A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

**someguy** · 01-31-2012 06:07 PM

I'd like to bring a quotation from the Club of Rome into this discussion as it seems to fit nicely at this point in the conversation. From Wikipedia: "In 1993, the Club [of Rome] published The First Global Revolution.^[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."^[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."^[6] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."^[7]So who makes up the Club of Rome anyway? Yet another quote from Wikipedia: "It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN bureaucrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe." Sounds like the .1% to me. Essentially this globalist think tank wants to turn us against ourselves! They want to make humanity the enemy!

The interesting thing to take note of here is that the people in this organization have written a book stating what they are going to do openly! And then like clock-work, the media, the bureaucrats, and the like trumpet this idea and according to plan, they change the mentality of the population. Do we really think these guys have our best interests in mind? Do we think that these power hungry individuals care so much about us and the planet? Or are they using it as an excuse to consolidate power as always??? These are the same people pushing GMO's on us globally without a care in the world about the ramifications on the planet. We all know this here on Wacco. We are all politically awake enough to realize these concepts. So lets stop this left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative crap and get down to exposing these criminals for who they are. Let's use the tools our founding fathers gave us to fight back against an out of control federal government/corporate government that serves only to squash the rights of the individual and funnel all the resources upwards.

Iolchan · 01-31-2012 10:12 PM

Occupy The Highlands

Rosa Koire wrote:

The three cornerstones of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development are Economy, Ecology, and Social Equity.

Economic collapse creates a chain of events, but on a micro level (county, city) there is a marked reduction in revenue for maintenance of services. Loss of services to outlying areas means, for example, roads not being maintained to rural/suburban areas. Sonoma County Board of Supes last year said that they would only be paving 150 miles of the more than 1,380 miles of county roads. They intend to pulverize the 1,200+ miles of road and return them to gravel.

Roads not being maintained to those areas, schools not being supported in those areas, law enforcement/fire/social services not being supported in those areas means a gradual movement into the denser city centers. Add to that the increased cost of gasoline (manipulated), and the higher cost of energy (manipulated) to heat and cool statistically larger homes, and you have more pressure to leave rural and suburban areas.

Reduction of energy usage is key. Smart Growth/New Urbanism is the supposed answer: smaller units, attached condos, little or no parking, few private cars. More eyes on the street. Paid for and subsidized with your property tax dollars through redevelopment, and your transportation tax dollars. You pay for 30-45 years, or longer and this money is diverted from your city and county General Funds.

In addition to these factors, ecologically motivated regulation makes rural/suburban development prohibitive. From stream/creek/ditch protection to watershed protection, to bayland/inland/rural corridor prohibitions, to increased species protection (lists are growing), the use of land is greatly limited. Water well monitoring and loss of water rights reduce the opportunity for living outside of cities.

Wildlands programs that prohibit roads/trails into rural areas while supposedly protecting them with conservation easements (sale of development rights to Agricultural Land Trusts that restrict farmers and ranchers from using their lands and therefore make it impossible to farm for more than one more generation) increase the loss of our food source independence.

This is all very significant. I live in rural Sonoma County myself, so it definitely concerns me, personally. I also am in complete agreement with our own local celebrity, and auteur, Richard Heinberg, that in order to survive the crisis / bottleneck that will surely come at the End of Oil, millions and millions of Americans need to move back to the Land, and learn how to live on Farms. A Fact.

If Rosa's interpretation of U.N. Agenda 21 is correct - If, indeed it is the blueprint for the Agenda of the power elite; I begin to see a whole other scenario in my mind's eye:

Do you remember Al Gore's movie about Global Warming? As much as I detest Gore and his sleazy scheme to cash in on Carbon Credit futures, the thing that I took away with me after I left the movie theater was the credible - and alarming fact - that if both the West Antarctic Ice-shelf, and the Greenland Ice Sheet were to break off, and dissolve into the Ocean, that the Seas would rise forty feet. Of course, I'd heard this rap before, from hanging out with some of the Brain Trust of Earth First; but Gore's movie brought the point home with graphic visual details.

