Just received this email--news from Arkansas:
I can't believe it because it was looking glum at the Arkansas GOP convention this weekend. I just returned as a delegate and WE WERE SUCCESSFUL in getting the national GOP Agenda 21 Resolution added to our platform in its entirety and it was passed unanimously. I thought we'd just end up with a few statements here and there and nothing directly about A-21 but IT PASSED!!!! I'm so excited!!! So count Arkansas on the list now. YES!!!!!!! We are against this monster-Agenda 21!
Debbie Beckerdite, PD
Excellent article in the PPJ Gazette online. It's an analysis of the rogue militarization of DHS and the shift in national emergency preparedness from food, water, and health to 'terrorist control.' This is placed in the context of UN Agenda 21 and discussed from a local perspective by Gary Jacobucci, member of the Elko County, Nevada Local Emergency Planning Committee.
Here's an excerpt:
How does the Dept. of Homeland Security define this new face of terrorism to intelligence agencies, law enforcement and DHS employees?
With the aid of DHS funding to the tune of $12 million dollars, the Dept. of Homeland Security launched the ‘The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.
In its initial 2011 study titled Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, the following characteristics are used to identify terrorists.
- Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;
- Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;
- People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty);
- Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;
- Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;
- People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”
Their recent study titled Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970-2008, restates the characteristics of a terrorists from their first report and focuses on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of conservatives and libertarians and puts them in the context of radical extremism.
Click here to read the rest of the article--it is a terrific expose.
Here's an article from a small town newspaper in Central Montana. A city council struggles with the question: Should we take a federal grant to 'go regional?' This is going on all across the nation as federal HUD, Dept of Energy, EPA, and Education 'grants' pressure local government to form regional alliances that will pave the way for loss of local decision-making in representative government. Notice the comments by the pro-A21 council people. Notice how difficult it is NOT to take the money. You ask: What does UN Agenda 21 look like locally? READ THIS.
Party line Council vote gives OK to Vibrant Futures
Published: Tuesday, June 19th, 2012
After taking a few weeks to think about whether to join the Vibrant Futures Consortium, no one changed their minds and a party-line 4-4 vote forced Mayor Tim Solomon to decide, choosing to join.
Havre now joins other city, county and tribal governments in the consortium to think together about regional issues and how to reach common goals.
The debate began with council member Allen “Woody” Woodwick explaining why he thought the city should join.
“I think it would be a good idea, especially if it doesn’t cost any money, ” Woodwick said. “It puts more tools into our hands and Bear Paw Development Corp. to give us a leg up in grant applications. ”
Council member Janet Trethewey asked whether the city had voiced its support for the consortium to get it started. Mayor Solomon said he had written a letter of support in October 2011, which Trethewey said the council should uphold.
“To not join now would be disingenuous, ” Trethewey said.
Council member Bob Kaftan expressed his concern about possible strings attached to the city’s involvement, obligations to the consortium or the federal government.
“We don’t get their approval, ” Trethewey said. “We approve, and they lend their expertise. ”
Council member Rick Dow said he didn’t like the reliance on federal money this would entail and worried about the availability of those funds in the future.
“We are now making federal grants central to our economy, which is not how it’s supposed to be” Dow said.
Dow added this morning that he is wary of the consortium’s resemblance to the United Nations’ Agenda 21, an initiative set up in 1992 to begin “a new global partnership for sustainable development, ” according to the agenda’s preamble.
“This Vibrant Futures program and this private and public alliance, I can’t help but think how similar they are to the U. N. Agenda 21, ” Dow said this morning. “It’s more centralization of power rather than innovation and grassroots. It’s more top down rather than bottom up. ”
He asked what the city would be giving up to enter this contract Council member Gerry Veis chose to answer.
“You’re guaranteed losing absolutely nothing, ” Veis said. “This is about a commitment to the city you live in, Rick. ”
Veis explained that the costs are paid by the federal taxpayers, of which he feels to be a particularly high contributor, and added that if Havre says it doesn’t want the money, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., would be more than happy to send that money to his constituents in that state.
“I would like to thank Mr. Veis for his contributing to the $1.5 million of the grant, ” Council member Brian Barrows said.
How they voted:
Democrats Bonnie Parenteau, Janet Trethewey, Allen “Woody” Woodwick and Gerry Veis voted yes.
Republicans Brian Barrows, Bob Kaftan, Rick Dow and Andrew Brekke voted no.
Mayor Tim Solomon, a Democrat, cast the tie-breaking vote in favor.
CLICK HERE TO GO TO THE ACTUAL ARTICLE AND READ COMMENTS
Do you see? If you want to fight UN Agenda 21 you have to show up and speak out. This lost by one vote. If citizens had been there and demanded that their town refuse that federal money it would have been a victory. ONE VOTE.
The City of San Bernardino, CA has just declared bankruptcy. This is a page from their miserable confession. Look at the chart. It shows that they lied about the amount of money they actually had. The July 1st balance is the true balance and the Staff Reported Fund Balance is the lie. In 2011-12 the city was lying and saying it had $2 million when it was really over a million in the hole. What are the consequences for the liars? Well?
The newspapers are full of UN Agenda 21. Just look at the front page on any day.
Now, today, there are two related stories in the news. One is that the city of San Bernardino, California is bankrupt.
