Agenda 21 In One Easy Lesson ~ By Tom DeWeese

Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people

“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.

A few days ago, I mentioned Agenda 21 to somebody, and was told, "Well, yes, I've heard of that, but I really don't know what it is."  Not long after, I came across this column.  That's one of those coincidences that make you say, "Hmmmm." 

The time is right for me to bring this story back up.  It has been nearly five years now since this was published, and yet, despite Tom DeWeese's effort to help us to make this information widely available, well... Guess what?  People are still unaware.  I'm afraid that we could say that most people are clueless, really.  That gives me a very uneasy feeling, especially considering the quote above that I pulled from this story.  Really, believe me, "they" do NOT want you to know the roots of Agenda 21, let alone, the intended goals.

I emphasized "they" above for one simple reason:  To know WHO is to know WHY!  The good news is that I've kept my archive of posts open to the public for years.  There are so many posts on this blog where Agenda 21 has been discussed, you would learn a lot from those related posts.  In this column, Tom DeWeese provides you with many of the key words that can assist you in learning more just by doing a Google search.  But even before you get to doing that, check out what I've included over the years.  You can do a search on the label Agenda 21, but I found a treasure of information by searching this blog for Agenda 21. 

Be assured that whatever happens in November 2016 will either be influenced by those that want to continue with their desire to globalize their authority, or by those of us that want to keep our national sovereignty and our FREEDOM.  Just remember that KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!  My work is done here.  Just sayin'...



Agenda 21 In One Easy Lesson

By Tom DeWeese

April 6, 2011

© 2011 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved

Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won't read detailed reports or watch long videos. "Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out," I'm asked.

So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I've also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.

A word of caution, use this as a started kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That's how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.

What is Sustainable Development?

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Social Equity (Social Justice)

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.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.

~~~ READ MORE at NewsWithViews.com ~~~

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Harry Reid's last roundup ~ By Joseph Farah

And there’s an even bigger story of scandal and corruption still beneath this show of force by the BLM, orchestrated by Harry Reid.

On Jan. 20, 2013, WND warned Chinese government-backed economists were proposing a plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up “development zones” in the United States as part of a plan proposed by the Chinese government to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt owned by the Chinese government.

The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.

While watching the Cliven Bundy ranch story unfold, the latest chapter ends up being about Senator Harry Reid. Until I heard what he said about the Bundy supporters being "domestic terrorists" and that Bundy didn't pay his taxes, both patently false accusations, Reid really wasn't a part of the story in a big way... up until that story about Reid's vicious lies surfaced. Even the part regarding a Reid crony being the head of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) didn't make too many heads turn. That was until now, and here we find out about it in a column written by Joseph Farah almost a week ago! And folks, this is something you wouldn't have heard about in the MSM,  Fox News included! Though, I still have to give Fox News and Eric Bolling some credit for leading me to this story!

In the video below, I asked, "Is it about radical environmentalism?" I was pretty sure that was the major reason for the BLM stepping up their attempt to evict the cattle from the grazing lands that the Bundy family ranch had used for several generations, just so that no poor little desert tortoises would get hurt. However, when I was searching for a related story that had to do with sustainable development, Agenda 21, and the Bureau of Land Management, I came across this story. Yes, extreme environmentalism has something to do with the Bundy Ranch story, but it turns out that the radical environmentalist is only a smoke and mirrors scheme to cover for outright crony capitalism.

It seems the Senate majority leader has been doing favors for a Chinese energy giant ENN, which has plans to build massive solar facilities in that area – tortoises or no tortoises.

This is what happens when we dig further into stories. We would have missed this profound revelation had I been complacent enough to just scratch the surface. Yet, the funny thing about this story is that there is probably a lot more to it that we may never become aware of.  We must, and we will, keep digging, but don't be surprised if the hole ends up in China. That could be awkward.  Just sayin'....

Please note:  To see the following video, you must be logged in to Facebook.

Post by Johnny2k's America.

Harry Reid's last roundup

Joseph Farah

By Joesph Farah

Sunday, April 13th, 2014

From wnd.com Commentary

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy performed a remarkable public service for America over the last couple weeks.

He exposed the utter ruthlessness, brutishness and Gestapo tactics of the federal government in dealing with honest, hard-working Americans who live off the land – our land.

Claiming Bundy’s cattle ranching operation was endangering desert tortoises, the Bureau of Land Management treated him like he was Ted Bundy. I take that back. The serial rapist, mass murderer and necrophile got due process.

When Cliven Bundy’s neighbors turned out to support him, as good American neighbors should, the BLM sent in helicopters, four-wheel-drive vehicles and an estimated 200 armed officers to deal with the cowboy and his family, threatening another Ruby Ridge or Waco-style slaughter.

But I don’t think it was about tortoises. No, sir. In fact, with all the gear and manpower the BLM brought to Clark County to round up the cowboy and his cattle, they did more environmental damage to the area than Cliven Bundy ever could have dreamed of doing.

This was about something else.

It’s always about something else.

Maybe – just maybe – it had to do with another Nevadan by the name of Harry Reid.

