Category Archives: AGENDA 21

NRV “Livability” HOAX


If this is the future of the New River Valley,

God help us. HUD, US DOT and EPA are coming to your town.

How? “Free” money. The $1 Million HUD grant, applied for by the New River Valley

Planning District Commission. Say goodbye to representative government and hello to “the

collective good”….courtesy of the HUD, EPA and DOT Trifecta.

Three thousand of these grants have been applied for all over the US. Three have been accepted in Virginia: Albermarle, Roanoke, and the New River Valley—Floyd, Giles, and Montgomery Counties don’t seem to have a clue about what they’ve gotten themselves into. Pulaski County–living up to its reputation for ineptitude–still hasn’t voted on joining the Livability Partnership Agreement, and now seem intent on dodging the vote. Their County Administrator signed off on the deal while at the overflow July 25th Board of Supervisors meeting, one supervisor for the second time confessed that he still couldn’t remember if they voted or not. Here’s a clue: YOU DIDN’T.

As for the rest of the NRV, we have not yet learned if Radford is clued in and on board. As for Blacksburg…

The Blacksburg City Council refused to hear a group of NRV property owners’

presentation on UDA’s  before passing ordinances to create UDA’s before the July 2012 deadline, fearing that the mandate would be lifted in the next State Legislature.
http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2011/08/11/blacksburg-denies-following-united-nations-orders/

The August 11th “Livability Initiative Kick-Off Event” REPORT FROM THE FAR SIDE

Held at Claytor Lake State Park Conference Center, the event was totally controlled from the time of arrival. If  you came with someone, you were separated and seating was assigned. A minimum of two facilitators at each table of 6-8 people. Each of the questions in the survey miraculously arrived with the “consensus” response, summarized here.

Question: What is your vision for the NRV in 20 years?

“My vision is having a clean river, local food, protecting our natural resources, affordable housing, more transportation choices, and a living wage for everyone. “

One of my friends was at a table with FOUR facilitators. At my table were a social worker from Pulaski, one from Floyd, a VT employee and another Blacksburg resident who is quoted exactly in the above response. What didn’t matter to these people—most of whom were imported from “Sustainable Blacksburg”—is the concept of our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. I felt as though I were in the company of Eco-Zombies. OF THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR THE GOVERNMENT. Government Grants: Our new economic world order. Devalue our rural property so we can’t afford to live on it. The EPA will decide whether or not we can have a septic tank, with a minimum price tag of $20,000 (legislation already in effect) and we’ll sell each other trinkets, grow all of our own food, and pledge our allegiance to the UN.  The HUD-EPA-US DOT trifecta will make your local government as irrelevant as the US Congress is quickly becoming. We’ll be in our “Sustainability Hub” in the countryside. We’ll come to town to visit via mass transit in your Urban Development Area….

One of our people was verbally attacked and insulted by one of their “closers”, even though the first thing that everyone got was a lecture on the ground rules that included “respect differing opinions”. Spotting my supervisor at the Kick-Off Event, I asked him if they planned to vote at the August 22nd BoS meeting, since all they had was the County Administrator’s signature. “Well, we kinda just gave him our blessing…”

WELL, YOU’RE KINDA JUST NOT DOING YOUR JOB. REMEMBER, THE ONE THAT

INCLUDES SWEARING AN OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION???

Another of the Pulaski supervisors in attendance responded that “It’s just a study….we’ll vote when the study is done….” REALLY? Then WHY are the Future Land Use maps already done? Have they bothered to check the 40 pages of “Mandated Outcomes” in the HUD Grant Description? Have they bothered to notice that HUD, the EPA and US DOT are partnered with ICLEI in peddling this grant to 3000 localities all over the country???

“Regional Government”  will be the yoke around the necks of free people if this insanity is permitted to continue. Non-elected bureaucrats who control the 21 Planning District Commissions in the Commonwealth of Virginia are all members of the American Planning Association and the National Association of Regional Commissions. Both the APA and NARC are partnered with ICLEI, no doubt the inspiration for the radical transformation of the New River Valley. Inside the Trojan horse of Sustainable Development are the social justice, environmental justice and redistribution of wealth schemes that will rob us of our private property and unalienable rights, if permitted to do so.

Life is but a green

Life in a green parallel universe

by Catherine Turner

“It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several

times suffered death rather than submit to break eggs at the

smaller end.”  Mildred sat across the hall from him.
“What does it mean? It doesn’t mean anything.”

“It’s whatever you want it to be.”

Kevin Byrd, New River Valley Planning District Commission Executive Director

What did life used to be like?………

It’s all getting pretty fuzzy. I used to watch HGTV. I used to have a garden that grew more tomatoes and peppers than weeds. I used to bake focaccia almost every day. That was almost a year ago, before I started to need a chain on my reading glasses and a stronger prescription. That was before my introduction to Agenda 21.

Some people, when they first hear about it, think it sounds so sci-fi and over the top that you’re a nut job if you bring it up. That’s why they had to start calling it something else, like “Sustainable Development” or “Smart Growth”. What’s not to like about smart or sustainable? Agenda 21 sounded eerily interesting, sorta Ray Bradbury-esque. What I heard at a presentation one evening last fall set me back on my heels. How could I have missed something that’s been around for most of my life, one of the best kept secrets that’s nowhere close to being secret?

Before meeting the guy that I would marry and follow east from California’s Central Coast to

Pulaski, VA seven years ago,

I’d pretty much done most everything I’d dreamed about. Life was my oyster….make mine bbq’d over an oak fire with garlic, good bread and a great Sauvignon Blanc. I had survived a raucous childhood that started with 15 different grade schools and a lot of HUD housing. I’d gone back-to-the-land in the Sierra Nevada and become a cabinetmaker. Divorced and armed with a 2-year culinary degree I later became an executive chef at a respected Bay Area restaurant and then at Stanford University. Exhausted by all that, I went down the Coast to Monterey and instead of sweating over a hotline I started writing about it. For five years I wrote almost the entire food section of one of the most liberal alternative weeklies in the state. Then I wrote for the start-up Carmel Magazine. I was poor but I ate well and lived in a beautiful place.

I wrote stories about people who had come from all over the world to open their “own little place” where they would work hard and get their  piece  of the pie. The one of their choosing. I wrote a children’s book, The Adventures of Monterey Jack, that I hoped would spark

some interest in kids about cooking and eating good stuff.

Alice Waters, the God-mother of eating local even called it “charming” on the back cover.I marveled when  I read Jack to a crowd of 100 kids in my husband’s West Virginia hometown. Those coalfield kids and I tasted some good cheese and in my mind anyway, got to see the Monterey Bay together.

I fell in love with Virginia, so much like the Tennessee of my itinerant youth. I had never paid much attention to politics. I got a rude introduction when my husband and I decided to pursue our dream of an equestrian development on Claytor Lake.  I would have a real country store. He would build some homes on our 70 acres. Roanoke’s Hill Studio drew up the plans—a “green” project, with 80% open space—Gaye & Neel did all the engineering, and we thought everyone would love it as much as we did.

“Everyone” had other ideas. Our “neighbors” wanted us to put our property into a conservation easement. Passed by the Planning Commission, the Pulaski County Board of Supervisors declined our Special Use Permit. Our “neighbors” had convinced them that open space was the better part of valor. Not that they offered to pay the mortgage. Which we’re still paying.

Betcha didn’t know that………………………………….

  • The Conservation Reserve Program, established in 1986, has led to more than 30 million acres of land being taken out of crop production and put into permanent grass

    and tree cover.

  • The San Joaquin Valley has for the last two years lain fallow. The state and feds turned the water off. 50,000 acres out of production. 40,000 jobs lost. We’re not clever enough to purportedly save a minnow and what was formerly known as America’s Bread Basket.

  • The Virginia Outdoors Foundation is partnered with the USDA (that’s right—-your tax dollars at work!) buying up millions of dollars of private property in the Commonwealth. Land owners get their cake and eat it, too. Who cares if the notion of “private” property is on the endangered list?

 They used to grow food in Kansas...Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw.
 I can see the day coming when even your home garden...Is gonna be against the law. Bob Dylan, Infidels, 1983

 

Oh yeah—we’d had another entrepreneurial fling in

the old downtown—a restaurant venture that didn’t

get off the ground, beyond months of demo on,

ironically enough, (keep reading) the old

Southwest Times building. The draconian fire

codes made my husband throw up his hands and

say “screw it”. Our $20,000 sprinkler system the

plans called for wasn’t enough to satisfy the fire

marshal and building department. The old architectural moldings we’d painstakingly exposed

would have to be covered up again. Feggedaboutit.

ICLEI (ICK-ley)…the United Nations spectre in your hometown

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.

They’re in 18 locales in Virginia, 600+ across the country, 1100 ‘round the world. They’re partnered with Roanoke and Blackburg.

Welcome to historic Abingdon, with the charming flavor of the old South. It’s a beautiful old town, with manicured lawns and imposing antebellum architecture.

Excuse me? ICLEI is here, too?

Sad, and true. The Mayor of Abingdon says that their only influence is about planting trees and recycling. his reply?  When I reminded him of the Town’s commitment to lower the carbon footprint by 30%—using the ICLEI software—and that it’s an Article 1 §10 Constitutional no-no to buddy up with the UN, his reply?

“The courts can decide.”

Why should it matter?

Well, because there’s the little problem of unelected “advisors” that the voters never heard of (“ICK-ley? Who’s ICK-ley??”) getting a seat in your local government and from there getting their mitts on your Comprehensive Plan. And from there doing what’s been done to California’s Central Valley, and in South Carolina and is underway in every county in the country through benign-sounding, politically correct Sustainable Development.

What happened to the TRUTH?

The truth is in rare public display. So offended by Roanoke Times columnist Dan Casey’s bullying of the Roanoke Tea Party, I rang him up.

