It was probably three years ago when I first heard of Agenda 21. Friends in New Mexico advised me that the Santa Fe County Commissioners were considering adopting provisions of a non-binding United Nations treaty that promoted a new catch-all term known as "sustainable development." After attending a public presentation on the implications of Agenda 21 for Santa Fe County, my interest was piqued, and I was startled by what a closer look at Agenda 21 revealed.
The threat of Agenda 21 comes not from the possibility of direct intervention of the United Nations in the affairs of the United States, but instead from the efforts of misguided county and city officials seeking to adopt the provisions of the treaty in their various locales.
Under the guise of environmentalism, Agenda 21's goals are to fight poverty, protect bio-diversity and improve public health. But a closer look reveals that these goals are to be achieved through restricting private property, limiting the ownership of private homes and private automobiles, and cutting back on private ranch lands and farms. An especially deplorable goal is the scaling down of private living space to what one would expect to find in the Third World.
At the same time, advancing Agenda 21 goals would severely limit human access to water, electricity and transportation; and, in meeting the overall goal of sustainability, Americans would lose access to their open spaces and wild rivers.
Since Americans tend to focus on political developments coming out of Washington, relatively little vigilance is given to county courthouses and city halls. In recognition of this, two state legislatures, in Missouri and Alabama, have passed legislation that would make any action against private property coming out of Agenda 21 illegal in their states. As public awareness of Agenda 21 grows, it is expected that additional states will follow suit.
On June 9, 2011, in pursuit of his self-proclaimed mission of growing the government while pursuing a radical environmental agenda, President Obama signed Executive Order 13575, which established the White House Rural Council. According to the order, the executive branch of government will "coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, healthcare providers, telecommunications providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America." In effect, the government now has in place the means to implement a total takeover of rural America.
Alarming is the fact that numerous personalities from executive departments with histories of supporting Agenda 21 will be in charge of administering the WHRC. Furthermore, the International Council for Local Environmental Issues (ICLEI) was consulted throughout the drafting of the vast amounts of verbiage contained in Executive Order 13575.
The ICLEI is an organization composed of local and county governmental units moving toward adoption of Agenda 21's agenda. In South Texas, there are two municipalities that are members of the ICLEI, Edinburg and South Padre Island. Hopefully, citizens of those communities will voice their opposition to the support their elected officials give to the organization.
Of those nations that might wish to follow the lead of the United Nations and Agenda 21, the United States has the most to lose. Any effort to scale back in conformity to Agenda 21 standards will essentially entail the redistribution of wealth on a massive, worldwide scale. For patriotic Americans, it is clear that Agenda 21 is not in the best interests of the United States. We simply cannot abide this attempt bring us into conformity with the nefarious goals of those who would wish to see the demise of the American Republic.
No comments:
Post a Comment