Citizen Review Online

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
for Canada Free Press

 

Sunday, August 14, 2011

John Adams said, “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.” The Decalogue emphasized private property in “Thou shalt not steal.” George Washington stated, “Private property and freedom are inseparable.”

Private property was so important to our Founding Fathers that its principles were included in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. The right to property is surmised in the owner’s determination of land use, as long as its use does not “disturb the equal rights of another.”

The Declaration of Independence states that “…all Men…are endowed by their Creator with Certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” United Nations Charter and Declaration of Human Rights are based on the idea that rights are granted and rescinded by men. The UN third world nations planners devised Agenda 21 on three suspect principles: Equity, Economy, and Environment, all controlled by government because “individual rights must take a back seat to the collective.”

In 1964, UN developing nations called for the establishment of a New International Economic Order, asking that multi-national corporations be regulated, foreign property nationalized, asking to establish commodity monopolies, and requesting transfer of technology and technical assistance.

Developed nations ignored this declaration but developing nations promoted these ideas at other conferences. In 1976, the Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat One) declared that private land ownership and wealth are the primary reasons for social injustice. The 65 page socialist document recommended land use:

• redistribution of population in accordance with resources
• government must control the use of land in order to achieve equitable distribution of resources
• land use must be controlled through zoning and planning
• government must control excessive profits from land use
• urban and rural land reform should be done through public ownership of land
• public authorities should hold developing rights of land and should be separated from owner rights

The 1987 UN report, “Our Common Future” by the World Commission on Environment and Development focused on the policy of sustainable development: land use, education, and population control and reduction. Sustainable Development made nature and its protection the central principle for all member nations.

The 1992 UN Bruntland Commission released the official UN Agenda 21 with its 40 chapters and the 178 nations who signed and agreed to implement UN Agenda 21 at the conference in Rio de Janeiro. Signatory for the United States was President George Bush.

All countries agreed that decisions must be made based on how they will affect the environment. Property is evil and creates wealth for the rich at the expense of the poor. Business is evil, should be controlled by the community, while the owner is responsible, and pays taxes. Wealth was produced at the expense of the poor and must thus be confiscated and given to the poor. No private enterprise should exist, only public-private partnerships. These ideas are tenets of socialism/Marxism.

UN Agenda 21 set out to abolish private property, control education, control and reduce population, and control the economy. The global plan was called “Sustainable Development.”

Every of the 40 chapters contains policies that member nations must adopt such as demographics, settlements, sustainable communities, water control, land use control, role of business, energy control, role of industry, international mechanisms of implementing the agenda, and the institutions used to implement the policies.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the Biodiversity Treaty. The treaty was used to implement UN Agenda 21 in the United States, “Creation of national strategies, plans, policies, and processes which are crucial in achieving a sustainable world.”

Dr. Michael Coffman revealed a map to the U.S. Senate of the proposed development of the Wildlands under UN Agenda 21 in the U.S. This map had red, yellow, and green zones noted as Core Reserves and Corridors with little or no human use, Buffer Zones with highly regulated use, and Smart Growth with human settlements.

President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852, creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to translate UN Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government. The Council created the first UN Agenda 21 called “Sustainable America,” with 16 “we believe” statements. The ultimate goals were to abolish private property, control education, control and reduce population, and control the economy.

To aid in implementing UN Agenda 21 a Consensus Process was developed: Stakeholders of the Affected Group select an Initiator who then selects a Decision-Making Committee (steering committee); Policy Decisions are pre-determined by a Facilitator and not by the Committee (they cannot vote). Consensus is the process in which objections to the proposal are erased. The Affected Group has to abide by the pre-determined decision with no voice in choosing the decision-maker or the outcome.

President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) published “Sustainable America, a New Consensus,” which contains 150 policy recommendations taken directly from UN Agenda 21. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown said that his agency can implement 67 percent of the recommendations administratively, using rule-making authority.

Land Management Agencies promoted land use policies based on ecological or aesthetic consequences. The agencies appropriated millions in grants to state and local governments and set up land trusts for the purpose of acquiring private property. For example, by 1997, 43 million acres were designated roadless areas, 1/3 of land in America was owned by government and ten percent by states, 21 national monuments were expanded. (Donna Holt)

How was UN Agenda 21 implemented at the grass roots? Millions in grants were awarded to state and local governments by American Planning Association and EPA through “visioning.”

A Visioning Council (steering committee) made up of businessmen, politicians, NGOs (non-governmental organizations), and people who stood to gain financially from the implementation of the goals of UN Agenda 21, worked with the EPA, the American Planning Association, the Conservation Fund, the National Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club.

The Visioning Council received their proposal from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) and proposes it as local goals for the community. The “Consensus” would remove any objections the public may have had. The result was the “vision” and the new plan of action. The entire process took 12-18 months.

The Initiator would make press releases to introduce the idea of Sustainable Communities and to build huge public support; the elected officials signed on without any questions asked. They either did not understand the nefarious intent or were financially complicit in the vision. Some local government officials had no idea that the plan came from the United Nations Agenda 21.

Partners of Sustainable Development are ICLEI, International County/City Management Association, American Planning Association, Renaissance Planning Group, Florida Forever (largest public land acquisition program in the U.S.—9.8 million acres purchased). They provide technical support and assistance with SD, management training, performance measurement, rural and urban planning.

In June 2008, The One Planet Communities proposed: (data from Donna Holt)

• 58 percent less electricity
• 65 percent vehicle mileage down time
• 23 gallons/water less per person
• 50 percent reduction in car ownership
• 40 electric car solar powered charging stations
• Reduction of footprint from 6 homes to 2 homes by 2020
• Stacked homes to avoid expansion of housing developments
• Five minute lifestyle (5 minute walk or bike from your home to shop, work, live, go to school)
• Walk or bike within the community
• Car-sharing for short distances or from one stacked community to another
• High speed rail for longer distances
• Car ownership will disappear

Current consequences of UN Agenda 21:

• Sustainability is taught k-12, colleges, and universities
• Colleges teach how to “build earth’s sustainable workforce,” “sustainability manager for carbon accounting,” “corporate sustainability manager,” “energy auditor,” “engineering sustainably certified homes,” to name just a few
• Children are well indoctrinated into Sustainable Development practices
• Government schemes to control future use of agricultural land and water through the recently passed White House Rural Council
• St. Joachim Valley in California was turned into a virtual dust bowl last year when water was denied to farmers in order to protect the delta smelt; 40,000 people became unemployed; less vegetables and fruits resulted in higher prices
• Regulatory taking of land, especially in Florida, Miami-Dade County
• Rationing of water, electricity, and fuel
• Expensive retrofitting of homes—people will be forced to leave their homes if they cannot afford the expensive retrofitting
• Denied building permits and thus land is deemed worthless
• Private property abolished to prevent urban sprawl
• Land shortage
• High density living

In June 2011, President Obama signed the White House Rural Council. To make good on the promise to control rural life and its resources, on August 8, 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA announced a national partnership “to improve rural drinking water and wastewater systems.”

The Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, who chairs the White House Rural Council and thus controls 16% of U.S. land, “is working to coordinate USDA programs across the government and encourage public-private partnerships, to improve economic conditions and create jobs in rural communities.” I guess the government has finished “saving or creating the three million jobs” in urban areas, they are now moving into rural areas. Here is UN Agenda 21 in action through its Hallmark public-private partnerships, to “fundamentally change” and control the use of water, resources, and agricultural land.