How to Combat Agenda 21 and Its Evil Twin – PLANMD

Tom DeWeese of The American Policy Center will provide specific strategies for ridding our communities of policies and programs that reflect the principles in Agenda 21.  Mr.  DeWeese, a nationally recognized activist in this arena is a prolific author and sought after speaker.

February 26, 2013

Knights of Columbus Hall

23 Newport Drive

Forest Hill, MD

No entry fee but donations accepted.

Cash bar available.

 

Property Rights Defined

Private Property Rights Defined

November 7th, 2012 by Tom DeWeese

As the battle to stop Sustainable Development grows, it is important that activists have clear definitions of their points as they deal with elected officials and planners who are making policy in their community. Below is a start in defining private property rights.

In a “Fifth Amendment” treatise by Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (12/10/97), he writes: Our state, and most other states, define property in an extremely broad sense.” That definition is as follows:

“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.”

As a Founding Father, John Adams said:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”

President Calvin Coolidge said:

“Ultimately, property rights and personal rights are the same thing.”

Rancher and Property Rights Activist Wayne Hage said:

“If you don’t have the right to own and control property then you are property.”

Private Property Rights mean:

1. The owner’s exclusive authority to determine how private property is used;

2. The owner’s peaceful possession, control, and enjoyment of his/her legally purchased, deeded private property;

3. The owner’s ability to make contracts to sell, rent, or give away all or part of the legally purchased/deeded private property;

4. That local, city, county, state, and federal governments are prohibited from exercising eminent domain for the sole purpose of acquiring legally purchased/deeded private property so as to resell to a private interest or generate revenues;

5. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government has the authority to impose directives, ordinances, fees, or fines regarding aesthetic landscaping, color selections, tree and plant preservation, or open spaces on legally purchased/deeded private property;

6. That no local, city, county, state or federal government shall implement a land use plan that requires any part of legally purchased/ deeded private property be set aside for public use or for a Natural Resource Protection Area directing that no construction or disturbance may occur;

7. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government shall implement a law or ordinance restricting the number of dwellings

that may be placed on legally purchased/ deeded private property;

8. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government shall alter or impose zoning restrictions or regulations that will devalue or limit the ability to sell legally purchased/deeded private property;

9. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government shall limit profitable or productive agriculture activities by mandating and controlling what crops and livestock are grown on legally purchased/deeded private property;

10. That no local, city, county, state, or federal government representatives or their assigned agents may enter private property without the written permission of the property owner or is in possession of a lawful warrant from a legitimate court of law. This includes invasion of property rights and privacy by government use of unmanned drone flights.

 

Blaine Young, Candidate for Governor and More at September Meeting

Harford Campaign for Liberty

September 25, 2012

7pm

Knights of Columbus Hall

23 Newport Drive

Forest Hill, Maryland

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. -Abraham Lincoln

The country is different.

Accepted rules give way to questionable practice.

The old see their liberties trampled.

The young hear stories of freedoms they never knew.

 

Harford Campaign for Liberty invites old friends to reconnect and new friends to hear our message.

COME BACK TO LIBERTY

Guest Speaker Blaine Young, President of the Frederick County Board of Commissioners and announced candidate for the Governor’s seat in 2014, has been active in the fight against PlanMD.  He will speak in a town hall type setting, taking questions from the audience on a broad range of topics.

Other topics will include

  • Oath Keepers
  • Review of Harford County Referendum Issues

Cash bar available.     For more information visit www.harfordliberty.org

Harford Campaign for Liberty to Host Plan Maryland Critic Blaine Young of Frederick Council

Frederick Council President Active in Fight Against Plan Maryland

September 12, 2012 — Bel Air, MD—Harford Campaign for Liberty will host Blaine Young, Frederick Council President, for a town hall style question and answer session at their monthly meeting on September 25th. Young, described by the Gazette.net online news source as the “sometimes combative president of the Frederick County Board of Commissioners”, has served with that body since 2010. His opposition to Plan Maryland and founding membership in the Rural Maryland Counties Coalition has brought attention to the difficulties facing these area

Mr. Young will briefly address the audience with comments regarding his views and actions on property rights, economic development, and the role of government. These comments will be followed by questions from the assembled. Harford Campaign for Liberty invites all to this opportunity to explore the practice of liberty in other counties. The group encourages attendees to probe Mr. Young with insightful queries designed to fully comprehend the style of government currently practiced in Frederick County.

Harford Campaign for Liberty meets every fourth Tuesday. Their upcoming meeting is September 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm at the Knights of Columbus Hall, 23 Newport Drive, Forest Hill, Maryland 21050. Cash bar is available.

For more information visit www.harfordliberty.org or their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/HarfordCampaignforLiberty.

More information can be found online at http://www.HarfordLiberty.org

 

Maryland’s Climate Policy: Politics Posing as Science

The Premier blog of conservative and Republican politics and ideas in the Free State, named one of Maryland’s best political blogs by the Washington Post

Monday, July 30, 2012

Maryland’s Climate Policy: Politics Posing as Science

Maryland’s plan to address global warming is based on a flawed process, which produced unreliable science.
The Greenhouse gas Reduction Act of 2009 requires Maryland to reduce GHG emissions 20% from a 2006 baseline by 2020.  Both the GGRA draft plan report and the Maryland Commission on Climate Change—the report on which the General Assembly approved the GGRA—base their assessments and recommendations on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The final plan is due to the General Assembly in December.
However, The InterAcademcy Council, a multinational organization of science organizations, reviewed the IPCC’s process and procedures* and found serious flaws and problems, which cast serious doubt on the soundness and reliability of “science” of the IPCC, and therefore the conclusions of the Maryland’s climate commission and GGRA process.
The IAC found such problems as a lack of a formal process or criteria for selecting authors, lack of a conflict of interest disclosure policy, and problems with transparency.
Scientists from developing nations reported “frustration” that their governments did not always appoint the best scientists and that “political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications.”
Reviewer comments were not adequately addressed by lead authors, in particular the fallacious statement in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report stating that the Himalayan Glaciers could melt by 2035.  It turns out the IPCC relied on a 2005 report from the World Wildlife Fund, not peer-reviewed science.  Alternative views were not cited in a chapter, if “the Lead author does not agree with them.”   The IAC also found severe flaws with how the IPCC handled issues of uncertainty and probability.  For example, the IAC found:

Many of the 71 conclusions in the ‘Current Knowledge about Future Impacts’ section of the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers are imprecise statements made without reference to the time period under consideration or to a climate scenario under which the conclusions would be true… In the Committee’s view, assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of “very high confidence” will have little substantive value [emphasis mine].

