Jew World Order

 

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. ~ Tom DeWeese

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, and 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

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. 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. 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.

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
May 1, 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.

 

Tom DeWeese – June 16, 2012 – posted at GovtSlaves

 

diggmutidel.icio.usgoogleredditfacebook