“Mr. Casey, have you ever looked at any of the United Nations websites on Agenda 21?”

Mr. Casey: “I read about it in Colorado’s Governor’s race.”

“Mr. Casey, have you ever looked at any of the United Nations websites on Agenda 21?”

Mr. Casey: “No.”

Only 3,640,000 Google hits in 0.17 seconds. Too much of an intellectual investment?


The New River Valley “Livability Initiative”

We still have property and a residence in the New River Valley.  I’d like to sell it so my husband doesn’t have to work so hard. My last chef’s position paid almost $100K year in Pebble Beach. Right now my career pays less than when I started—about $10/hour, by the time you add ‘em all up. And real estate’s not moving in this quagmire.

But the New River Valley’s got a brand new plan. One not many NRV folks

have heard much about….

Cleverly dubbed “Rural Sustainability Hubs”, it’s a fetching idea cooked up by HUD, the EPA and US DOT. Coincidental to Obama’s Executive Order 13575, the  White House Rural Council purports to exert broad municipal powers over the food, fiber, and energy production of Rural America. Our piece of this pie has a cheery blueprint for everything:

“Rural Sustainability Hubs” is the best way to accommodate future growth without losing unique identity while creating a new model for planning in a rural region. Using the concept of connected Sustainability Hubs as an organizing concept, the New River Valley Regional Sustainability Plan will integrate land use, housing, transportation, energy efficiency and conservation, natural resources, agriculture, food systems, arts and culture, and information technology throughout the region.

Doesn’t ring a bell? Well, Executive Director Kevin Byrd of the NRV Planning District Commission promises that they’ll get around to telling you about it. They’re gonna make their big public splash on Thursday, August 11th at Claytor Lake State Park. Too busy working, you say? Well, they’ve got lots of folks in their Consortium…Va Teach and non-profits and NGO’s (non-government organizations) that will be there in your place. And an Advisory Council, too….more non-profits and NGO’s.

(Gee, Kevin, you still haven’t called me since I asked you about being on that Council…)

Just for fun, here’s the NRVPDC 2010 Budget….found on page 22:

EXPENDITURES  Salaries 839,915.35 (Budget) 738,951.99 (Actual) Benefits 240,164.35 (Budget) 230,781.08 (Actual) Travel 55,813.30 34,429.06 Office Space 53,583.72 53,582.04 Telephone 6,397.92  6,256.42 Office Supplies  29,702.61 18, 925.00 Postage 7,807.45 3,566.92 Printing/Copies/Plotting 24,627.24 10,299.97 Map Purchases 0.00 0.00 Media Adv. 4,152.44 2,052.65 Equip. Rent/Equip. Maint. 22,867.90 13,250.77 Dues & Pubs 8,500.00 6,621.44Training 1,250.00 297.00Meeting Costs 1,247.70 36.00 Depreciation 2,891.88 2,891.88Insurance 8,700.00 5,701.00Capital Outlay 5,500.00 4,556.47 Contract Serv. 14,949.00 24,872.05 Audit Fee 8,295.00 7,475.04 Misc. 6,150.00 14,518.84TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,342,515.86 (Budget) 1,179,065.62 (Actual)

The Floyd Planning Commission rolls out the draft of their new

Comprehensive Plan…

On July 18th, I attended the unveiling of the Comp Plan in Floyd. During my three minutes at the podium I asked the overflow crowd who’s ever heard of the NRV Livability Initiative? A few hands went up….mostly Floyd Tea Party folks. The Summary Overview states that citizens of Floyd are concerned about selling off their future “to the highest bidder”.  It would almost sound like Floyd likes the concept of their own sovereignty.

I took no pleasure in pointing out that the highest bidder is the Federal Government. The governing document of the New River Valley Sustainability Plan is the HUD grant description, 48 pages alone mandating what grant recipients “must” and “shall” do. It’s called REGIONALISM, folks, and history continues to retell the misery of what top-down bureaucratic government is capable of.

Sooo, the Pulaski County Board of Supervisors voted in favor of the Livability Initiative

Partnership Agreement in May?

They did according to NRVPDC’s main guy. “May 5th,” says Kevin Byrd. On tape, as a matter of fact.I asked him myself, along with four other folks from Floyd, Pulaski and Dublin in a private meeting that included the new “Outreach Facilitator” and “Project Coordinator”. That’s funny, because when I submitted a FOIA request on July 21st to obtain a copy of the Pulaski County Board of Supervisors May minutes, their was nothing in it about a vote to sign the Partnership Agreement. And here it is, July 28th, and this page cannot be found. It only looks like they’ve been posted.

What appeared on the agreement was the signature of County Administrator Peter Huber. Not exactly who the voters elected to make that decision.

The July 25th PuCo Board Meeting, held at Pulaski County High School to

accommodate the crowd….

(I’d estimated 200 in the press release I put out, but somebody else said 400 and the Southwest Times just said “hundreds”) … anyway, there were a LOT of people there. Many of whom were mad as hell. The whole “hub” idea doesn’t win many folks—besides the grant writers and professors and Blacksburg crowd—exactly over.

I presented to the Board the highlights of Dr. Martin Mangino’s dissertation (coming here soon) on why it’s absurd (my word) to make Climate Change part of public policy when the whole rationale is faulty at best.  I would add here that Climate Change is politically charged to a criminal degree. Just check out the Obama-Valerie Jarrett-Al Gore Chicago Climate Exchange connection.

I also pointed out how the whole Livability Initiative Abstract—not to mention the HUD Description and all the other dogma-that-ran-over-my-environmental-justice karma thrown in from the EPA and DOT—is loaded up with “social equity” for the underserved.

Social equity/social justice….whatever.

Karl Marx coined the phrase and having survived a number of years growing up in “the projects”, I give my personal guarantee that it wasn’t Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty or HUD’s design inspiration that got me out.  I’m pretty sure I could out-ghetto the LI’s “Qualified Experts”, consultants Wallace Roberts and Todd and PlaceMatters, with both hands tied behind my back.

Doesn’t it just figure that now Big Brother’s gonna bring the projects

to the sticks???

But the hands-down worst part of this mind-blower of my green parallel

universe is the recurring scene in my head from this past Monday night

when I’m standing up there in front of the Board of Supervisors and the crowd of “hundreds” and my lips are moving

and I’m waving the papers in front of them showing them that THEY never signed on to this thing,

THEIR APPOINTEE did, so an agreement this-does-not-make and….

the microphone was on, the sound was working,

I read them their Oaths of Office

and despite my best efforts, they could or would not hear.

Other folks tried, too. Asked if they voted to join the partnership, repeating the June 27th meeting, Mr. Conner still could not remember, Chairman Sheffey finally stated that he’s signed the Memorandum of Agreement (not the same thing), Mr. Bopp said he signed whatever Sheffey did and there was a general shrug from the other two.

But wait….it gets spookier. The Roanoke Times / NRV Edition left that part out, and so did

the Southwest Times; Woefully unmentioned is the part where the Board does not have to

opt OUT of something that they never lawfully opted INTO.

I know that back when I was writing about food, and the newspaper publisher wanted me to start writing critiques, I couldn’t do it. I’d slugged it out in the kitchen too many years to want to pick on somebody for a subject as subjective as food.

But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

We’re talking about a “monumental” (their word) plan to affect every aspect of how people in the New River Valley eat, work, travel and live their lives.

When Kevin Byrd was asked during our private meeting what our Hubs would look like, say in ten years, his reply…

“Whatever you want it to be.”

The Pulaski County Board of Supervisors never voted to join that

partnership.

I seriously doubt that they ever “read the bill”.  As Mr. Conner says, “We get so many of them.” At least that was an honest response. The County Administrator “voted” with his signature and the NRVPDC Executive Director backed him up.

There is a referendum recall process in Virginia. I wonder if any of them are aware of that yet.

“SUSTAINABILITY” EXPOSED

This Friday, July 15th. Get the education you need—to keep your property and your personal liberty.One of the Southeast’s

 leading experts on the increasing threats to individual liberties andprivate property ownership, for almost 20 years Don

 Casey has devoted his time and energyto studying and exposing the trail from NAFTA to the Earth Summit’s Agenda 21.

 Workingwith Virginians concerned about the state mandate for Urban Development Areas and the“Rural Sustainability

 Hubs” slated for the New River Valley, he will lend his expertise on the looming challenges of “Sustainable Development”

 to those who value the right to own propertyin the Commonwealth.Join us, along with Concerned Citizens for

 Preservation of Property Rights this Friday evening at theWoodmen’s Hall, 1997 Long Crescent Drive, Bristol VA. (Exit 5,

Right turn before Shoney’s) 6:30PM. Real smoked pulled pork BBQ and all the trimmings will be served ($5 donation)

along with all the trimmings.

 

What is “Sustainable Development….Sustainable Agriculture?” What is the Wildlands Project? Aren’t Conservation

Easements a good thing? What is a “Foodshed”? And why does any of this concern me???

There is every reason to be concerned. Come and find out why. Sweeping changes are underway that will make privately

 owned property a thing of the past—unless WE ACT NOW.

 

 

Laches: It’s not a coffee drink.

Lachesnegligence or undue delay in fulfilling a legal duty

Liberticide — destruction of LIBERTY

The year is more than half gone as we prepare to commemorate the birth of our nation. And we’ve been after the Town of Abingdon since January to show ICLEI the door.

The Declaration of Independence, the first published document of the American people was forged to assert our un-a-lien-able rights. Rights granted by God

The difference between unalienable and inalienable? Inalienable rights are those which the possessor may give away. God, incomparably beneficent in His generosity, bestowed us with un-a-lien-able rights, for all of perpetuity. But that doesn’t mean that thieves don’t come stalking at the back door, under the cover of darkness to rob us of our liberty. Or in this case, under the guise of “Sustainable Development”.

