Would it be possible for someone to explain to me how a guy could lie to a woman about loving her when he full well knows he doesn’t love her just to get sex and it isn’t using her? In what reality can a guy convince himself that it is ok to lie regardless of what it does to the woman he is lying to just to satisfy himself and she is suppose to be OK with that?
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Agenda 21 and the environmental movement.
Most of the people in the truth, patriot and freedom movements are well aware of the UNs Agenda 21 , their agenda for the 21st century. Most see it as a wacko environmentalist agenda to steal land and set it aside for the happy little creatures giving them presidence over human life. Well, the agenda is real but has little to do so much with happy little creatures as multinational corporations wanting to take over your land and controlling your use of it. To keep the environmentalists on board they wrap it in these wonderful phrases like “Sustainable development”. They speak of these wonderful green spaces and sustainable energy. Small enclaves of people in sustainable cities surrounded by vast open wilderness where they are rewilding to protect the happy little creatures. They use Federal agencies like the EPA, The Department of the Interior and of course that truly nasty BLM. And most agree this must be stopped. But how and by who?
Enter the anti-government overreach crowd. Sounds good but is it?
“Too much government over reach”, is the hue and cry of the crowd. While this is a true statement and I am as much against the over reach of government as any one I have to look at the route this movement is now taking everyone in. The latest is this push to take back Federal lands and turn it over to the states. There is even legislation out there being pushed to do exactly that. But who is behind it? And why? What is the result they are aiming for?
Model States legislation and ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council)
For those who are unaware ALEC is Legislators, Corporations and other non-governmental organizations who come together to write what they call model states legislation. Legislation tailored to your state. They make these bills sound like a conservative’s dream come true. But take a good look at their members?.
If you have ever been to your state’s Capital when congress is in session you have seen the sea of lobbyists you have to wade through to talk to your congressional representatives. And for the most part these lobbyists are not there on the people’s behalf. ALEC is in a sense these lobbyists writing laws to benefit corporations and other NGOs with your state representatives right there in the mix. The legislators then bring these laws home and with the help of ALEC get them passed.
Not only are the states pushing for this land transfer but also some in the federal government as well. In a memo entitled “Views and Estimates for Fiscal Year 2016” from the chair of the Committee on Natural Resources , Bob Bishop (R-UT), sent to the House Budget Committee Rep. Bishop states “The solution is to convey land without strings to state, local, and tribal governments.” . He also asks for $50 million in taxpayer dollars to cover the transfers. This all may sound good until you look at what will now become of these lands.
The populations of most western states is relatively small and the people of these states would either face a tax increase that most can’t afford or the states would have to sell off these lands to the highest bidder. Or, worst yet, the local governments will take Federal grants to offset the cost.
The cost of fire prevention and control alone would put a major burden on these state as pointed out in a pdf by westernpriorities.org. Wildfire suppression in these states cost US taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Ranchers would have to pay higher grazing fees in most of these states if they were even allowed to continue using the land. State agencies would be forced to grow to compensate for the federal agencies that were vacating.
States could also follow the Economic Development route and Industrial Parks could pop up everywhere. And guess who gets to pay for those? Taxpayers. The idea of making the area attractive to potential industries. These parks can sit idle for years. Or the state promises the industries it will provide training of the local population for their needs and offer all types of tax incentives. And once the incentives run out so do the industries.
If forced to sell the land the most likely buyers would be those who can afford vast amounts of acreage, namely multi-nationals and UN based environmental groups like the WWF. The same people who want to use Agenda 21 to take the property in the first place.
If the local counties are told they must keep up the property in their areas, well the best funding is usually Federal grants, generally brought to you by your local COG, with many strings attached. The land has greater Federal restrictions, usually involving some public/private partnership due to the fact these federal grants usually stipulate the fed will cover only part of the cost and the state must supply the rest. The only other option would again be higher taxes. Then there are the “buffer zones”, privately owned land next to the public land where land use is restricted because of its effect on the public land it abuts, thereby reducing the value of the private land but not the property taxes. Again you have Agenda 21 in play. I have covered some of these grants in an earlier article.