The report also noted that the Summary for Policy Makers, the report widely cited by the media and climate activists, drew “more concerns and suggestions for improvement…than any other part of the IPCC assessment process.”  Many respondents to the IAC survey noted concern that reinterpretations of the scientific assessment report in the Summary for Policy Makers “might be politically motivated.”  Nor is the the Summary for Policy Makers written and approved in a transparent manner.  The report is approved in a marathon session lasting several days, ending with an all night session, “Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report.”
The IAC also noted the variance in content between the Summary for Policy Makers and the underlying scientific assessment reports, and the political reasons for that variance.

Another concern of respondents to the Committee’s questionnaire was the difference in content between the Summary for Policy Makers and the underlying report. The distillation of the many findings of a massive report into the relatively brief, high-level messages that characterize the Summary for Policy Makers necessarily results in the loss of important nuances and caveats that appear in the Working Group report. Moreover, the choice of messages and description of topics may be influenced in subtle ways by political considerations. Some respondents thought that the Summary for Policy Makers places more emphasis on what is known, sensational, or popular among Lead Authors than one would find in the body of the report. A recent review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, for example, observed that the Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers in the fourth assessment is more focused on the negative impacts of climate change than the underlying report, an approach agreed to by participating governments (PBL, 2010) [emphasis mine].

Similar problems were noted with the Synthesis Report, which is intended to synthesize the finding of three different working groups.  “Scientists” the IAC wrote, found the Synthesis Report “too political.”
The IAC report confirms what many concluded way back in 2007, The IPCC was was politics posing as science.
The disturbing problems noted by the IAC mirror the flawed, opaque process I’ve been following in Maryland over the last five years.
The process started in 2007 when Governor O’Malley signed and executive order creating the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. O’Malley’s order outsourced climate policy to an outside advocacy group Center for Climate Strategies.   From day one, the O’Malley administration tried to keep details of the process hidden from public scrutiny.  The Maryland Department of the Environment withheld documents from my colleague Paul Chesser’s Public Information Act request seeking documents pertaining to the state’s dealing with CCS.  The process was clearly slanted from the beginning.  One of the documents Chesser did obtain, a memo from CCS to MDE stated, “participants will not debate the science of climate change.”
I followed up with my own PIA request and MDE told me I could have the documents Chesser wanted, now ballooning to 3,700 pages from the original 11 it withheld from him …for a hefty fee of $1,381.  After the legislature passed the GGRA, Environment Maryland, chief Brad Heaver boasted about being “lead policy/lobbying group” to get it passed.  I submitted another PIA request to MDE to find out if Heavner and any other environmental advocacy groups were involved in writing the regulations.  All I got was another bill, this time for $1,353.
Perhaps O’Malley’s MDE doesn’t want the public to know that his climate commission and climate law were paid for and written by the radical environmentalists at The Town Creek Foundation located in Easton, MD.  According to its latest IRS tax return Town Creek has investments in several oil and gas companies, including Exxon-Mobil.
The Town Creek Foundation gave CCS $100,000 to facilitate the work of Maryland’s climate commission, and another $350,000 to influence GGRA regulations.  Town Creek also funded Environment Maryland and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, two of those “lead policy/lobbying groups” $225,00 and $325,00 respectively to agitate and lobby for the GGRA and its regulations.

Town Creek even got one its own board members, Donald Boesch, on the commission.  Boesch led the commission’s Scientific and Technical Working Group. Town Creek also funds Boesch’s employer the University Center for Environmental Sciences.  Town Creek’s board approves all grant funding.  Did Boesch approve his own funding?

What did Town Creek get for its $1.2 million investment?  A 360 page set of proposed taxes, fees, regulations, and mandates that will undoubtedly harm the state’s already fragile economy.
The Commission findings were received with much fanfare, and minimal scrutiny.  However, the Beacon Hill Institute analyzed CCS’ underlying economic assumptions in the commission report and found:

1. CCS failed to quantify benefits in a way that they can be meaningfully compared to costs;2. When estimating economic impacts, CCS often misinterpreted costs to be benefits;3. The estimates of costs left out important factors, causing CCS to understate the true costs of its recommendations…For policymakers, the CAP report offers no worthwhile guidance. The report fails to quantify the monetary benefits of reduced GHG emissions rendering its cost savings estimates implausible if not downright unbelievable. The faulty analysis contained in the CAP report leaves policymakers with no basis on which to judge the merits of the CAP report’s recommendations for action on the mitigation of GHG emissions [emphasis mine].

Nor did lawmakers heed the skeptical analysis of the non-partisan Department of Legislative Services.
DLS found that the commission’s recommendations were “largely command-and-control policies rather than incentive-based policies.” Like the Beacon Hill report, DLS also found similar flaws in the commission’s economic analysis such as omitted costs, improper benefit-cost valuation, and forecast errors.

However, despite a significant amount of research, considerable uncertainty remains over the ultimate economic impacts of such a policy. In addition, the choice and design of the specific mitigation programs implemented will affect the magnitude and distribution of GHG mitigation costs. Policies that are not incentive-based (i.e., command-and-control) and/or do not implement economy-wide regulations will be much more costly. The distribution of costs within the economy will depend on several key factors, including the energy- and carbon-intensity of energy consumed by each sector.In Maryland, the manufacturing sector will likely experience a greater amount of employment and output losses relative to the rest of the economy as a result of GHG reduction policies. However, policies that attempt to mitigate these losses and exempt the manufacturing sector will only increase the total cost of GHG mitigation and shift the burden to other economic sectors. Ultimately, the cost of GHG mitigation policies, even those imposed on businesses, will be borne by individuals [emphasis mine].

Like the IPCC, the Maryland Commission on Climate Change represents the creation of a political consensus through a non-transparent process based on shaky science, and even shoddier economics.
*The IAC revised its original report watering down the severity of its initial conclusions.  Why? That question has never been answered.  Still, even the watered down findings cast serious doubt on the process.

Fighting Against Agenda 21 Is Only Part of the Battle

No. 2628 December 1, 2011

Focus on Agenda 21 Should Not Divert Attention from Homegrown Anti-Growth Policies

Wendell Cox, Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., and Brett D. Schaefer

Abstract: Agenda 21, adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, unabashedly calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment. However, Agenda 21 is non-binding; it depends on governments for implementation. If opponents focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests. Preventing American implementation of Agenda 21 should therefore be viewed as only one part of a broader effort to convince U.S. government officials to repeal destructive smart-growth pro- grams and prevent the enactment of new ones.

