- How and Why Did America Come to Embrace Socialism? - February 7, 2019
- Common Core Curriculum Fails to Educate While Incubating Progressivism - June 11, 2018
- Biased, Progressive Media is Uprooting the Nation’s Founding Principles - April 20, 2018
Our last article, “Are You Under Attack by UN Agenda 21,” exposed the “United Nation Agenda 21″ scheme to grab American citizens’ property rights and freedoms. While that information is not exactly going viral throughout America, more and more people are realizing something unusual and troubling is happening in America.
That is good news, because the more citizens become observant and knowledgeable, the better chance we have of stopping what many now believe is an invasive attack upon us. While property rights are a major part of Agenda 21, it encompasses far more areas of our lives, with new laws and adverse changes from our government. We will explain the other tentacles of this odious United Nations agenda in future editions. This article will inform you of more ways it impacts our property and freedom, as well as our natural resources, parks and historic landmarks.
We must deny the assumption that only government can protect nature, air, soil, water, and open spaces. History informs us that all societies run by totalitarian governments experience severe environmental degradation where there is little or no private property and a misuse of resources. The end result is a chasm which develops between the haves and have-nots and a resulting bleak future for individual citizens.
An example of personal property being taken by the government is The Wildlands Project. It dictates how land is to be set aside for non-humans, and if your property happens to be located in one of their designated areas, you become less important than animals. In Kern County, California, there are 400 such areas planned. The pretense to confiscate the land is that it is national forest land, with the claim “it is good for the people.”
There is a definite push to have people become more dependent by relocating them from suburbs into cities, out of private homes into condos, and out of private cars onto their bikes or electric cars. Bike lanes and bike paths are all the rage right now, as cities and rural areas are being remade in accordance to the sustainable model. With high density urban developments, parking for cars could be eliminated, as there would be no need for vehicles that sprew forth CO2. As documented in the Fifth Assessment Report issued by the U.N. International Panel of Climate Change (ipcc) on September 27. 2013, manmade Global Warming was attributed in large part to CO2 emissions.
In 2013 San Francisco Bay Area residents battled city planners on the implementation of “Plan Bay Area and Senate Bill 345”— known as the “smart growth” program — which called for the moving of people from rural communities into the city’s urban sprawl so government would have more control over how they impacted the environment. Rosa KIoire, a former forensic appraiser and the founder of Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, believes the smart growth plan is more about making people live closer together so government can have more control over them than about any environmental impact.
The Monument Act was originally created to protect America’s historical landmarks and/or structures from being destroyed. That Act is now being used by the federal government to grab land for their own purposes. Those who designed the Act did not foresee something as odious as Agenda 21, and trusted that our federal government would never use the Act for any other purpose than to preserve our monuments. However, abuses are happening, as the citizens of New Mexico can testify. In December of 2012, President Obama used the Monument Act to grab the area known as the Taos Plateau, even though that area lacked properties that would qualify it for a national monument. That area of the state has enormous underground resources, such as oil, coal, and uranium, resources that could be providing economic benefits to both the state and its residents. Rather than create jobs that would benefit the people who live in New Mexico, that land now belongs to the government.
Then there is the Clean Water Act of 1972 where even mud puddles can become wetlands that must be protected. Should an area be deemed a wetland, the owner is no longer allowed to use or sell it. One of the more mindless abuses of the law happened in California. Using a provision in the Clean Water Act, which provided for a healthy habitat for fish, California officials purposely diverted the Sacrament River and allowed that essential water supply to flow into the ocean. Sound too incredible to believe? What would ever cause such a strange action?
A relatively unknown, small SMELT fish was being caught in pumps that supplied water to the valley. The fish was on the endangered list and citing the Endangered Species Act, a judge ordered the pumps that watered the valley turned off and the water diverted, lest the Delta melt be disturbed That water supply was needed to irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres of farm area in California, and without it, farmers were forced to watch once thriving fruit groves to wither and die, as well as other types of crops throughout a huge region in the California valley. Jobs were lost, lives were destroyed, all because the government chose to protect a fish over peoplewhose lives depended upon their farming their land for a living. Even when California fell victim to a severe drought, the government would not relent and let the river flow along its normal course. We now live in a land in which a fish is more important than people. Certainly this is not what our forefathers intended of the law, but an overreaching government has abused our freedoms.
The erosion of property rights has continued despite public backlash, as it did in the Supreme Court Kelo v. New London decision in 2005, which allowed a Connecticut town to seize private property not just for public use, but also for private development surrounding new offices for the Pfizer Inc. drug corporation. In 2009, New York state’s highest court ruled the state could use eminent domain to seize large numbers of homes and businesses in Brooklyn to make room for a new arena for New Jersey Nets basketball. Even more grievous, in 2005, The Supreme Court ruled that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project’s success is not guaranteed.
You are probably wondering whom is behind the U.N. Agenda 21 plan. Unfortunately, quite a few world-wide leaders, including many in our own country. Not surprising, one of the more prominent is George Soros, a billionaire and liberal socialist, who strongly supports Agenda 21. Soros’ money has been tracked to funding parts of ICLEI, as early as 1997 when his “Open Society” gave ICLEI over 2 million dollars to support a Local Agenda 21 Project. His billions fund over 90 leftist organizations such as ACORN, SEIU, MoveOn.org, Occupy Wall Street, the ACLU and most any that promote his far-left agenda. In a subsequent article we will discuss how Soros’ Open Society Institute has partnered with the U. S. Department of Education to promote a global education initiative to bring about the nationalization of the American education system known as Common Core, endorsed by Arne Duncan, Obama’s left leaning Secretary of Education.
We can only hope that we can defeat Agenda 21 before experiencing any more government abuses. One way to stop Agenda 21 from infiltrating American is to vote for Conservative candidates who oppose U.N. Agenda 21. Oh, and not just vote, but support them in every way possible. Educate yourself about the candidates and then talk to your friends, relatives, and neighbors …. maybe even your grocery store clerk. Whatever it takes: Vote against the slick liberals who make claims they have no intention of keeping. Look at their records, not their rhetoric. There is an ongoing war for our future, and we need good men to fight on the side of liberty and freedom.
When the defense of liberty becomes a crime, tyranny is already in force. At that point, failure to defend liberty makes slavery a certainty.
[Originally published at Illinois Review]