If a young man were to stand on a soap box outside the steps of your local municipal building and began espousing things like “From each according to their wealth, to each according to their need!” wouldn’t many of us become suspicious of his ties to Communism and Socialist ideology. Even if this individual was unaware that he was paraphrasing Karl Mark, even if this individual had no connection to a Socialist Party, the individual is still advancing socialism.
If that individual held a local political office and tried to advance that position, even though they might be completely ignorant of their ideological connections, the ideology is the same and now, if in implementing this policy through local ordinance and law, they are advancing the cause of Socialism.
That is not some bizarre accusation related to a leap of parallel language. When you are saying the same things you are advancing the same cause and principle.
There are some who separate Agenda 21 from Federal, State and local Government policy no matter how much that Federal State or Local law or ordinance is promoting the same ideology. For some this is an inability to see a difference between global governance and a global government. Agenda 21 is really about promoting a world view by encouraging governments to adopt a one-size fits all approach to community planning that drives us towards less Individual Property Rights and more Public Property Rights. It is a political viewpoint that others know better how you should make use of your land than you do. Agenda 21 is not really about some centralized Agency of the UN running the world. It is about pushing an agenda to bring all governments to a common political ideology. It is an ideology that is foreign to the foundation and principles of America. It is an ideology that rejects property ownership in the hands of the individual and places that land in some form of government trust. Agenda 21 is not just a document; it is an ideology…a political world-view. Anything that advances that world view is a part of that world view.
Agenda 21 promotes specific ratios of land use. A percentage of land in any designated area should be determined and then permanently secured as open space; another portion of the land as recreational land; still another for commercial land; another for human settlements. Through Agenda 21 these ratios become a standard of measurement of the success of each community. Any Federal or State Regulation that attempts to bring us in compliance is an attempt to bring us under the worldview of Agenda 21 even though that policy may not have come directly from Agenda 21.
Politics is a lot like religion. We align ourselves to political viewpoints, find a Political Denomination that subscribes to that viewpoint and then we promote that Political Denomination as the only view that embraces absolute truth. In any Political Religion there are pundits. The pundits job is to persuade others that their Political religion is the best denomination for us to align ourself with. Because Americans are indoctrinated to believe in a right vs. left viewpoint we often fail to understand that it is a bit more complicated than simply Republicans Vs. Democrats, or The Right Vs. The Left. When we reach that point we sometimes lose focus on the principle in assuring that our own political denomination wins the popular vote.
During the Presidential debate, Newt Gingrich was attacked when he said that social engineering is wrong, whether it comes from the right or the left. The attack came from Republicans and Democrats alike but exactly what was it that is wrong about that statement? Newt Gingrich was talking about the principles of freedom and liberty belonging in the realm of the unalienable right of Individuals not in the power of a Political viewpoint controlling the individuals choices. It can be put in another more harsh context: When you are lying on the ground with a boot on your throat, does it really matter if the boot is a left foot or a right foot?
Agenda 21 is not just a document that came out of the United Nations. No matter how much we may despise the United Nations, just because a policy originates there doesn’t make it a bad idea. The thing that makes it a bad idea is the principles…the ideology it advances. In my opinion, anyone who advances that ideology, whether directly aligned with the United Nations or not, is still advancing that world view. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck-it’s probably a duck.
Locally there has, of late, been a lot of resistance to Agenda 21. I would align myself with those who oppose it. Align, perhaps, does not fully encompass how much I despise Agenda 21. I do not simply despise Agenda 21 because of the document and where it originated, I despise it because it stands in opposition of everything I believe about the principles of Liberty and Freedom. I abhor the notion that any Government, local, State or Federal, has all the formulaic solutions to all our problems. I abhor anything that seeks to further diminish my rights over my own property no matter where it originates. It’s about the principle.
I have taken the time to read the Agenda 21 document. I’ve also read the Bruntland Report. I’ve tried to stay on top of the ideology or Agenda 21 I am familiar with the language of this political world view. I have tried to stay on top of the implementation of this political world view and there is a common thread. That common thread is a language that is particular to this worldview that functions as the language of core doctrines that define the principles of Agenda 21.
When that language begins creeping into any government policy, Federal, State or local, I see no difference between the unaware individual on the soapbox promoting socialism with no real connections to Karl Marx and the person promoting the world view of Agenda 21 no matter how unaware they are of Agenda 21. What they are promoting is an ideology that is in violation of my core belief when it comes to property rights. It is the principle I oppose not simply a policy or a document. Something doesn’t suddenly become okay because the individual advancing this world view states it’s not the same as Agenda 21 and can prove no physical allegiance to Agenda 21. If there is a spiritual equation in that it seeks to advance the same principles of Agenda 21 then there is no difference because it is not the document I oppose but the principles (i.e. the ideology) that the document advances.
I wholeheartedly agree with Dennis Prager’s comment that the number one crisis facing America is that we have forgotten what it means to be American. I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Folmer when he says that we are sacrificing principle on the altar of self-interest.