Radical environmentalists, local business groups, and the ever-present Not in My Backyard crowd have been trying for decades to reshape American communities to conform to their preferred “smart growth” policies. These advocates work to impose land use regulations that would force Americans into denser living arrangements, curtail freedom of choice in housing, discriminate against lower-income Americans, and compel people to pay more for their houses and give up their cars in favor of subways, trolleys, buses, and bicycles.

Talking Points

  • Among other priorities, smart-growth policies impose land use regulations that suppress housing supply and drive up home prices, in turn imposing unnecessary costs, especially on middle- and lower-income households. These policies contributed to and aggravate the real estate bubble by putting inflationary pressures on housing prices.
  • Agenda 21, adopted by various nations after the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, advocates changes similar to those of smart- growth advocates.
  • Agenda 21 and similar-smart growth policies greatly extend the government’s regulatory reach and impede economic growth, construction, consumer choice, homeownership, job creation, and flexible community development strategies.
  • Agenda 21 represents just one part of the broad- er fight. The entire spectrum of crippling smart- growth policies, many of which predate the United Nations and Agenda 21, have already been implemented or are being proposed in American communities and should be opposed.

December 1, 2011

These efforts—often described as “New Urban- ism,” “sustainable development,” or “open land preservation”—have long been resisted by some members of the community due to their negative impact on economic growth, competitiveness, and the nation’s standard of living. As The Heritage Foundation has documented, communities implementing smart-growth policies have significantly higher home prices, which precludes moderate- income households from homeownership. In turn, these high home prices have forced buyers to take on excessive levels of mortgage debt, which has contributed to the default and foreclosure problems that have led to the current recession. Indeed, the foreclosure problem is at its worst in states with the strictest land use constraints: Florida, California, Arizona, and Nevada.1

In recent years, however, many smart-growth opponents working at the local level have shift- ed their focus toward opposing the 1992 United Nations voluntary initiative called Agenda 21, which advocates many policies that reflect smart-growth principles. They should recognize that Agenda 21 is simply another facet of smart growth and not allow it to divert them from opposing the more ubiquitous, overarching agenda of homegrown environ- mental extremists.

Principles Outlined in Agenda 21 Are Smart-Growth Principles

Agenda 21 is a remarkably broad, ambitious action plan that was presented at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and adopted by the attending nations as “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 on the environment.”2 At well over 300 pages, Agenda 21 sets forth hundreds of specific goals and strategies that national and local governments are encouraged to adopt.3

These policies are presented in four sections:

  1. Social and economic dimensions (e.g., inter- national cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries, com- bating poverty, changing consumption pat- terns, promoting sustainable human settlement development);
  2. Conservation and management of resources for development (e.g., protection of the atmosphere, planning and management of land resources, promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development);

3. Strengthening the role of major groups (e.g., women, children, indigenous people, workers and trade unions); and

4. Means of implementation (e.g., financing, technology transfer, promoting education and public awareness, international legal instruments).

In sum, UNCED was explicitly focused on getting governments to “rethink economic development and find ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet….

The Summit’s message [was] that nothing less than a transformation of our attitudes and behavior would bring about the necessary changes.”4 Agenda 21 unabashedly calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment.

If implemented, the types of policies encouraged in Agenda 21 would significantly expand the role of government in economic decision-making, impede

  1. Wendell Cox and Ronald D. Utt, “Don’t Regulate the Suburbs: America Needs a Housing Policy That Works,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2247, March 5, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/03/Dont-Regulate-the- Suburbs-America-Needs-a-Housing-Policy-That-Works.
  2. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, at http:// www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/ (November 7, 2011).
  3. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development, Agenda 21, June 1992, at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf (November 7, 2011).
  4. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 3–14, 1992, at http://www.un.org/ geninfo/bp/enviro.html (November 7, 2011).

development and economic growth, and undermine individual choice and policy flexibility for local communities. Opponents should be concerned about efforts by the U.S. government to implement these policies, both nationally and locally.5

If implemented, the types of policies encouraged in Agenda 21 would significantly expand the
role of government in economic decision-making, impede development and economic growth, and undermine individual choice and policy flexibility for local communities.

However, Agenda 21 is non-binding; it depends entirely on national, state, and local governments for implementation and therefore poses little threat in and of itself. It is the policies endorsed by Agenda

21 that are of most concern, and these policies are not confined to Agenda 21. On the contrary, those policies undergird the smart-growth agenda that has gained widespread acceptance in many parts of the U.S. to the detriment of local economies.

Radical Environmental Principles Predate Agenda 21 Proposals

The smart-growth policies echoed in Agenda 21 originated among liberal European and American intellectuals and significantly predate the adoption of Agenda 21. In fact, the British version of these policies—which had a strong influence on American liberals and the international environmental activists that largely wrote Agenda 21—had its origins in the 1920s. As Britain’s Prince Charles has written:

For more than eighty years, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has been leading the fight to preserve the remaining delicate fabric of the countryside. The foresight of the founding fathers was extraordinary—in 1926 Clough Williams-Ellis, whom I remember well and admire greatly, published Eng- land and the Octopus, an anti-sprawl polemic, and in the same year Sir Patrick Abercrombie wrote his paper, The Preservation of Rural Eng- land. The fight has continued since then and great successes have been won.6

These policies, embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act, enacted by a socialist government in 1947, which forced nearly all subsequent development into existing urban footprints, have been an economic disaster. The citizens of the United Kingdom now have the smallest and most expensive housing of any advanced country in the world.7

America’s smart-growth movement emerged in force in the early 1970s when communities in California and Oregon began to replicate Britain’s anti- sprawl policies through restrictive zoning practices to discourage suburbanization. Bit by bit, it spread around the country as more and more communities adopted polices to deter suburban growth for all but the well-to-do. Growth control efforts under- way in these communities were driven not only by a distorted view of the environment, but also by the desire of those already in place to prevent newcomers from arriving and spoiling the rural ambience of their suburban communities.