What they don't tell you is that this decidedly downscale town is ONE BILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT FOR REDEVELOPMENT BONDS. You can probably buy the whole town for less than that. So they were destroyed by the greed, manipulation, and conniving of the Redevelopment Agency. We must remind you that Redevelopment is a funding and implementation arm for UN Agenda 21. Government subsidies for smart growth--the preferred development style of UN A21. Click on the red and read the propaganda project summary that got San Bernardino into their death gasp--and then compare it to what your town is doing. 'Compass Blueprint' 'Sustainable Community Strategies' or hardscape for your financial collapse and future poverty?
Guess what? Three cities in California have declared bankruptcy. What do they have in common? San Bernardino, Stockton, and Mammoth Lakes are all ICLEI members.
What's the other story? You have to sit down for it. It's a reprint from the New York Times. Try and wrap your mind around this one.
San Bernardino, the very same town that bankrupted itself with redevelopment debt, is talking about using the power of eminent domain to condemn underwater mortgages. This is such a mind-blower that you should be jumping up and down right now. What does this mean? That if you are a property owner and your house is worth less than your mortgage amount (fifty percent of the houses in San Bernardino), the city (where the hell are they getting the money for this???) is going to condemn using the power of eminent domain (where is the public use???) and take the mortgage away from your mortgage holder: the private lender. This COMMUNITARIAN SCHEME is for the common good. The property owner isn't even in default--this is so insane. Then the city owns your mortgage and they supposedly offer to lower your payments and your loan amount. Oh happy day, right? Wrong.
This is a violation of the use of eminent domain. The mortgage holder could be the little old lady next door who is now ripped off by the government. Yes, it's only for private lenders not the big banks--because the city knows that the big banks will sue the heck out of them for this scheme. The property owner is now dealing with the government--the new owner of the mortgage--and now presumably the government has full access to all of his financial information. What if you miss a payment? Does the city take your property? And what is this but a huge expansion of government yet again? Obviously the government can't even keep the streetlights on but now they're going into the mortgage lending business?? No. It will be a public private partnership. With a guy named Steven Gluckstern providing the money for this outrageous Machiavellian manipulation of our constitutional protections. Who is he? Big money--formerly with Warren Buffett. B.J. Greenspan, his sister, is also on the board, and worked for George Soros. Take a look.
Yesterday our local paper had a story about 100 year old historic bridges in Yosemite that are probably going to be demolished because they 'interfere with the flow of the river.' Will the road just end so that you can't cross the river? This is the Wildlands Project.
And another story, on the same page, was about the Drakes Bay Oyster Company--about to be kicked out of their 70 year old location on Tomales Bay in California because the National Park Service wants to declare the whole area 'designated wilderness.' Yeah, Wilderness, untrammeled by man. It's trammeled, all right. Trammeled for 100 years but the National Park Service, that corrupt agency, wants to declare it 'designated wilderness' so that they can keep humans out. Wildlands Project.
This is UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.
WAKE UP. THIS IS WHAT A TOTALITARIAN STATE LOOKS LIKE. IS THAT A DRONE OVERHEAD?
Right around the 10th anniversary of 9/11 the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, said that the Chinese military capability was 'face-whitening.' Terrifying. I heard him say it on CSPAN.
So when I read in June 29, 2012 Wall Street Journal that Pratt & Whitney Canada had 'agreed to help China build its first military attack helicopter as the price for the chance to win millions of dollars in civilian business,' I was livid. To read the article click on the red type.
It's a disgusting story, and I want you to read it so that you can answer that question that people are always asking me: 'Why would anyone sell out their country to implement UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development?'
The answer is MONEY. POWER.
The unit chief executive, Louis Chenevert, for the division (United Technologies Corporation) responsible for giving this technology to the Chinese said: 'We accept responsibility for these past violations and deeply regret that they occurred.'
'Deeply regret that they occurred.' Like it was just some inadvertent happening, like the weather. Yes, they were fined $75 million but that isn't enough, in my opinion. He should be imprisoned for life. Anyone else who was responsible for making that decision should join him. Why did they do it? They thought they might be able to make $2 billion in a deal to supply civilian helicopter engines. Funny thing is, the Chinese double crossed them and Pratt & Whitney didn't get the chance to bid on that contract after all.
What about you? Will you sell out? Ask yourself now. Are you a traitor? Or are you in the Resistance?
Now that the IRS will be the watchdog collecting the tax/penalty, those Americans who either don't go to traditional medicine doctors, or pay as they go, will be paying for something that they don't use , don't need, and don't want.
Everyone will be in the system. Inventory and control. You will be forced into a healthcare system that you may not wish to be a part of, or will pay a 'tax.' No one knew this would be a tax but now, in the old switcheroo, we have a penalty morphing into a tax.
Your income level will be examined. Your finances will be examined. Your life will be open to bureaucratic review. This so-called tax will not be appealable. This punishment, this penalty, will not be open to challenge. People who didn't make enough money to file income tax, who were flying under the radar, now will have to file simply to avoid the tax. See? Data collection. No one slips under the line. Inventory. And. Control.
The Internal Revenue Service, the most feared and hated of all federal agencies, with the power to jail us and confiscate our assets will be in control. Of your healthcare decisions.
And the winner is...
Winners and losers. Guess which one we'll be? Need a hint? 1984. Two wars still going on after over 10 years...(and I wrote this ten years ago...)
NOTE: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Articles may be republished as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact. 2010-2019 COPYRIGHT ROSA KOIRE