Agenda 21

Confucius says...

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

Emphasis mine.

What Confucius recognized, of course, is that what we call things actually matters.  Indeed,

One begins to see what Confucius meant when he said, 2,500 years ago, that the first thing to do to restore a state to health was to rectify the names—in other words, to call things by their right names rather than by euphemisms.
Now if you've ever been to a meeting--at church, at work, in the community--where they have you break out into small groups and then come back together and where you have the feeling that the "consensus" arrived at seemed predetermined from the get-go, you've experienced the Delphi technique…it's not new but it's still making us crazy after all these years (stay with me here, all will become clear):
More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get ”input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.
You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings.
Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly.
Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting...
If you need a review of Agenda 21, comprehensive planning, sustainability, etc., etc., see an earlier post, "Unsustainable sustainability," from a couple of years ago.
So, class…what are some of the euphemisms that controlling controllers commonly use these days when they don't want you to realize what they're up to?
Here's a handy-dandy list of terms that are Agenda 21-related and that should make any sentient person's alarms go off, courtesy of Rosa Koire of Democrats Against Agenda 21:
Affordable housing
Ballot Box Planning
Benefit of all
Buffer Zones
Cap & Trade
Climate Change
Common Core Curriculum
Common good
Community Protocol
Comprehensive planning
Conservation Easement
Direct instruction
Endangered species
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Environmental Justice
General Plan
Global Warming
Good Business Sense
Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions
Growth management
HEAL (Healthy Eating Active Living) Communities
Healthy Communities Strategy
High Speed Rail
Historic preservation
Housing Element
International baccalaureate
International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)
Invasive species
Jobs-Housing Connection
Land Use Policies
Lifelong learning
Livable communities
Livable Communities
Local Governments for Sustainability
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Mixed Use Development
Multi-Use Dwellings
New Economy New Urbanism
New World Order
One planet communities
Open Space
Outcome based education
Parking Policy
Precautionary approach
Precautionary Principle
Priority Conservation Areas
Priority Development Areas (PDA)
Public/Private partnerships
Quality of life
Resilient Cities
Responsible development
Safe Routes to Schools
Scenic views and vistas
School to work
Sensitive Lands
Smart growth
Smart Streets
Social justice
Stack and Pack Housing
Sustainable Communities Initiative
Sustainable communities partnership
Sustainable communities strategies
Sustainable development
Sustainable Economic Development
Sustainable medicine
Three "E"s of Sustainablity-Equity, Economy, Environment
Traffic calming
Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
Transportation Justice
Triple bottom line
Urban Growth Boundary
Urban revitalization
Vehicle Mileage Traveled Tax
Vibrant Neighborhoods
Visioning Meetings
Walkable Communities
Got it? Good. Take a gander at the Tompkins County Planning Commissioner's column…and see how many sustainability terms you can pick out or infer:
...How we make Tompkins County a place where:
• housing is affordable, safe and appealing?
• transportation choices are affordable, efficient and healthy for people and the environment?
• economic prosperity is accessible to all?
• natural features and working rural landscapes are preserved and enhanced?
• water resources are protected?
• the energy system is carbon neutral?...
But guess what? People are realizing that the controllers begin controlling people's lives at the local level and are therefore pushing back at the local level:
June 27, 2014
Tompkins County Planning Department
121 E. Court Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
The purpose of this letter is to submit the official position of the Tompkins County Republican Party in regard to possible revisions in the comprehensive plan, as requested in the Ithaca Journal on June 17, 2014.
In his guest column in the Journal on June 17, Ed Marx, signing the column in his official role as Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, makes several assumptions of the issues facing Tompkins, the sentiments of its residents, and assumes consensus among them on what needs to be done.  The posing of the questions to be considered suggests that the answers follow a politically correct agenda dominated by environmental interests over development and job growth.  In other words, the questions suggest their own answers, answers the planners want to hear.  We believe that the questions asked are the wrong questions, designed to steer the outcome into a pre-ordained mold in which individual choices will increasingly be subject to government interference and control.  Our basic beliefs include respect for individual choices and a smaller, less powerful government.  The comprehensive plan changes suggested in the Marx column move us more deeply into a government controlled world.
Marx says that “there has also been an increasing interest locally in linking efforts to address climate change with the need to address social equity ….”  While the Tompkins County Republican Party would agree that some local environmental activists have embraced both the theories of global warming and climate change, their disdaining all who question the effort to link climate change theories with “social equity” is of deep concern to our Party.  Much like the deceptive statement that, “The science is settled”,  these theories have become a license for advocates to try to force significant lifestyle changes on the public, in line with the Agenda 21 and Cleaner, Greener New York plans to coerce residents to live their lives in a sea of government dictated patterns.  Our Party rejects this effort in favor of individual freedom, personal choices, and property rights.
Climate is a long term concept, well beyond a single human lifetime, not measurable in a few years or even decades.  Geologic history shows our planet has undergone climate change many times without human causation.  Grapes grew in the Viking settlements in Greenland.  George Washington’s troops experienced deep winters.  Neither of these events marked man made climate change.  The Earth has long term natural variations.  Some climate scientists believe these variations can occur quickly.  Accordingly, we do not accept global warming or climate change as a basis of a sweeping political agenda based on current short term data.  Moreover, some of this data has been known to have been altered or interpreted to satisfy its authors’ theories.  When scientists alter or slant data, they do science a huge disservice.