“They” are outed. We’re awake now. We know about Obama’s Rural Council. And we’re horrified by the…

New River Valley “Rural Sustainability Hub” HUD grant.

EXCUSE ME?? Uhhh, let’s just get HUD, the EPA and the DOT together to figure out HOW and WHERE we will be able to live, work, breathe and GROW and CONSUME food? Let’s not only do it in the NRV, let’s do it throughout the country, sprinkling $100 Million worth of grants around like fairy dust to make sure folks are livin’ right, down to the last detail. Can you say “soviet“? Further, can you even buleev that the Pulaski County Board of Supervisors DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THEY HAD VOTED AND PASSED THEIR APPROVAL TO PARTICIPATE? Their Monday, June 27th BOS meeting was a show-stopper! It was a classic movie moment when they all looked at each other to ask if anyone remembered voting on it. Nancy Pelosi would be so proud. We’ll pass it (we did, right?) and then see what’s in it.

Why worry? Executive Director of the New River Valley Planning District, Kevin Byrd, reassured us that the “Livability Initiative” is “whatever you want it to be”. Aaaaahhhh….what a comfort. In a private meeting with Mr. Byrd and his Community Outreach Facilitator, Carol Davis on June 22nd, concerned property owners from Floyd, Pulaski and Dublin were endeared with this news. What if we want to be an Advisory Member on the NRV Sustainable Communities Consortium, curiously lacking any property owner representation on the list of 23 participating groups? “We’ll have to look into that,” we were told—about three different times in the course of our one-hour meeting. No worries, though….because “we’re all about being transparent and all-inclusive!”

Outstanding 3 minute video: SC State Representative Joe Neal, \”Comprehensive Planning\” 

We know about ICLEI.

They’re partnered with 18 local governments throughout Virginia, 600 plus in the US. Recently minus 1—way to go, Albermarle County! ICLEI is being outed all over the country.

What we don’t understand is why, after sharing copious amounts of information with the Town of Abingdon’s mayor, vice mayor and Town Council, we seem to have a failure to communicate. At least the Washington County Board of Supervisors has chosen to drop their unanimous vote in favor of taking part in the benign-sounding “Virginia Go Green Government Challenge”. The Virginia Municipal League oughta be run outta town on a rail for this ruse that they perpetrate all over the Commonwealth! When did their mission ” to improve and assist local governments through legislative advocacy, research, education“ include sneaking the Kyoto Treaty protocols through the back door into local governments and schools? Exactly when did they decide to do what the United States Senate never ratified and four more countries just abandoned?  The Town of Abingdon decided that lowering the carbon footprint by 30% —using ICLEI’s handy software—is a nifty way to address a lifeless economy? Did anyone ever think to consult the voters on this decision? Does Mayor Morgan really think that the Supreme Court should decide if it’s constitutional to hook up with an avowed globalist organization that disdains our national (and individual) sovereignty?

Laches? We don’t need no stinkin’ LACHES. 

But, we thought serving up our representatives with a Doctrine of Laches to refresh their memories on the oaths that they took to the Constitution might just be the ticket. So in celebration of 235 years of independence from Britain, we commemorate this historic event by presenting the Pulaski County Board of Supervisors and the Abingdon Town Council with a Constitutional refresher course! Pulaski County was publicly served on Monday, June 27th. Mayor Morgan, Vice Mayor Lowe and Councilmen Jason Berry, Bob Howard and Rick Humphreys are served on Thursday, June 30th. Just a gentle reminder, that…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The DOCTRINE OF LACHES  

is based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights, nor those who neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with a lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices and adverse party; and by neglecting to do what should, or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causes disadvantage to another.

  • It is hereby stated publicly that we perceive the incremental usurpation of our God-granted unalienable rights as an inherent component of the Town of Abingdon’s partnership with ICLEI, a United Nations affilliate, confirmed by the ICLEI Charter.
  • It is hereby stated publicly that incremental usurpation of our God-granted unalienable rights is an inherent component of the New River Valley Livability Initiative in the threat we feel that it poses to personal liberty and property rights.
  • And it is hereby stated that we shall endeavor, and by all peaceful means strive to reverse the repressive and dictatorial powers of local and regional government.

After all, this is what YOU said:

Code of Virginia § 49.1 – “I do solemnly swear  that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as [your elected office] according to the best of my ability, so help me God.

Happy Independence Day!

 

 

AGENDA 21 and Obama’s Rural Council

 

 

 

White House Rural Council

Agenda 21 and Obama’s Rural Council?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37561

 

 - Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh  Wednesday, June 15, 2011

On June 9, 2011, an Executive Order established the White House Rural Council with 25 executive branch departments including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, National Drug Control, Environmental Quality, Labor, Commerce, Interior, EPA, Housing, Health, Education to name just a few.

The order covers 16% of the American population who lives in rural counties because they “supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation.”

“Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential in winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead.” What kind of future are we supposed to win? Are we losers right now? This is very vague, what years ahead?

“To enhance the Federal Government’s efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities.” As a world traveler, I can attest that Americans already have the highest standard of living in rural areas, prosperity, and excellent quality of life when compared to anybody else.

A recent article in Washington Post appeared with the innocuous title, “What we need: Smarter growth plans.” The author is Roger K. Lewis, a practicing architect and professor emeritus at the University of Maryland. Who can possibly object to “smarter growth plans?” Except that “smart growth plans” is the euphemism used by the United Nations for its Agenda 21, a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty.

Roger K. Lewis suggests that “smart growth” was designed by market forces driven by “green building.” He makes no mention of Agenda 21 and ICLEI objectives and intrusion into our society since the early 1970s or the agreement signed in 1992 that went under the radar of the American people’s understanding of the complex negative ramifications for our economy and our liberties.

I have not met Americans who think, “sprawl-producing planning, zoning and mortgage templates are obsolete” as the author claims. Would Americans willingly give up their land and homes with or without compensation in exchange for a move to a densely populated high-rise, with no parking garages, no access to cars, like rats fenced in a grey concrete maze?

Communist “social engineering” confiscated land and homes for agriculture. People were forced to move into many-storied, tiny cinder block apartments without any compensation for the land or homes bulldozed. They were forced to commute by bicycles or public transit.

Lewis deems subdivision developments with low-density, detached, single-family homes as outdated. He calls the areas educationally dysfunctional and unsafe. American suburbia was built, he says, on four assumptions that have lost validity today:

  1. Unlimited supply of land
  2. Inexpensive and inexhaustible supply of oil
  3. Homogenous land use
  4. The American dream to own and inhabit a mortgaged house.

I am not sure on what research Lewis based his conclusions, but we have huge domestic oil reserves if permits were issued to drill. We also have a vast land mass. Some areas have 70 or less inhabitants per square mile. Americans still want to own their own home and want to live in a homogeneous community of other homeowners. Just because power hungry bureaucrats at the United Nations have decided to “preserve” land and the environment for the future of the planet and its animals, neglecting the future of humans, does not mean Americans agree to this vision.

Much of America’s land cannot and should not be developed.” Who are you to decide for us, Mr. Lewis and why? Last time I checked we were free people who determined their own life choices.

“Dependency on oil and limitless use of cars pose daunting environmental, economic, and geopolitical problems.” Who is going to decide the limit to our car use? Is it going to be done by law, more regulations, or executive order?

A handful of environmentalists, the EPA, and the United Nation’s dictators, using faulty debunked data from the University of East Anglia or phony research are trying to separate Americans from their land use, cars, trucks, and the open-wide roads.

Lewis continues his Agenda 21 fallacy. “The traditional nuclear family—mom, dad, two to three kids and one or two pets—is now a minority of America’s households.” I am positive that this man is not describing America that I know and see every day. His statements continue, “Today a majority of households are people, young or old, living alone; couples or sets of unrelated individuals of various ethnicities, ages and tastes.”

Agenda 21 and Mr. Lewis suggest building high-rises in “designated areas within municipalities where new development and re-development is feasible and desirable.Affordable housing is a priority and so are environmental standards.

It is obvious that “smart growth plans” or Agenda 21 designed by United Nations will affect our future choices in how we live and where. EPA will be involved and will twist the arms of those who do not adopt “smart growth plans,” denying grants to states and cities and levying other penalties. By the time Americans realize the implications of Agenda 21“smart growth,they will lose their homes and lands with no compensation. At least people who lost property under Eminent Domain have been compensated.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of 600 national, regional, and local government associations who promote “sustainable development” and protection of the environment because of man-made global warming that does not exist.

“Sustainable development” is the United Nations effort to contain and limit economic development in developed countries and thus control population growth. It is “sustainable de-growth,” plain and simple. The focus is “low-income agriculture” and to set limits on the developed world.

United Nations and its affiliates believe that first world countries polluted significantly during their development while urging third world countries to reduce pollution thus impeding their growth. Implementation of “sustainable development” would revert our society to a pre-modern lifestyle.

ICLEI wants to keep the environment as pristine as possible through “ideal-seeking behavior.” These euphemisms are not clearly defined in terms of what or who will evaluate or set the standards for this “ideal-seeking behavior.”

Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure to manage, count, and control assets. It is not concerned with protecting the environment or the world’s resources. Agenda 21 wants change from old sector-centered ways of doing business to new approaches. The “desired future state” should be to pursue “economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity.”

“Social equity” is the new euphemism for “social justice” the Marxists in our government have been using a lot lately. Who gave them the authority and the mandate to initiate such change? I do not remember the American people being asked through a referendum whether we wanted our way of life to be fundamentally changed according to mandates set up by the United Nations. How will population growth control be achieved in order to protect the precious environment?