Couple this with the stated intention of this Agenda to cram the Masses into low-lying cities, on the Coastal plains, and you get the Vision of millions and millions of po' folks drowning & dying like the denizens of the Ninth Ward after the levee broke. It would seem then, that this Agenda runs counter to the best interests and the survival of the Masses; i.e., We, the Plebes... In short, it is another front in the Class War.

The Power Elite who run the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Security Council of the UN are our Class Enemy, kids. They don't mean us no good.

OCCUPY -- THE -- HIGHLANDS

Mark Walter Evans

**someguy** · 02-01-2012 09:32 AM

This video is a good example of how global warming, and other fake environmental crisis are being used by the corporate elite to offer nice sounding solutions to the so called problems. Just watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fT-ChdL8BbY#!

Notice the wonderful euphemistic language being used, as well as the scare tactics. All to get you to go against your better judgement and fall into their trap. This is exactly what Agenda 21 does. This is what the Club of Rome states they are going to do. This is the global warming swindle at work.

Mark mentioned Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, and how it made him feel. Here is what he said, "the thing that I took away with me after I left the movie theater was the credible - and alarming fact - that if both the West Antarctic Ice-shelf, and Greenlandwere to break off, and dissolve into the Ocean, that the Seas would rise forty feet. Of course, I'd heard this rap before, from hanging out with some of the Brain Trust of Earth First; but Gore's movie brought the point home with graphic visual details." I don't mean to attack Mark because he is a great guy, smart too, but I have to point out the lies that are blatant and proven in a court of law to be so in that film.

https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

"Gore says that a sea-level rise of up to 6 m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise.

The IPCC says sea-level increases up to 7 m (23 ft) above today’s levels have happened naturally in the past climate, and would only be likely to happen again after several millennia. In the next 100 years, according to calculations based on figures in the IPCC’s 2007 report, these two ice sheets between them will add a little over 6 cm (2.5 inches) to sea level, not 6 m (this figure of 6 cm is 15% of the IPCC’s total central estimate of a 43 cm or 1 ft 5 in sea-level rise over the next century). Gore has accordingly exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by approaching 10,000 per cent.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC estimates a sea-level rise of “59 cm” by 2100. She fails to point out that this amounts to less than 2 ft, not the 20 ft imagined by Gore. She also fails to point out that this is the IPCC’s upper estimate, on its most extreme scenario. And she fails to state that the IPCC, faced with a stream of peer-reviewed articles stating that sea-level rise is not a threat, has reduced this upper estimate from 3 ft in 2001 to less than 2 ft (i.e. half the mean centennial sea-level rise that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago) in 2007.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s 2007 sea-level calculations excluded contributions from Greenland and West Antarctica because they could not be quantified. However, Table SPM1 of the 2007 report quantifies the contributions of these two ice-sheets to sea-level rise as representing about 15% of the total change."

This is just one of the many proven lies that a peppered throughout that propaganda piece. Just like the Monsanto video above. In addition, Al Gore himself knows that his this claim of sea level rise is a hoax as he bought himself a nine million dollar waterfront home in Montecito. https://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/how-green-is-al-gores-9-million-montecito-ocean-front-villa/1

**podfish** · 02-01-2012 09:58 AM

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

... global warming, and other fake environmental crisis are being used by the corporate elite ...

the problem with the logic revealed on this thread is that, just because the corporate elite uses an issue for their own purposes, you can't infer that it's faked.
Those in power (and, frankly, those not in power) are often extremely adept at using pretty damn near -anything- to advance their goals. Aside from a bit of intellectual dishonesty in the practice, it's not particularly evil.

And in this case, global warming's a weird choice of crisis to fake for the corporate elite - most of the corporations of the world find regulations that deal with global warming a problem, not an aid, in their quest for global domination. Only a few benefit from barriers to the ongoing exploitation of fossil fuels. The thesis is hard to make when the big corporations are so closely tied to the political powers of the world.

**theindependenteye** · 02-01-2012 11:48 AM

>>>From Wikipedia: "In 1993, the Club [of Rome] published The First Global Revolution.^[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."^[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."^[6] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."^[7]Assuming the quote is accurate, it seems to me right on target. Yes, enemy nations only come together, if at all, when a common disaster looms. Yes, catastrophic environmental threats should be a more-than-adequate motive force for international cooperation. Yes, humanity is the snake devouring itself. I couldn't agree more.

Obviously, the posting is intended to focus us on the phrase "or else one intended for the purpose," to imply that the listed environmental threats have simply been invented by nasty guys around a table in Rome, perhaps aided by screenwriters and vast hordes of greedy climatologists.

Fortunately, though, it seems there's a countervailing force financed by such selfless champions of liberty as Bechtel, Chevron, Monsanto, etc. etc. etc., who've managed to stifle, to any significant degree, any of that international cooperation plotted by the Club of Rome.

When the human race has offed itself and cockroaches have evolved sufficiently to put up monuments, they'll surely memorialize those who made their ascendancy possible.

Peace & joy, anyway--
Conrad

**someguy** · 02-01-2012 02:23 PM

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Fortunately, though, it seems there's a countervailing force financed by such selfless champions of liberty as Bechtel, Chevron, Monsanto, etc. etc. etc., who've managed to stifle, to any significant degree, any of that international cooperation plotted by the Club of Rome.

Peace & joy, anyway--
Conrad

Conrad,

I am disturbed by your post, and even more so disturbed that two people, one of whom I find very reasonable, gave you gratitude. Maybe you didn't watch the video I posted in this thread by Monsanto (one of those corporations you say are stifling the Club of Rome's plan). If not, it is here for you to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fT-ChdL8BbY#!

As you'll see in the video, Monsanto is embracing the Club of Rome's mindset and that of the fake environmentalists and using that phony crisis to profit off of. They are not stifling the man made global warming, or peak everything, or even the overpopulation philosophy. Rather they are perpetuating it, and capitalizing on it to make a shit load of money, while simultaneously destroying the livelihoods and well-being of farmers all over the world, as well as polluting both the external environment and the genetic code of our crops. Monsanto would like us to believe that the only way to feed the world is widespread use of their own seeds. The saddest part to me is that well-meaning people who otherwise believe in local, sustainable, organic agriculture, are swayed by these fear-mongering scare tactics into supporting the use of GMOs, monocultures, toxic pesticides, and all of these other Ag. practices that are truly destroying our planet.

Chevron blatantly promotes the theories of the IPCC, and clearly is perpetuating the philosophy of man made global warming. You can't deny that. Just look here: https://www.chevron.com/globalissues...venprinciples/ In this article they explain first and foremost "Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth's atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in its Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," and that it is "very likely" that a significant level of warming is due to human activity." Apparently Chevron wants people to believe in global warming, contrary to your claim. Do you really think that Monsanto and Chevron are really going to go out of business if we set up a giant global bureaucracy to regulate carbon emissions? No way I say. They are owned by the global elite who are also the ones perpetuating this mindset. Just like how the big banks and wall street gamblers get away with their corruption with aid from the government, these folks will too. And global warming plays right into their plans, most obviously reflected in Agenda 21, but also in the case of Monsanto and their push of GMOs on the planet under the pretext of a population and climate crisis.

In conclusion, its not always as simple as left v. right, or the oil companies against the environmentalists.. Sometimes, probably most of the time, there is way more going on behind the curtain than we know of. We always assume the EPA is out to protect us against those darn polluters. Yet, they do nothing about Monsanto. They don't say a lick about radiation from depleted uranium our military peppers across the middle east. Our agricultural practices that our tax dollars are subsidizing are creating a dead zone in our ocean!!!! Let me say that again, A DEAD ZONE IN OUR OCEAN. Where is the EPA? When do we hear the media talk about this? Could it be that our attention to real environmental issues has been diverted to a non issue that the media moguls, international politicians, big banksters, and corporate cronies have orchestrated? Seems that way to me.

