Animal Rights Militants, Animal Rights Terrorism, Animal Rights Terrorists, Nazi Animal Protection, Animal Rights Propaganda, HSUS, PETA, ASPCA, ALF, ELF, ETC

  • We are against ANY AND “ALL” animal rights, animal rights organizations and animal rights backed legislation, laws or philosophies”
  • _______________________
  • Peta Kills Animals

  • Humane Watch

  • The War On Humans

  • Target Of Opportunity

Archive for January, 2012

Some Videos on Agenda 21

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on January 31, 2012




Wildlands Project

Agenda 21 Part 1 Donna Holt

Agenda 21 Part 2 Donna Holt

Agenda 21 Part 3 Donna Holt

Agenda 21 Part 4 Donna Holt

Donna Holt – Agenda 21 Exposed! LPAC 2011


Tom Deweese Part 1

Tom Deweese Part 2

Tom Deweese Part 3

Tom Deweese Part 4

Tom Deweese Part 5

UN Agenda 21 – ICLEI – Tom DeWeese – #1

UN Agenda 21 – ICLEI, Tom DeWeese – #2

UN Agenda 21 – ICLEI, Tom DeWeese – #3

UN Agenda 21 – ICLEI, Tom DeWeese – #4

UN Agenda 21 – ICLEI, Tom DeWeese – #5

UN Agenda 21 – ICLEI, Tom DeWeese – #6

REALITY REPORT – Tom DeWeese on Agenda 21

Stop Agenda 21 in Mississippi Tom DeWeese

John Bush of Texans for Accountable Government Exposes Agenda 21 to Austin City Council


G. Edward Griffin on the United Nations



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Morning Bell: Agenda 21 and the Threat in Your Backyard

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on January 24, 2012

Ready to trade in your car for a bike, or maybe a subway instead? Interested in fewer choices for your home, paying more for housing, and being crammed into a denser neighborhood? You can have all this and more if radical environmentalists and “smart growth” advocates have their way and local, state, and the federal government impose the policies set forth in the United Nations’ Agenda 21.

You might have heard of this nefarious-sounding policy in a recent Republican presidential debate, but even if you haven’t, here’s some background information: Agenda 21 is a voluntary plan adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. It calls on governments to intervene and regulate nearly every potential impact that human activity could have on the environment. The end goal? Getting governments to “rethink economic development and find ways to halt the destruction of irreplaceable natural resources and pollution of the planet.”

As adopted, Agenda 21 was described as “a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” That includes hundreds of specific goals and strategies that national and local governments are encouraged to adopt. And that translates into restrictive zoning policies that are aimed at deterring suburban growth. Ultimately, they suppress housing supply and drive up home prices, in turn imposing unnecessary costs, especially on middle- and lower-income households. These policies contributed to and aggravate the real estate bubble by putting inflationary pressures on housing prices.

But here’s the catch: Nothing about Agenda 21 is binding, and it’s not a threat in and of itself. Instead, the threat Americans need to be concerned about is the one that lies in their own backyard. In a new paper, “Focus on Agenda 21 Should Not Divert Attention from Homegrown Anti-Growth Policies,” Wendell Cox, Ronald Utt, Brett Schaefer explain:

Opponents of Agenda 21 should not be distracted from the more tangible manifestation of the smart-growth principles outlined in that document. If they focus excessively on Agenda 21, it is much more likely that homegrown smart-growth policies that date to the early 1970s and undermine the quality of life, personal choice, and property rights in American communities will be implemented by local, state, and federal authorities at the behest of environmental groups and other vested interests.

In the United States, smart-growth policies started in California and Oregon but then spread around the country to “deter suburban growth for all but the well-to-do,” as Cox, Utt, and Schaefer explain. They also write that those policies were not without detrimental impact:

As they became more prevalent and restrictive, their impact on housing prices and construction likewise expanded. An explosion of exclusionary zoning throughout the U.S. encouraged many communities to adopt zoning policies to ensure that they maintained a certain demographic ‘profile.’ Such zoning limited real estate development to higher-cost homes in order to ‘price out’ moderate-income households, which included a disproportionate share of minorities.