There are four tiers to UN’s “sustainable development” plan:

  1. Environmental sustainability
  2. Economic sustainability
  3. Socio-political sustainability
  4. Cultural diversity.

In 2001 UNESCO, in The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, stated that cultural diversity is as important as biodiversity in the sense of a more satisfactory, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence. Who is to decide the level and quality of the population’s satisfaction, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence? Human needs must be met while preserving the environment for the future. Again, who will decide what our needs are in order to preserve the future?

In February 2011 in Nairobi, Kenya, ICLEI attended a United Nations conference as representative of the interests of local governments. “In collaboration with partners such as UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance and ICLEI, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Protection) is working to make cities more livable, better prepared for the multiple environmental challenges they are facing, as well as giving them a stronger voice in the international climate negotiations.” Last time I checked, global warming has been debunked as a hoax and UN rapidly changed its name to climate change, continuing the attempt to fleece developed countries. In addition, who decides these international climate negotiations and why? What are we negotiating? Carbon credits?

In October 2009 in Bangkok, ICLEI stated, “local governments are offering national governments our partnership in the fight against climate change.” ICLEI wants local governments to collaborate with national governments to fight against climate change, the very change that has been scientifically debunked.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states clearly, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation, …No State shall,… enter into an Agreement or Compact with another State or with a foreign power…” The counties and cities that are members of ICLEI in the U.S. through its national organization are attempting to implement foreign policy, which our Constitution forbids. What mayors and municipal governments are doing is plain unconstitutional.

“Mayors and local governments set forth the following commitments to implement sub-national, national, and international frameworks by providing resources, authority, and mandate to carry forward climate protection roles and responsibilities.”

There is no law or act of Congress to authorize the aiding and abetting of foreign policy globalism by state and local governments. We have to protect our sovereignty by banning cities and counties to be members of ICLEI, an organization that promotes United Nation’s Agenda 21/“smart growth” which is detrimental to American economic interests, liberty, and sovereignty.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Most recent columns

  “Dr.  Ileana Johnson Paugh is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Modern Conservative, Anystreet.org, Romanian Conservative, Lucianne) and speaker who recently published a book about her 20-year experience with communist life, “Echoes of Communism,” available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, social engineering, and confiscation of property, among other subjects.

Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana1959@gmail.com

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Most recent columns

  “Dr.  Ileana Johnson Paugh is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Modern Conservative, Anystreet.org, Romanian Conservative, Lucianne) and speaker who recently published a book about her 20-year experience with communist life, “Echoes of Communism,” available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, social engineering, and confiscation of property, among other subjects.

Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana1959@gmail.com


Abingdon & ICLEI? What’ll it be??

June 15, 2011

 

Dear Mayor Morgan and Vice Mayor Lowe,

 

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on June 6th. For months now, we have sent you documentation that provides more than ample proof that ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives–is a stealth group that quietly takes a seat in local governments around the world to promote an agenda that is antithetical both to the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States, which clearly states: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation. This is the group with whom the Town of Abingdon has been partnered since 2008.

 

Mayor Morgan, when Rich Macbeth, representing the 10th Amendment Foundation, again brought this to your attention, your response was that this was a matter that “could be decided by the courts”.  I must ask you, does this mean that it would take a Supreme Court ruling to verify what this precise, declarative sentence states? We feel that there is nothing ambiguous about this bedrock law that would necessitate a constitutional court’s assessment.

 

Again, we have no issue with establishing a recycling program and planting trees, the activities that you mention in relation to working with the Abingdon Go Green Committee. We are proponents of good stewardship of our natural resources. But again, these endeavors are not representative of the true threat that ICLEI and the United Nations Environment Programme pose to the very ideals laid out in the profoundly successful foundation our Constitution has provided. It is distressing, to say the least, to witness the oaths that you and the members of the Town Council take to protect and defend our bedrock laws be treated so cavalierly.

 

However, signing an agreement to lower the carbon footprint by 30% is another matter entirely. It is incomprehensible that without constituent knowledge or sanction, a commitment could be forged with an alien organization that takes no direction from voting citizens of these united states to engage in instituting an ideology as if it were an exact science with a clear imperative to save the planet. Conveniently ignored is the mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise; the Council has received a summary of the 321-page report that represents 20 times the number of dissenting scientists and climatologists who refute the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change, (see attached). Yet sweeping programs—inexplicably promoted by organizations like the Virginia Municipal League—are adopted as gospel!

 

 I mentioned in our meeting that the scope of the Sustainability movement represents a threat that is intent on bringing almost unimaginable, radical change to both urban and rural ways of life. HB3202 was passed in 2007, mandating Urban Development Areas in 67 counties in Virginia, of which Washington County is one. In January both the Council and the Planning Commission were given DVD’s of Virginia Campaign for Liberty’s Donna Holt power point presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-jd3iDuQ7c) that clearly authenticates what these areas will become.

 

 I mentioned that the New River Valley and Jefferson Area Planning Districts have accepted HUD grants that will radically alter the rural landscape by establishing “Rural Sustainability Hubs”.  I encourage you to look at the attached Sustainability Plan for SWVA co-sponsored by NRVPDC to understand what their “vision” for high-density, mixed age-income level residences with  “community kitchen / garden / car wash / laundry” and a 70% mandated reduction in usage of groundwater surrounded by conservation easement will look like, a project currently underway in Floyd VA.  http://www.nrvpdc.org/GreenInfrastructure/Sustainable%20Land%20Development%20in%20Southwest%20Virginia%209-27-08.pdf  / http://vwrrc.vt.edu/pdfs/specialreports/SR-41SustainableDevelopment.pdf 

 

 Please do study the reference sources in Appendix A, where you will find  sources for “zero carbon footprint”, the Brundtland Commission, and of course, ICLEI.

 

 You have received articles by the American Policy Center’s Tom DeWeese, who has been steadily ringing this alarm bell for more than 15 years while this movement, with ICLEI at the forefront, has been growing like a cancer.

 

We think it is past time that this alarm is acknowledged. Awareness must be raised. And ICLEI must go.

 

In liberty,

 

Catherine Turner,  SWVA Tea Party Abingdon / Bristol

Richard Macbeth,  National Treasurer, 10th Amendment Foundation

 

 

ICLEI =UN=UNconstitutional!

Virginia Right!

Categorized | ICLEI, News

NEED PROOF ICLEI IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL for a US MUNICIPALITY to JOIN?

 TRY THIS: ICLEI REPRESENTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS at a UN ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING in FEBRUARY 2011!

Posted on 13 May 2011.

The local officials who question or sneer at the idea that ICLEI is some sort of UN plot to take away our sovereignty need to read this from the ICLEI website:

ICLEI holds up the flag for Local Governments at UNEP Governing Council

February 24, 2011

At the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GC26/GMEF), that took place from 21-24 February 2011, in Nairobi, Kenya, ICLEI has been flying the flag for Local Governments. ICLEI was in attendance as a Local Authority Major Group Co-Facilitator, a representative of the interests of local governments. (Emphasis mine)The UNEP is the United Nations Enivronmental Programme. Here’s the UNEP website. They are the environmental branch of the UN system:

UNEP, established in 1972, is the voice for the environment within the United Nations system. UNEP acts as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment. To accomplish this, UNEP works with a wide range of partners, including United Nations entities, international organizations, national governments, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and civil society.ICLEI is in deep with this UN agency:

In collaboration with partners such as UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, UNEP is working on making cities more liveable, better prepared for the multiple environmental challenges they are facing, as well as giving them a stronger voice in the international climate negotiations. The Constitution says NO! NO confederation among local/state governments! PERIOD! They cannot hold up a flag or be part of a representative or part of a stronger voice before UN agencies. Any US city/county/town a member of ICLEI is contributing to an unconstitutional system. I appeal to every veteran or retired veteran or any other patriotic citizen in the local government in any of the 600 ICLEI member cities to do your duty: Simply get out of ICLEI.

via http://www.varight.com/news/need-proof-iclei-is-unconstitutional-for-a-us-municipality-to-join-try-this-iclei-represented-local-governments-at-a-un-environmental-meeting-in-february-2011/

ABINGDON and AGENDA 21

On Monday, April  4th

 

the Abingdon Town Council was

addressed by Catherine Turner,

representing the SWVA Tea Party of

Abingdon / Bristol and Richard Macbeth, representing the 10th Amendment Foundation.

After months of research, Turner and Macbeth presented arguments to the Town Council in favor of dissolving the

Town’s partnership with ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.

Perhaps most members of local government have been unaware of the larger agenda that looms beneath the utopian ICLEI-induced scheme. It was apparent during the April 4th presentation to the Town Council that Planning Commissioner Garrett Jackson and Abingdon Go Green Committee colleague Kevin Worley, were highly entertained by what was a very sober report.

Conversely, members of the Tea Party remained well-behaved despite the Council’s unanimous vote in favor of Town Manager Greg  Kelly’s authorization of the energy audit presented by Worley, the Director of Parks and Recreation Manager. The plan to spend $19,000 on a survey conducted by Trane Heating and Air seemed  strangely coincidental to our purpose for being there. We look forward to seeing how all the Town buildings score on the audit and will keep our fingers crossed that Abingdon taxpayers won’t be forced to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to replace working HVAC systems in these difficult economic times.

__________________________________________________________________________  

From:           James M. Cowart

Sent:              Wednesday, August 25, 2010 4:01PM

To:                  Floyd Bailey

Subject:  Have you begun integrating climate adaptation into your current climate action strategies, or are you focused solely on reducing greenhouse gas emissions?  

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Floyd,

……The Climate Mitigation efforts which most everyone is doing or trying to do, will in the future be joined by Climate Adaptation efforts to address/mitigate the effects of climate changes brought on by global warming.

You might visit the ICLEI USA website for info about this.

Link:         http://www.icleiusa.org/

Thanks!!