**podfish** · 02-01-2012 03:20 PM

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

I am disturbed by your post, and even more so disturbed that two people, one of whom I find very reasonable, gave you gratitude.

only one???

**theindependenteye** · 02-01-2012 05:36 PM

>>>I am disturbed by your post ... As you'll see in the video, Monsanto is embracing the Club of Rome's mindset and that of the fake environmentalists and using that phony crisis to profit off of. ... Monsanto would like us to believe ...
Chevron is perpetuating the philosophy of man made global warming. You can't deny that....Apparently Chevron wants people to believe in global warming, contrary to your claim.

Of course they hop on the bandwagon. And I've heard Chevron's hyper-green commercials on the PBS News Hour. They're promoting their image for exactly the same reasons they give to both political parties, and they'd give to the Greens or Libertarians or the KKK if they thought they might have any sway some day. But to assume that — let's just boil it down to one massive polluter — Big Oil is actively promoting and funding Big Environmentalism is a grand leap of illogic. I agree entirely it's a perfectly credible science fiction premise, but that's as far as your argument takes me.

>>>Do you really think that Monsanto and Chevron are really going to go out of business if we set up a giant global bureaucracy to regulate carbon emissions? No way I say.

And I will agree with you. They have vast resources to make adaptations, and many people on the payroll to do the planning and the promo. If cigarettes were banned, the tobacco companies would have plans in place to buy real estate or manufacture adult diapers, whatever. The only way they can be brought down, other than slow evolution to another model, as happened in the collapse of feudalism in the face of capitalism, is to adopt some of the measures proposed (on Wacco) for destroying the world economy. To which I'm opposed because I'm not in favor of a hundred years of armed anarchy in this country, however liberating that might feel to guys with lotsa guns.

>>>They are owned by the global elite who are also the ones perpetuating this mindset. ... And global warming plays right into their plans...

That to me is no evidence that global warming, population explosion, water shortages, etc., are not real and serious problems. Just that they're very very good at spin.

>>>In conclusion, its not always as simple as left v. right, or the oil companies against the environmentalists..
Could it be that our attention to real environmental issues has been diverted to a non issue that the media moguls, international politicians, big banksters, and corporate cronies have orchestrated? Seems that way to me.

I'm having difficulty understanding what constitutes certainty to you in distinguishing *real* from *artificial* environmental issues. Dead zones in oceans, yes: but why do you believe those particular things rather than something designated as a hazard by the EPA or the FDA or the UN? Simply because there seems to be a conspiracy to tout one thing and ignore another? To me that's not logical.

Your statement "It's not always as simple" — yes, and that's an understatement. To me, we're not dealing with one massive conspiracy that has absolute control of the world. We're within an environment of massive forces vying with one another — a much larger version of King vs. Nobles vs Church vs Free Cities vs Peasantry/Yeomanry vs. Guilds in the Middle Ages & Renaissance. Alliances are made and broken in a heartbeat, and politics is really a matter of trying to guide your raft through the rapids.

I don't trust ideologues of any stripe, even those who share most of my beliefs, because I see them working very hard to keep one eye closed while looking at the world, and that's a damned dangerous way to drive. We probably share a lot of that instinct of mistrust — it's just that from our respective observation points, the fog creates a different panoply of ghostly shapes.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

**someguy** · 02-01-2012 06:07 PM

Of course they hop on the bandwagon. And I've heard Chevron's hyper-green commercials on the PBS News Hour. They're promoting their image for exactly the same reasons they give to both political parties, and they'd give to the Greens or Libertarians or the KKK if they thought they might have any sway some day. But to assume that — let's just boil it down to one massive polluter — Big Oil is actively promoting and funding Big Environmentalism is a grand leap of illogic. I agree entirely it's a perfectly credible science fiction premise, but that's as far as your argument takes me.