Where do these home-grown smart-growth policies stand today? The Obama Administration has embraced them while also increasing environmental regulations and restrictions on the use of natural resources. But the White House isn’t the only one behind the smart-growth movement. Local and state officials, along with interest groups, are promoting the policies at all levels of government.

And that’s where smart growth must also be thwarted. It’s not just a matter of standing against the implementation of Agenda 21 at the national level; it’s also about protecting our own backyards against the home-grown threat.

Mike Brownfield December 5, 2011 at 9:51 am


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

False Choices – The Story of Agenda 21

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on January 23, 2012


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by gamecocksunlimited on January 19, 2012

B.l. Cozad Jr


Breakdown of UN Agenda 21 implementation: This includes the UN Agenda 21 plan for population reduction. The establishment elite are corrupt elected officials (Dem and Rep alike) in Washington DC have been selling out America for many years. They are traitors to their oath to defend our Constitution, traitors to us, traitors of our children and traitors of America.


Read the full article here:


Social Aspects of Sustainable Development


As early as 1976, the UN adopted a policy relating to land use and population distribution:

“All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population…over national territory. Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources.” (Recommendation A.1, HABITAT I, Vancouver).


The Commission on Sustainable Development’s report laments “The U.S. does not have an official population policy…. The U.S. also has no specific policies to modify the spatial distribution of the population.” The report applauds, however, the U.S.’s expenditure of $25 million “on the development of new contraceptive methods,” and the $144 million spent on “all aspects of population research.”


The UN report says that in America, the Department of Health & Human Services operates an Office of Population Affairs (OPA) which serves nearly 5 million people through a network of 4,800 clinics to provide “contraceptive services and supplies.” Moreover, USAID works through the United Nations Population Fund to provide population control assistance in 60 countries. The report says that in America, “policy has shifted from discouraging contraception on the basis of age and marital status to promoting it to all who do not have access to services.”




Education is a key ingredient in the transformation to a sustainable society. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development reports that in America, “the national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programmes as Goals 2000 and School to Work” (emphasis added). The National Environmental Education Advisory Council to the Department of Education consists of eleven individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator and includes representatives of women, NGOs, and local authorities (visioning councils). The U.S. State Department reported to the UN that:


“At the primary school level, school curricula have already been reviewed and revised, and at the secondary school level, the revision of school curricula is being undertaken currently to address environment and development as a cross cutting issue.”


The State Department also told the UN:


“The U.S. has been involved in several awareness raising programmes and activities aimmed at the population at large (Earth Day, industry supported campaigns, Ad Council, Program KAB, Arbor Day, GLOBE Program, Discovery Channel, National Geographic programmes, CNN, ZooQ, As it Happens, and water clean-up programmes.”


While land use and zoning regulations are still considered to be a matter of local control,


“the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) operates a Land Use Systems Technology Program, and a Sustainable Communities Development System” (emphasis in original). The programs are aimed at “providing overall policy and technical purview of technologies affecting all dimensions of the ecological, land, natural resources, industrial, and development aspects of urbanization.” The report says that “The U.S. played an active role in HABITAT II. USAID’s urban programming approaches promote the principles of sustainable human settlements.” (See cologic, July/August, 1996 for comprehensive reports on HABITAT II).




The transition from free-market agriculture to managed sustainable agriculture is well advanced in America, according to the UN report. Sustainable agriculture is defined in American law (Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 – 7 USE 3101) to be:


“an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends; make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm operation; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and members of rural communities, and society as a whole.”


To achieve sustainable agriculture in America, the U.S. Department of Agriculture works “in concert with the President’s Council on Sustainable Development” to implement several programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EPUIP), and the Farmland Protection Program, which was created to purchase development rights on up to 137,600 ha of private property. The Conservation Reserve Program has an additional 36 million acres of private property out of production, at least temporarily.




The USDA also funds the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) to provide information and advocacy to NGOs and the public. Other USDA programs in place to promote sustainable agriculture include the Integrated Farm Management Systems; Integrated Pest Management; Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas; and the Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. The Soil Conservation Service has been transformed into the Natural Resource Conservation Service with agents in virtually every county “to assist landowners with resource planning.” A revolving loan fund has been established to assist farmers in becoming sustainable through the development through the development of “non-food, non-feed, non-traditional agricultural products” such as the “manufacture of paper from straw; manufacture of high-quality furniture from low-quality logs; the use of kenaf as a mat for seeding lawn grass making newsprint and fiberboard; and the use of milkweed as a filler for pillows and comforters.”