Jim Cowart

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In late 2008, the Town of Abingdon partnered with the organization ICLEI

and set into motion the ICLEI defined Five Milestone Approach in order to reach the goal of

30% carbon reduction by 2021. In January of this year, the 10th Amendment Foundation and SWVA Tea Party

Abingdon/Bristol filed Freedom of Information Act requests in their effort to understand the Town’s partnership

with ICLEI.

From the above email communication between Director of Grants and Economic Development Jim Cowart and

Floyd Bailey, Director of Information Technology, it would appear that the relationship has blossomed from

Climate Mitigation to Climate Adaptation, right out of the ICLEI playbook. And, not surprisingly, it will be the

Town of Abingdon  taxpayers who foot the bill.

For just $1800, the United Nations Agenda 21 dogma bought themselves a place in local government. But, go up to anyone on Main Street and ask if they’ve ever heard of ICLEI,  inevitably the response is “huhh?”  While you’re at it, ask them if the best thing that comes to mind for the current lack of jobs in the area (perhaps we should pose this question to Mr. Cowart) is reducing the carbon footprint.

Never heard of ICLEI? There are more than 600 member locales in the US. And 1220 local government members in 70 countries.

Weeks earlier Mr. Cowart and Town Manager Greg Kelly, Mayor Ed Morgan, Vice Mayor Cathy Lowe and Council Members Jason Berry, Bob Howard and Rick Humphreys  each received a packet of documents that detail the relationship of ICLEI to the United Nations Agenda 21.

Included in this portfolio were excerpts of the ICLEI Charter.

As an ICLEI partner, Town of Abingdon explicitly accepts their Charter:

Charter 1.2 – Relationship to Founder Patrons

The Association shall maintain its formal institutional relationships with its founder patrons, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Union of Local Authorities

 Charter 1.6 Representation Mandate

ICLEI shall serve as an international representative for its members and campaign participants by providing advocacy before national and international governments

 ICLEI Charter 1.7 The Association shall promote, and ask its individual members to adopt, the Earth Charter Principles

From the FOIA request, copies of all the correspondence and communication with the group ICLEI and its group of carefully chosen stakeholders, namely the Abingdon Go Green Committee were released. From this ream of 1000-plus pages and about $600 in “copying/labor” fees later, the relationship with ICLEI became clear. The Go Green Committee, as we learned, is made up of some two dozen or so members, about half of whom are department heads for the Town of Abingdon, (including Jackson and Worley) as well as Mayor Morgan. With Kelly and Cowart acting as the primary liaisons to ICLEI, it would beg the question:  How much prior knowledge do they have about ICLEI? Under the guise of “Sustainable Development”, and based on the frequent communication regularly exchanged with ICLEI, are they accepting of the principles of AGENDA 21? Is the Abingdon Go Green Committee complicit with these ideals?

By bringing this to the attention of the Town Council, this question must be raised.

Our mission is not to demonize anyone, but rather to shout from the rooftops all that is

wrong with this arrangement which threatens everything that is intrinsic to the purely and

proudly American ideal of property rights and personal liberty, as set forth in the

Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

 

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/la21/background.html

What is “Local Agenda 21″?.
Local Agenda 21 is the mandate
to local governments to translate
the United Nations Action Plan
for the 21st century (Agenda 21)
to the local level.


So how did Local Agenda 21 come about?

*In 1987, the Brundtland Commission produced a report entitled Our Common Future. Five years later, in 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) brought 179 heads of governments together in Rio de Janeiro. It focused world attention on critical issues of sustainability and natural resources, and mapped out a plan of action for future global partnership to achieve concrete goals.

Agenda 21 was one of five documents produced:

  • the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
  • a statement of principles to guide sustainable management of forests
  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
  • The Convention on Biological Diversity
  • Agenda 21

 *The Brundtland Commission, it should be noted, was chaired by Gro Harland Brundtland, Vice Chair of the World Socialist Party.  “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Brundtland Commission member, Maurice Strong (Chairman, 1992 Earth Summit)

International Goals
Our programs, and projects promote participatory, long-term, strategic planning process that address local

sustainability while protecting global common goods. This approach links local action to internationally agreed-upon

 goals and targets such as: Agenda 21

 And finally, we point out the recurring theme of “common goods” and “injustice” found in the ICLEI Declaration of Commitment  “Social justice”, a term made famous by Karl Marx, interchangeable with “social equity” and the “common good” are tantamount to wealth redistribution, the prime mover that increasingly grows obvious as the core of the sustainable movement and its vanguard, ICLEI. 

As the first order of business,

ICLEI conveniently provided the Town of Abingdon  their trademark Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software to do a baseline analysis of  Town CO2 production, on the built-in, self fulfilling assumption that manmade CO2 levels are the primary drivers of climate. It is seemingly of no consequence that there lacks scientific proof of this. It is in fact the same fallacy perpetuated by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

To illustrate this point, the Climate Depot summary of the 321-page report was provided to the Council, one that updates the 2007 US Senate Report from 400 dissenting scientists and climate researchers to what is now 1000 dissenters. This number is 20 times that of UN scientists who authored the media-hyped 2007 “Summary for Policymakers”.

Climate science, like every other science, is not “settled.” CO2 continues to rise even as the Earth is in a 10-to-20 year cooling trend which began in 1998. It may be recalled that the climate panic of the 1970’s was Global Cooling! The computer generated climate scare stories of Al Gore, Michael Mann, and NASA’s James Hansen in 1988 have not occurred. Further, there is absolutely zero quantifiable evidence that the Town’s goal of 30% carbon reduction would have any impact on climate whatsoever.

Even though mainstream media largely ignored CLIMATEGATE,

the same can’t be said for alternative media heroes, PJTV:

On November 19, 2009, climate science was severely shaken by the release of a collection of email messages, together with a collection of data and data processing programs, that were hacked or revealed by a whistle blower from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), one of the key centers of global warming research. These emails and text files have been the subject of intense debate, calling to question assumptions on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. They are offered here by PJTV/Pajamas Media in conjunction with the Competitive Enterprise Institute/Globalwarming.org for the purpose of education and comment. (http://www.climate-gate.org/)

We must pose the question to the Town Council, the Town Manager and to the Town Grants

and Economic Development Director:

—Why is this huge expense of effort and taxpayer dollars being imposed?  How much

taxpayer money has been spent over 2 ½ years of meetings, training sessions,

seminars and exhaustive carbon inventorying of  everything from leaf blowers to police

cars to employee commute records involving every department of Town

Government? Has anyone produced a proven cost / benefit analysis of these proposed

ICLEI projects?

 

Go Green Va is a Virginia Municipal League initiative VACo VSBA VAIS ICLEI 

Going green seems innocuous enough at first; as another ICLEI partner organization, the Virginia Municipal League is

a prime mover.

But when you take a closer look at their Virginia GO GREEN Challenge—the Town of Abingdon tied for 3rd place in

2009—it is simply astounding that although the Kyoto Treaty was never signed by George W. Bush, it is nevertheless

being implemented through the back door. And of course, the more palatable term adopted by ICLEI of “Smart Growth”

has mushroomed under the last three administrations. Federal, state and local programs are burgeoning with it. And it’s

no coincidence that the areas where it has been around the longest are areas with the most odious zoning restrictions

and foreclosure rates. In Oakland CA, where new “sustainable” regulations become law, the average cost to ‘’green” a

home to change out windows, appliances and roofing before it may be sold is $35,000. Once

ICLEI and their minions get into county government and control of the Comprehensive Plan, they codify their self-

determined energy and land rationing quotas and levels of imposed sacrifice. Call

it social justice.

The VML also promotes the “Go Green Challenge” in the K-12  school system. It is a sickeningly rich irony

that our country has historically rejected straight-up Marxism, but when it is cleverly repackaged and cloaked in political

correctness as ‘sustainability’, our children are haplessly indoctrinated. The three-legged stool in the VA grades 9-12

Sustainable Communities lesson plan is right out of the Karl Marx / ICLEI handbook.

 

Our coalition of concerned citizens have engaged in a thorough analysis of Agenda 21 and the supporting role that ICLEI

plays. We’ve spoken with Dr. Martin Mangino, the president of Central Virginia’s Science & Engineers for Energy and

Environment. We spent the day consulting with the preeminent authority on the East Coast, the American Policy Center’s

Tom Deweese, who has been exposing the scam of sustainable development for 15 years—his phone is now ringing off

the hook.

Two months ago, Town Council members and members of the Town Planning Commission each received copies of the DVD featuring Virginia Campaign for Liberty’s Donna Holt on The History of Sustainable Development: Connecting the Dots.

We have attempted to share with the Town Council the history of the United Nations social engineering objective of wealth redistribution, beginning with their 1974 adoption of the “New International Economic Order” to the 1976 Conference on Human Settlements, with the Preamble that famously equates private land ownership with social injustice:

“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset,

controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.

Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and

therefore,

contributes to social injustice…”

Under the umbrella term “sustainability,” panels of experts and commissions are dedicated to engineering their enlightened visions of what “must” be done in the areas of land use, energy use, population distribution, and transportation choices. Freedom of individual choice and property rights are seen as irritating impediments. The end game is social engineering and wealth redistribution, plain and simple. Freedom of individual choice and property rights are seen as irritating impediments. The term “sustainability” means whatever the NGO’s and unelected stakeholder groups choose it to mean. The sustainability mantra is a ruse to gain more bureaucratic control over the population. (See the Albermarle BOS “Defund ICLEI” Presentation by Charles Battig, MS, MD)

We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last

200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a

huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people.

Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, who said in a FOX Business News interview that ‘the environmental movement has been hijacked by eco-terrorists.’ 

