Planning derided as new socialism; How Agenda 21 ties back locally

Controversy over Agenda 21 has been revived by opponents claiming the concurrent revision of all three Comprehensive Plans smack of one-world domination. Toano couple Keith and Sue Sadler are vocal opponents of initiatives they see tied to Agenda 21. They explain Why.

What’s the impact of Agenda 21?

The question should be ‘What is Agenda 21?’ First, it’s important to understand the terms “Sustainable Development” and Agenda 21 are used interchangeably. Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally and implemented locally. Agenda 21 affects us through property rights, and without property rights there is no freedom or liberty. Either you own property or you become property. This agenda uses United Nations founding documents over the U.S. Constitution.

What’s the threat?

One threat could be undermining our Constitution. First, you need to understand and research the Founders’ intent. The term “Sustainable Development” was coined in 1987 by Gro Harlem Bruntland, a Norwegian socialist. Our Founding Fathers were not socialists, but most of the founders of this agenda proudly proclaim to be just that.

Sustainable Development is a political agenda originating in the U.N. This is not surprising, since many of the nations represented needed a point to rally around. The U.N. Charter provided that.

Whereas our U.S. Declaration of Independence protects our citizens and their labor, the U.N. Declaration programs government the right to withhold your property for the good of the community. To implement Sustainable Development in the U.S., unalienable rights, such as the right to property, must be eroded. A specific example of this threat can be seen locally when unelected therefore unaccountable boards and committees counsel, direct and implement issues contract to our Constitution.

For example?

There are countless examples of the harmful effects of Agenda 21. Where is the proof that it’s positive? In Mathews County, approximately 75% of property is now considered non-tidal wetlands. If your property has loblolly pine or honeysuckle, you have very little control.

Then there’s the Idaho couple who has taken their case to the Supreme Court. They bought a lot in an established residential area with other homes established, platted with required water and sewer hookups. They obtained their necessary permits to begin building, and for three days brought in fill dirt to begin construction. The EPA suspected their property might be wetlands, ordered them to restore it and failure to comply would mean $75,000 per day in fines. The Sacketts won their case. (see link).

Any local instances?

Right here in our area we have Ironbound Square. How has that been beneficial? There are issues with water, EPA, National Association of Counties, Virginia Association of Counties, surface water regulations. The list goes on and on.

You got James City to withdraw from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Why was that important?

I was glad some on the Board of Supervisors listened to our concerns. ICLEI is an international organization founded in 1990 by the U.N. The idea was conceived in 1989 by Larry Agran, mayor pro tem of Irvine, Ca., and at one point a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and Jeb Brugmann, a Canadian socialist.

ICLEI uses the false premise and outright deception of anthropogenic global warming to chance our way of life. Social engineering and behavior modification are stated objectives of certain human engineers under the guise of environmentalism. ICLEI promotes Sustainable Development, Local Agenda 21 and regionalism, all of which put our representative government at risk. We are opposed to any organization that is conceived by, supported by, or has anything to do with socialism.

Agenda 21 is buried in an obscure document. You are opposing local decisions. Why not take the matter to federal legislators?

It is being addressed on local, state and federal levels. The Republican National Committee now has resolution against U.N. Agenda 21, and if you visit the website Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21 (see link) you can see where they are working with their leadership to do the same. This is a stated global plan to be implemented locally.

If it’s so obscure, why was it so proudly introduced on the House floor in 1992 by a Republican from Michigan Rep. William Broomfield, Rep. Eliot Engel and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development is what followed, the grants to the American Planning Association and the dots continue. (See House Session link)

Detractors deride the movement as a paranoid conspiracy theory.

In nearly every news report regarding efforts to combat Agenda 21, we are depicted as “lunatics,” “kooks” and “conspiracy theorists.” If the U.S. is not implementing the U.N. plan, why are we reporting to the U.N. about our progress, implementing what supposedly does not exist? (See National Reports link).

When I am reading and studying directly from their documents, their plans, does that really make me the crazy or is their plan itself crazy?

Locally, the Gazette often seems to imply that it’s a Democrat versus Republican thing. This is not the case. If it were then how would you explain the CSPAN video, clearly showing representatives from both parties specifically adopting Agenda 21, a directive from the U.N. for then President George Herbert Walker Bush. Reading directly from their documents, their words, does not make me the conspiracy theorist.

