The Environmental Agency is planning to double its budget to $21 billion and expand its workforce of 18,000 to 230,000 regulators over the next four years.
The Clean Air Act states that any stationary source that emits as little as 100 tons of pollutants per year must get permits from the EPA and state agencies. A typical restaurant or apartment house sends out 100 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). Currently about 14,000 entities have to get permits. But by regulating CO2 through the Clean Air Act, the number of businesses requiring EPA permits will soar to more than 6 million.
This potential explosion of regulators all began with a Supreme Court decision in a landmark environmental case decided in April 2007. The court’s ruling was an historic turning point in the environment of fright over global warming. The environmentalists almost went gaga over the court ruling. In a 5-4 strange decision the court said that carbon dioxide—the air every human and animal exhales—is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA had the power to regulate CO2 emissions from vehicles. The case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, was a defeat for the Bush Administration.
A key question in the case was: Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?
The Court remanded the case to EPA, requiring the agency to review the contention that it had discretion in regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The Court found the current rationale for not regulating to be inadequate and required the agency to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation.
During the Bush Administration, the EPA had argued that it had no authority to regulate so-called “tailpipe emissions” of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that supposedly contribute to global warming, because they are “non-point” emission sources. They are not fixed geographically, unlike coal-fired power plants that are “point” sources and closely regulated. Vehicles account for about 20 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, while power plants account for about 40 percent.
The case put three questions before the court:
Do states have the right to sue the EPA to challenge its decision?
Does the Clean Air Act give EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases?
Does EPA have the discretion not to regulate those emissions?
The court answered yes to the first two questions. On the third question, the court stopped short of requiring the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, the court ordered the agency to re-evaluate its position that it has no obligation to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases and is free to exercise its discretion to leave the problem unaddressed.
The majority, led by Justice John Paul Stevens, said the EPA had offered a “laundry list” of reasons for failing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and told the agency that its rationale must be grounded in the Clean Air Act if it wants to continue arguing that it should not be required to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
“EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Stevens said in the majority opinion. Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy.
Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three other conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—dissented in the decision.
While hailing the Supreme Court decision as a heart-throbbing victory in the fight to reduce global warming, environmentalists also noted that Congress would have to take up where the court left off.
“It’s important to remember the Court did not rule EPA has to take action on climate change; that’s why this is ultimately up to Congress. The Court did all it can, but if we’re really going to fix climate change, Congress has to pass a cap on carbon pollution, and soon,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund.
In a Sept 28 article Steven F. Hayward, the F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and an expert on the Clean Air Act, wrote that “Congress never intended this and even said so” during floor debate over 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Senate Environmental Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), however, took up the environmentalists’ cause as if wielding a cattle prod in her anxiety to make new rules.
Hayward noted in his article that the delegation of power to administrative agencies is “sorely abused.” He cited ObamaCare as an example. This delegation of law-making power, can give any decision “the force of law.”
The EPA itself says the proposed greenhouse gas rules may be “absurd” and “impossible to administer” by its self-imposed deadline of 2016. EPA is being challenged in court by petitioners who maintain that such a decision should be left to Congress. The Coalition for Responsible Regulation, a trade group, is suing the EPA.
EPA admitted its regulatory efforts aren’t likely to succeed. But it decided, with political drive, to move ahead anyway. “Hiring the 230,000 full-time employees necessary to produce the 1.4 billion work hours required to” increase the “permitting functions would result in an increase in Title V administration costs of $21 billion per year,” EPA wrote in a court brief.
The Institute for Energy Research, a non-profit research group founded in 1989, warned EPA in 2009 that if the agency went forward, the Clean Air Act would require the agency to regulate large sources of carbon dioxide emissions, but also 260,000 office buildings, 150,000 warehouses, 100,000 schools, 92,000 health-care facilities, 58,000 food service buildings, 37,000 churches, 26,000 place of public assembly and 17,000 farms. It said that Congress never intended such regulations under the Clean Air Act.
“With Private investment stalled and unemployment unacceptably high, the American economy needs regulatory certainty and lower energy prices, not even more constraints and hurdles placed on job creators,” the Institute for Energy Research said in plain English that even uncaring Obama’s EPA should be able to understand.
by Tom DeWeese September 28, 2011 NewsWithViews.com
Plantation, Florida has just voted to NOT renew its ICLEI contract. That’s the eighth community in eight months to take such action. Plantation joins the growing list that includes Carroll County, MD; Amador County, CA; Edmond, OK; Las Cruces, NM; Spartanburg, SC and Albemarle, VA.
This is wonderful, positive news, indicating that more and more elected officials are starting to hear our arguments against this wrenching transformation of our country. For the first time I’m getting calls and letters from elected officials asking for more information. I am getting invitations to appear on new radio shows that have never aired this issue before. In June, I was contacted by the Glenn Beck show as he prepared an entire program on Agenda 21. He even linked APC information to his blog. I’ve now been contacted by one leading presidential candidate, along with a possible major donor who is considering helping us fund the fight. In addition to all of that, daily I hear from an ever growing list of activists working in their communities to stop Agenda 21. A revolution is certainly under way across the country.
However, as we are gaining success, we are also beginning to face stiffer resistance from the proponents of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. More than ever we are hearing their charges of “conspiracy theories,” “fringe nuts,” and “extremism.” It’s to be expected. We are openly challenging them and they are feeling the heat. That means, as we move forward, it’s vitally important that anti-Agenda 21 activist be very careful with how they approach local government to express their opposition.
I’m finding that there is a bit of a misconception in regard to one of the main proponents of Agenda 21, and it is hurting our ability to make progress in the fight. It is vitally important that we all get the following facts right when launching our attacks against ICLEI. Please read carefully. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) has been a main target by the anti-Agenda 21 forces. We targeted ICLEI because it has a clear United Nations connection, making it easier for us to make our case to elected officials about the UN connection to Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development policy. However, some have misunderstood the ICLEI role and have misrepresented who it is and what it does. The result, in some cases, is that our legitimate arguments have been be ignored and even laughed at.
Let me try to set the record straight and provide some ideas on how to deal with the ICLEI situation. First, the following facts are certainly true and need to be understood by all anti-Agenda 21 activists: ICLEI is a UN NGO organization that helped write Agenda 21 for the 1992 Earth Summit and then set, as its mission, to bring Agenda 21 policy to every city in the world. It does this by meeting with local officials, signing contracts with them to set standards for energy and water use, building and development codes, farming policy, etc. It brings in training for city hall staff; soft ware to manage the programs; guidelines for legislation; networking with other communities, other NGO and Stakeholder groups and other agencies of state and federal government. They reach out to other public officials in the communities, including newspaper editors, school superintendents, local college presidents, and chamber of commerce leaders – all designed to assure everyone who helps make decisions and policy in the community are on board. And of course, ICLEI leads the officials to the most important ingredient to impose Agenda 21 – money – grant money that comes with specific strings to guarantee that Agenda 21 is enforced.
That grant money is like heroin in the veins. Once there, the addiction and dependency is in force. Once ICLEI has done its job, the community is hooked, and an entirely new attitude and community atmosphere of top-down control is enforced by the government. ICLEI’s influence basically creates an entirely new culture in the community where it becomes natural and basically unquestioned to expect local government to be involved in every aspect of your property, job, family and your whole life.
Now, that’s what ICLEI does and that’s why we targeted it and why it is so dangerous. However, the manner in which we expose and oppose ICLEI is very important and I have heard some enthusiastic activist go about it in a damaging and ineffective way. First, ICLEI is NOT the United Nations, as I have heard some charge before city councils. It is a private organization with its own agenda – of course it is promoting Agenda 21. But to say the city council is paying dues to the UN is just not accurate.
Another misconception is that ICLEI IS Agenda 21 and if the community stops paying dues and ends their contract with ICLEI the battle is over. I am receiving messages from people who are dismayed to learn their community is still moving forward with Sustainable Development programs even after they ended the contract with ICLEI. The fact is, ending the contract with ICLEI is just the first punch. From there you must be active in an effort to undo any programs ICLEI helped put in place. That includes changing the very culture of City Hall and its ICLEI-trained staff. It means an active campaign to dismantle non-elected boards and councils that are the prime source for enforcement of policy. It means removing your community from regional government councils. And it probably means electing new officials who oppose the Agenda 21 policy and have the ability and courage to stand up to an assault by federal and state agencies who will not be happy that you are rejecting their agenda. And through all of that you will have to be prepared to counter the attacks from the entrenched NGOs and the lackeys down at the local paper. Withdrawal from the drug of Agenda 21 can be deadly.
Finally, I believe there is a more effective way to attack Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development polices in your community, at least initially. You may be fired up about the UN, but others are not. As I wrote a few months ago in my article “How to Fight Back Against Sustainable Development,” rather than rushing into city hall and immediately start accusing them of implementing a UN program, take some time to research the policy being proposed or implemented. Determine the effect it will have on the community or your property. Who else will be affected and how? These are the victims of the policy and the most likely to support you efforts to stop it. In that way, you will recruit new people to the cause. You will find it much more effective than sounding like a rabid bear growling about the UN.
For example, smart meters or energy audits affect everyone in town. What is the problem: government is dictating your energy use that you are paying for. It is a violation of your right to choose how much energy you are willing to buy. It denies you the right to determine how warm or cool your house will be. It denies you the choice of taking a hot shower or not. It even affects your health if you can’t get warm enough – or if you are denied access to hot water, allowing germs to grow.
I believe such an argument will gain more support for your cause across the city and across party and philosophical lines than rushing to bring up the UN? Yes, the policy certainly did originate in the bowels of the UN. But why are we opposed to it – because of what it does to us. And that is the place to start to oppose it. As people come to your side, if they want to know more, then will be the time to teach them the rest of the story about Agenda 21 and its UN origins.
So, focus on the victims and the impact the policy will have on the well being of the community and you. Question how they intend to enforce the policy (such as having government agents come into your home). Make your officials explain that. They won’t want to. This will show the heavy hand of control required to make the policy work. Put the officials on the defensive over their enforcement efforts and watch them retreat as it’s exposed.
The same approach can be used effectively in dealing with plans to put meters on private wells, or in dealing with plans for historic preservation schemes that suddenly disallow private property owners to change or improve anything on their house because “Robert E. Lee didn’t see that change.” (You have to live in Virginia to understand that reference.)
Ask your County Commissioners this question: “name one thing I can do on my property without your permission.” To answer that question honestly will force them to admit that under these policies there is no private property. The important message here is to keep your fight local to stop their global agenda.
Agenda 21 is a vast, complicated structure. The organizations promoting it number in the thousands and include Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), public policy groups, federal state and local agencies, self-proclaimed “stakeholders,” Congress, the White House, 50 state houses, and your local officials. You can’t fight them all individually. Instead, fight the policy and watch them come out of the woodwork to challenge you. By attacking the policy you have made them defend it and you will have shaped the debate. Then we’ll see who is really wearing the tin foil hats!
Have you recently heard your city leaders talking about a “sustainability plan” for your community, or mentioning something called “Smart Growth”? Take a minute to do a quick experiment. Open a browser window on your computer and search using the following three word phrase: “Carrollton Sustainability Plan”. Chances are you will see page after page, each mentioning multi-million dollar grants and the words “green” and “sustainable”. Now try a second search. This time remove the word “Carrollton”, and search on the two word phrase, “Sustainability Plan”.
Surprised at the results?
To learn more and to find out how to resist this UN Agenda, please join this Webinar with John Marler on Wednesday, September 28th at 7:00 PM (CST). The webinar is estimated to run until 9:00p.m. (CST)
John’s Presentation Will Include:
Background
Key Events of Agenda 21
The Program
ICLEI – Int’l Council for Local Environmental Initiatives
Education- Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
Smart Meters – Technocracy invading our Homes
Competing Philosophies
What We Can Do
Q&A
WEBINAR INSTRUCTIONS:
Please sign in 15 minutes before the webinar. It is a 2 step process: 1. Log into FreeScreenSharing – to see John’s presentation – 1st go to www.freescreensharing.com. 2nd You will see 3 boxes: Get Started/Host a Meeting / Join a Meeting. In the Pink Join a Meeting box please fill in: Name: Your name – first or first and last (your choice) – others will see your name Email: type in your real email address Meeting ID: 409212854 Then click “Join Meeting”
An Installer message will appear on your screen – Click “RUN” when the popup window appears to run the FreeScreenSharing software. Next, a downloading popup window will appear – should only take 30 seconds to load – (depending on your computer speed)
Once complete you will see the Meeting room – You will see a list of participants on the left (you will not see your own name but everyone else in the room). There is a chat window where you can type a message.
2. Log into Free- Conference call – for Audio of this meeting Dial 559-546-1200 prompt will ask for your Meeting ID enter: 409212584# (make sure you hit the #) (sometimes it will ask you for your name – if requested just state your name so others can hear who is entering the call)
You will then join the Conference call and be able to hear the audio for this Webinar.
Please keep phone line clear for Presenter. If you have a question type it into chat box on left. Please note that unless presenter is watching the chat box – your question may go unanswered – just remember to ask it again during Q&A.
United Nations Agenda 21 Tenements in Eastern Europe
As we made our way through the southeastern and central Romania, the common theme of high- rise tenements with shops on the first floor emerged. Some were left from Ceausescu’s communist era; some were built after the 1989 revolution with specifications and money from EU. I could tell the difference between Ceausescu’s tenements and the newer ones; the older tenements were not as tall and were more dilapidated. Many people purchased these tiny apartments and remodeled them on the inside, while waiting for non-existent government help to fix the exterior, just like the communist nanny state used to do. The newer tenements were much taller and in better exterior condition.
My aunt’s apartment was in such a dilapidated tenement, however, every apartment was connected to a brand-new smart meter, all encased together in a shadow box. When I inquired, I was told that the funds for the smart meters came from the European Union.
Romania was allowed to join the EU on January 1, 2007. Since then, the government has engaged in a policy of adhering to the rules and regulations established by the EU, including Agenda 21 mandates.
The corruption of politicians is endemic among the 12 major parties. People and their votes are bought into compliance by tokens of money and food given around religious holidays. PSD, the Social Democrat Party was giving food packages on the Day of the Holy Cross, one of the orthodox holidays, which falls in September.
Dozens of electrical wires were intertwined and hanging quite low and haphazardly in front of these buildings where shops, stores, boutiques, and businesses were housed on the ground floor.
It was evident everywhere in my hometown that people were discouraged from driving their cars. By now, most people owned a car, depending on their financial means. The asphalt was destroyed in order to lay down tracks for the many trolleys, trams, and extended buses running on rails. It was quite difficult and uncomfortable to drive on most streets. I would venture to say that the damaged cars and their repair bills resulting from the rail-tracked roads were quite high.