 

The Council has also received a copy of the Carroll County MD Times article that details why their Board of Supervisors severed ties with ICLEI. They’ve received copies the cover story from The New American Magazine, “Your Hometown and the United Nations Agenda 21”,  recounting horror stories of the impact that these policies have had on industries that are “fleeing California at breakneck speed”.

The Council has been provided information on the Wildlands Project, proving that it is indeed possible to consume the elephant one bite at a time, as great expanses of the US are brought under federal control, off limits to human beings. If it sounds like science fiction, we only wish it were so.

 Whether or not Agenda 21 causes Mr. Jackson or any of the rest of his Abingdon Go Green Committee colleagues to lose sleep,  the constitutional caution that Rich Macbeth explained before the Town Council is no laughing matter; to the extent that the Town is partnered with ICLEI, each council member stands in violation of their oath of office by implementing foreign policies that are clearly inconsistent with the Constitution of Virginia and of the US Constitution.

Article 1 §10 of the Constitution of the United States of America states:

“NO STATE shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance,

or Confederation…” As a political subdivision of the state, each and every member of our local government who swears

 an oath to our Constitution is bound by the same prohibition. Mr. Macbeth went

on to cite several court cases which uphold this precedent.

 

 Under Sustainable Development there can be no concern over individual rights, wants, or needs – as we must all sacrifice for the sake of the environment. The UN’s Commission on Global Governance said in its 1998 report:

“Human activity…combined with unprecedented increases in human numbers…are impinging on the planet’s basic life

support system. Action must be taken now to  control the human activities that produce these risks.”

And from Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI):

Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.”

  

Defunding ICLEI and terminating the membership of the Town in that organization does not have to mean that

Abingdon is abandoning its interest in true conservation principles. It means that The Town of Abingdon recognizes

and respects freedom of choice and that individual rights will be preserved in an open regulatory process. The kind that

our Constitution guarantees.

  

The New American: AGENDA 21

Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21

 
Written by William F. Jasper   
Thursday, 10 February 2011 00:00
 

Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21In March 2010, Nor-Cal Produce, a family-owned produce business in West Sacramento, was fined $32,500 by the California Air Resources Board (ARB, or CARB). The company was not charged with, or even accused of, illegal emissions; like many other businesses, it had merely failed to notice a new regulation posted by CARB requiring all semi-trailers, shipping containers, vans, and rail cars with diesel-powered refrigerators to file a report with the agency. “We had no knowledge of the law,” Nor-Cal’s Chief Financial Officer Todd Achando told CalWatchDog, a news blog that monitors California government. “My operations manager happened to see it mentioned in a trade magazine about a year and a half after the deadline passed.” Because Nor-Cal reported itself to CARB and “cooperated,” the agency reduced the $200/day fine from $86,600 to $32,500.

Kit Enger and his fellow dune buggy manufacturers also cooperated with CARB, but found it was like dealing with a mob “protection racket.” Enger, president of the Compliant Car Builders Association in Oceanside, California, said association members attended the agency’s “implementation outreach workshop” for OHRV (off-highway recreational vehicles) and worked “diligently with CARB certification staff to devise a program whereby all industry members could efficiently and effectively certify their vehicles and engines.” Despite the increased costs and inconvenience of complying with CARB’s new regulations, association members thought things were going pretty well — until January 2008 when CARB hit them with $3.6 million in penalties for alleged violations. The association’s lawyers worked the fine down to $600,000, but Enger says even that penalty was unconstitutional, amounting to an ex post facto prosecution for engines modified and sold before the new CARB regulations went into effect.

“My lawyers said it would cost more than $600,000 to fight it, so we might as well pay it. It’s like a protection racket — government out of control,” said Enger. When he testified before CARB in November 2009, Enger told the board that one of their CARB enforcement officers had told him on two occasions, “If you guys don’t get on with this settlement, it doesn’t matter to us if you go out of business, change your name, move to another state, or die, we will find you and attach your assets.”

Thousands of businesses have already fled the “protection racket” of government in what was once known as the Golden State; thousands more are following, taking with them hundreds of thousands of jobs. The state’s tax and regulatory policies have driven the cost of energy, as well as every other business expense, sky high. Yet, despite facing $25 billion in debt, a huge current budget deficit, and default on its bonds (not to mention sky-high unemployment, over 12 percent), the state’s politicians and bureaucrats continue to chase the productive tax base — and jobs — out of California. Joseph Vranich of Irvine, California, known as “The Business Relocation Coach,” keeps a running tab on companies leaving the state. His December 6, 2010 blog carries this headline: “New Record for Calif. Companies 
Departing or Shifting Work Out: 193 — 
Nearly Four Times Last Year’s Level.”

The jobs that are leaving or shutting down are not only the manufacturing and resource jobs in companies that greenies love to denigrate as “old, has-been” industries; they include many of the highly touted “green” companies that are now seeking greener pastures elsewhere. One of them is Solyndra, the solar panel maker from Fremont, which announced layoffs of 170 workers in December. Only a few months earlier Solyndra had hosted a much publicized press conference with President Barack Obama and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, both of whom lauded the company as an exemplar of the “green economy” that would provide many thousands of new “green jobs.” Solyndra received a $535 million loan from the Department of Energy to build a new state-of-the-art, robotics-run factory, which it calls Fab 2. In November 2010, Solyndra announced it was mothballing Fab 1 and postponing earlier plans to expand Fab 2, citing weak sales and the weak economy.

Other California “green-tech” firms have closed or are shifting much of their operations out of the state. For example:

• Barefoot Motors, maker of electric ATVs, moved to Oregon.

• Mariah Power, a manufacturer of small wind turbines, moved to Nevada and Michigan.

• Sonatype, Inc., which services many high-tech companies, moved to Maryland.

• Adobe Systems, Inc., the software giant, is building its huge new campus in Utah.

Other companies that have jumped ship from California include Fidelity National Financial (moved operations to Florida); CalPortland Cement (closed its Riverside County plant); Buck Knives (moved to Idaho); Multi-Fineline Electronix, Inc. (moved to China); and Thomas Brothers Maps (moved to Illinois and India).

These are only a fraction of the “primary companies” that have made the news; thousands of secondary companies — restaurants, service outlets, retail stores, construction companies, trucking companies, farms, ranches, mom-and-pop businesses — have vanished with no media notice.

And the picture will only get uglier for California, as the state government pushes forward with implementing Assembly Bill 32, or AB 32, formally known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. According to a 2009 study by Dr. Sanjay B. Varshney, dean of the College of Business Administration at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS), and Dr. Dennis H. Tootelian, professor of marketing and director of the Center for Small Business at CSUS, the impact of the bill’s cap-and-trade and regulatory features could be horrendous. They found:

On average, the annual costs resulting from the implementation of AB 32 to small businesses are likely to result in loss of more than $182.6 billion in gross state output, the equivalent of more than 1.1 million jobs, nearly $76.8 billion in labor income, and nearly $5.8 billion in indirect business taxes…. Accordingly, the total cost of AB 32 is $49,691 per small business in California.

As would be expected, the Varshney/Tootelian study has drawn heated criticism, especially from academics, activists, and politicians still ardently supporting the discredited alarmist “consensus” regarding anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. The critics have produced studies claiming to show that any economic and/or job losses due to AB 32 will be negligible; some even predict positive growth as a result. Of course, many of these critics are the same ones who predicted the massive new “green jobs” that never materialized. Whether or not the Varshney/Tootelian study may have been “defective” in methodology, its predictions appear to be more firmly grounded in reality than those of its critics. The exodus of capital, technology, talent, and jobs from California has been accelerating, and as the CARB “racketeers” begin enforcing the draconian measures provided under AB 32, it will almost certainly pick up more speed.

California’s losses will mean more gains for Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and many other states — but perhaps only temporarily. Many of the states and communities that California companies are fleeing to are headed in the same direction as California. If they do not change course, they soon will see the same economic forces driving the erstwhile California refugee businesses on to Mexico, India, China, and the other usual destinations.

ICLEI, the Hidden UN Component
There is a hidden component to the saga of California’s ongoing woes that is gradually coming to light, hopefully in time to enable other states to avert the same calamity. That hidden component is becoming more visible as we near 2012, which the United Nations will celebrate as the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit. Known officially as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the eco-confab in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, was unprecedented in size and scope, bringing together some 35,000 government officials, diplomats, NGO activists, and journalists. Rio became the launch pad for a number of huge initiatives that have been gradually gaining force and wreaking havoc on the planet in the intervening decades. The five main documents to come out of the UNCED process are:

• The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

• The Statement of Forest Principles

• The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

• The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

• Agenda 21

The Climate Change and Biological Diversity conventions were posited as “hard law” treaties that impose binding obligations upon the ratifying parties; the other three are referred to as “soft law” documents, instruments that commit the parties to a path of pursuing later “hard law” commitments. President George H.W. Bush signed the Climate Change Convention in 1992 and the U.S. Senate ratified it the same year. However, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated to implement specific greenhouse gas reductions under the convention, has not been signed or ratified by the United States Senate. Although President Obama declared his commitment to securing a new binding Climate Convention, the November 2010 elections have pretty much sunk chances for any Kyoto replacement passing in the Senate.

Realizing the difficulty in getting some national governments — and especially the United States — to go along with a climate-change treaty that would require massive government intrusion into and regulation of all aspects of energy production and consumption, the UNCED leaders launched simultaneous efforts to build political support for ratification by also initiating efforts aimed at winning enactment of global-warming legislation at the state and local levels. One of the primary instruments that has been used by the UN and globalist advocates to advance their plans is an NGO known as ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability.

“ICLEI was founded in 1990,” its website states, “as the ‘International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives,’” and the organization “is an association of over 1200 local government Members who are committed to sustainable development. Our Members come from 70 different countries and represent more than 569,885,000 people.”

ICLEI-USA boasts of its members: “Their populations range in size from 832 people in Cimarron, New Mexico, to more than 8 million in New York City.” And they “consistently top the rankings of the Greenest Cities,” it adds. “They have led the effort in recent years to envision, accelerate and achieve strong climate protection goals, creating cleaner, healthier, more economically viable communities.”

More than 130 of those ICLEI members are California counties and cities that have led the efforts that now have California mimicking the economic “viability” of Greece and Spain, both of which, by the way, are longtime model supporters and members of ICLEI. Spain, which has been one of the biggest promoters of “green jobs,” has learned the folly of its ways the hard way: It killed more than two existing jobs for every green job created. To make matters worse, many of the green jobs proved to be temporary, vanishing after the subsidized solar panels and wind turbines were constructed. Trodding the same path are California’s ICLEI cities, among which are virtually all the major metro areas — Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco — as well as smaller cities from Alameda to Yountville.

ICLEI’s website informs us:

The Council was established when more than 200 local governments from 43 countries convened at our inaugural conference, the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York.

It notes that in 2003 it changed its name to “ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability,” no doubt to place more emphasis on the “local” and to diminish concerns about its “international” influence and its political and financial ties to the United Nations. As we will show, ICLEI and other UN-affiliated NGOs and government officials have come under increasing suspicion in recent years from more and more American citizens, and have taken to camouflaging their UN-driven environmental agendas, even to the point of denying obvious and easily documented connections.

On its web page entitled “ICLEI: Connecting Leaders,” ICLEI explains some of its networking strategies. They include:

Connect cities and local governments to the United Nations and other international bodies. ICLEI represents local governments at the United Nations (UN) Commission on Sustainable Development, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Conventions on Biodiversity and Combating Desertification and co-operates with the UN Environment Programme and UN-HABITAT.

That seems pretty clear: ICLEI’s mission is to “connect” local government to the UN and its affiliates. It goes on:

Mobilize local governments to help their countries implement multilateral environmental agreements such as the Rio conventions through Cities for Climate Protection, Local Action for Biodiversity and other initiatives.

Again, fairly straightforward: Get the locals to lobby and pressure the national government to hop on board the global programs that will transfer more money, authority, and power to the UN. ICLEI continues:

Forge multi-stakeholder partnerships such as Resilient Cities, a global framework on urban resilience and climate adaptation where local governments, international agencies, development banks, ministries, institutes, and others, collaborate.

Translation: bribe, entice, seduce, flatter local officials, NGOs, and corporations to join the green lobby.

Agenda 21’s Stealth Agenda
The ICLEI web page also states that its Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme is “designed to aid local governments in implementing Chapter 28 of Agenda 21, the global action plan for sustainable development.” Although the Climate Change Convention has dominated the media headlines and political landscape for many years, Agenda 21 is even more far-reaching and dangerous. As we approach the 2012 Earth Summit, to be convened once again in Rio, this massive environmental, economic, and social “master plan” for the entire planet is being promoted with new intensity.

However, as we have already mentioned, some of the leading proponents of empowering the UN in the name of protecting the global environment counsel their fellow activists to hide their true intentions. That’s exactly what J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development and to US AID, advised in a seminar in London, England, entitled, “The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium,” sponsored by the United Nations Environment and Development Forum, UK (UNED-UK). After complimenting his British audience for their success in getting the UK to adopt much of the UN’s Earth Summit program, Lawrence lamented, “Other places have been much slower to adopt LA21 [Local Agenda 21].”

“In some cases,” he noted, “LA21 is seen as an attack on the power of the nation-state.” Which, of course, it most definitely is, as we will show. The former Clinton advisor continued:

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear “one-world government” and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined “the conspiracy” by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

Yes, over the past two decades much of Agenda 21 and the rest of the Earth Summit program have been enacted piecemeal at the state and local levels, but as “Smart Growth Initiatives,” “Resilient Cities,” “Regional Visioning Projects,” “STAR Sustainable Communities,” “Green Jobs,” and “Green Building Codes.” After going through charades labeled as “local visioning,” “community in-put,” and “consensus building,” one community after another has found that it has enacted a “local” program that is virtually indistinguishable from every other “local” program, whether across the country or across the planet. The more important point, though, is that these initiatives that have been enacted ostensibly to save the environment, invariably destroy economic vitality, erode property rights, undermine liberty and constitutional government, impose soviet-style rule through “stakeholder councils,” subvert local control — and usually devastate the natural environment to boot.

But desperate measures are necessary to “save Mother Earth,” and only a comprehensive, global plan will do, argue the alarmists. The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21. Copies of the 1,100-page document were hard to come by for several years after its debut at Rio, but I was able to bring back a “media copy” of the five-pound “treasure” from the summit. It is now available online at http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/.

The most accessible version of Agenda 21 to come out following the Rio summit was published under the title AGENDA 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Edited by environmental-activist attorney Daniel Sitarz and enthusiastically endorsed by Earth Summit chief Maurice Strong and then-U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.), the book is instructive for demonstrating the completely alien mindset that holds sway in so many influential political, academic, and media circles. Sitarz’s edition provides a powerful, albeit unintended, indictment of the UN agreement by offering this candid appraisal of the plan’s totalitarian ambition. Incredibly, Sitarz admits with apparent approval that:

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 human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.

The admission is so staggering as to require recapitulation: “profound reorientation,” “all human society,” “every person on Earth,” “every human action,” “every level,” “demand,” “require.” In short, it is an undisguised call for the total regimentation of all life on the planet.

Nevertheless, editor Sitarz continued his praise for the wondrous text, noting:

There are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, by financial institutions and individual investors, by high-tech companies and indigenous people, by workers and labor unions, by farmers and consumers, by students and schools, by governments and legislators, by scientists, by women, by children — in short, by every person on Earth.

The tyrannical implications are so stunningly transparent that it seems impossible that any nation not overtly communist could endorse it. Yet it was unanimously endorsed by every nation at the summit, including the United States. Not even Stalin, Hitler, or Mao came close to proposing anything this all-intrusive and all-encompassing.

But the hubris goes much further still. One of the most sacred totems in the UN’s green theology is “sustainable development.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published in 1996 by ICLEI, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has been an important manual for teaching ICLEI’s “local” acolytes and accomplices the “sustainability” game. It boasts a foreword from former Earth Summit chief Maurice Strong, who currently is president of the council of the UN’s University for Peace. The Guide asks the rhetorical question: “What is Sustainable Development?” It then provides this revealing answer:

The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…. Sustainable development, therefore, is a program of action for local and global economic reform — a program that has yet to be fully defined.

Yes, that is correct; the program that is absolutely essential to our very existence “has yet to be fully defined.” It goes on:

No one fully understands how, or even if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is a growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.

There you have it; even though we don’t know what it is, there is a “growing consensus” that it “must be accomplished.”

Much has been written in academic terms about the meaning of sustainable development and the need to integrate ecological and economic principles into personal and public decision-making….

However, there is no agreed definition of the concept and perhaps there is no need for one…. Thus, sustainable development is an “emerging concept” in two ways, first, because it is relatively new and evolves as we learn to grasp its wide implications for all aspects of our lives, and, second, because its meanings emerge and evolve according to local contexts.

In other words, “sustainable development” is a despot’s dream-come-true: an emerging all-purpose, open-ended, “enabling act” granting global central planners carte blanche to claim it means whatever they want it to mean.

Think Globally, Act Locally
For the past several decades, environmental activists have embraced the mantra, “Think globally, act locally.” And they have been implementing it with religious fervor — along with bountiful assistance, of course, from the United Nations and a multitude of UN-affiliated institutions, U.S. government agencies, NGOs, and tax-exempt foundations. ICLEI, which has helped initiate UN programs in hundreds of U.S. communities, works closely with UN agencies such as UNESCO, UNEP, WHO, UNFCCC, IPCC, IMF, and the World Bank, as well as the U.S. State Department, Department of Energy, EPA, U.S. Agency for International Development, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, World Economic Forum, Club of Rome, Rockefeller Foundation, the European Union, and other similar entities. It also receives millions of dollars of funding from many of these same entities, thus enabling it to organize formidable “local” coalitions that often can overwhelm genuine local grass-roots opposition to UN-spawned programs.

However, the correlation of forces in this ongoing struggle may be turning in favor of freedom — though not a moment too soon. When this reporter returned from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and began a national tour with my book Global Tyranny, Step by Step … The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order, far too few people were ready for the message. Even sympathetic radio talk-show hosts found it difficult to believe that the UN’s treaties on climate change and biodiversity, or Agenda 21, could be as serious a threat to America’s sovereignty, prosperity, and freedom as I alleged. Few could appreciate how these documents and programs crafted in some far-off United Nations conference could ever concretely impact them in their state, town, or neighborhood. That has changed dramatically, as the huge financial costs and oppressive regimentation associated with global-warming legislation, sustainable development programs, and local Agenda 21 projects have skyrocketed.

Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center and a leading expert on Agenda 21 and sustainable development, says there “is definitely a major awakening underway.” “These UN stealth programs got by unnoticed and unopposed for many years, but no longer,” he told The New American. “Patriots in communities all across the country are getting wise to the UN programs and are fighting back. Many of the Tea Party activists have awakened to these issues. Our phones have been literally ringing off the hooks with requests for information and speakers to help in local battles against Agenda 21 and sustainable development. 2011 is going to be a very critical year, and I’m encouraged; our side is going to make some major advances on these battlefronts.”

“The growing awareness of the dangers posed by UN programs such as Agenda 21, sustainable development, and the global-warming treaties, is, fortunately causing many Americans to look more critically at the United Nations itself,” John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, told The New American. “These are tentacles, but the UN is the octopus controlling the tentacles. And it is our government that is feeding the UN octopus with our tax dollars, which the UN funnels, through a myriad of fronts, into these efforts aimed at destroying our freedoms and empowering the UN as a global government. It’s becoming more obvious each day that The John Birch Society’s half-century campaign to ‘Get US out of the United Nations — and Get the UN out of the US’ — is right on the mark. This should be a major effort of the new 112th Congress.”