America’s efforts to achieve Agenda 21’s objectives relating to the atmosphere are rated as “good.” The State Department report to the UN boasts that the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are “full-fledged” members of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. “The President’s Climate Change Plan includes nearly 50 initiatives…” according to the report. The U.S. supports the “conservation and enhancement” of carbon sinks, which is biomass and forests (bioregions), whether publicly or privately owned. The report boasts that the U.S. spent $31.9 billion on air pollution abatement in 1993.




Interestingly, the Convention on Biological Diversity is described as “signed in 1993, but not yet ratified.” Nevertheless, the report says “Cooperative efforts involving various levels of government and the private sector are underway to implement the biosphere reserve concept in several regions.” The Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Program (SAMAB), and the International Sonoran Desert Alliance, “a cluster of biosphere reserves in northwestern Mexico and Arizona,” are identified as example of implementation of the objectives of Agenda 21. The Nature Conservancy is particularly identified as having “pioneered” biodiversity conservation.


To achieve the objectives of Agenda 21, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the report identifies several federal initiatives, including: the National Biological Service; Interagency Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources; Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, and the Ecosystem Management Initiative.


“Ecosystem management strategies have been adopted by the Department of Interior, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, EPA, and NOAA. In some cases, broad-scale organizational frameworks are being implemented. For example, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in the Department of Interior has defined approximately 50 ecosystem units across the country as a basis for future planning related to sustainable management….”


The report says that USAID provides funding to the Biodiversity Conservation Network, which coordinates NGOs and “private sector partners,” as well as to the Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation, the Mexican Conservation Fund, and a $3 million grant to Conservation International.




B.l. Cozad Jr



While by no means complete, this summary of the United States’ report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development should put to rest any doubt that the Clinton/Gore Administration is, in fact, deliberately implementing Agenda 21 in America. Where laws have been revised, Congress has not been told that the purpose of the revision is to comply with the mandates of Agenda 21. Where policies can be implemented administratively, Congress is not even consulted. At the state and local level, elected officials are deliberately by-passed until local support can be generated by a “stakeholders” council, led by NGO professionals, funded by the federal government or by foundations in “partnership” with the federal government.


Agenda 21 embraces virtually every aspect of human life; it is being implemented aggressively in the United States. Congress has never examined the totality of the Agenda. Instead, Congress is fed only bits and pieces in the context of “protecting the environment.” The ultimate objective of Agenda 21 is to establish “international norms” of personal behavior that are dictated by a handful of the world’s enlightened elite who believe they know best how people ought to live. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development is not the result of a treaty ratified by the Senate. America participates in the UN organization by Executive Decree. Through the Clinton/Gore Administration, America is actually driving the agenda globally, and making it possible for the UN to dictate, not only in America, but around the world, how all people must live.



B.l. Cozad Jr


The Three Main Objectives of Agenda 21:


Abolition of Private Property

Education for Global Citizenship

Monitor and Control of All Human Activity


Orwell said that if you can control the language and can manipulate key phrases can control policy…sustainable development, wildlands, biodiversity, spreading of wealth, smart growth, alternative transportation, alternative energy. These ideas are delivered to the local community in the form of a comprehensive land use plan.


There are hundreds of thousands of examples of people having their lives destroyed due to this type of regulations.


All political leaders in this country, Democrat and Republicans, are tied to the Agenda 21 policy.


Non-Government Organizations (NGO)


All are certified by the U.N. to implement Agenda 21. I.C.L.E.I. signs contracts with cities around the world, with 1,054 currently signed on. California has 110 I.C.L.E.I. cities.




.I.C.L.E.I. is the most dangerous organization in our country. The cities are now under the control of regional/federal MPOs, Metropolitan Planning Organizations. It’s a whole system of government that most Americans don’t know about. and there is no accountability to the people whatsoever.