By the 1980s, these policies led President George H. W. Bush to create a commission, overseen by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack

  1. A number of conservative groups have expressed growing concern over Agenda 21. A grassroots effort has arisen to convince local U.S. governments to cease their endorsement of Agenda 21 and end their participation with its most prominent implementing partner, the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). All told, there are 1,196 “global members” of ICLEI, of which nearly half (562 counties, cities, and municipalities) are in the U.S. See Rachel Alexander, “Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Real Threat?” Townhall.com, July 2, 2011, at http://townhall.com/columnists/ rachelalexander/2011/07/02/agenda_21_conspiracy_theory_or_real_threat/page/full/ (November 7, 2011); ICLEI, “Members,” at http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=11454 (November 7, 2011).
  2. Charles, Prince of Wales, Icons of England, ed. Bill Bryson (London: Black Swan, 2010), p. 13.
  3. Ronald D. Utt, “Will Obama’s ‘Livability’ Program Bring Britain’s ‘Hobbit Homes’ to America?” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2601, September 1, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/09/Will-Obamas-Livability- Program-Bring-Britains-Hobbit-Homes-to-America.

Kemp, to investigate the impact of these policies on growth and communities and make recommendations. Its report, “Not in My Back Yard”: Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing,8 was a powerful critique of policies now known as “smart growth.”

While recklessness was certainly a factor in
the U.S. housing bubble, smart-growth policies played a major role in creating and exacerbating the bubble and the subsequent recession.

Nonetheless, smart-growth policies continued to advance in the U.S. As they became more prevalent and restrictive, their impact on housing prices and construction likewise expanded. An explosion of exclusionary zoning throughout the U.S. encouraged many communities to adopt zoning policies to ensure that they maintained a certain demographic

“profile.” Such zoning limited real estate development to higher-cost homes in order to “price out” moderate-income households, which included a disproportionate share of minorities.

In the wake of the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne wryly noted that Britain escaped the sort of housing bubble and crash that staggered America because, whereas America recklessly expanded its housing stock, “We were saved by the fact that you can’t build anything in this country.”9 While reck- lessness was certainly a factor in the U.S. housing bubble, smart-growth policies played a major role in creating and exacerbating the bubble and the subsequent recession. In fact, the states and metropolitan areas with the strictest smart-growth land

regulations were the ones that suffered the greatest home price bubbles (notably in California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada) and the most serious foreclosure problems once the bubble burst.10

Missing the Real Target

Opponents of Agenda 21 should not be distracted from the more tangible manifestation of the smart-growth principles outlined in that document. If they focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that date to the early 1970s and undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests.

Adding to the problem, the Obama Administration has warmly embraced smart-growth policies and, more broadly, increased environmental regulation and restriction of use of natural resources. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is the Administration’s point man in selling smart-growth policies to the American people.11 He and other key Administration officials are abetted by state and local elected officials and numerous interest groups, including the Urban Land Institute, local Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Smart Growth America, the American Public Transportation Association, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and shortsighted local business associations.

Opponents of these policies have been very effective in their work. A good example is the state of Florida, where Governor Rick Scott (R) and the state legislature repealed a 25-year-old smart-growth law a few months ago.12

  1. Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, “Not In My Back Yard”: Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991), at http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/RBCPUBS/ NotInMyBackyward.html (November 7, 2011).
  2. George Will, “In ‘Merrie Olde England,’ Economic Pallor,” Free-Lance Star (Fredericksburg, Va.), August 12, 2011, at http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/082011/08122011/644603 (November 7, 2011).
  3. Cox and Utt, “Don’t Regulate the Suburbs.”
  4. Ronald D. Utt, “Obama Administration’s Plan to Coerce People out of Their Cars,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2536, July 10, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/07/Obama-Administrations-Plan-to-Coerce-People-out- of-Their-Cars.

12. Wendell Cox, “Florida Repeals Smart Growth Law,” New Geography, October 7, 2011, at http://www.newgeography.com/ content/002471-florida-repeals-smart-growth-law (November 28, 2010)

If implemented, the types of policies encouraged in Agenda 21 would be detrimental to economic growth and prosperity. Thus, preventing American implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level and membership by U.S. counties, cities, and municipalities in the International Cder effort to convince U.S. government officials to repeal destructive smart-growth programs and prevent the enactment of new ones.

—Wendell Cox, Principal of the Wendell Cox Consultancy in St. Louis, Missouri, is a Visiting Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Roe Institute. Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Mar- garet Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for Inter- national Studies, at The Heritage Foundation and editor of ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives (Rowman & Little- field Publishers, 2009).

 

June 2012 Meeting

“Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

 

June 26, 2012

7 pm

 Knights of Columbus Hall

23 Newport Drive

Forest Hill, MD.   21050

Cash bar available

 

Are you concerned about the erosion of your freedoms? Do you see the slow descent into tyranny facilitated through benign neglect or design? Have you wondered if our Constitution and Bill of Rights mean anything?   YOU ARE NOT ALONE!  This month we will discuss

 

  • ICLEI/UN update
  • Bilderberg update
  • Hear about Oath Keepers, law and military officers sworn to uphold the Constitution.
  • The New American Caesar:  Taking Us Back 234 Years

 

 

Visit our website  www.harfordliberty.org

Agenda 21 -The Unholy History

  Taken from The American Policy Center   by Tom DeWeese

 

Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Threat

The battle over Agenda 21 is raging across the nation. City and County Councils have become war zones as citizens question the origins of development plans and planners deny any international connections to the UN’s Agenda 21. What is the truth? Since I helped start this war, I believe it is up to me to help with the answers.

The standard points made by those who deny any Agenda 21 connection is that:

Local planning is a local idea.
Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution not a treaty, carries no legal authority from which any nation is bound to act. It has no teeth.
The UN has no enforcement capability.
There are no “Blue-Helmeted” UN troops at City Hall.
Planners are simply honest professionals trying to do their job, and all these protests are wasting their valuable time.
The main concern of Agenda 21 is that man is fouling the environment and using up resources for future generations and we just need a sensible plan to preserve and protect the earth. What is so bad about that?
There is no hidden agenda.
“I’ve read Agenda 21 and I can find no threatening language that says it is a global plot. What are you so afraid of?”
And of course, the most often heard response – “Agenda 21, what’s that?”

And after they have proudly stated these well thought out points, they arrogantly throw down the gauntlet and challenge us to “answer these facts.”

Well, first I have a few questions of my own that I would love to have answered.