There were a number of specific points in Marx’s guest column we would like to address:
1.  Housing.  We believe the high cost of housing in Ithaca and Tompkins (one study showed we are the twelfth highest cost housing market in the U.S.) is due primarily to one of the highest property and total tax burdens in our country.  Giving tax breaks or assistance to some comes at the cost of others.  Subsidies for low cost housing exacerbate the problem.  Taxing residents, including those of marginal and low income, to subsidize the housing of others is a zero sum game.  As more people enjoy subsidies, more people will then need subsidies because the taxes they pay will become unbearable. In addition, our area imposes extensive zoning and other regulations that impede development.
2.  Transportation Choices.  We believe that people should be free to make their own transportation choices without the heavy hand of government tipping the scales to what planners consider desirable.  We believe government should serve private choices, not dictate or channel those choices.  It is an individual’s choice to live in tightly concentrated dense urban areas – or not.  But we should not pick winners and losers and punish those who choose to live in private homes with large lots, outside sub-divisions.  Government policy should remain neutral and honor individual choices in the housing marketplace.
3.  Economic prosperity.  We strongly favor economic development, with due regard to the environment as a factor, but not the only factor, in decision making.  The major obstacles to economic prosperity are high taxes and burdensome state and local government restrictions that provide reasons for businesses to seek to operate outside the U.S. or, if within it, in states that offer lower taxes and a favorable regulatory climate.  The more we plan and regulate, the more we tax and redistribute wealth, the less attractive we become to job makers.  One example of a society with “social equity” is Cuba, where there is so much equity that everyone is equally poor.
4.  Rural landscapes.  If there is one thing we in Tompkins have in abundance, it is land.  Given that our population growth is very slow (perhaps due to the factors we’ve discussed), there is relatively little pressure on our land availability.  While we favor preserving those few truly unique natural areas, we do not support massive land preservation planning and controls.
5.  Water resources.  We have abundant fresh water in our region.  From the Great Lakes to our normal rainfall, we are blessed with natural water supplies, trillions of gallons of water.  The principle of dilution applies in such circumstances keeping our water safe.  We do not oppose reasonable health and safety based water regulation but we do oppose declaring every drop of water as subject to EPA regulations and government controls.  Lest anyone forget, we too drink the water and we too want it safe.
6.  Carbon neutrality.  We don’t buy this.  It is virtually impossible for one county or even for the U.S. as a whole to change global patterns.  While we cut back on carbons, taxing ourselves to do so, foreign governments take our manufacturing jobs and continue to pour carbons into the atmosphere.  Until there is world-wide compliance, (an impossibility) such compliance efforts are doomed to be ineffective and costly to our own economy.  Further, cut backs in coal production for electric use, unless done very gradually, hurt large portions of the U.S. economy and may cause brownouts and blackouts, particularly in very hot, summer months, when electricity is in peak demand. Ours is a computer based society, a grid that is unreliable will kill many jobs.
7.  Preparation for “climate change”.  We have already discussed this.  Why are we preparing for something that may or may not happen?  Why do we attempt to change the social, life style, and political behavior of large parts of our population via government coercion unless there is reason beyond a doubt?
8. Lifestyles.  We believe individuals should choose their own life styles, free from coercion by planners and by the state.  When government puts its heavy hand on the scales of what is a “good” or “bad” life style, it is no longer serving the people but having the people serve the ends of government.  Politicians and bureaucrats in state and federal capitals are often out of touch and do not understand local issues.  Even if such actions are supported by a majority of the community, they should not be able to coerce the minority on details of how they will live.  We prefer freedom to the tyranny of the majority and heavy handed “protection.”
9. Concentrated communities.  Planners by nature and governments love concentrated communities because it is easier for them to provide infrastructure and to regulate life styles.  Forcing people to live in dense urban areas may be pleasing to some but it is repugnant to others.  Interestingly, when people retain their right to choose their lifestyles, many people prefer “sprawl” to density.  If that is what people choose, government needs to accommodate itself to those choices, not attempt to change them.  A free people are not over regulated by either government or by over-zealous radicals determined to force people to live in planned sub-divisions, neatly arranged, to satisfy planners and make life easier for infrastructure engineers.
In summary, our Party, representing a substantial portion of Tompkins County residents, believes your planners are asking the wrong questions and addressing the wrong problems in the wrong way.  The comprehensive plan should support development along the lines people choose for themselves, individually, not collectively, and with respect for differing views and priorities.  Zoning and government controls should be limited to true and immediate health and safety concerns, not broad environmental theories and speculations used as a cover to introduce politically correct life style and social changes.
The agenda in our community has been dominated by a highly organized, activist, and vocal “save the planet” extreme environmentalist lobby, who cannot balance jobs and the economy with the environment.  Both are important, we should not allow one interest to be entirely predominant.
The comprehensive plan should not impose new government requirements on the people of Tompkins County.
Respectfully submitted,
Tompkins County Republican Party
By James Drader, Chairman

