Debunked: Executive Order 13575 - Establishment of the White House Rural Council

[muttkat]

Here is the full quote from Lawrence:

Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.

Lawrence is not admitting to a conspiracy in that quote. Taken in context, he's saying that conspiracy minded people will resist a UN initiative simply because it comes from the UN and not on the nature of the plan itself. His prediction is correct. It seems the situation is now at the point where some people, like tea-baggers and other fringe groups, will claim that any conservation effort is an agenda 21 initiative to steal their land. They will draw tenuous connections between environmentalists, "globalists" and communism to convey that point. I've even read some people claim that cycling enthusiasts are the front line shock troops spearheading a fascists environmentalist agenda.

I empathize with people concerned about losing control of their affairs to meddlesome outsiders. I can't find any compelling evidence that corroborates the extraordinary claims that these meddlesome outsiders are part of a long term global conspiracy. I certainly find using unsubstantiated fear-mongering a distasteful means of promoting any cause.

Here is the website of the Agenda 21 document. I can't find anything about preventing people from owning private property.

Here is the website of the Aransas Pathway Project. I have not found any evidence of bans on private property ownership or plans to expropriate land. The pathway project is preserving historical homes, promoting bird watching and building giant 25 ft. statues of blue crabs.


Which specific past, current or future plans of the Aransas Pathway Project do you object to, and why do you object to them?

Lawrence's last sentence says it all. Going over the most recent UN's articles, city agendas or whoevers, Agenda 21 is rarely mentioned. Its barely mentioned in the mainsteam media. Meddlesome & then some. For starters Bush sr promised our participation at the Rio Summit in 1992. Thanks George. Bill did EO 12852 for Sustainable Development to be implemented down to all levels of govt. Congress didn't make it law. It is a foreign entity that is contrary to our Constitutional Rights...land. The way they are going about it. They plan on returning over 50% of the US back to the wilderness & then theres the buffer zones. The Wilderness Network map shows my area where I live in red which means no human activity. There are dozens of UN documents like the Global Biodiversity Assessment Report 1150 pages. Ag 21 isn't the only document.
This is what the UN states:
Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, 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 principal instrument of ACCUMULATION and CONCENTRATION of WEALTH and therefore contributes to SOCIAL INJUSTICE; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. SOCIAL JUSTICE, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be ACHIEVED if LAND is USED in the INTERESTS of SOCIETY as a WHOLE.-----UN

Santa Cruz county implemented Ag 21 in 1993 & I've read some of the horror stories. There are also Ripparian Corridors where on your private property you're suppose to stop maintaining your land but will continue to pay taxes. Its just starting here. read about santa Cruz county.

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/articles/private_property/

Have you watched the Rosa Koire video, please do? What she says on that video about city services going downhill is happening in Rockport.

Objections to AP? Because it is a foreign entity agenda being pushed on us. It will be attacking my property rights. It will wind up abusing Eminemt Domain rights.My property tax money is going to a foreign entity. The city of Rockport just bought land for AP for 115,000 but now they have a deficit. I have tallying up the totals & its adding up to a bunch. now they're trying to figure out how to come up with 1/2 of 6 million to dredge up some water pass. I haven't seen any road maintainance except right on the waterfront. Of course it sounds like a grreat ides except it should be done on a smaller scale but its not. Before I found out about AP I was thinking of doing botanical gardens with some trails on my property. On their trails between April to October virtually nobody is gonna be cycling cause they'll croak from the heat. I know what the whole idea is about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M75NKb4nHYc

The area where I live is red. No human use.

http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/wilderness/wildlands_map.htm

 

[MikeC]

Sounds like the sort of planning that cities have been doing for decades.

Lawrence's "last sentence" is:

1/ Not Agenda 21
2/ Still factually correct
3/ Tries to get people to focus on the issue, not some conspiracy myth

In so far as human development DOES "wreck" land for natural processes - well...yep....people are going to have to give up something in order to try to keep he biosphere habitable.

My parents, for example, just had their house compulsorily purchased and the whole neighbourhood has been condemned for building purposes due to the structure of the ground being unsuitable.

That's life - we do not actually have total control of private property - planning laws and even criminal laws already restrict what we can do on our own land - and that is not unconstitutional in the least. Using eminent domain for compulsory purchase is also not unconstitutional. If it is misapplied then you get to contest it - bit if it isn't then that's tough - you can either take the chip on your shoulder for the rest of your life....or get on with that same life.

Your choice - but we are living in an increasingly crowded world where how we affect our neighbours (in the widest possible sense) is becoming much more important than it used to be.

 

[George B]

Sounds like the sort of planning that cities have been doing for decades.

Lawrence's "last sentence" is:

1/ Not Agenda 21
2/ Still factually correct
3/ Tries to get people to focus on the issue, not some conspiracy myth

In so far as human development DOES "wreck" land for natural processes - well...yep....people are going to have to give up something in order to try to keep he biosphere habitable.

