Although the initial impetus for Agenda 21 can be traced back to the Stockholm Conference of 1972, Agenda 21 became an official document at the 1992 Rio Conference through an extensive process of preparation at the professional level and negotiation at the political level.
Project 21 contained twenty-seven principles warning against a mode of growth that was leading to the extinction of life on earth. As such, Project 21 represented a major step forward in establishing the basic principles that must govern the conduct of nations and peoples towards each other and the Earth to ensure a secure and sustainable future. This plan was developed rather covertly, and due to that lack of transparency, we are still discovering some of the more grievous aspects of their Agenda.
Introduced as a cooperative task and challenge for world nations, Project 21 is based on two fundamental ideas: development andenvironment. To the Preparatory Council of the Rio Conference, it was impossible to have an environmentally sound planet in a socially unjust world, as these goals complement each other in each community and each country around the globe. They claimed without a global order with greater justice, tranquil prosperity would exist for no one. An awareness of belonging to a wider human community brought with it an obligation to reduce inequalities as a permanent cause if a better future were to be provided to mankind.
Notice all the “buzz” words in the above statement. They should sound familiar, as they are words and labels used by our mainstream media and “progressives” of today to promote the concepts outlined in Agenda 21.
Upon learning of Agenda 21, and the vast scope of its reach into our lives, begs the question “How did it all happen and why haven’t I heard of it?”
It began when One hundred nations attended the 1992 Rio Education on Environment and Development (Agenda 21), and according to the UN information Center, all nations in attendance agreed to the document.
Representing the U.S.A. was President George H. Bush, President, 1989 – 1993. In a News Conference given in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, Bush’s opening statement included the following remarks prior to questions taken from reporters:
“Let me be clear on one fundamental point. The United States fully intends to be the world’s preeminent leader in protecting the global environment. We have been that for many years. We will remain so. We believe that environment and development, the two subjects of this Conference, can and should go hand in hand. A growing economy creates the resources necessary for environmental protection and environmental protection makes growth sustainable over the long term.”
President Clinton signed U.N. Agenda 21 later on to continue the program in the United States. Agenda 21 is “soft-law,” so elements of it don’t have to be voted on by the Congress. That is particularly unfortunate, because the impact of this mandate will drastically impact our country in a myriad of ways, and yet basically two men inflicted this agenda on us all. A non-governmental organization, International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), has the responsibility of carrying out the goals of Agenda 21. Over 600 cities in the U.S. have since become members of ICLEI, and the number is growing. Costs are paid by taxpayers.
Is it possible Bush and Clinton were unaware of the full impact Agenda 21 will have? Has it changed from the time they were first introduced to it? It is hard to imagine they would have inflicted on us what we are now in the process of experiencing.
They were likely persuaded by lofty Agenda 21 talking points, such as these which are taken from their website:
“The concentration of population growth in developing countries and economic growth in the industrialized countries has deepened, creating imbalances which are unsustainable, in either environmental or economic terms. . . Population must be stabilized, and rapidly. If we do not do it, nature will, and much more brutally. The rich must take the lead in bringing their development under control, reducing substantially their impacts on the environment, leaving environmental ‘space’ for developing countries to grow. The wasteful and destructive lifestyles of the rich cannot be maintained at the cost of the lives and livelihoods of the poor, and of nature.
For the rich, the transition to sustainable development need not require regression to a difficult or primitive life. On the contrary, it can lead to a richer life of expanded opportunities for self-realization and fulfillment. More satisfying and secure because it is sustainable, and more sustainable because its opportunities and benefits are more universally shared.”
When our rights and quality of life are being stripped from us, those talking points will not appease us. We will know the U.N. statements are simply “cleverly devised words and talking points” to push an anti-American way of life upon us. The U.N. statements are designed to avoid negative public objections. If we all realized the full impact of Agenda 21 objectives, we would not be at all compliant. Fortunately, some have dug out the bare facts of how Agenda 21 will negatively impact our lives, and discovered a very dismal picture. Imagine Russia just before it fell apart or possibly China today. There will be few freedoms, if any at all for citizens, as the rules and regulations will dictate a whole different life for you and me.
