Agenda 21 is a global action plan that demands implementation of strong, uncomfortable and downright painful measures that would of necessity assault private property rights, rights of the individual and national sovereignty. Though it has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and does not contain the force of law in the U.S., it is now being implemented on city, county and state levels all over the country in a variety of ways. One way is through Barack Obama’s urban initiatives strategy to advance his version of the Regional Equity Movement.
Our age has seen priests of the mind teaching that gregarious is the praise worthy form of thought, and that independent thought is contemptible. It is moreover certain that the group which desires to be strong has no use for a man who claims to think for himself – Julien Benda, The Treason of the Intellectuals
What is the Regional Equity Movement? It is the use of centralized political power to make things equal over regions with disregard for jurisdictions or states rights and Barack Obama is very much on board.
Environmental regionalism is the idea that political dynamics should correspond to ecological areas. As this idea is put into action, environmental regionalism becomes an ideology. Jon Marco Church, The Ideology of Environmental Regionalism under the Test of the Alpine Convention, with comparative reflections from the Andes
The environmental crusade, known as the ‘Green Movement’, fuels the engine of Agenda 21, and has been described by one clever journalist, James Delingpole, as very similar to a watermelon, “GREEN on the outside and RED on the inside” and without a doubt it has gained considerable traction under Barack Obama’s administration. Evidently born for this mission, Obama is a big advocate for ‘smart growth’ which is a spin-off of a UN directive called regionalism. However, Obama’s brand of regionalism sees the existence of suburbs as unfair and racist because of the stereotypical view that too many ‘white folk’ live there. The suburbs pollute the planet because the residents who live there drive cars to work from longer distances (the nerve) and they deprive the cities of a stronger tax base. Of course, such convictions lead to a whole new way of moral thinking.
According to Agenda 21, everyone should live in compact urban areas, in small dwelling units, ride bicycles, take mass transit, walk or skateboard to work, leave the tiniest carbon footprint possible and pay massive income in taxes to the regional governing districts. Yet, not to worry, those in charge will issue an allowance of what they think you should need. That last statement was said in context, but you can be sure that a society based on values dictated by the collective, heavy regulations and extreme laws that restrict the rights of the individual, swell the authority of the state and severely limit free choice, will assure this depressing outcome as a future the next generation can expect. For those able and given permission to splurge on a real house, check out this cozy little green friendly cottage below.
In his book, Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, author Stanley Kurtz presents evidence that the President’s urban policies are already in full swing on the county level. He argues that Obama’s vision is influenced by a desire to eliminate the suburbs and drive people from spacey rural areas where they might have the luxury of a pasture for their horse and cram them into the cities, where they can be more closely monitored and controlled. In order to do this, no-growth boundary zones are being created around each metropolitan area. This action prohibits the use of that land for anything other than farming, or so the excuse goes. New residential developments will be required to include a quota of low-income housing units, to promote another initiative, that of the ‘classless’ society. Which in itself doesn’t really sound so bad, but the real problem is how one defines the term ‘class’, which is material that I reserve for another future article.
As to the President’s urban policy agenda, this is often accomplished by massaging vague environmental concerns with heavy government regulations. However, in the 20 October 2012, edition of the Witchita Observer, Kurtz provides a some of the tactics used to achieve this goal:
- Tax-based sharing – to redirect service money from wealthy suburbs into urban areas:
- Cutting back on highway construction to the suburbs in order to discourage commuting
- Limiting commercial development in the suburbs to reduce opportunities for employment
With the exception of concerned chapters from the local Tea Party Movement in Ohio, especially Northeastern Ohio, Breitbart News, National Review, a few bloggers and Stanley Kutz, no real attention was given to shine the light on Obama’s intentions concerning America’s suburbs before the 2012 presidential election. This was information that many voters in the critical swing state of Ohio needed to make an informed decision before casting their ballots. Such dereliction of the mainstream press is just another reason why they cannot be trusted. Not to worry, Barack Obama will do whatever it takes, even play the race card if it suits his advantage to push an agenda that will deliver the goods, not just to get votes but also to advance his idea of what an equal society must become. Of course this plan works best when everyone is compressed into tight living conditions where ‘group think’ can be more successfully applied.
