Each state has the right to select three representatives to the Republican National Committee (Yes, the one that condemned and exposed Agenda 21!) and one must be a male and one must be female. The female one is the National Committeewoman. (I think the party chair also sits on the RNC.)
I am pleased to announce that our very one Donna Holt (the one who fought Agenda 21, Sandy? Yes that one!) is running for National Committeewoman. We need to try our very best to be at the state convention (if an elected delegate of course) to vote Donna Holt to the RNC!
Here is her letter:
Dear Friends of Liberty,
After a great deal of consideration and prayer, I am delighted to announce my candidacy for RNC National
Committeewoman.
Through my involvement in the Republican Party, I have come to realize that there is a distinction between
those who call themselves Republicans and those who live by conservative principles.
I do not wish to offend anyone with the points that I must make, as I know that many, if not most of our
Republican leadership operate under the most admirable intentions. My demur lies not with this framework
itself, but with the occasional lack of consideration for political principles within it.
I believe that the moral prerogative that charters the party cannot be cast aside merely at the bidding of the
mechanism itself.
The message of peace, liberty, and prosperity has loosened its guard. It saddens and concerns me that we
often see that the most important standard that our candidates are held to, is one of mere victory. If this is
our goal, then we really have no goal at all.
We have failed in our sacred duty of self-government, which is to offer compassionately to one another the
contract of liberty, and to stand relentless in defense of the moral action which that ideal necessitates.
Our loss of the presidential election in 2008 steered our country into the abyss. We are facing economic
devastation like nothing we’ve experienced in our lifetimes. Even worse than “The Great Depression”.
We simply cannot afford to lose again. The freedoms that we hold dear cannot survive another four years of
failed policies that plagued us even before the 2008 election.
I bring with me great hope for unity within the party. I am here to represent the Tea Party and Ron Paul
factions of the Republican Party and am seeking a seat at the table. It is not my ambition to take over the party,
but rather to unite the party.
One thing I know with absolute certainty, without each other, we cannot win in 2012 or in future elections. If
we are to have any hope of restoring fiscal sanity and the freedoms we hold dear, we must come together.
Together we can build a party platform that we can all agree on.
Together we will hold our elected officials accountable to those standards we all embrace.
Together we can garner the support of all factions of the GOP for the Republican nominee for President of the
United States in 2012 and beyond.
I ask that you cast your vote for unity by electing me to represent you as your RNC National Committeewoman
at the Virginia State Convention on Saturday, June 16, 2012.
P.S. My goal as RNC National Committeewoman is to have a seat at the RNC table; to help build a party platform
that we can all agree on; to garner the support of all factions of the Republican Party; to hold our elected officials
accountable to the principles we all embrace; to elect the Republican nominee for President of the United States
in November 2012.
Cast your vote for unity at the Virginia State Convention on Saturday, June 16, 2012.
Together we will win in 2012 and beyond.
Liberty is on the march in Virginia again! I am thrilled to ENDORSE Donna Holt for RNC National Committeewoman!
Today come to the National Day of Prayer at 530 and then afterwards head over to the Mechanicsville Tea Party to hear John Taylor of the Virginia Policy Institute speak on the Battle for the Soul of America: The philosophy of the Founding Fathers v. progressivism. Sounds like a great speech and I am sorry I can’t make it. If you can be there, go there!
MTP is moving its meeting nights to Wednesdays! Starting in June – first and third Wednesday! 7pm.
Also I have a report that the Mathews County GOP, following the lead of Gloucester and Middlesex County, has come out against Agenda 21. The best thing would be a resolution at the state level – the GOP state convention in June. If you are a delegate (I am too) that is a worthy goal.
OFFICIAL HINT: I am hearing the head of Democrats Against Agenda 21 is coming to Virginia…more on a future posting…
I had an email exchange with Robert Cox at Talk of the Sound and I am satisfied that Westchester County is indeed OUT of ICLEI. While there is at least one municipality in ICLEI within Westchester County, it is a community of nearly 950,000 persons OUT of ICLEI. I plan to find out more on this breaking story as to why the county decided to GET OUT of ICLEI.
I am owing a huge apology to Robert Cox and the Talk of the Sound. It is a lot more than just a blog group: They are a local media source that dares to take on local officials on issues of all sorts and project a good image for their community. It’s easy to call some politico in Oregon an idiot but when it is a local official, that’s another thing altogether.