The mayor’s office made insufficient attempts to provide parking garages for the explosion of car ownership, so people parked their cars wherever they wished or could, including most sidewalks.
Some tenements had A/C window units, some had thermo pane windows as prescribed by EU, and others had clothes hanging out to dry, a sign that electricity and modern conveniences were still quite expensive.
When I drove by the old tenement where we used to live on the fifth floor, I was amazed that it was still standing. The cracks from the 1977 earthquake had been repaired and nothing else. I photographed our former apartment as my husband was remarking how tiny it was. I was shocked how little things changed in 33 years since I last lived in it.
The town of Brasov in central Romania, with a more progressive populace, was offering a “green revolution” free bike sharing program downtown where a large area was blocked off to traffic and many streets were one-way, encouraging drivers to park as far away from the center of town as possible.
“I love Velo,” the free bike sharing program was sponsored by the Green Revolution, Inc. from Connecticut and Raiffeisen Bank and started in Bucuresti on May 9, 2011. If there is any doubt about the connection to Agenda 21, the mission says it all, “At the Green Revolution, our mission is to involve people in the process of creating clean renewable energy from everyday, human activity that will result in sustainable behavior change and lower energy costs.”
A co-operative bank based and founded in Austria and operating throughout central and Eastern Europe, Raiffeisen was a reference to Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen, the founder of the co-operative movement and of credit unions.
After communism fell, most agricultural co-operatives failed and the land was sold to different investors and entrepreneurs, piece by piece, by various former peasant owners who had been displaced off the land into urban tenements.
People who chose not to sell, are farming their own land, renting it out to larger farmers, or are selling to foreigners who want to develop it or return it to its wilderness state.
I was amazed how unconcerned young people were that a lot of their food came from exports from China and Turkey while some of their agricultural land was being left unfarmed. I witnessed huge parcels in Baragan, a former breadbasket of the Balkans, which now appeared for miles and miles like a dust bowl with dust funnels forming here and there. Without roots to hold it down, soil was being eroded by wind gusts.
I saw large parcels of corn being harvested with prison labor. I am not sure who owned the land, whether it was legal to use prisoners, or whether they were hard-core criminals or just petty thieves paying damages through their work. The harvest, as well as everything on the farm, within the village community was transported by horse and buggy because gasoline and Diesel were so expensive. Cars were often parked at home during the week, driven for weekend trips, while the owners took public transportation to work.
In their rush to development, some gas meters were improperly installed; gas leak alarms were neglected, resulting in catastrophic explosions such as this one.
When the sun went down, the environment was plunged into darkness, some places dimly lit by one anemic light, of the CFL variety. The museums we saw had one bulb per room, the displays were dark and impossible to read, covered in dust and forgotten. It was a perfect scenario for stargazing since ambient light was non-existent in many areas.
As we made our way to Constanta and the Black Sea, I was appalled to see many historical buildings abandoned, rusting, with peeling walls, and overgrown with weeds. A precious Etruscan sarcophagus, exhibited outdoors, was serving as a makeshift trash bin.
The very precious statues from Cernavoda, the “Thinker and his Companion,” 5,000 B.C., that appear in every school textbook in the world, were abandoned in a dark corner, gathering dust in the Tomis Museum.
I could not understand the abandonment of history, of identifying with one’s heritage. As I explored further, I was told that education, keeping in line with the Agenda 21 goal of building a one world government without national identity and sovereignty, has discouraged the study and preservation of history, of who Romanians are, where they have come from and, in the process, anything of historical significance had been abandoned unless it brought a lot of cash to the ruling coalition parties. Generous grants were given to further the study of environmental preservation, green revolution, alternative energy sources such as windmills, and population control.
We visited three museums in my hometown of Ploiesti. We were the only visitors. I was thinking how busy our Smithsonian museums were on any given day in Washington, D.C., bustling with noisy children on school trips and it gave me hope that Americans are still proud of who they are and where they have come from.
Hundreds of windmills were dotting the Baragan fields in the south, some barely moving, most completely stopped. I wondered how much electricity these expensive windmills actually generated to justify the huge infrastructure investment paid for by European Union grants and loans.
As I spoke with relatives, none of whom knew of UN Agenda 21, I was told unanimously that Romanians would never agree to give up their private property and liberties in the name of saving the environment that does not need saving to begin with, carbon credits, and other UN schemes. Besides, people had just gotten back their properties that were stolen by communists. Yet, in spite of their optimism, signs of Agenda 21 in progress were everywhere
I saw “For Sale” signs for land that was under litigation. Nobody wanted to buy land under litigation since the owners had not been definitively decided. Just like our housing market bubble, when it burst, nobody knew who owned many homes. Banks could not find the paperwork to sell them.
These citizens, ignorant of UN Agenda 21 and its goals, mirrored most Americans who are equally incredulous and believe that we are wearing tinfoil hats when we speak about UN Agenda 21’s nefarious intent.
On our drive back from the Black Sea, we passed by the Romanian Nuclear Power Plant at Cernavoda. No photographs signs were everywhere. The rusty exterior in bad need of a paint job did not inspire confidence in its solidity. I urged my husband to drive by faster.
“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.
Jobs Bill is not about creating jobs, but surrendering States Sovereignty. Under Sec.376, States receiving any Federal funding whether Medicaid, Medicare, Tuition, FEMA, etc. will now surrender its Sovereignty under this new Jobs Bill. Surrendering Sovereign Immunity allows states to be sued by anyone recognized by the Federal Government. Interesting that Hilda Solis has been advocating the rights of illegals and now this Jobs plan forces states to yield its sovereignty to be sued. It is also likely Labor Unions could invoke this requirement to supersede Right to Work and force unionization of state agencies and businesses. Is this a Jobs Bill or a Bill to expand Federal power via DOJ, DOL, and others members of the Federal Family?
SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY. (a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act. (b) Waiver of State Immunity- (1) IN GENERAL- (A) WAIVER- A State's receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by 134 an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act.
Utility companies keep telling us that Smart Metering is a LOCAL AGENDA 21 Item, (ICLEI) but SMART METERS are GLOBAL and ready for GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY with GLOBAL CONTROL. Need Proof? Allow the map to load properly then wait for the red tags to appear! USA is on same path!
A new economy requires a new kind of corporation. Maryland became the first state to pass Benefit Corp legislation in April 2010. Vermont followed in May. Seven other states are interested for 2011. Read more »
Benefit Corporations are a new class of corporation that are required to create a material positive impact on society and the environment and to meet higher standards of accountability and transparency. Model legislation was drafted by Bill Clark from Drinker Biddle & Reath.
Sponsors: Sen. Don Vaughan (D-Guilford), Sen. Richard Stevens (R-Wake), and Sen. Ellie Kinnaird (D-Orange) and co-sponsor Sen. Peter Brunstetter (R-Forsyth)
Tax and investment incentives and government purchasing preferences will accelerate growth of sustainable business. In December 2009, the City of Philadelphia passed legislation creating the country's first tax break for certified sustainable business. Conversations have begun in Portland, Oregon and Washington D.C. and with several federal agencies. Read more »
What are “redfields” you ask? Well it’s just the new cutesy Metropolitan Planning Organization and other policy jerks word for foreclosed properties. So instead of letting people snap up those foreclosed homes – many of which are toxic because of the MERS scandal in that nobody really has the DEED to the property – these policy geniuses are going to spend American taxpayer money to bulldoze the properties and make a nice little park. Think of it as Cash for Clunkers for Real Estate.
Most intelligent people know that if you reduce the inventory of something like say, used cars, by destroying them – it will drive up the prices of the cars that have not been destroyed. Same thing for property and homes. If they destroy all these foreclosed properties, it will drive up the price of real estate.
That’s good if you already HAVE a home but what about if you don’t? It means more and more people will be UNABLE to afford buying their own home. And just in time, the government is building all this wonderful “workforce” housing for all the worker bees to live in – right next to where they work – just like in CHINA.
You think that is an exaggeration? Well please take a look at the details here and decide for yourself:
Can we put this together?
Step by step: UN Agenda 21 sets the stage for high density development in cities.
Redevelopment agencies subsidize development for smart growth. Only some favored builders were in on the money train.
Banks were urged in the Clinton administration to loosen their loan criteria and let the money flow.
Developers built more and more commercial and residential buildings, glutting the market
The economic collapse was engineered to cover the migration of business and production out of the US.
The stock market crash was engineered to suck wealth out of the middle class and destabilize their retirement.
The TARP bail-out was pay-back for the banks and consolidated their power by allowing them to take over smaller banks.
The crashed economy is a staged event and encourages agitation for more social programs, along with the vilification of property ownership. Those who own private property are ‘greedy.’
As people lose their homes to foreclosure and their steady employment vanishes, they will be more willing to live in government subsidized apartments in the center of cities. There will be less people to object to loss of private property rights. Proposals to stop the federal mortgage tax credit will be more easily accepted, thus threatening private home ownership. The press obligingly writes articles about the miseries of home ownership and extolls the virtues of living in a condo (maintenance-free!) or apartment (move when you want!) next to the train tracks.
Private car ownership will become unaffordable through high gasoline prices, high parking costs in city centers, and vehicle miles traveled taxes, and wages can be lowered to reflect the ‘savings.’
The redfields to greenfields conversions in the suburbs allow cities to demolish buildings and close off services to those areas. Redevelopment dollars, your property tax dollars, will be used for these projects.
Rural roads will not be paved, making rural property less valuable, banks will foreclose and local government will buy for pennies on the dollar. Less and less land will be available for agriculture, for production, for small scale living. Government-owned land will be managed by or given to non-profit land trusts in public private partnerships.
Lands will be closed off to public use. Rural areas closed. Suburban areas closed. Forest areas closed. Rural roads closed. Logging roads closed. Camping areas closed. State park areas closed.
Restrictions on travel. Personal identification required at all times. Health records. School records. Communication records. Email, Facebook, Global positioning mapping, Virtual Reality—all serve to narrow your world.
Regionalization of government will take the planning decisions away from local government and out of your control. Rural councils, regional boards, neighborhood associations, condominum boards, residents’ associations—all speak for you without your ability to stop them. They all want the same thing. Control, total information, and social engineering. Think you’ll be able to stop SmartMeters when you live in a 200 unit building owned by your local low income (government subsidized) housing developer?That was easy, wasn’t it?
Most of this is in place right now. That’s how you turn RED to GREEN in the UN Agenda 21 plan.
I stumbled onto this while looking into the background of someone in my local government who happens to be a real estate lawyer and I am planning to consult him about some real estate transactions. On the company web site I see he is a member of the Urban Land Institute so, I wondered, hmmm.. what is that group?
Well needless to say I will be printing out this article from Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 (he is a Democrat) and after consulting with him on the real estate business I will ask him about his membership, as my township representative, in this anti-American Urban Land Institute group and will find out if he is a useful idiot or part of the problem in short order…
Need to know more about this Agenda 21 plot infiltrating our local communities?
Excerpt from the above link which I thought was too special not to share in case it goes missing:
Redfields to Greenfields is a public-private effort to convert financially distressed properties into areas of opportunity and prosperity through land banks and new parkland that provide a sustainable future.
BCLC, Seminole Captial, the Speedwell Foundation, and the City Parks Alliance are hosting an event to bring together stakeholders from various public agencies, corporations, non-profits, philanthropic organizations, and research institutions.
Here’s an idea – why don’t you just leave the housing market alone – let the market decide what houses are REALLY worth instead of tinkering with it and stop destroying “housing stock” in favor of your cute little buzz word “open space”. Did you know that the total percentage of developed land in the US is around THREE PERCENT (as of 2002 data) ? That means 98% of the land in the United States is ALREADY OPEN SPACE. How about people who want more open space, move the hell out of the city and get a couple of acres in rural areas and own a piece of their OWN open space? Why does the government have to subsidize it and own it? That’s how Soviet Russia, Cuba, Iran, China, Venezuela and North Korea operate – not the United States!
It’s WAY past time to route these socialist central planners and we need to start at the local level and find out who is on board with this CRAP and kick them the hell out of office if they support it! Just remember the new buzzword – redfields – and find out who is in the redfields cash for clunkers scam and run them out of office ON A RAIL!
Agenda 21 Part III: Maryland County abolishes Agenda 21 – now it's your turn
The November elections marked a sea change in the political landscape at every level of government nationwide. Right now, all eyes are focused on the Wisconsin standoff between Governor Scott Walker and the public employee unions. But under the radar, completely overlooked by the mass media, is the unprecedented move recently taken by newly-elected Carroll County, Maryland Commissioners Richard Rothschild, Robin Frazier, Haven Shoemaker, Dave Roush and Doug Howard, who abolished the County’s Office of Sustainability. They then voted unanimously to drop out of the UN’s International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). They are the first governmental organization to do so.
For those unfamiliar with the sustainable development agenda, this might not seem like much, but it is huge. If you have been following my recent series on the subject, you will know that local Sustainability offices, under the auspices of the ICLEI’s Local Governments for Sustainability, are the tiny, visible tip of the monstrous Agenda 21 sustainable development iceberg, the ultimate goal of which is to transform American society from the bottom up into a socialist ward of UN global governance. As of today, there are approximately 600 local governments in the US who have signed on to this Trojan Horse.
Minus one.
All the commissioners are to be commended for this bold decision. Predictably, the left is up in arms. The commissioners have already been challenged to a debate on their decision and the other side wants to bring in heavy hitters from the EPA and the Maryland Department of the Environment in an attempt to discredit the commission’s earth shattering (figuratively) move.
I think the commissioners took some skin.
Richard Rothschild led the charge. He campaigned on this issue, framing it, appropriately, as a matter of private property rights. In an American Thinker article he co-wrote last summer with Scott Strzelczyk, he explained that: “Sustainability has less to do with the environment, and everything to do with economics. It is an attack on capitalism, and an attack on America's middle class lifestyle.”
Rich recently discussed Agenda 21 in a radio address. Listen here. This is the kind of leadership that has been sorely lacking at all levels of government and hopefully his example and that of his fellow commissioners will embolden more such individuals to step forward before it is too late.
Following the election, Carroll County’s sustainability director saw the writing on the wall and opted for early retirement. He then began taking pot shots at the new commissioners in the local paper. After being party to the biggest attempted land grab in the county’s history under the “Smart Growth” banner, this clown had the gall to wonder aloud how anyone could believe a UN planning document marketed as “Smart Growth” could affect Carroll County. I have a suggestion for him: read the documents.