In a very informative article written by Wendell Cox, Ronald D. Utt, and Brett D. Schaefer for Heritage.org, the authors explained how ‘smart growth’ policies also known as ‘new urbanism’, ‘sustainable development’, or ‘open land preservation’ are being implemented by environmentalists and local business groups to impose land use regulations that would force Americans into densely packed living arrangements, curtail freedom of choice in housing, discriminate against lower-income Americans, and compel people to pay more for their houses.
These efforts have long been resisted by some members of the community due to their negative impact on economic growth, competitiveness, and the nation’s standard of living. As Heritage has documented, communities implementing smart-growth policies have significantly higher home prices, which precludes moderate-income households from home ownership. In turn, these high home prices have forced buyers to take on excessive levels of mortgage debt, which has contributed to the default and foreclosure problems that have led to the current recession. Indeed, the foreclosure problem is at its worst in states with the strictest land use constraints: Florida, California, Arizona, and Nevada. Wendell Cox and Ronald D. Utt, 5 March 2009, “Don’t Regulate the Suburbs: America Needs a Housing Policy That Works,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2247
The four major divisions of ‘smart growth’ policies that advance the principles outlined in Agenda 21 are:
- Social and economic through international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries, combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting sustainable human settlement development
Conservation and management of resources for development to include protection of the atmosphere, planning and management of land resources, promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development
Strengthening the role of major groups women, children (?), indigenous people, workers and trade unions. Notice who is missing, men
Means of implementation involves financing, technology transfer, promoting education (core/standardized dumbing down curriculum) and public awareness through massive propaganda campaigns, international legal instruments
Conservative columnist and political commentator Rachel Alexander asserts that these policies would significantly expand the role of government in economic decision-making, impede development and economic growth, and undermine individual choice and policy flexibility for local communities. She then cautions that opponents should be focused on efforts by the U.S. government to implement these policies nationally, as well as locally. In other words, get a grip on the bigger picture for what these policies will mean to the entire nation. Rachel Alexander, 2 July 2011, “Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Real Threat?” Townhall.com
On the other hand, Ronald D. Utt, a Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation advises that:
Opponents of Agenda 21 should not be distracted from the more tangible manifestation of the smart-growth principles outlined in that document. If they focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that date to the early 1970s and undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests.
Adding to the problem, the Obama Administration has warmly embraced smart-growth policies and, more broadly, increased environmental regulation and restriction of use of natural resources. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is the Administration’s point man in selling smart-growth policies to the American people. He and other key Administration officials are abetted by state and local elected officials and numerous interest groups, including the Urban Land Institute, local Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Smart Growth America, the American Public Transportation Association, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and shortsighted local business associations. Ronald D. Utt, 10 July 2009, Obama Administration’s Plan to Coerce People out of Their Cars,” Heritage Foundation
Aside from ‘smart growth’ and Barack Obama’s own community action oriented initiatives, let’s not forget the awesome advantage of eminent domain. Confiscation of private property has greatly increased by governments all over the world in the last 10 years. In the United States eminent domain need no longer apply for the greater good of the people, such as a highway or train track, military base or reasons of public utilities and safety. Now the private property of one individual can be taken and given to another, if the price is right. Granted the other individual may be a large international corporation, but if the owner of the desired piece of real-estate is too stubborn to know what is good for him/her then the courts will step in. Consider the case of Kelo v. city of New London. In a permissive interpretation of the government’s eminent domain power, the Supreme Court decided that the city of New London, Conn. had the right to condemn privately owned property so that it could be transfered to another owner for purposes of comprehensive redevelopment. Supposedly this would have benefited the city through a higher tax base, created jobs and other economic opportunities. The one dissenting voice, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned the ruling could bring dangerous consequences for owners of homes and other properties.
Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.
The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms, As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.
In 2005, The Washington Post reported:
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project’s success is not guaranteed.
Opponents, including property-rights activists and advocates for elderly and low-income urban residents, argued that forcibly shifting land from one private owner to another, even with fair compensation, violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the taking of property by government except for “public use.”
On the other hand, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, cited cases in which the court has interpreted “public use” to include not only such traditional projects as bridges or highways but also slum clearance and land redistribution. He concluded that a “public purpose” such as creating jobs in a depressed city can also satisfy the Fifth Amendment. Charles Lane, 24 June 2012, Washington Post
Yet, after all the pain and suffering, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the project. This left the valuable little patch of real estate not only an empty lot but an eye soar, because it became a trash dump. As a result of this case, many states adopted new laws to prevent abuses of eminent domain. It seems that justice was served after all!
On 24 June 2005, Warren Richey Christian Science Monitor, reported that even though many state supreme courts remain divided on the public land use issue, eight are clear and have ruled that private economic development does not justify condemnation of private land for public use and have barred such legislation. These include Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, South Carolina, and Washington. In opposition to this view, states with high courts that have ruled private economic development projects as a valid excuse for public use and therefore eminent domain as warranted are, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, and Connecticut. I hope this little piece of information is useful to any prospective property owners out there.
In addition to eminent domain, another favorite way that city and county districts all over the nation are offending the Constitution is through ‘civil forfeiture’. Chip Mellor, President and General Counsel of the Institute for Justice wrote in Forbes:
One of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets–all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with a crime let alone be convicted to lose homes, cars, cash or other property. Chip Mellor, 6/08/2011, Forbes
What is truly interesting here is the incentive for local law enforcement (LLE) to employ civil forfeiture on citizens in order to add desperately needed revenue and stock to run their departments, yet when it comes to arms and ammunition they are being hindered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) massive order bids to manufacturers. Is this top down pressure to make LLE villains to the communities they serve so that they too must look to the increasing centralized power of the federal government for their needs?
Perhaps now is a good to time to talk about about how some of us are fighting back. Maligned by the mainstream left wing media, Tea Party chapters all over the country are active and pushing back on the local level along with Libertarians and Conservatives that see the danger in not making a stand now. The states of Missouri, Alabama and Arizona have banned UN Agenda 21 initiatives in their states. Alaska, our biggest and by necessity most independent state in the far north, is taking note. At this time only the City Council in Fairbanks, is adamant about no relationship or partnership with policies that promote Agenda 21 initiatives!
The council voted unanimously in support of a resolution that states the city will not enter into partnership with the U.N.’s Agenda 21 if such a partnership would infringe on the natural and sovereign rights of the citizens of Fairbanks, Alaska. Elwood Sanders, 10 April 201o, beforeitsnews.com
The state of Maine, is working on the matter and others are starting to talk openly about Agenda 21. However, most Americans are still blissfully unaware that this global plan for control over humanity even exists. Furthermore, people need to know what Barack Obama’s urban initiative policies will do to the value of their homes, their children’s schools, and future employment opportunities, especially if they live in the suburbs.
Some Texans are taking action, but the word needs to get out to more people. We must not be a nation of sheeple.
Fight Back!! Find out what your children are really being taught in school and don’t worry, you are not alone. Strength in numbers, but don’t forget just because a local battle is won, the collectivists will not give up, they will just find another way to attack. This fight will get more intense as they face increasing Resistance from the American people. One way they attack is to label any attempt to education the public as a ‘conspiracy theory’. This often works for those who prefer to remain ignorant and feel more comfortable with any policies that come from a liberal/Democrat front, just don’t give them the details, because they would really hate to agree with Conservative voices for a change.
Contact your local Tea Party and find out which elected officials from either the Left or the Right can be counted on to fight this evil new world order.
2012 Republican Party platform.
We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty. Peter Jamison, 26 July 2013, Tampa Bay Times
These videos in my Documentary Section provide even more information about how Agenda 21 is designed to work within financial systems.
Related and Recommended Articles
A few organizations fighting the good fight:
I am interested in what you have to say, but only comments that are relevant to the article and I think would be interesting to other readers will be posted. Anything you wish to say that is personal in nature please visit my Facebook Page – Liberty Grace Humanity – or contact me at: