Tag Archives: Agenda 21

You have a right to Life, Liberty and whatever Lee Bright thinks is moral?

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?


Federal Agencies; The Real Funding Behind Agenda 21

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.


Is the EPA Implementing Agenda 21 via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America ?

Welcome to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.(SPP) According to the Congressional Research Service, in a pdf dated May 27, 2009, the SPP is a trilateral initiative that was launched in March 2005 to increase cooperation and information sharing for the purpose of increasing and enhancing security and prosperity in the United States, Canada and Mexico. It is not a signed agreement or treaty and has no legally binding commitments or obligations. This initiative was born in Waco, Texas when an agreement was reached by George W. Bush (U.S.), Paul Martin (Canada) and Vicente Fox (Mexico).

Created through the SPP was the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) which was made up of private sector representatives from North American Corporations. (Public/ Private partnerships)

According to Wikipedia the partnership was no longer continuing.

“In August 2009, the SPP website was updated to say: “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is no longer an active initiative. There will not be any updates to this site. Subsequent to this the website link does not connect and the cache website links do not work.”

However, on February 4, 2011 Barak Obama and Stephen Harper announced a new partnership. Is Agenda 21 being implemented through this new partnership?

Well, according to the EPA’s own website I would say it is. In the article from the site “Commission for Environmental Cooperation Announces Funding to Address Environmental Problems in North Americawe find the following:

Eighteen projects were chosen from 500 proposals received last year as part of a new initiative announced at the CEC Council’s meeting held in Montreal. The successful projects span the eco-regions of North America and support environmental action at the community level from the sub-arctic tundra, to the grasslands of the Great Plains, to the tropical forests of Mexico. “

The CEC (North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation) was created in 1994. It’s stated goal is:

the CEC has advanced our understanding of trade-environment linkages; successfully promoted citizen engagement and increased government accountability regarding enforcement; achieved substantial results on key North American issues such as chemicals management and the conservation of North American biodiversity; and built substantial environmental capacities, particularly in Mexico, but also in the United States and Canada.”

We have the Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) that consists of 15 members, 5 private citizens from each country, that advises the council. Their vision statement reads like an Agenda 21 handbook. And the member bios read like a who’s who of environmentalism.
This is a list of who received these grants from the
North American Partnership for Environmental Community Action.

One project,Carbon Market Links Between California and Mexico – La Sierra Cojolita Model REDD Project in Chiapas, states the following goals:

Goals:

 1. Develop reliable carbon credits to the world’s most rigorous forest carbon standard, the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS);

2. Reduce land use change by 15–30% by intensifying agricultural production and marking clear boundaries for reserve and embedded protected areas;

3. Strengthen local organizations and the engagement of local communities regarding land use practices and carbon credit exchange; and

4. Develop REDD learning networks for indigenous communities and local NGOs

You can go to NASCO’s website and see what is planned for North America under the SPP.

“Since 1994, North America’s Corridor Coalition members have been leaders at the forefront of uniting public and private…and environmental issues.”

The NAIPN, North American Inland Port Network, has determined six primary areas of focus:

1. Green practices in Inland Ports

2. Environmentally sustainable industrial growth

3. Trends in trade flows in North America

4. International trade strategies of Canada, U.S., and Mexico

5. Major transportation infrastructure projects in North America

6. Relevance of FTZ’s in today’s liberalized trade environment

And again the EPA becomes involved with the SmartWay program by funding competitive grants and providing low interest loans. It is all there, public private partnerships and sustainability.

“As an established public-private, market-based partnership, SmartWay has proven to be a good template for freight sustainability programs in other countries.”

“To help these and other countries address their concerns about energy security, economic vitality and climate change, SmartWay works with international stakeholders to help countries design, build and implement their own freight sustainability programs.”

It doesn’t matter if it was Bush or Obama we still have this North American Union (NAU) being implemented through regulations and NGOs thereby bypassing most congressional oversight. Why are our congressional members allowing this to happen? Why are WE letting them? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 


%d bloggers like this: