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.”

He constantly teams up with anti-free market types like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to produce “educational programs” in his software packages, misdirecting unsuspecting children with political propaganda. In 2002 he gave the NWF $600,000 worth of software to help these environmental radicals run their programs to block the drilling of American oil. Apparently Gates doesn’t understand that he needs oil to create power to run computers. Most recently his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $3 million to eight universities to reinvent the flush toilet. Environmentalists call that device “one of the world’s most destructive habits.”

Clearly Gates is a captive of his own wealth, suffering the usual rich man’s guilt over being rich – rushing full speed ahead to “give back to the world.” Funny how such giving back always seems to mean supporting socialist causes with money gained from the free market. Up till now, Gates has just been giving his own money voluntarily. Even if it’s to bad causes, he is certainly free to use his money anyway he chooses.

Now, however, his misguided meddling is about to involve the misdirecting of everyone’s income, and so the world’s richest useful idiot just became dangerous to freedom.

In November, as part of the G20 summit, Gates, representing his foundation, presented a report on a plan to eradicate world poverty. Said Gates, “I am honored to have been given this important opportunity. My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” Gate’s report proposes a financial transaction tax (FTT) on tobacco, aviation, fuel and carbon (energy), to be enforced by all members of the G20 nations. The financial transaction tax has been excitedly talked about in the halls of the UN for a decade. Called the Tobin Tax, named after a Yale economist who dreamed it up, FTT would give the UN almost unlimited funding by taxing every stock and monetary transaction in the world.

Gates didn’t just dream this up on his own accord. He is actually resurrecting legislation a bill introduced in 2008 by then Senator Barack Obama. It was called the Global Poverty Act. Obama introduced the bill during his one abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate.

The bill was one of the only pieces of legislation ever introduced by Senator Barack Obama, and it wasn’t just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill was directly tied to the United Nations and served as little more than a shake down of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. The Global Poverty Act would provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates indicated that would add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money into UN coffers, to be spent (or wasted) by UN bureaucrats. The excuse for the taxing, of course, is to help end poverty in third world countries. The bill died in Congress in 2008 after passing unanimously in the House. Now Bill Gates has resurrected it.

Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. In addition, the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its many unworkable poverty programs. So what’s new about the Global Poverty Act, and why is it dangerous?

First, some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared as a blue print for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government.

The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”

Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN.
Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards.
Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category.
Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN.
Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army.
Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN.
Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations.
Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved.
Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.”
Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court
Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action.
Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in.
Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance.

There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear.

At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed — just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium.

Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty; Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health; Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development.

Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could oppose such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there.

Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals.

Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals.

And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s 2008 bill specifically mentioned the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty.

The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…”

At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence pouring out of the scientific community to fully debunk the scam.

Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act as he campaigned for the Presidency with the obvious and clear intention of showcasing the then little known Senator as a world leader. But the bill died in the Senate. Now, Bill Gates is proving his “useful idiot” status (a term coined by Lenin to describe capitalists who would sell the rope to hang capitalism), by serving as Obama’s lackey to resurrect the Global Poverty Act.

And right on cue, just after Bill Gates made his report to the G20 Summit calling for a financial transaction tax, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced legislation to put a tax on “certain trading activities undertaken by banking and financial firms.” The bills, of course, are the Tobin Tax and in line with Gate’s report.

Clearly, Obama needs to show that, under his leadership, the United States is falling in line with the Millennium Declaration and its 2015 deadline for implementation. Truth, science and American taxpayer interests be hanged, as Bill Gates offers the rope, Harkin and DeFazio provide the knot, and Obama gets to pretend to be a “world” leader.

UN Millennium Project – and the drive for Global Governance

A PLAN TO SAVE HUMANITY IS ALMOST ALWAYS A FALSE FRONT FOR THE URGE TO RULE.” H.L. MENCKEN

Those of us who have for years, warned of the coming of global governance and the threat of globalization to our freedom, have been marginalized and labeled as “kooks.” So here are a series of quotes to show what we are talking about in the words of UN documents and reports written by Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) for discussions at a variety of international (or should I say global) UN conferences. (TAD)

The End of Sovereignty and independence

“The bedrock of every country’s international relations must be the mission of using the United Nations system as the machinery for working and acting together.”
Shridath Ramphal, co-chairman, UN Commission on Global Governance “Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete, all states will recognize a single, global authority… National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
Strobe Talbott, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration
“It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful.”
Maurice Strong, co-chairman, UN Commission on Global Governance
What is Globalization
(No borders)

“Although globalization has become a very popular term, it is often misunderstood and confused. And globalization is sometimes understood as the same meaning as internationalization. However, globalization is quite different from internationalization. Globalization goes further beyond internationalization, where nation states are in increasing contact with one another, but nevertheless remain separate. Globalization means that the globe becomes one world, where national borders have little significance. While governments controlled internationalization, today’s globalization is largely guided by market forces and non-state actors like transnational corporations are playing more and more roles beyond government intervention.”
UN Millennium Forum discussion paper, May 8, 2000

Economic Globalization (redistribution of your wealth)

“…The most urgent problem of our global village seems to be distribution of wealth rather than growth of production. The world production is already big enough to satisfy all needs – although never big enough to satisfy all greed.”
UN Millennium Forum discussion paper, May 8, 2000

Abolish or Control Private Property

“Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”
UN Habitat II Summit, 1976

Changing the Structure of Government to Force Global Governance

In 1997, UN Secretary Kofi Annan proposed that the Commission on Global Governance should serve to “link the UN and civil society ( NGOs) in their collective trusteeship for the integrity of the Global environment and commons area.”