Cox is Managing Editor of the Talk of the Sound. He double and triple checks all his stories. Cox is firmly against ICLEI and Agenda 21. He got the story of Westchester County out of ICLEI and broke it. Hitherto, Cox is a prime source. I’ll reblog all his stuff without question. Talk of the Sound the same thing. Read his stuff! He’s got great stuff. Here’s Cox’s latest story.
Just when there were faintsigns of liberalization in the PRC (People’s Republic of California), the regime City Council of Benicia (CA) decided they did not need any public discussion of ICLEI or Agenda 21:
In what is perhaps the most incredulous act of political indifference, the City Council, on April 3rd, voted 4 to 1 against a public request for an open discussion on the issue of Agenda 21. The rationale was extreme as vice-mayor Campbell and council member Schwartzman professed an innate ability to judge a “contract” on its merits regardless of the origin of the design. The irony of this and other comments by our City Council was that up until a few months ago, each publically professed no knowledge of Agenda 21 nor of its goals; go figure.
Councilmember Hughes is to be congratulated for making a motion to hear an overview of Agenda 21 as a way of helping educate the public. The City Manager took a position discounting the whole subject as an emotional issue regardless of the facts and information to the contrary provided in books and brochures. The most egregious positions were taken by Mayor Patterson and Council member Strawbridge, who suggested that the subject be assigned to the Community Sustainability Commission to be evaluated and imparted to the public. This idea is incredibly arrogant since the Community Sustainability Commission in its entirety is established under the precepts of Agenda 21 and does not present a balanced view of the Sustainability (environmental) subject.
Sounds like the regime City Council knows enough. The mayor and Council member Strawbridge want the sustainability commission to tell the public what ICLEI and Agenda 21 means! The fox will explain to the hens that all is okay before they get eaten! At least one Council member (Hughes) was willing to discuss the issue.
But, this activist (Dennis Lowry) in his community is not taking it lying down!
I will be publishing a series of articles to help the citizens of Benicia understand what Agenda 21 is and how insidious its goals are to our future. * * * I do not expect everyone to agree with me. However, I do challenge everyone to learn all you can learn about Agenda 21 and form your own opinion. More importantly, it is vital that you let your City Council know what you think so they will not simply ignore the concerns of its Citizenry.
You go Dennis! You are my hero. Keep it up! Feel free to use my stuff as needed. I think a different citizen should go to citizen’s time at every regime council meeting until they decide to debate this question or they are defeated at the polls at the next election. Maybe Dennis Lowry will help that process by running for Council or Mayor!
Cameron appointed to create new era of hard-headed, pro-market UN development policies
Pro-market UN development policies? Sounds like an oxymoron (pun not intended!) to me! But there actually is some encouraging items in this article:
The Millennium Development goals sound like and in some ways are congruent with Agenda 21 (Note number seven below) and here they are:
At present, the goals are:
Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Achieve universal primary education
Promote gender equality and empower women
Reduce child mortality
Improve maternal health
Combat HIV/AIDs, malaria, and other diseases
Ensure environmental sustainability
Develop a global partnership for development
Sounds great but the UN is clueless on bringing them about. So perhaps they ahve turned to a center-right politician to do it. To actually come up with new goals. And the PM wants to use the free market to bring them about:
The paper [The GVuardian] quotes a “Government source” as saying:
“We want to refocus the goals to put economic development at the heart. The current goals focus on kids’ right to education, levels of infant mortality and so on. They are fine, but does an exclusive emphasis on them really help development? What about new goals to give people property rights or economic rights? Andrew Mitchell thinks there needs to be a better debate about what drives development, and that economic factors need to be given much greater weight than they are right now in the current millennium development goals.”
I like what I am hearing. But will the globalists allow it? Or will David Cameron be compromised? The issue with the UN is often sovereignty and rights such as the right to bear arms. I do not get a warm fuzzy when I read a story like this:
David Cameron: “There is no doubt abuse is taking place” with the wealthy avoiding tax by giving to charities
Here’s the video of the Prime Minister calling for an alternative minimum tax (thanks to the Guardian):
What? It is “abuse” for people to give to charity to avoid (legally) income taxes? Makes me wonder about a politician tasked to chair a UN development committee. We’ll see…
If you live in Roanoke County, you know that the BOCS voted to keep ICLEI. It was somewhat expected in light of the continual dripping from the RoanokeTimes in favor of ICLEI and Agenda 21. But now you can tee off the Times! Sign the anti-ICLEI petition! ICLEI is still unconstitutional and it still implements the evil Agenda 21!