Take a look at this article that appeared on the copblock.org website. Turning Federal lands over to states will bring in more regulations, not less. There are many of these horror stories all over the web.
And who benefits? Take another look at the private companies aligned with ALEC.
So much for the separation of powers in Lee Bright’s mind. He thinks Congress should be able to control two branches, both the legislative and the judiciary.
I don’t want to choose how other people live their lives and don’t want them pushing their choices on me. Lee Bright, however, wants to tell you how to live your life and feels he should be able to impeach any Supreme Court jurist who doesn’t agree with him. I never knew it was the role of The Supreme Court to decide the morality of a person’s lifestyle. I just thought it was their job to interpret law.
“Congress ought to stand up and do its job and impeach one of these federal judges. And I think when you do that, being a federal judge is a pretty good gig, and I think if you’ll impeach just one, the rest of them will do the right thing. And they’ll do it out of necessity, because self-preservation is an instinct that so many folks have.” Lee Bright at a TEA Party Express meeting in Utah.
Is Sen. Bright saying the Supreme Court needs to be the judge of morality? Whose morality? Even Christ forbade such a judgement. “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Matthew 7:1-2
So, where does all this legislating morality come from? According to his bio he was on the Board of Directors of Palmetto Family Council, an offshoot of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. In Dobson’s book, Dare to discipline, “he places a needed emphasis on discipline by structure,” but he draws from a Skinnerian ideology; i.e., “according to Dobson, a child is to be ‘trained’ as one would train his dog …The presupposition (not stated, but underlying the book) is that man is but another animal,” Excerpted from The Big Umbrella by Jay Adams, pp. 130-131.
I guess this explains also why Bright is a fan of Common Core. School Choice is the back door for common core to infiltrate all education, including private and home schooling. According to Charlotte Iserbyte, “Communist Core is NOT the issue. Those fighting Communist Core better wake up and realize that even if they kill Communist Core, if they do NOT oppose ALL forms of tax-supported School Choice and Charter Schools, they will wake up one day and find that their children in their favorite tax-supported choice private school are required by federal law (regulations) to take the Communist Core assessment (test) they thought they had killed! Why? Because when an education entity (private or public) accepts one penny of federal money it MUST adhere to federal regulations regarding curriculum, testing, hiring, etc., etc. And that is as it should be.”
School Choice is part of Agenda 21. Which begs the question, “Why would Bright sponsor anti-Agenda 21 legislation when he is also sponsoring UN Agendas?” Is it there to keep you from noticing what he is really working for?
Noted by me in a previous article was his attempt to make the office of State Superintendent of Education an appointed office and remove the people’s right to elect same. He has introduced bills, S 0197 & S 0200, that takes the choice of Administrative Law court judges, Supreme Court justices, Appeals court judges and Circuit Court judges out of the hands of the people and make them appointed offices. Looks like an attempt to remove anyone who doesn’t agree with Bright’s agenda or the agenda of his handlers.
I think it is a question that deserves an answer, Is he just that naïve or is he really working toward implementing Agenda 21 while at the same time decrying it?
I guess the best replacement for Lindsey Graham should be a guy who wants more government intrusion in your life. A quick look at his site is all it takes to see how much he supports bigger government intrusion into the lives of Americans.
Reading from his site “There are many alternatives that have proven to be successful such as charter schools, real school choice that supports private schools and home-schooling as well as programs where private and public schools work together.
South Carolina needs to attract the type of businesses that will strengthen the state’s economy and in turn improve communities. This type of economic goal requires nothing short of a school system that produces a competitive workforce.”
Translation, Bright is for government control of private and home schooling as well as public schools. He has tried to introduce legislation (S 0279) to promote tax credits for private schools. Sounds good until you realize a tax credit is the same as receiving money from the government which the Supreme Court has said gives the government control. This would open the door for Common Core in ALL education.
But what is more interesting was his attempt to make the office of State Superintendent of Education an appointed office and remove the people’s right to elect same. That seems to be another goal of Senator Bright, to make several elected offices appointed positions, mainly judges. He has introduced bills, S 0197 & S 0200, that takes the choice of Administrative Law court judges, Supreme Court justices, Appeals court judges and Circuit Court judges out of the hands of the people and make them appointed offices. How better to remove power from the people.
