Those who are working to enforce Agenda21 operate from a three-pronged attack; Social Justice, which dictates that ―community‖ needs take precedent over ―individual‖ wants; Public/Private Partnerships, a dangerous melding of private corporations with government resulting in government-sanctioned monopolies; and Environmental control, which translates into the proposition that all actions by man lead to environmental Armageddon and therefore must be tightly regulated by a central force of power.

One major target in the crosshairs of this attack is private property ownership and control by individuals. Across the nation reports are pouring in of government land grabs that lock away private land in the name of protecting a sucker fish, or a spotted owl, or a historic site. The results are destroyed industries such as timber, ranching or mining. Valuable and desperately needed natural resources are put out of reach for use.

Much closer to the average homeowner, property rights are being violated as restrictions are put on a homeowner’s ability to add on to the house or make improvements. In some extreme cases, access roads to houses are disallowed; even normal repairs are interpreted as new building and are banned. There are new building restrictions that dictate the kinds of materials that may be used for building and repairs. Now private homes are being invaded by electric companies, replacing, without permission, electric meters to comply with new regulations. Homeowners are losing their ability to even control their own thermostat.

In some communities, to meet arbitrary energy restrictions, local government is forcing homeowners to install new energy efficient appliances and windows,and even new roofs, on occasion. There are reports of inspectors actually entering homes and systematically removing incandescent light bulbs and replacing them with the new green models, without the knowledge and against the will of the property owner. Repairmen are instructed to lower temperatures on water heaters as they repair them, and so forth.

Below is a letter composed by an Oath Keeper peace officer in Ohio. This letter was written to raise awareness of the ominous problems in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). Jim Singleton is a State chapter officer for Ohio Oath Keepers and is Ohio’s Peace Officer Liaison. www.oathkeepers.org

Greetings and Salutations,

It’s unfortunate that I have to write this letter, however in light of current events it is inevitable. Just days ago the United States Congress passed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) this in itself was necessary. However in this bill was an insidious piece of verbiage that for all intents and purposes destroys the foundation of everything we believe in and took an oath to uphold. To me the possibility of those citizens and others under my protection being spirited off in the middle of the night by agents of the military, then being summarily incarcerated without access to judge or jury are insufferable and intolerable acts.

It will be argued that this only applies to foreign persons or others suspected of terrorism, but there are far too many avenues available to apply this to any group to which any administration may take umbrage with. When growing up and especially during our training in the academy we are instructed that the constitutional rights of all must be upheld at all times, as well as the respect for all people we come in contact with or represent. This section of the NDAA attempts to remove those rights which are enumerated and given to us by our creator, and places them in the hands of the office of the President of the United States to be disregarded at his whim.

And in those few words lies a conundrum, do we as police officers, sheriffs, deputies and others who have taken the oath to uphold and defend the constitution, now turn our back on that very oath? Do we now turn against the very same people that entrusted us with a most sacred duty to serve and protect them? If in fact we follow a rule of law such as this bill enacts, it would mean that the oath that we all took meant nothing. We are obliged to follow all lawful orders given to us, but we cannot do this blindly. History has seen the result of these acts and has judged them accordingly. I can only ask all of you to take a moment to reflect upon all that we are taught and hold dear, the people we serve deserve and demand our highest respect for it is through them and they alone that we were given this oath. Do we simply turn a blind eye for the sake of political expediency and lose our respect? Is a few pieces of silver so dear that we would sell our honor for it? How will we explain to our friends and loved ones why members of our community were spirited away or how will they see us when they realize (that when their time comes) we won’t be there for them?

I believe that if and when those orders come, I cannot in good faith and in strict observance to my oath, allow myself to be a part of them. I would hope that members of our military in accordance to the articles of the UCMJ, would also refuse them as well. When that time comes I will do exactly as I have sworn to do, I will serve and protect those under my care, so help me God.

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. Isaiah 6:8

Respectfully Submitted James B. Singleton

Secretary Ohio Oath Keepers LE Liaison – Ohio 

After hiding under the radar for more than 19 years, Agenda 21 became the cause of 2011 as thousands of concerned Americans began to study United Nations documents side – by – side with their local comprehensive development plans. To the horror of most, they found identical language – and the battle was on.

Fighting Back

The battle to stop Agenda 21 in local communities and in state legislatures has taken several varied but effective paths. In my travels to speak to more than 38 groups in 12 states in 2011, I have been privilege to meet and work with some of the most amazing activists I’ve even encountered. I’ve also been able to meet with state legislators in four states, along with a large number of county commissioners and city councilmen – all eager to learn about Agenda 21 and how to stop it. Here are some of the results of their work in countering the massive power of those enforcing Agenda 21 across the nation:

Communities Leaving ICLEI
It started last January, 2011 in Carroll County, Maryland, as the newly elected Board of Commissioners, led by Richard Rothschild, voted to cancel the county’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). At the same time the Commission also terminated the contract of the county’s sustainable development director, and they sent the county planning commission back to the drawing board for the state-mandated comprehensive development plan – with instructions to not resubmit it until it protected private property rights and complied with the U.S, Constitution. Little did these new commissioners know, they were at the head of a tidal wave that was about to sweep the nation.

Following Carroll County, next came Amador County, California, as the county commissioners voted to end their membership in ICLEI; then came Montgomery County, PA; followed by Edmond, Oklahoma, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The successful battle against ICLEI in Spartanburg, South Carolina was sparked by County Commissioner Roger Nutt; Virginia became a hotbed of activity against Agenda 21 and ICLEI, especially through the efforts of activists like Donna Holt, Cathy Turner and Charles Battig, to name a few. As a result of their efforts, Albemarle County, Virginia (home of Thomas Jefferson), James City County, Virginia (where America basically started at James Town), Abington, Virginia and Lexington, Virginia, have all voted to throw ICLEI out; we can now add to this list Plantation. Florida; Carver, Massachusetts; Pinellas, Florida; Garland, Texas; Sarasota, Florida; Clallam County, Washington; Monmouth County, New Jersey, Chatham County, North Carolina and Somerset County, New Jersey.

In a new study published in Health Affairs, researchers estimate that a nationwide penny-per-ounce tax on sugar- sweetened beverages would reduce consumption by a whopping 9 calories per day.

Nine calories, that’s it? After all of the huffing and puffing over needing to tax sugar-sweetend beverages to prevent obesity and type 2 diabetes, it will only make a 9- calorie-per-day difference? That’s less than 1 percent of the total number of calories we consume on a daily basis. The researchers acknowledge that despite 40 states currently imposing sales taxes on all types of soda, no concrete link has been found between state-level soda sales taxes and prevalence of obesity. (Of course, they determine this to be due to existing sales taxes being ―too low.‖)

None of this is to say we buy the premise that sugary drinks are a unique contributing factor to weight gain. They aren’t: Calories are calories, and too many calories from any source cause weight gain. Sugar-sweetened beverages only make up about 6 percent of the average person’s daily calories, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Instead of a draconian national beverage tax—which is a handy excuse for a money grab—there are some pretty easy ways for people to burn off a few calories on their own in short order. According to WebMD, a 150 pound person can burn 11 calories by trying on clothes for five minutes, walking around the office for five minutes, or playing with children for five minutes. It only takes three minutes to burn 12 calories shopping for groceries, and only four minutes to burn 10 calories washing the dishes. Two minutes of shooting hoops burns 10 calories, and two minutes playing ping pong burns nine calories.

And after mowing the lawn for three minutes, a 150 pound person could burn more calories than would be saved from a sugary-drink tax. It looks like lawmakers pushing for soda taxes could benefit more from pushing their lawnmowers instead. Even a 250 pound person could burn 10 calories just by spending four minutes reading consumerfreedom.com.

Copyright © 2012 Center for Consumer Freedom. All Rights Reserved. P.O. Box 34557 | Washington, DC 20043 | Tel: 202-463-7112 | info@consumerfreedom.com 

If sprinkles-hating MeMe Roth was the national education czar, then schools across the country would be purged of everything from birthday cupcakes (replaced by birthday salads) to Halloween candy to Valentine’s Day candy-grams. But hey, aren’t all those sugary treats making kids fat? Shouldn’t schools take a hard line against all the vending machines that create a regular ―toxic food environment? Maybe not.

The American Sociological Association reports on a new study of middle school students finding that ―weight gain has nothing to do with the candy, soda, chips, and other junk food they can purchase at school.‖ The research, which appears in Sociology of Education this month, examined almost 20,000 kids in the fifth and eighth grades. Even when snack food availability increased, the percentage of overweight or obese students decreased from fifth grade to eight grade.

“We were really surprised by that result and, in fact, we held back from publishing our study for roughly two years because we kept looking for a connection that just wasn’t there,” said the lead author of the study. Meanwhile, regulators rid schools of so-called junk food resulting in resulting in black markets for candy —―Willy-Wonka-meets -Casablanca,‖ in the words of one observer—and students disgusted with the new ―healthy‖ menus.

Interestingly, a separate ―surprising‖ study in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior released last year also found no correlation between high school students’ risk of being overweight and the presence of stores with snack food choices near their schools.

So what’s wrong with regional governance? Nothing- unless you value the republican form of government and individual freedom — and detest autocracy in all its forms. Regional governance evolved as a way to get around the obstacles presented by multiple local governments, all of which may have a stake in the region, but often disagree on what the region needs.

Regional governments, and their initiatives, are driven by government, not by the people. Government, by its very nature, seeks to increase its power and overcome any obstacle in its path. Local governments, like individual neighbors, often disagree on how best to resolve a common problem. Consequently, governments, especially the executive branch, tend to look for ways to get around the obstacle of disagreement. One successful method is Regional Governance, which diminishes the power of local governments by conferring increasing levels of authority on the executive branch, which implements its authority through appointed bureaucrats.

In very short order, it is the unelected bureaucrats who wield the power; elected officials become little more than a rubber stamp whose approval provides “official” respectability to the bureaucracy.

A classic example of just how this works is available in a report titled: “Regional Governance Districts” produced by the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR). The purpose of the report includes, “…to assist the state in responding to globalization….” The report makes this clarification: “Governance is distinct from government — while government is the traditional organization of public authority used to provide necessary services, governance is the provision of those services. While the word has been used to refer to service provision by traditional government, it has come to be used to refer more specifically to service provision through a non-traditional approach, such as by a contractor or through a public-private partnership.”