Will one of these “innocent” promoters of the “Agenda 21 is meaningless” party line, please answer the following:

If it all means nothing, why does the UN spend millions of dollars to hold massive international meetings in which hundreds of leaders, potentates and high priests attend, along with thousands of non-governmental organizations of every description, plus the international news media, which reports every action in breathless anticipation of its impact on the world?
It if all means nothing, why do those same NGO representatives (which are all officially sanctioned by the UN in order to participate) spend months (sometimes years) debating, discussing, compiling, and drafting policy documents?
If it all means nothing, why do leaders representing nearly every nation in the world attend and, with great fanfare, sign these policy documents?

Time after time we witness these massive international meetings, we read the documents that result from them, and when we question their meaning or possible impact on our nation, we are met with a dismissive shrug and a comment of “oh, probably not much…”

Really? Then why? Why the waste of money, time, and human energy? Could it be that the only purpose is to simply give diplomats, bureaucrats, and NGOs a feeling of purpose in their meaningless lives, or perhaps a chance to branch out of their lonely apartments? Or could it really be that these meetings and the documents they produce are exactly as we say they are – a blueprint for policy, rules, regulations, perhaps even global governance that will affect the lives, fortunes, property and futures of every person on earth? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Why the fear of Agenda 21?

Those who simply read or quickly scan Agenda 21 are puzzled by our opposition to what they see as a harmless, non-controversial document which they read as voluntary suggestions for preserving natural resources and protecting the environment. Why the fear? What exactly bothers us so much?

The problem is, we who oppose Agenda 21 have read and studied much more than this one document and we’ve connected the dots. Many of us have attended those international meetings, rubbed elbows with the authors and leaders of the advocated policies, and overheard their insider (not for public distribution) comments about their real purpose.

Here are a few examples of those comments made by major leaders of this movement as to the true purpose of the policies coming out of these UN meetings:

“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.”

Christine Stewart (former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

“Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

All three of these quotes (and we have many) indicate using lies and rhetoric to achieve their goals, and that those goals include the elimination of national sovereignty and the creation of a “seamless system” for global governance. Again, do these quotes have meaning and purpose – do they reveal the true thoughts of the promoters of these policies, or were they just joking?

For the past three decades through the United Nations infrastructure, there have been a series of meetings, each producing another document or lynchpin to lay the groundwork for a centralized global economy, judicial system, military, and communications system, leading to what can only be described as a global government. From our study of these events, we have come to the conclusion that Agenda 21 represents the culmination of all of those efforts, indeed representing the step by step blueprint for the full imposition of those goals. Here’s just a sample of these meetings and the documents they produced:

In 1980, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt chaired the Commission on International Development. The document, or report coming out of this effort, entitled “North-South: A program for Survival,” stated “World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure…not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human dignity, security, justice and equality…The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a ‘single community’ to develop global order.”

That same year Sean MacBride, a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize, headed up a commission on international communications which issued a report entitled “Many Voices, One World: Towards a New, More Just and More Efficient World Information and Communication Order.” The Commission, which included the head of the Soviet news Agency, TASS, believed that a “New World Information Order” was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The report was a blueprint for controlling the media, even to the point of suggesting that international journalists be licensed.

In 1982, Olof Palme, the man who single-handedly returned Socialism to Sweden, served as chairman of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. His report, entitled “Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival,” said: “All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control…” The report went on to call for money that is saved from disarmament to be used to pay for social programs. The Commission also proposed a strategic shift from “collective security” such as the alliances like NATO, to one of “common security” through the United Nations.

Finally, in 1987, came the granddaddy commission of them all, The Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development. Headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, the commission introduced the concept of “Sustainable Development.” For the first time the environment was tied to the tried and true Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report, “Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”

These four commissions laid the groundwork for an agenda of global control; A controlled media would dictate the flow of information and ideas and prevent dissent; control of international development manages and redistributes wealth; full disarmament would put the power structure into the hands of those with armaments; and tying environmentalism to poverty and economic development would bring the entire agenda to the level of an international emergency.

One world, one media, one authority for development, one source of wealth, one international army. The construction of a “just society” with political and social equality rather than a free society with the individual as the sole possessor of rights. The next step was to pull it altogether into a simple blueprint for implementation.

During the 1990s, the UN sponsored a series of summits and conferences dealing with such issues as human rights, the rights of the child, forced abortion and sterilization as solutions for population control, and plans for global taxation through the UN.

Throughout each of these summits, hundreds of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worked behind the scenes to write policy documents pertaining to each of these issues, detailing goals and a process to achieve them. These NGO’s are specifically sanctioned by the United Nations in order to participate in the process. The UN views them as “civil society, the non governmental representatives of the people. In short, in the eyes of the UN, the NGOs are the “people.”

Who are they? They include activist groups with private political agendas including the Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the National Education Association, an d hundreds more. These groups all have specific political agendas which they desire to become law of the land. Through work in these international summits and conferences, their political wish lists become official government policy.

In fact, through the UN infrastructure the NGOs sit in equality to government officials from member nations including the United States. One of the most powerful UN operations is the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Created in 1973 by the UN General Assembly, the UNEP is the catalyst through which the global environmental agenda is implemented. Virtually all international environmental programs and policy changes that have occurred globally in the past three decades are a result of UNEP efforts. Sitting in on UNEP meetings, helping to write and implement policy, along with these powerful NGOs are government representatives, including U.S, federal agencies such as the Department of State, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

This, then, is a glimpse of the power structure behind the force that gathered in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for the UN-sponsored Earth Summit. Here, five major documents, written primarily by NGOs with the guidance and assistance of government agencies, were introduced to the world. In fact, these final documents had been first drafted and honed though the long, arduous series of international conferences previously mentioned. Now, at Rio, they were ready for adoption as a blueprint for what could only be described as the transformation of human society.

The five documents were: the “Convention on Climate Change,” the precursor to the coming Kyoto Climate Change Protocol, later adopted in 1997; the “Biodiversity Treaty,” which would declare that massive amounts of land should be off limits to human development; the third document was called the “Rio Declaration,” which called for the eradication of poverty throughout the world through the redistribution of wealth; the fourth document was the “Convention on Forest Principles,” calling for international management of the world’s forests, essentially shutting down or severely regulating the timber industry; and the fifth document was Agenda 21, which contained the full agenda for implementing worldwide Sustainable Development. The 300 page document contains 40 chapters that address virtually every facet of human life and contains great detail as to how the concept of Sustainable Development should be implemented through every level of government.

What did the United Nations believe that process entailed? In 1993, to help explain the far-reaching aspects of the plan, the UN published “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet.” Here’s how the UN described Agenda 21 in that document: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.” I have never read a stronger, more powerful description of the use of government power.

However, critics of our efforts against Agenda 21 rush to point out that Agenda 21 is a “soft law” policy – not a treaty that must be ratified by the U.S. Senate to become law. So it is just a suggestion, nothing to be afraid of. To make such an argument means that these critics have failed to follow the bouncing ball of implementation.

Following the bouncing ball to implementation

It started when, at the Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush, along with 179 other heads of state signed agreement to Agenda 21. One year later, newly elected President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order # 12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The Council consisted of 12 cabinet secretaries, top executives from business, and executives from six major environmental organizations, including the Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, the World Resources Institute, and the National Wildlife Federation. These were all players in the creation of Agenda 21 at the international level – now openly serving on the PCSD with the specific mission to implement Agenda 21 into American policy.

It is interesting to note that in the pages of the PCSD report entitled “Sustainable America: A new Consensus for the Future, it directly quotes the Brundtland Commission’s report “Our Common Future” for a definition of Sustainable Development. That is about as direct a tie to the UN as one can get. The PCSD brought the concept of Sustainable Development into the policy process of every agencies of the US federal government

A major tool for implementation was the enormous grant-making power of the federal government. Grant programs were created through literally every agency to entice states and local communities to accept Sustainable Development policy in local programs. In fact, the green groups serving on the PCSD, which also wrote Agenda 21 in the first place, knew full well what programs needed to be implemented to enforce Sustainable Development policy, and they helped create the grant programs, complete with specific actions that must be taken by communities to assure the money is properly spent to implement Sustainable Development policy. Those are the “strings” to which we opponents refer. Such tactics make the grants effective weapons to insure the policy is moving forward.

From that point, these same NGOs sent their members into the state legislatures to lobby for and encourage policy and additional state grant programs. They have lobbied for states to produce legislation requiring local communities to implement comprehensive development plans. Once that legislation was in place, the same NGOs (authors of Agenda 21) quickly moved into the local communities to “help” local governments comply with the state mandates. And they pledged to help by showing communities how to acquire the grant money to pay for it – with the above mentioned strings attached.

We’re told over and over again that such policies are local, state and national, with no conspiracy of ties to the UN. Really? Then how are we to explain this message, taken from the Federal Register, August 24, 1998, (Volume 63, Number 163) from a discussion on the EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program? It says, “The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program is also a step in Implementing ‘Agenda 21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable Development,’ signed by the United Stats at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. All of these programs require broad community participation to identify and address environmental issues.”

Or consider this quote from a report by Phil Janik, Chief Operating Officer of the USDA – Forest Service, entitled “The USDA-Forest Service Commitment and Approach to Forest Sustainability” “In Our Common Future published in 1987, the Brundtland Commission explains that ‘the environment is where we all live; and development is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode.” In short, Janik was explaining to his audience (the Society of American Foresters) just where the Forest Service was getting its definition of Sustainable Development – the report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

Meanwhile, the NGOs began to “partner” with other governmental organizations like the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of County Administrators and more organizations to which elected representatives belong to, assuring a near that a near universal message of Sustainable Development comes from every level of government.

Another NGO group which helped write Agenda 21 for the UN Earth Summit was a group originally called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). It now calls itself ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. After the Earth Summit in 1992, ICLEI set its mission to move into the policy process of local governments around the world to impose Sustainable Development policy. It now operates in more than 1200 cities globally, including 600 American cities, all of which pay dues for the privilege of working with ICLEI. Like a cancer, ICLEI begins to infest the local government policy, training city employees to think only in terms of Sustainable Development, and replacing local guidelines with international codes, rules and regulations.

So it’s true, there are no UN blue helmeted troops occupying city halls in America, and yes, the UN itself does not have enforcement capability for this “:non-binding” document called Agenda 21. However, it does have its own storm troopers in the person of the Non-governmental Organizations which the UN officially sanctions to carry on its work. And that is how Agenda 21, a UN policy, has become a direct threat to local American communities.

Why we oppose Agenda 21

It’s important to note that we fight Agenda 21 because we oppose its policies and its process, not just its origins. Why do we see it as a threat? Isn’t it just a plan to protect the environment and stop uncontrolled development and sprawl?

As Henry Lamb of Freedom 21 puts it, “Comprehensive land use planning that delivers sustainable development to local communities transforms both the process through which decisions that govern citizens are made, and the market place where citizens must earn their livelihood. The fundamental principle that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process…the natural next step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own the land that the government controls.”

To enforce the policy, local government is being transformed by “stakeholder councils” created and enforced by the same NGO Agenda 21 authors. They are busy creating a matrix of non-elected boards, councils and regional governments that usurp the ability of citizens to have an impact on policy. It’s the demise of representative government. And the councils appear and grow almost overnight.

Sustainablists involve themselves in every aspect of society. Here are just a few of the programs and issues that can be found in the Agenda 21 blueprint and can be easily found in nearly every community’s “local” development plans: Wetlands, conservation easements, water sheds, view sheds, rails – to- trails, biosphere reserves, greenways, carbon footprints, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage areas and comprehensive planning. Every one of these programs leads to more government control, land grabs and restrictions on energy, water, and our own property. When we hear these terms we know that such policy originated on the pages of Agenda 21, regardless of the direct or indirect path it took to get to our community.

You’ll find Watershed Councils that regulate human action near every trickling stream, river, or lake. Meters are put on wells. Special “action” councils control home size, tree pruning, or removal, even the color you can paint your home or the height of your grass. Historic preservation councils control development in downtown areas, disallowing expansion and new building.

Regional governments are driven by NGOs and stakeholder councils with a few co-opted bureaucrats thrown in to look good. These are run by non-elected councils that don’t answer to the people. In short, elected officials become little more than a rubber stamp to provide official “approval” to the regional bureaucracy.

But the agenda outlined in Agenda 21 and by its proponents is a much bigger threat that just land use planning. They openly advocate massive reduction of human populations. Some actually call for as much as an 85% reduction in human populations in order to “save the planet.” David Brower of the Sierra Club said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” The UN’s Biodiversity Assessment says, “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.”

They also openly advocate the destruction of modern society as Maurice Strong, the head of the Earth Summit said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

This issue then is not about simple environmental protection and modern planning. It is about a complete restructuring of our society, our values and our way of life. They use as their model an urgency based on global warming and climate change, claiming there is no need for discussion on these dire issues. Yet science is showing more and more proof that there is no man-made global warming. Are we to completely destroy our society based on such a shaky foundation?