Americans are largely in the dark about Agenda 21 because facts have largely been kept from the public, but also because the recession slowed their plans a bit. However, they are now beginning to be more aggressive in their implementation process. We all must learn of the specifics their plan. Education is essential if we, the public, are to stop Agenda 21. Hopefully, we can do so before experiencing the huge adverse effects on our lives. Once implemented, it will be much harder to stop and restore what has been lost to us.
Are the American people going to sit passively by while the United Nations seeks to co-opt, via individual governments, and eventually spawn a one-world government where individuals are stripped of all personal rights and freedoms? The whole idea seems futuristic and impossible to comprehend, like something out of George Orwell’s 1984, but this is the goal of U.N. Agenda 21 for now, and it will happen unless an army of us rise up and demand it stop.
As Agenda 21 covers so many areas of our lives (sometimes called a whole life plan), each aspect of their agenda must be explained individually and carefully. That is why we will be writing articles in several installments on issues relating to Agenda 21, among them being Property Rights and the Environment.
Source: The Silver Bear Cafe
As a federal appeals court rules that the Obama administration must divulge its legal basis for launching drone strikes against American citizens, many statists opposed to Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy’s stand against the government are calling for him and his supporters to be the victims of what would be America’s first domestic drone attack.
If ever there was a time for a drone strike, I’d say Bundy’s self-appointed militia should’ve been turned into paste on the prairie. #tcot
— TeapartyCrasher (@VegasJessie) April 21, 2014
Of course, it’s virtually inconceivable that the White House would launch a Predator drone strike against U.S. citizens, Harry Reid’s “domestic terrorist” slur not withstanding, but the mere fact that self-proclaimed liberals are openly calling for Bundy supporters to be massacred provides us with yet another chilling insight into the warped minds of statists.
The most egregious offense committed by Bundy supporters in the eyes of such people is the fact that a minority of Bunkerville protesters were carrying guns during last weekend’s standoff with heavily armed Bureau of Land Management agents.
This again underscores the rampant hypocrisy of leftists who grandstand as gun control advocates yet fully support the state having a monopoly on firearms. Hundreds of armed BLM agents seizing Bundy’s property while aiming sniper rifles at his family members and tasing them for exercising free speech is not only tolerated by liberals but enthusiastically supported. Indeed, it seems that many were disappointed that BLM agents didn’t follow through on the slaughter they promised during the standoff at Bunkerville.
Virtually every point of resentment directed against Bundy by leftists is borne out of repugnant duplicity and double standards, most notably the charge that Bundy is both engaging in lawlessness and is a “freeloader” for not paying grazing fees, a criticism liberals are perfectly willing to dispense with when it comes to the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
When a group of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators were brutally pepper sprayed during the infamous incident at UC Davis in 2011 (prompted by students flouting a law they saw as unjust), liberals were rightly outraged and their fury was shared by libertarians who have been speaking out against America’s burgeoning police state for years.
However, now that the shoe is on the other foot, liberals have chosen to either ignore the federal government’s targeting of the Bundy family and their supporters, or in some cases have adopted the role of cheerleaders in unashamedly urging actual bloodshed.
— Steve Lawson (@songsteve) April 19, 2014
@BostonSnob If you really want to make me purr, show me gun cam footage of the Bundy ranch drone strike.
— FTJ (@fairytalejedi) April 18, 2014
Anybody else kinda wish we had a drone over Bundy Welfare Cowboy Ranch?
— Lech Lecha (@KalleeMerra) April 18, 2014
Clive Bundy is good enough reason to bring at least one military drone back from Yemen.
— CJ Werleman (@cjwerleman) April 18, 2014
@cnnbrk They need to use a drone strike against Clive Bundy and his asshole followers.
— Telecat Johnson (@Telecatjohnson) April 19, 2014
Kinda late on this, but I fully support a drone strike on Cliven Bundy.
— Andy Given (@itzagiven) April 19, 2014
@SenatorReid Senator, wouldn’t it just be easiest to order a drone strike on the bundy’s?
— paul wood (@pdw_67) April 19, 2014
@RonPauIWins Well if you’re going to drone someone for petty theft, why not for grand larceny? Bundy stole 1M+ in goods/services
— Abduljesh (@EMaher81) April 18, 2014
Drone Clive Bundy. If we can do it in Yemen why not Nevada
— Eugene V. Dabs (@red_mercer) April 17, 2014
— the real donny (@donny2chains) April 17, 2014
Jesus, just put this guy in prison or drone strike his ass. I really don’t care which at this point.http://t.co/LUYL76z9xq
— Paul Whitehouse (@DarthWhitey2010) April 16, 2014
Source: Paul Joseph Watson Via Infowars
Nevada’s Supreme Court earlier this month decided that motorists can be stopped and searched if a tiny rock scratches a vehicle’s windshield. The court took up a case where a police officer stopped a motorist but was wrong about the statute governing windshields. The high court decided to find a way to make the initial stop stick.
The case revolved around whether Deputy Wendy Jason was right to pull over Jarvis Deer Cantsee when she saw he had a crack across his windshield in what she thought was a violation of a statute banning driving “with any sign poster or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield.” A lower court ruled that the traffic stop was inappropriate because the deputy got the law wrong, but the state appealed all the way to the high court. A divided majority sided with the prosecution.
“We conclude that a police officer’s citation to an incorrect statute is not a mistake of law that invalidates an investigatory traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment if another statute nonetheless prohibits the suspected conduct,” Justice James W. Hardesty wrote for the court. “Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order.”
Justice Michael A. Cherry, in the minority, warned of the consequence of his colleagues’ finding.
“Of course, this argument is troubling; its adoption would make any citizen who was the victim of a pebble lodged in a windshield, a frequent occurrence on those long drives across our vast state, susceptible to a traffic stop,” the dissenting opinion explained.
In the course of the lower court battle, state prosecutors decided that Cantsee must have violated a different statute, NRS 484B.163, which states: “A vehicle must not be operated upon any highway unless the driver’s vision through any required glass equipment is normal.” Washoe County Judge David A. Hardy found the switch of statute in the middle of the case unfairly surprised the defense, and he ordered the evidence obtained from the stop suppressed. This is the first time the issue has come before the state Supreme Court.
“There is a difference between a mistake of law and a mistake as to which law applies,” Justice Hardesty wrote for the majority. “Deputy Jason initiated the traffic stop because of the cracked windshield. She cited Cantsee for violating NRS 484D.435, believing that it was the applicable statute. She was mistaken. Although this statute does not prohibit Cantsee’s conduct, a crack that obstructs the driver’s vision through the windshield could be an infraction under NRS 484B.163. We conclude that this statute provides a lawful ground to justify the stop because the crack in the windshield might have obstructed Cantsee’s view.”
Justice Cherry, in his dissent, points out that the trial judge had already rejected the possibility that there was a violation of the 484B.163 statute. The majority insisted on sending the case back to the lower court for adjudication on this question.
See The Original PDF File Here :Nevada v. Cantsee
Source: The Newspaper
Add the U.S. Postal Service to the list of federal agencies seeking to purchase what some Second Amendment activists say are alarmingly large quantities of ammunition.
Earlier this year, the USPS posted a notice on its website, under the heading “Assorted Small Arms Ammunition,” that says: “The United States Postal Service intends to solicit proposals for assorted small arms ammunition. If your organization wishes to participate, you must pre-register. This message is only a notification of our intent to solicit proposals.”
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said: “We’re seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time. To be honest, I don’t understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time.”
Jake McGuigan, director of state affairs and government relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said widely reported federal ammunition purchases have sparked conspiracy-type fears among gun owners, who worry that the federal government is trying to crack down on Second Amendment rights via the back door by limiting the ammo available to owners.
It’s not just the USPS that is stocking up on ammo.
A little more than a year ago, the Social Security Administration put in a request for 174,000 rounds of “.357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point” bullets.
Before that, it was the Department of Agriculture requesting 320,000 rounds. More recently, the Department of Homeland Security raised eyebrows with its request for 450 million rounds — at about the same time the FBI separately sought 100 million hollow-point rounds.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also requested 46,000 rounds.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, asked: why exactly does a weather service need ammunition?
“NOAA — really? They have a need? One just doesn’t know why they’re doing this,” he said. “The problem is, all these agencies have their own SWAT teams, their own police departments, which is crazy. In theory, it was supposed to be the U.S. marshals that was the armed branch for the federal government.”
Armed federal employees are often assigned to offices of investigative services, the offices of inspectors general, or other equally bureaucratic agencies.
For instance, regular Internal Revenue Service agents aren’t equipped with on-the-job guns — but those affiliated with the agency’s Criminal Investigations Division are.
The same goes for workers with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, with the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General, and with the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General.
The Energy Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Commerce Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development are a few of the federal entities that boast an armed division, tasked with investigating fraud and suspected criminal activities. As such, the agents get to carry guns.
“Most of these agencies do have their own police forces,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Gun Owners’ Action League.
That, perhaps more than federal ammunition purchases, is the larger issue, he suggested, and Van Cleave agreed.
“What’s the need for that? Do we really need this? That was something our Founding Fathers did not like and we should all be concerned about,” Van Cleave said, speaking of the expansion of police forces throughout all levels of government.
The Department of Homeland Security employs in its various law enforcement entities — from the Coast Guard to the Secret Service to Customs and Border Protection — more than 200,000 workers, an estimated 135,000 of whom are authorized to carry weapons. When the agency makes its ammo buys, it often does so over the course of several years.
“We realize that the House is still investigating the ammo purchases by the administration, but from what we’ve seen so far, most representatives don’t seem alarmed,” said Erich Pratt, communications director for Gun Owners of America.
“For example, [Georgia Republican] Rep. Lynn Westmoreland said that given all the agencies that the Department of Homeland Security purchases for, “450 million rounds really is not that large of an order,” Pratt said.
McGuigan acknowledged that there was a scarcity of ammo but attributed it more to a rise in purchases by individuals.
The Obama administration’s stated desire to scale back gun rights drove more in the private sector to purchase firearms — which in turn fueled ammunition sales, McGuigan said.
“Over the last few years, there’s been a tremendous increase in gun ownership, [with] many more females,” McGuigan said. “I think a lot of people need to be aware of what’s happening, and what the federal agencies are doing. I don’t think, though, they need to be overly concerned that there’s not going to be any ammo left.”
But the notion of the Obama administration’s using backdoor means to scale back gun ownership — a move that’s hardly been kept secret — doesn’t seem that outlandish to some.
“I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense,” Gottlieb said. “The amount of ammunition they’re buying up far exceeds their needs. It far exceeds what they’ll use — they’ll never use it all.”
Source: News Max
Russia may be the current target of the American corporate media for its alleged role in provoking Ukraine to war, but the former Soviet stronghold has become a world leader in protecting its food sovereignty and kicking the multinational bio-pirates to the curb. New reports indicate that Russian prime minister Dmitry Medvedev has announced the country’s rejection of all imports of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), upholding Russia’s growing stance against the cultivation and sale of GMOs within its borders.
The announcement comes just months after Medvedev ordered the country’s health ministry, agriculture ministry and other relevant agencies to investigate GMO safety and come up with proposals for better protecting the integrity of the country’s food supply. According to RT.com, their consensus is that Russia has no need for GMOs and will instead remain committed to traditional agricultural practices that have a proven track record of safety.
“If the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then,” stated Medvedev before a congress of deputies from various rural settlements at a recent meeting. “We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.”
Earlier in the year, the Russian parliament petitioned the government to impose a temporary ban on GMOs pending the procurement of data showing their safety for humans and the environment. Such data doesn’t exist, of course, as GMO purveyors like Monsanto have never been required in places like the U.S. or Canada to conduct any long-term safety studies on transgenic crops prior to their commercial approval — and if they did, the results would not be favorable.
Consequently, Russia has decided to take the precautionary approach in the interest of its people rather than corporations, with the hope of eventually barring all GMOs from being bred, planted or otherwise used within the country. And this decision is backed by virtually every major government agency in Russia, illustrating the great differences between the leadership in this often vilified country and the increasingly fascist dictatorship that currently rules the U.S.
“The import of GMOs and GMO-based products into the Russian Federation may be banned if such products fail to pass the required examinations,” reads a draft bill recently put forth by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, which was tasked with tightening control over GMOs in Russia.
Putin opposes GMOs, says Russian citizens need to be protected
Russian President Vladimir Putin is also opposed to GMOs, having told the media that part of his job is to protect the Russian people against industrial food offerings that might harm them. Likewise, Russian Minister of Agriculture Nikolai Fydorov wants to see GMOs completely banned from all Russian territories as well, having referred to them in the media as poison.
“How ironic that a sustainable foods movement should take root in Russia at the behest of the people instead of the so-called ‘democratic’ West, where the will of the people is overturned by money,” wrote one RT.com commenter about Medvedev’s announcement. “I want my food imported from Russia!”
Similar sentiments are reflected in other comments, including one from a Russian woman telling of her experiences eating American food compared to food from her homeland. Besides the bread tasting like “rubber,” in her experience, American food in general simply doesn’t live up to the high-quality standards that are still the norm throughout Russia, standards that promote health and longevity rather than disease and death.
“There are a lot of choice… milk products, proper bread, etc. in Russia,” she writes. “The government of USA doesn’t want Americans to be healthy, giving big monopolies rights to feed people with all this rubbish [for] huge profits.”
Source: Natural News
President Obama is: giving crucial tactical military equipment to Russia for free; gutting our military; he is attempting to end the funding for the Israel missile defense shield; demilitarizing the National Guard; pushing young military officers out of the military; he’s killing the Tomahawk and Hellfire missile program with nothing to replace them; he’s destroying our nuclear warheads and no new weapons are in the offing; he’s done nothing to protect our power grid; and the list goes on.
Even knowing all this, the latest attack on our defenses is shocking – we don’t have one tank left in Europe – not one!
The last Abrams tank left Germany in January.
Tanks are a vital weapon in our defense system. You don’t see Russia canceling funding for their tanks.
We gave over 200 Abrams tanks to Morsi’s Egypt but we have none in the EU as Putin threatens to invade European countries. Does this make sense?
This move will shut down the only U.S. plant that produces them!
Obama uses the excuse that we can’t afford them and they are outdated anyway. Our nuclear warheads are outdated and the Hellfire/Tomahawks are outdated as well according to the Obama administration. His opinion is not shared by many experts.
That aside, he has come up with nothing to replace them. the same goes for the Air Force’s A-10 Warthog, which Obama’s DOD Hagel wants to retire – there’s nothing to replace the Warthog. “Retire” is the nice word they use for “kill”.
In February, Hagel said this: “The A-10′s age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain. Significant savings are only possible through eliminating the entire fleet, because of the fixed cost of maintaining the support apparatus associated with that aircraft. Keeping a smaller number of A-10s would only delay the inevitable while forcing worse trade-offs elsewhere.”
The Ground Combat vehicle has been defunded.
There are NO new weapons systems, no innovation, no war-ready anything to take their place and there are no funds to build any.
By 2020, there will only be 30,000 American troops in Europe, about one-tenth the maximum stationed in Europe during the Cold War.
Why is Obama doing this?
Obama wants to make us incapable of ever again being more “exceptional” than Britain, France, Russia, China.
Also, Obama believes that all solutions must be political and diplomatic ones because it is after all the 21st century. So what if much of the world lives in the 19th century.
Some might add that Obama hates traditional America.
We are engaged in a second Cold War. Russia, China, al Qaeda present an existential threat to the U.S. N. Korea and Iran are launching long-range missile tests on a frequent basis. This is the time that he chose to disarm us.
What is Obama doing?
He is stopping fossil rule development and has halted the Keystone Pipeline indefinitely while he destroys the coal industry. He is stepping up the Climate Change Agenda. He is bankrupting the U.S.
He believes exactly what the Russian-loving Communist Party USA believes. Whether that means anything, I can’t say, but in another time, Obama would be considered a traitor. From my vantage point, he’s delusional. People need to start paying attention.
Source: Independent Sentinel