In his bio Bright is listed as a member of the Board of Director for Palmetto Family Council, an offshoot of James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, a front group for Federal take over of private education. In an article “Behind The Conservative Curtain” (See link below) we read,
Charter Schools: Same Old Goals 2000
Charter Schools, and Choice (vouchers & tuition tax credits) have been incorporated into the GOALS 2000 legislation:
Public Law 103-227GOALS 2000: Educate America Act  SEC. 308 State Use of [GOALS 2000] Funding-(b) Each state that receives an allotment under this title shall(2) use the remainder of the assistance…to implement the State improvement plan, [for activities] such as …(I) promoting… public charter schools and other mechanisms for increasing choice among public schools…(J) supporting activities [where] schools contract with private management organizations to reform a school.
It is important to note that the above sub-section (J) suggests a plan to move public schools under “private management.”
In my article “South Carolina’s Fed Gun Grab Enabling Bill…S 115 “Constitutional Carry” Act.” I have shown how Bright has tried to introduce legislation that would enable Federal agents, as well as officers from other states, free range in SC. He has no problem with pro-gun legislation because he wants to enable the feds to take your guns.
Then there was S 0185 which would put everyone on the government dole. Known as the “Fair Tax” we are seeing Cloward/Piven rear it’s ugly head. Forget the welfare rolls, let’s get everyone on board with the tax rolls.
Links for better understanding of what is being supported by Lee Bright:
When I wrote this article I used a link on Bright’s website that
linked to the SC Legislation site to see what bills he sponsored. That link, http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sponsorsearch.php ,
has since disappeared. Does he have something to hide? I also discovered that
the Mace Group designed his
Update: I have recently discovered, according to his statement of economic interest with the SC State Ethics Commission, that Bright attended an ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) conference and received travel expenses from Mulikin Law Firm, the state corporate co-chair of ALEC in SC. For those unaware, ALEC is a non-profit where legislators and corporations come together to write model legislation for the legislators to come home and introduce. I also learned ALEC has model legislation in support of TTIP & TTP. Included in these treaties is the investor-to-state dispute settlement (ITSDS). This is where corporations in a state can call for arbitration if any laws are passed that they believe will cost them future revenue. This gets into the billions of dollars.
Well, Bright has introduced S 82 (120th Congress) which lowers the corporate tax base in an attempt to get companies to come to SC, economic developement if you will, which sounds great except for the looming ITSDS that ALEC is pushing. It also begs the question, where does the missing revenue for the state come from? What if no new business comes to town? Why not rid the homeowners of the burden of keeping up infrastructure that sits empty or puts the real strain on infrastructure if occupied? Will these companies or their new employees pay your property taxes if you can’t? Why not look out for all the people of the state, the job he is supposed to do, instead of a select few? And who gets to pick up the tab if the state loses arbitration?
Sorry, but if it walks like a duck , quacks like a duck and takes money from Bank of America like a duck….
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
“…the right of the people…”. Yeah, that is what it says, “the people”. Not the State, not the military, not the police and not even the U.S. Government. Nope, this right is reserved for “the people”. “WE THE PEOPLE…”. “…of, for and by the people.”.
“…to keep …”. Hold or retain in one’s possession. Not to request to keep, pay a fine or a fee or tax to keep, or fill out the right forms, but simply “to keep”.
“..and bear…”. To carry or equip oneself with. Not lock up or store away. Or contract away your right for a piece of paper from the state that says you can bear.
“…Arms…”. Anything one might use in ones defense. Guns, knives, swords, cannons, thermonuclear warheads. Or rocks.