Suburbs are for sellouts

That, as Stanley Kurtz points out in a recent Forbes article entitled, "How Obama Is Robbing The Suburbs To Pay For The Cities" a large and overlooked theme of Obama’s famous memoir, Dreams from My Father.  Few have noticed the little digs at suburban “sprawl” throughout the book, as when Obama decries a Waikiki jammed with “subdivisions marching relentlessly into every fold of green hill.”  Dreams actually begins with the tale of an African American couple who’ve come to question their move from city to suburb – the implication clearly being that the city is the moral choice...

Here's where I don my

and remind people that we've posted here numerous times over the last year and a half or so about ICLEI and Agenda  21—part and parcel of the things described in Kurtz's new book (about which there have been some shenanigans).

But in an election year and with, as The Lonely Conservative points out, broke local governments still continuing to spend money on this stuff (and they say we're crazy?) it's time to re-visit the topic—or maybe learn about it for the first time.

Be sure to read LC's post as well as Kurtz's Forbes article, both linked above.

Then make sure you vote accordingly in November.

h/t Henry

The Cassandra Problem

There's a local prophet(ess)—that's a portrait of her tearing her hair out over there on the right—who wrote the following regarding zoning in Dryden in 2010.  It was based on the (then) Amended Zoning Law, revised draft, of September, 2009:

The scope and control the Town would assume over private property owners goes far beyond health and safety and well into social engineering...

...Part of the "character of Dryden" has been that its town government was "minimalist," and apart from providing basic town services, left its residents alone. That is part of the "character" that has made Dryden attractive.  That part of character would be lost as the Town moves into comprehensive socially driven zoning, recreation, and other activities that enlarge Town government...