AGENDA 21 by another name

Libya and the Soros Doctrine

Right Side News 

Monday, 28 March 2011 05:15 Rick Moran
E-mail Print

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorizes a no-fly zone over Libya and the protection of civilians by all means necessary, is the culmination of a decade-long effort to radically strengthen the ability of the UN to intervene in sovereign nations through the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine. Behind the initiative are, unsurprisingly, some of the usual suspects: National Security Council adviser Samantha Power and her patron George Soros. Their call to prevent human rights abuses through military intervention masks an agenda to alter drastically the concept of state sovereignty and to allow the United Nations to essentially co-opt the US military.
A 2008 backgrounder produced by The Heritage Foundation on the Responsibility to Protect articulates one of the most dangerous aspects of the doctrine: “R2P would effectively cede U.S. national sovereignty and decision-making power over key components of national security and foreign policy and subject them to the whims of the international community.”
Obama_SorosWhat we are seeing unfold in Libya today may very well be a test case for this doctrine: the United Nations has “borrowed” the US military to enforce its idea of Gaddafi’s “responsibilities.” And one question of grave concern is: Might the UN also “borrow” the U.S. and other Western militaries in future to impose its will on member states it feels are not living up to the UN’s nebulous idea of state responsibilities?
Before we examine the ingredients of this potentially catastrophic scenario, a bit of historical background is necessary. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which is deliberately nebulous and ill-defined, is not new. In fact, Hitler’s intervention in the Sudetenland was justified by “humanitarian reasons.” Hitler’s propaganda machine created mass hysteria in Germany by falsely accusing Czechoslovakia of carrying out atrocities against ethnic Germans. Hitler negotiated with Neville Chamberlain on the basis that he was only going to intervene to save lives. Chamberlain may not have bought Hitler’s lies, but Munich occurred nonetheless.
The doctrine was applied sporadically for the next 50 years because military intervention of any kind during the Cold War risked nuclear confrontation. Although the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was justified by Moscow as a “humanitarian” endeavor, there were few other cases.
Once the Soviet Union disappeared, a host of situations occurred in the 1990s that drove debate in the United Nations toward accepting the use of humanitarian intervention to stop governments from killing their own people. The ad hoc nature of these interventions gave an opening to individuals who wished to codify UN intervention into international law. Most of these same people also recognized humanitarian intervention as a means of vastly strengthening the UN, while weakening the sovereignty of nations.
The history of Responsibility to Protect bears this out. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) was formed out of the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000 with a mandate “to promote a comprehensive debate on the relationship between intervention and sovereignty, with a view to fostering global political consensus on how to move from polemics towards action within the international system.”
The ICISS issued a report in December of 2001 titled “The Responsibility to Protect” that encapsulated “the Commissioners’ views on intervention and state sovereignty and their recommendations for practical action.” The document was sent to the UN for debate and approval.
At the UN, a firestorm broke out over the R2P concept (now the official name of “humanitarian intervention”), largely divided between the industrialized West and the impoverished South. The former colonies only saw a legal way for Western powers to invade them, while the West — including the United States — viewed R2P as a potent weapon to prevent another Rwanda.
The ICISS was chaired by Gareth Evans, former foreign minister for Australia, whose thoughts about the report and sovereignty in particular bear looking at in detail. Mr. Evans sought to turn the debate on sovereignty “on its head” by “characteriz[ing] it not as an argument about the ‘right’ of states to anything, but rather about their ‘responsibility’ — one to protect people at grave risk.”
That “responsibility” is to be defined by the United Nations. Mr. Evans envisions a world where sovereign nations are hardly “sovereign” as we understand the term. Indeed, Evans is seeking nothing less than a brand new definition of sovereignty — what he calls “a new way of talking about sovereignty itself.” The starting point, he says, is that sovereignty “should now be seen not as ‘control,’ as in the centuries-old Westphalian tradition, but, again, as ‘responsibility.’”
No “rights.” No “control.” At least Mr. Evans is willing to let nations keep their borders — for now — although that may also be under threat from R2P. One can imagine the United Nations taking the US to task for trying to keep millions of illegals from crossing our border: We have no “right” to keep hungry, desperate people from seeking a better life. Might our border policies also violate the R2P doctrine? Indeed, such an argument is already being made.
In 2004, the Secretary General Kofi Annan set up a blue ribbon committee to examine the ICISS findings and issue a report to the United Nations. The Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Changeswallowed the “new” definition of sovereignty while recommending R2P be adopted as a matter of policy and law. Their report, “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility,” recommended that it be the responsibility “of every State when it comes to people suffering from avoidable catastrophe, mass murder and rape, ethnic cleansing by forcible expulsion and terror, and deliberate starvation and exposure to disease.”
In other words, “responsibility” has morphed from the 1990s concept–which entailed that it is up to the world community or voluntary coalitions to intervene where necessary to protect innocents–to a set of rules that sovereign nations themselves must satisfy the United Nations or the hammer will fall.
In direct violation of its own charter, the UN has set itself up as the arbiter of where sovereignty begins and ends, tossing aside Article 51′s “inherent right to self-defense” clause. The Office of the Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide at the UN makes this clear. The individual state’s idea of sovereignty takes a back seat to the UN’s judgment: “Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility where States are accountable for the welfare of their people.”

Might R2P also be invoked by Israel’s enemies to target the Jewish State in its war of national survival against the Palestinians? This has already become a reality. Michael Rubin, writing at Commentary Contentions, reports that the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bülent Arnç said last week, “We wish that the United Nations had made such resolutions and countries had taken action in the face of incidents in Gaza, Palestine and the other regions.”

Does this explain the surprising decision of the Arab League to allow for R2P to be invoked for Libyan intervention? Recall that the Arab League, the African Union, and numerous other regional developing world organizations originally opposed the concept of R2P. Could the prospect of a UN intervention in Gaza have encouraged the Arab League to back the Libyan adventure?
Even if it didn’t, you can rest assured that the next time Israel feels compelled to defend itself by going into Gaza and taking out terrorists who are attacking it, the League will be crying out for an international response to the “atrocities.”  It will contend that Israel is not living up to its “responsibilities” to protect Palestinians. Such an argument will convince many — especially those who are predisposed to hate Israel in the first place. The US will then be in the unenviable position of being forced to veto such action in the Security Council, opening itself up to charges of hypocrisy.
Would we veto such a resolution? With NSC adviser Samantha Power‘s influence on Obama, it is highly questionable. Power is an avid R2P advocate; her 2002 book on the issue, A Problem from Hell, so affected Obama that he invited Power to join his Senate staff as a foreign policy fellow. She also briefly served on his campaign foreign-policy brain trust.
Power is also credited with influencing the president to adopt R2P as part of his foreign policy. But it is her views on Israel that should concern us most of all. She has a long record of antipathytoward the Jewish State. Ed Lasky, writing in the American Thinker, reports that Power “also advocates that America send armed military forces, ‘a mammoth protection force’ and an ‘external intervention,’ to impose a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.” Clearly, Power is someone who would readily impose a R2P solution on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But with her anti-Israeli disposition so apparent, what exactly would this solution look like?
Other advocates of the R2P doctrine include numerous Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which promote it for ideological reasons and also because of UN grants and funding. The International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protectbrings together many of these NGOs under one umbrella, where they can be more effective in both lobbying the UN and shaking the international money tree. The list of members is a Who’s Who of internationalists, one worlders, and leftist Utopians, including Oxfam, Citizens for Global Solutions, the International Crisis Group, the World Federalist Movement, Human Rights Watch, and The Stanley Foundation.
What all those groups have in common is a desire to destroy or vastly curtail the sovereignty of nations. And rising above all of them as chief financier and inspiration are George Soros and his Open Society Institute.
There is little doubt that Soros recognized early the kind of power that a vast, worldwide movement could exert and bring him closer to his dream of radically changing the scope of national sovereignty, thus allowing for a new economic and financial system to take hold. He calls himself a “stateless statesman,” which is a good description of how he wants the rest of us to live.

In addition to being the primary funder of The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, the Open Society Institute also heavily supports other NGOs that belong to the R2P coalition, including the International Crisis Group (ICG)and Human Rights Watch.
You don’t have to connect too many dots to discover Soros’ influence on the Obama administration. Samantha Power served on the executive committee of the ICG along with Soros until she left for the UN in 2009. And several members of the Obama foreign policy team were employed by the Center for American Progress – another Soros funded think tank.

The future of R2P is now. The situation in the small African country of Côte d’Ivoire is spiraling out of control and headed for civil war with the potential for atrocities and mass civilian casualties. Several nations, including the African Union and NGOs involved in the R2P movement, are already calling for military intervention, while the UN has expressed its “alarm” at the deteriorating situation.

Meanwhile, Bashar Assad is killing demonstrators in the streets of Syria, and the world does nothing. Clearly, R2P needs a little fine tuning. The ICISS and UN panel on R2P both advanced the notion of “thresholds” that would have to be crossed before action was contemplated, but the UN has yet to adopt any hard and fast rules about intervention.
Until they do, the Security Council will be fumbling in the dark, confused and hesitant to proceed. But the real danger will come if they ever do get their act together and begin to intervene in the world’s trouble spots in earnest. Given R2P’s broad mandate, which includes “starvation and disease” as responsibilities of member states, the list of countries that would be ripe for intervention is growing considerably. For the proponents of R2P, this is not accidental.
Rick Moran is blog editor of The American Thinker,and Chicago editor of PJ Media.His personal blog is Right Wing Nuthouse.