“…shall not be infringed.”. Any law that would in any way deter anyone from owning any “arm” for any reason is a blatant violation of this right. There can exist NO law that would require you to register your arms. NO law that requires a fee or tax for your arms. NO law whatsoever that would prohibit any citizen of the U.S. from owning and carrying in whatever manner they chose the arm of their choice out of fear of reprisal.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”. I have seen this used to say that the 2nd Amendment is for Militias. But it doesn’t say anyone who does chose to exercise their right to “keep and bear” has to join the Militia, just that one is necessary for a free state. It allows an armed populace that can chose to fight to defend their freedom but never makes it mandatory. It is never a stipulation but a statement to the fact that an armed people are more ready to defend the state than an unarmed one.
it is hard when you know what is wrong and need to show people but they choose not to listen. I wish so hard that for just one minute I could get them to see. a small voice on a vast globe denouncing the lie that the world is. the indoctrination is so strong that even those who do see refuse to see it all. feeling alone and trapped. no longer knowing what to do. no longer knowing what to say. a wee small voice fading…
is it enough to say, “I tried.”?
i have become a tear in the rain.
“Livability means being able to take your kids to school, go to work, see a doctor, drop by the grocery or Post Office, go out to dinner and a movie, and play with your kids at the park – all without having to get in your car” – Ray LaHood.
This statement appears on the front page of the US Department of Transportation’s DOT Livability website. The site further goes on to say,
“U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has identified livability as a key priority for transportation. The Secretary’s vision is “transportation policies that focus on people and communities who use the transportation system.” A major way DOT helps communities pursue these aims is by issuing grants to eligible recipients for planning, vehicle purchases, facility construction, operations, and other purposes. DOT administers this financial assistance according to authorization, SAFETEA-LU [Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act], which was signed into law in August 2005. There are a large number of programs and grants within the Department of Transportation that support projects that enhance or relate to livability.”
Here we have the Federal Government providing the funding for Agenda 21 written into Federal law. A list of these programs can be found at the DOT Livability site.
The term “livability” is interchangeable with the term “sustainability”. This can be seen on the page titled “Livability 101” where we find the term “Partnership for Sustainable Communities”. This particular article goes on to point out
“…in June 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency joined together to form the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, an unprecedented agreement to coordinate federal housing, transportation and environmental investments, protect public health and the environment, promote equitable development, and help address the challenges of climate change. The three agencies are working together more closely than ever before to meet President Obama’s challenge to coordinate federal policies, programs, and resources to help urban, suburban, and rural areas and regions build more sustainable communities and make those communities the leading style of development in the United States. The agencies are working together to identify opportunities to build more sustainable communities and to remove policy or other barriers that have kept Americans from doing so.”
Moving on we go to the DOT Federal Transit Administration website. Here we are introduced to Transit-Oriented Development where Public-Private partnerships can be found. (For some interesting reading check out the list of the council members of the National Council of Public-Private Partnerships.)A PPP is just another way for multinational corporations to get control of public held infrastructure. This is private held corporations getting their hands on your tax dollars. One way this works against the public is in these corporations being offered incentives to come into a community. These same incentives are rarely, if ever, offered to small independent businesses. The public is paying all the taxes and the multinationals are reaping the rewards.
We find more tax dollars going in grants at the Federal governments Sustainable Communities website where the DOT, EPA and HUD have formed a partnership. And even FEMA gets on board with the PPP agenda.
The US Dept. of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation has the WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow) program. In a pdf entitled “DOI WaterSMART Strategic Implementation Plan” we read,
“Collaborative partnerships that go beyond political and institutional jurisdictions must be developed to ensure that the Nation’s limited water resources are used efficiently…
WaterSMART will work with states, tribes, local governments and non-governmental organizations…”
And there are grants to fund this as well as the rewilding projects with The US Fish and Wildlife Service. Releasing wild animals into areas with human populations like the Eastern Cougar whose site has a link to The Cougar Rewilding Foundation whose stated goal is to
“ Promote recovery of breeding populations of cougars through natural recolonization and mandated restorations to the central, southeastern and eastern United States…Promote full legal protection of all cougars living wild east of the Rockies, regardless of origin.”
and gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. There is a blatant disregard for the lives of people or live stock with these programs.
A quick trip to the FEMA.gov website brings up a program called FEMA 365. This is tied into rebuilding after a natural disaster. Subtitled “Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future” with “FEDERAL RESOURSES for technical assistance and FUNDING.” They have sustainable community workshops for disaster areas. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that states use FEMA funding to “…finalize interim requirements for the acquisition of property for open space with mitigation funds…”
And even ICLEI receives Federal funding as shown in an audit report from 2007 in which they received $1,774,346. ICLEI (Intrnational Council for Local Environmental Incentives) receives membership and consultation fees from local governments as well. It is an International entity and should not receive our Federal dollars.