And that is just what the proponents are rushing to do.

Barack Obama has issued a flurry of Executive Orders to bypass the Congressional process and dictate sustainable policy. In 2011 Obama issued EO # 13575 creating the White House Rural Council. It brings together 25 Cabinet Secretaries to enforce multi-jurisdictional enforcement of farming virtually controlling every decision for food production. It is a major assault on American farm production intended to enforce Sustainable farming practices. In truth it will only lead to food shortages and higher prices as farmers have no ability to make a decision without the approval of 25 government agencies, working at cross purposes and causing chaos in farm production.

On May1, 2012, Obama issued EO # 13609, dictating that the government must enforce coordination of international regulatory policy. Those international regulatory policies are UN-driven and the basic translation means enforcement of Sustainable Development policy.

But, again, skeptics of our fears of Agenda 21 continue to argue that it is all voluntary and if the US or local governments want to enforce it they are free to do so – nothing to fear but ourselves. Well, even if that were true, that’s all about to change. On June 15 – 23, international forces are again converging on Rio for Rio+20. The stated intention is to complete the work they began in 1992.

Specifically called for is a UN treaty on Sustainable Development. If passed by the Senate and signed by the Obama Administration, that will eliminate any ambiguity about where the policy is coming from. Moreover, documents produced so far for the summit call for a global council, new UN agencies, budgets and powers, and “genuine global actions” in every nation – to ensure “social justice,” poverty eradication, climate protection, biodiversity, “green growth,” and an end to “unsustainable patterns of consumption.” Again, thousands of NGOs, diplomats and world leaders will spend a lot of money and time in the Rio+20 effort. Is it all just for fun, or does it have a purpose with strong consequences for our way of life?

The fact is, we fight Agenda 21 because it is all-encompassing, designed to address literally every aspect of our lives. This is so because those promoting Agenda 21 believe we must modify our behavior, our way of doing everyday things, and even our belief system, in order to drastically transform human society into being “sustainable.”

We who oppose it don’t believe that the world is in such dire emergency environmentally that we must destroy the very human civilization that brought us from a life of nothing but survival against the elements into a world that gave us homes, health care, food, and even luxury. Sustainable Development advocates literally hope to roll back our civilization to the days of mere survival and we say NO. Why should we? We have found great deception in the promotion of the global warming argument. We believe in free markets and free societies where people make their own decisions, live and develop their own property. And we fully believe that the true path to a strong protection of the environment is through private property ownership and limited government. Those who promote Agenda 21 do not believe in those ideals. And so we will not agree on the path to the future. And our fight is just that – a clash of philosophy. There is very little room for middle ground.

The United States has never been part of a global village in which rules for life have been handed down by some self-appointed village elders. We are a nation of laws that were designed to protect our right to our property and our individual life choices while keeping government reined in. We oppose Agenda 21 precisely because it represents the exact opposite view of government.

Harford C4L Meeting May 22nd

“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” Patrick Henry

Harford Campaign for Liberty
May 22, 2012
7pm
Knights of Columbus Hall
23 Newport Drive
Forest Hill, MD 21050

Harford Campaign for Liberty invites you to be the light that shines on the “transactions of rulers” Join us this month as we look into:

• The Bilderberg Group, an organization that meets secretly but influences our politics.
• An update from Delegate Glenn Glass on Smart Meters.
• An update on CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). What it is and who voted for it.
• Update on ICLEI and how you can educate your friends and neighbors.

For more information, visit our website www.harfordliberty.org.

Cash bar available.

AGENDA 21 /ICLEI/PlanMD Fact Sheet

 

This document was prepared to demonstrate the history and intent of “Smart Growth”, sustainability and other programs that claim protection of the environment as their goal.  Further, we will illuminate the close association between ICLEI and the United Nations.  We are adamant in our assertion that programs designed by an international body are not consistent with American sovereignty.

Agenda 21

“Agenda 21 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 on the environment” UN Agenda 21 preamble

Agenda 21 is the 40 Chapter, unifying document produced at the 1992 Earth Summit.  It was the culmination of decades of environmental and social thinking.  The groundwork was laid by Earth Summit 1 (Stockholm Conference – 1972) and Our Common Future, also called the Brundtland Report.  The later was from the work done by the UN Commission on Environment and Development and was published in 1987

A key player in this is Maurice Strong.  Strong, a self proclaimed socialist, organized and led the 1992 Earth Summit.  He has been closely involved with UN environmental activities since the 1970’s. He was also named but never charged in the oil for food scandal.  We are including what may seem like excessive reference to Mr. Strong because we want you to understand the core values of the man who has been a driving force behind the foundation of many of our environmental laws and regulations.  Please review his comments, associations and activities.   A comprehensive and very illuminating biography can be found at the site listed below.

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html

  • Strong’s most significant role at the U.N. to-date has been his position as Secretary General of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development, the Rio Earth Summit. In the opening session of the Rio Earth Summit, Strong commented: “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security
  •  Strong also directed the U.N.’s Business Council on Sustainable Development. Under his leadership, the council tried to affect peoples’ lives through U.N. policies that attempt to reduce the availability of meat products; limit the use of home and workplace air conditioners; discourage private ownership of motor vehicles; encroach on private property rights; and work to reduce the number of single family homes. “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. Maurice Strong in opening statement at Rio Earth Summit
  • “The Earth Summit will play an important role in reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance. -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine
  • What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
    • Maurice Strong, Interview 1992, concerning the plot of a book he would like to wri

Opponents of Agenda 21 argue that it seeks to destroy personal property and is incompatible with our constitutional form of government. It also advocates social equity through redistribution of wealth.  Many reputable economists feel that the only way to assure wealth creation and elimination of poverty is through the establishment and observance of clear and consistent laws that protect property rights.  This is in direct contrast to the underlying philosophy of Agenda 21.  Look at this excerpt from the preamble to the 1972 UN Conference on Human Settlements,  (Vancouver Declaration)  a foundational document for the Rio Summit.

 

Preamble  Agenda item 10d

  1. Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, 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. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.
  2. Instead, the pattern of land use should be determined by the long-term interests of the community, especially since decisions on location of activities and therefore of specific land uses have a long-lasting effect on the pattern and structure of human settlements. Land is also a primary element of the natural and man-made environment and a crucial link in an often delicate balance. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies

SMART GROWTH

The Presidents Council on Sustainable Development was formed by President Clinton following the Rio Summit and charged with implementing the sustainability goals put forth by Agenda 21.  Below are the words of those involved in this process.