~~~ READ MORE on wnd.com ~~~

*    *    *    *

As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text.  Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!

Please note:  To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

*     *     *     *

Time 2 Escape WIFLI for Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012

It was Glenn Beck that asked the all-important question this morning following Rick Santorum's stunning victories on Tuesday in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri: "Why?" Glenn asked his audience if we've heard any of the GOP candidates say why they are running for President as well as Rick Santorum did Tuesday night.

What we are too used to hearing are a bunch of cliches from candidates when they are asked why they are running for President. Well, not with Santorum, who you will see answer that question with this conclusion to his victory speech he made in Missouri Tuesday night:

Video clip source: Fox News Channel

For Rick Santorum, it is about our Honor to uphold what the Founders gave - their Lives, their fortunes, and their honor - the Freedom granted to us by God, and that this generation, and all future generations, must work hard for to maintain.

FNC, Jan. 3: Rick Santorum

When I voted for Rick Santorum back in early January at the Iowa Caucus, I had no idea that he would have a chance. I was only choosing the one I believed the most like I do among the many GOP candidates initiating their campaigns. Somehow, my candidate eventually won the State of Iowa. And then came the next contests: New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada. While Santorum was non-existent in those primaries, all the media attention was centered on the war between Romney and Gingrich.

I think the American people finally grew sick of hearing about negative ads and having to actually listen to them. Newt was supposed to be the Conservative alternative to Mitt, even though he sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi to discuss global warming. The whole thing was a disaster waiting to happen. I know that I was losing interest in who actually won the GOP nomination, if it were to be Gingrich or Romney; they were both dead meat when it comes time to face Obama head on.

And the question I kept asking myself is why all of the pundits were trying to choose between those two pretenders, while out in the wings were Paul and Santorum. Okay, Paul wasn't going to get any endorsements, but why not Santorum? I was greatly disappointed, admittedly, when Herman Cain endorsed Newt Gingrich last week. Of all people, I thought Herman would be courageous enough to go out on a limb, and endorse Rick Santorum, even if it eventually meant nothing. I felt it was a missed opportunity for Herman Cain to move along a candidate that has true Conservative ideals.

So, now what? Will the establishment GOP team up with the mainstream media to try to keep it to Romney or Gingrich, or will they just get the heck out of the way so that the Tea Party Conservatives can get a true alternative to Barack Obama next November for our Republican nominee? Somebody that is going to fight for our freedom?

Rick Santorum sure looks good to me! Wow! He is the one candidate that I believe is the ONLY conservative alternative to Barack Hussein Obama.  I'm just sayin'...

*     *     *     *

The News Stories:

Santorum shakes up GOP race with three-for-three finish
From FoxNews.com ~ Published February 08, 2012

The Republican presidential contest is a two-man race no more.

Rick Santorum proved that the 2012 primary election still has a few surprises left, after he went three for three in Tuesday’s contests and once again shook up the GOP nomination battle.

Santorum, in perhaps the biggest upset of the night, was declared the winner of the Colorado caucuses -- a contest Mitt Romney had been leading in recent polls and won in the 2008 race. The former Pennsylvania senator also won the Minnesota caucuses and the non-binding Missouri GOP primary.

Video provided by freedomsfool2009 on Feb 7, 2012

READ MORE ...

[Editor's note: As of now, when you go to the above story, you can see the Fox News Channel video of Rick Santorum's victory speech in Missouri. I would have embedded that video, since it was much better quality than the youtube video I embedded in the story above, but there was no option to do so at this time. My favorite part of the entire speech can be seen above in my introduction.]

*     *     *     *

Columnists and Their Commentaries:

A congressman's Agenda 21 ignorance
Exclusive: Henry Lamb sets California lawmaker straight about impact of U.N. policies
From WND Commentary ~ By Henry Lamb ~ Published Feb 3, 2012

HENRY LAMB

California Rep. Wally Herger offered an article on Agenda 21 that, unfortunately, reflects a lack of knowledge about Agenda 21 shared by far too many elected officials. In the first instance, he said that Agenda 21 is a document developed at a U.N. Conference in 1993.

Wrong!

Agenda 21 was developed over a period of time, traceable from the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Environment, which identified “environmental protection” as the world’s greatest problem and gave the world the U.N. Environmental Programme, followed almost immediately by President Nixon’s executive order that created the EPA.

Then came the 1976 U.N. Conference on Human Settlements, signed by the U.S., which proclaimed that “Public control of land use is … indispensable.” The next major step was the creation of the U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development in 1983, chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland. The commission issued its final report in 1987, called “Our Common Future.” This document produced the concept and defined the term “Sustainable Development” to be: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

READ MORE ...

RELATED WEBSITES:

• Sovereignty International, Inc. Video Library

• Sovereignty International, Inc. Text Library

*    *    *    *

Government can't make us happy
John Stossel: It's freedom, not federal programs, that cultivate well-being
From WND Commentary ~ By John Stossel ~ Published Feb 7, 2012

JOHN STOSSEL

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson called the pursuit of happiness an unalienable right. This was a radical idea. For most of history, most people didn’t think much about pursuing happiness. They were too busy just trying to survive.