Your elected officials are all members of national organizations for mayors, councilmen, supervisors, etc. The APA, American Planning Association, is recognized as a quasi-planning organization that does not look like Agenda 21, yet it and other groups are just as dangerous. It is an NGO, certified by the United Nations to implement Agenda 21. These are both very dangerous organizations.


Agenda 21 is a United Nations Agreement that does not need legislative approval like a treaty, but rather Administrative approval. We have had 4 administrations, Democrat and Republican, who have implemented the policies of Agenda 21. Virtually all grants are targeted at Agenda 21.


Our industries are being closed down, our farms are being shut down, all in the interest of protecting the environment, yet these restrictions don’t apply to China and other countries where the jobs are being shipped off to, so it’s about the redistribution of wealth.


How are they going to move humans off of rural lands? Will they confiscate the farms? They will do it by destroying our currency, by restricting our occupation of the rural lands and force us into the cities where we are easier to manage or perhaps exterminate with the dropping of a bomb or creation of some other disaster or economic hardship like starvation.


Every person running for President (except Ron Paul) is firmly committed to Agenda 21, so we will not win this from the top down “unless we can get him elected”. Our only hope is that the American people will wake up and realize that we need to take control and get rid of all of these extra departments and controls. We must alert our neighbors, family, friends and every one that we can to spread this information as the United Nations has now put the implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States on a fast trac prior to the coming 20th Anniversary of the Earth Summit that will be celebrated at a meeting in June of 2012 in Brazil. At this meeting, the soft policies of Agenda 21 will likely move toward becoming hard law.

Agenda 21 For Dummies

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Animal rights group claims credit for Calif. arson

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on January 13, 2012

Animal rights group claims credit for Calif. arson

FRESNO, California (AP) — Authorities in California are looking into animal rights activists’ claims that they caused the fire that destroyed 14 big-rig tractors and several trailers at the state’s biggest beef processor.

Activists claimed responsibility for the fire at Harris Farms in an email released by the North American Animal Liberation Press Office. The email includes a detailed description of the containers of accelerant and kerosene-soaked rope activists claim they used to set the blaze.

Fresno County sheriff’s spokesman Chris Curtice said Tuesday that investigators are looking into the claim, among several other leads.

Investigators say the arson fire started around 4 a.m. Sunday at Harris Farms’ Coalinga property.

Harris Farms spokesman Mike Casey says the company has not received recent threats from animal rights activists.….-010516001.html


Animal rights group claims credit for Calif. arson

The following statement was posted on an animal rights website:

14 Cattle Trucks Burned by Activists (terrorists) at Harris Ranch in Coalinga, California

At about 3:40 am on sunday, january 8th, 14 cattle trucks caught fire at the harris feeding company in coalinga, ca. containers of accelerant were placed beneath a row of 14 trucks with 4 digital timers used to light 4 of the containers and kerosene-soaked rope carrying the fire to the other 10 (a tactic adapted from Home Alone 2 ). we weren’t sure how well this was going to work, so we waited until there was news reports before writing this. we were extremely pleased to see that all 14 trucks “were a total loss” with some being “completely melted to the ground.”

we’re not going to use this space to expound upon the horrors and injustices of factory farming. there is more than enough armchair-activists and those of passive politics who are more than willing to do that (anything to keep from getting their hands dirty). we, the unsilent minority (the 1%, if you will), choose a more direct form of action.

we’re not delusional enough to believe that this action will shut down the harris feeding company, let alone have any effect on factory farming as a whole. but we maintain that this type of action still has worth, if not solely for the participant’s peace of mind, then to show that despite guards, a constant worker presence, and razorwire fence, the enemy is still vulnerable.

finally, to all those who fantasize and romanticize about direct action yet remain on the fence: there is a lot of stuff that needs to be destroyed and we can’t count on spontaneous combustion and careless welders to do all the work.


until next time… ;


Posted in Animal & Environmental Terrorist | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by gamecocksunlimited on January 5, 2012

Collectivists use Orwellian ‘doublespeak’ to fool the public, with the word “smart”.  So-called Smart Growth is the strategy used to concentrate people into cities, and to remove them off of the land, under the banner of ‘protecting’ the environment.

