DeWeese Report

The Most Dangerous Man In The World

cjscrofani — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:33:41 +0000

Ed Note: This is a speech I first gave to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 1996, just four years after the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio. At the time I gave this address there were strong indications that Maurice Strong could be chosen as the next UN Secretary General. It didn’t happen, but that didn’t diminish his influence over the body. In fact, In 1996 all roads in the UN led to Maurice Strong. This speech represented the first time that the CPAC audience and most conservatives had ever heard of the radical agenda of the environmental movement. It was probably the first time the term Sustainable Development was ever heard by a conservative audience. In fact, at the time I gave this speech, environmentalism was the most popular and most powerful movement in the world. Yet, here, 15 years before “Climategate” I was revealing the very root of what was to become the “Climate Change” movement and its drive to destroy the industrial West. By the way, tapes of this speech became the most popular of any ever produced by the American Policy Center and continues to be one of our best sellers. TD

Let me begin by asking you a few questions. They may seem rather silly – but I have a point. So, please, just indulge me for a moment – just answer with a show of hands:

How many of you know of Adolf Hilter – and that he was evil? How many of you know Mao Tse Tung – and that he was evil? How many of you know of Lenin and Stalin – and that they were evil?

How many of you know of Maurice Strong – and that he is evil?

There is the point of my questions. Maurice Strong has the potential to be the most powerful and most evil dictator the world has ever known – right now – today – in our day and age – and yet, most of you have never heard of him.

So let me sound the warning bell – loud and long. Maurice Strong will, in all likely hood be the next Secretary General of the United Nations.

Now, you may be wondering why I’m talking about the subject of the United Nations when this panel is about the assault on property rights. What does Maurice Strong have to do with American property Rights? Everything.

The assault on property rights – in fact the entire radical environmental agenda – is being driven by the United Nations. And Maurice Strong is the number one force behind UN environmental policy. Maurice Strong is the leader of a radical contingent of Environmentalists that believe technology and modern industrialization must be stopped.

Does that sound overstated or too extreme? Well, let me read you a much more radical statement and these are not my words – they’re Maurice Strong’s:

In 1992, Strong told a UN conference…:“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

Now, let me explain this new term “Sustainable” that you will see popping up in environmental policy more and more. Radical greens believe that all of man’s activities on Earth are harmful (and therefore not sustainable). They believe that man is a cancer on the Earth. Their goal is to slowly cut back and finally end all development and reduce human habitat to specific areas while the rest of the world is turned into wilderness.

Maurice Strong and his buddies are the driving force behind a ndw age pagan religion known as Gaia. It is pure nature worship. Strong owns a 63 thousand acre ranch in Colorado called Baca Grande that will never be bothered by the Forest Service or the Army Corp of Engineers. Because Baca Grande is the Mecca for Gaia worshippers and mystics. Here, Strong has built a temple to a Babylonian Sun God. Baca Grande, Strong believes, is the “Vatican City” of the New World Order.

Maurice Strong is also a director of the Temple of Understanding in New York City, where pagan rituals and earth worship include escorting sheep and cattle to the alter for a blessing. Elephants and camels walk the aisles. A soprano sax is used to create the sound of the wolf moaning its extinction at the hand of man. Here, Vice President Al Gore delivered a “sermon” as worshippers marched to the alter with bowls of compost and worms.

This wacky scene is the basis for today’s environmental agenda that has grown way beyond a call for clean air and the recycling of plastic bottles and newspapers. In Maurice Strong’s Gaia- driven world – it’s OK for a beaver to build a dam – but not man. It’s OK for a bear to fish in the lake – but not man.

It’s OK for a wolf to eat meat (especially if it’s the farmer’s sheep – but not man. Suffice it to say that no human activity is “Sustainable.”

So, when Maurice Strong speaks of Man’s consumption of meat, the use of air conditioning, or the ownership of suburban housing, can there be any doubt what he plans for the future? Can there be any doubt where he intends to take the United Nations once he’s Secretary General?

Maybe this will make it clearer. In yet another interview, Maurice Strong said, “It is not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful.” That’s the Constitutional sovereignty of the United States he is talking about. And what does he plan to do about it?

You may have heard recent reports that the United Nations is floating the ideas for global taxation to fund the UN’s activities. There has been a lot of whining that the UN can’t live on its members’ contributions and that sound economics demand that it find an independent way to sustain itself. The media is reporting these taxation ideas as just possibilities. But the plan is very well along toward implementation, and Maurice Strong is the driving force behind it.

Strong said in 1994 “the 50th anniversary of the UN provides a unique opportunity to restructure and revitalize the UN to prepare for the vastly increased role it must have as the primary multilateral framework of a new world order.”

Current UN plans call for a permanent volunteer army, conversion of the international monetary fund into a world central bank and the adoption of the concept of global taxation. Just one of Strong’s taxation schemes would pour over $1.5 trillion into UN coffers.

Now, it is extremist, radical fringe and politically incorrect to suggest that the United Nations is engaged in a drive for one world government. It is well known, – according to our president and the news media, – that the UN is only interested in promoting world peace and stability. So you won’t hear such radical statements from me.

But it does cause concern when a man, who believes that industrialized society is the most vile, evil structure on earth, is placed in charge of an organization, without general election, and that body is able to reap trillions of dollars of income, answerable to no one, with its own army, its own world bank and treaties signed by every nation on earth giving it control over policy and development.

And the United States has signed such treaties – lots of them – with many more pending. And the Clinton administration is using every means necessary to assure all such UN treaties are signed into American law. And virtually all of Strong’s ideas and beliefs are reflected in those treaties. Maybe I’m just paranoid – but all of that concerns me.

But there’s more – Maurice Strong, the man who will soon rule the United Nations’ empire, the man who will control the UN’s army and its massive income and will be unelected by any of us – wants to write a novel.

During an interview for “West” magazine, Strong mused about the plot of his novel. It reveals much about how the man thinks.

According to Strong’s book idea, each year, world leaders would meet in Switzerland for an economic forum. These leaders would decide that the only way the planet could survive would be for the rich nations to voluntarily agree to reduce consumption. Strong goes on to explain that, in his novel, the rich countries do not sign such agreements, so the world leaders decide the only way to save the planet is to bring down industrialized societies.

They create a secret society and place its members in strategic government positions and at the helm of critical financial institutions. Then at meetings of the forum in Switzerland, mercenaries are hired to hold the world leaders hostage while the members of the secret society proceed to crash the world’s economy by jamming the gears of the commodity and stock markets preventing any of the world’s markets from closing.

Within hours, “the rich countries…” Strong stopped the story and flicked his fingers as if he were tossing a cigarette butt. – gone.

Maurice Strong today controls the UN’s Business Council for Sustainable Development. It is a hand picked group of 50 of the world’s most powerful business leaders. Among them: Kenneth Derr of Chevron and William Ruckleshous. Both Derr and Ruchelshous now serve on the President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Within the next few weeks President Clinton will announce the report on his Council on Sustainable Development and that will become Clinton’s blue print for environmental policy. This document comes straight out of the United Nations. – straight out of the cunning mind of Maurice Strong.