Then came the liberal revolution based on the idea of individual freedom. Only then did they start thinking that happiness might be possible on earth.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the right to pursue happiness has been perverted into a government-backed entitlement to happiness.

READ MORE ...

*    *    *    *

Israeli 1st strike: Justified for survival
Exclusive: Barry Farber wants Jewish state to disregard Obama vis-à-vis Iranian threat
WND Commentary ~ By Barry Farber ~ Published Feb 7, 2012

BARRY FARBER

Ahh, the wide world of diplomatic nuance!

During the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Prince Metternich’s aide told him the Russian ambassador had died during the night. After a few thoughtful moments, Metternich said, “I wonder what he meant by that?” From Metternich, now, to Leon Panetta!

Panetta told David Ignatius of the Washington Post that he thinks Israel will attack Iran before this June. The more you know about diplomacy, the more precious diplomatic crystal you can see smashed between here and the horizon. America’s top defense official tells the world that an embattled ally is likely to attack a common enemy within months. I wonder what he meant by that!

This could be a clever pro-Israel maneuver in which Panetta signals to Iran, “Those Israelis are hotheads. And we can’t do anything about it. They’re madmen, and we fear they’re going to attack Iran.” That, according to those who cling to this interpretation, might let Iran know Israeli resolve is real, in hopes of goading them into forgetting their atomic ambitions.

READ MORE ...

*     *     *     *

From the Blogs:
Santorum Pulls GOP Primary Upset Wins
From The Right Perspective ~ By NewsGuy – Posted Feb 8, 2012

Photo taken during the Rick Santorum victory speech Tuesday, Feb 7, 2012

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum pulled off upset victories in the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses and a nonbinding primary in Missouri on Tuesday, shaking Mitt Romney’s front-runner stance and calling his conservative credentials into question.

The Santorum wins knock former House Speaker Newt Gingrich off as the number two in the race. Santorum has won four elections so far, counting the Iowa caucus that was initially awarded to Romney, while Gingrich has won only the South Carolina primary.

In Colorado, the Denver Post reports the election results as: Santorum – 40.2%; Romney – 34.9%; Gingrich – 12.7%; Paul – 11.7%.

In Minnesota, CNN reports the election results as: Santorum – 45%; Paul – 27%; Romney – 17%; Gingrich – 11%.

In Missouri, STL Today reports the election results as: Santorum – 55%; Romney – 25%; Paul – 12%; Gingrich – not registered.

The Colorado and Minnesota victories come as a severe blow to Romney, as he has won the states’ caucuses in 2008 when running as the conservative alternative to eventual nominee John McCain. The Romney campaign may have expected a strong challenge from Santorum in the Tuesday elections, as CNN reported on Monday that the former Massachusetts governor began to take aim at him instead of Gingrich.

“Conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota,” Santorum told supporters in St. Charles, Mo. Tuesday night, before results came in for Colorado. “I don’t stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney,” he later said. “I stand here to be the conservative alternative to Barack Obama.”

READ MORE ...

*     *     *     *

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

The county that struck back against U.N. ~ By Henry Lamb

Toward the end of the column, Henry asks this question:

With a deficit of $1.65 trillion dollars, growing by billions of dollars every day, why are HUD, DOT and the EPA trying so hard to spend money the nation does not have, on a program that the nation does not need, that will impose government-mandated restrictions on behavior that the people do not want?

The quote above, along with this great column, should be enough to get a few people woken up to the fact that federal mandates are influenced by the U.N., and it is taking funds that we don't have in order to get states and local jurisdictions to bow down to globalists that we do not even elect.


The county that struck back against U.N.

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

September 30, 2011 ~ 3:16 pm Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Local governments have two fundamental responsibilities: 1) protect the rights of the citizens; and 2) provide the services the citizens authorize. To meet these responsibilities, local elected officials must look to the future and anticipate what services their citizens may want, and construct plans to meet those needs. This kind of planning will be referred to as Planning 101.

Since 1992, with the emergence of Agenda 21, the entire concept of planning has undergone a major transformation. This new kind of planning will be referred to as Planning 102. Planning 102 is not concerned about protecting the rights of citizens. Planning 102 is not concerned with what services the citizens of a community might want in the future. Planning 102 is the art of transforming existing communities into the utopian communities envisioned in Agenda 21, and shoe-horning local citizens into them.

This process began in 1993 with President Clinton's executive order that created the President's Council on Sustainable Development, which focused primarily on transforming urban centers into "sustainable communities." The process continues now, with President Obama's executive order that created the White House Rural Council, which focuses primarily on the 16 percent of the population who live on 80 percent of the rural landscape.

READ MORE on WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Government termites ~ By Henry Lamb

These are only a few ways the progressive termites are eating away at the foundations of freedom in America. Where is the exterminator? Every person who is old enough to vote is a potential exterminator of the elected officials who support or allow measures that erode freedom. Throughout the next 18 months, tens of thousands of officials and candidates will confront a ballot box. Unless the potential exterminators use their unique power to banish the termites eating away at America's freedoms, the house that freedom built will surely fall.

Another new exterminator at the ballot box is born: In the Facebook comments section on this WND column, Cheryl Rickards wrote, "Interesting. I hadn't heard of Agenda 21 before. And, the Termites [sic] analogy is all too perfect." 

Cheryl gets it!

Well, I was pretty sure that there seemed to be no interest in such a minor issue as "sustainable development," and its link to the U.N.'s Agenda 21. Fortunately, though, a reader of the column wrote a comment stating that it was "interesting." And here I was beginning to see little reason to be increasing awareness of this little piece of the puzzle.

No, I know, it's hard to get people's attention anymore, especially when we're just talking about our freedom. It isn't like we're being shipped to internment camps in railroad cars. It isn't like we're suffering with a lack of food, a collapsed economy, or hyper-inflation... That couldn't happen here, right?

And all this time, we just thought it was the good ol' boys network that made sure their buddies got on the local planning commissions so that certain land developers and construction companies would prosper. Just a little corrupt, but hey, at least it isn't like a bunch of Communists want to eliminate our freedom by taking away our property rights.

Of course, the above paragraph was written with sarcasm intended. Our freedoms are in danger. There are scary people that want to control our every move, if they can. There is only one antidote, and that is to make sure a few people out there are aware, especially those who won't hesitate to make others aware. (And by the way, I hate that "awareness" label, as it is easy to picture Hollywood celebrities trying to spread "awareness" about their various personal special interests.)

With all of the above being said, it doesn't seem like people are willing to be all that emotional about the possibilities of losing our freedom. I'm frightened by the fact that a reader of Henry's column wasn't aware of Agenda 21, but I am encouraged by knowing that one more person IS aware of it now.

Wouldn't you know it? I realized that there was one more thing for me to worry about. It isn't so much that there are multitudes that read this story. The real important thing is that the multitudes begin to understand the significance of our Freedom. I'm just sayin'...

RELATED STORIES:

• What could be bad about 'sustainability'? ~ By Henry Lamb

• Government control goes that extra mile ~ By Henry Lamb
  

*  *  *  *  *

Government termites

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

July 16, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Termites don't care whether there's a hurricane or tornado raging outside. They just keep chomping away at the foundation of their host structure. Homeowners care. When a hurricane, tornado or storms threaten, homeowners do whatever they can to prevent their home from blowing away. Rarely are they even aware that the termites are chomping away, night and day, rain or shine – until it's too late to save the structure.

Advocates for Agenda 21 and sustainable development operate a lot like termites. It doesn't matter to them whether hurricanes, tornados, debt ceilings or deficits are in the news. They try to operate well below the headlines – and just keep chomping away at private property rights, individuals freedoms, free markets and the foundational pillars of the host governing system. They chomp away at city council meetings, at county commission meetings, at "visioning sessions" and anywhere else they can get their teeth into an unsuspecting official who still thinks Agenda 21 is just a conspiracy theory and that the word "sustainable" means "acceptable" to the green lobby.

When a visioning process blossoms into a comprehensive land-use plan for the county that is adopted by local elected officials, no one puts the spotlight on the provision that requires all landowners to get permission from the government for any proposed land-use change. In Los Angeles County, no one put the spotlight on the provision that subjected property owners to eviction and forfeiture of their property when they failed to bring their property up to the new codes contained in the plan.

Advocates of Agenda 21's sustainable development did not want people who live outside the Urban Boundary Zones in Richland County, S.C., to know that the value of their property fell to nearly zero when their county plan denied all development possibilities.

Advocates of Agenda 21's sustainable development often believe that capitalism is obsolete, that government must manage the marketplace. Congress was dominated by people who share this belief when they voted in 2007 to ban the incandescent light bulb, forcing people to buy a light bulb that cost five times as much, and was made in China.

These folks applaud actions by the Environmental Protection Administration that seek to force car manufacturers to increase their mileage efficiency to more than 56 miles per gallon. Like termites chomping at the foundation of a structure, government continues to take bits and pieces of freedom from its citizens. Unless someone calls the exterminator, the great structure freedom built will inevitably collapse.

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

What could be bad about 'sustainability'? ~ By Henry Lamb

Sustainable development as defined in Agenda 21, regardless of how it is repackaged and resold, must be rejected at every level of government.

The purpose of government is not to redistribute wealth. The purpose of government is not to protect the environment. The purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens, and to defend those citizens from all enemies both foreign and domestic. When government fulfills this purpose, every person has an equal right to pursue personal happiness to the maximum extent of his abilities. No person is entitled to the wealth of another, regardless of Agenda 21 or any other U.N. declaration. Any person whose property or environment is damaged by another is entitled to recover those damages in court. This, too, is a legitimate function of government.

Activity that is, and is not, sustainable should be determined by nature, not by government. Sustainability is just the latest disguise government is using to shroud its incessant quest to control its citizens.

"And an unknowing public drinks the progressive Kool-Aid." Those are the words that Henry Lamb wrote in his column that has led me to choose it for review in this blog. I will do my best to explain why those words are so vital in fitting the information Henry provides us with into the bigger picture of the puzzle.

In order to illustrate my point, it will take more than just this column. I do not normally do this, but this column, which Henry wrote a week ago, will be followed up by my discussion of this week's column by Henry.

Clearly, a new Facebook friend, Danna Reubin, had it right, when she wrote on a group post the following:

Some Newspeak (see: Orwell, Gorege 1984) feel free to add to the list:

• Gun Collection: Arsenal of Weapons
• Swamp: Delicate Wetlands
• Illegal Alien: Undocumented Worker
• Synthetic Fiber: Cruelty-Free Materials
• Well-protected: Heavily Armed
• Righteous: Narrow-minded
• Coerced Theft: Taxes / Your Fair Share
• Gun Confiscation: Commonsense Gun Control
• Stump Removal Powder: Illegal Hazardous Explosives
• Unborn Baby: Nonviable Tissue Mass
• Socialism: Equal Access to Opportunity
• High Crime Area: Multicultural Community
• Marxism: Fairness / Social Progress
• Self-Employed: Upper Class / "The Rich "
• Big Government Scheme: Progressive, Change
• Bums /Welfare Leeches: Homeless or Disadvantaged
• Scoped Deer Rifle: Sniper Rifle
• Higher Taxes: Investment For the Future
• Socialized Medicine: Healthcare Reform
• Conservative: Extremist, Judgmental, or Hater
• Homeschoolers: Truants
• Criminal or Lazy Good-For-Nothing: Victim or Oppressed
• Standard Capacity Magazine: High Capacity Magazine
• Church-going: Religious Zealot
• Employer or Land Owner: Exploiters / "The Rich "
• NRA Members: The Gun Lobby
• Semi-Auto (Grandpa's M1 Carbine): Assault Weapon
• New Taxes and Higher Taxes: Fiscal Stimulus
• Chinese Mercury-Laden Light Bulbs: Mandated Eco-Friendly Lighting

Do you get the idea? Words are twisted, and re-defined, for a purpose.  I believe that you will discover the purpose when you read Henry's column, "What could be bad about 'sustainability'?" 

Well, here's my plan: I'm publishing this because I want to make sure that there will be no "unsuspecting official who still thinks Agenda 21 is just a conspiracy theory and that the word 'sustainable' means 'acceptable' to the green lobby." That is part of the point that Henry Lamb makes in his next column, which you will soon read about in, "Government termites." There must not be any reason - no excuse - for an elected official to claim "ignorance" of what is now public knowledge. "Sustainable development" is being exposed as just another way for your freedom to be gnawed away by those that want to run your life. I'm just sayin'...

*     *     *     *

What could be bad about 'sustainability'?

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

July 09, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

To ordinary people, the word sustainable is an adjective that means the activity the word describes can continue forever. For example, since biblical days, farmers practiced sustainable agriculture by leaving their fields fallow every seventh year. In early America, farmers knew that for agriculture to be sustainable, the same crop could not be planted in the same field year after year. Sustainable agriculture has always been practiced by successful farmers. Farmers who didn't practice sustainable agriculture inevitably failed.

The United Nations has given the word sustainable a new definition. Introduced to the world in "Our Common Future," the report of the 1987 U.N. Commission on Environment and Development, and further defined in the U.N.'s "Agenda 21" at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, the term "sustainable" was married to the term "development," and a brand new concept entered the world. The term "sustainable development" means any activity that has economic impact, and is equitable, and has no negative environmental impact. All three elements are required to qualify as "sustainable development."

There can be no development without economic impact, of course; nothing new here. "Equitable," however, is a new requirement. Equitable means social justice, which means, as a beginning point, equal benefit from the earth's resources. Progressives have expanded the definition to include such things as a right to housing, health care and a livable wage, but at the very least, equitable means redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not. To meet this requirement of sustainable development, government must empower agents to take wealth from one segment of the population and give it to others.

To be sustainable, according to the U.N. definition, development must have no negative environmental impact. This requirement demands a monitor of development activity and a judgment made to determine whether the activity results in a negative environmental impact. This monitor and judge is necessarily some entity empowered by government. Development that fails to meet these requirements is, by definition, not sustainable. Development that meets these requirements is declared by government to be sustainable.

Therefore, sustainable development is government-approved development.

In the context of sustainable development, any activity government describes as sustainable must be a government-approved activity. Sustainable agriculture, despite the fact that agriculture has been practiced sustainably since biblical days, must now be government-approved to enjoy the sustainable label. Government has now applied the word sustainable to communities, which means that for a community to be sustainable it must be government-approved.

Proponents of sustainable development, inside and outside the government, downplay this fundamental element of sustainable development. Instead, they tout the benefits to the environment of sustainable programs that promote recycling, renewable energy, conservation and the like. And an unknowing public drinks the progressive Kool-Aid.

READ MORE at WND.com

Don't be afraid!

WE the PEOPLE

are the MOB
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

YOU ARE NOT ALONE!
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

U.N.'s Agenda 21 is in your community ~ By Henry Lamb

These plans should be rejected, not simply because they arise from the United Nations, but because they infringe personal freedom and private property rights. The implementation of these comprehensive land-use plans effectively transfers to government the right to dictate to individuals what kind of materials must be used in constructing their privately owned homes. The Auto-DR provision defined above actually gives government the right to dictate the temperature in your home, and the ability to enforce it.

This is madness! This is sustainable development! This is Agenda 21!

Local tea parties, 9/12 groups and property-rights organizations must learn about Agenda 21 and exactly what their local visioning statements and local comprehensive land-use plans contain. Many groups are forming study committees to analyze their local plans by section and then report back to the entire group. This way, not every individual has to read the entire plan.

If this rush to oblivion is going to be stopped, it is up to private citizens to get informed, get involved and help get into office only those people who truly respect the Constitution and the individual freedom it is supposed to guarantee.

You can always count on Henry Lamb to keep us informed about how the United Nations has their fingerprints all over many laws, regulations, and ordinances that are affecting our freedom in a negative way, and that are threatening the Constitution of the United States "and the individual freedom it is supposed to guarantee."

In this column, you will read about how the U.N.'s Agenda 21 seeps into our local communities, how to identify this insidious agenda, and finally, ways for you and I to eradicate this infectious globalist plot from our local stomping grounds.

Just in case you still aren't sure what the real danger is by having Agenda 21 showing up in your city's community development plans, keep in mind that the U.N.'s infiltration is done not as much clandestinely as it is openly, only because most people are not aware of the U.N.'s Agenda 21. Well, thanks to Henry, now you are, and it is up to you to make sure your friends, neighbors and colleagues are also made aware of the evil globalist intentions of the United Nations. I'm just sayin'...

U.N.'s Agenda 21 is in your community

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

April 23, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Anyone who reads Chapter 7 of Agenda 21 and then reads his local comprehensive land-use plan will immediately recognize that most of the provisions of the local land-use plan come directly from Agenda 21. More often than not, the elected officials who adopt these plans have never read Agenda 21, and many have never even heard of the U.N. document, signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

The facilitators and professional planners have heard about Agenda 21, but frequently claim that the plan they are working on has nothing to do with the U.N. or Agenda 21. Don't believe it for one minute.

Gary Lawrence, former director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington, and chief planner for the city of Seattle, told an audience in London:

In the case of the U.S., our local authorities are engaged in planning processes consistent with LA21 [Local Agenda 21], but there is little interest in using the LA21 brand. … So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

In community after community, the same scenario is repeated. The federal government, through the EPA or the Department of Commerce or the Department of Interior, offers special grants to communities for the purpose of developing a vision for a greener future and a plan to convert the vision into reality.

Typically, the local government will find a private consultant to "facilitate" the process. The facilitator will identify a local "steering committee," carefully chosen from people who represent various segments of the community, all of whom are known in advance to be sympathetic to the goals of Agenda 21.

READ MORE at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

New U.N. treaty in the making? ~ By Henry Lamb

Carroll County and Amador County, Calif., have terminated their contracts with ICLEI thanks to local organizations providing information to newly elected commissioners. Tea-party and 9/12 groups are joining the battle across Florida and throughout the nation.

Progressive proponents of Agenda 21 and so-called sustainable development are fighting this backlash with their usual "denigrate and ridicule the messenger" tactic. When the facts are learned, however, those who honor the Constitution and individual freedom reject Agenda 21 and the sustainable development it prescribes.

There is no shortage of well-documented information on this subject. The organizations listed have excellent resources on their websites. When this new treaty is advanced, it will be important to nip it in the bud as quickly as possible. It will take an army of well-informed patriots to kill it. Let's get prepared.

Patriots, tea-partiers and 9/12ers, I urge you to pay close attention to this latest column by Henry Lamb. In this edition, you will learn about "Agenda 21 and the sustainable development it prescribes." Henry explains how a U.N. conference to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 will be trying to push more freedom-killing environmental agenda on the world, "all designed to strengthen global governance and tighten the noose around the people who still believe in individual freedom and free-market capitalism."

New U.N. treaty in the making?

By Henry Lamb

March 05, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Editor's note: Listen to this column online.

Next year will be the 20th anniversary of UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), the largest collection of environmental zealots ever assembled. For the celebration, the U.N. has again designated Rio de Janeiro to host the UNCSD (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development).

There is no way to count the dollars that have been wasted over the last 20 years by people attending thousands of U.N. meetings around the world, all designed to strengthen global governance and tighten the noose around the people who still believe in individual freedom and free-market capitalism. The U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development is but one of many U.N. organizations and agencies that conduct multiple international meetings each year. Last month, U.N. meetings on sustainable development alone were occurring 22 of the 28 days somewhere in the world. This U.N. Commission is responsible for implementing Agenda 21 across the entire planet. They have been exceedingly successful.

For the past few years, this Commission has been conducting regional meetings every few months in preparation for the 2012 blowout in Rio. This 20-year anniversary party is expected to produce an even larger crowd than the 1992 event, and many U.N. watchers believe that it will produce a new treaty.

This is not idle speculation. Folks who dare read the U.N. mumbo-jumbo illustrated by A/RES/64/236 from March 31, 2010, will quickly recognize the meaning of Article 20(b), which says: "The Conference will result in a focused political document."

What is a "focused" political document? To advocates of global governance this means a legally binding U.N. treaty. This effort has been under way since at least 1998 when a draft "Covenant on Environment and Development" was circulated by the United Nations Environment Program. Just in case the advocates cannot generate sufficient support to get a treaty or a covenant adopted at the 2012 shindig, they will be able to call the "focused political document" a plan of action, until they can build more support, and thus avoid the appearance of failure.

Skeptics who refuse to believe that sustainable development has anything to do with the U.N. should examine RIO2012, one of many official U.N. websites that promote sustainable development.

The concept of sustainable development has permeated all the agencies of the federal government and is washing across the nation, infecting state and local governments.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

A craving to control ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry Lamb shows us how Progressives have a lust for power and control over not just our businesses and property, but over We the People and our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Henry summarizes what we need to do in the following paragraph:

Progressives were served notice on Nov. 2. There is a growing number of Americans who want progressives – and their Marxist philosophy – ousted from government at every level. The last election was a start; the next election will be another step. Victory will not occur until the progressives are sent packing, and the vast majority of our elected officials – from the courthouse to the White House – understand and believe Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

And I am sure that you aware that eliminating the progressives from all levels of government can not be done in just a midterm election or the next election in 2012. It will most likely be a decades-long, if not a century-long process.

A craving to control

HENRY LAMB

By Henry Lamb

December 04, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Progressives are the unintended consequence of the collision of ideas offered by Karl Marx and those of Adam Smith – the product of pure communism colliding with laissez-faire capitalism. Free-market capitalists see government regulations as a detriment to profit; progressives see government regulations as the way to control the behavior of both profit-makers and largess-takers.

For most of the last century, progressives in both major parties have controlled the federal government. The current administration's quest for control exceeds even the remarkable efforts of the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations. The Obama administration – supported by progressive allies in Congress – intends to control virtually every facet of human activity.

Capitalists were appalled when Obama took over General Motors; progressives, socialists and communists applauded. Capitalists could not believe that Obama's czar had the audacity, and the power, to dictate the salary of top executives of companies that took federal bailout money; progressives, socialists and communists danced with glee.

Ordinary citizens stood up and screamed "hell no" to Obamacare. Obama ignored them. He twisted arms and Senate rules to ram it through anyway, with provisions that require private insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions, and to keep costs and profits to 20 percent of gross sales. Progressives, socialists and communists knew they were in control.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Chris Dodd bows to global governance ~ By Henry Lamb

Henry helps us to expand our knowledge of global governance in this column. He explains how Chris Dodd is proposing the "Livable Communities Act," which would authorize the "federal government to be involved in how state and local communities organize themselves."

There should be no American alive today who values freedom that would ever vote for anyone – like Chris Dodd or Pete Stark – that tries to pass any legislation that diminishes the sovereignty of the United States, let alone, that ignores the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, though, there are way too many people that are unaware of all the globalists that have contaminated our governments from the federal level down to the local level.

Global governance is the ultimate goal of the progressives, and they are willing to subvert the Constitution to accomplish their prime objective. This is why I'm a big fan of Henry Lamb, and why I discuss his columns in this space on a regular basis. I want to help Henry to educate as many people as possible. With as much money as the globalist progressives (such as George Soros) have available to "buy" elections, along with the many unconstitutional entitlement programs that are available, there is only one way to counter their strategy: We MUST educate and enlighten MORE people than they can buy with TV ads and entitlements. WE the People need to work together. And what can you do to help? You can start with something as simple as sharing these columns by Henry Lamb and others that you will find on this blog. Just sayin'...

America must reject global governance and every elected official who promotes it. America must remain a sovereign nation and protect the individual freedom our Constitution guarantees. Sen. Dodd and his ilk are only too willing to bow to politically correct claims of the international community. Freedom cannot survive global governance; Americans must decide whether they want to control their government, or be controlled by it.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: August 14, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

There is nothing ambiguous or uncertain about this statement:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (10th Amendment)

Where in the Constitution does Sen. Christopher Dodd find any authority to even propose his "Livable Communities Act"?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, authorizes Congress "to lay and collect taxes for the common defense and general welfare" of the United States. The next 17 paragraphs define the specific area of activity the founders considered to encompass the "general welfare." To ensure there was no misinterpretation or misunderstanding of their intention to limit the power of the federal government, the founders included the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in how state and local communities organize themselves.

Global governance, however, says:

All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population, and related economic and social activities, over the national territory.

Agenda 21, Chapter 10 declares:

Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of both land and land resources. If, in the future, human requirements are to be met in a sustainable manner, it is now essential to resolve these conflicts and move towards more effective and efficient use of land and its natural resources.

Why is Dodd proposing legislation to comply with global-governance requirements rather than honoring the limitations of Congress imposed by the Constitution? Organization of local communities should be a local issue; the federal government should get its nose out of local affairs.

Anyone who reads Chapter 10 of Agenda 21 and then reads Dodd's bill will immediately conclude that the bill is designed to comply with the recommendations of this United Nations document.

Typically, the actual authors of such legislation deny any connection at all the U.N., and claim that those who try to make a connection are just black-helicopter conspiracy theorists. Their denial assumes that the average person will never take the time to read Agenda 21, Chapter 10, or the other U.N. documents that recommend comprehensive land-use planning and the creation of sustainable (or "livable") communities.

This is how global governance overwhelms the Constitution. We have elected a majority of senators and representatives who have abandoned the idea of limited government, who believe that their election entitles them to do whatever they wish (see video below).

PETE STARK: - The Federal Government can do most anything in this country

Video provided by cvminutemen

The executive branch is worse than Congress. The EPA, DOI, HUD and other federal departments have been implementing "sustainable development" directly from Agenda 21 for the last 15 years. Sustainable development is sold to local communities as the way to protect the environment and ensure that future generations have the resources they need.

What is not discussed is the fact that the transformation of local communities into sustainable or so-called "livable" communities removes the decision-making process from individuals and gives it to the government. A sustainable community is defined by a comprehensive land-use plan developed by "stakeholders" who limit land use to achieve the goals set forth in Agenda 21. Again, the folks who are involved in this process quite often deny that their activities have anything to do with the United Nations or Agenda 21. But compare virtually any local comprehensive land-use plan to the requirements of Agenda 21 and you will see that the similarities could not possibly be an accident, especially when you find the same similarities in community after community.

Listen to this column online.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

When America began its descent ~ By Henry Lamb

Every week, Henry somehow comes up with these columns that tell us how the U.S. government is assuming more power than the Constitution allows for. And, they always leave me asking questions, such as, "How do we not just stop this from happening, but how do WE get back in control of the government?" Or, "How do we take back the public schools that indoctrinate our kids and teach them that parents and tea parties are wrong, and government and Barack Obama is good?" And, "How do we find good candidates for national offices that don't end up being corrupted by Beltway politics?"  Just sayin'...

How does a nation of people thirsting for freedom so fervently that they were willing to fight the king of England to win it, move to a nation of people that allow its government to impose far more onerous taxes and living restrictions than the king of England ever did? Not only does this nation now allow its government to impose these unauthorized powers, many people celebrate the new "sustainable" (read: government-managed) society.

The moment the United States government gained and began to exercise control over its people is the moment the United States began its descent. The nation is no longer the sum total of the pursuit of happiness of its individuals, but is becoming the managed product of the current power brokers.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: May 08, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

The government of the United States of America exists for one purpose, according to the Declaration of Independence: to secure the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, endowed to every individual by their Creator. The people who adopted this profound declaration knew only too well the heavy weight of government oppression. In addition to declaring the purpose of the government they were creating, they wrote and adopted another document: the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence declares the purpose of government; the Constitution declares the source and limit of power entrusted to the new government by its creators.

From the outset, there have been people who disagreed with the underlying philosophy on which the Declaration and Constitution were constructed, but they were distinctly in the minority for the first century or so. In the last half-century, this paradigm – and the purpose of government – has been shifting.

The purpose of government is no longer to "secure the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for every individual. The purpose of government today is to dictate to every individual what he may or may not do, and to impose a fee for the privilege of doing it.

The people who created the United States wanted their government to defend them from invading enemies who might inflict bodily harm and steal their property. They wanted a system of law that dealt justice equally to all who would dare harm or damage their neighbors. They wanted a system of standard weights and measures and money to facilitate free and fair trade among the people.

The people who created the United States did not want their government involved in their personal affairs. In fact, the Constitution says quite explicitly that no government official may enter the private property of an individual without a warrant signed by a judge, after a sworn affidavit of probable cause of a crime.

No one remembers the first time the federal government ignored this limitation of power and sent an official into private property without a warrant for whatever purpose seemed justified at the moment. Now, no one questions the Environmental Protection Agency official who can show up on your property to declare that the ditch you are digging is polluting the waters of the United States.

Most employees of the Department of Agriculture – and too many in Congress – believe that government has every right to send its agents onto a private farm to count the number of livestock animals, to retrieve all sorts of information about the source age, and movements of these animals and to require the owner to report his activities to the government on a regular basis.

The Constitution was not amended; how did the government gain all this new, unspecified power?

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!