...this level of planning is unnecessary, adds to New York's passion to overregulate, and will be costly to administer, hence demanding even higher taxes...

...It appears government would like to shape and control how Dryden develops to make its tasks easier and to fit the social mode some residents prefer.  But government is supposed to serve public needs, not direct them...

So, while a lot of time in the last year has been spent arguing back and forth over nitty-gritty details of the new zoning law, the real problem was that the Town's entire approach was—dare we say it so baldly?—just plain wrong.

And, as it's turned out, none of the recent suggested changes that might have made the new law at least somewhat less of an overreach were adopted in the final version that was passed by the town board last week.

Not really surprising.  At this point, we'll don our preferred chapeau

and remind you of where the kind of thinking demonstrated by the Town originates. Watch the PowerPoint presentation—it's still news to many people in Central New York, but will sound distressingly familiar to many others.

Beware, other towns and municipalities...don't say Cassandra didn't warn you:

The NoisyRoom mouths off

I don't usually reproduce posts from other blogs in their entirety, but this one is so good I didn't think excerpting it did it justice.  Here ya go, at the NoisyRoom, "Bad Dreams in the Night":

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

A terrifying new concept has recently reemerged in the global climatology fight and the clarion call is heralded by a book that Zombie just readThe Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age.

So, let me get this straight… In the 1970′s, we were all going to freeze to death in a new ice age. In the 2000′s, we were going to be baked alive because of global warming. Now – old is new again and we are going to freeze to death once more. Oh, for crap’s sake, make up your minds, why don’t ya? More death, death, doom and death. How trite.

Just another ploy to spread global Marxism – we just HAVE TO do the following (rinse, repeat and gag):

  • Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
  • Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
  • Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
  • Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
  • In general embrace all environmental causes.

Sound familiar? Al Gore rides again in perpetuity evidently and has mated in an unholy alliance with Cass Sunstein and Progressives worldwide to force us into one global collective hell. Not surprised in the least. Zombie’s view of the whole scenario says it best:

In order to weaken and eventually destroy the existing industrialized nations, we must devise an ecological “crisis” so severe that only voluntary economic suicide can solve it; and if this first crisis doesn’t materialize as planned, then devise another, and another, even if they flatly contradict our previous claims.

These elitists will not stop until they have a crisis that we all must submit to so they can have their way with us and grab the power and fortune they have dreamed of, while putting the riffraff worldwide in their place as subjugates once and for all. A New World Order of slaves and a ruling class – ride the Wayback Machine to medieval times, only on steroids with a heaping side of eugenics for all.

Read Zombie’s latest: The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era? Bad dreams in the night of a purposely created disaster/emergency to force Americans to their knees, haunts me on a nightly basis. You can only look at evil so long before it takes its toll.


Unsustainable sustainability

We've been beating this drum here for some time.  "Sustainability" and "smart growth" have become such integral parts of the fabric in this county that they seem almost normal.  Well, they're not. And they're inimical to local economies, which is, after all, the point—in typically Owellian doublespeak, "sustainability" is unsustainable and "smart growth" is neither smart nor growth-enhancing. Quite the opposite.  

In a column at Heritage:

Radical environmentalists, local business groups, and the ever-present Not in My Backyard crowd have been trying for decades to reshape American communities to conform to their preferred “smart growth” policies. These advocates work to impose land use regulations that would force Americans into denser living arrangements, curtail freedom of choice in housing, discriminate against lower-income Americans, and compel people to pay more for their houses and give up their cars in favor of subways, trolleys, buses, and bicycles.