The pro-sustainability people always try to minimize their efforts as unimportant – they won’t take orders from the UN, they do not intend to harm people’s property rights, they are just a voluntary effort to make the world a better place for future generations. ICLEI is just a harmless little tumbleweed organization that just helps communities do what is right. It’s all a plot by the evil John Birch Society and bloggers/activists in the pay of big oil. (For the record, not one dime, silver or otherwise, has been paid to THIS blogger from any oil company!)
But check out this story about how environmentalism has been used to deprive people of their inalienable right to return home to a chain of islands they were forcibly and arguable illegally evicted from in the 1960s: The Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. They are part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); most of us know a bit about the largest island: Diego Garcia.
The Chagos Islands are about 600 miles from Mauritius (which claims them as part of their nation, see this article here from the Mauritius ambassador to the US) and they were not given to Mauritius (which they were apparently a part of during their colonial days) but rather kept back for defense reasons. But as this writer for the Telegraph (UK) reports, the UK and US decided to use the islands for defense purposes:
In the same year, a secret British-American conference was held in London. In the chilling words of official jargon, the islands “were closed” and, in an exchange of letters never shown to either Parliament or the US Congress, a defence agreement was signed leasing the Chagos Islands to the US for 50 years with the option of an extra 20-year extension. The deal was struck on the understanding that the entire island chain was “fully sanitised” and “cleansed” of life. In exchange, Britain would receive an $11million subsidy on the US’s Polaris submarine nuclear deterrent.
And the UK did indeed remove the islanders and in a scene chillingly similar to one of history’s darkest hours, gassed the pet dogs:
In the summer of 1971, a group of Whitehall officials arrived with an eviction order and informed the inhabitants that they were now illegal squatters. The islanders were duly deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, families split between islands in the hasty removal. In Mauritius, they were sent to a derelict housing estate where they made shelters for themselves in the stables and pigsties. It was worse still in the Seychelles, where they were housed in the prison.
This was a living nightmare for the Chagossians – but it was only the beginning. Soon they learned they would never be going home again, and that their British citizenship had been revoked. They were offered a mere £325 per person as compensation for losing their homes, their livelihoods, their history.
Before the islands could be handed over to the Americans, the British Army had one final task. They rounded up the 800 pet dogs that had been left and gassed them. “I first made the building secure, then introduced into it pipes attached to the exhaust pipes of US vehicles,” reported Mr Moulinie, the former UK-appointed official ordered to complete the “cleansing”. The islanders had been removed, their dogs gassed: the transformation could begin.
But the islanders appealed to a British court and they won!
There was a glimmer of hope in 2000, when the Chagossians went to the High Court and won the right to go home. The government, advised by the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, also ruled that the Chagos people could have their British passports returned. The islanders, now numbering a mere 450, celebrated their victory and flew to the UK, settling in Crawley, the nearest town to Gatwick, where they awaited their return to the islands.
But the United Kingdom refused to all the return and cited of all things, the impending formation of a environmental preserve over the entire island chain:
It seems a simple wish, but one which, in a new twist, has now been thwarted by the powerful environmental lobby. Last year, the islands were declared a marine sanctuary in which no people would be allowed to live, news that was greeted with delight by environmentalists but was condemned by human rights groups. Mauritius was furious with the decision. In 1965, Britain had promised that the Chagos Islands would be given to them when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.
“This has nothing to do with the environment,” says the Mauritian High Commissioner to London. “They want to prevent islanders from going back and keep these islands for ever. But we are not going to let this go.”
Even secrets revealed by Wikileaks put a lie to any claims that this was benevolent environmental stewardship:
Their concerns have been confirmed by Wikileak revelations released in December that have cast doubts on the environmental debate. According to the leaks, the Foreign Office had no regrets over the illegal action to expel them from the islands, and had been planning for some time to destroy their campaign to return home. Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office director, told the US political councillor that there would be no “Man Fridays” on the uninhabited islands.
In chilling language, the UK government was going to defy the court, permanently deprive the islanders of any rights without worries since the environmental movement has more power than a few islanders:
In a section of the document headed “Je Ne Regrette Rien”, Mr Roberts said: “We do not regret the removal of the population.” And he told the meeting that establishing a marine park would “in effect put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents”. When it was pointed out to him by the US officials that the Chagos people continue to demand a return to their homeland, he replied that the UK’s “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians’ advocates”.