What’s wrong with a regional discussion of local comprehensive plan?

There’s nothing wrong with discussion. And I’m glad to see Chairman (Mary) Jones and Supervisor (Jim) Kennedy accomplished the first meeting in 15 years.

Cooperation  and communication are important. Regionalism is communism, plain and simple. It blurs boundary lines and takes us into an administrative form of government that is controlled by non-elected officials. When appointed administrative staff wield power, elected officials become little more than rubber stamp.

You recently argued that only a few issues cross county lines, such as roads. Yet some say jurisdictions will try to capitalize on land use patterns in neighboring jurisdictions. Should they address that type of machination?

Absolutely, this is why I applauded Chairman Jones for accomplishing the first such meeting in over 15 years between our accountable elected representatives, so they could address these and other issues important in our respective localities.

They need to work together, we all do, to not take advantage of others. This is why we elected them in the first place. It seems we should all agree that such a conspiracy, some else’s nefarious or crafty scheme should not be encouraged by anyone. This is the entirety of why we oppose these types of efforts.

If my kids were to so casually or conversationally promote such subterfuge, I would wash their mouths out with soap, because this is neither honest nor honorable and is absolutely contrary to protecting our individual and collective rights, our sovereignty, our freedom and liberty.

You also opposed the Historic Triangle Collaborative.

The Historical Triangle Cooperative is a huge implementation of Agenda 21 directed through collaborative planning. We have questions. Who are they and what is their purpose? Who is funding this? Why was it written by a W&M student? What is its role in our comp plans?

And James City’s membership in the American Planning Association?

The APA belongs to an organization called the Planners Network. If you visit its website (see link), you can read many of the articles written about socialism and Marxism. The site states they are progressives, serving as a voice for social, economic and environmental justice through planning. This is socialism.

The APA was awarded more than $4 million in grant money to develop comprehensive planning. It produced “Growing Smart: A Legislative Guidebook.” It contains model laws and executive orders states can choose from. The language in one of the model laws reads “Government may enter upon land and act to put it in compliance.” The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits this.

What’s wrong with sustainability?

Nothing, but its been co-opted by the U.N. Here are some of the things listed as sustainable:

According to sister documents to Agenda 21, the Rio Accords and Global Bio-Diversity Assessment Report. What is not sustainable? Private property, golf courses, ski lodges, irrigation, monotheism, commercial agriculture, and the family unit.

Does the U.N. have an interest in eliminating private ownership of land and national resources? The 1976 Habitat Conference Report states: “Private land ownership is also principally an instrument of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land is therefore indispensable.”

  1. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to President Bill Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development and director for the Center for Sustainable Communities, stated “Participating in a U.N.-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many who would actively work to defeat any elected official who was undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else such as Comprehensive Planning or Smart Growth.”

Do property rights trump sustainability?

Property rights are unalienable according to our Declaration of Independence. Sustainability is not in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution. Sustainability is covered in the U.N. documents, and unfortunately they hijacked the term.

Should property rights trump protecting the environment?

We are in favor of good stewardship of the environment but not the U.N. controlling our property. The environmental agenda is based on flawed computer models having data that was omitted and was not fully revealed, as opposed to NASA weather balloon and satellite models.

Environmentalism is based on the false premise of global warming. Some great resources on this are “Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change,” and Sen. James Inhofe’s book, “The Greatest Hoax: How The Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.”

Anything else?

This is not about Democrat versus Republican. This is about the U.S. versus the U.N.

This is about our Constitution versus Socialism. This is about a huge list of towns and states across the U.S. that are kicking ICLEI out and writing resolutions against Agenda 21, including the non-partisan Americans For Prosperity and the Republican National Committee.

This is about the United States and our Constitution.

More – Contact Concerned Citizens of the Historic Triangle at CCotHT@gmail.com

Links

Sacket case: http://absnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/supreme-court-rules-for-idaho-couple-in-epa-battle/

Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21: www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

House of Representative session: http://www/c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSession758 (Advance to 11:43:30-11:51:48)

U.N. national reports: www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_ni/ni_pdfs?National Reports/usa/Full_text.pdf

Planners Network: www.plannersnetwork.org

Copyright © 2017, The Virginia Gazette