Rich responded to these attacks with an in-depth explanation of Sustainable Development published in the local paper:
Sustainability invokes government power to enforce activists' views of environmentalism. They want to replace farmers', ranchers' and other landowners' concept of stewardship with government-centric control. It merges environmentalism and socialism to expand government into every aspect of our lives, including land use, food production, housing, transportation, manufacturing, energy rationing and even health care.
He identifies the ICLEI for what it really is:
…an organization with extreme beliefs on global warming that promotes United Nations' big-government socio-economic policies. The UN Millennium Papers caution activists not to mention the UN Agenda because of potential American backlash, and instruct, "So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth."
Rich cites egregious examples of “sustainability” in practice:
Sustainability disciples use euphemistic terms like "environmental justice," and collude with government to enforce oppressive regulations at any cost. Don't believe me? Google "EPA TMDL lawsuits" and see the list of activists that sue the EPA and obtain federal court opinions that embolden oppressive regulations.
Why does the EPA advertise these lawsuits on its website? Ironically, every time the EPA loses to an environmental group, it grows stronger as courts direct the EPA to enforce. The courts have become unwitting accomplices to government overreach. One Maryland county faces $1.8 billion in regulatory mandates, possibly enough to push them to the brink of insolvency.
In another bid for expansion, government auctions off imaginary carbon credits. The 2008 northeast auction raised $600 million in hidden taxes that are passed on to struggling families through higher utility costs.
The words “sustainable development” deceitfully suggest environmental conservation, and people who focus on the slogans without reading the fine print come up with simplistic conclusions like “it’s all about the environment.” In reality, Agenda-21 based sustainability programs seek government control of land, labor and capital in order to promote “social justice”.
As documented in Part I of this series, buzzwords for socialism like “social justice,” “collective,” “equity,” and “redistribution,” are used throughout Agenda 21 texts. If you study the documents that spawned Agenda 21, most formulated by prominent socialist leaders from around the world, it is clear that their key concerns are: 1. abolishing private property and redistributing it according to socialist goals worldwide, and 2. herding humans into small urban communities where, stripped of freedom and mobility, we will live and work according to government diktat.
For example, the Millennium Project calls for a global tax on all countries to provide monies for developing and third world countries. “Environmental sustainability” is only one of eight Millennium Development Goals. The rest are a laundry list of anti-poverty and health programs; laudable goals maybe, but nothing to do with Chesapeake Bay pollution to say the least. Furthermore, these countries have received billions in aid from the U.S. and elsewhere for decades, but because they are usually run by corrupt dictators of one form or another, such aid serves only to prop them up, thereby perpetuating the problem rather than solving it. But they’re socialists, so it’s okay.
More to the point, Dr. Michael Coffman’s famous Agenda 21 “Wildlands” map reveals the endgame of Agenda 21:
Advertisement
Agenda 21 is being implemented throughout the U.S., as the quiet work of the ICLEI finds its way into state law and county code. This video reveals how it was pushed in rural Richland County, South Carolina, sold as a “Comprehensive Plan” called “Vision 20/20”. Explained by state legislator Joe Neal – a Democrat – the video provides a diagram chillingly similar to the Wildlands map, limiting development to small urban centers and leaving rural communities to die on the vine.
If rep. Neal’s sincere appeal in this four minute video doesn’t convince you, his full two hour presentation is available here.
The Comprehensive Plan stalled in 2003 due to citizen resistance but passed in 2009. It calls for creation of “Urban Villages… in contrast with suburban sprawl and inefficient land use.” Note the negative associations with “suburban sprawl.” They will fix that.
The Plan directs that, “Throughout the suburban areas infill development (emphasis added) should be a focus in residential, commercial and industrial areas, complementing and connecting the existing sprawl pattern. Housing should be varied at 4-8 units per acre… Underutilized commercial strips and big-box retail parcels can be divided and redeveloped into smaller blocks with street extensions and pedestrian-friendly designs.”
So if you moved to the suburbs to get some room, avoid urban crime and get better schooling for your kids, forget it. They’re going to tell you how and where to live, because they deem single family suburban homes “unsustainable”. The Richland County plan is similar to the description for “20 Minute Neighborhoods” advocated by the Mayor of Portland, Oregon. The official map looks eerily similar to Dr. Coffman’s.
The state of Virginia has gone all out in a similar effort. Virginia House Bill 3202, signed into law by Democrat governor Tim Kaine in 2007 with bi-partisan support, requires 67 counties and cities to create “Urban Development Areas” based on decennial population growth criteria. The UDAs must be able to accommodate that growth and must include features like “pedestrian friendly” design, mixed use housing and minimum housing densities that presume an urban landscapeand encourage low-income subsidized housing. The buzzwords change, but the description is virtually identical to Richland County, South Carolina, Portland, Oregon, and countless other towns throughout America.
The despotic nature of these mandates undermines the entire concept of private property, a key goal stated prominently in Agenda 21 documents. It removes decision making latitude from both property owners and local governments, and ruins property values, while completely changing the complexion and character of rural counties. Add to this the sheer lunacy of requiring vast new housing projects when mortgage foreclosures are just beginning to recover from all time high rates. Construction companies like the guaranteed business these mandates insure, a big reason why they enjoy bi-partisan support. But at what cost to our communities, our Constitution, our very way of life?
Finally, there is another even more pernicious factor that may underline politicians’ motivations to support this wholesale assault on private property. UDAs are supposed to accommodate ten to twenty years of population growth within each designated county. According to the Census Bureau, between 1990 and 2010, Virginia’s population grew by about 2 million people. Over 25 percent of that population growth was due to an influx of Hispanics. The Hispanic population represented a mere 3 percent of Virginia’s population in 1990, but since then has grown 300 percent, from 160,000 people to 632,000!
In some cases, Hispanic population growth dwarfs all else. In Prince William County for example, in 1990 the Hispanic population was a modest 4 percent of the population: 9,662 people. Today it stands at 81,460, accounting for almost 40 percent of total population growth in the county! Between 2000 and 2010 Chesterfield County grew by 56,000 people. Of that total, 15,247, almost 30 percent, were Hispanic. For comparison, the white population only increased by 16,507 people. Whites represented 77 percent of the total population in 2000, Hispanics only 3 percent. The Hispanic population growth rate in Chesterfield County between 1990 and 2010 was over 800 percent.
These growth rates cannot be accounted for by births. Nationwide, the Hispanic population has grown by about 25 million since 1990. There are at least 12 million illegals in the U.S. currently, mostly Hispanics. So at a minimum, about half of the growth rate in the U.S. Hispanic population since 1990 is due to illegals.
By demanding UDAs in counties with high population growth rates, the Virginialegislature is pandering to illegal immigrants. Doing so will change not only the character, but the voting preferences of its rural counties. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who will get the majority of those votes if the Democrats manage to pass an amnesty law. With the various vote fraud strategies being employed by leftists nationwide, amnesty may not even be necessary. If they succeed here, redistricting will become irrelevant.
This is another covert strategy embedded in Agenda 21, perhaps the most dangerous of all, that has so far flown completely under the radar. Although Carroll County’s actions were not related to illegal immigration, the threat of dense low-income urbanized development around their rural towns in order to promote “social equity” was a factor.
Rothschild said, “They talk about sustainability promoting ‘healthier and better balanced’ neighborhoods. But "healthy and better balanced" in the sustainable development context means equally distributed. The practical result is that the county is burdened with people with no pattern of personal responsibility, people who do not share the values of the community, who have done nothing to contribute to its character or development and thus no vested interest, all for the sake of ‘equity.’ The true underlying purpose, however, is to shift voting patterns from right to left.”
The Carroll County commissioners have taken a bold step in publicly calling out the ICLEI and Agenda 21, but their work has just begun. “We have our own rural agricultural diversity and it is on the endangered species list.” Rothschild quipped.
This is an issue custom made for Tea Parties. Agenda 21 is being implemented at the state and local level, where citizen activists have the most leverage. Tea Parties nationwide need to get behind this effort and bring the dangers of Agenda 21-based planning dogma to the attention of state and local governments everywhere. It is critical to educate, support and encourage sympathetic legislators at all levels of government and work furiously to oust legislators and bureaucrats who, for whatever reason, refuse to abandon this evil agenda.
Green Global Dictatorship:Regional Governance, UN Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, and the Wildlands Project
Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Professor of Geography
My people perish for lack of knowledge.
Hosea 4:6
It seems indeed to be easier to deceive a multitude than one man.
Herodotus, Greek historian
The phony Christian-conservatives have never warned you about the very plan that is the very means whereby planners are silently, insidiously, and deceptively dragging America into a global government, the seat of which is intended to be the United Nations. That plan is “Regional Governance.”
Jakie Patru, “Regionalism: Sneaking America into Global Government”
I believe there are more instances of the abrigement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
James Madison
In most communities, neither victims, nor the proponents of sustainable development are aware that their plight is part of a global agenda. Indeed, most would scoff at the idea. Nevertheless, the transformation of America is well underway, without public debate or Congressional approval. From watershed, to ecosystem, to village, to city, to multi-county regions, to trans-boundary biospheres- the U.N. agenda is being systematically implemented- with the help of elected officials, paid for with the taxes of American citizens.
Henry Lamb, “Why the Government is Grabbing Our Land”
Government is not reason; its not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. George Washington
Private property and freedom are inseparable.
George Washington
I. Institutions Behind The Greening of America
In search for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…
The Club of Rome
In “The Greening of America Part 1- How Did It Happen?” (http://discerningtoday.org/greening_of_america1.htm), Dr. Michael Coffman (Ph.D. forester), notes that the “Greening of America” with its attendant conversion to Regional Governance, U.N. Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century), and Sustainable Development, began with the creation of the United Nations in 1945. In 1946, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was formed as the primary scientific adviser to the UN on environmental issues. It was founded by Julien Huxley, who was also a founder of UNESCO- United Nations Education, Scientfic and Cultural Organization. Members of the IUCN today include over 880 governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) in 133 countries. In the U.S., IUCN members include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service. Other IUCN members are the U.N. Environmental Program (UNEP), the UN Development Program (UNDP), UNESCO, as well as a host of NGOs, including the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Two other major international environmental organizations were later created to also serve as advisers to the UN: the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF) and the World Resources Institute (WRI). Figure 1 (below) illustrates how federal agencies today cooperate with environmental groups to implement strategies devised by the United Nations in concert with the IUCN, WWF, and WRI. Coffman notes that almost every strategy implemented during the past 30 years (1978 to 2008) has originated with this “unholy alliance.”
Figure 1. Linkages between the UN, IUCN, WWF, WRI and federal agencies and environmental groups, from Dr. Coffman, “The Greening of America”
In “Diplomatic Immunity for the Sierra Club?” (http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly/coffman.htm), Dr. Coffman notes that when President Clinton signed Executive Order 12986 in 1996, he extended diplomatic immunity to the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). This means no lawsuits can be brought by Americans against the IUCN. Coffman asks the question: Since the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, etc. are members of the IUCN, does this give them diplomatic immunity from lawsuits as well?
Figure 2. Linkages between the IUCN, Sustainable Development, UN Agenda 21 and supporting agencies, from Coffman’s “The Greening of America”
In addition to a plethora of United Nations agencies, including the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), and UNESCO, the global environmental agenda is also advanced by thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs). Eco-logic Magazine (Nov./Dec. 1995) noted that 7,892 Green Advocacy Groups (GAGs) attended at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.
II. Regional Governance.
Regional Governance is the method whereby would-be rulers intend to control every aspect of our lives. Without the full implementation of Regional Governance, their plan for world dominance cannot succeed…. (Governance, as opposed to Government, means “control by rules, restrictions, and regulations.”). In order to subvert the sovereignty of the United States and the individual states guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, a parallel and entirely unconstitutional governance structure, termed “Regional Government,” has been covertly established over the past half century
Jakie Patru All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Branch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Regional government is the method by which the global ruling elite is slowly dismantling the sovereignty and constitutional protections of the world’s nations. In “Regionalism: Sneaking America into World Government,” Jakie Patru (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/regionalism/sneaking.htm) notes that using United Nations dictates, globalists have divided the planet into ten regions. North America is Region 1, South America is Region 6, etc. As has already been accomplished in Europe with the European Union, their plan calls for merging the North and South American regions through establishing trade agreements like the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) and a common currency.
The process of regionalizing America began long ago. In a 1969 press release, President Nixon designated ten federal regions, purportedly to “streamline the structure and processes of federal agencies in the field.” Each region was to have an appointed chairman (bureaucrats accountable only to Washington, D.C.) for its Federal Regional Council. Federal Regional Councils were further defined and legitimized in Nixon’s Executive Order 11647 of 1972 (http://www.sweetliberty.org/beware_metro.html).
Nixon’s executive order is in direct contravention of Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” (Webster defines a republican form of government as one in which “the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people- the electorate- and is exercised by representatives elected by, and responsible to, them”). Establishment of regional government also violates Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which stipulates: “New states may be admitted by Congress into this Union; but no new State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of Congress.”
Four decades ago, alert citizens understood the implications of this regional system even before it was codified in Nixon’s Executive Order 11647. The Dan Smoot Report of 2/1/1965 stated:
Advocates of government planning have visions of a new kind of America: they would transform our union of sovereign States into a regionally-planned, monolithically-unified nation divided into a score of metropolitan areas which sprawl across State boundary lines. Each area will be ruled, at the “local level,” by only one governmental authority: a metropolitan government. Existing governments- city, county and State- will eventually be abolished.
In COUNT DOWN Newsletter of March 1973, Virginia R. Wilson stated: “Promoters of regional government claim it is a new form of government, but it is the oldest form in history- dictatorship.”
Nixon’s Executive Order 11490 of 1969 also set the stage for an American dictatorship, stating that the President can assume dictatorial powers in the event of a national emergency. (The president himself decides what constitutes a “national emergency.”) In American Opinion (1973), Gary Allen observed: “This order, empowers (federal) Regional council members, under the color of law, to control all food supply, money and credit, transportation, communications, public utilities, hospitals and other essential facets of human existence.
In 1972, President Nixon also signed the World Heritage Treaty, drafted by the United Nations Educational Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The resulting World Heritage Site/Biosphere Reserve Program now has some 851 designated World Heritage Sites, of which 67 are in the United States.
The regional governance plan is that North America (“Region 1”) is to merged into the North American Union (Corsi, 2007, The Late Great U.S.A.). The Sierra Club, in cooperation with the IUCN and the UN, has re-mapped North America into 21 “bio-regions.” Just as the United Nations requires for each designated World Heritage site, each bio-region is divided into three zones: 1) wildness area where human intrusion is forbidden, 2) buffer zones surrounding the wilderness area where human access is strictly controlled and limited, and 3) cooperation zones, where humans would be permitted to live, although their activities could be sharply circumscribed.