There are other sources supporting the position that environmental concerns trumped human rights and the right to property. This report from the Guardian (UK):
The foreign secretary’s announcement (UK sets up marine reserve in controversial area, 2 April) of the establishment of a marine protected area (MPA) around the Chagos archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory) following the recently completed consultation is welcome news in principle. The area’s conservation value is undisputed. However, as John Vidal’s article (Good news for the warty sea slug is devastating for Chagos islanders, 30 March) indicates, there are important associated controversies regarding the displaced Chagossians’ right of return and Mauritian sovereignty claims. The FCO’s unilateral action over the MPA is exacerbating these tensions and unnecessarily undermining what should have been near universal support.
The Mauritian foreign minister is reportedly furious, having repeatedly requested a bilateral approach to the MPA process. Many Chagossians are similarly angered that the “no-take” commercial fishing zone may damage their future livelihood prospects. Their right of return – at least to the outer islands – could easily also have been granted magnanimously as part of the deal, thereby resolving what even the British government admits to have been a shameful historical injustice.
The original Chagossians, who were deported between 1967 and 1973 to make way for a giant US nuclear air force base on the largest island, Diego Garcia, say they would in effect be barred from ever returning because the marine protection zone would stop them fishing, their main livelihood. “There would be a natural injustice. The fish would have more rights than us,” said Roch Evenor, secretary of the UK Chagos Support Association, who left the island when he was four.
Nothing new here: Fish have more rights in the USA than people as the farmers in California found out to their sorrow:
IN 2007 Oliver Wanger, a federal judge in California, ordered the huge pumping stations of the Sacramento Delta, the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas, to reduce by a third the water they delivered to two aqueducts that run south to the farms of the San Joaquin Valley and onward to the vast conurbations of southern California. His reason was the delta smelt, a translucent fish less than eight centimetres (three inches) long that lives only in the delta and is considered endangered under federal law. The pumping plants were sucking in the fish and grinding them up. The next year, a “biological opinion” by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service reinforced Judge Wanger’s order.
Here’s an MSM video from this March! More of the same. Do the environmentalists care? Nope! Check out this position paper from the Pew Environment Group about the Chagos Islanders right of return:
We believe the Chagos Islands and their surrounding waters should be protected for the resources and values they have today “without prejudice” to the outcome of the legal process. This archipelago is biologically critical to the fish and other marine life of the Indian Ocean, upon which millions of people rely. The protections afforded by the Chagos Marine Reserve will help to ensure that the waters of the region and the resources they contain remain healthy no matter what the future holds.
Not a word about the islanders’ rights. (In fairness, the Guardian article cited Pew as saying they would support limited rights for the islanders to return.) Try this from Greenpeace:
In a letter on its website, Greenpeace said: “[We] acknowledge and support the Chagossians in their struggle, and hope that they are successful. But at the moment, the Chagos Islands are being administered by the UK government, and whatever way you look at it, taking steps to protect the marine life there is a good idea. If and when the Chagossians are repatriated, then the protection of the seas around the archipelago will need to be readdressed, and yes, that may well involve allowing fishing by the islanders.”
I am afraid that this is not an academic issue for the United Kingdom. it involves us, too. We are implicated in the displacement of the islanders.
Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office director, told the US political councillor that there would be no “Man Fridays” on the uninhabited islands.
I am not sure what is the right thing to do. We were fighting a cold war against communism at the time. Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to fix an omelet. We should look into this matter and do the right. Mauritius has an agenda, too: increasing it’s influence. But my point is: If you are concerned that the adherents of Agenda 21 would take your property rights away from you without any conscience, you’re right! Ask an Chagos islander – if you can find one!
PS: Here’s a website from islanders in UK and another pro-Chagos site for your review! I cannot speak for their accuracy or necessarily condone their politics.
While bills banning ICLEI have been introduced in several states, the best effort was quietly done in Arizona. The Senate and a House committee have voted to prevent the state and all its political subdivisions from implementing the Rio Declaration (That’s where Agenda 21 comes from!) and it bans ICLEI in Arizona! It passed the house committee by a unanimous vote, according to the Arizona Republic. There’s more:
The bill would bar the state and Arizona counties and cities “from adopting or implementing the United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.”
Under the provisions of Burges’ bill, the state, counties and cities could not accept funds from, spend funds from or give funds to “certain non-governmental organizations,” including non-profit groups and contractors, for any of the declaration’s initiatives.
The Arizona Republic’s reporting is, to put it mildly, shrill:
Arizona “tea party” members are pushing through legislation to quash government-funded efforts to reduce pollution and improve energy efficiency in cities, counties and the state.
Opponents of Senate Bill 1507, sponsored by Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, say the bill would shut down any government-led environmental initiative, such as Energize Phoenix, a $25 million, stimulus-funded project to improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses along the light-rail corridors in central Phoenix.
***
Similar bills opposed to the 1992 U.N. declaration and its guiding principles — to protect the Earth, all living things on it and to eradicate poverty — have been proposed by legislators in at least three other states: Kansas, New Hampshire and Tennessee.
The Democrat House member sounded ignorant at first:
“This is the most ludicrous bill I’ve ever seen in six years in the Legislature,” House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said.
But then he showed wisdom:
With this legislation, “you could pretty much shut down any form of government sustainability” efforts, he added.
Rep. Campbell, that is EXACTLY the POINT! We want to stop forced “sustainability” that is not necessary to meet legitimate environmental needs. Liberty and sovereignty is inconsistent with Agenda 21. And ICLEI implements Agenda 21, in spite of comments like this:
ICLEI spokesman Don Knapp said the group offers software and expert guidance to help its member cities, including Phoenix, implement green programs.
However, the organization cannot unilaterally implement programs.
“We are not an organization that has any authority,” Knapp said.
I am hoping and will monitor this bill for it has great effect and may be challenged in court and we’ll perhaps find out if ICLEI membership is unconstitutional. See this:
Tucson officials have issued a position statement to respond to bills that it considers “pre-emptive” to local authority and programs.
“I don’t believe that the state can dictate to a charter city who they can contract with,” said Chinwe Mary Okoye, a lobbyist for the city.
I await that challenge. Kick ICLEI and Agenda 21 OUT of USA!
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Rio declaration on environment and development;
3 prohibition; definition
4 A. The state of Arizona and all political subdivisions of this state
5 shall not adopt or implement the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet of
6 the United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and the
7 Statement of Principles for Sustainable Development adopted at the United
8 Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro,
9 Brazil in June, 1992 or any other international law that contravenes the
10 United States Constitution or the Constitution of Arizona.
11 B. Since the United Nations has enlisted the support of numerous
12 independent, non-governmental organizations to implement this agenda around
13 the world, the state of Arizona and all political subdivisions are prohibited
14 from implementing programs of, expending any sum of money for, being a member
15 of, receiving funding from, contracting services from, or giving financial or
16 other forms of aid to the International Council for Local Environmental
17 Initiatives or any of its related or affiliated organizations including
18 Countdown 2010, Local Action for Biodiversity, European Center for Nature
19 Conservation, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the
20 President’s Council on Sustainable Development, enacted on July 19, 1993 by
21 Executive Order 12852.
22 C. For the purposes of this section, “political subdivision” includes
23 this state, or a county, city or town in this state, or a public partnership
24 or any other public entity in this state.
I was not able to start our own version of Camp Constitution here in VA YET! But the globalists dare gloat at their peril: the original Camp Constitution is still in business and taking in young people for a week of turth about our history and institutions! Last year’s outstanding male camper was a young man from Richmond! Meet teens (ages 12-20) who agree with you and share your values. There is always a chaplain and voluntary chapel.
This year’s camp is from Saturday July 7 through Friday July 13 at lovely Toah Nipi in Rindge NH! There usually are state reps from the Granite State, tours of Concord or Lexington, the site where it is believed the original Uncle Sam came from and lots of good class on things like why ICLEI is bad and how to be an activist! (I sure wish there was a Camp Constitution when I was a kid! Man, I’d have wanted to go bad!) The great speaker Dr. Michael Coffman is scheduled to speak on Agenda 21. James Perloff will speak on why Darwinism is a fraud! There is also room for Family Camp so whole families can come regardless of age. (All these things are tentative and based on past years or the brochure for this year!)
Here’s the website for Camp Constitution and prices are complicated. The camp is ALWAYS looking for those who can pay a scholarship for a worthy camper.
Time to go to Camp! Thanks to Hal Shurtleff for the “friendly reminder” on the camp this year!
PS: Hal Shurtleff sent me this note: “We may have some attendees from VA or perhaps travel to PA and hoolkup with some folks there or we will be happy to provide transportation from airports, train stations and bus stations to camp.” Contact the Camp for more info!
Belle of Liberty is reporting that Passaic County, NJ at their budget meeting on March 27 said NO to ICLEI! They got out of the unconstitutional alliance!
Good news for Agenda 21 fighters: The Wayne Township Council passed a resolution condemning Agenda 21 and calling for the Passaic County Freeholders to withdraw from ICLEI. At the Passaic County Freeholder’s meeting on March 27th, the freeholders formally withdrew from ICLEI.
The Belle of Liberty is certainly right that beating ICLEI is not the final victory. But it does get another local government OUT of the Fifth Column that implements Agenda 21. Good news and a great encouragement for every activist feeling like the fight is hopeless.
Here at the C40 blog (C40 is another unconstitutional confederation of US and foreign cities similar to ICLEI but you have to be one of the forty largest cities to be eligible to join) we have the summary of Mayor Bloombberg’s speech to the Roundtable of OCED, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Chicago. (OCED is another international organization with dubious goals and intentions, see here.) This is Mayor Bloomberg’s plan for Rio+20 (the 20th anniversary of Agenda 21 celebrated in the city of its birth, Rio de Janiero). It’s disturbingly frank:
All four proposals — a consistent approach to tracking emissions; city-to-city partnerships between the developed and developing worlds; removing obstacles to city-level action; and expanding access to financing –are key to making the world’s increasingly urban future a sustainable one. Issued now on behalf of C40 Cities, these proposals will help to shape the Rio+20 agenda, and to seize the historic opportunity that it creates to put the world on the right path, with cities leading the way.
Mayor Bloomberg makes (unwittingly) a great argument for NOT joining ICLEI: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it…” That’s right. If you can’t measure so-called greenhouse gas emission, you can’t regulate those producing it. So stop measuring it! Get out of ICLEI instead.
The Big Apple mayor also encourages more unconstitutional confederations between cities when he asks for the national governments to allow cities in developed nations to spend national tax revenues to help cities in developing nations:
He also called on governments of economically advanced nations to provide financial support to city-to-city partnerships that transfer expertise and technology to developing countries.
Direct foreign aid from US cities to foreign ones! There is no way that does not violate the constitutional prohibition on cities having a foreign policy. But there’s more:
“The Mayor directed another proposal to national governments, calling on them change policies and practices that stymie local action and “to join us in removing the obstacles that may keep us from solving our problems ourselves.”
Finally, Mayor Bloomberg called for cities to be granted access to funding mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol: the Clean Development and the Joint-Implementation mechanisms. “Cities around the world are increasingly demonstrating that they have the desire, the knowledge, and the capacity to make effective use of such assistance,” he said, noting the historic partnership C40 has formed with the World Bank to help finance “green projects” at the city level.
Let’s remove those pesky constitutional prohibitions on cities having a foreign policy and let’s open it up so that cities can get money from foreign sources to perpetuate a Fifth Column to endorse “green” policies on national governments. All this is creepy and unconstitutional. Citizens need to ask their elected officials (respectfully of course!) do they agree with the NYC mayor or not? if so, how to they justify it? This is not just a bunch of jet-set mayors and local officials traveling on a foreign junkets on their citizens’ dime: That’s bad enough. They are serious. They want to influence us to adopt their foreign policy ideas. To adopt Agenda 21. (Remember, ICLEI implements Agenda 21!) If your city is in C40 or ICLEI, your municipality is helping it out. It’s past time. Time to GET OUT of all of it, starting with ICLEI.
I can hardly believe it. You would think the Tennessee House had voted to ban Christmas or something. Let’s start with the media editorial from a TN newspaper and work to the Mayor…
It should serve as a red flag that parts of the resolution before the Legislature are taken word-for-word from a John Birch Society model. That group, which fought the Civil Rights Act, promotes the view that anything connected with Agenda 21 is in reality a plot for one-world government.
Here’s the TN resolution. It is similar to the RNC resolution (it’s third in the list). Care to call the Republican National Committee in the pocket of the John Birch Society? I didn’t think so. Besides, to condemn a position because the JBS holds it is exactly McCarthyism defined. But the left is allowed to smear people and get away with it. The Southern Poverty Law Center has clearly shown it is not a poverty law center but simply another left-wing pressure group:
“They’re ginning up fears all around the country based on a conspiracy theory that holds no water whatsoever,” said a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Here’s the latest “article” from the SPLC on this “conspiracy”. Not one word about how ICLEI is unconstitutional or how Agenda 21, if implemented by a government can infringe on liberty and sovereignty. But plenty of the same McCarthyism the media editorial showed:
The Tenth Amendment Center and the Oath Keepers have launched propaganda campaigns to curb the supposed UN advance. Even the League of the South (LOS), a neo-Confederate group that advocates a second Southern succession, has gotten involved. Those attending the grand opening in January of the LOS compound in Wetumpka, Ala., had to wipe their shoes on a UN flag before entering the building. * * * Now, with the resurgence of the Patriot movement since President Obama’s election, Agenda 21 has moved to the top echelon of radical-right fears.
Just as it did with communism, the John Birch Society has done as much or more than any other group on the radical right to drum up panic and outrage. It has held more than a dozen conferences across of the nation in the last six months to sound the alarm. “It boils down to control,” spokesman Bill Hahn told The Missoulian after a protest in Missoula, Mont. “Do we allow an international organization to implement its extreme environmental agenda through innocuous names of sustainability, smart growth, etc., or do we retain the sovereignty that allows us to govern ourselves and decide locally what is best?”
Now we turn to the Mayor of North Little Rock, Patrick Henry Hays, who is a national leader of ICLEI!
As I finish my 24th year as mayor of my hometown, North Little Rock, Ark., I often reflect on my guiding principles. I believe in the U.S. Constitution, which I have sworn to uphold, and I have deep respect for those who have sacrificed to give us the best form of government on earth.
So why are you allowing your city to join a confederation with foreign cities that represents its members at UN conferences? Maybe we need an election in North Little Rock! Mayor Hays thinks it’s “un-American” to ban cities from joining ICLEI:
A law to take away local governments’ freedom to join a nonprofit is un-American. ICLEI proudly supports the self-defined local goals of its 550 U.S. city and county members.
There does not need to be a law. The CONSTITUTION forbids it! North Little Rock is not allowed to have a foreign policy or join with other cities to pursue foreign policy goals! Mayor Hays admits as such here:
Agenda 21 is an outline of voluntary choices for how all levels of government can become more sustainable, and it is not being forced on anyone, anywhere. It was negotiated by national government representatives from around the world in 1992, with input from local governments. (emphasis added)
What North Little Rock needed 28 years ago was term limits! In lieu of that, let’s hope someone runs against Mayor Hays who can show long time community involvement and also debate this issue so people are informed. I agree with Mayor Hays with his last line here:
Additional light on a path never hurts the traveler in choosing the best way to go.
All right, who’ll do it? Shine some light on their mayor? Run against Mayor Hays?
Finally, let me say, no one has answered the objections of the anti-Agenda 21 resolution. They have just brought up McCarthyite smears and misleading positions. we must be winning. The Tennessee House is right. Time to pass the anti-Agenda 21 resolution without delay.
Thanks to my hero, Lisa Martin from Carver MA (who helped get HER city OUT of ICLEI!) for these stories!
One more city OUT OF ICLEI! Here’s the report from the Stop Agenda 21 in Texas site:
Tommy Gonzalez, the Irving City Manager, and Mayor Beth Van Duyne have officially announced that Irving, Texas is no longer a member of ICLEI. Irving’s membership with ICLEI ended February 2012 and they decided not to renew their membership.
Certainly feel free to thank them for their wonderful, constitutional decision! Thanks to two determined activists, one more city is OUT OF ICLEI!
This activist, Robert Kecseg, in Irving, TX had the right idea! He went to staff first, was calm, did not call people names, mentioned the political aims of ICLEI, made the point is that a city council cannot be joined with a organization like ICLEI with a narrow political agenda.
Kecseg cited the quote about land from Agenda 21 that calls land a resource that must be publicly owned.
Here is the video. (It’s okay to cheer but watch for over excitement!)
The Treasurer of the Irving Republican Women’s Club also urged the Irving City Council to get out of ICLEI:
I found this blog entry from Jerel D. “Jerry” Erickson, who lives in Sioux Falls, and most of this article is about garbage collection BUT this is exciting:
The city of Sioux Falls will not renew its membership in ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, according to Aimee Ladonsky, Director of Hazardous Waste. You may not have known Sioux Falls was a member of ICLEI or even what it means to be a member. ICLEI, the implementation arm of the United Nations and Agenda 21, gave us “Sustainability”. Ms Ladonsky said she had something to do with our ICLEI association, adding that a resident had approached her with the idea (circa 2008). With that caveat, she is absolved, and now we are saddled with a Sustainability Master Plan and “going green”. In 2011, our City Council approved acceptance of a $200,000 Federal stimulus grant to hire Beck SAIC to write the 2 ½ inch-thick plan. Open wide, Sioux Falls.
