Category Archives: Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development

Organic Sell-Out: 3 Major Organic Brands Surrender To Monsanto’s GE Alfalfa

posted by: Beth Buczynski 1 day ago
3 Major Organic Brands Surrender To Monsanto's GE Alfalfa
Just days ago, the USDA announced that it had once again approvedMonsanto’s GE alfalfa for commercial sale and planting, despite a prior government ban and public outcry.

Now, it seems that rather than fight for the purity of the organic ingredients they claim to cherish, Whole Foods, Stonyfield Farms, and Organic Valley have all bought into the USDA’s false claim that GE and non-GE alfalfa can coexist without contamination.

Read More

1 Comment

Filed under Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development, Cover-up!

US Republican lawmakers taking aim at UN

By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press – Tue Jan 25, 1:07 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Newly empowered Republican lawmakers are taking their first shots at the United Nations, depicting it as bloated and ineffective as they seek to cut U.S. funding for the world body.

On Tuesday, a House of Representatives panel aired criticisms of the U.N. at a briefing expected to prescribe congressional action.

Read more

Leave a comment

Filed under Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development, Cover-up!, Economic Meltdown

Common Purpose UK Mindmap

Niki Raapana is a brilliant researcher into all things “Communitarian.”  If this is a new term to you, as it was to me a few years ago, visit:
After reading a bit about the communitarian philosophy, check and see if your town has enacted its principles.  (“Common Purpose” is the mask communitarianism wears in the UK.)

John at Stop Common Purpose made a fantastic tool that explains a LOT:

http://www.stopcp.com/cpmindmap.php

Leave a comment

Filed under Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development, Uncategorized

Wilderness rules restored for public lands

KRISTEN WYATT
From Associated Press

December 23, 2010 6:14 PM EST

DENVER (AP) — The Obama administration plans to reverse a Bush-era policy and make millions of undeveloped acres of land once again eligible for federal wilderness protection, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Thursday.

The agency will replace the 2003 policy adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton. That policy — derided by some as the “No More Wilderness” policy — stated that new areas could not be recommended for wilderness protection by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and it opened millions of acres to potential commercial development.

That policy “frankly never should have happened and was wrong in the first place,” Salazar said Thursday.

Environmental activists have been pushing for the Obama administration to restore protections for potential wilderness areas.

Salazar said the agency will review some 220 million acres of BLM land that’s not currently under wilderness protection to see which should be given a new “Wild Lands” designation — a new first step for land awaiting a wilderness decision. Congress would decide whether those lands should be permanently protected, Salazar said.

Congressional Republicans pounced on the “Wild Lands” announcement as an attempt by the Obama administration to close land to development without congressional approval.

“This backdoor approach is intended to circumvent both the people who will be directly affected and Congress,” said Washington Rep. Doc Hastings, a Republican tapped to lead the House Natural Resources Committee when the GOP takes control of the House in January.

The Congressional Western Caucus, an all-Republican group, also blasted the decision. “This is little more than an early Christmas present to the far left extremists who oppose the multiple use of our nation’s public lands,” Utah Rep. Rob Bishop said in a statement.

BLM Director Bob Abbey said it hasn’t been decided how many acres are expected to be designated as “Wild Lands” and whether those acres will be off-limits to motorized recreation or commercial development while under congressional review. It’s also unclear whether there will be a time limit on how long acres can be managed as “Wild Lands” before a decision is made on their future.

The BLM has six months to submit a plan for those new wilderness evaluations.

These “Wild Lands” would be separate from Wilderness Study Areas that must be authorized by Congress. Wild Lands can be designated by the BLM after a public planning process and would be managed with protective measures detailed in a land use plan.

Ranchers, oil men and others have been suspicious of federal plans to lock up land in the West, worrying that taking the BLM land out of production would kill rural economies that rely on ranchers and the oil and gas business.

Their suspicions have been heightened since memos leaked in February revealed the Obama administration was considering 14 sites in nine states for possible presidential monument declarations.

That included 2.5 million acres of northeastern Montana prairie land proposed as a possible bison range, along with sites in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon and Washington.

The 2003 policy was an out-of-court deal struck between Norton and then-Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt to remove protections for some 2.6 million acres of public land in that state.

The policy allowed drilling, mining and other commercial uses on land under consideration as wilderness areas.

Salazar’s reversal doesn’t affect about 8.7 million acres already designated as wilderness areas.

Conservationists praised the reversal, though there has been grumbling that it took the Obama administration nearly two years to overturn the Bush-era policy.

“Washington D.C. always takes longer than you want, but we’re glad we’ve gotten here,” said Suzanne Jones, regional director for The Wilderness Society.

___

Associated Press Writer Matt Volz in Helena, Mont., contributed to this report.

___

Online:

Interior Department Q&A on the new policy: http://tinyurl.com/24lfw58

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development

Agenda 21 – Wildlands Project

http://morphcity.com/agenda-21/environment/wildlands

This video by Dr. Michael Coffman, from Taking

Liberty, exposes how The Wildlands Project is a tool used to destroy private property rights.

Private property rights are the basis of liberty and wealth creation.

Karl Marx defined Communism as the abolition of private property.

Currently, the federal government “owns” upwards of 29% of America’s landmass.  Mostly in the Western States.

  • Only 6% of American land is developed (buildings, roads, etc)
  • Only 3% of American land is urban
  • 77% of Americans live in urban areas
  • Private property is targeted for governmental control
  • Private property rights are the basis of liberty & wealth
  • Unfortunately, the majority of Urbanites have been fooled into believing environmental propaganda.
  • Urbanites comprise a large voting block
  • Most Americans don’t understand the Constitution
  • Most Americans are unaware of the limited powers of the federal government, so a monumental power grab has resulted


SOLUTIONS:

We all want a healthy planet with plenty of vegetation and animals.  When these organisms become threatened or endangered, and it is a result of human interaction, then it is caused by society, not one landowner.  Therefore, it is society’s responsibility to make amends, the liability does not fall on the shoulders of independent landowners.  If an area is needed to rehabilitate a species, the landowner should be justly compensated.  This solution also benefits society, in that the protection of the species is more secure.

Property ownership is important, not only for landowners, but because property ownership extends to all of your  possessions, your intellectual property and all the way to your very body.  If private property ownership is abolished, imagine the eventual impact on property rights.

 


Watch Dr. Michael Coffman’s ‘Taking Libberty’  in its entirety here.  This is an excellent explanation of how the the government plans to tke over private property;  Dr. Coffman also discusses how it is happening in your region.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development, Cover-up!, Police State

UN Agenda 21 – Coming to a Neighborhood near You

By Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild

Most Americans are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program known as Agenda 21. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for SustainableDevelopment created Agenda 21 as a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with anti-American, anti-capitalist overtones.

A detailed history on sustainable development, definitions, and critical actions can be foundhere. Section III of the Agenda 21 Plan addresses local community sustainable development.  The Preamble and Chapter 28discuss how Agenda 21 should be implemented at a local level. The United Nations purposely recommends avoiding the term Agenda 21 and suggests a cleverly named alternative: “smart growth.” The United Nations Millennium Papers – Issue 2 (page 5) says this of Agenda 21 and smart growth:
Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. 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 [emphasis added].
Undoubtedly, residents of any town, county, or city in the United States that treasure their freedom, liberty, and property rights couldn’t care less whether it’s called Agenda 21 or smart growth. A recent example of this can be found in Carroll County, Maryland, where a smart growth plan called Pathways was drafted by the County Planning Department. The plan, if enacted, proposed a breathtaking reshuffling of land rights:
  • Rezoning of thousands of acres of beautiful, low-density agricultural farmland and protected residential conservation land into office parks
  • Down-zoning of agriculture land to prevent future subdivision by farmers
  • Up-zoning of low-density residential land around small towns into higher density zoning to permit construction of hundreds or possibly thousands of inclusive housing units, including apartments and condominiums
  • Inclusive housing with placement of multi-family construction on in-fill lots within existing residential single family communities
  • Endorsement of government-sponsored housing initiatives (subsidies) to ensure healthier, balanced neighborhoods
Carroll County, Maryland is one of 1,168 cities, towns, and counties worldwide that aremembers of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – Local Governments for Sustainability, which is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development. The ICLEI mission statement closely resembles that of Agenda 21. In fact, the ICLEI has Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council and coordinates local government representation in the UN processes related to Agenda 21.
Community leaders working together in Carroll County recently defended their county against overreaching smart growth initiatives. Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Commissioner, emphatically remarks, “Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government’s goal of social re-engineering. It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas. This has the effect of shifting the voting patterns of rural municipalities from Right to Left.”
Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a “smart code” zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums.
Finally, a healthy dose of federal- or state-sponsored housing initiatives is embraced to ensure communities are properly balanced. The net effect of these plans is to create highly urbanized population centers throughout otherwise-rural counties, while simultaneously limiting the availability of land for suburban and estate subdivisions, as these are considered an unsustainable waste of land by Agenda 21 disciples.
Clearly, smart growth plans will impact Americans’ future choices in where and how they live. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal and state agencies may attempt to deny grant funds to states and cities that do not adopt smart growth plans.
Most Americans will remain unaware of the implications of smart growth and Agenda 21 untilafter it is promulgated in their own backyards. Ironically, these plans are more insidious than theEminent Domain ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v City of New London. Under Eminent Domain rulings, property owners usually receive compensation for their losses.
Conversely, smart growth municipal plans, required by statute, enable municipalities to change zoning laws and engage in other regulatory actions that devalue property, restrict off-conveyances, and otherwise erode property values without payment of any compensation to the property owner.
Smart growth has another interesting unintended consequence: it can disrupt conventional alliances and lead to strange political bedfellows. Rural urbanization plans may raise the ire of environmental groups while simultaneously stirring the wrath of both conservative and liberal residents that want to maintain the rural fabric of their communities. Conversely, developers, sensing opportunity, may side with government smart growth bureaucrats in support of these plans.
Regardless of political orientation, two indisputable facts remain. Agenda 21 is a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty, and it is coming to a neighborhood near you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development