The secret march from the present world of 190-odd nations to a one-world government has been slow, methodical and to most, an imperceptible process. Patru (http://www.sweetliberty.org/beware_metro.html). gives examples of the encroaching regionalism as of 2000:
Cascadia is a region controlled by the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNER), which has been created by compacts between five northwestern states- Oregon, Washington, Montana, Idaho and Alaska, and two Canadian provinces- British Columbia and Alberta.” In a publication advertising Cascadia, Senator Mark Hatfield stated: “National regions are emerging as key environmental and economic units throughout the world.”….
Border Region 21 has also erased national borders between Mexico and four southwestern states- California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. That’s part of the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) deal. … (We see) how national and state borders are erased via regionalism. Now let’s look at the method of eliminating the very core of our representative government… the local governments. Within the states they have created regions within the regions, called sub-state regions. The plan is packaged beautifully and sold to naïve, brainwashed (many corrupt) elected officials. The carrot is this: they’re told that by forming consortiums, compacts with other townships, or counties that they can save a lot of money on services and supplies. We’ll create a Council of Governments (COG), control the purse, oversee, order and distribute and spend and spend and spend…. The flow of money is always the same. From the federal government to the federal regional capitol to the COG…. and then to the local governments in return for their “compliance” with passing whatever laws and ordinances the federal planners dictate. Remember, the dictates emanate originally from the United Nations.
Under UN directives, Regional Governance has advanced significantly in the U.S. and worldwide. Today, it is inextricably bound up with a host of benign, even appealing-sounding phrases such as Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, the Wildlands Project, etc. But what are these programs in reality and how did they get here?
In 1976, with the consent of both our corrupt political parties, the U.S. adopted these recommendations from the first United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I):
1) a national policy on population distribution according to available resources. 2) public land control or ownership in the public interest with equitable distribution of benefits while assuring environmental impacts. 3) Land, a scarce resource, should be subject to public surveillance or control for the common interest. 4) Government must exercise full jurisdiction over land and freely plan the development of human settlements.
Population distribution?!!! Land subject to public control?!!! Government has full jurisdiction over land and plans development of human settlements?!!! This sounds more like the Soviet Union than the America of the U.S. Constitution. Read on.
III. Sustainable Development
Sustainable Development has continued to evolve as that of protecting the world’s resources while its true agenda is to control the world’s resources.
We all agree that communities, countries and the entire world need to incorporate the principles of Sustainable Development in order to preserve the quality of our environment and our lives, right? Certainly, this is what I have believed and taught in my university courses during the past 18 years! However, those who have looked more carefully at the public policy effects of Sustainable Development, such as the Freedom 21 Santa Cruz group (www.freedom21santacruz.net), give a very different perspective. In their article, “Transforming America: Sustainable Development” ( www.freedom21santacruz.net/thereport/Transforming_America.pdf ), the authors state:
Sustainable Development has three components: global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction. The international focus for Sustainable Development is the United States. This is because America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. Private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development…. Sustainable Development works to abolish private property in order to manufacture natural resource shortages and other alarms in order to facilitate governmental control over all resources and ultimately all human action. So-called public/private partnerships are the major tool to accomplish this objective.
The purpose of Sustainable Development is to create a government-controlled society. A government-controlled society is a trap door to the black hole of tyranny. The tonic of Sustainable Development is the honey of grant money- a candy laced with poison. Business insiders receive short-term benefits from Smart Growth policies. The politically-powerful left promotes the anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-poverty program called the Wildlands Project.
According to Deanna Spingola in “US Military Targets Southeast Colorado Part 3” http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna92.htm), the concept of Sustainable Development came from the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Chapter 2, Article 18, where it discusses the need “to protect and make scientific, rational use of the land and its mineral and water resources, and the plant and animal kingdoms to preserve the purity of air and water, ensure reproduction of natural wealth, and improve the human environment.”
The first Sustainable Development business council, the Business Council for Sustainable Development, was formed by Prince Charles in 1972. It included a who’s who list of multinational corporations. In 1987, the term and concept were officially sanctioned in a United Nations Commission on Environment and Development report entitled, “Our Common Future.” Today, Sustainable Development is promoted through “public-private partnerships” between government, industry, multi-national corporations, non-governmental organizations, foundations, non-profits, and sustainability grant recipients. Under the altruistic guise of “saving the environment,” The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society and hosts of other foundations, trusts, and conservation organizations have been buying up huge swaths of private land for supposed protection (see “Nature’s Landlord: The Story of the World’s Most Powerful Environmental Group: The Nature Conservancy” www.ccfassociation.org/findley03.pdf- and “Nature Conservancy or Nature Conspiracy? http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20080114.htm). This land is often then placed under federal jurisdiction and/or in World or National Heritage Sites, bio-sphere reserves, conservation areas, etc.
Most of the people involved in the myriad and numerous organizations, government agencies, and activist groups involved in these land transfers are “useful idiots” in the sense that they do not understand the full implications of the UN plan they are helping to implement. In “Global Landgrab Coming to Your Neighborhood" Moriarty (2/27/05, (http://www.afn.org/-govern/sustain.html, states:
The concept of sustainable development and sustainable communities is being implemented in every country on earth as part of a global plan. Maurice Strong (the mover behind all this), Secretary-General on Earth Summit II, said: ‘… What is needed is the recognition of the reality that…(it) is simply not feasible for (national) sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful.”
IV. Agenda 21 (United Nations Agenda for the 21st Century)
As its policies have been put into place, it has become clear that U.N. Agenda 21 is antithesis to the U.S. Constitution. U.N. Agenda 21 is worldwide collectivist government under the penumbra of the United Nations.
Freedom 21, Santa Cruz
An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
Agenda 21 is being implemented through the use of facilitated stakeholder consensus councils, not by vote. These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a state Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and that implement a predetermined outcome affecting a region or a neighborhood. Members of a Soviet council are chosen by virtue of their willingness to comply with that outcome and their one-mindedness with the group. State Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy, whether it be socialism or government-business (public-private) partnerships. Initially, soviets seem innocuous. The police state that associates with state soviets arise when the soviet web is sufficiently in place.
The UN’s website verifies that the Agenda 21 action plan is Sustainable Development. Agenda 21 (UN Agenda for the 21st Century) is a 300-page, 40-chapter, “soft-law” policy that came out of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. (Maurice Strong was Secretary-General of this “Rio Earth Summit.”) Agenda 21, though not legally binding, was adopted by 179 nations, including the United States, as a work plan to implement Sustainable Development. The following year, President Clinton created The Presidents Council on Sustainable Development through executive order. The 25-member council includes most Cabinet Secretaries, as well as representatives from The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club and other NGOs, as well as industry representatives. The function of this Council has been to find ways to implement Agenda 21 recommendations. In this manner, with virtually no legislative debate whatsoever, the federal government has been implementing Sustainable Development programs nationwide.
At first blush, Agenda 21 sounds good to many well-meaning people. However, Spingola ("U.S. Military Targets Southeast Colorado (Part 3 of 3) (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/spingola/080525) notes: “Agenda 21 is a very well-organized plan to reinvent and regionalize government beginning with the 'rural cleansing' of America and those referred to by the elite ruling class as resource-draining, expendable, “useless eaters.” Because Agenda 21 provides guidelines for local, regional, national, as well as global governance, it is radically transforming the entire world.
Like most “green movement initiatives,” Agenda 21 is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” It is not an environmental management policy, but an attempt to impose a global centrally-planned quasi-government administered by the United Nations. Under Agenda 21, all central government and local authority signatories are required to conform strictly to a common prescribed standard and hence this is just communism resurrected in a new guise.
The fact that most people still have not even heard of Agenda 21, even though it was passed in 1992 and is now being implemented throughout most of the world, reveals the depth of interpenetration and cooperation between corporations, government, and the media. In “Why Are Americans Ignorant of ‘Agenda 21’” (http://www.newswithviews.com/Morrison/joyce36.htm), Joyce Morrison notes that Agenda 21 is "the global plan to change the way we 'live, eat, learn and communicate’ because we must save the earth.” In "Local Agenda 21: The U.N. Plan for Your Community (http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html) Berit Kjos notes that:
It’s (Agenda 21) regulation would severely limit water, electricity, and transportation- even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas, it would monitor all lands and people. No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system.
Agenda 21 seeks to regionalize America and other nations for the benefit of a tiny international elite. Regionalism works to blur political boundaries, take decision-making authority away from local peoples, and allow elected representatives to dodge accountability. The blurring of political boundaries, along with privatization of public assets, allows state collectivists to steal the wealth of the people. The goal of state collectivists is to abolish private property, increase government control over people, and to forcefully replace individualism with collectivism. Agenda 21 is also designed to implement the United Nations Charter and establish global governance under the United Nations. The U.N. Charter posits that ordinary humans are “biological resources” to be arranged by the elite into a sustainable number of worker bees and bee keepers. Indeed, under the U.N. Charter, as contrasted with the U.S. Constitution, peoples’ rights are dependent upon his/her usefulness and compliance to the will of the elite.
Maurice Strong, Secretary-general of the 1992 UNCED conference (Rio Earth Summit), is a primary author of Agenda 21 and set the tone for the 1992 UNCED conference and the future, when he stated:
Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-- involving high meat consumption and large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.
In other words, the globalists’ plan is to reduce the U.S. and other first world nations to the level of third world nations.
(Agenda 21) is a set of policy recommendations designed to reorganize global society around the principles of environmental protection, social equity, and what is called “sustainable” economic development. At the heart of the concept of sustainable development, is the assumption that government must manage society to ensure that human activity conforms to these principles. The idea that government is inherently empowered to manage the affairs of society is diametrically opposed to the idea that the just power of government is derived from the consent of the governed. As these conflicting principles collide in the arena of public policy, the people who are governed are losing the ability to limit the power of government. Consequently, government power over people is expanding. Nowhere is this transformation more dramatic than in the policies governing private property rights and the use of land and its resources…. The paradigm shift from sacred private property rights to government-managed land use, is a perfect example of how sustainable development is transforming America into a government-managed society.
This transformation is not the result of a deliberate decision made by elected representatives after a fair and public debate. It is the result of years of subtle influence and obscure processes relentlessly imposed through the United Nations’ agencies and organizations, and multitude of non-governmental organizations accredited by, and sympathetic to the United Nations’ agenda.
Lamb further notes that the most influential NGOs in the formulation of Agenda 21 were the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Worldwide Fund for Nature (formerly the World Wildlife Fund, and still known as WWF), and the World Resources Institute (WRI). These three organizations also participated in the preparations for the UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) in 1976, which produced the first formal UNRockefeller Brothers Fund, compiled and edited by William K. Reilly,” including The Use of Land: A Citizen’s Policy Guide to Urban Growth (1972), The Unfinished Agenda (1977), and Blueprint for the Environment (1988). (Reilly left his job as head of the World Wildlife Fund to become Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under George H.W. Bush.
Lamb notes that Al Gore’s National Performance Review resulted in the overhauling of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to implement the “Ecosystem Management Policy,” which itself included many recommendations of Agenda 21 regarding management of land and resources. This Ecosystem Management Policy, coordinated with existing legislation such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, gave the federal government more power to regulate land use in rural America. Meanwhile, the American Planning Association, in a grant funded by the federal government, published the Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change, which provided model legislation by which state legislatures could write and implement Agenda 21 recommendations. The federal government then encouraged states to adopt this legislation by offering incentive grants to states and local governments. In this manner, Agenda 21 recommendations are systematically being implemented across America and the United States is being transformed into the kind of managed society envisioned in the 1976 UN Habitat I document.
In his introduction to The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, Maurice Strong calls local leaders around the world to “undertake a consultative process with their populations and achieve a consensus on 'Local Agenda 21' for their communities.” In practice, achieving this consensus, generally means painting very scary scenarios of a dying planet in order to frighten children, anger youth and persuade adults to submit to unthinkable regulations. It means blaming climate change on human activities while ignoring the importance of natural climate cycles and the pre-eminant role of the fossil fuel and chemical industries. .
In “Local Agenda 21: The U.N. Plan for Your Community,” (http://www.crossroads.to/text/articles/la21_198.html), Berit Kjos, notes that Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 calls for each community to formulate its own “Local Agenda 21.” policy on land use. Again, this document states: “Land….cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals… Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.” Thus the document recommends that: 1) all countries establish a national policy on human settlements which should 2) facilitate population redistribution according to availability of resources. And 3) “governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements.” These policy recommendations are “remarkably similar to those advanced in three publications financed by the
This tactic may sound reasonable until you realize that that the dedicated “Stakeholder Group” that organizes and oversees local transformation is not elected by the public. And the people selected to represent the “citizens” in your community will not represent your interests. The chosen “partners,” professional staff, and working groups are implementing a new system of governance without asking your opinion. You may read in your local paper about “visioning” work groups, Total Quality Management, and partnership between churches, welfare and social service agencies, and other community groups. These are clues that, behind the scenes, the plan is moving forward.
The goals and strategies are outlined in Sustainable America, the report from our President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). President Clinton’s PCSD is merely one of about 150 similar councils established by nations around the world, all following guidelines from the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. The same steps and strategies are detailed in Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An Introduction to Sustainable Development. This “planning framework for sustainable development at the local level” was prepared by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) in partnership with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the International Development Research Centre in Canada. Remember, UNEP also prepared the GBA (UN Global Biodiversity Assessment) which supposedly proves the environmental “crisis.” Could there be a conflict of interest here?
V. The Wildlands Project
Sustainable development addresses land use through two action plans, the first of which is the Wildlands Project. The Wildlands Project is the plan to eliminate human presence on over 50% of the American landscape. And to heavily control human activity on most of the rest of American land. Examples of the piece-to- piece implementation of the Wildlands Project include road closings, dam-busting, and water grabbing policies, and the adoption of United Nations Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites. Areas that have become Biosphere Reserves and Heritage sites are systematically being closed even to recreational use. The most significant tools of the Wildlands Project are the rapidly expanding impositions of habitat “protection” provisions in the Endangered Species Act, various “conservation easements,” and direct land acquisitions from battered “willing sellers.”
The United Nation’s “environmental agenda” was strongly supported by the Clinton administration. The Ecosystem Management Plan, promoted by VP Al Gore, calls for 50% of the land of the U.S. to be returned to wilderness. Indeed, twenty federal agencies, with the EPA as the enforcer, are being used to implement this plan (Karen Lee Bixman, “The Taking of America,” The Investigative Reporter, March, 1996).