This is what happens when you bring ICLEI in: it tends to cost more down the road! BUT this is a great story and I have contacted Sioux Falls to see if true.
The Tennessee anti-ICLEI bill was withdrawn by its sponsor and the anti-smart growth bill defeated in committee, according to the Tennessean:
Womick took House Bill 3571 off notice Wednesday, meaning it will not be considered again this year. That bill would ban local governments and other entities from taking part in programs with ICLEI or a few other groups.
Another he proposed, House Bill 3572, was deferred. That bill says property rights means not having to follow any “smart growth” plans, including accommodating greenways or bike lanes.
The anti-Agenda resolution, that is non-binding, appears to be headed to a House vote.
The separate House Joint Resolution 0587, which passed the full committee Tuesday, is expected to go to the House floor for a vote as early as next week.
There is a Senate bill that bans ICLEI that has not yet been acted upon. If you live in Tennessee, contact your state senator and ask him/her to vote YES on SB 3407. Here’s the text and here’s the legislative history. I’ll keep you informed!
I was gratified at this blog’s endorsement of Ron Paul and Tom White asked me to share a few words of my own.
I am voting for Ron Paul tomorrow. I am voting for Paul because:
I believe liberty is in danger from NDAA military indefinite detention without an attorney for anyone accused of being affiliated with terrorists
I believe some aspects of the USA Patriot Act go too far and threaten liberty.
I believe we must stop starting wars and placing our soldiers in harm’s way for regimes such as Afghanistan where we are hated and where Christians are persecuted. We need to (unless the national interest is imminent) to mind our own business!
I believe we need to stop most interventions and work to balance the budget, pay down the debt and get our financial ship back in order.
I believe if a central bank is needed it must be strictly supervised and audited.
I believe President Paul will reverse many Obama and Bush era executive orders
I believe President Paul will fight Agenda 21 and ICLEI and many other UN threats to our sovereignty
Perhaps there are other reasons to vote Paul but those are just a few. I invite the reader to look about you at this blog in my prior writings about Ron Paul.
I realize I am a bit like the commander [Katsumoto] in The Last Samurai who dies in the final battle fighting for his nation that had lost its way. But we must do what we can, pray for our nation and its leaders in that I believe in a God who rewards right and punishes the wrong and I want to believe in the right. I know the Lord Jesus is coming again and will make things right but the time of tribulation preceding that will be terrible. (If you do not know Jesus, you cannot escape that judgment. But here‘s where you go to know Jesus!)
Ron Paul has his flaws (I wish he’d never been involved in the newsletters as they do not reflect his heart) but I cannot vote in a primary for Gov. Romney. I do think he is honorable and will be a vast improvement over the present occupant in the White House but he does not have the passion for liberty Paul does.
I wish there were more choices on the ballot. But the Santorum and Gingrich supporters need to vote strategically. Vote for Ron Paul here. I heard on the radio this afternoon on the way home from work that former Rep. Hayworth from Arizona (who ran against Sen. McCain) called for Virginians to protest the ballot access and vote Ron Paul. I agree.
Finally, I would like to see a brokered convention as the best way to get either Ron Paul, Sen. Rand Paul or Gov. Bobby Jindal for our standardbearer in 2012. People in various states need to vote strategically to deny Romney needed wins. Keep at it, keep fighting for liberty and sovereignty.
Here’s the response from the City Manager of the City of Vista, CA in re renewal of ICLEI:
Dear Sandy
The City of Vista is currently a member of ICLEI and has been for more than three years. As a result of being a member, ICLEI provided the City an Intern to work on the City’s Climate Action Plan mandated by the State of California. The City has decided through the budget process that it will not budget the ICLEI Membership for next fiscal year. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Patrick Johnson
Two observations: It is a clear victory for the Constitution and the anti-ICLEI forces!
Second, see how ICLEI creates a bureaucracy – today your community joined ICLEI and next year you have a intern “provided” by ICLEI and soon you have a sustainability director like Carroll County did before the Carroll County Revolution that started our victories against ICLEI and Agenda 21!
But today, the City of Vista joins the Wall of Honor. Thanks to City Manager Richard Johnson for his prompt response.