My parents, for example, just had their house compulsorily purchased and the whole neighbourhood has been condemned for building purposes due to the structure of the ground being unsuitable.

That's life - we do not actually have total control of private property - planning laws and even criminal laws already restrict what we can do on our own land - and that is not unconstitutional in the least. Using eminent domain for compulsory purchase is also not unconstitutional. If it is misapplied then you get to contest it - bit if it isn't then that's tough - you can either take the chip on your shoulder for the rest of your life....or get on with that same life.

Your choice - but we are living in an increasingly crowded world where how we affect our neighbours (in the widest possible sense) is becoming much more important than it used to be.

That is the whole thing in a nut shell . . . Individual property rights versus the public good or need . . . the difference I believe is from what level comes the strategy (property confiscation) and for what good or need are the property rights restricted . . . we may see the need for an interstate right of way but may have difficulty with returning private land to wilderness uses for example . . .

 

[MikeC]

Property confiscation is not a strategy - sustainable development is a strategy - property confiscation is a tool that may be used to achieve it.

And yes I agree that there may well be a problem with seeing the "value" in returning private property to wilderness

 

[MikeC]

For starters Bush sr promised our participation at the Rio Summit in 1992. Thanks George. Bill did EO 12852 for Sustainable Development to be implemented down to all levels of govt. Congress didn't make it law. It is a foreign entity that is contrary to our Constitutional Rights...land.

1/ It is not a "foreign entity" - the council established to advise the President is a US entity, established in accordance with US laws.

2/ Congress did not have to make law - the legal basis already existed - the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

3/ The EO does NOT "implement" sustainable development at all - it established a Presidential Council to advise the president.

The requirement on all levels of Govt is:

Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The heads of executive agencies shall, to the
extent permitted by law, provide to the Council such information with
respect to sustainable development as the Council requires to carry out
its functions.

It's functions being to advise the President.
try reading the actual EO!

 

[Trigger Hippie]

Objections to AP? Because it is a foreign entity agenda being pushed on us. It will be attacking my property rights. It will wind up abusing Eminemt Domain rights.My property tax money is going to a foreign entity.

Agenda 21 is a voluntary set of guidelines. Your taxes go to city coffers. Your claims of future abuse is speculation.

The city of Rockport just bought land for AP for 115,000 but now they have a deficit. I have tallying up the totals & its adding up to a bunch. now they're trying to figure out how to come up with 1/2 of 6 million to dredge up some water pass. I haven't seen any road maintainance except right on the waterfront.

Here is the fiscal plan for the city of Rockport Texas http://www.cityofrockport.com/DocumentCenter/View/9349

The city of Rockport was running a deficit long before they purchased that land and if I'm not mistaken, that land is now an asset of the city. Any money the city spends fixing that land will end up back in circulation and benefit the local community. Rockport is spending a substantial amount fixing it's infrastructure. What is noticeably missing from the fiscal plan is a liabilities account titled "UN Global Elitists Payable"

Before I found out about AP I was thinking of doing botanical gardens with some trails on my property.

If the city gave you a $100,000 to create botanical gardens and trails on your property, would you take the money? ETA... You retain ownership of your property.

 

[Joe]

its funny you mention the Delphi Technique . Thats exactly what they used at our Seven50 meeting . It is also exactly what they use on this site to debunk .

 

[MikeC]

Who are you replying to, what is the Delphi Technique, and how am I using it (as a member of the "they" who debunk)?

 

[Joe]

charlies post . Look it up if you really wan to know or read Saul Alinsky rules for radicals . actually there is a vid posted previous page

 

[MikeC]

Ah - I see.

From my point of view however it is the conspiracy nuts who are forever not answering questions - a point gets answered, a question asked about it - and rather than continue to debate the point they raise another one.

Mutt is a classic in this thread - he will not engage in a reasonable discussion about anything - instead he just posts more quote mines or assertions and expects his Gish Gallop to be given all the attention that he is not prepared to give to any counter argument.

 

[muttkat]

Sounds like the sort of planning that cities have been doing for decades.

Lawrence's "last sentence" is:

1/ Not Agenda 21
2/ Still factually correct
3/ Tries to get people to focus on the issue, not some conspiracy myth

In so far as human development DOES "wreck" land for natural processes - well...yep....people are going to have to give up something in order to try to keep he biosphere habitable.

My parents, for example, just had their house compulsorily purchased and the whole neighbourhood has been condemned for building purposes due to the structure of the ground being unsuitable.

That's life - we do not actually have total control of private property - planning laws and even criminal laws already restrict what we can do on our own land - and that is not unconstitutional in the least. Using eminent domain for compulsory purchase is also not unconstitutional. If it is misapplied then you get to contest it - bit if it isn't then that's tough - you can either take the chip on your shoulder for the rest of your life....or get on with that same life.

Your choice - but we are living in an increasingly crowded world where how we affect our neighbours (in the widest possible sense) is becoming much more important than it used to be.

The whole scenario the UN & the federal govt is putting out is intentionally misleading and fraudulent. Its about power, control & money for certain groups. There was a similar type situation over 200 years ago and then we had a revolution. Giving up ones property to satisfy some foreign entity by some executive order that wasn't passed by Congress by law goes against everything this nation was built on. The fed govt already owns most of the land west of Colorado & most of Alaska. The UN should directing its efforts in preventing pollution, population control and deforestation. No people do not have to give up their property & property rights.

What did they state on how the ground was unsuitable? Just curious.

Theres a difference of having to give up your property because its built on a toxic site, a freeway being built but not to satisfy a foreign entity. As with life sometimes you have to defend it. I didn't say eminent domain was unconstitutional but abusing it isn't right. All of our rights have been attacked significantly since 911. Anyway this Agenda 21 is steering towards global govt. Yes if its misapplied you can fight it or prevent it. At least the state of Alabama has taken the initiative to ban Agenda 21 & at least there are people who have the common sense to stand up to tyrannical govt. There was also something called Climategate pertaining to the UN. They are not what they claim to be.

http://thenewamerican.com/tech/envi...opts-first-official-state-ban-on-un-agenda-21


[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or Law impairing the obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." -Article 1, Section 10, The United States Constitution[/FONT]

 

[Joe]

point of view however it is the conspiracy nuts ? yep thats what I mean . Ridicule is part of the tactic( Saul Alinsky)and you are he worst on this site . seems others here can get the point across without using insults . They dont help your argument a all

 

[muttkat]

Pick one. We can discuss one at a time.

A large number of unsourced (and mostly unreliable) quotes out of context means nothing - all it does is demonstrate what you already think, and what you are cherry picking quotes that you think are in line with what your theory is.

But you need to be able to back them up.

So pick one. Just one. Let's figure out what it means. Then when we agree on that one, let's move on to the next.

Otherwise you are just spamming.

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles and small electrical appliances, home and work-place air conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable."

Source: Environmental Overkill, by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, 1993, page 4. Also: Global Taxes, by Cliff Kincaid, pages 105-106. Also: “Meet Maurice Strong,†eco-logic, November/December 1995, page4. Also: Toward a New World Order, by Don McAlvany, page 326. Also: “One Man’s Demented Vision Becomes a Nation’s Nightmare,†by Karen Anderson, The DeWeese Report, December 1997, page 3. Also: “The Green Genocide Agenda,†by Alan Caruba, The DeWeese Report, 1998, page 2. Also: “Maurice Strong and the Deep Ecology Movement,†The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, October 1997, page 21.
Hardcopy: Copies of the source documents.
Where: In an address at the opening session of the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, June 1992.
When: June 1992.
Contributor: AIM.

 

[MikeC]

Seems accurate and obvious enough to me - what is your problem with it?

 

[MikeC]

The whole scenario the UN & the federal govt is putting out is intentionally misleading and fraudulent.

In what way?

Its about power, control & money for certain groups. There was a similar type situation over 200 years ago and then we had a revolution.

In what way?

Giving up ones property to satisfy some foreign entity by some executive order that wasn't passed by Congress by law goes against everything this nation was built on.

No executive order is ever passed by congress - however the ability to have EO's IS a law passed by congress.

The EO you quoted is not a "foreign entity" and no land is being given away to "satisfy" it.

I have already point this out to you - indeed you actually quuoted the post where I provided links and information to substantiate all of this - so if there is anyone that is fraudulent and misleading it is you ignoring facts and continuing with your fantasy conspiracy.

The fed govt already owns most of the land west of Colorado & most of Alaska. The UN should directing its efforts in preventing pollution, population control and deforestation. No people do not have to give up their property & property rights.

You have whatever property rights are granted by law, and there has ALWAYS ben the ability of the Govt to take property when required.

Wilderness areas in Alaska and "West of Colorado" are, I am sure fabulous - how do they help the environment on the East Coast?

What did they state on how the ground was unsuitable? Just curious.

Theres a difference of having to give up your property because its built on a toxic site, a freeway being built but not to satisfy a foreign entity.

Not toxic - the land is subject to liquifaction in case of earthquake.

You maintain this fantasy that the US Govt is a "Foreign entity" - as far as I can see that is a deliberate cognitive dissonance on your part - it is the keystone to your paranoid yth, and you simply dare not admit that it is rubbish because then you don't have a case at all.

Anyway this Agenda 21 is steering towards global govt. Yes if its misapplied you can fight it or prevent it. At least the state of Alabama has taken the initiative to ban Agenda 21 & at least there are people who have the common sense to stand up to tyrannical govt. There was also something called Climategate pertaining to the UN. They are not what they claim to be.

http://thenewamerican.com/tech/envi...opts-first-official-state-ban-on-un-agenda-21

Did you read what the bill actually says??

"The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to 'Agenda 21,' " the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro.

IE it changes nothing - everything ALREADY has to be done by "de process" anyway!!

Sheesh - talk about missing the point!!

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or Law impairing the obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." -Article 1, Section 10, The United States Constitution[/FONT]

Utterly irrelevant - and just another element of your Gish Gallop!

 

[MikeC]

point of view however it is the conspiracy nuts ? yep thats what I mean . Ridicule is part of the tactic( Saul Alinsky)and you are he worst on this site . seems others here can get the point across without using insults . They dont help your argument a all

Are you replying to me as being "the worst on this site" for ridicule?

I have no problem with that - I call idiots as I see them - and if others can be more polite then that's also fine with me.

 

[muttkat]

I'd prefer it if you actually have a go at debunking any topic you bring up. Otherwise it's just going to be a deluge of the usual topics.

What do you think about the context of the Club of Rome quote? Does that change anything?

Yes it does.

 

[muttkat]

1/ It is not a "foreign entity" - the council established to advise the President is a US entity, established in accordance with US laws.

2/ Congress did not have to make law - the legal basis already existed - the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

3/ The EO does NOT "implement" sustainable development at all - it established a Presidential Council to advise the president.

The requirement on all levels of Govt is:

Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The heads of executive agencies shall, to the
extent permitted by law, provide to the Council such information with
respect to sustainable development as the Council requires to carry out
its functions.

It's functions being to advise the President.
try reading the actual EO!

Sustainable Development comes from a Foreign Entity: Formally known as the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), the Brundtland Commission's mission is to unite countries to pursue sustainable development together. The Chairman of the Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland, was appointed by Javier Perez de Cuellar, former Secretary General of the United Nations, in December 1983. At the time, the UN General Assembly realized that there was a heavy deterioration of the human environment and natural resources. To rally countries to work and pursue sustainable development together, the UN decided to establish the Brundtland Commission. Gro Harlem Brundtland was the former Prime Minister of Norway and was chosen due to her strong background in the sciences and public health. The Brundtland Commission officially dissolved in December 1987 after releasing the Brundtland Report in October 1987. The organization Center for Our Common Future was started in April 1988 to take the place of the Commission.---wikipedia

Yes I knew that the council wasn't a foreign entity. OK he had a committee & he was advised about SD and it has been implemented down to the local level. Since Bush sr the all the presidents have been pushing us for global governance away from the Constitution towards UN objectives such as SD, Smart Growth....

To begin with the Constitution gave the federal & state govts certain powers:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So can you show me where it states its OK for Bill to get SD (a foreign agenda) implemented down to the local levels?

Congress did not have to make law - the legal basis already existed - the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

So would another example if Nobama was to ask Holder to start The Federal take Guns Away from Americans Advisory Committee that the legal basis already exists?


and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And...

Now would this mean for the fed govt to either buy up as much land as possible to protect it to satisfy the UN's & Environmental Organizations goals of rewilding over 50% of the USA?

What about The Wildlands Network map? Are you in agreement with that?

 

[muttkat]

In what way?



In what way?



No executive order is ever passed by congress - however the ability to have EO's IS a law passed by congress.

The EO you quoted is not a "foreign entity" and no land is being given away to "satisfy" it.

I have already point this out to you - indeed you actually quuoted the post where I provided links and

information to substantiate all of this - so if there is anyone that is fraudulent and misleading it is you ignoring facts and continuing with your fantasy conspiracy.

You have whatever property rights are granted by law, and there has ALWAYS ben the ability of the Govt to take property when required.

Wilderness areas in Alaska and "West of Colorado" are, I am sure fabulous - how do they help the environment on the East Coast?



Not toxic - the land is subject to liquifaction in case of earthquake.

You maintain this fantasy that the US Govt is a "Foreign entity" - as far as I can see that is a deliberate cognitive dissonance on your part - it is the keystone to your paranoid yth, and you simply dare not admit that it is rubbish because then you don't have a case at all.


Did you read what the bill actually says??

"The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to 'Agenda 21,' " the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro.

IE it changes nothing - everything ALREADY has to be done by "de process" anyway!!

Sheesh - talk about missing the point!!




Utterly irrelevant - and just another element of your Gish Gallop!

The Alabama law looks like to me it says it may not implement law...Agenda 21.

Fraudulant in what way? I think we've been talking about that for over a week.

Did I say EO were passed by Congress? NO

Did I say EO were foreign entities? NO

Its more like land taken away.

I had forgotten to reply about the UN, US national parks control....

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/us

A key benefit of ratification, particularly for developing countries, is access to the World Heritage Fund . Annually, about US$4 million is made available to assist States Parties in identifying, preserving and promoting World Heritage sites.

 

[muttkat]

The Alabama law looks like to me it says it may not implement law...Agenda 21.

Fraudulant in what way? I think we've been talking about that for over a week.

Did I say EO were passed by Congress? NO

Did I say EO were foreign entities? NO

Its more like land taken away.

I had forgotten to reply about the UN, US national parks control....

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/us

A key benefit of ratification, particularly for developing countries, is access to the World Heritage Fund . Annually, about US$4 million is made available to assist States Parties in identifying, preserving and promoting World Heritage sites.

This fantasy crap about me maintaining that our fed govt is a foreign entity? I never said our govt, EO were a foreign entity. You got that from somewhere but it wasn't me.

 

[muttkat]

Are you replying to me as being "the worst on this site" for ridicule?

I have no problem with that - I call idiots as I see them - and if others can be more polite then that's also fine with me.

Maybe talking down to people is more like it.

My fantasy conspiracy?....Its not a conspiracy, its a fact. You think all these groups of people are up in arms because its a fantasy? Its good to know that you are the divine expert in coming to the conclusion that this land grab conspiracy fantasy.

 

[muttkat]

Agenda 21 is a voluntary set of guidelines. Your taxes go to city coffers. Your claims of future abuse is speculation.



Here is the fiscal plan for the city of Rockport Texas http://www.cityofrockport.com/DocumentCenter/View/9349

The city of Rockport was running a deficit long before they purchased that land and if I'm not mistaken, that land is now an asset of the city. Any money the city spends fixing that land will end up back in circulation and benefit the local community. Rockport is spending a substantial amount fixing it's infrastructure. What is noticeably missing from the fiscal plan is a liabilities account titled "UN Global Elitists Payable"----and improvements for city sidewalks, drainage, lights, repaving city streets..

So lets have more of a deficit. Maybe Rockport can borrow money from China? The UN Agenda 21 Globalists pay is already included in the bike trail & the other projects. The $115,000 Rockport bought for Aransas pathways, who promotes UN's Smart Growth will not have taxes paid on it. Benefitting the community with decent paying jobs..yea right. Help wanted: Doggy pooper scoopers

Speculation? Did you watch the democrats against un agenda 21 Rosa Koire video?




If the city gave you a $100,000 to create botanical gardens and trails on your property, would you take the money? ETA... You retain ownership of your property.

With strings attached? No

Theyn say Agenda 21 is voluntary but it states somewhere in the UN documents that it will be required
for nations to implement SD...if we're to save the world.

On their budget: Anoxic Tank...Little Bay is pertaining to one of the AP projects.

Doggy Park: City will maintain it, maybe thats the doggy official trail area. They'll have to hire a pooper scooper person, but at least thats employment for the housekeepers (hotel) boyfriend.

Rockport Beach Park...Its a park--Tourism

Tule Hike & Bike Trail--Delayed by Right of Way acquisition issues. Yea some property owner is probably pissed about eminent domain being used for an over too large of a bicycle trail that suppose to extend over 60 miles & running right thru a neighborhood.

Water Tower--Thats probably for the ponds the county is building for the AP projects. We are in a severe drought & if you don't have water for the ephemeral pond for APathways.

Tax rates & city utilities have gone up.

Did you happen to notice if any of the budget was going for street improvement such as repaving messed up streets, drain systems instead of the open ditches, that Rockport seems to have alot of? I didn't see any.

 

[muttkat]

Well, let's go with that one. The claim was:

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came UP WITH THE IDEA that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the "real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is "a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

Notice a the odd way this "quote" is phrased, quotes within quotes. Take the last bit

It does not matter if this common enemy is "a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

Where does this actually come from. It seems to be saying that inventing an enemy would be a good idea, and they came up with pollution as an "invented" idea. But it seems to be based on this section in The First Global Revolution, page 70:

Which is saying that external enemies have historically been a uniting force.

The the bulk comes from a select paraphrasing of bits of page 70:

Which says that pollution, global warming etc are REAL problems that can be used to help unite people. But we should not focus on the symptoms, but on the cause (people, as it's people who cause pollution etc.)

So it's not a real quote, it's a blend of two sections, put together and edited to fit a particular viewpoint. It also ignores the greater context of the book.

I feel pretty sure most of the other quotes have similar provenance and spin.

Maybe, maybe not. That part about "diverting attention abroad" reminds me of something to pertaining to "the terrorists." It'll pop in my head later.

 

[Mick West]

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles and small electrical appliances, home and work-place air conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable."

Source: Environmental Overkill, by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo, 1993, page 4. Also: Global Taxes, by Cliff Kincaid, pages 105-106. Also: “Meet Maurice Strong,†eco-logic, November/December 1995, page4. Also: Toward a New World Order, by Don McAlvany, page 326. Also: “One Man’s Demented Vision Becomes a Nation’s Nightmare,†by Karen Anderson, The DeWeese Report, December 1997, page 3. Also: “The Green Genocide Agenda,†by Alan Caruba, The DeWeese Report, 1998, page 2. Also: “Maurice Strong and the Deep Ecology Movement,†The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, October 1997, page 21.
Hardcopy: Copies of the source documents.
Where: In an address at the opening session of the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, June 1992.
When: June 1992.
Contributor: AIM.

So to be clear, that's a quote attributed to Maurice Strong, and quoted by the various other people you list.

Is it wrong? Do you think that twenty billion people can have "high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles and small electrical appliances, home and work-place air conditioning, and suburban housing" for the next thousand years?

What's the broader context of the the speech? What else did he say? Can you even verify that he said it, when every source seems to be a book that is strongly opposed to such ideas?

This is the largest claimed context I could find

"Industrialized countries have developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class—involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing—are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."

You can view his Rio opening speech here:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/26478-1

And the transcript is here:
http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/opening-statement6

So he said something similar, but not this quote. Why not read or listen to his entire speech, without preconceptions, and see if you think he's being unreasonable.

Personally I think he's being quite honest and straightforward. He believes what he's saying, and I broadly agree with him. Can you say what you disagree with in his speech?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

So you believe improving recreational pathways is a fascist UN federal plot because the project is controlled by a non-elected committee?

The members of the Aransas Pathway Project are not elected, that much is true.

BUT...

The APP committee was assembled and serves under the authority of Aransas County Commissioners' Court. The four commissioners of the court are elected and serve along side the county judge. So, although the members of the Aransas Pathway Project steering commitee are not elected, they are given the power to oversee the project by elected county officials.

The APP project is controlled by local government.


Here's a description of the Aransas Pathway Project:
http://www.aransaspathways.com/support-aransas-pathways-rockport.php

Here's the structure and members of the court appointed steering committee:
http://www.aransaspathways.com/committee-aransas-pathways-rockport.php

Here are the elected members of the commissioners court:
http://www.aransascountytx.gov/commissioners/

What Mutkat hasn't realized is that the citizens of her area were not vigilant, active, and diligent enough to mobilize against her opposition like we did in the Ozarks.
We put our county commissioners on notice that they would be removed if they did not vote to oppose the UN Biosphere Reserve plan, and any further such plans.
We proposed the legislation and got it passed in every county we tried. It was a model which cannot be denied or reasoned against. Democracy in action, citizens taking part in the process.

"Stakeholders" having their say, and gettng their way.

She is wasting her time writing online here as much as she has been wasting time she could be organizing in her community. Muttkat, you need to read about what we did and follow the template. It worked and will work again. The citizens run the government, but when you fail in your responsibility to be part of it, you acquiesce to whatever happens as a result. Your enemy is you own inaction, plain and simple.

Word.

 

[George B]

From Mick's Post:

Is it wrong? Do you think that twenty billion people can have "high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles and small electrical appliances, home and work-place air conditioning, and suburban housing" for the next thousand years?

1) I have thought much about your questions and did so from 1969 until recently . . . and think there are positions which are intelligent and positions which are manipulative and arrogant . . .


2) Are we in crisis? Do we need emergency measures which remove human rights and freedoms to eventually guarantee human survival? Do we need to use strong arm and subversive tactics to accomplish our goals?


In 1970 I had a Professor from Berkley, we called him Spider-Man because he believed we could spray spider eggs on crops instead of insecticides . . . He wanted to teach for five more years then buy a mountain cabin to live for the remaining few years before mankind exterminated themselves through pollution and insecticides . . . he thought terminal poisoning would end human life by 1980 . . . !!!




3) Seems education, honest public disclosure, technology, and economic incentives are a much better strategy . . . for example wind and solar power, green construction, recycling, high mileage vehicles, mass transit . . . and on and on . . . we have made much progress as in lead, hydrocarbon, and sulfur reductions in the troposphere . . . many rivers are now greatly improved . . . birth rates are going down significantly in the developed world . . .


4) I think when people are told the truth . . . not manipulated and coerced . . . they will make the right decisions . . .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

In 1970 I had a Professor from Berkley, we called him Spider-Man because he believed we could spray spider eggs on crops instead of insecticides . . . He wanted to teach for five more years then buy a mountain cabin to live for the remaining few years before mankind exterminated themselves through pollution and insecticides . . . he thought terminal poisoning would end human life by 1980 . . . !!! . .

Things didn't work out so well for Ted, did they......

 

[George B]

Things didn't work out so well for Ted, did they......
View attachment 983

LoL!!!!! They did both have beards . . .

 

[Mick West]

3) Seems education, honest public disclosure, technology, and economic incentives are a much better strategy . . . for example wind and solar power, green construction, recycling, high mileage vehicles, mass transit . . . and on and on . . . we have made much progress as in lead, hydrocarbon, and sulfur reductions in the troposphere . . . many rivers are now greatly improved . . . birth rates are going down significantly in the developed world . . .

4) I think when people are told the truth . . . not manipulated and coerced . . . they will make the right decisions . . .

What specifically are you referring to by this manipulation and coercement? And what truths are people not being told?

 

[Trigger Hippie]

On their budget: Anoxic Tank...Little Bay is pertaining to one of the AP projects.
Doggy Park: City will maintain it, maybe thats the doggy official trail area. They'll have to hire a pooper scooper person, but at least thats employment for the housekeepers (hotel) boyfriend.
Rockport Beach Park...Its a park--Tourism
Tule Hike & Bike Trail--Delayed by Right of Way acquisition issues. Yea some property owner is probably pissed about eminent domain being used for an over too large of a bicycle trail that suppose to extend over 60 miles & running right thru a neighborhood.
Water Tower--Thats probably for the ponds the county is building for the AP projects. We are in a severe drought & if you don't have water for the ephemeral pond for APathways.
Tax rates & city utilities have gone up.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with this, but it seems to confirm my suspicion that you attribute any form of recreational improvements to Agenda 21. I could even argue that you blame Agenda 21 for anything you don't like in your community. You realize that cities have been building public grounds and collecting taxes long before the UN was invented?

So lets have more of a deficit. Maybe Rockport can borrow money from China? The UN Agenda 21 Globalists pay is already included in the bike trail & the other projects. The $115,000 Rockport bought for Aransas pathways, who promotes UN's Smart Growth will not have taxes paid on it. Benefitting the community with decent paying jobs..yea right. Help wanted: Doggy pooper scoopers

Are you being facetious or deliberately obtuse?

Rockport "borrows" money by selling municipal bonds. A quick look at the capital improvements section of the budget will show you where some of the money is being spent. BTW... that same section will also show you that the hiking/biking trail is funded by a grant from the Texas Department of Transportation.

The benefit to the community comes from the construction of the Aransas Pathway projects and hopefully the tourism it attracts. The local work crews, engineers, landscapers, etc. get paid and they, in turn, take that money to buy meals and ipods which, in turn, helps the local restaurants and shops, and so on as it all contributes to the great circle of economic growth.... Most importantly, the purpose of the pathway project is to encourage tourism and all the dollars that come with that.

The UN Agenda 21 Globalists pay is already included in the bike trail & the other projects.

How does that work exactly?

 

[George B]

What specifically are you referring to by this manipulation and coercement? And what truths are people not being told?

1) I think Jay's story is very illustrative of what I am talking about . . . use of wilderness area designation, wetland designations etc to remove land from normal and intended use without necessarily removing it from private ownership . . .
2) Truth is about full and honest disclosure without fear mongering . . . hyping the magnitude and urgency of speculated consequences about global warming for example is counterproductive . . .

 

[Charlie Primero]

And you think these elite all share the same goals? They are all in agreement? They all are part of the conspiracy? ...I don't think so. I think many of them act largely in their own self interest, some of them may subscribe to certain political ideas.

Of course they are not in agreement. All social hierarchies you can delineate will have internal competitions, internal conflicts, and variations in political and moral beliefs across the individual members; the five New York mafia families, Xi Jinping's new administration, Africans, or my daughter's college sorority.

They do however share the same goal. Like all animals human beings want to dominate and exploit the resources around them. The most valuable resource on this planet is not land or gold, it's people.

The New World Order is merely the latest, most innovative iteration of this seven thousand year-old resource management endeavor.

Mick, I groan when someone insists I watch an online video, but this short video will add to your understanding of The Big Picture. I beg you to watch it...

​

 

[Joe]

Are you replying to me as being "the worst on this site" for ridicule?

I have no problem with that - I call idiots as I see them - and if others can be more polite then that's also fine with me.

No just the least convincing . Like I said Saul Alinsky tactics dont work well . It shows your losing an argument . So you revert to name calling . If you think it works keep using it . I can be just as insulting as anyone else .

 

[MikeC]

So who are you saying is "worst on this site" for ridicule?

I am amused that I am the "least convincing" but you think am worth this effort to attack

 

[Joe]

So who are you saying is "worst on this site" for ridicule?

I am amused that I am the "least convincing" but you think am worth this effort to attack

Not attacking you Mikey . just making a point .

 

[MikeC]

Not a very convincing one IMO - and whatever it is, it is still quite strange hat you have selected me to try to improve my effectiveness...or something!!

 

[Joe]

Not a very convincing one IMO - and whatever it is, it is still quite strange hat you have selected me to try to improve my effectiveness...or something!!

No I actuallly enjoy It . the more info the better . I wish I could believe is all a conspiracy . When you read what the geoengineers plan on doing and it mimics exactly what you see . then to make us more suspicious you have Mick the owner of this site actually working or corresponding with he geoengineers themselves . Quite interesting . Conspiracy's need to be proven either real or false . So give me facts . Then I will do my own research .

 

[Joe]

I am quite familiar with many of these sorts of claims. My experience comes from participation in the movement against public control of land use.
I moved to the Ozark mountain region of northern Arkansas in 1993, and around 1995 a UN designated Ozark Man and the Biosphere Reserve (OMAB)was proposed for the region extending into southern Missouri and western Oklahoma. Citizens found out about the effort, which was sparsely publicized, perhaps intentionally so. This created suspicion, and many residents who had been evicted by eminent domain during the 1960's in the Buffalo River Valley when that National Riverway was established envisioned the same thing happening. Most of us saw a loss of local control, and the threat of big mistakes made when big government makes the decisions.

Yes, there was an element of conspiracy theory among some but also a general distrust of big government and control played a factor. Very quickly, many groups organized against the OMAB. We created chapters in every county, held our own public meetings, and forced county officials to vote in County Ordinances against the OMAB. We flooded every public meeting about the program and had our say. This involved several thousand people and we made it quite clear that we were opposed and would not under any circumstances allow the designation to happen. We used primay source material, email, flyers, newsletters, faxes, public speakers, letters to the editor, and every possible avenue of attack. It was a complete and total rout strictly from human effort and diligence. The OMAB documents spoke of "stakeholders", and we took them literally. We became the stakeholders and put a stake in the heart of the plan. I was head of our county chapter and wrote the local ordinance myself. Our small county had a meeting which brought out about 100, and a core group of about 20.

To my knowledge, this was the first time that an organized citizen movement stopped a MAB reserve. I believe that we stopped the entire MAB program for the USA, because since that experience not a single one has been established here since the Land Between The Lakes in 1991.

Our efforts were analyzed by a PhD in favor of OMAB in this paper:
http://prfamerica.org/ozarks/OzarksBioReserve-chapter4.html

If you want to understand the significance of what we did, you really need to read about their perspective in the above chapter.

The author criticized and yet also praised us for what we did. Though she worked for the United Nations, she had some respect for us because she saw that we took the term "stakeholder" and took it to its logical limit. Her conclusion was that they went about it all wrong, that they should have changed the language, they should have distanced themselves from the UN (but how could they?) and that they should have worked closer with us. The new strategy to implement Agenda 21 has been re-labeled "Local Agenda 21" (LA21).

That is most likely what they are doing today with ICLEI, which was formed in 1995 just after the OMAB debacle.

This was an epic and historical event that you should understand, it was a big deal.

The way we saw it, we, as private property owners, had already preserved our land because we saw the benefit it gave to us, we didn't need an outside entity to do what we had already been doing for ourselves.

Personally, I think that the agenda of big government/ world government vs local control will always be with us and a source of conflict. I am opposed to top-down control, and in favor of local control. The citizens of every area can only maintain control through vigilance and local action when needed. Those who seek control won't stop coming, if one avenue fails, they will work another way.

That's my take on this subject, from personal experience.

Thanks Jay for the info .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

No I actuallly enjoy It . the more info the better . I wish I could believe is all a conspiracy . When you read what the geoengineers plan on doing and it mimics exactly what you see . then to make us more suspicious you have Mick the owner of this site actually working or corresponding with he geoengineers themselves . Quite interesting . Conspiracy's need to be proven either real or false . So give me facts . Then I will do my own research .

Joe, I am suspicious about your own research. I think you actually WANT to believe in this. There is no talking down a person with such a delusion. They are lost, even to themselves. I hope that isn't you.

What you see doesn't mimic what the geoengineers PROPOSE COULD BE DONE, and no they do NOT "plan on doing" anything.

For one,the planes you see are at commercial flight levels. Geoengineering wouldn't work at that low of an altitude. Geoengineering is about TWICE that altitude.
It's unlikely you would see anything if geoengineering took place, and the planes would be almost half the size visually of what you see because of the altitude.
If you've done any flight tracking you've developed a pretty good idea of ow large the planes appear at 30,000 feet. So, imagine what they would look like twice as high. That is what geoengineering would look like, and it is quite likely that the trail of it, if any existed, would be similarly smaller.

 

[MikeC]

When you read what the geoengineers plan on doing and it mimics exactly what you see .

What have you ever read the "geoengineers plan on doing" that you have ever seen "mimicked" by what yo have seen?

then to make us more suspicious you have Mick the owner of this site actually working or corresponding with he geoengineers themselves .

Why is that suspicious? Even conspiracy theorists have spoken to geo-engineers....if you are interested in geoengineering, from any point of view, then why would you NOT be talking to and/or working with those same people??

Quite interesting . Conspiracy's need to be proven either real or false . So give me facts . Then I will do my own research .

You have plenty of facts on here - if there are not enough for you to research on your own ye then I suggest you have no intention of ever doing so - indeed this is what someone recently called "the Delphi Technique" isn't it?? Saying you'll address something later and then not doing so??