  • ·       Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…”Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 11
  • ·       Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.   Statement made at a conference in London

Subsequently, the government provided millions of dollars to the American Planners Association which eventually developed Growing Smart; Legislative Guidebook.  This provides local governments and states with model legislation that once implemented embeds the suggestions of Agenda 21 into the legal framework of every town and county in America.  Growing Smart, Smart Green and Growing, Smart Growth, Sustainable communities!   Are you beginning to see a thread?

ICLEI
ICLEI is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations who have made a commitment to sustainable development. ICLEI provides technical consulting, training, and information services to build capacity, share knowledge, and support local government in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level. Our basic premise is that locally designed initiatives can provide an effective and cost-efficient way to achieve local, national, and global sustainability objectives. (From ICLEI’s website)

ICLEI, now called Local Governments for Sustainability has tried to minimize its close connections with UN Agenda   Below are some assertions that demonstrate the joined at the hip relationship between ICLEI and  the UN/Agenda 21.  They were taken directly from the 2006 ICLEI Charter

  • Charter 1.2 – Relationship to Founder Patro

The Association shall maintain its formal institutional relationships with its founder patrons, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).   UNEP is United Nations Environment Programme.  Its first director was Maurice Strong

By-Laws § 1.7.a – ICLEI offices shall:  encourage members to endorse the Earth Charter Principle

The Association shall promote, and ask its individual members to adopt, the following Earth Charter Principles to guide local action:

(1) Respect Earth and life in all its diversity.

(2) Care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love.

(3) Build democratic societies that are just, participatory, sustainable, and peaceful.

(4) Secure Earth’s bounty and beauty for present and future generations.

(5) Protect and restore the integrity of Earth’s ecological systems, with special concern for biological diversity and the natural processes that sustain life.

(6) Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach.

(7) Adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth’s regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being.

(8) Advance the study of ecological sustainability and promote the open exchange and wide application of the knowledge acquired.

(9) Eradicate poverty as an ethical, social, and environmental imperative.

(10) Ensure that economic activities and institutions at all levels promote human development in an equitable and sustainable manner.

(11) Affirm gender equality and equity as prerequisites to sustainable development and ensure universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity.

(12) Uphold the right of all, without discrimination, to a natural and social environment supportive of human dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being, with special attention to the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities.

(13) Strengthen democratic institutions at all levels, and provide transparency and accountability in governance, inclusive participation in decision making, and access to justice.

(14) Integrate into formal education and life-long learning the knowledge, values, and skills needed for a sustainable way of life.

(15) Treat all living beings with respect and consideration.

(16) Promote a culture of tolerance, nonviolence, and peace.

Notice that nowhere is there mention of individual or property rights.  Our forefathers felt that a main purpose of government was to secure our rights and to protect our property within a framework of predictable laws.  This is all about the collective.  Even when discussing human rights it is within the context of an identity group i.e. gender, indigenous people, youth etc..  The emphasis is on community and environment.

  • ·      Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

Also notice principle #6.  The precautionary principle is a tool to excuse drastic and costly actions taken without the backing of sound science.  The IPCC has a history of playing fast and loose with facts.  Our own PLANMD, which incorporates many of the Agenda 21 principles, also lacks scientific integrity. A day long conference that included world experts was held In October before the acceptance of PLANMD.  The weaknesses in the scientific premises of PLANMD were carefully and completely outlined.  The full conference can be viewed online by contacting the Carroll County commissioner.

The following are excerpts taken from an interview with Secretary General of ICLEI, Jeb Brughmann.  It was published in the March/April 1997 issue of ECO-Logic magazine and focused on the development and role of ICLEI

  • What we have found since Rio, the Earth Summit, is that so many of the agenda items in Agenda21 actually cannot ever be implemented without local governments and communities taking action. So that is what we are about today making sure this agreement among nations actually will get implemented after all the rhetoric is spent.  (Brughmann)
  • JV: You have grown substantially…. Now that you have been tapped by the UN, how has that influenced what you are doing; what do you see now as your mandate?

 Now we are able to plan ahead a bit more rather than react to an international policy in figuring out what we can do with it. We get engaged in the design of that policy. As the United Nations is right now negotiating an international treaty of dealing with the climate change problem, the cities are at the table. In the U.S., 45 cities have joined an international “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign.” Their commitment as participants in that campaign is to develop a local action plan to reduce their greenhouse gas the government can commitments. So we are now at the starting point of engaging in a process with the United Nations and governments in actually designing the policies that we can implement locally in order to achieve global environmental accords. We will be doing the same with climate, Agenda 21, and we have endorsed a major international campaign called “Local Agenda 21″ whereby now more than 2000 cities in more than 60 countries around the world are developing Agenda 21s for their cities

Below was taken directly from Section 3, Chapter 28 of Agenda 21

  • 28.2. The following objectives are proposed for this programme area:
  • By 1996, most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on “a local Agenda 21″ for the community;
  • Habitat and other relevant organs and organizations of the United Nations system are called upon to strengthen services in collecting information on strategies of local authorities, in particular for those that need international support; (this is what ICLEI does)

This was taken from the preamble of Agenda 21.  As you can see, we will be footing the bill through international taxes, transfer of wealth or cap and trade.

  • The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21

We hope that we have shown the problems with the foundational principles of Agenda 21 as well as its connection to ICLEI.  The RNC recently adopted an anti Agenda 21/ICLEI resolution as has the state of Tennessee.  New Hampshire has recently developed legislation that would study the local implementation of Agenda 21 with the intent to prevent its spread.

With this public relations problem, ICLEI has launched a propaganda campaign to thwart the spread of truth.  They will deny their association with the UN and Agenda 21.  Don’t believe them. You have the truth in their own words.  Many towns, counties and municipalities have severed their relationship with ICLEI.  Let Harford County join their numbers.

 

RNC Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21

 

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992; and,

 

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and

 

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and,

 

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and,

 

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now therefore be

 

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policy makers the dangerous intent of the plan; and therefore be it further

 

RESOLVED, that the U.S. government and no state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the (U.S.) Senate, and therefore be it further

 

RESOLVED, that the federal and state and local governments across the country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development” and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it, and therefore be it further

 

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of the Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, all Republican candidates for President who qualify for RNC sanctioned debates, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

 

 

 

GET US OUT OF ICLEI

r Fact Sheet