suddenly propose changes to existing regulations, particularly considering the advancements in farm equipment and adoption of technologies that have improved operator safety in the last 35 years.

The statement from the group said “until recently, farms jointly owned and operated by multiple family members had discretion over the responsibilities they gave their children on the farm. But the proposed rule change would do away with that freedom and extend the parental exemption to farms owned solely by a parent. It is common in rural America for siblings to jointly own and operate farms and for extended family and neighbors to participate in agriculture production. With this rule change, the government is proposing to tell farmers and ranchers: We know what’s best for your children, and what they should and should not be doing.”

The note cited the fact that the Labor Secretary was using statistics from 13 years ago. This outdated information regarding accidents in rural settings was flawed and did not reflect the latest safety innovations that have come to the farming world.

Despite the 18,000 comments and Congressional opposition, the regulations appear to be moving ahead as Solis has planned. Local farm communities are quite concerned that this. Here is one of the dozens of local news stories highlighting the problems this will create:


Yesterday, Secretary Solis testified before a Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, and Pensions. Ms. Solis’ comments on the restrictions on family farms were brief, only stating that her department was open to hearing comments on the new regulations.

It should also be noted that today is the anniversary of the death of State Farming in the former Soviet Union.

On this day back in 1989, the USSR’s Communist party leader Mikhail Gorbachev announced that Central Farming was not working. This was underscored by the fact that his country was forced to import tons of staples like wheat and meat. Mr. Gorbachev sounded like a Free Market Capitalist when he told the Soviets:
“The essence of economic change in the countryside should be in granting farmers broad opportunities for displaying independence, enterprise, and initiative.”

Farmers would be granted the opportunity to be independent, enterprising and succeed or fail based on their own initiative. An interesting concept.

Source: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/feds-attack-family-farms-again/

User avatar
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:11 am
Location: Earth

PostThu Mar 15, 2012 11:34 pm » by Shaggietrip

Very good post,

For those that have not known of this it is and has been in high gear. I am not going to repeat what has already been posted. I have nothing and am somewhat happy. I own no land to protect or fight what I think is mine. Read your deed. We are all straw men except for the few that have broken free. When they stand up for themselves on court they are forced into physc evaluations etc. I have no bank account or credit card. I do have a license and yes that also has some hidden agendas.

HANG ON in [British accent].

Now Obama has signed HR 347

Upload to Disclose.tv

Woe is me. So many crap laws they have to put us away with.

Now no protest in a certain vicinity of one that is protected by the S.S. [secret service]. Shit man they could do a drive by on a protest and bust them all.

Can you hear it?...........listen close...............


While the US politicians cant agree on anything but stripping us of our rights. On the road to World Government

Good post. Although a bit surprised from you. I give creds where it is due.

Opinionated turds. Thats what its about

  • Related topics
    Last post