I just spoke to a group in the next county over--flew back at 4 am from another state just so I could be on time to speak for the Marin Coalition.  Although they had invited me, there had been some contention between the board members as to whether or not they wanted me, and I received an extremely rude and accusatory email from a board member who was ignorant about UN Agenda 21 and just wanted to fight.  I considered refusing to come but I had already committed to it and the majority of the board wanted me.  So I went.

There were just 50 or so people there.

There were some rude interruptions from the group as I spoke but I dealt with them and went on.  At the end of my speech a woman in the audience accused me of not having integrity because I 'took money' from the state for years as an employee even though I 'knew what was going on with Agenda 21.'  She said that because I supported the use of eminent domain I was a hypocrite.  I responded by noting her total ignorance because she had obviously arrived at the event via a public road and this was certainly acquired by eminent domain.  I explained that there is a difference between eminent domain used for a public use and the use of eminent domain to choose winners and losers in redevelopment, and in transportation tax subsidies used to pay for for-profit mixed use projects and infrastructure supporting it.  I also said that I was proud of my career and had absolutely nothing to apologize for.

In fact her comments, which were extensive, aggressive, hateful, and incorrect were a personal attack on me.  She, a member of this group's board, did not dispute any of the factual information I had presented in my speech.  Instead she attacked me.  This is a technique used to chill free speech by those who are trying to shut down the truth.  No one in the entire group said a word as we sparred.  I was disgusted.  She was the only African-American person in the room.  I mention this because I wonder if it had any impact on this group of white, middle class, middle aged people who sat silently while a guest who had traveled thousands of miles to speak at their invitation was abused in front of them.  Did they think they'd be infringing on her free speech rights if they told her that she was out of line? Apparently as she was leaving the event she told others that I am 'racist.' Maybe I should have accused her of gay-bashing.  Or bullying.  

UPDATE:
The woman who attacked me, Regina Carey, is on the Democratic Central Committee for Marin County.  When she was running for that position, according to the voter's guidebook, she identified herself as a civil rights activist and said her occupation was: Community Volunteer.  She is president of the Social Justice Center of Marin.  Wonder if she had an 'agenda?' Funny thing--I was attacked by a Democratic Central Committee in Virginia--they said I wasn't really a Democrat and that I was just pretending to be one so that the Tea Party would like me.  Here's my blog post  on it. http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/1/post/2011/11/what-the-democrats-in-virginia-have-to-say-about-rosa.html 

Guess what?  In yet another disgusting display of adventures into human nature we have the true story of the XYZ army during the XYZ War.  Story goes that the XYZ, not wishing to use more soldiers than necessary to guard their prisoners of war, decided to cull out the independent, active prisoners and place them under guard.  The others, the passive ones, hardly needed any guarding at all---they went along with the program.  So, what did the XYZ find when they separated the two groups?  That a mere 5% of the prisoners were the independent, active types.  Five percent.

There are 300,000,000 people in the US.  Five percent is 15,000,000.  Let's conservatively figure half of that for those who aren't going to just sit around and let themselves be Delphi'd in consensus meetings, pushed around by their City Councils, told that they have to agree to lose their private property rights to redevelopment projects, shamed into watching while their neighbors are bullied by Community Oriented Police measures, and flattered into mandatory volunteer programs for local non-profits designed to dictate their life choices.

Yes, that's about SEVEN AND A HALF MILLION PEOPLE in the United States.  That's seven times the population of San Francisco. About twice the population of Chicago.  About equal to New York.  Remember that when you go to a 'visioning meeting' put on by the regional transportation authority and local government.  You are just one of millions of people across the nation who are standing up every day and saying 'We will not be bullied into silence. We object to being told that we are a threat to the planet if we live in a house and drive a car.  We know that this is just a smokescreen for the plan to run a total information network designed for maximum control of our lives.  This is the biggest public relations stunt in the history of the world, and we are not going to go passively.'  And remember:  Seven and a half million is only two and a half percent--it is half of the number of people who would be active and have the guts to object.  A small percentage, but a big number.  Will you be part of the Resistance?

Speak up, speak out, reach out to those who will be bitterly disappointed to see that the vision of a perfect world of no carbon emissions and smiling people is a sham.  A manipulation.  An artificial construct designed to direct whole populations to a pre-determined outcome.  The obedient, passive, unquestioning mass of consumers ready to turn on their neighbors and report.  Is that what we want for our going forward?