These articles offer a good introduction to the Wildlands Project:
The Wildlands Project and the UN/US Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB) are supposedly based on the need to protect biological diversity using core wilderness reserves. These core wilderness reserves are to be surrounded by “buffer zones” that variably regulate human activity to protect the attributes of the core reserves. According to the United Nations’ Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), reserves would include wilderness areas and national parks, whereas inner buffer zones would permit no agriculture, no more than 0.5 miles of road per square mile of land, primitive camping, and only light selection thinning (harvesting) of forests. The June 25th, 1993 issue of Science
The Wildlands Project is ostensibly based on the very new science of conservation biology and was developed by Dr. Michael Soule, co-founder and first president of the Society for Conservation Biology, Dr. Reed Noss, current editor for the Journal of Conservation Biology, and David Foreman, co-founder and leader of Earth First! According to Dr. Michael Coffman ('Explanation of the Biodiversity Treaty and the Wildlands Project'), the science of conservation biology was largely created by the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), which is the chief adviser to the United Nations on biodiversity issues and again and includes federal agencies (the EPA, U.S. Forest, Park and Fish and Wildlife Services) as well as mainstream environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, etc. as members. These groups now actively promote the Wildlands Project and the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity, even though this latter treaty has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. If fully implemented, the Convention on Biological Diversity would require the displacement of millions of people through unacceptable nationalization of private land, regulations, and forced migration. In the process, millions of Americans could lose their jobs. It would also mean huge areas of America would be off-limits to resource extraction and therefore resources would become much more scarce and more costly.
Interestingly, Dr. Coffman, a Ph.D. forester, and many other scientists stress that there is no clear evidence that reserves and corridors actually work or are even needed. For example, B.L. Zimmerman and R.O. Biergaard stated in the Journal of Biogeography (1986, 13:133-143): magazine states that the plan calls for 23.4% of (American) land to be put into wilderness with no human use and 26.2% of land be put into corridors and human buffer zones with very limited human use. This same article descries the project as: “nothing less than the transformation of America to an archipelago of human-inhabited islands surrounded by natural areas.”
The theory has not been properly validated and the practical value of biogeographic principles for conservation remain unknown…. The theory provides no special insights relevant to conservation. Indeed, the theory behind the need for reserves and corridors is being “increasingly heavily criticized… as inapplicable to most of nature, largely because local population extinction was not demonstrated.
Thus, the “science” behind the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity is unverified, and as such, appears to be ideologically- and policy-driven rather than driven by scientific evidence. This kind of misuse of science was common in the old Soviet Union, where facts were commonly suppressed and subordinated to the interests of the state. This kind of manipulation of scientific data is also rampant in the Bush II administration, as described in Robert F. Kenney Jr.’s Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy.
Nonetheless, Dr. Reed Noss boldly proclaims (1992):
At least half of the land area of the 48 coterminous states should be encompassed in core (wilderness) reserves and inner corridor zones (essentially extensions of core reserves) within the next few decades…. Half of a region in wilderness is a reasonable guess of what it will take to restore viable populations of large carnivores and natural disturbance regimes, assuming that most of the other 50 percent is managed intelligently as buffer zones. Eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region…. With human habitation being the islands. The native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans.
Noss adds: “I would offer a more ambitious long-term goal, pending human population reduction, that at least 95% of a region be managed as wilderness and the surrounding multiple-use methods.”
In “The Wildlands Project Unleashes its War on Mankind,” (http://www.libertymatters.org/ahri-wildlands-rpt.htm), Dr. Michael Coffman of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., notes that The United Nations World Heritage Program, the UN Convention of Biodiversity, the UN Global Biodiversity Assessment, the U.S. Heritage Corridors Program, and “The Wildlands Project” by Reed Noss (from Wild Earth, Dec. 1992) indicate that the following strategy may be used to implement reserves and corridors:
1) Start with an innocent-sounding program like “World Heritage Areas in Danger.” Then, for example, bring all human activity under regulation in a 14 to 18 million acre buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park.
2) Then declare all federal land (except Indian reservations) as buffers, along with private land within federal administration boundaries.
3) Next, extend the U.S. Heritage corridor buffer zone concept along major river systems. Begin to convert critical federal lands and ecosystems to reserves.
4) Finally, convert all U.S. Forest Service, grasslands, and wildlife refuges to reserves. Add missing reserves and corridors so that 50% of landscape is “preserved.”
Figure 3. Map of proposed new, federally-controlled land designations based on the Wildlands Project
In the map (Figure 3) above, the red zones represent over 50% of the American landscape designated to be core reserves devoid of human presence. Yellow zones are buffers to the core reserves that would include very limited human use. The black dots are smart growth or human settlement zones subject to increasing controls and limitations on how we humans (the so-called “useless eaters”) are to live and move. The combination of the Wildlands Project and Smart Growth is the land use component of the UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development.
VI. World Heritage Sites (Biosphere Reserves) and Natural Heritage Sites
Not one ordinary human being on Earth had any say, whatsoever, about the taking of the world’s most pristine and beautiful wilderness areas. To my knowledge, the total, global, confiscated acreage has never been published… Some say the Biosphere lands were taken for their water, timber and mineral value. That makes sense, and also goes along with the herding of populations into “human settlements” as called for by the U.N.’s Agenda 21.
According to Wikipedia, UNESCO World Heritage sites such as a forest, mountain, lake, desert, monument, building, complex, or city, are maintained by the World Heritage Programme administered by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, which is composed of 21 state parties elected by the UN General Assembly. Sites are designated under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) program on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). At present, there are 851 sites listed in 141 countries. Of these, 660 are cultural, 166 are natural, and 25 have mixed properties. These sites include the most treasured historical cultural monuments in the world, such as Stonehenge, the Great Pyramids, the Great Wall of China, Machu Pichu, the Statue of Liberty, and the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls. There are 41 World Heritage sites in Italy alone, including the actual cities of Venice, Assisi, Ferrara, Paladia, and Verona and the Historic Centres of Rome, Florence, Naples, Siena, Pienza, Urbino, not to mention several national parks and the Aeolian Islands.
In the United States, there are over 60 World Heritage Sites/Biosphere Reserves, 30 of which are managed by the U.S. National Park Service. These include, amongst others, Denali, Grand Canyon, Great Smokey Mountain, Glacier, Glacier Bay, Mesa Verde, Olympic, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia and Kings Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite National Parks, i.e., the most spectacular parks in America. Altogether, World Heritage Sites/Biosphere Reserves in the U.S. equal the size of Colorado, the eighth largest state (http://oteroresidentsforum.blogspot.com/). In addition to the actual parks, UN jurisdiction now also may include “critical buffer zones” which can extend well beyond park boundaries. In other words, UNESCO has claimed jurisdiction over the most priceless and precious historical/cultural areas as well as the most pristine and spectacular natural areas in the world! Figure 4 shows the distribution of World Heritage Sites around the world.
A biosphere reserve is an international conservation designation, given by UNESCO under its Programme on Man and the Biosphere (MAB). Proscribed new uses of land are tools for implementing Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and other international (UN) agreements. As of May, 2008, the World Network of Biosphere Reserves includes 531 biosphere reserves in 105 countries (Figures 5, 6, and 7).
Figure 5. Map showing concentration of biosphere reserves in different regions.
Figure 6. Biosphere reserves in the coterminous United States
Figure 7. Biosphere reserves in Alaska and Hawaii
To fulfill UNESCO requirements, each biosphere reserve must include three areas: 1) legally protected core areas, which include “minimally disturbed ecosystems,” 2) buffer zones where non-conservation human activities are prohibited, and 3) transition, or cooperation zones, which may include towns, farms, and other human activities where approved . These are the same land subdivisions recommended in the Wildlands Project, Agenda 21, and Sustainable Development Programs. Thus, Tony Barnosky, the moderator for the 1995 international World Heritage hearing stated that eventually, the Yellowstone World Heritage ecosystem would include parts of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana, an area of between 14 and 18 million acres.” (Yellowstone itself is only about 2.2 million acres.) The extra land would be confiscated from private owners (from “World Heritage ‘Protection:’ UNESCO’s War Against National Sovereignty” by Berit Kjos (http://www.crossroads.to/text/articles/whpwans97.html).
UN designation of a World Heritage site and Biosphere Reserve does not mean the United States or other state loses the rights of sovereignty over the affected land. However, Dr. Michael Coffman notes that by agreeing to the international agreements and treaty stipulations of the World Heritage Treaty of 1972, the U.S. government must manage these lands in prescribed ways in order to achieve certain international goals and objectives. In other words, we have agreed to limit our right of sovereignty over these lands. Coffman notes that the U.S. Congress never passed any law permitting the U.S. to sign on to the incredible list of provisions and socialistic goals contained in the UNESCO International Biosphere Program .
In 1996, Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) introduced “The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act” to help protect private property owners and to require Congressional approval of international land designations in the United States. This bill passed in the House but failed in the Senate, despite these strong words from Young:
More and more of our nation’s land has become subject to international land-use restrictions…. A total of 67 sites in the United States have been designated as UN Biosphere Reserves of World Heritage Sites. These programs are run by UNESCO- an arm of the UN… the Biosphere Reserve program is not even authorized by a single U.S. law or even an international treaty. That is wrong. Executive branch appointees…. should not do things that the law does not authorize…. The power to make all the rules and regulations governing lands belonging to the United States is vested in the Congress… Yet the international land designations under these programs have been created with virtually no congressional oversight.
In 2007, the Alaska Legislature adopted Joint Resolution No. 21 which opposes the designation of any area in the state as a world heritage site, biosphere reserve, or any other type of international designation without the consent of the Alaska State Legislature and affected local governments. Let's hope other states do likewise soon!
The concept of World Heritage Site/Biosphere Reserve has been extended to include National Heritage Areas. According to Joyce Morrison (“National Heritage Areas- Federally Controlled Land Use” http://www.newswithviews.com/Morrison/joyce44.htm, as of August, 2007, there are 37 National Heritage Areas in the United States (Figure 8). Many more are being proposed. Because no federal laws authorize their existence, Congress has created NHA’s on an ad hoc basis. However, each NHA receives federal funding from and is managed and overseen by the U.S. National Park Service.
Because designated areas are under the authority of the National Park Service they are managed by an unelected management group. While the Park Service claims they have no powers of eminent domain, they are partners with federal agencies that do have those powers. Morrison notes that property owners have no choice but to be included in a designated NHA. They cannot vote for those serving on the coalition that will develop the management plan. Property owners are not notified if they are living in a heritage area. And once land is designated as a NHA, there are no provisions for property owners living in the area to opt out.
NHA proponents say: “In Heritage Areas, local communities and leaders cooperate on efforts to preserve the resources that are important to them. The partnership approach to heritage development involves collaborative planning around a theme, industry, and/or geographical feature that influenced the region’s culture and history.” According to Morrison, the proposed Abraham Lincoln NHA, now working its way through Congress, covers 42 rural counties. Agriculture would be the main designated land use, with over 90% of the land privately owned. She asks: “Why would these farmers and landowners want the National Park Service, Interior Department of 'coalition partners' to take inventory and “preserve” the resources on their property?"
Heads up, neighbors! The Congressional bills listed for 2007 include two new NHA’s in Colorado: the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area (S.443, H.R. 859) and the South Park NHA (S.444). The Sangre de Cristso NHA includes 3,237 square miles (2.1 million acres) in three counties (Alamosa, Costilla and Conejos Counties). And those of us in the San Luis Valley may be interested to learn about the proposed Northern Rio Grande NHA that appears as #35 in Figure 8 above. This proposed NHA extends from the Colorado/New Mexico border down to Taos and Sante Fe.
VII. Sustainable Communities (i.e., Reservations)
Really what we have afoot here is the construction of a global plantation with the few controlling the world’s resources. Judith Moriarty
It will be the humans in cages with the animals looking in. “Smart Growth” activist
The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), formed in 1972, whose first director was Maurice Strong, has remapped the whole world into “bio-regions.” In a 1995 article entitled “The Reorganization of Society” (Eco-logic Magazine published by Environmental Conservation Organization), UNEP presented a five-step action plan to:
1) Redraw land maps to differentiate biological characteristics rather than political jurisdiction. 2. Regroup human populations into self-sustaining settlements that minimize impact on biodiversity. 3. Educate humans in the “gaia ethic,” which holds that Gaia is the creator of all life and all life is part of the creator (the New World Order Religion). 4. Create a new system of governance based on local decision-making within the framework of international agreements. 5. Reduce the use of natural resources by a) reducing population, b) reducing consumption, and c) shifting to “appropriate” technology.
What simpler, more effective method could there be for ultimate, absolute control of human populations than the methods that are being advanced under the banner of “environmental and biodiversity protection?” Read the list above once more. Notice who will be in control. Note that humans will be “regrouped” (relocated) in accordance with a master plan. Human populations must be “self-sustaining,” which virtually guarantees a vastly diminished standard of living, especially for western civilizations.
The program underway to undermine the concept of private property rights, especially in the western portion of the U.S., is ample evidence that the socialist planners behind this global agenda are implementing their program now. If unopposed, their efforts will, in time, establish by precedent the authority of prevailing governments to control the whole spectrum of human activity: reproductive rights, property rights, lifestyle, consumption, and even the level of technology permitted. It is a ghastly picture… the primary reason that such dramatic progress toward UNEP objectives has been made in recent years is the fact that very few people have recognized that the common denominator in the whole movement is an arm of the United Nations!
VIII. Smart Growth.
The second action plan (of Sustainable Development) is called Smart Growth. Smart Growth will increasingly herd Americans into regimented and dense urban communities. Smart Growth is Sustainable Development’s ultimate solution, as it will create dense human settlements subject to increasing controls on how residents live and increased restriction on mobility. In the words of one smart growth activist: “It will be the humans in cages with the animals looking in.”
In “The Smart Growth Fraud”, http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike.htm, Dr. Michael Coffman notes that urban planning to implement what Al Gore calls “smart growth” supposedly corrects the problems of urban sprawl with its attendant problems of increased cost and pollution, stress, escalating consumption and loss of farmland. Dr. Coffman, however, suggests that evidence indicates that urban planning often creates the very nightmares it is supposed to eliminate, and in the process, it strips urbanites of one of their most fundamental civil liberties- property rights.
Thus, for average Americans, smart growth has to do with land-use control and loss of property rights. Coffman notes that in their (blind?) obsession to preserve natural habitats, mainstream environmental groups such as the Sierra Club(which recall, is a partner with theIUCN and UNin promoting the Wildlands Project) are relentlessly promoting these values. For example, in June, 2001, the Sierra Club defined “efficient urban density” as a city containing 500 housing units per acre. This would mean that up to 500 families would have to live on one acre of land, that is 209 X 209 feet. This would require that the entire acre is covered with a 14-story building with 36 small 1000-square foot units on each floor! This is three times the density of the highest density tracts in Manhattan and twice the density of the most squalid neighborhoods in Bombay, India!