These efforts—often described as “New Urbanism,” “sustainable development,” or “open land preservation”—have long been resisted by some members of the community due to their negative impact on economic growth, competitiveness, and the nation’s standard of living...
...In recent years, however, many smart-growth opponents working at the local level have shifted their focus toward opposing the 1992 United Nations voluntary initiative called Agenda 21, which advocates many policies that reflect smart-growth principles. They should recognize that Agenda 21 is simply another facet of smart growth and not allow it to divert them from opposing the more ubiquitous, overarching agenda of homegrown environmental extremists...
This next bit should sound really familiar (emphasis mine):
...America’s smart-growth movement emerged in force in the early 1970s when communities in California and Oregon began to replicate Britain’s anti-sprawl policies through restrictive zoning practices to discourage suburbanization. Bit by bit, it spread around the country as more and more communities adopted polices to deter suburban growth for all but the well-to-do. Growth control efforts underway in these communities were driven not only by a distorted view of the environment, but also by the desire of those already in place to prevent newcomers from arriving and spoiling the rural ambience of their suburban communities...
...As they [smart-growth policies] became more prevalent and restrictive, their impact on housing prices and construction likewise expanded. An explosion of exclusionary zoning throughout the U.S. encouraged many communities to adopt zoning policies to ensure that they maintained a certain demographic “profile.” Such zoning limited real estate development to higher-cost homes in order to “price out” moderate-income households, which included a disproportionate share of minorities.
In the wake of the bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne wryly noted that Britain escaped the sort of housing bubble and crash that staggered America because, whereas America recklessly expanded its housing stock, “We were saved by the fact that you can’t build anything in this country.”
Sounds like the companions to NIMBYs are BANANAs (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything).
...the Obama Administration has warmly embraced smart-growth policies and, more broadly, increased environmental regulation and restriction of use of natural resources. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood is the Administration’s point man in selling smart-growth policies to the American people. He and other key Administration officials are abetted by state and local elected officials and numerous interest groups, including the Urban Land Institute, local Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Smart Growth America, the American Public Transportation Association, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and shortsighted local business associations.
No doubt our Mr. Magoo-like local politicians recognize themselves.
It is possible to push back successfully, however:
Opponents of these policies have been very effective in their work. A good example is the state of Florida, where Governor Rick Scott (R) and the state legislature repealed a 25-year-old smart-growth law a few months ago.
...preventing American implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level and membership by U.S. counties, cities, and municipalities in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), now called Local Governments for Sustainability, is worthwhile. But this effort should be viewed as only one part of a broader effort to convince U.S. government officials to repeal destructive smart-growth programs and prevent the enactment of new ones.
How exactly do we go about that?  No answer in this piece, although there are places to look for guidance.
Half the battle, though, is getting the information out there in front of people. Pass this on and do read the whole Heritage article.

It's not paranoia when they really are after you

We've posted several times on Agenda 21, ICLEI, green energy, and sustainability.  Here's a tidy little primer on Agenda 21 as it relates specifically to property rights—and as you'll start to realize, that's what it's ultimately all about:

h/t Kathy


The green jihad and "benefit corporations"

The hypocrisy meter has to run full-bore not just here in the US but everywhere:

It seems rarely a month passes without some new assault on the lifestyle and housing choice preferred by the overwhelming majority of Australians: the detached suburban home. Denigrated by a careless media as ”McMansions” or attacked as some archaic form of reckless housing choice which is suddenly “no longer appropriate” (according to some planning or environmental fatwa), the detached home is under a constant assault of falsely laid allegation and intellectual derision...

....I’m not proposing that the leftist green agenda which is waging war on the detached home turn the blow torch of blame to the wealthy, nor am I suggesting that there’s anything wrong with apartment and townhouse developments. But what’s wrong with letting market forces play more of a hand without the overt moralising and environmental hand wringing that seems to accompany decisions on urban planning policy? Is it really necessary to malign the detached suburban home, in order to make the alternative more attractive?

We are talking about middle Australia – and their counterparts in the USA, UK and elsewhere – which is under the barrage of assault for having the temerity to choose a form of dwelling that actually suits them... 