Quickly, I am just going to clear up a misquote. I never said Big Oil was funding Big Environmentalism. Big Oil is actively promoting Big Environmentalism just as you said: " I've heard Chevron's hyper-green commercials on the PBS News Hour. They're promoting their image for exactly the same reasons they give to both political parties..."After saying something like that I don't understand why you would call it a "grand leap of illogic" to say that Big Oil is promoting Climate Change philosophy. We both have proven this to be the case just today.

Iolchan · 02-02-2012 11:31 AM

Brad, I'm a little concerned that you take the tack that somehow Global Warming is a big hoax. While it is perfectly reasonable for you to promote the thesis that corporations are playing it for what they can get, nevertheless, it is quite clear, from the abundant evidence of how the the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, the Greenland Ice Sheet, & glaciers all over the planet are melting, quite quickly, that something very drastic is happening.

For a lot more visual evidence of this, quite apart from Al Gore's film; Google : youtube, {then type in phrases like: "Global Warming" , Antarctic, Greenland, } etc.

I opened the link* you gave, debunking Al Gore's film, "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" and found an article written by an English Laird, & Member of the House o' Lairds, one Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is "former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom." He evidently brought suit against the showing of Al Gore's film in British public schools, charging that it was bad science & wrong. *https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...oreerrors.html

What I suggest this means, is that the establishment in the U.K. decided to run a counter-operation, to put the brakes on the consciousness spreading among the masses in Britain, that the the seas might rise, quite considerably, if either the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, or the Greenland Ice Sheet were to break off and dissolve into the Ocean. After all, the powers that be do not want the people to panic; that would lead to Anarchy {in the U.K.}.

The fact is that Sea levels will rise - and I very much doubt that the minimalistic figures that Laird Monckton quotes are correct.

Google Advanced Search : "Global Warming" , "sea level"

Will someone in Waccovia kindly do some serious, extensive {all the pros & cons} reading on this topic, and give us a report?

Global Warming is a Reality, even if Al Gore is a big phony and an opportunist, dealing fast & wild with facts and playing the Market in Carbon Credit futures. All the evidence supports the fact that Ice is melting, quite quickly, all over the planet. It may even be a moot issue as to why or what is causing it to happen, i.e., whether it is a man-made catastrophe caused by Carbon emissions or whether we are witnessing the recurrence of some cyclical phenomenon of Nature. Because it definitely is happening; and it is not a "conspiracy."

It is also undeniable that Big Oil is playing the Green Card, for all they can get out of it, & so is The Club of Rome - a Malthusian think tank, Mens' Club, & watering hole for the North Atlantic {Treaty Organization} power elite - and so is Monsanto.

They are all very much on the same page, even to the point of having quite a few directors, & interlocking directorates, in common.

Google Advanced Search : "Club of Rome" , Monsanto, {& use the variable, Oil}

Hey, Ye Commons !

{en Angleterre, ye
British & Scottish
Commons}

Occupy -- The -- Highlands

>The {former} Commons<

Lowlands, my Lowlands,

away...

- Mark

**someguy** · 02-02-2012 07:51 PM

Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:

Brad, I'm a little concerned that you take the tack that somehow Global Warming is a big hoax. While it is perfectly reasonable for you to promote the thesis that corporations are playing it for what they can get, nevertheless, it is quite clear, from the abundant evidence of how the the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, the Greenland Ice Sheet, & glaciers all over the planet are melting, quite quickly, that something very drastic is happening.

For a lot more visual evidence of this, quite apart from Al Gore's film; Google : youtube, {then type in phrases like: "Global Warming" , Antarctic, Greenland, } etc.