I do not disagree with the fact that in order to understand what those who oppose our ideology believe we have to know what they believe. I also believe that it is more important, however, for us to know not just what we believe but why we believe it. When we understand this it makes it far more difficult when the opposing ideology comes in front of us to make our points and explain our position, or simply to just recognize what is wrong with this viewpoint.
Three municipalities have rejected the language of Agenda 21. In doing so they have taken a stand to not simply oppose a document but to stand up for what they believe, for the principles of traditional local governance, and reject the ideological intentions of Agenda 21. I can assure you that all three municipal decisions were led by research into the ideology of Agenda 21 that has confirmed their own experience as elected officials in our local governments.
This decision does not make them anti-environmental. They all understand the need to be good stewards of our environment. They have seen the over-regulatory authority of the State and they understand full-well that compliance bears a long-term heavy price that is born by honest and decent people who are finding it more and more difficult to stay in their homes.
The political ideology of the world-view of those who embrace Agenda 21 has infiltrated both political parties in Pennsylvania and our Federal Government. Just as the Progressives infiltrated our institutions of higher learning, the ideologues of Agenda 21 have permeated the Administrative agencies of our State and Federal Government. When President Clinton enacted the President’s Council on Sustainable Development by executive order they adopted the core doctrines of Agenda 21 as their “We Believe” statement. The agency was manned by people who were instrumental in creating the UN Agenda 21. They then began to develop a plan to move this doctrine into other Administrative Agencies in the Federal Government. Agencies like the EPA, Department of Agriuculture, HUD and the Department of Energy. When the President’s Council onSustainable Development was ended many of those same people went into these agencies and began, through regulatory authority, to push the ideology of Agenda 21.
ICLEI realized very early in this process that if the principles of Agenda 21 were to be fully realized, it would have to be implemented at the local level through local government and they set to work adapting eco-friendly language while generating false-crisis to push their formulated ratios of intended land use. Through the crisis of Global Warming, now simply referred to as Climate Change, they instituted a world view where anyone critical of the science was ostracized which narrowed a window of opposition. They then used this as the fuel behind Sustainability implementation that was adopted by regional planners and then as States moved to force comprehensive plans down to the local level, forcing them to do something many municipalities felt was unnecessary in order to comply with these new regulations, including the development of a Comprehensive plan that met certain obligations of the Municipality Planning Codes established in the states.
The legislation and documentation to promote this agenda is always unnecessarily longer than they must be to generate confusion about compliance. Like the “science” of climate change, the data is collected to reach a predetermined conclusion and any “science” contrary to the claims must be universally rejected.
Take the claim that Lebanon County has only 6.5 acres of recreational land for every 1000 residents in the 2007 Regional Comprehensive plan. This figure does not include State Game land, Golf Courses, County-Owned parks like Coleman, Governor Dick and others and countless other acres of designated recreational land. Not even the rail to trail is included. Yet, what we have seen is municipalities ignoring the obvious and embracing the recommendation generating false choices in meeting a need where none exist. They are trying to comply with a recommendation of meeting a need for more recreational land when, in the County, once all recreational land is included, there is an acre of recreational land for every 5 people.
The “recommendation” of the County Comprehensive plan was to grow the use to rail freight service to stave off truck usage on our roads. We then see communities scrambling to comply in their locally mandated comprehensive plans responding to claims that are questionable at best.
The compliance is accepting a political world view ideology while ignoring what is really taking place. We aren’t really responding to actual community needs, which is the intention of local government, but compiling a list of wants that have been predetermined to promote the ideology of Agenda 21 and the cost of all of this implementation will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the property owners through the already egregious property tax.
The common language is there. It permeates all of these plans because the source of these plans, the promoters, are giving our municipalities selective data to reach a predetermined conclusion and creating needs where often, the need quite simply does not exist.
The promoters promise economic growth and prosperity. They have openly embraced the myth that if you build it they will come. Not when they can’t afford it. Not when the cost is higher than the gain and that is where the entire Sustainability Agenda begins to collapse.
That cost is born by the property owner. Tucked neatly away within all these plans is the development of new ordinances that only further promote the ideology of public owned land, not private property rights. Frankly I’m tired of surrendering that right and I don’t care if it’s the UN, The Federal Government, The State Government or my local municipality that is the one taking those rights away.
There is a principle that blood was shed for that allowed this nation to come into being and that was the principle of the protection of our Individual Property Rights and I will not sit by silently while any authority, local or global, seeks to deny those rights to me. Those rights are not the governments realm to give, only the government’s responsibility to protect and Thank God for the three municipalities who actually recognize that, above all, it is their responsibility to protect those rights. The Local Government’s single obligation is to comply with the protection of our Individual and Sovereign Rights, not any regulation regardless of its source. Any Governmental body or agency who seeks to violate these Rights is guilty of betraying the principle upon which this nation was founded and the intention of the Protections of our State and Federal Constitutions which is paramount to treason.
Let’s stop this nonsense of pretending that because the UN itself isn’t the one driving the Agenda at the local level that it can’t possibly be Agenda 21. It is more than a document, it is social engineering of the worst kind and any document that promotes the same ideology through the same language has the same intended goals.