That environmental policy calls for turning 50% of every American state into wilderness, it will destroy industry and jobs and take away private property rights. And it will tie American sovereignty directly to United National policies. It has nothing to do with preserving clean air and water. It has everything to do with Maurice Strong’s demented drive for power.

Throughout history tyrants have sought to rule the world. Always their efforts to achieve that goal have brought harsh dictatorship and misery. Always men have asked how these mad escapades were possible. America was created to prevent it.

Hitler, Mao and Stalin were amateurs compared to Maurice Strong – because he’s well on his way to world dictatorship without ever firing a shot.

The biodiversity treaty and UN Heritage Sites are being implemented on American soil right now. And property owners are already suffering as environmental policies are taking their land and their jobs.

There is only one way to fight back. Only one way to stop Maurice Strong’s Drive for power. In this day of MTV politics and 10 second sound bite policy statements let me give you a sound bite as the solution. Shout it from the rafters. Demand it of your elected representatives. Make it your personal political goal.

(you can say it with me) Get the United States out of the United Nations.

(say it again as loud as you can) Get the United States out of the United Nations. And keep saying it until someone hears you.

What to do when you don’t like any of these candidates

cjscrofani — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:33:16 +0000

I originally issued this article four years ago, just after John McCain had wrapped up the Republican nomination, and while Obama and Hillary were still slugging it out. Today, four years later, it’s the same feeling of dissatisfaction from our choices – just different names. How do we assure next time it will be any different? How do we take our country back? Here is a possible solution, but we’ve got to start the process now for 2016. TAD

Hillary Clinton. John McCain. Barack Obama. Those are our choices for the next president of the United States. Are you happy with that selection? If not, what is your alternative? As the saying goes, “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”

Beyond the presidential race we have congressional candidates, governors, state legislators, county commissioners, mayors, and city council candidates. Are you happy with whom the parties have chosen to offer for election? If not, what‟s your alternative?

The real issues of the day are not even being addressed in the campaigns. The falling dollar that will render our money worthless; the rising gas prices that grab the last of our worthless money; the invasion of illegal aliens that are changing our society; the globalization of our economy; assaults on our private property; the loss of American jobs to foreign countries; and now the threat of food shortages.

These are real problems facing every American, yet it is apparently politically incorrect to discuss them. There are no questions concerning these issues during debates, on Sunday morning political talk shows, or anywhere in the news media in relationship to the candidates. It‟s not there. Not to be discussed. The powers in charge are picking the issues – no matter how frustrated the electorate is.

Is it any wonder that there are millions of Americans who don‟t vote or participate in our nation‟s debate because they think it doesn‟t matter anyway. The “average voter” increasingly feels that the decisions have been made for them.

College students, just starting out in the world, wide eyed and ready to make a difference, end up just shrugging their shoulders at the selection of candidates and stay home.

Those who hold conservative points of view that our nation should live within the Constitution now believe socialism is inevitable, so why bother going to the polls.
And the poor think they are simply pawns in a vice grip between big money and special interests which control the elections. Why bother? Helplessness now rules the world‟s greatest representative democracy. As people stay home or trudge to the polls to unenthusiastically vote to the next lesser of two evils, 93% of incumbents are routinely returned to office – year after year after year.

The instant a candidate is elected and joins the ranks of the incumbents he/she begins the dance. Get the money for the next campaign. How? Special interests groups, corporations and foreign interests flood into their offices to make deals, promote their personal agendas and show the way to fame, fortune and perpetual office – if only the incumbents will go along. They have the whole process well in hand. Campaigns become little more than big PR projects, promoted in positive platitudes, specifically designed to assure nothing negative sticks. Just get through it and keep the gravy train running.

Above all, do not talk about controversial subjects like dollar values, global trade or immigration; just stick to issues like health care and the environment – coincidentally, two issues bought and paid for by the special interests. See how it works?

So year after year we officially hold elections and politicians pontificate about how our going to the polls is a revered right; a valued tradition; the underpinning of a free society. And they wonder why there is such division in the nation. How did we end up in such a mess? We voted for these guys. But did we enjoy it? Are we satisfied with the results? Would we like to demand a do over?

Don‟t despair. Don‟t give up. There is a logical, effective way out of this. But it won‟t happen by depending on political parties to lead the way. We have to take things into our own hands. We need an effective, binding form of protest to say NO to bad candidates. There is such a way.

Imagine going into the voting booth and looking down the list of offered candidates. None really appeal. None seem to offer satisfaction as an answer to the issues that concern you. If only there was something else you could do. A write in won‟t help. It would take such a difficult, expensive effort. It rarely works.

Then you look further down the ballot.

Something new. It says “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” It‟s a final choice after the candidates – after the candidates in every category, from president, to congress to city council. What does it mean?

It means you have the power to decide who will hold office – not the power brokers. When the votes are tallied, if “NONE OF THE ABOVE” gets a majority of votes over any of the candidates listed, then “NONE OF THE ABOVE” wins. And that means none of those candidates will win the office. The election will have to be held again and new candidates will have to try to win the public‟s support.

Fixing the election process could be that simple. You, the voter, would be completely in the driver‟s seat with the power to reject candidates, forcing a new election with new choices. The political parties would be forced to provide candidates the people want — or face being rejected. They would have to talk about real issues – or face being rejected. Incumbents would have to answer for their actions in office – or face being rejected. “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” Period. The power of labor unions and international corporations would be broken.

Think of the consequences. No longer would voters have to settle for the lesser of two evils. If all the candidates are bad – none would be able to force their way into office. It would mean that powerful special interests could no longer rely on their money to buy elections. They could buy all the ads they wanted, spend millions on “volunteers” going door to door, and sling their dirt, but if the voters aren‟t buying, none of it will save their candidate from being rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”

Moreover, the power of entrenched incumbents who have been unbeatable because of their massive war chests and party ties would be broken. Picture Harry Reid unable to run for office because he was rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”
However, in order to work, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” would have to be binding. It would have to have the power of law behind it. It cannot be just a “protest” vote that has no other meaning.

“NONE OF THE ABOVE” is completely non- partisan. There is no way to control its outcome. There is no need for a massive campaign chest to support “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” although it could certainly be done. But the option, once permanently placed on the ballot, would always be there. America‟s representative system would be restored.

To get the job done, activists in every state would have to begin a campaign to demand that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” be given a permanent spot on

the ballot. It would have to be done state by state. Some states have ballot referendums and initiatives using petition drives to get an issue on the ballot so the people can decide. It‟s difficult and expensive to do, but popular ideas have a chance.

In other states, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” advocates would have to find a friendly state representative or senator to introduce the idea before the state legislature and then get enough votes to pass it in both houses and then signed by the governor. And if the effort is successful then every one of those legislators is an incumbent who will have to face “NONE OF THE ABOVE” or the ballot for their re-election. They probably won‟t be too excited about the idea.

Of course, one of their main objections to the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” idea would be the requirement for holding a new election should it win. Too expensive, our responsible public servants would say as they dismissed the idea. The fact is, such a need would probably not arise often once political power brokers began to understand that they must offer candidates acceptable to the people rather than to the special interests. That‟s all they really have to do. It‟s all we want.

The fact is, the idea of “NONE OF THE ABOVE” has been around for a long time. Over the years, most states have had some kind of legislation introduced supporting the concept. Nevada actually has it on the ballot – but it is not binding. It doesn‟t force a new election. It is just a measure of protest. That‟s not good enough to make it effective.

One of the reasons it has not been successful is because there has never been a serious national drive to promote the idea. However, with the growing dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the quality of candidates running for public office, particularly in the presidential campaign, perhaps there has never been a better time to start a national discussion on the issue.

The best part is that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” isn‟t a conservative or liberal idea. It‟s not a Republican of Democrat proposal. In fact, Republican leadership might see it as a good way to break the back of big labor‟s influence over elections. Equally, Democrats could see it as a way to stop the power and influence of the Republican‟s big business money. However they want to look at it, the bottom line is that the voters win.

So as we sigh and moan over the choices of Obama, Hillary and McCain, let‟s start the debate and as Larry the Cable Guy says, “let‟s get-er done.” Perhaps by the next election cycle we won‟t have to take it anymore!

Meet the International Democrat Union

cjscrofani — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:31:20 +0000

I first published this article in 2005. Conservatives and Tea Party Activists are constantly asking what is wrong with Republican leadership. Why does it constantly throw away opportunities to cut the size and power of government? As stated in the article, most have never heard of the IDU. What many also don’t realize is that every four years, as part of the Republican National Convention, there is also a meeting of the IDU. The group’s web site, right now, is announcing there will be an IDU meeting in Miami this summer at the Republican convention. Even if the Republican Platform contains planks declaring support for Constitutional principles, its membership in the IDU says otherwise. TAD

Not many Americans, particularly conservative Republicans, have heard of the International Democrat Union (IDU), but most would be very surprised to learn the names of its membership and its true goals.

Formed in 1983, the IDU says it‟s a “working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like minded political parties of centre and centre right.” Some of the political party members of the IDU include the German Christian Social Union; British Conservative Party; Norway Conservative Party – and the U.S. Republican Party.

In the IDU‟s 2005 Declaration, issued after a recent meeting in Washington, D.C., it stated “Our common goal is of free, just and compassionate societies. We appreciate the value of tradition and inherited wisdom. We value freely elected governments, the market-based economy and liberty for our citizens. We will protect our people from those who preach hate and plan to destroy our way of life. Free enterprise, free trade and private property are the corner stones of free ideas and creativity as well as material well-being. We believe in justice, with an independent judiciary. We believe in democracy, in limited government and a strong civic society.”

Such a statement gives one the impression that the IDU is on a mission to spread the ideals of the American Revolution around the globe. Here, at last might be an international organization that brings the good news of our own Declaration of Independence to the far corners of the oppressed world. No other document on earth more strongly declares the principles of liberty that made the United States the guiding light of the world. With the Republican Party as an active member, it would certainly be expected that American documents and principles would be the basis of policy for an international organization that declares it promotes “free enterprise, free trade and private property.”

But a careful look at the IDU‟s founding Declaration of Principles reveals a very different message. The second Paragraph of the IDU Declaration states: “Being committed to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; …” That, of course, is the United Nation‟s Declaration of Human Rights that the IDU document is promoting.

There are two conflicting philosophies of governing in the world. One, the American view, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, states that all people have rights they are born with and that government‟s only job is to protect those rights at all costs. The Declaration says that these rights are forever and unquestioned. It is the foundation for human freedom.

The other says that government decides the rights we should have, professing that all such rights give way to an undefined, common good whenever the situation is warranted. That means that all so- called rights are subject to the whim of whatever gang is currently in power at the time, making the definitions of what constitutes the “common good.”

As an example of how this second philosophy works in practice, the Constitution of the Soviet Union said that Soviet citizens had most of the same rights as Americans, except it also said individual rights were secondary to the common good. In the case of the Soviet Union, the common good was defined as creating a worldwide communist utopia.

The UN‟s Declaration of Human Rights takes this second approach, outlining specific rights it says we should all have. It says nothing of unalienable rights and refers to the “rights under the law.” Who or what is the law, according to the Declaration? It says “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority

of government.” Now, at first look, that sounds Innocent enough. People voting – the end of dictatorship. But such a concept ignores the very root of American freedom – that our rights are guaranteed, no matter what the majority thinks.

Suppose the majority of people vote to abolish your business or take your home? This is called majority rule and is another form of dictatorship. It‟s what led to the ravages of the guillotine in revolutionary France. It‟s rule by fear; fear of the wrong gang changing the rules; fear of standing against the crowd. Majority rule is simply a lynch mob – or more graphically, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

This is the root of the philosophy entrenched in the UN‟s Declaration of Human Rights. It is the root of the political policy behind Sustainable Development and the Supreme Court‟s Kelo Decision on Eminent Domain. It‟s the philosophy that says the common good needs to be served. Hang individual rights. Personal wants and needs must give way to the whims of the crowd in charge.

Now this destructive philosophy is entrenched and being passed off as freedom by the International Democrat Union, an international organization that dares pretend to speak for those of us who advocate limited government and human liberty. The IDU‟s documents are filled with rhetoric about compassion. Does it show compassion to support a policy that says no one‟s property is safe from confiscation?

The root of the IDU‟s political agenda is Fabian Socialism which wants to blur national borders and cultures, eliminate private property and individual liberty in favor of the common good. The Fabians consider themselves to be a ruling elite that knows better than individuals how to run our lives. Their way is: Heads, government wins. Tails, citizens lose. It is the worst form of tyranny. And this is the root of the IDU, and by association, apparently the Republican Party. That answers a lot of questions about recent Republican policy decisions.

Today, we are in a battle between the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Between Liberty and Tyranny. Freedom Vs Fabian Socialism. It is not a battle between Left and Right, Liberal Vs Conservative. Many who call themselves Conservative have been greatly troubled by the policy decisions of the Republican Party and the former Bush White House. Perhaps now the reasons for their confusion will be more clear. The answers lie in the accepted policies of an international organization that most local and state Republican leaders have never even heard of – and major Republican leaders won‟t even acknowledge exists. The IDU’s web page, by way of proof, is www.idu.org. It exists.

Humane Society of the US and Agenda 21

cjscrofani — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:28:49 +0000

I was recently sent an email that said the true goal of animal rights is Agenda 21 and it would definitely fit. Probably many, if not most, of the people who are behind the animal rights movement are very much for Agenda 21. They, animal rights and Agenda 21, are up the same dirty, nasty, anti-human alley. But more likely, I believe animal rights came about separately; it is just that they have the same mindset that created Agenda 21. Because both groups — animal rights and Agenda 21ers — have the same goal, if you like, they now have joined forces and are working together. That makes sense, they both wish to rid the world of people. It is just that animal rightists would rid the world of all people so the animals could lie down together with the lion protecting the lamb instead of having it for dinner. The global elites want to rid the world of most of us; they need a small number of us to be slaves and useful idiots, but the rest are unnecessary “useless eaters” and must go.

Let me give you a short synopsis of animal rights here. Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, is considered the father of the animal rights movement. In the preface of his book, he stated that neither he nor his wife really care about animals; they do not love dogs and cats and horses like other people. In other words, they are just using the fight for rights for animals to attack humans. But do animals have rights? Well, some countries in EU have accorded animals standing in court, but in a sane world animals do not have rights. To have rights one must be a reasoning being, be able to understand right and wrong and to act accordingly. Animals are amoral beings; they do not understand right and wrong. They act out of instinct and are not held accountable for killing another animal.

So what is the animal rights movement about if the animal rightists don’t really care about the animals they are fighting to gain rights for, and those animals don’t qualify for rights? Again here are their own words. Ingrid Newkirk said, “Humans have grown like a cancer. We’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” And Michael W. Fox of Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) said, “The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect.” And Les U. Knight of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement said, “Human extinction is promoted on the grounds that it will prevent human suffering and the extinction of other species, which are increasingly threatened by the rise of the human population.”

It isn’t the animals they love, it is the people they hate. They are using the fight for rights for animals to attack humanity, so they fit right in with Agenda 21 because both groups want to rid the world of us — just for different reasons. And you know the old saw: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So these two humanity haters (Agenda 21 and Animal Rights) are working together.

From it’s own website HSUS reveals it has tentacles worldwide: “Humane Society International (HIS) is the international affiliate of The Humane Society of the United States (USHS). Founded in 1954, the HSUS today leads a family of organizations, including our regional office in Central America known as Glodal Alliance for Humane Sustainable Development, with a constituency of 9.5 million and a significant global presence. We actively advance international trade policy and local sustainable development projects to help develop and developing countries address such issuses as humane and sustainable agriculture, environmental conservation, and wildlife and habitat protection.

It is vital for Americans to understand that The Humane Society of the United States is not your local humane society that takes in strays and gets them adopted. The HSUS is an animal rights organization; animal rights is against pet ownership, thus would not be in the business of finding homes for said pets.

Also from the above quote, we can see the addition of Sustainable Development to their list of projects. How did HSUS become an NGO affiliated with the U.N? Members of Animal Liberation and those of Earth First!, both outlaw groups that were established to do damage, are often the same people. Thus it is natural to assume that the animal rights groups were brought into the fold by the Greens. Whatever reason, Maurice Strong became an advisor and sat on the Board of the HSUS for some time. As most of you know, Strong was the head of the UN in 1992 when George H.W. Bush signed on to Agenda 21. He was also implicated in the oil for food scandal and now lives in China to avoid being questioned on it.

The bottom line is that HSUS is pushing Sustainable Development along with their anti- human, sort-of pro-animal line. I urge you to go to HSUS‟s website www.humansociety.org and see all they are into. Also go to Animalscam.com and research HSUS and People for the ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) and the rest of the ignominious groups listed there. Don’t do it after eating, it might bring your meal back up.

Kathleen Marquardt is Vice President of the American Policy Center and founder of Putting People First. She is author of “Animal Scam.” She is a recognized expert on the animal rights movement.

Lies and Doublespeak of American Planning Association And How to Fight Back

cjscrofani — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:11:21 +0000

I don’t know about you, but when I take on a cause or a project I’m proud of what I do. I support it against all detractors and nay-sayers because I believe in it. So, when proponents of a cause suddenly start to hide what they are doing, or deny they are even doing it – that should set off alarm bells and raise questions about the honesty and legitimacy of that cause. Case in point, when evidence emerged that the Earth was actually cooling instead of heating, the alarmists didn’t miss a beat as they changed the predicted disaster from Global Warming to Climate Change. These are cleaver guys.

Such is the case now with the enforcers of Agenda 21 and its policy called Sustainable Development. For the past several years, those imposing this policy have denied its United Nations origins, ignoring the many documents that clearly prove that the very term “sustainable development” can easily be traced back to the 1987 UN report titled, “Our Common Future.” That radical report has been used by the UN as a virtual springboard for a “wrenching transfor- mation” (Al Gore’s words) of human society. The words “sustainable development” are used in nearly every federal, state, and local development plan; on nearly every federal, state, and local government web site; and in nearly every public statement on new development policies. We even had a President’s Council on Sustainable Development, created by an Executive Order of Bill Clinton, with the stated purpose to impose the policies of Agenda 21 into United States law. Many serving on the Council helped write Agenda 21, including John Sawhill of the Nature Conservancy, Jay Hair of the National Wildlife Federation and Michele Perrault, international Vice President of the Sierra Club.

So, the exact words “Sustainable Development” come from UN documents and its exact policies are imposed at the local level – yet, we are told by its proponents, none of these development plans have anything to do with UN policy. It’s an amazing tap dance. As local residents question their county commissioners, city councilmen, mayors, state legislators, and governors about the origins of their policies, it has become routine for these “representatives of the people” to get a puzzled look on their faces and a wrinkle in their brows, as they say, “I’ve never heard of Agenda 21.” “That’s just a conspiracy theory.”

Yes, we’ve heard it for years now. But as more and more citizens begin to learn the truth and opposition builds, what is the response of the Sustainablists? Do they now stand up and proudly defend their policies?” Do they attempt to open debate and allow other voices to be heard in a legitimate discussion about our “Common Future?” Do they try to find reasonable solutions for citizens who have become victims of such policies? None of the above.

First they have ignored those protests with the usual, “don’t know what they are talking about.” Then they have tried to ridicule those of us who have led the charge against the policy, calling it a conspiracy theory. As our anti-Agenda 21 movement has picked up steam, they have enlisted the big guns to attack our credibility, including front page articles in the New York Times, and in the pages of the Washington Post. Each of those articles took the position that protestors at public meetings are simply wasting the valuable time of legitimate professional planners who are just trying to do their jobs. How dare we question their motives or the origins of their schemes? There’s serious business going on here. Will the peasants please get out of the way of progress?

But such arrogant, strong armed tactics which used to confuse and disperse opposition has ceased to work. Too much information is out there and too many citizens have become victims of the policies of Sustainable Development. Opposition has become fierce and organized in the face of this wrenching transformation of our lives.

So, since they can’t beat us with strong arms, the Sustainablists are rushing to change the entire playing field, changing tactics, re-educating their storm troopers to employ non- confrontational new-speak, and rewriting the dictionary to “avoid polarizing jargon.” In an attempt to neutralize their opposition they seek to lull us all into believing the policies they continue to enforce aren’t Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. There is no hidden agenda, they now promise. It’s just local planning by local officials, so they claim with a straight face.

Hiding their agenda in “new speak”

The worst of the worst of the Sustainablists is the American Planning Association (APA). So panicked is this American Trojan Horse over growing opposition to its policies that APA has organized a “Boot Camp” to teach its operatives how to counter our opposition. Recently APA released a memo entitled “Glossary for the Public.” It is quite telling on how an organization that is supposed to be one of the most respected planning groups in the nation, operating in nearly every city, will teach its people to lie at all costs in order to maintain their power and influence in our communities.

Say’s the introduction to this memo, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” Here is a list of words the APA warns planners not to use – because they cause “critics to see red,” as they have become “highly politicized and generate suspicion among some citizens:”

Affordable; Agenda 21; Collaboration; Consensus; Delphi technique; Density; Livable; Localized planning; Long-term; region-wide planning; Organize and facilitate; Public visioning; Public- Private Partnerships; Regional, regionalism, regional planning; Smart growth; Stakeholders; Sustainability; Walkable.

So, the very policy they are implementing, the policy they have invoked time and again – Sustainability – is no longer to be used. So, what instead? Say’s the APA memo, “Some may find the words “district” or “central” to be an indication of a “top down” or “Big Brother” process. Using the common word “downtown” or “business area” may be more neutral and preferable.”

More words not to use: “Code enforcement, design review, design review standards.” Why? Explains the APA memo, “Avoid talking about or linking plans and planning with regulatory matters.” It is apparently necessary to point out to these stealth controllers of our lives that their planning process has everything to do with regulatory matters and that is precisely why we are objecting to and fighting their policies in the first place!

It’s the “regulatory matters” that are taking our private property rights and creating victims.

More words to be eliminated: Councils of governments; metropolitan planning organizations; regional planning; Density; clusters; Eminent domain; police powers; Green infrastructure; Mixed-use development; Urban growth boundary; Zoning; and many more. The entire language of Sustainable Development is to be eliminated. And yet, says the memo to the planners – “stay on message.”

What will the message now be? Some examples of the new speak now provided by the APA: “We have a responsibility to think through the long term consequences of our decisions. Planning enables us to do that.” “We need to understand together how to make sure our local community and our local economy are strong enough for our children to grow up and have a good life here. Planning helps us do that.” We need to make decisions that are careful, cost effective, efficient, and fair to everybody. That is the purpose of this meeting. There is no hidden agenda.”

In every one of those canned descriptions of the “planning process” you will find the tenets of Agenda 21. The use of the word we is the standard “Delphi technique” of the consensus process they are trying to hide. The reference to the future for the children is right out of the UN Agenda 21 definition: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Of course, as we have learned, that to accomplish such an innocent-sounding goal, means locked away lands and resources. Agenda 21.

The APA intends to dazzle citizens with meaningless statements designed to appeal to their personal interests, appeal to their local patriotism, and crush them with the results when they aren’t watching.

As Henry Lamb, of Freedom 21 describes the true American tradition of planning, “The process is truly similar to a sausage-making machine. At open meetings, ordinary citizens are free to suggest new ideas about community needs, for consideration by the governing authority. Other citizens are free to oppose those ideas. Ultimately the elected officials discuss and debate the suggestions then vote.” Now is that so hard? But none of those easy and established practices of honest and open government are used by the APA and their ilk. In fact, they are adamantly opposed and crushed every step of the way.

The American Planning Association and their allies have chosen to counter the anti-Agenda 21 movement with lies, double speak and stealth. Why? Aren’t they proud of their policies? I guess Seattle planner J.Gary Lawrence said it best when he admitted several years ago that “participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many…who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” Now, even those words have caught up with their secret agenda. Soon they will have to start inventing their own words.

How to fight back

However, those citizens who want to end this deception and take back their communities don’t have to wait for the next round of lies and secret tactics. They can begin to fight back right now.

As many know, I have been working to create a “Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit.” It’s now ready and it is the most comprehensive tool ever created to provide a complete education on Agenda 21 and the tools necessary to combat it. With this specially designed Action Kit you and I can begin to turn the tables on those who are working at every level of government to destroy our unique system of freedom. You will be fully armed to stand up to any challenge presented; any planner trained by the APA to lie; and to any elected official who still proclaims ignorance of Agenda 21.

Included in the Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit are four DVD presentations; an overview presentation of Agenda 22 by me; connecting the dots to other issues by Dr. Michael Coffman; connecting the dots to the public education curriculum by Mike Chapman; and connecting the dots to rural areas and farming by Don Casey. In addition, there are two workshops; one presented by Beverly Eakman on tactics to stop the group manipulation tactics (consensus); and a workshop presented by Dan Byfield of American Stewards of Liberty on “Coordination.” The Kit also includes manuals from each of these experts. In addition, there is a 14 minute power point presentation created by by John Anthony specifically designed for showing to busy elected officials.

But, that’s not all in the Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit. Included is a detailed manual, with a complete history of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, from the back rooms of the UN to local government. In addition, it details policies such as regionalism; sustainable farming, conservation easements, sustainable medicine; the lies of global warming; smart growth; the Agenda 21 links to the education curriculum and to Christian churches; and more details about ICLEI than you have probably ever seen. In addition, the manual details the top planning groups, their histories and their planning goals.

And more: The heart of the Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit is the Work Book. Here you will find details on how to fight back; a primer on creating a Property Rights Council; copies of actual legislation being used successfully to protect rights and repeal regulations; how to begin researching these policies in your town; links to Agenda 21 and the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development; analysis of actual development plans, showing their direct links to Agenda 21; actual documents from the Federal Register showing direct links between the Environmental Protection Agency and Agenda 21; and a speaker’s bureau featuring some of the top experts in the nation that you can bring to your community. Above all, the workbook includes reprintable handouts that you can use at public meetings. There is even a CD containing those handouts that you can load into your computer and copy from there.

And finally, there is a manual with stories of the victims of Sustainable Development – people who have lost their homes; seen their livelihoods destroyed; even gone to jail for offences as silly as filling in a ditch. These stories are important because the Sustainablists like the American Planning Association will again get that puzzled look on their faces and that wrinkle in their brow as they say, “why, I’ve never heard of anyone being victimized by these policies.” After reading these horror stories you’ll never again question if you are right or not. The drive for justice will keep you in the fight.

I’ve worked on this project for months trying to be certain that it contains everything possible to help activists fight back. I have consulted activists about what tools they need and I have worked with the top experts to manuals from each of these experts. In addition, there is a 14 minute power point presentation created by by John Anthony specifically designed for showing to busy elected officials.

I’ve worked on this project for months trying to be certain that it contains everything possible to help activists fight back. I have consulted activists about what tools they need and I have worked with the top experts to provide them. The full Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit can be ordered from the American Policy Center Web site at http://www.americanpolicy.org

For over 20 years, Agenda 21 has made a steady, unchecked advance across America, eradicating property rights in the name of Sustainable Development, while cloaked in environmentally friendly terms like open space, smart growth and climate change. It is changing our style of government, our way of life, and our hope for a happy, peaceful future.

The latest tactics by the American Planning Association reveals the dark intent of the Sustainablists and the lengths they will go to hide their goals. Honest intent doesn’t have to hide in lies and double speak. Those are the tactics of tyranny.

Arm yourselves well, my fellow freedom fighters. Arm yourselves with the truth of the tyranny of Agenda 21. Get the knowledge. Learn their tactics — and let’s take these liars down as we take America back.

CBO: Taxes Will “Shoot Up by More Than 30 Percent” Over Next 2 Years

cjscrofani — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:03:51 +0000

The amount of money the federal government takes out of the U.S. economy in taxes will increase by more than 30 percent between 2012 and 2014, according to the Budget and Economic Outlook published today by the CBO.

At the same time, according to CBO, the economy will remain sluggish, partly because of higher taxes.

“In particular, between 2012 and 2014, revenues in CBO‟s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” said CBO, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and the imposition of new taxes, fees, and penalties that are scheduled to go into effect.”

The U.S. economy, CBO projects, will perform “below its potential” for another six years and unemployment will remain above 7 percent for another three.

“The pace of the economic recovery has been slow since the recession ended in June 2009, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that, under current laws governing taxes and spending, the economy will continue to grow at a sluggish pace over the next two years,” said CBO. “That pace of growth partly reflects the dampening effect on economic activity from the higher tax rates and curbs on spending scheduled to occur this year and especially next. Although CBO projects that growth will pick up after 2013, the agency expects that the economy‟s output will remain below its potential until 2018 and that the unemployment rate will remain above 7 percent until 2015.”

According to the CBO report, federal tax revenues equaled $2.302 trillion in fiscal 2011, and will increase to $2,523 trillion in fiscal 2012, $2,988 trillion in fiscal in 2013, and $3,313 trillion in 2014.

As a percentage of GDP, according to CBO, federal tax revenues were 15.4 percent in fiscal 2011, and will be 16.3 percent in 2012, 18.8 percent in 2013, and 20.0 percent in fiscal 2014.

In dollar terms, the anticipated increase in federal tax revenue from fiscal 2011 ($2.302 trillion) to fiscal 2014 ($3.313 trillion) is $1.011 trillion. That is an increase of 43.9 percent. From just 2012 to 2014, the increase in federal tax revenues from $2.523 trillion to $3.313 trillion equals $790 billion—or 31.3 percent.

The anticipated percentage increase in federal tax revenue is not only large when calculated in dollar terms but also when calculated as a share of GDP. The jump from 15.4 percent of GDP in fiscal 2011 to 20.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2014 equals an increase of 29.8 percent. The jump from 16.3 percent in fiscal 2012 to 20.0 percent in fiscal 2014 equals an increase over two years of 22.7 percent.

Federal tax revenues have averaged “about 18 percent of GDP for the past 40 years,” according to CBO. So, in the next two years federal tax revenues will rise from a level that is below the modern historical average to a level that is above it.

CNS News http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-taxes-will-shoot-more-30-percent-over-next-2-years

Senator Rand Paul Steps Up to Protect Property Owners from Outlaw Federal Agencies

cjscrofani — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:03:01 +0000

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has just introduced legislation designed to reign in out-of- control federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers. The bill, if enacted, will be a vital blow to the enforcement of radical environmental/Agenda 21- inspired regulations. The bill is called the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012 (S.2122).

A little history: in 1972, as the environmental movement was getting its start through popular efforts to stop pollution in our rivers and air, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (later called the Clean Water Act).The law prohibited the discharge of pollutants into “navigable waters” without a federal permit. The problems began when the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers made a power grab by enforcing the act over ponds, occasional mud puddles, and even dry lands by labeling them as wet lands. The result has been disastrous to property owners and businesses, sometimes even leading to jail sentences to “violators.”

The result of such outrageous interpretations of the Clean Water Act has led Senator Paul to introduce his bill to do the following:

 Redefine “navigable waters” to explicitly clarify that waters must actually be navigable in fact, or “permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water that form geographical features commonly known as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes that are connected to waters that are navigable-in- fact.”

 Excludes ephemeral or intermittent streams – the streams that sometimes form when rain falls – from federal jurisdiction.

 Restrains the EPA and Army Corps from regulating or “interpreting” the definition of a navigable water without Congressional authorization.

 Protects the rights of states to have primary authority over the land and water within their borders.

 Prohibits federal agents from entering private property without the express consent of the landowner

 Requires the government to pay double the value of the land to any landowner whose property value is diminished by a wetlands designation.

Why is it necessary to write such juvenile-sounding legislation to define what any reasonable person should already understand? Who doesn’t know what a river is? Apparently the EPA and Army Corps have little regard for such details as they zealously attack private property in the name of environmental protection. American citizens have been literally terrorized by these agencies and the consequences have been dire.

Some examples:

 Florida resident Ocie Mills planned to build a dream house for his son. He brought in 19 loads of clean building sand, cleared a dry ditch and began filling the ditch with sand to level the ground for the foundation. The Army Corps of Engineers sent him a notice demanding he immediately stop the fill because they considered the property to be a wet land. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulations (DER) sent out an agent who determined that the land was not a wetlands. Ocie resumed dumping fill on the foundation site. The Army Corps disagreed and sent US Marshalls to arrest Ocie and his son. In a trial with no legal representation Ocie was not allowed to submit evidence that the DER did NOT consider his land a wetland. As a result a panel of three federal judges sentenced both Ocie and his son to 21 months in jail with no parole and a fine of $5,250 each. Six years later in a retrial a judge ruled that the land was not a wetlands.

 John Pozgai served a three year prison term for violating the Clean Water Act on his property in Pennsylvania. His crime? Pozgai, a first generation immigrant who escaped communist Eastern Europe, bought property that was being used as an illegal dump. The dump contained a storm water drainage system and a storm water drainage ditch dating back to 1936. The township was responsible for maintaining the drainage ditch but failed to do so, and that failure caused flooding on the adjacent road and in the Pozgai home. It had done so for 20 years. When Pozgai bought the land he began to clean out thousands of dumped tires, many of which were blocking the storm water drainage ditch. The Army Corps of Engineers declared the standing water caused by the plugged drainage ditch to be a wetlands. John Pozgai, who survived the tyranny of communism, couldn’t beat the outrages of environmental zealots empowered with the force of government, which refuses to recognize private property rights.

 Charlie Johnson’s family has been growing cranberries on his small farm near Carver, Massachusetts since the 1920s. The federal government prepared to take Johnson to court, claiming that many of the cranberry bogs were created in violation of the 1972 Clean Water Act. The EPA asked for permission to enter Johnson’s property to collect data. Johnson gave his approval, believing he had nothing to hide. He later discovered that the EPA wanted to return his land to wetlands under the assumption that wetland conditions existed on the property before Johnson’s cranberry bogs were constructed. He explained the bogs were originally constructed on dry sandy land that formerly contained a variety of forested uplands. The EPA based its theory on a number of small aerial photos taken during spring thaws when much of the land is underwater because of melting snow. If Johnson loses his case he will be force to destroy his cranberry bogs and convert his property to artificial wetlands.

These are just a very few examples of the tyranny raining down on honest Americans who are simply trying to use their land and live in peace. When confronted by government officials they went to the “proper” authorities to assure they did the right thing. Many times they were misdirected by those very government agents and then trapped by it. Then they were fined, harassed and some went to jail for their “crimes.”

There is no room in a free society for such power-mad zealots in our government. Senator Paul’s bill is designed to bring a semblance of sanity and reason back to environmental regulations.

The EPA, Army Corps and other agencies of the government have been using the intimidation of government power to enforce the policies of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. These policies do not recognize private property rights and they have made a sham out of the rule of law and the court system, replacing it with rule by edict. Until now these outlaw agencies have terrorized American citizens without interference or control by their rightful masters – Congress.

However, little by little, in state legislatures and now in Congress, new legislation is being proposed to return sanity and control. Senator Paul’s Defense of Environment and Property Act is a start. It must be supported by everyone who professes allegiance to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. With such action, step by step, we can restore that Republic of our Founders. Call your Senators and demand they support S.2122.

Lower Than Pond Scum

cjscrofani — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:00:00 +0000

Between 1955 and 1959 I was a student at the University of Miami. It was perhaps the best four years of my life and remembered fondly for its combination of fun and learning. On Thursday, February 23, President Barack Obama was on the UM campus to tell the biggest bunch of lies about energy in America I have heard compressed into a single speech.

This President has already set records wasting taxpayer‟s money on a range of so- called clean energy and renewable energy “investments”. Solyndra, the solar panel company that went bust and stuck taxpayers with a half-billion in loan guarantees is just one of those “investments” and I keep waiting for someone to ask why public funds are being flushed down the toilet when, if the companies involved were viable, they could not raise private venture capital?

“And we‟re making investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that‟s actually made from a plant-like substance known as algae,” said the President. “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17% of the oil we important for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America.”

All politicians put the best face on their pet projects, but to flat-out lie about one of the most idiotic ideas to replace oil when this nation has enough oil, domestically and offshore, known and estimated to exist, defies the imagination. It is an insult to every one of us. And Obama wants to pump $14 million into algae, otherwise known as pond scum.

It is very likely that, like the solar panel and other “clean energy” scandals that we know about and will learn about as time goes alone, the average American is unaware that, by 2008, there were fifteen (15) algae startup companies. When I heard Obama talk about algae, I could practically hear the campaign fund-raising bundlers scurrying like rats from company to company.

To those of you not intimately and well informed about algae, it is that organic stuff that gathers in ponds and swamps and, in aggregate, is politely called “plant-like organisms that are usually photosynthetic and aquatic.” It is scum. It has no roots, stems, or leaves. It is scum.

In a marine environment it is called seaweed. Algae have chlorophyll and can manufacture their own food through photosynthesis. Algae, the scientists tell us, produces more oxygen than all the plants in the world in addition to being an important food source for marine creatures as diverse in size as shrimp and whales.

The notion that millions would be “invested” to turn algae into fuel ranks just above the idiocy of converting thousands of acres of corn into ethanol instead of food.

Barack Obama has been lying about so many things for so long I doubt he even knows when he is lying or even cares. It‟s not enough to dismiss this saying that all politicians lie because many do not. Some in Congress right now are desperately trying to get the public in general and voters in particular to understand that America has more debt per capita than Greece. We are on the precipice of financial collapse and Barack Obama just wants to spend more and more and more; some of it on pond scum.

During his UM speech, he derided those who have for decades been saying that America has to allow oil companies access to its vast reserves in order to reduce our dependence on imported oil. “We‟ve heard the same thing for thirty years,” he said. He‟s right. And administrations and Congress have blocked access for just as long. It‟s our oil!

He went further, though. “It means that anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem doesn‟t know what they‟re talking about—or isn‟t telling you the truth.” That‟s rich, coming from someone who lies almost as often as he exhales. Oil is a global commodity. The more that‟s available to the market, the lower its cost. Domestic oil always costs consumers less than imported oil!

The truth is that oil production on federal lands declined last year by eleven percent on lands controlled by the Obama administration and six percent for natural gas in 2011.Oil and natural gas production on federal lands is down by more than forty percent (40%) compared to ten years ago. The Obama administration, in 2010, issued the lowest number of onshore leases since 1984. In 2011, it held exactly one offshore lease sale.

On February 24, one day after the Obama speech, the U.S. Geological Survey released a report on the amount of oil estimated to exist in the North Slope of Alaska. “The amount of oil that is technically recoverable in the United States is more than 1.4 trillion barrels, with the largest deposits located offshore, in portions of Alaska, and in shale in the Rocky Mountain West. When combined with resources from Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels.

In a 2008 Wall Street Journal interview, Obama‟s Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, famously said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe.” Anyone who does not believe this administration has a deliberate policy of achieving this goal is just not paying attention. Remember that the next time you fill your car‟s gas tank.

This is the same President who stopped the building of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada that would provide more oil for our refineries and not cost the American taxpayer one penny to build. This is the same President who imposed a moratorium on oil from the Gulf of Mexico even after the courts told him to remove it. It caused the loss of an estimated 12,000 jobs while rigs departed for Cuba, Brazil and Mexico.

Between now and November, the President will be out campaigning and telling the same lies. The rise in the cost of oil isn‟t just a seasonal thing though prices have usually gone up in the summertime when people travel more for vacations. It‟s up because the Iranians are closing in on making their own nuclear weapons and their own missiles to hit, not just Israel, but the U.S. It‟s up because it is essential to ensure that the tankers oil-producing nations around the Persian Gulf can enter and exist it via the Strait of Harmuz.

The world isn‟t running out of oil and is not about to run out. The Earth floats on an ocean of oil despite the rising demand from Asia and other developing nations. To replace foreign oil with algae-based fuel would require a chemically-controlled tank the size of the State of Colorado, about 69.3 million acres.

In 2010, Obama‟s mandated biofuel production was less than ten percent of foreign oil imports. It is impossible for biofuel of any description to replace foreign oil imports; just as it is idiotic to pay $41,000 for an electric car when you can have a gasoline- fueled car for around $16,000.

Pond scum is not a rational substitute for oil and spending $14 million on its production as a fuel is beyond absurd. It is the same confidence game as selling “carbon credits” to avoid the hoax of “global warming.”

Major New Weapon in the Fight Against the United Nations. Immediate Action Needed To Drive Home A Victory!

cjscrofani — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:34:51 +0000

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.

In short, private property rights, meaning the control of property by the owner is fast disappearing. While Agenda 21/Sustainable Development-inspired legislation gives lip-service to private property ownership, the language usually says something like, ―balance the rights of individuals and property owners with the needs of the community.‖ That line is, in fact, a direct quote from the ―Growth Policy‖ for Great Falls, Montana. Such wording is nearly universal in comprehensive development plans across the nation.

That mindset is growing in local government regulations as Agenda 21 practices are enforced. The promoters understand that their policies are literally ripping apart private ownership of property, but they lack the intestinal fortitude to be honest about their actions. So they acknowledge ―property rights,‖ and hope we don’t question how private control of ones own property is ―balanced‖ with the ―needs‖ of the ―community. How is that done? Who stands for the rights of the individual property owner or private business as government makes the rules to decide the ―needs‖ of the community?

To defend such a policy, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s) and planning professionals such as the American Planning Association (APA) which contract with local governments to create such rules, come armed with an arsenal of experts ready to defend the anti-property rights policies whenever challenged. So, if a property owner appears before the County Commissioners to complain that a certain regulation has damaged his property rights, or perhaps has damaged his ability to conduct business, for example, the NGOs immediately jump into action to defend the policy. They bring in a battery of ―experts‖ with officials titles to write official sounding reports that serve to overwhelm the elected officials and cut off any honest debate. A local citizen simply has no chance to fight back against this heavily-funded, powerfully-connected onslaught.

Obviously, if Agenda 21 and its mindset of government control is to be reigned in, clearly, something needs to be done to provide a strong voice for protection and defense of the property owners. Such a plan of action has now been developed by County Commissioner Cornel Rasor of Bonner County, Idaho. He calls it a Property Rights Council.

Rasor, Chairman of his County Commission, has been an opponent of Agenda 21 and a proponent of property rights for many years. After being elected to the County Commission several years ago he recognized the threat centralized control of development posed to private property and set out to develop a strategy to protect constituents’ property rights and their right to control their own property. As a result, the concept he created is a ―Property Rights Council‖ (PRC) as an official arm of the county government. It now exists in Bonner County, complete with a full time director on the County payroll.

Key to the success of a Property Rights Council is the proper definition of property rights. Scott Bauer, county attorney for Bonner County, Idaho and one of the driving forces to get it established, explained their approach in defining property rights this way: ―Practically speaking for each PRC case -file we translate the expression p”roperty right”with the expression c”ontrol right.” We take a property right to be a right to control some asset, resource, or physical thing. A PRC case is analyzed in terms of whether the proposal advances public control or private control (code for public/socialized property or private property).Property controlled by a ‘public entity’ is property controlled by an entity that utilizes a measure of socially sanctioned coercion to control the private assets in its possession and to take those assets from private individuals or groups without their full/complete consent. Applying this to land-use controls, new proposed zoning (anti- development or anti-use controls) socialize preexisting privately controlled real property and place it coercively into public control. Using this framework the PRC looks for the mix of public/private control over an asset or assets and promotes more private control and less public. ―

Further, Bauer explains that the root property rights philosophy used in the PRC is based on John Locke’s theories of natural property rights. This is the same root used by America’s founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, when they created the US constitution. So using such definition as the basis of PRC policy is right in line with imposing Constitutional law through PRC decisions.

Here’s how the Property Rights Council works, as both a protector for property owners and as an official advocate for private property rights:

A PRC is a citizen’s council of between 7 – 9 citizen volunteers, vetted and approved by the County Commission and assigned the task of researching and offering free market recommendations to resolve property rights conflicts.

The mission of the PRC is to review county government activities and inter-governmental activities to determine whether the activities may cause adverse impact to private property rights. The PRC then is charged with supplying to county officials an opinion on that impact. The review includes study of county, state and federal regulations to assure County Commissioners are aware of their impact on property rights and help them prepare proper action that, at all times, assures protection of private property rights in the legal framework of local government. In short, the PRC does the research and provides free market solutions to elected officials that don’t normally have the time or education to do so.

The PRC will also be charged with training county employees to look for property rights violations as they go about their daily tasks in running county government. This could impact the permit process; the way inspectors treat property owners; elimination of invasive or unnecessary regulations; and over-zealous ticket writers.

Perhaps of most importance, the PRC provides the framework for countering the Sustainablist’s legal assault. Specifically, the PRC will interface with a network of free market think tanks which can and will provide legal opinions, reports, and even lawyers to substantiate the property rights legal position. They provide expertise, credibility and a legal force to counter the massive force of the Sustainablists that now overwhelm county officials when a property rights question is at issue. There is a nation-wide network of free market think tanks through the State Policy Network (SPN).There are other such think tanks available in every state. So, when a constituent comes before the Commission with a complaint, now he will not be alone. He will benefit from the PRC’s efforts to protect his rights.

The PRC will deal with issues ranging from wetlands regulations that usurp private property rights; watershed overlays; and zoning. The process can be used to determine the damage caused by such federal regulations as Endangered Species, Conservation Easements, EPA regulations on water and energy use, etc. Decisions made by one PRC could have far reaching effect on those made by other PRCs across the nation. A national database can be established of pending and resolved issues, providing guidance to other PRCs. It will be a precedent-setting decision-making body that could mark the beginning of the restoration of property rights for all Americans.

To assure the PRC contains the proper members (those who advocate and support private property rights) it will be vitally important that the County Commission submit applicants to intense scrutiny as to their ideas and philosophy. PRC members can request the dismissal of another PRC member for cause. The public can request a PRC member be removed for cause. There will be term limits for each member to assure constant movement in the council. The members of the Council will be volunteers.

Commissioner Rasor and Bonner County attorney Scott Bauer are succeeding, under great pressure and criticism, to establish a Property Rights Council to protect citizens and their property from the massive force of the planners who are implementing Sustainable Development across the nation. Their goal now is to help others establish such councils in every community, in every state.

Rasor and Bauer are making themselves available to anyone seeking to create a council. They have created tools and an action plan to help local activists start the process to create their own local PRC. They will teach those interested how to lay the ground work; how to select and approach the proper commissioner to get the ball rolling in their community; and finally to get the whole concept on the docket for consideration. To help with that process, Karen Bracken, a property rights activist from Tennessee is serving as the main contact to help activists get started with their own Property Rights Council. Karen will provide preliminary information, and as the process moves forward, she will connect activists directly with Commissioner Rasor and Scott Bauer for more detailed planning. Karen can be reached at her email address: karenbracken5@gmail.com.

Contact Karen and get started in the battle to secure private property rights as the first step to countering the massive fire power of the vast network of planning advocates, self-appointed stakeholders, and NGOs that have invaded communities across the nation to enforce top-down control over every aspect of your life and property. Property Rights Councils can and will be the ultimate weapon to defeat Agenda 21 and restore freedom.

Ohio Peace Officer Drafts NDAA Letter For Police And Sheriffs

cjscrofani — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:27:37 +0000

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