I opened the link* you gave, debunking Al Gore's film, "AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" and found an article written by an English Laird, & Member of the House o' Lairds, one Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who is "former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher during her years as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom." He evidently brought suit against the showing of Al Gore's film in British public schools, charging that it was bad science & wrong. *https://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...oreerrors.html

What I suggest this means, is that the establishment in the U.K. decided to run a counter-operation, to put the brakes on the consciousness spreading among the masses in Britain, that the the seas might rise, quite considerably, if either the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, or the Greenland Ice Sheet were to break off and dissolve into the Ocean. After all, the powers that be do not want the people to panic; that would lead to Anarchy {in the U.K.}.

The fact is that Sea levels will rise - and I very much doubt that the minimalistic figures that Laird Monckton quotes are correct.

Google Advanced Search : "Global Warming" , "sea level"

Will someone in Waccovia kindly do some serious, extensive {all the pros & cons} reading on this topic, and give us a report?

Global Warming is a Reality, even if Al Gore is a big phony and an opportunist, dealing fast & wild with facts and playing the Market in Carbon Credit futures. All the evidence supports the fact that Ice is melting, quite quickly, all over the planet. It may even be a moot issue as to why or what is causing it to happen, i.e., whether it is a man-made catastrophe caused by Carbon emissions or whether we are witnessing the recurrence of some cyclical phenomenon of Nature. Because it definitely is happening; and it is not a "conspiracy."

It is also undeniable that Big Oil is playing the Green Card, for all they can get out of it, & so is The Club of Rome - a Malthusian think tank, Mens' Club, & watering hole for the North Atlantic {Treaty Organization} power elite - and so is Monsanto.

They are all very much on the same page, even to the point of having quite a few directors, & interlocking directorates, in common.

Google Advanced Search : "Club of Rome" , Monsanto, {& use the variable, Oil}

I do agree that the planet is getting warming in general, has been since before the industrial revolution. And in fact, over the past ten years there hasn't been a significant amount of warming at all. But to say that I am denying the actual temperature records is a misconception of my position. In my extensive research on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that most likely Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuel, is not driving our weather patterns. There is far too much scientific corruption (climate-gate emails, consensus based science) and misinformation put forth by the Maltheusians to spread alarmism and further their agenda. There are straight up major flaws in the conclusions gathered from the real scientific evidence that exists on the subject on man made climate change. And Lord Mockton's website has a lot of excellent scientific evidence that objective people might find thought provoking. I think you have misjudged Monckton's character as a lackey for the conservative government in the UK, in my opinion.

The threat of man made climate change serves the purpose of the Maltheusians and eugenicists perfectly. To the left the concept of man made global warming serves the same purpose as 911 and Al CIAda do for the right. It pushes on the public this police state mentality, that "oh, we need a global government (NATO) to fight terrorism because terrorism knows no boundaries and keeps spreading..." or "oh, we need a global government (UN) to police society so that we don't overpopulate and use up all the resources.." If these eugenicists really want to take out a lot of people, then they have to convince both the liberals and the conservatives to be afraid of some multi-national boogy man so that they will give up all of their basic human rights to a supranational dictatorship in the guise of democracy.

I'd like field any questions or comments you may have for me Mark. Thanks.

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., man made climate change, terrorism], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

**someguy** · 02-02-2012 08:12 PM

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

I do agree that the planet is getting warming in general, has been since before the industrial revolution. And in fact, over the past ten years there hasn't been a significant amount of warming at all. But to say that I am denying the actual temperature records is a misconception of my position. In my extensive research on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that most likely Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuel, is not driving our weather patterns. There is far too much scientific corruption (climate-gate emails, consensus based science) and misinformation put forth by the Maltheusians to spread alarmism and further their agenda. There are straight up major flaws in the conclusions gathered from the real scientific evidence that exists on the subject on man made climate change. And Lord Mockton's website has a lot of excellent scientific evidence that objective people might find thought provoking. I think you have misjudged Monckton's character as a lackey for the conservative government in the UK, in my opinion.

The threat of man made climate change serves the purpose of the Maltheusians and eugenicists perfectly. To the left the concept of man made global warming serves the same purpose as 911 and Al CIAda do for the right. It pushes on the public this police state mentality, that "oh, we need a global government (NATO) to fight terrorism because terrorism knows no boundaries and keeps spreading..." or "oh, we need a global government (UN) to police society so that we don't overpopulate and use up all the resources.." If these eugenicists really want to take out a lot of people, then they have to convince both the liberals and the conservatives to be afraid of some multi-national boogy man so that they will give up all of their basic human rights to a supranational dictatorship in the guise of democracy.

I'd like field any questions or comments you may have for me Mark. Thanks.

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., man made climate change, terrorism], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

I just wanted to jump in here on the offense before I get hit with the usual attack that follows most of my climate change posts eventually. First of all, I do not think we should be using fossil fuels as they are a pollutant, just not because of the carbon they emit, but because of the carcinogenic toxins. I am all for alternative, renewable, free energy for all people. In fact, I probably have a lower carbon footprint than most people here who would disagree with me, or call me a mindless consumer, or a denier who sticks their head in the sand because its convenient, or that I just want to drive my Hummer around. One guy on Wacco even accused me of having investments in oil companies! This couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, for me, my life would be easier if I just went long with everyone else and said I believe Co2 ( a necessary life force) is a pollutant. But I try hard to be true to myself and as objective as possible and so I have come to quite a controversial conclusion which has its difficulties at times.

Iolchan · 02-02-2012 09:41 PM

Occupy -- The -- Highlands

Rosa Koire wrote:

Add to this the pressure from Climate Protection Campaigns to reduce our energy usage to pre-1930 levels (80% below 1990 levels by 2050 is the goal for the US) and increased regulations on industry and you have the perfect storm for loss of jobs and greater dependence on other countries for goods. As the population becomes more and more urbanized and less able to provide food or necessary products, more people are dependent on the government for housing, food, and other basic necessities.

Government itself becomes dependent on grants and loans with requirements attached. In this way policy-makers are influenced and pressured by the corporatocracy. Public/ private partnerships favor some businesses over others and completely unbalance the playing field. Independent businesses go out. Poverty works its way into the middle class.

Social equity, another one of the cornerstones of Agenda 21 comes in here. As a major leveler, the loss of money, land, food, and energy independence brings the US into 'social equity' with the poorer countries. This is a goal of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. Health will suffer, presumably health care will suffer, nutrition will suffer. Psychological problems, stress from living in tight areas with other un- or underemployed people, and crime will result. Community Oriented Policing will encourage, if not require, people to watch their neighbors and report suspicious activity.

More activity will be identified as 'crime'--such as obesity, smoking, drinking when you have a drinking problem, name calling, leaving lights on, neglect (in someone's perception) of children, elderly, and pets, driving when you could ride a bike, breaking a curfew, failure to do mandatory volunteering. The 'community' will demand more law enforcement to restore order, and more rules and regulations will ensue.

The National Defense Authorization Act, new rules redefining torture, F.B.I. permitted to surveil you without a warrant---all part of the plan. The Chinese and Russian models are instructive. See: Nien Cheng's Life and Death in Shanghai, and Alexzander Solzhenitsen's The Gulag Archipelago, for details.

You can see that the groundwork for this has been laid and is being implemented throughout the nation. When you create deep dependence and then withdraw assistance the result is chaos and poverty. Propaganda infuses our culture with messages that there are just a few winners and many losers; that we are killing the earth and time is running out; that prosperity is an anachronism and detrimental to life; that individual freedom is selfish and injures those who are less free.

This is Agenda 21.

Communitarianism is the 'balancing' or subsuming of individual rights below the needs of the 'community.' The community is defined now as the global village. So anything identified as serving the global village takes precedence over the rights of the individual. In the United States, our constitution guarantees our rights to life and liberty. Ownership of property includes that of our own persons.