Let’s get real. Using 2002 data, the U.S. Bureau of Census classifies less than 5% of the U.S. as being developed, with less than 2.5% as urban. Even in the densely populated East, New York and Pennsylvania are only 10% developed and New Jersey, the most densely populated, has 30% of its land developed. These statistics alone suggest that the proposal to make 50% of America off-limits to human use has less to do with land preservation that with elite control of resources.
IX. Toward the Green Global Dictatorship
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.
Prince Phillip of Great Britain, leader of World Wildlife Fund
An 'agricultural world' in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people.... In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion people.
UN Global Biodiversity Assessment
Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class- involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system including the United Nations........
Maurice Strong, Secretary-General, UN Conference on Environment and Development
Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrial civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
Maurice Strong
Over the past century, writers such as Aldous Huxley (Brave New World), George Orwell (1984 and Animal Farm), and H.G. Wells (The Open Conspiracy) have described the kind of totalitarian one-world government long envisioned by the global ruling elite of the International Criminal Conspiracy. Basically, their “Plan” calls for depopulation of 2 to 4 billion humans and establishment of a despotic feudal system, with confinement of most of the remaining robot/slaves to isolated “human settlements,” as outlined in the Wildlands Project and Agenda 21 above. The international ruling elite would then control virtually all the earth’s wealth and resources. As incremental steps en route toward fulfillment of this utopian nightmare, their Plan calls for the elimination of all nations, private property, and all religions except their New World Order Religion, a hybrid of pantheism and witchcraft.
Up to now, this Plan has been advanced by many different means, including the ruling elite’s behind-the-scenes orchestration of wars, depressions and famines, as well as their relentless consolidation of control of the world’s money, media, food, energy, and water resources, etc. In the United States, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a subordinate body to the (British) Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) and the (international) Committee of 300, has played perhaps the dominant role in secretively executing this plan for a One World Government/New World Order (see Dr. John Coleman’s, The Conspirators Hierarchy, The Committee of 300). They have done this by incrementally 1) creating a parallel, “secret” (“shadow”) government by wresting control, through infiltration and financial manipulation, of nearly all hierarchical government, business, educational, and professional institutions, and 2) dismantling the U.S. Constitution. Today, it seems that the United Nations and the United States have been chosen as the two principal governance structures to usher in their global tyranny. Even as the U.S. military systematically pillages the wealth and resources of other nations on behalf of this unholy Zionist Anglo-American Empire, America, Britain, and Israel themselves are also covertly and systematically being destroyed and enfolded into the one-world government under the auspices of the United Nations. Indeed, the UN was created to implement the NWO, with its headquarters in the City of London.
Since the vast majority of us stand to either lose our free will and/or our lives under this new feudal tyranny, “the Plan” has been ushered in slowly and incrementally, through secrecy, stealth, and criminal activities. One of the main strategies used by the International Criminal Conspiracy includes the use of the Hegelian dialectic, whereby the ruling elite sets up conflicts between a thesis and its antithesis in order to arrive at a pre-determined synthesis, in this case, Global Tyranny (Figure 9). This is probably our rulers’ primary method of orchestrating wars, domestic discord, etc. (Sutton, 1982). Thus, for example, the Rothschilds and their accomplices created the dialectic between U.S.-style capitalism and Soviet-style communism as a way to justify their synthesis, a 40+ year Cold War, etc.
Figure 9. The Hegelian dialectic (from "Sustainable Trouble: The Attempt to Transform the Vision of America," 2004, Michael Shaw)
In the realm of domestic policy, Michael Shaw observes (from “Sustainable Trouble” cited above):
The challenge for these evil-doers is to bracket the public “choice” between contrasting alternatives each predicated on legal positivism. Legal positivism is the notion that there is no higher law than the law imposed by centralized human authority. Under a regime of legal positivism the “rights” of man are granted and revoked- like an animal’s “rights” would be…. The “thesis” of this artificial dialectic is formed by people and organizations who advocate combining the force of government with the power of business. Under Sustainable Development this end is accomplished through the creation of “public-private partnerships.”
However, by definition, “public-private partnerships… combining the force of government with the power of business” amount to fascism. In her article, "US Military Targets Southeast Colorado, Part 3," Deanna Spingola (http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna92.htm) observes that “In a Public-Private Partnership public assets are surrendered to corporations.” Similarly, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini stated: “Fascism should more properly be called “corporatism,” since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
Note that in Figure 10 (below), the “thesis” of public-private partnerships (for example, oil/gas companies in collusion with the federal government) is offset by the “antithesis” of foundations and non-governmental organizations advocating social and environmental justice. The artificially-created conflict between these results in the predetermined “synthesis;” tyranny of the OWG/NOW. This preferred outcome (tyranny of global governance) is to be instituted through gradual implementation of Regional Governance, Sustainable Development via Smart Growth, the Wildlands Project, Agenda 21, Collectivism, and the UN Charter. For this artificial dialectic to work, the ruling elite must control, or mostly control “antithesis institutions” such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), etc. as well as the “thesis institutions” (government-business monopoly cartels such as Exxon-Mobile, Conoco-Phillips, etc.). They do. As noted above, many articles and reports suggest that many mainstream environmental groups, including as the Sierra Club and TNC are now co-opted and controlled by the very government/industry interests that they historically opposed.
Figure 10. “Thesis” (Public-Private Partnerships) and “Antithesis” (Social and Environmental Justice) lead to predetermined “Synthesis” of Sustainable Development and Government-Controlled Society (from Shaw, 2004)
Another result of this artificial Hegelian dialectic is the replacement of the principle of individual rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution with the principle of “community rights” (collectivism) as defined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights (Figure 11, below).
Figure 11. The critical difference between U.S. Declaration of Independence and UN Declaration of Human Rights. Are human rights bestowed by God or the state?
As Hoover Institute historian, Anthony Sutton, observed in America’s Secret Establishment, An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones (1982), the New World Order would be “a planned order with heavily restricted individual freedom without Constitutional protection, without national boundaries or cultural distinction.” Even as our “would-be masters” advance the Hegelian notion that the state is absolute and requires absolute obedience from the individual, they understand perfectly well that the state is a fiction. They own and control the state. So in practice, obedience to “the State” means obedience to our would-be tyrants. In practice, however, their drive toward global governance/tyranny is also accompanied by a host of other factors such as child indoctrination, deceit/corruption, war without declaration, permanent revolution and a police state, as shown in Figure 12 (below).
Figure 12. Hegelian dialectic from Shaw (2004).
X. Solutions
Clearly, the preservation of the United States of America and our civil liberties, including freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc. as well as private property rights, requires that we citizens become aware of this ongoing incremental replacement of our republican form of government with a world-wide feudal tyranny under the United Nations. In this sense, self-education is the key. To this end, I have built a website: http://911NewWorldOrderfiles.googlepages.com/home2 in which I review many important books and reference many other essential websites, books, articles, movies, etc. The best first step would be for Americans to turn off their television (an essential propaganda tool for the ruling elite) and use the time they save to educate themselves as to what is really happening in the world. This requires work, sustained effort. It is not for the lazy and complacent. Fortunately, there are many, many others who have already done a tremendous amount of research. And much of this work is available now on the internet. So, collectively, we know a lot. Therefore, step 1 is educate yourself. Rather than just accept my conclusions, it would be better to check things out for yourselves. The 9th Annual Freedom21 National Conference will be held July 24-26, 2008 in Addison, Texas (http://www.freedom21.org/conf/2008/24.html). Certainly, the Freedom 21 is an important mechanism for countering the UN globalist agenda (http://www.stratek.co.za/.%5Carchive%5Cmichaelcoffman.html. In the short term, preserving the integrity of the United States and the U.S. Constitution are the best solution. In the long term, there will have to be coordination and cooperation with other nations in such a way that national and individual sovereignty’s are honored around the entire world.
Second, since the UN itself is a tool of the international bankers and their myriad front organizations, including the Committee of 300, the Royal Institute for International Affairs , etc., these institutions should also be exposed and dismantled, with guilty parties brought to justice. Third, the laws and Executive Orders which have been passed and implemented in defiance of the U.S. Constitution should quickly be annulled-- and Constitutional law must be re-established by Americans with integrity.
The simplest steps toward preserving the U.S. Constitution would be as follows:
1. The United States should withdraw from the United Nations immediately and make sure all UN-related activities are no longer permitted on U.S. soil. The U.S. government must also repudiate all international agreements that have been made with the UN.
2. The U.S. Congress should repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. This act, itself the result of a well-documented criminal conspiracy, gave the power to print American money to the European (Jewish) financial banking cartels, headed by the Jewish House of Rothschild in the City of London, England.
3. The U.S. should immediately terminate its “special relationships” with Great Britain and Israel. These two countries now more or less dictate nearly all U.S. foreign and domestic policies- policies also intended to bring about the One-World-Government New World Order.
4. The U.S. government should immediately dismantle the Central Intelligence Agency (which was created partly out of ex-Nazi SS forces and which works for the international Committee of 300 rather than for the American people) as well as place a ban on all secret societies, especially including Skull and Bones fraternity and the Masons. No doubt there are thousands of others that need to be rooted out of our midst.
5. Anti-conflict of interest laws must be enforced so as to dismantle the "revolving door" between government and industry.
And most important, remember that “we” (regular people) outnumber “them” (our would-be ruling elite) by a factor of about a million to one!
References
Coleman, J., 1997-2006, The Conspirator's Hierarchy: The Committee of 300, 4th edition, Global Review Publications, Inc., Las Vegas, NV, 487 pp.
Corsi, J.R., 2007, The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada, WND Books, 241 pp.
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), 1996, The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide; An Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning, 200 pp.
Kennedy, R.F., Jr., 2004, Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy, Harper Perennial, New York, 279 pp.
Klein, W., and Meck, S., American Planning Association, 1998, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook, Model Statutes for Planning and Management of Change.
Reilly, W.K., 1973 The Use of Land: A Citizens Policy Guide to Urban Planning, Thomas Y. Crowell Co., NY.
Sutton, A.C., 1982, America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones, Trine Day, 317 pp.
Americans must decide if, in the name of homeland security, they are willing to allow TSA operatives to storm public places in their communities with no warning, pat them down, and search their bags. And they better decide quickly.
Bus travelers were shocked when jackbooted TSA officers in black SWAT-style uniforms descended unannounced upon the Tampa Greyhound bus station in April with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and federal bureaucrats in tow.
A news report by ABC Action News in Tampa showed passengers being given the signature pat downs Americans are used to watching the Transportation Security Administration screeners perform at our airports. Canine teams sniffed their bags and the buses they rode. Immigration officials hunted for large sums of cash as part of an anti-smuggling initiative.
The TSA clearly intends for these out-of-nowhere swarms by its officers at community transit centers, bus stops and public events to become a routine and accepted part of American life.
The TSA has conducted 8,000 of these security sweeps across the country in the past year alone, TSA chief John Pistole told a Senate committee June 14. They are part of its VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) program, which targets public transit related places.
All of which is enough to make you wonder if we are watching the formation of the "civilian national security force" President Obama called for on the campaign trail "that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded" as the military.
The VIPR swarm on Wednesday, the TSA's largest so far, was such a shocking display of the agency's power that it set the blogosphere abuzz.
In a massive flex of muscle most people didn't know the TSA had, the agency led dozens of federal and state law enforcement agencies in a VIPR exercise that covered three states and 5,000 square miles. According to the Marietta Times, the sweep used reconnaissance aircraft and "multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams."
When did the TSA get this powerful? Last year, Pistole told USA Today he wanted to "take the TSA to the next level," building it into a "national-security, counterterrorism organization, fully integrated into U.S. government efforts."
What few people realize is how far Pistole has already come in his quest. This is apparently what that next level looks like. More than 300 law enforcement and military personnel swept through a 100-mile stretch of the Ohio Valley alone, examining the area's industrial infrastructure, the Charleston Gazette reported.
Federal air marshals, the Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the FBI, the Office of Homeland Security and two dozen other federal, state and local agencies teamed up to scour the state's roads, bridges, water supply and transit centers under the TSA's leadership.
What is remarkable about these security swarms is that they don't just involve federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The TSA brings in squads of bureaucrats from state and federal agencies as well, everything from transportation departments to departments of natural resources.
The TSA had received no specific threats about the Tampa bus station before the April sweep, reporters were told.
They were there "to sort of invent the wheel in advance in case we have to if there ever is specific intelligence requiring us to be here," said Gary Milano with the Department of Homeland Security in an ABC News Action television report. "This way us and our partners are ready to move in at a moment's notice."
Federal immigration officials from Customs and Border Patrol swept the station with the TSA, looking for "immigration violations, threats to national security" and "bulk cash smuggling." (How the bulk cash smuggling investigation related to national security was never explained.)
"We'll be back," Milano told reporters. "We won't say when we'll be back. This way the bad guys are on notice we'll be back."
The TSA gave the same vague answers when asked about the three-state sweep this week. That sweep wasn't in response to any specific security threat, either.
The purpose was to "have a visible presence and let people know we're out here," Michael Cleveland, federal security director for TSA operations in West Virginia told the Gazette. "It can be a deterrent."
It might be -- if Americans are willing to live this way.
We went to the Global warming lecture expecting to get our questions answered. Meet Angus Duncan the Head Of The Oregon's Global Warming Commission. As can be expected the event was pretty one sided. All I can say is redistribution of wealth and Apollo Alliance. At the climax of this part of the event the citizen journalist was asked to stop filming, even after his camera was closed or leave the event. Even though it was only half way in. Agenda 21 COUGH
You know that show “Modern Marvels?” I think it‘s fair to file China’s swelling “ghost cities” under that category.
You’ll remember that we first brought you video of this phenomenon back in March. Back then, we noted that China is building about 10 new cities a year. However, the problem is that no one is occupying them. China’s just building buildings to build buildings, and possibly inflate infrastructure statistics. And they keep doing it.
This week, Business Insider published new satellite images of the infamous ghost cities, along with this update (which could explain why China has just become the world’s top energy consumer):
This week we asked analyst Gillem Tulloch what has happened in the past six months.
“China built more of them,” Tulloch said. “China consumes more steel, iron ore and cement per capita than any industrial nation in history. It’s all going to railways that will never make money, roads that no one drives on and cities that no one lives in.”
“It’s like walking into a forest of skyscrapers, but they’re all empty,” he said of Chenggong.
By Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D. August 23, 2006 NewsWithViews.com
The War of Worldviews
Our view of reality and the role of government in our lives greatly influence how we view property rights. Our public education system no longer teaches foundational U.S. Constitutional history and the principles that we derive from it. Consequently, we have become a nation of two worldviews and many of us cannot recognize that we are undermining the very form of government that made America the greatest nation on earth.
The two philosophies that have been struggling for supremacy for the past 250 years, those of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, have divided America. America’s Constitution is rooted in the thought of John Locke (1632-1704), who’s Two Treatises on Government (1689) provided a framework for England’s Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the American Revolution of 1776. Locke demonstrated that the foundation of a progressive civilization, as outlined in his Second Treatise of Government, begins with natural, God-given rights:
Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of Nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power … to preserve his property- that is, his life, liberty, and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men.
Thomas Jefferson made them the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence when he penned, “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The purpose of government, according to Locke, is to join with others to “unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estate, which I call by the general name, property. The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.” (Italics added) This fundamental principle became the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence “That to secure these Rights, [of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property)] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
Locke’s political philosophy promotes individual rights and limited constitutional government as the basis of freedom and economic security. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) opposed Locke’s model in the name of the wholeness of man, arguing that it divides man by focusing on self-interest, individual rights, and property. Rousseau sees “man as a malleable creature” to be molded by an enlightened government. He “favors primitive man, the noble savage who lives in simple equality with his fellow man, with few needs, a limited appetite, over man in civilized society.”
Rousseau wrote the Social Contract in 1762, which focuses on the abstract “general will” of the people. Today the same concept is expressed as the “public good” or the “public interest” and forms the heart of socialism. Although Rousseau championed individual freedom from the state and religion, there is nothing to keep the state from defining the “general will” as the “state’s will.” Rousseau’s philosophy therefore inevitably leads to a “statist” approach to government, in which the state is superior to the individual and all individual rights are derived from the state – including property rights. According to Rousseau, property rights bind the poor, give “new powers to the rich” thereby destroying “natural liberty” and equality and convert “usurpation into unalterable right.”
Contrary to the Rousseau model of governance which condemns individualism and self-interest, the Locke model depends on private property rights and self-interest to motivate individuals to do something a better way or create a new product or service that serves a human need. To prevent abuse, both Locke and our founders held that private property rights must have some limits. In this approach, however, the legislature designs only those laws needed prevent the use of property in ways that cause real harm to other people or to their property, not to achieve some altruistic social goal. So important is this principle that the U.S. Supreme Court said in Lynch v. Household Finance Corporation (1972):
[T]he dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one. Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property without unlawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is in truth, a ‘personal’ right, whether the ‘property’ in question be a welfare check, a home, or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither could have meaning without the other.
Without the right of private, unencumbered property, people cannot have liberty. True freedom is only an illusion if they are dependent upon the state for water, food, shelter, and other basic needs. When the government, rather than individuals, own the fruits of the citizens’ labors, nothing is safe from abuse by either a democratic majority in the name of a public good, or a tyrant. In their book Property Rights, Understanding Government Takings and Environmental Regulation, Nancie and Roger Marzulla note, “Ultimately, as government dependents, these individuals are powerless to oppose any infringement on their rights…due to the absolute government control over the fruits of their labor.” Nowhere is this more apparent than in the old Soviet Union, where all property belonged to the state. No one could speak out against the government for fear of their government evicting their family or taking away their job by the local communist commissar.
Another problem arises from government ownership of land. While environmentalists and socialists blame greed and the self-interest of private property owners for the environmental destruction, that is not accurate. Ironically, it was because no one owned our air or waterways that pollution occurred. It is the natural consequence of the law of the commons; the air and waterways are not property owned by individuals, but theoretically belong to all people. Since there was no pride of ownership, however, there was no motivation to care for or optimize property held in common with the millions of other citizens. Called the Tragedy of the Commons, everyone sinks to the lowest common denominator, the economic structure stagnates, and the infrastructure collapses.
Although property rights motivate individuals to be creative and take risk in finding a better way or product, Rousseau socialism does just the opposite. Rousseau socialism places control in the hands of unaccountable, unelected government bureaucrats whose primary incentive is to make their regulatory jobs easier and more efficient so they can build bigger empires at the people’s expense. Unless there is strong oversight of bureaucrats – something politicians rarely do – there is no accountability to keep them from administering laws in an arbitrary and capricious manner leading to corruption.
While Rousseau socialism does not destroy property rights as effectively as totalitarianism or communism, it nonetheless places a stranglehold on it and reduces economic and personal freedom in proportion to the amount of regulation imposed. Tragically, environmental and planning laws passed at all levels of government over the past thirty-five years has taken thousands of towns, cities, counties and states from the Locke model of governance by the consent of the governed to the Rousseau model where the government rules supreme over the citizens. Many communities, however, have councils who want to do the right thing for their citizens, but their professional planners and lawyers tell them what they need to do to implement socialist smart growth and environmental protection in their communities. It is to that group that the following information will be most informative. It clearly shows socialist smart growth and environmentalism come at an extremely high cost to citizens.
The High Cost of Socialism
Legal property rights are the key factor in the success of capitalism in the West. The legal structure in the West documents every parcel of land, every building, every piece of equipment, or store of inventory in some form as property. Property can be used as an asset to finance expansion or another investment. The process of legally registering property takes only a few days at most and connects all these assets to the rest of the economy. In the United States, for instance, about 70 percent of the credit new businesses receive comes from using formal titles as collateral for home mortgages.
This is not the case in developing nations. Private property rights are diametrically opposed to the socialist’s fundamental belief that the state should either control or own those rights. Consequently, they never allowed private property rights in the great capitalistic venture of the late twentieth century. Registering titles in most developing nations takes not days, not months, not even years. Legally registering property usually takes decades as a person must get approval through dozens, if not hundreds of bureaucratic steps because these bureaucrats have no incentive to process the application expeditiously. Worse, the entire system is vulnerable to corruption, as petty bureaucrats at each stage demand their payoffs.
Although people in developing nations may actually own property, which the local community recognizes, they rarely register it because of the corrupt regulatory quagmire. Consequently, it has no legal value for collateral or building wealth. Since it has no legal value, it represents vast, but dead capital.
In his compelling book The Mystery of Capital, Hernando de Soto accurately identifies formal private property rights as the key to reducing poverty and producing wealth. Legal title to use property represents equity. In turn, this equity can become collateral to create the capital needed to start, expand or buy into a business, which then yields income and wealth. The amount of equity can be stunning, even in the United States. The average net worth of home-owning Americans in 2002 was $132,100 verses $4,200 for American renters – 30 times less! True, other factors also play into these numbers, but property remains the key factor in creating wealth.
The developing nations of the world perhaps provide the most striking example of how socialism destroys the wealth-building capability of property. In these nations, de Soto found that the simple act of legally transferring the title to property is very costly. It can take years, even decades because of a sea of bureaucratic corruption and regulations. Few people have the time or resources to own property legally. This “extralegal” property therefore has no legal asset value.
De Soto has shown that the total value of this kind of extralegal property within developing nations and former communist countries is at least $9.3 trillion! This is ninety-three times as much as all development assistance to the developing nations from all advanced countries during the past thirty years. There would be no need for development assistance if these poverty-stricken people could have access to the asset value of their own property that is presently dead capital. Yet, the United Nations and the international community are presently putting together a series of international treaties in the name of “sustainable development that systematically prevents citizens in the third world nations from ever attaining the formal property rights that will give them wealth and liberty.
Denial of private property rights has been the policy of the United Nations and other international institutions since the 1970s. The Preamble of Agenda Item 10 of the UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat I) held in Vancouver, May 31 - June 11, 1976 states that:
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 a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."
Throughout this United Nations document, the socialist model for private property rights is set forth as the basis for future United Nations policy:
Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development…. Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land…. Change in the use of land...should be subject to public control and regulation…of the common good.
This socialist view of private property rights has infected all areas of international policy. Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics and former Senior Vice President of the World Bank, identifies the desperate need for the poor in the third world nations to have property rights. In his book Globalization and Its Discontents Stiglitz understands that a free market system “requires clearly established property rights and the courts to enforce them.” He blames the international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank for making the plight of the poor even worse. Only the transnational corporations or the wealthiest 10 percent in the nations population that invest in factories and business are blessed with property rights. The poor and middle class must have legally protected private property rights to benefit from a market economy. Because the IMF denies the poor this type of protection by only giving lip service to property rights, they become the victims of globalism. The IMF merely creates the perception of property rights without requiring the legal structure that protects them in an equitable manner.
To prove the point, the World Bank loaned $37 million in 1997 to the Institute for Liberty and Democracy. The loan helped Peruvians register their property under a new law passed in 1988 that made it easier to secure legal property rights. The loan helped over four million Peruvians register their property. The $37 million instantly created an incredible $6 billion in assets that was available for investment back into the Peruvian economy!
If strangling socialist regulations encumber property rights, there is little to no equity, and therefore little to no capital with which to create wealth. Without wealth, a nation cannot protect the environment. A family whose primary focus is to put food on the table is not going to be interested in protecting the environment. The contrast between the United States, Europe and the Third World is striking. The U.S. has some of the best-defined property rights in the world giving its citizens a per capita Gross Domestic Product of $42,000 in 2005. In contrast, the average for socialist Europeans is only $28,100, and that for Third World Nations is less than $10,000.
Thousands of communities are implementing socialist smart growth and growth-management planning that does exactly the same thing that Hernando de Soto found in third world nations. Rather than days, it often takes years, if ever, to get a permit to do anything in these communities because of feel-good regulatory restrictions. Many of these communities “appear” to be wealthy, but usually it is wealth created outside the smart growth community. It is just a matter of time before the community begins to suffer. Many cities having smart growth and growth-management for more than twenty years are already experiencing consequences. Planning can have a devastating impact.
For instance, research done at the Fraser Institute of Canada provides an “Economic Freedom Index” that uses thirty-eight variables to determine the relative economic freedom of any nation in the world. Several of them concern the legal security of private property rights. This data shows that property rights play the single greatest role in per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in countries around the world. There is a high correlation between the level of property rights and per capita GDP. Impoverished Third World nations having limited property rights have less than $8000 per capita income, while those having little to no property rights fall below $1000. Conversely, Western nations having legal property rights have incomes of greater than $12,000, usually greater than $20,000. There is a 74 percent correlation between the Fraser Institute’s property rights index and per capita gross domestic product of 126 nations.
Other factors obviously contribute to the per capita gross domestic product besides property rights. For instance, the property rights index for the United States is 7.9 while that of South Africa is 7.1. Although there is not much difference in the index of legal property rights between the two nations, the difference in the per capita GDP is huge, $42,000 and $12,100 respectively. Apartheid has kept South Africa’s data skewed because the law kept the black population from enjoying the same property rights as whites until the early 1990s. It will take decades to erase that disparity. However, it is happening. South Africa has gone from a Security of Property Rights index of 6.2 in 1980, to 2.9 in 1990 as blacks were factored in, to 7.1 today. At the same time, the index declined for the United States from 8.3 in 1980 to 7.9 as increasing regulations and erosion of legal protection chip away at private property rights. The South Africa example does show that any kind of artificial limitations to the rights of every citizen has a negative affect on the economic prosperity of the entire nation.
The Fraser Institute also showed the same relation exists between the states and provinces of North America. The Institute determined an “Index of Economic Freedom” made up of 1) Size of Government; 2) Takings and Discriminatory Taxation; and 3) Labor Market Freedom. These are all good measures of the degree each state or province has imposed socialistic regulations on their citizens.
In the United States, Delaware, Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia and Texas had the five highest Economic Freedom Indices, averaging an index of 7.7. Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico and West Virginia had the lowest, averaging 5.5 on the Economic Freedom Index. States having large per capita government, discriminatory taxation and onerous labor laws impose a severe penalty on its citizens by reducing economic activity and per capita income. For instance, a one-point improvement in economic freedom increases per-capita GDP by US$5,907. The reverse is also true. Consequently, the five states having the lowest economic freedom indices had annual per capita GDP incomes that were $13,000 less than the five highest states – a severe penalty for citizens living in those states. For a modest city of 50,000 people, that adds up to $650 million dollars of lost economic activity annually.
Numerous studies show there is a negative impact on communities where government imposes growth management and smart growth regulations. The Harvard Institute of Economic Research at Harvard University published a study that found that growth management and smart growth zoning dramatically affect housing costs. The study found that when regulatory zoning does not artificially drive up the price of land, the cost of an extra quarter-acre in a single lot is very similar to a separate and independent buildable quarter-acre lot. This condition exists in urban Kansas City.
However, in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Diego, California, New York City, Seattle and other smart growth cities like them, the difference between the cost of an extra quarter-acre in a lot, and a separate buildable quarter-acre lot is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In these areas, claims the Harvard study, “Measures of zoning strictness are highly correlated with high prices…. Only 10 percent of the value of the land comes from an intrinsically high land price.” The authors found that their evidence “suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.” Although many other variables were tested, land-use regulation was the only one correlated with the huge cost increases. For part three click below.
The Smart Growth Fraud
Planners claim it costs more to provide urban services to low-density areas, so compact development is more affordable. This claim comes from the report The Costs of Sprawl 2000, which states that low-density development adds a whopping $11,000 to the cost of a new single-family home. However, this is peanuts compared to what Randle O’Tool reports in his enlightening report, The Planning Penalty. Government data shows a nice “middle managers” house with four bedrooms and two-and-one-half baths and a double car garage, costs between $150,000 and $200,000 in American cities having no smart growth or growth-management planning. The price for that same house jumps to $300,000 to 440,000 if that type of planning has been in place for ten to fifteen years. In cities having this planning for twenty-five years or more, the same house costs a staggering $500,000 to as much as $1.5 million.
During the 1990s, the amount of housing stock sold in the United States was slightly more than five percent each year. If the average home is resold or replaced every twenty years, the annual cost of growth-management planning to homebuyers is nearly $275 billion. Leaving out the overpricing of and-short metro areas such as Honolulu, the total planning penalty for the 120 metro areas with such penalties is close to $5.5 trillion, or slightly more than 30 percent of the total value of U.S. owner-occupied housing. We can only expect these costs to grow as more and more communities buy into the smart growth fraud.
O’Tool identifies at least ten causes that create this planning penalty:
Urban-growth boundaries, urban-service boundaries, large-lot rural zoning, or other restrictions on the amount of land available for development;
Purchases of greenbelts and other open spaces that reduce the amount of land available for development;
Design codes requiring developers to use higher cost construction methods or designs;
Historic preservation ordinances, tree ordinances, and other rules restricting or increasing the cost of development;
Impact fees aimed at discouraging development;
Growth caps limiting the number of permits that can be issued each year;
Concurrency rules requiring adequate financing for all urban services before building permits can be issued;
Lengthy permitting processes that force developers to hold land for several years before they are allowed to develop it;
Planning processes that allow people to easily appeal and delay projects, creating uncertainty about when a project can begin;
Inclusionary zoning programs requiring developers to subsidize some housing for low-income people, effectively increasing the price of the remaining housing.
Most cities and communities employ many of these at the same time.
This reality points out an ugly fact about smart growth. It destroys the American Dream for millions of low to middle income Americans. Although smart growth proponents advocate land-use control as a means of providing affordable housing, it punishes low-income families, keeping them from ever being able to afford a home of their own and denying them the American Dream. According to the Heritage Foundation, home ownership rates among African-American and Hispanic families are still below 50 percent, in contrast to the nearly 75 percent ownership rates among white households. The very fashionable Fauquier County, Virginia, which has imposed severe growth restrictions and limits on homebuilding, has seen its African-American population fall both relatively and absolutely over the decade of the 1990s.
Urban planning has failed miserably in providing affordable housing. As a rule, more dense areas cost more to build in, tend to have higher taxes, higher levels of pollution, and a higher cost of living. The Heritage Foundation reports that; “Data indicate that housing affordability in Portland, Oregon (percentage of households that can afford the median priced home) dropped 56 percent from 1991 to 2000, the largest reduction of any major urban area in the nation! Portland's home ownership rate fell as a result.” The poor, of course, suffer the most in this kind of failed policy.
Families no longer able to afford single-family homes in Portland have to move into “affordable” multifamily units. These units are often subsidized – at taxpayers expense – by the very government that created the shortage in the first place by imposing smart growth regulations. During 1992-97, the number of housing permits issued for multifamily units doubled from 25 percent to 49 percent. Those communities and cities employing smart growth are in fact willfully using the law to plunder, if not criminally extort their citizens. It systematically destroys the hopes and aspirations of the lower income class and those unfortunate souls whom the community targets for destruction.
Smart growth advocates usually blame housing affordability problems on demand. If that were true, then prices of houses would be much higher in Houston, Atlanta and Raleigh, which are among the nation’s fastest growing cities. But they are orders of magnitude less than in San Diego and San Jose, which are growing very slowly.
The paranoia about the need to control growth is a constant drumbeat of those promoting urban planning. They claim America is rapidly losing its farmland and open space. Yet, the U.S. Bureau of Census classifies about 6 percent of the U.S. as being developed and 3 percent as urban using the 2002 corrected data. Even in the densely populated east, both New York and Pennsylvania are only 10 percent developed. New Jersey, the most developed state, has only 30 percent of its land developed. To top it all off, The National Center for Policy Analysis found that less than one-quarter of the loss in farmland since 1945 is due to urbanization, and the rate of loss has been dropping since the 1960s. To state it in the simplest possible terms, there is no problem with sprawl.
For decades urban planners have adhered to the mantra that urban sprawl increases pollution and housing costs, more driving time to work and shopping, stress, and the escalating consumption of scarce farmland and open space. Urban planning to implement smart growth supposedly corrects these problems and creates more livable, inexpensive homes for all. Irrefutable evidence, however, shows that urban planning creates the very nightmares it is supposed to eliminate. In the process, it strips urbanites of one of their most fundamental civil liberties – property rights.
The presumption that low-density residential development means more pollution, more congestion and fewer preserved natural resources is blatantly false. Likewise, the belief that higher-density compact development mitigates those impacts is false. Increasing population density does little to alleviate auto-caused smog. Urban and suburban areas with the lowest population densities have the fewest air pollution problems.
Population density or compactness also has little relationship to how much commuters depend on automobiles. More than 75 percent of commuter trips are by car – even in urban areas. Thus, any planning strategy that attempts to increase population density usually leads to more traffic congestion and stalled traffic. This exacerbates air pollution levels and potentially causes more areas to fail federal clean air goals. This, in turn requires regulations that are even more restrictive.
Portland, Oregon, the model for urban planning, has had the most stringent land-use plans in the U.S. since the 1970s. Portland’s March 16, 1996 Regional Transportation Update boldly proclaimed that, “Congestion signals positive urban development.” As if that were not bad enough, Portland’s 1999 Regional Transportation Plan proclaims that, “Transportation solutions aimed solely at relieving congestion are inappropriate.” When confronted with the question of why the agency found high levels of congestion to be acceptable, its leading transportation planner replied that any effort to relieve congestion “would eliminate transit ridership.” In other words, light rail and smart growth have become ends unto themselves, unrelated to solving urban problems.
In implementing its plan, Portland has stopped building highways and instead has built two light commuter rails that failed to achieve their goals. Transit commuter use actually dropped 20 percent from 1980 to 1991. Additionally, in spite of the severe hardship imposed on those who want to use automobiles, the Portland area experienced the largest increase in automobile use per capita from 1990 to 1999 of any U.S. urban area with more than one million people.
The same is true for alternative transit methods. San Francisco's proposed Third Street light rail line, for instance, costs $40.50 per ride, which is equal to $18,225 annually per new commuter. Notes the Heritage Foundation:
For the same money, each new commuter could lease a new Pontiac Grand Am throughout the "life" of the rail system and pay for more than 100,000 miles of air travel at the average ticket rate each year. Alternatively, one could lease the Grand Am and use the remainder of the annual subsidy for the average mortgage payment in the nation's most expensive housing market.
At least nineteen states have state growth-management laws or task forces to ostensibly protect farmland and open space. Dozens of cities and counties have adopted urban growth boundaries to contain development and prevent the spread of urbanization to outlying and rural areas. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) partially funded a 2002 report called Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. In 2003 Congress considered passing “The Community Character Act,” which proposed to fund state and local efforts to reform their land use planning process to conform more closely to smart growth policies. The Act did not pass, but it will come up again. Count on it.
The Legislative Guidebook calls for using federal funding as a carrot to mandate a more restrictive “integrated state-regional-local planning system that is both vertically and horizontally consistent.” Vertically and horizontally consistent, in turn, means total government control from the federal government to the local community across America.
Contrary to the dogma that condemns sprawl as somehow evil, Randal O’Tool makes these germane observations:
Sprawl is the cure for, not the cause of, congestion. As USC planning professors Peter Gordon and Harry Richardson observe, “suburbanization has been the dominant and successful mechanism for coping with congestion.”
By providing access to low-cost land, sprawl increases, not reduces, housing affordability.
As the U.S. Department of Agriculture says, urbanization is “not considered a threat to the nation’s food production.” Nor is it a threat to forests or other rural open spaces.
Sprawl does not make people “auto dependent.” Rather, it gives people opportunities to take advantage of the liberating effects of automobility. Among these effects have been a huge increase in real personal incomes, access to a wide variety of low-cost consumer goods, and increased recreation and social opportunities.
Sprawl does not make people fat or unhealthy, and claims to the contrary are based on junkscience. O’Tool reports that find weak correlations between statistically questionable data and then assume that correlation proves causation.
Sprawl does not cause toxic air pollution. Concentrations of toxic pollutants are far more likely in dense areas than in low-density areas.
No matter how it is cut, urban planning and smart growth is a bald-faced fraud that is creating a nightmare for people across America. As Randal O’Tool said in The Planning Penalty, “It is hard to imagine that more traffic congestion, higher taxes, lower urban services, increased consumer costs, and unaffordable housing add up to a more livable city.”
From a few academics and environmentalists to the media, state and local officials, and high-level federal officials of all ideologies and party affiliations, this misguided vision has spread despite overwhelming evidence that it does not work. The persistence of these beliefs despite all facts to the contrary is a tribute to the power of a fashionable idea favoring federal intervention, however illogical it may seem in practice and experience.
By Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D. August 23, 2006 NewsWithViews.com
Executive Order - Establishment of the White House Rural Council
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to enhance Federal engagement with rural communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
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.
Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a White House Rural Council (Council).
Sec. 3. Membership. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall also include the heads of the following executive branch departments, agencies, and offices:
(1) the Department of the Treasury;
(2) the Department of Defense;
(3) the Department of Justice;
(4) the Department of the Interior;
(5) the Department of Commerce;
(6) the Department of Labor;
(7) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(8) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(9) the Department of Transportation;
(10) the Department of Energy;
(11) the Department of Education;
(12) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(13) the Department of Homeland Security;
(14) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(15) the Federal Communications Commission;
(16) the Office of Management and Budget;
(17) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
(19) the Council of Economic Advisers;
(20) the Domestic Policy Council;
(21) the National Economic Council;
(22) the Small Business Administration;
(23) the Council on Environmental Quality;
(24) the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs;
(25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or the Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate.
(b) A member of the Council may designate, to perform the Council functions of the member, a senior-level official who is part of the member's department, agency, or office, and who is a full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government.
(c) The Department of Agriculture shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.
(d) The Council shall coordinate its policy development through the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council.
Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council. The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration's engagement with rural communities. The Council shall:
(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;
(b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;
(c) coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas; and
(d) identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Council. Each executive department and agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
On April 27, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a Clean Water Act jurisdictional guidance document that would drastically expand the EPA’s ability to regulate private land and water. Just as the EPA used regulation to get around Congress’s rejection of cap-and-trade legislation to tax carbon dioxide, the agency is again ignoring Congress after policymakers failed to move legislation forward.
Last Congress, Representative Jim Oberstar (D–MN) and Senator Russ Feingold (D–WI) tried to expand the powers of the EPA by introducing legislation that would replace the term “navigable waters” in the Clean Water Act (CWA) with “waters of the U.S.,” which would significantly expand what the EPA could regulate. Congress rejected the Oberstar–Feingold approach, but now EPA is unilaterally moving forward with its own rules that would stunt economic activity and job creation.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said it would not be a “massive increase as far as we can tell” in terms of new waters under federal jurisdiction but did say, “I do think there will be some expansion [of regulatory jurisdiction] to waters that currently people might view as isolated.” In response to the guidance, Senator John Barrasso (R–WY) and 19 other Senators sent a letter to Jackson expressing their concern about the EPA’s guidance. The letter says:
It is particularly troubling that the guidance allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA to regulate waters now considered entirely under state jurisdiction. This unprecedented exercise of power will allow EPA to trump states’ rights, and vitiate the authority of state and local governments to make local land and water use decisions. This is particularly troubling when we have seen no evidence that the states are misusing or otherwise failing to meet their responsibilities.
Enormous resources will be needed to expand the CWA federal regulatory program. Not only will there be a host of landowners and project proponents who will now be subject to the CWA’s mandates and costs of obtaining permits, but an increase in the number of permits needed will lead to longer permitting delays. Increased delays in securing permits will impede a host of economic activities in our states. Commercial and residential real estate development, agriculture, electric transmission, transportation, energy development and mining will all be effected [sic] and thousands of jobs will be lost. Moreover, the agencies will need additional resources to complete jurisdictional determinations and administer the overall program. As the geographic scope of authority grows, so do the needs for program resources.
The letter asks a number of critical questions, including the draft guidance’s broad interpretation of a Supreme Court decision in which Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said “regulators must determine where there’s a ‘significant nexus’ between a wetland and navigable waters.” This means the EPA will waste resources and taxpayer dollars trying to determine what is in its jurisdiction to regulate and hold up farming, ranching, homebuilding, and small business activity. Jonathan Adler, director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said, “The problem is, you’ve got to do a hell of a lot of research to show if you have a significant nexus. You’ve got to do this long, expensive project to figure this out before you do anything else. It makes the whole project much longer in time span and also more involved up front.”
The guidance is now in a 60-day comment period, and Jackson made no mention of when an actual rule would be put forward, but the proposed guidance suggests any rule would be extremely destructive to economic development. The ambiguity about which waters should be regulated does not mean a federal one-size-fits-all approach is the best fix. In fact, the opposite is true. A decentralized approach that relies on state and local government involvement is the best approach to promote environmental conservation without compromising economic development.
As we made our way through the southeastern and central Romania, the common theme of high- rise tenements with shops on the first floor emerged. Some were left from Ceausescu’s communist era; some were built after the 1989 revolution with specifications and money from EU. I could tell the difference between Ceausescu’s tenements and the newer ones; the older tenements were not as tall and were more dilapidated. Many people purchased these tiny apartments and remodeled them on the inside, while waiting for non-existent government help to fix the exterior, just like the communist nanny state used to do. The newer tenements were much taller and in better exterior condition. 
“I love Velo,” the free bike sharing program was sponsored by the Green Revolution, Inc. from Connecticut and Raiffeisen Bank and started in Bucuresti on May 9, 2011. If there is any doubt about the connection to Agenda 21, the mission says it all, “At the Green Revolution, our mission is to involve people in the process of creating clean renewable energy from everyday, human activity that will result in sustainable behavior change and lower energy costs.” 
Philadephia Sustainable Business Tax Credit
economic freedom of any nation in the world. Several of them concern the legal security of private property rights. This data shows that property rights play the single greatest role in per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in countries around the world. There is a high correlation between the level of property rights and per capita GDP. Impoverished Third World nations having limited property rights have less than $8000 per capita income, while those having little to no property rights fall below $1000. Conversely, Western nations having legal property rights have incomes of greater than $12,000, usually greater than $20,000. There is a 74 percent correlation between the Fraser Institute’s property rights index and per capita gross domestic product of 126 nations. 
Economic Freedom Indices, averaging an index of 7.7. Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico and West Virginia had the lowest, averaging 5.5 on the Economic Freedom Index. States having large per capita government, discriminatory taxation and onerous labor laws impose a severe penalty on its citizens by reducing economic activity and per capita income. For instance, a one-point improvement in economic freedom increases per-capita GDP by US$5,907. The reverse is also true. Consequently, the five states having the lowest economic freedom indices had annual per capita GDP incomes that were $13,000 less than the five highest states – a severe penalty for citizens living in those states. For a modest city of 50,000 people, that adds up to $650 million dollars of lost economic activity annually. 
other smart growth cities like them, the difference between the cost of an extra quarter-acre in a lot, and a separate buildable quarter-acre lot is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. In these areas, claims the Harvard study, “Measures of zoning strictness are highly correlated with high prices…. Only 10 percent of the value of the land comes from an intrinsically high land price.” The authors found that their evidence “suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.” Although many other variables were tested, land-use regulation was the only one correlated with the huge cost increases. For part three click below.
of low to middle income Americans. Although smart growth proponents advocate land-use control as a means of providing affordable housing, it punishes low-income families, keeping them from ever being able to afford a home of their own and denying them the American Dream. According to the 
farmland and open space. Yet, the U.S. Bureau of Census classifies about 6 percent of the U.S. as being developed and 3 percent as urban using the 2002 corrected data. Even in the densely populated east, both New York and Pennsylvania are only 10 percent developed. New Jersey, the most developed state, has only 30 percent of its land developed. To top it all off, 