Under the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200, even the CDC becomes involved with the Community Transformation Grants Program. “These awards are distributed among state and local government agencies, tribes and territories, and state and local non-profit organizations …” Another $103 million for Agenda 21.
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is the non-profit NGO that brings LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program whose membership list includes a who’s who of Governmental agencies. Just go to Membership category and choose Federal Government and under Country choose USA. There is also a list of Public policies adopting or referencing LEED. In order to obtain LEED certification administrative fees have to be paid. The EPA’s LABs21 is based on the LEED system. It consists of public and private partners.
From Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of education we get the following,
“Reducing disease, developing renewable sources of energy, curbing pollution, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are no longer challenges that stop at our borders. America simply cannot meet any of these challenges without collaborating with other countries. And those partnerships will require U.S. students to develop better critical thinking, a deeper understanding of science and sustainability, and a greater awareness of ecosystems and energy efficiency.”
And if you wish to help the U.N. Steal U.S. Property through Agenda 21 and the environmental scare the EPA has a grant for you. Want to become a citizen scientist? You can receive between $12,500 and $25,000. There’s the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program with 100’s of projects and grants divided equally over the 10 U.S. Regions ranging from $10,000 to $25,000.
Of course the EPA is also interested in Wetlands, which by their definition could mean any land that ever gets wet. “Wetlands are areas where water covers the soil, or is present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or forvarying periods of time during the year, including during the growing season.” And there are grants for the wetlands too. With the safe Drinking water Act we find that they are not only going to protect us from man-made contaminates but “naturally occurring” ones too. At a whim they could decide any natural occurring element is a contaminate and prohibit the use of any ground water anywhere. There is the 5 Star restoration program which
“…brings together students, conservation corps, other youth groups, citizen groups, corporations, landowners and government agencies to provide environmental education and training through projects that restore wetlands and streams. The program provides challenge grants, technical support and opportunities for information exchange to enable community-based restoration projects. Funding levels are modest, from $5,000 to $20,000, with $10,000 as the average amount awarded per project. However, when combined with the contributions of partners, projects that make a meaningful contribution to communities become possible. At the completion of Five Star projects, each partnership will have experience and a demonstrated record of accomplishment, and will be well-positioned to take on other projects. Aggregating over time and space, these grassroots efforts will make a significant contribution to our environmental landscape and to the understanding of the importance of healthy wetlands and streams in our communities.”
The department of Interior through the national Park Service has brought us the National heritage Corridors. Here in S.C. Alone the area covers 17 counties. The feasibility studies omit the catch phrases of Agenda 21 when proposed to the public but are used throughout other publications. Congress creates these heritage ares and the Park Service provides the funding. Again we have PPP’s with NGO’s and private corporations being involved.
There is a new bill, HR 4099, The National Heritage Act of 2012 being put before congress which states
“Sec 2 (a) (3) Local initiatives based on community and regional visions, involving public/private partnerships, are critical to conserving, enhancing, and interpreting natural, historic, scenic, and cultural resources related to our American heritage. These initiatives should be encouraged and supported by the Federal Government with the concurrence of the relevant Federal land management agencies and tribal governments by providing financial and technical assistance.”
The first heritage area was signed into Law in 1984 by then President Ronald Reagan. This was the first of 49 NHAs.
One could spend days, if not years, looking into all the programs, legislation and Executive orders that are in place to bring Agenda 21 about. I was told by my congressman and others that we need to stop this at the local level, which to a point is true, and that all they could do in Washington was defund it. The more I looked into it the more I found references in almost all, if not all, bills that pass through congress. It appears Washington has no intention of defunding it but appears they are working night and day to fund it and regulate us into it through all Federal agencies. Most of the local funding comes through Federal funding and PPPs. And even the most benign legislation can become the worst cancer on our rights.
Note. I had to update one of the links (National Council of Public-Private Partnerships.) because it seems when they know you have linked to them they move the offending pages. Please contact me or comment if any links do not work and I will do my best to fix them.