....And there’s one of the great ironies in all this: those who advocate denying housing choice and enforcing apartments over detached homes, public transport over private, and inner city density over suburban expansion, invariably seem to do the opposite of what they preach.  Next time you come across one of these green jihadists waging war on the suburban home (and the people who live in them), ask them if they live in a house or a unit, how many children they have, ask how many cars (or homes) they own, and ask what their power bill is like....

(h/t Janis)

There are several posts here on Agenda 21 and ICLEI, which is a phenomenon here in Tompkins County not just in other parts of the US or in Australia. As we've said here over and over again, all of these things are all of a piece: sustainability, environmentalism, certain kinds of zoning, opposition to energy development...Private property? Freedom? Fuhgeddaboudit.

And if you think that this agenda isn't pretty far advanced, think again. Ever hear of Benefit Corporations?  I hadn't either.

Benefit Corporations are a new class of corporation that are required to create a material positive impact on society and the environment and to meet higher standards of accountability and transparency. Model legislation was drafted by Bill Clark from Drinker Biddle & Reath

Benefit Corporations are what used to be called "crony capitalism" or—dare I say it?—"fascism."

Where do these things exist? In New York State for one (where it unanimously passed both houses of the state legislature and is awaiting the Governor's signature):

New York Benefit Corporation

New York State Seal

Status: Passed Senate 62-0 and Assembly 139-0

Sponsors: Speaker Silver (A4692-a) and Sen. Squadron (S79-a)

Legislation: A4692-a and S79-a

Key Supporters: ASBCBuffalo FirstLocal First IthacaNYS B CorpsSinglebrook Technology,

Quotes/Testimony: Speaker's Press Release

What are the other states with Benefit Corporations? Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont, and Virginia.  The states that are currently in this pipeline are California, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

We need to educate ourselves and our neighbors and toot sweet.

Is there an agenda?

Yes, Agenda 21 to be precise.

In an earlier post a couple of months ago (and even before that) , we brought up ICLEI and Agenda 21.  This stuff is not going away and it behooves us all to pay a lot closer attention to it.  Think that zoning debates, fracking debates, sustainability initiatives and so on have nothing to do with you and how you live your life?  Think again.

From the SF Bay 912 group (yes, there actually are active and growing tea party groups on the left coast):

The US Constitution guarantees the right to private property and restricts the government from taking that property without just compensation under the laws of eminent domain. Yet that right is being eroded every day by local and regional governments under the guise of such nice sounding words as “sustainable development”, “smart growth”, “new urbanization”. Other code words for this effort include: “comprehensive planning”, “bike lanes-hiking trails”, “open space preserves”, “wetlands, wildlands, biodiversity”, “public/private partnerships”, “high speed rail-light rail, etc”.

This should sound real familiar and not in a good way.

The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property.  At risk from Agenda 21:

  • Private property ownership
  • Single-family homes
  • Private car ownership and individual travel choices
  • Privately owned farms

However, people. are fighting back just as we could do here in Tompkins County:

In recent months, citizen groups across the country have organized and become involved in the removal of towns and cities from membership in ICLEI. The Roanoke, VA Tea Party is holding a rally this week in an effort to have ICLEI removed from their local government.

In the right sidebar over there under Blog Roll, click on Virginia Right for more information about the anti-Agenda 21 work going on in VA.

This video (90 minutes long) from just a few days ago is notable because the featured speaker at the Bay Area Tea Party meeting, Rosa Koire, is a liberal Democrat who understands that Agenda 21 will destroy America as we know it:

If you need something short and sweet right now (and suitable for helping you craft your elevator speech re: Agenda 21 and "sustainability"), see the American Policy Center's Agenda 21 in One Easy Lesson.

For more info and links, see Is The Soros-Sponsored ‘Agenda 21’ a Hidden Plan for World Government? (Yes, Only It Is Not Hidden).

Homework assignment: Go the ICLEI page that lists all the member governmental entities (here) and check out the USA participants.

You can worry about being thought of as wearing a stylish tinfoil chapeau and ultimately end up like this guy:

or you can educate yourself and others.  You do have a choice—for now.

Subscribe to Agenda 21