Remember, only 5-6% of land in America is developed (buildings, roads, etc).

Smart Growth is a trick to devalue property outside of Smart Growth boundaries; this is accomplished through limiting development which affects economic growth.  Heavy environmental regulations and land re-zoning on land outside the boundaries renders the land virtually worthless.

Within the Smart Growth boundaries, property prices soar, and housing becomes limited and expensive.

•Land with minimal Smart Growth regulations sells for $10 to $40 thousand dollars per lot. Land with heavy Smart Growth regulations sells for $200 to $600 thousand dollars per lot.

Are you aware that America’s total land mass is only 6% developed?  And only 3% of the land mass is considered urban. Yet 77% of the population lives in urban areas.

The federal government “owns” over 29% of America’s land mass.  And most of it is in the Western States.

The reason for this, according to the Wayne Hage, in his book Storm Over Rangelands, is because the Eastern banking and industry interests did not wish the prosperous and resource rich West to dominate their interests in the East.  Environmentalism was corrupted and expanded in the 1800’s to limit the wealth and resources of the West.  For example, railroad magnate Ed Harriman funded John Muir (founder of the deceitful Sierra Club).

As a result, massive land use regulations were created around water rights, timber, mining, grazing rights, etc.

The overall objective of Smart Growth is control.  Smart Growth communities consist of building up, not out.  Stores are located at the bottom of high rise buildings where people live in the apartments above.  The purpose of this is to keep people contained, so they never have to leave their Smart Growth cages.

‘Urban sprawl’, or spread out development, is demonized despite the fact that most people would prefer to live in a single family home, owning the land.  There is far more freedom accorded to landowners than to apartment dwellers.

Another part of Smart Growth planning is the light rail system.  The objective is more control over people by limiting travel (some Smart Growth developments don’t even have garages). Despite the financial impracticability of the rail system, billions have been wasted on it nationwide.

Smart Growth planning has extended into the energy field.  Smart Growth buildings have a centralized control mechanism for heaters, air conditioners, water heaters and appliances.  Energy usage is remotely controlled.

Currently, Smart Meters are being installed on homes and apartments to monitor, up to the minute, energy and appliance usage.  This has been funded by taxpayer money.  Initially, the electricity companies are providing information on residents’ power usage, with the ultimate goal of controlling power remotely.

Lastly, biodiversity is preserved when there are many types of development and land usage.  Allowing overgrowth of nature results in old forests, as opposed to successional forests with more life forms.  Further, it creates a wildfire danger.  When nature is left untouched, plant overgrowth occurs, providing fuel for wildfires.



Many local government officials and city planners are ignorant about this scheme.  You can educate them about the perils of Smart Growth. If they are non-responsive, vote them out.   Share this information with your neighbors.  Your liberty is at stake.

In 2004, Oregon passed a law, Measure 37, to justly compensate property owners who were victims of destructive Smart Growth programs.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by gamecocksunlimited on January 5, 2012

Please go watch these two videos and learn the truth about UN Agenda 21 and what is going on in Washington DC and across America and then proceed to here:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How to Fight Back Against Sustainable Development

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on January 1, 2012

Written by Tom DeWeese, Friday, 04 March 2011 11:30


For the past 15 years my efforts against Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development have been single-minded — get the message out to tell people about what it is and why it is dangerous to our way of life. All of our materials, special reports, hand outs, speeches, radio and television interviews, and DVDs have been created for that purpose.

However, we have had so much success over the past year in getting that message out that we are now faced with a new problem. People are getting the message. They know what the problem is. So they are asking the next logical question — how do we fight back? It sounds like an easy question to be put to someone like me who has worked on the issue and sounded the alarm for so long. But in fact, actually having success in organizing people to fight Sustainable Development in their local communities is a very new thing.

I could blow smoke at them and pretend I know the answer. That would just be sending lambs to the slaughter. It’s easy to stand in front of a friendly audience and dazzle them with facts and figures, get them riled and then tell them to charge down to city council as I make a quick exit from town. And I have done that many times. The truth is, however, I have never stood in front of city councils or county commissions and endured their sarcasm as I tried to question their policies or explain where it comes from.

So, now, as more and more call my office asking what to do next, I felt it was vital that I learn firsthand how to fight back and then share that experience to make our fight more effective and eventually successful in stopping Sustainable Development. That’s what I’ve been doing in my local community for the past five months. I’ve also been traveling across the state of Virginia, working with local activists in their communities and learning from them. Recently, I joined fellow Virginia activist Donna Holt as we presented the case against sustainable development to the staff of Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. We have also been successful so far in working with the Virginia legislature to move a bill that will end mandatory comprehensive development plans in local communities. The sustainabilists have been using legislation passed in Virginia in 2007 as an effective weapon to force the policy on local communities. It hasn’t passed yet, but we forced it out of committee over the objections of the Virginia Speaker of the House. That alone was a victory in that it started debate on the issue, something that has been missing at the state level. Such legislative action can serve as a model for legislators around the nation.

The fight has only begun, but I and these fellow activists are learning a lot. So, to help all of the movement to take on the fight in their community, I want to share what we’ve learned so far.

Be Aware of the World in Which Your Elected Officials Live

To begin the effort to fight back against Sustainable Development, it is vital to first understand the massive structure you are facing. You need to know who the players are and you need to understand the political world your officials are operating in. This may help you to understand that they aren’t all evil globalists, but, perhaps, good people who are surrounded by powers that won’t let them see the reality of the policies they are helping to implement. I’m certainly not making excuses for them, but before you rush in and start yelling about their enforcing UN policies on the community, here are some things you should consider.

In most communities, your mayor, city council members, and county commissioners are automatically members of national organizations like the National Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, and the national associations for city council members, and the same for commissioners. Those in the state government also have the National Governors Association and state legislators have their national organization. For the past 15 years or more, each and every one of these national organizations has been promoting Sustainable Development. The National Mayors Conference and the Governors Association have been leaders in this agenda, many times working directly with UN organizations to promote the policy. This is the message your local elected leaders hear — from the podium; from fellow officials from other communities; from “experts” they’ve been told to respect; in committee meetings; from dinner speakers; from literature they are given at such meetings. They are told of legislation that will be soon be implemented, and they are even provided sample legislation to introduce in their communities.

There is also a second horde involved in the sustainablist invasion: state and federal agency officials including EPA agents, air and water quality agents, Interior Department officials, HUD officials, energy officials, Commerce Department officials, and on and on — all targeting your locally elected officials with policy, money, regulations, reports, special planning boards, meetings, and conferences, all promoting the exact same agenda.

And don’t forget the news media, both locally and nationally, is also promoting the Sustainablist agenda and attacking anyone not going along, and is ready to quickly use the “extremist” label. The message is clear: Sustainable Development is reality — it is politically correct, necessary, unquestionable — and it has consensus.

Is your head spinning yet? Think of the effect all of this has on a poor local official who just thought he would run for office and serve his community. This is his reality. This is what he thinks government is supposed to be because, after all, everyone he is dealing with says so.

Now, as he is surrounded by all of these important, powerful folks, along comes a local citizen who tells him that some guy named Tom DeWeese says all of these programs are from the UN and are taking away our liberty. Who? He said what? Come on, I’m not doing that. And I don’t have time to talk about it. I have another meeting to go to.

If we are going to successfully fight Agenda 21, it is vitally important that we all recognize this reality as we plan to deal with it and defeat it. With that in mind, I offer the following ideas.

How to Fight Back

Research: Don’t even begin to open up a fight until you know certain details. First, who are the players in your community? What privately funded “stakeholder” groups are there? What is their agenda? What other communities have they operated in? What projects? What results? Who are their members in your community? Are they residents or did they come from“out of town?” (That could prove to be valuable information later in the fight). Finding this information may be the hardest of your efforts. They like to operate out of the spotlight. It’s not likely that the town will carry official documentation of who it is working with. It probably will require that you attend lots of meetings and hearings. Take note of who is there and their role. Do this quietly. Don’t announce to the community what you are doing. Don’t make yourselves a target. You may have to ask questions and that may raise some eyebrows. But stay out of the way as much as possible.

Second, get all the details on the plans your community is working on. Has there already been legislation passed? Most of this information can be found on the town website. Knowing this information will help you put together a plan of action. Once you have it, you can begin to take your fight public.

With the information you have gathered, begin to examine the effect the policies will have on the community and its residents. Find who the victims of the legislation may be. This will be of great value as you confront city council. People understand victim stories — especially if it is them. It is the best way to undermine the process.

You will find that Conservation Easements have raised taxes as much of the county land is removed from the tax rolls — someone has to make up for the lost revenue and the payment of easements. Are “stakeholder” groups helping to get landowners to sign up for the easements — and if so — do they get any kind of kickbacks? Who are getting the easements? You may find the rich land owners have found a great loophole to cut their own property taxes as the middle class pays for it.

Does the community plan call for reduction of energy use? If so, look for calls for energy audits and taxes on energy use. The audits mean that the government has set a goal to reduce energy use. It will follow that government agents are going to come into your home to inspect your energy use. Then they are going to tell you what must be done in your home to cut usage. That will cost you money. Don’t fall for the line that it is all voluntary — to help you save money. They haven’t gone to this much trouble to be ignored. Regulations are not voluntary.

These are just a couple of examples of what to look for as you do your research. There are many more, including meters on wells to control water use, smart meters on your thermostat to take away your control of your thermostat; non-elected boards and councils to control local development and implement smart growth, leading to population growth; Public/Private Partnerships with local and large corporations to “go Green”; creation of open space; pushing back live stock from streams; enforcing sustainable farming methods that restrict energy and water use in farming practices; and much more. It all leads to higher costs and shortages, in the name of environmental protection and conservation.

Your goal is to stop Sustainable Development in your community. That means to stop the creation of non-elected regional government councils that are difficult to hold accountable. It means to stop local governments from taking state and federal grants that come with massive strings attached to enforce compliance. And it means you must succeed in removing outsider organizations and Stakeholder groups that are pressuring your elected officials to do their bidding.

Civic Action

Armed with as much information as you can gather (and armed with the ability to coherently discuss its details) you are ready to take you battle to the public. First, it would be better for you to try to discuss it privately with some of your elected officials, especially if you know them. Tell them what you have found and explain why you are opposed. First discuss the effects of the policies on the average citizen. Explain why they are bad. Slowly bring the conversation around to the origin of such polices — Agenda 21 and the UN. Don’t start there. It is important that you build the case to show that these policies are not local, but part of a national and international agenda. If this conversation does not go well (and it probably won’t), then you have to take it to the next level — to the public.

Begin a two-fold campaign. First, write a series of letters to the editor for the local newspaper. Make sure that you are not alone. Coordinate your letters with others who will also write letters to back up and support what you have written. These will generate more letters from others, some for your position and other against you. Be prepared to answer those against you as they are probably written by those “Stakeholders” who are implementing the policies in the first place. This may be a useful place for you to use what you’ve learned about these groups to discredit them.

Second, begin to attend Council meetings and ask questions. The response from the council members will determine your next move. If you are ignored and your questions met with silence or hostility, prepare a news release detailing your questions and the background you have as to why you asked those questions. Pass the news release out to the people at the next meeting as well as the news media. Attend the next meeting and the next demanding answers. Be sure to organize people to come with you. Don’t try this alone. If necessary, have demonstrators outside city hall carrying signs or handing out flyers with the name and picture of the officials who won’t answer your questions along with the question you asked — including the details you have about the policy.

The point in all of this is to make the issue public. Take away their ability to hide the details from the public. Expose the hoards of outsiders who are dictating policy in your community. Force the people you elected to deal with YOU — not the army of self-appointed “stakeholders” and government officials. Shine a very right spotlight on the rats under the rock. If the newspaper is with you, great, but you will probably find it with the other side.

It may be difficult to get a fair shake in the newspaper or on radio. That’s why you deliver your news releases to both the media and the public. Get signs and flyers in stores if necessary. And keep it up for as long as it takes. Have the tenacity of the folks in Egypt who would not leave the demonstration until they had acquired victory.

The final step is to use the energy you have created to run candidates for office against those who have ignored and fought you. Ultimately, that is the office holders’ worst nightmare and may be the most effective way to get them to respond and serve their constituents.

Fighting ICLEI

If ICLEI is in your city, the details about Agenda 21 and the UN connection is easier. Your community is paying them dues with your tax dollars. Here is how to handle them: if your council derides your statements that their policies come from the UNs Agenda 21, simply print out the home page from ICLEI’s website — This will have all of the UN connections you’ve been talking about, in ICLIE’s own words. Pass out the web page copies to everyone in the chamber audience and say to your elected officials, “don’t call me a radical simply for reporting what ICLEI openly admits on its own web site. I’m just the one pointing it out — you are the ones who are paying our tax dollars to them.” Then demand that those payments stop. You have proven your case.

Stopping Consensus Meetings

Most public meetings are now run by trained and highly paid facilitators whose jobs is to control the meeting and bring it to a preplanned conclusion. If he is good at his job, the facilitator can actually make the audience think the “consensus” they have reached on an issue or proposal is actually their idea. This is how Sustainable Development is being implemented across the nation, especially in meetings or planning boards that are advertised as open to the public. They really don’t want you there and the tactic is used to move forward in full view of the public without them knowing what is happening. There is nothing free or open about the consensus process. It is designed to eliminate debate and close discussion.

To bust up the process you must never participate, even to answer a question. To do so allows the facilitator to make you part of the process. Instead, you must control the discussion. Here is a quick suggestion on how to foul up the works. Never go alone to such a meeting. You will need at least three people — the more the better. Do not sit together. Instead, fan out in the room in a triangle formation. Know ahead of time the questions you want to ask: Who is the facilitator? What is his association with the organizers? Is he being paid? Where did these programs (being proposed) come from? How are they to be funded?

One question to ask over and over again, both at facilitated meetings and city council meetings, is this: “With the implementation of this policy, tell me a single right or action I have on my property that doesn’t require your approval or involvement. What are my rights as a property owner?” Make them name it. You will quickly see that they too understand there are no property rights left in America.

By asking these questions, you are putting his legitimacy in question, building suspicion among the rest of the audience, destroying his authority. He will try to counter, either by patronizing and humoring you, at first, or, then becoming hostile, moving to have you removed as a disruptive force. That’s where the rest of your group come in. They need to back you up, demand answers to your questions. If you have enough people in the room, you can cause a major disruption, making it impossible for the facilitator to move forward with his agenda. Do not walk out and leave the room to him. Stay to the end and make him shut down the meeting.

In Conclusion …

These suggestions on how to fight back are, admittedly, very basic and elementary. They are meant only to be a guideline. You will have to do your homework and adapt these tactics to your local situation. These tactics are designed to create controversy and debate to force the Agenda 21 issue out of the secret meetings and into public debate where they belong. Many of these same tactics can be used at all levels of government, right up and into the state legislature. Our plan is to demand answers from elected officials who want to ignore us. They must be taught that such actions have consequences.

As we learn new, successful tactics, I’ll share them with activists across the nation. The American Policy Center is now in the process of creating a new website devoted to Sustainable Development where activists across the nation can share their findings, successful tactics and research with the rest of the movement. The website, not yet in action, is Watch for it.

The exciting news is that, finally, Americans are beginning to understand that Agenda 21 is destroying our nation and they are beginning to fight back. The battle to stop the UN’s Agenda 21 is flaming across the nation.
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education, and American sovereignty and independence. Go to for more information.
Copyright (C) 2011 American Policy Center, All rights reserved.

Related article:

Your Home Town and the United Nations’ Agenda 21

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Agenda 21 In One Easy Lesson

Posted by gamecocksunlimited on January 1, 2012

Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos. “Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out,” I’m asked.

So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I’ve also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.

A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.

What is Sustainable Development?

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Social Equity (Social injustice)

Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.

Economic Prosperity

Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.

Local Sustainable Development policies

Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.

Who is behind it?

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.

Where did it originate?

The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?

More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.

Revealing Quotes From the Planners

“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR

Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is!

“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

“No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

Agenda 21 and Private Property

“Land…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, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

Reinvention of Government

“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.

What is not sustainable?

Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paves and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.

Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people

“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… 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 process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »