Monday, May 21, 2012

Agenda 21! The Death Knell of Liberty! (Part 3)

Agenda 21 - Conspiracy Theory or Threat
Part 1 of 2
by Tom DeWeese
May 21, 2012
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.
Part 2 of 2
by Tom DeWeese
May 21, 2012
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.
© 2012 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.
A native of Ohio, he’s been a candidate for the Ohio Legislature, served as editor of two newspapers, and has owned several businesses since the age of 23. In 1989 Tom led the only privately-funded election-observation team to the Panamanian elections. In 2006 Tom was invited to Cambridge University to debate the issue of the United Nations before the Cambridge Union, a 200 year old debating society. Today he serves as Founder and President of the American Policy Center and editor of The DeWeese Report
For 40 years Tom DeWeese has been a businessman, grassroots activist, writer and publisher. As such, he has always advocated a firm belief in man’s need to keep moving forward while protecting our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia. (540) 341-8911
U.N. Biospheres: A Scheme to Control People and Their Land
Carole "CJ" Williams
February 24, 2012
President Reagan pulled America out of United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1984 because he believed it was totally corrupt. George W. Bush returned our country to UNESCO in 2002, stating he was doing so as a symbol of our commitment to human dignity. “This organization has been reformed,” he said, “and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning.”
Because “we” rejoined UNESCO, it’s Man and the Biosphere Program, which has never completely halted since its inception in the early 1970s, has been moving full speed ahead in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (U.P.). It’s gathered considerable traction in the Northern Lower Peninsula, too. Biospheres, however, are listed only at the request of the country in which they’re located and can be removed from the biosphere reserve list at any time by a request from that country. The National Park Service is typically the government agency to make such a request.
A U.N. Biosphere is a designated core area, generally federal public land. They’re managed by a government agency, most usually the National Park Service, which may take on a management partner through a “memorandum of understanding.” The same is true of the U.S. Forest Service Agency that’s in charge of at least thirteen U.N. Biospheres.
A Biosphere might encompass a National Park, National Forest, National Seashore, National Monument, National Wild and Scenic River, Scenic Highway, Heritage Site, Historical Park, Wilderness Area, Designated Wetland, or Wildlife Preserve, among other things.
The core Biosphere is “buffered” by surrounding it with more public land, including state and local municipality land, as well as land owned by nature conservancies or land trusts. The “buffer zones”, which also stretch across rivers and lakes and even international boundaries, are commonly referred to as “bioreserves”. Ontario, Canada’s “Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve” can easily share its border with Michigan. See the escarpment map here.
Through the acquisition of more and more public land and subsequent control of how it may and may not be used by the human species, the bioreserves’ perimeters expand. They can overlap on a “landscape” scale into great swaths of highly controlled land, hundreds of miles in all directions. Most are connected with one another through buffered “migration corridors”. Like a malignant cancer, they’re never stagnant, and as they metastasize, they leave a path of industrial destruction and poverty in their wake.
The object of the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) truly isn’t to preserve “biodiversity, but rather to gain jurisdiction over the Earth’s entire surface and control resources - air, water, land, timber, minerals - and all forms of life, including human beings and their pets. Most, if not all forty-seven known UN-US Biospheres sit atop America’s most valuable underground resources, which in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan includes uranium and the world’s richest deposit of native copper, among many other precious commodities. In the northern Lower Peninsula, it’s primarily gas and oil.
Biospheres act like “living laboratories” for the “scientific” testing of targeted bio-geographical ecosystems, guaranteeing the conservation of biodiversity through research, monitoring, and “training” activities, or so it’s claimed. In truth, the conglomeration of international MAB land-grabbing thieves’ end goal is to hold the Earth’s entire land and air surface hostage as Gang Green manipulates people into cooperating with their scheme, one way or another.
To control bioreserve integrity and restore land to pre-European settlement (pre-Columbian) condition, land use must be severely restricted or halted altogether because eco-environmentalists consider human activity to be the greatest stress factor that purportedly destroys the essential wholeness of various ecosystems within the Bioreserves. The denial that humans will not be severely affected by activity abatement, as more land control is exerted, will ultimately prove to be a lie should this be allowed to continue. See the US Biological Diversity Map here.
UNESCO’s MAB Program is a world network of Biospheres controlled through the partnership of international and national governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) collaborating to keep the manipulative scheme rolling at the national, state, and local level. Some NGOs involved with the scheme are The Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), which consists of affiliated conservation clubs, one per state. In Michigan, the NWF’s affiliate is the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, comprised of more good old boy sportsmen’s clubs than conservation clubs.
The World Bank supports the grandiose MAB scheme, as does the UN Environment Program, the UN Development Program, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), Conservation International, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
The U.S. government agencies and NGO supporting-partner list of the IUCN is exhaustive. Several can be identified as threads of a tangled partnership web, most involving the Nature Conservancy, now very busy at work controlling or helping to control U.P public land while trying to convince one and all that its heart is pure. The IUCN partnering government agencies include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The MAB scheme involves many individual “rewilding” projects, such as the landscape-scale Great Lakes Basin Project. This effort began in 1995 at the instigation of the National Park Service, which requested that the Isle Royale Biosphere be elevated to fully functional status. The project is now an internationally directed bi-national plot to control land use and water resources in each of the eight states and Canadian provinces surrounding the Great Lakes and the tributaries running into each.
Government agencies, including certain tribal agencies, and partnering organizations are using the “Watershed Approach”, attorneys well versed in environmental law, and increasingly restrictive environmental mandates to force humans to accept land use restrictions. Those who balk at the land grabs and use restrictions are purposely made to feel guilty of not wanting to protect the environment and fresh water resources. This is generally done at public meetings by using the “Delphi Technique.”
The partners are marching inward around the Great Lakes, watershed by watershed, using, as core areas, Michigan’s two known designated Biospheres at Isle Royale (headquartered in the U.P. city of Houghton – home to Michigan Technological University, which now churns out environmental engineers instead of mining engineers) and the University of Michigan’s Biological Research Station near Petoskey in the Northern Lower Peninsula. They’re using some other UN Biospheres just across the border in Canada, too. Almost every Biosphere from coast to coast is situated where there’s an important water resource, and more Biospheres will be designated unless citizens become irate enough to force their U.S. legislators to halt the whole U.N. Biosphere business in America.
In 1968, just prior to Richard Nixon’s election, there was a UNESCO “Biosphere Conference” and the Biosphere Reserve concept was laid out. The Nixon administration gave birth to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is now under the gun for issuing more and more restrictive environmental regulations. The agency has become a handy tool for rabid eco-environmentalists who don’t want industrial smokestacks mucking up their pristine ecosystems.
In 1970 the UN’s Man and the Biosphere program surfaced to set the bioreserve scheme in motion. The U.S. joined the MAB Program in 1974 when the State Department signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” (not a treaty) and pledged that the U. S. would adhere to Biosphere conditions and limitations laid down by UNESCO.
There’s no national law mandating that Biospheres be designated in the United States. Regardless, through a “Memoranda of Understanding”, and at last count, there are forty-seven known UN-US Biospheres in America. Twenty-seven were designated in 1976. Oddly, another eleven were designated during the Reagan years.
Although I could find no concrete information about who specifically nominates Biospheres, it’s purported that locally established committees usually coordinate the initial planning and prepare the nomination. Letters of concurrence from local interest groups and local and state government representatives are attached to each nomination package. Landowner approval is required for a property to be included. The package is then submitted for approval to the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, based in Washington, D.C at the U.S. Department of State headquarters. Although there’s supposed to be community involvement during the nominating process, few citizens even know that such an initiative is underway.
U. S. MAB Bulletin, July 1997, Vol. 21, #2, contains the following information: “The long-term goal of the U.S. MAB Program is to contribute to achieving a sustainable society early in the 21st Century.” (Agenda 21) It also includes a farewell from the US-MAB Committee Chairman, Dean Bibles, who at the time was director of the U.S. Dept. of Interior’s policy on land tenure and also special assistant to Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt.
More intriguing info in that bulletin is the introduction of the new National MAB Chairman, David Hales, who was appointed to a three-year term as Chairman of the U.S. National Committee for the MAB Program. Previously, Hales had been Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources from 1988 -1991 and had also served as a board member of the Michigan Chapter of the Nature Conservancy.
As more and more research is done, the tangled and deceitful webs of scheming partners and inter-relationships of those putting the U.N.’s Agenda 21 in place in Michigan is becoming much easier to follow. Even the partnering EPA is now suspected of skewing scientific data used to shut down or punish more and more industries. It really might not be a bad idea to get in the face of all of our U.S. and state legislators and demand accountability for what they’re allowing to happen, not just in Michigan, but also throughout our Sovereign United States of America.
© 2012 Carole "C.J." Williams - All Rights Reserved
C. J. (Carole) Williams, who grew up in the “Thumb” farming area of Lower Michigan, pulled up her roots almost fifty years ago and gladly replanted them deeply in the Upper Peninsula’s northwestern Copper Country. She’s often heard to say, “Other than my children, grandchildren and hubby, the greatest gift I’ve ever received is to be thought of by true ‘Yoopers’ as one of them.”
C. J. has been tracking the eco-environmental movement for years, and using any means possible to educate like-minded, concerned citizens about what Gang Green is up to in Michigan and elsewhere. She’s currently writing for a local conservative monthly newspaper, the Yooper Spectator, and is a frequent guest of online radio talk-show hosts, as well as an invited speaker for Grassroots Activists’ group meetings and TEA Party rallies in the western U.P.
Tea Party Candidate Warns of U.N. and Obama's Agenda 21
By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
July 26, 2011
"The overarching goal of Agenda 21 is to establish international norms of personal behavior that are dictated by a group of the world's so-called 'enlightened elite' who believe they know best how people ought to live therefore they should be allowed to tell the how they should live." –Congressional Candidate Nathan Tabor (R-NC CD13).
Americans and the American news media are all but ignoring the shenanigans by those who worship at the altar of the United Nations, according to North Carolina’s Tea Party candidate for the U.S. Congress Nathan Tabor.
Tabor says the big story these days is the conflict between the U.S. Congress and President Barack Obama over the proposed debt ceiling increase, cuts in spending and the Democrat Party's favorite activity: Raising taxes on the rich (anyone making more than $200,000 per year).
Far too many conservatives are failing to pay attention to the rise of global socialism at the hands of the United Nations through its Agenda 21. It is easy to overlook world governance schemes when Americans are inundated with information regarding local and national events.
Also, the problem with the media coverage of this United Nations labyrinth known as Agenda 21 is that it was created in 1992 and implemented in incremental actions by the U.N. and its supporters in the U.S., E.U., and other countries whose populations are eager to benefit from the work of others especially those enjoying success in the United States.
“But make no mistake, even though Congress never approved the implementation of Agenda 21 programs in education, economics, the environment and other areas. Presidents as far back as George H.W. Bush have signed Executive Orders allowing implementation of Agenda 21's programs,” said Tabor, the author of the bestseller The Beast on the East River, an expose of United Nations corruption and evil.
In fact, the U.N. has ignored the federal government and through its Agenda 21 International Council of Local Environmental Initiative and made deals with local governments numbering upwards of 600 cities, towns and villages.
Compounding this is the fact that Agenda 21 is a dull topic, and it becomes understandable how it has been able to fly mostly under the radar since 1992, slowly working its way into our cities and counties. To understand how serious the left is about United Nations rule, look at some of the proponents of Agenda 21: billionaire George Soros has provided millions of dollars to ICLEI.
Former Obama czar Van Jones' Green for All and the Tides Foundations' Apollo Alliance are also reportedly ICLEI contributors.
“The truth is, Agenda 21 promotes European socialism that by its nature will infringe upon our freedoms and liberties. Most of its vague, lofty sounding phrases cause the average person's eyes to glaze over, making it easier to sneak into our communities,” warns Tabor, who has served as chairman of the Forsyth County Republican Party in North Carolina and is an activist within the Tea Party Movement.
Besides its radical environmental agenda, the U.N. wishes to change consumption patterns, including ownership of property and automobile ownership, and successfully promote social justice.
Part of this lofty goal -- possibly the most important part -- is the inclusion of indoctrination programs in U.S. government schools. Berit Kjos, author of Brave New Schools, warns that Agenda 21 will indoctrinate the very young to accept the outcome of its programs.
The Government Schools Indoctrination
In the United States, the Agenda 21 National Coordinating Body is the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD).
The U.S. Constitution requires that consensus on public policy be hammered out in public by elected officials, not by 28 appointed individuals, carefully selected because of their known support of the principles expressed in Agenda 21. This UN description of the PCSD is found in a section of the report entitled "Integrated Decision-making," also known as the "consensus" process.
All federal agencies have now adopted this "consensus" process to by-pass Congress and other elected bodies, to build consensus on Agenda 21 activities at the local, state, and national levels. The UN report describes America's progress in each of the activity areas in glowing terms.
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the progressives laid the foundation for Agenda 21 in the 1960s when it became unlawful to pray in government schools. In place of prayer, schools began sex education classes with the rationale that such a curriculum would prevent unwanted pregnancies. Of course, the program was a failure and the progressives simply changed the objective of sex education programs to preventing sexually transmitted diseases.
Now sex education includes children being exposed to gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender sex. In addition, U.S. schools -- while prohibiting even a hint of Christianity in classrooms -- have actually directed children to play-act the part of Muslims, complete with Islamic texts, Muslim costumes and holiday festivities,” Tabor points out.
Sustainable Development in School Curriculum" is one of the 32 specific objectives of Agenda 21. This objective has been achieved in 63% of the participating nations, and in process in another 17%.
Education is a key ingredient in the transformation to a sustainable society. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development reports that in America, "the national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programs as Goals 2000 and School to Work.
The National Environmental Education Advisory Council to the Department of Education consists of eleven individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator and includes representatives of women's groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), and local authorities (visioning councils). The U.S. State Department reported to the UN that: "At the primary school level, school curricula have already been reviewed and revised, and at the secondary school level, the revision of school curricula is being undertaken currently to address environment and development as a cross cutting issue."
The State Department also told the UN: "The U.S. has been involved in several awareness raising programs and activities aimed at the population at large (Earth Day, industry supported campaigns, Ad Council, Program KAB, Arbor Day, GLOBE Program, Discovery Channel, National Geographic program, CNN, ZooQ, As it Happens, and water clean-up programs."
Agenda 21 embraces virtually every aspect of human life; it is being implemented aggressively in the United States. Congress has never examined the totality of the Agenda. Instead, Congress is fed only bits and pieces in the context of "protecting the environment."
The ultimate objective of Agenda 21 is to establish "international norms" of personal behavior that are dictated by a handful of the world's enlightened elite who believe they know best how people ought to live therefore they should be allowed to tell people how they should live, Tabor warns.
© 2011 NWV - All Rights Reserved
For radio interviews regarding this article:
Also See:
Agenda 21! The Death Knell of Liberty!
(Part 1)
02 March 2011
(Part 2)
22 January 2012
United Nations Oversees Over 830 World Heritage Sites
25 December 2010
Who is Maurice Strong?
14 May 2010