Do you have the guts to stand up when you see something that is wrong?  Or are you going to just go along to get along?  Decide now.  WHAT DOES IT TAKE? 
15 Comments
 
 
Please take a look at this fantastic series of overlapping government officials and corporations.  I have not verified all of these but this is definitely worth your time.
http://endthelie.com/2012/04/18/18-venn-diagrams-showing-how-corrupted-american-democracy-really-is/#axzz1teotObuF 
5 Comments
 
 
This is a fun one.  A survey made March 12-30, 2012, by Yale and George Mason Universities asked this question:

How much do you support or oppose signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by 2050?

They asked 1,008 people.  First I'll tell you what the Center for American Progress (an ICLEI supporter and partner in UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development) reported as the 'result.'

The Center for American Progress reported that 65% of the respondents supported this REQUIRED huge reduction in US carbon dioxide by 2050.  

Now I'll tell you what the data showed.  Nineteen percent strongly supported this international treaty concept.  The other forty six percent 'somewhat' supported it.  But it was reported as 'support.'

Now I'll tell you what the title of this article  is: The Death of Public Support for Global Warming Action Is Greatly Exaggerated.  Interesting, right?  This article is designed as spin. 

Another survey question asks, in a Delphi-style way, "People disagree on whether the US should reduce greenhouse gas emissions on its own, or make reductions only if other countries do too.  Which of the statements comes closest to your own point of view?"  And then the question answers are ranged from the US should do it without influence by other countries or it should follow the lead of other countries.  Do you see the Delphi?  They set this up so that if you don't know anything about this you'll just want to see the US make 'independent decisions' not influenced by other countries and you'll 'vote' for that.  And, predictably, 63% of respondents did just that when they said they wanted the US to reduce its GHG regardless of what other countries do.  They didn't question the whole premise in the first place did they?

This is classic Delphi.  Be aware.
2 Comments
 
 

The following is from an online newspaper focused on driving issues (link at the bottom).  This situation is the perfect example of government by corporations--you'll have the regulations enforced by government but the profits go to private corporations.  In this case, an Australian company runs the red light cameras in Las Cruces, New Mexico.  If you run a red light you pay your ticket to the Australian company.  If you don't pay your ticket you'll be threatened with utility disconnection.  You can freeze to death in Las Cruces for non-payment of a traffic ticket.
New Mexico: City Shuts Off Water, Sewer for Photo Ticket Nonpayment
Las Cruces, New Mexico is threatening to cut off water, gas and sewer service over unpaid red light and speed camera tickets. 
With more and more vehicle owners simply deciding refuse to pay red light camera and speed camera tickets, private, for-profit companies and municipalities are growing increasingly desperate. America's second-largest city shut down its photo ticketing program last year largely because residents who could not afford the $500 citations did not pay them. On Monday, Las Cruces, New Mexico announced it would shut off the utilities of city residents who refused to pay Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company that owns and operates the cameras.

"The city is notifying offenders by mail that they have until the due date stated in the letter to pay the fines or make satisfactory payment arrangements," a Las Cruces press release warned. "Failure to comply will result in termination of utilities services."

Las Cruces claims vehicle owners owe $2 million. To encourage payment of the $100 photo fines, the city says it will employ an ordinance the council adopted in 1988 giving itself the right to shut off utility service to residents declared delinquent for any reason. 

"The city may decline, fail or cease to furnish utility service to any person who may be in debt to the city for any reason, except ad valorem taxes and special assessments," city code Section 28-10 states.

The city provides gas, water, sewer and trash services. Ordinarily, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission prevents shutting off the utilities of low-income residents from November 15 to March 15. This is primarily a safety issue as lack of heating during a cold snap -- Las Cruces recorded a -10 degree temperature in 1962 -- could endanger the elderly. The commission also protects the seriously ill and customers on Medicaid or on assistance from a charitable organization. A spokesman for the commission, however, told TheNewspaper that no such protections apply to utilities run by a municipality. To have service restored, Las Cruces and its private vendor will charge a $48 re-connection fee on top of $125 per ticket.

Las Cruces gave Redflex approval to issue speeding and red light tickets three years ago. In January, a local university was unable to prove the program delivered a substantial safety benefit. Last year, a majority of voters in Albuquerque voted for the removal of red light cameras. 
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/37/3774.asp 
3 Comments
 
 
I'm here in Memphis giving speeches and I took a look at Imagine 2035, the name for UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development regional planning in this area.  I'm doing my research and I found this article in the Daily Memphis. There's a link to the actual Imagine 2035 plan in the article so of course I clicked on it.  Where did it take me?To Imagine 2035...in Tampa...Florida.  Oops!  Bet no one noticed because IT'S THE SAME PLAN.  What's the date on the article??  April 14, 2010.  Two years ago.  No one noticed.  Read it yourself, it's a lovely piece of propaganda.  Typical.

MPO to Kick Off Imagine 2035 Public Phase
By Eric SmithPrint | Front Page | Email this story | Email reporter
An initiative designed to give citizens and communities input in the region’s future transportation needs will reach a critical milestone next week with the first round of its public meeting phase.

Imagine 2035, the Memphis Metropolitan Planning Organization’s planning process to create a long-term transportation and land-use plan for the Mid-South, was approved last summer by the MPO’s policy board.

The program formally enters its second phase – the “visioning” phase – Monday night with the first of 12 public meetings during the next month.

The first meeting is in Arlington, with other meetings scheduled for Memphis, Bartlett, Cordova, Hernando, Olive Branch, Millington, Gallaway and Mason. The full schedule is available at www.imagine2035.com.

The meetings, which run through May 13, will give residents a chance to offer feedback on how development plus transportation and logistical assets like roads and bridges can best suit their communities.

MPO will hold other public meeting rounds throughout the year, and it will incorporate modeling software and input from various municipalities making transportation plans for their jurisdictions.

Imagine 2035 has a specific purpose. MPO is federally mandated to develop a long-range transportation plan for the region, and the first step to developing that plan – a follow-up to the 2026 long-range plan – is to address future land-use issues, such as where transportation needs will be and how land use will play a role in meeting those needs.

The next long-range transportation plan must be adopted by March 2012. MPO’s coverage area includes all of Shelby County, the four western miles of Fayette County and the 10 northern miles of DeSoto County.

Imagine 2035 is a critical component of creating that plan, said MPO transportation planner Paul Morris.

“Everybody has an idea of what they want their future to look like,” he said. “The question then becomes, what type of transportation system do we need to have to accommodate the projected growth and development of our community?”

As Morris noted, myriad growth and economic development trends will dictate the region’s transportation needs during the next quarter-century.

With DeSoto County’s population expected to almost double in the next two decades, how will its growth affect roads such as Interstates 69 and 269?

With bustling intermodal yards like Norfolk Southern’s new facility inRossville and BNSF Railway Co.’s expanded one in Southeast Shelby County, what does that do for Tenn. 385 and Lamar Avenue (U.S. 78)?

And with the proposed development of a car plant in Tunica – plus the nascent facility in nearby Tupelo – will the large number of auto suppliers setting up shop in North Mississippi create capacity issues?

Morris said the “visioning” phase of Imagine 2035 will be to discuss such scenarios and plan accordingly.

“We understand that certain development patterns have certain transportation implications,” Morris said. “By getting an idea of what type of development people would like to see, we could then develop a transportation system that could accommodate those needs.”

Residents who attend the public meetings will be able to voice concerns about traffic and their communities’ ability to handle heavily used roads.

“The better we talk with the public and the more input we can get from the public, the better land-use transportation plan we can develop, which in turn would help us develop a better long-range transportation plan,” Morris said.

MPO administrator Martha Lott, who wasn’t available for comment this week, said in a statement: “This process will give our community the chance to discuss the ‘what-ifs’ of our metropolitan area, and consider the trade-offs between how our community grows and the transportation decisions needed to support that growth.”

Brett Roler, MPO planner and Imagine 2035 project manager, added: “This is a great chance for the community to not only see what our region might look like 25 years from now, but also take an active part in shaping its future.”

Funding for the initiative comes from MPO planning money provided by the Federal Highway Administration (One of the agencies on the President's Council on Sustainable Development, of course--Rosa.) Morris estimated the initiative’s cost at around $250,000.

For more about the Imagine 2035 initiative, see the Sept. 7 edition of The Daily News at www.memphisdailynews.com.

Add Comment
 
 
Here's a note I just received from Iowa.  Peaceful meetings where citizens are raising their voices to demand answers are being entered by men carrying guns in an effort to intimidate us.  We will not be intimidated.

Here's the note:
Several concerned citizens of the growing group of Iowans against Agenda 21 and The Tomorrow Plan attended a meeting for the Tomorrow Plan at Blank Park Zoo last evening.  We insisted they answer our questions and were not quiet about it.  In an attempt to intimidate us, Angela Connelly, who declared herself "an elected official" and that "they were not there to answer questions" called the Des Moines Police and THREE (3) cruisers showed up.  I don't believe anybody from our group even stood up during this Q and A attempt.  We did, however, comprise the majority of the room.

They insist this plan is NOT Agenda 21, but please peruse the attached article Sustainability Scan posted on their website.  When confronted with this article, Todd Ashby, Executive Director of the MPO, claimed to have no idea the article existed.  

When asked how much of the $2.2 million "grant" Boston firm Sasaki Associates receives, after several attempts to avoid the question, Todd Ashby finally admitted they receive 60%.  When pressed, Angela Connelly made the distinction that while there was a bidding process, Sasaki was "selected" not that they had "won the bid."  When asked about the additional funding of $1 million, Bethany Willcoxon and Todd Ashby, again after several attempts to not answer the question, admitted that while this money is not directly given to them, these funds come from Capital Crossroads, who apparently is funded by area businesses(?), and another entity I am unable to recall at this time, (maybe DART?) who receives tax money from cities in the planning area - specifically mentioning Ankeny.  Where I come from, we call that "splitting hairs."
1 Comment
 
 
No matter where you go in our country and in Canada, and in Australia, and across the world, you'll see the same regional plans rolled out.  Regional plans are the stepping stone to Mega-Regions and then on to One World.  There are those who like the idea.  Let's see how much they like it when they realize that they're not the chosen ones after all, and that the noose will tighten on free speech, free movement, and freedom.  When you stand up to object in a visioning meeting you're brushed off as a fringe, isolated contrarian--yes that's what they say.  But the consultants and your government have no problem packing that meeting with their own employees and partners and having those people represent the millions of people in the 'region' who have no idea that these meetings are going on.  Yes, that's the buy-in, and no dissent is permitted.  

The government is getting that fiat money as fast as possible from the Federal Reserve and sinking you ever deeper in debt.  But there's always money for that $50 million bike path or the new stadium 'for economic growth.'  Yet you'll hear that this is the age of the New Frugality.  That's what the American Planning Association calls it.

Now that the American Planning Association has held their 'Communications Boot Camp' for planners they'll tell you that smart growth (now they call it quality growth) is all about the economy.  Here's what they say now: 'Planning is pivotal to the return of American prosperity and economic strength.'  They also say 'Planners are the guardians of the future.'  

Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?  What do they say about us?  They advise planners to 'cultivate elected officials and 'influentials' who can push back.'  
They also advise keeping elected officials briefed and inoculated--that's the word they use--against our arguments and facts.  They subject the elected officials to pressure and plant articles in the newspaper about them if they don't go along to get along.

Shame and embarrassment, and threats of job loss, peer pressure, reprisals. They'll shame you and embarrass you in those visioning meetings; that's the way Communitarianism works. They'll try to make you feel ashamed or frightened of what people will say.  But you won't be intimidated. Then they'll want to bring the police into their meetings so that we don't disrupt them.  We have many ways to break the stranglehold--here is one:

The Tennessee legislature is about to pass a bill (it passed in the House) that will call a halt to this officially.  Like the Republican National Committee's resolution, it repudiates UN Agenda 21 and ICLEI.  The bill was sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brooks, a Republican.  It passed with 8 Democrats joining in.  The Senate counterpart bill is sponsored by Senator Mike Bell.  Let's be sure to thank those elected officials who have the courage to brave ridicule and disinformation in order to bring UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development out of the shadows and into the light.  To begin that hard task of breaking its grip on every city, county, and state in the nation.  

We can do it.  We're getting stronger every day, and it's because you are speaking out.  Thank you--keep it up.


Add Comment
 
 
Yes, some jerk has taken that domain name and is directing people to Obama and Sustainability websites.  The world is full of creeps like that and what can I say but that I'm sorry I didn't think of it myself.

It didn't occur to me that someone would also want to buy my own name as a domain name.  

That's the breaks.
5 Comments
 
 
Every town is doing these creek trails, bike trails, rails to trails, etc.  These are impossible to police, negatively impact bordering properties' potential for controlling their borders and ensuring their privacy, and actually create security issues.  Maintenance is expensive--many of these trails will add tens of miles of public space to formerly private areas.  Many are paved, this is costly and gives contracts to cronies.  Not to mention that they are disturbing wildlife---going into areas that were previously quiet habitat.  These areas are now open to bikers, hikers, and transients.  Crime by transients, gangs etc will make people demand more policing, and then there will be more police presence in your backyard.  These plans have prohibitions on solid fencing along the trail.  No solid wood fence---it violates the 'viewshed' into your backyard.  Will Google take a golf cart down these trails and photograph your back yard?  Why are these trails paved?  Is it so that a small vehicle will be able to go on them?  So that a police vehicle can surveil you?  This is not for the people.  Not for the animals.  It is for surveillance.

Exercise is the new god and the green mask.  It creates justification for more surveillance and more dogma...this will result in required exercise in order to keep health care costs down.  Just think of the implications. Obesity epidemic. Healthy Eating Active Living.  Blue Zones and all of the other programs nationwide will be required when mandatory health insurance takes effect.  See our page on One World One Vision 2050 for more.
1 Comment
 
 
The following was written by Kevin Eggers, Assistant Director, Post Sustainability Institute:
The position of Sheriff is an elected position because, in theory, the Sheriff is answerable directly to the people, not a bureaucracy. Like all elected officials, the Sheriff also takes an oath to the Constitution, and is, in theory, bound by the Constitution.

In Napa County, our elected Sheriff quit with three years remaining on his term. Rather than having another election, my Napa County Supervisors appointed Sheriff John Robertson to serve out the remaining three years.

On March 20, 2012 I had an opportunity to talk personally with Sheriff John Robertson at a Napa Sheriff’s “Coffee with the Cops” Problem Oriented Policing Program (POPP) meeting. What I learned was disturbing.

POPP is a variation of the COPS program (Community Oriented Policing Services) adopted by many cities in America. The POPP Mission Statement: “The Mission of the Napa County Sheriff’s Office Problem Oriented Policing Program is to employ non-traditional police methods, in collaboration with our local partners within the local community, to address those issues that affect quality of life of the citizens of the unincorporated areas of Napa County.”

At the POPP meeting there were four POPP Sheriff Deputies and Sheriff Robertson. There were only three citizens that attended, myself and two others. This gave me an opportunity to talk with Sheriff Robertson.

Within my Napa County General Plan is the statement “the rights of the individual are to be balanced with the rights of the community and needs of the environment” (The definition of communitarianism is “balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of the community”). Sheriff Roberts was familiar with this statement. I asked Sheriff Roberts to define Individual rights and community rights and how they are “balanced.”

The first thing Roberts told me is “you know you surrender some of your individual rights to live in the community.” Sheriff Roberts went on telling me “The community is the people…The laws are made by the people within the community…your rights are subject the community laws and regulations…my duty is to serve the community…this is the reason we have councils and committees created by Napa Citizens to create the laws and regulations the entire community lives under.”

I told Sheriff Roberts, the “community is government.” Many of the laws and regulations are made by a very few people that, in many cases, are serving their own interests. Also, many of the laws and regulations come as requirements attached to subsidies coming from the state and federal government. People are corrupt at all levels of government. There is no difference between the corruption at the federal, state, and community level of government. Why should my rights be subject to the corruption, simply because government chooses to call itself community?

Sheriff Roberts told me to stop thinking “outside the system and work from within the system.” I was told I needed to “join a council or committee and work on changing things from within.” I told Sheriff Roberts “it is impossible for me to join every committee and council and stop the rights being taken away in my community.”

Sheriff Roberts told me to “Look around. This is what America is today.”

Bottom line, my Napa Sheriff Robertson answers to the bureaucracy, which calls itself the “community.” It’s simple logic that if my Sheriff believes he can “balance” my rights, he implies government (in the name of the community) owns my rights. You can’t “balance” what you don’t own. This is the communitarian totalitarian philosophy many of our public officials have adopted.

Under both communism and Nazism, the “community” is used as the instrument of control. Under both systems you have no individual rights to protect you from government. Your duty under both systems is to serve the community, both the good and the corruption in the community. Without individual rights to protect us from the “community,” you could take Napa, California and put it in the middle of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. There would be no difference in government philosophy.

By the way, Article 29 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that our duty is to serve the "community" and our “rights and freedoms” are subject to the goals of the United Nations (meaning, the globalists behind the United Nations). Also, United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, as defined in California, calls for “balancing” the “Three Es” of Economy, social Equity, and Environment. The Three Es covers every aspect of life on earth. Again, government can only “balance” what government owns. The globalists behind Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, by their definition of balancing, believe they already own every aspect of our lives.

Ask your public officials in your community to define individual rights and community rights. If they imply your rights are balanceable or negotiable because you live in the “community,” tell them “This is America. We are born with our individual rights. You don’t own my rights. You don’t own my Bill of Rights. The community is government. Government can’t balance or negotiate my rights away. You are a public servant that has taken a sworn oath to our Constitution. Your duty is to protect the individual rights of every citizen in America.”


4 Comments