"As the population becomes more and more urbanized and less able to provide food or necessary products, more people are dependent on the government for housing, food, and other basic necessities."

I believe you, Rosa. Du ist ain o' dem wise wymyns.

The remedy to this tendency, that you have correctly identified as the result of social engineering, is for the population - or at least, the Remnant of human beings { in the Cheyenne sense } among them - to become less urbanized, to move back to the hills, to family farms - or, better yet, small, self-sufficient farming collectives, based on affinity - and to learn how to grow our own food. Behold the Kraal as the new model of social organization. Let us build our own, conscious villages, outside their Global Plantation; as a Kingdom on the top of the Mountains. Resist the Bloody Machine. Remove thyself from the belly of Leviathan. Resist.

Occupy -- The -- Highlands

>The {former} Commons<

Mark Walter Evans

Rosa Koire · 02-02-2012 10:58 PM

Love it, man. If only. It won't be possible. There is no 'outside.' This is a fight to the death going on. That water--not yours. That land---not yours. Those roads--not yours. Can't hide. Dams are coming down. Streams are being fenced in the name of conservation. Access to and use of water is being restricted. Check in with your friends in remote rural areas to find out what they're going through. Code enforcement--look at what's happening in Antelope Valley. I've just been speaking up in the San Juan Islands---they're cutting ferry service. Two hundred foot buffer zones. Establishment of no access National Monuments. Zero access wilderness. Regulatory takings. Wetlands declared on sloping sites. Forget Robinson Crusoe.

We have to stand and fight for private property rights, for personal rights, civil rights, human rights. The real rights, not the ones that are manipulated and manufactured by the smooth talking directors of 'our common future.' Communitarianism is that international law that says that you can't hold any land or water as an individual because it is inequitable. Any private ownership is inequitable. This is an incremental movement away from private land holdings. We may be old enough to finish our lives without seeing the complete end of it, but 2050 is the drop dead date, and it is actually slated for 2035. I wish that I was making this up. Ownership of property includes that of your own person. This is the truly terrifying element of this plan, and is exemplified by the increased surveillance and acculturation toward invasive technology. Look how easy it is to monitor every exchange we have now.

Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.
Thanks for the note. Glad to have the discussion.
Rosa
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com

Posted in reply to the post by Iolchan:

Occupy -- The -- Highland

"As the population becomes more and more urbanized and less able to provide food or necessary products, more people are dependent on the government for housing, food, and other basic necessities."

I believe you, Rosa. Du ist ain o' dem wise wymyns.

The remedy to this tendency, that you have correctly identified as the result of social engineering, is for the population - or at least, the Remnant of human beings { in the Cheyenne sense } among them - to become less urbanized, to move back to the hills, to family farms - or, better yet, small, self-sufficient farming collectives, based on affinity - and to learn how to grow our own food. Behold the Kraal as the new model of social organization. Let us build our own, conscious villages, outside their Global Plantation; as a Kingdom on the top of the Mountains. Resist the Bloody Machine. Remove thyself from the belly of Leviathan. Resist.

Occupy -- The -- Highlands

>The {former} Commons<

Mark Walter Evans

**podfish** · 02-03-2012 07:52 AM

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

...The threat of man made climate change serves the purpose of the Maltheusians and eugenicists perfectly. To the left the concept of man made global warming serves the same purpose as 911 and Al CIAda do for the right.

to keep belaboring my point: your and Rosa's posts are both suffering from the same flaw. The whole issue of "whose purpose does it serve" has nothing to do with the issue! It's not proof of anything, and continuing to drag it in dilutes the credibility of your other points. If this seems like evidence to you, why should I believe your judgement about your other evidence??

Of course there's a place where this is relevant information; where the cliche "follow the money" is key. That is after you've established your premise and you've advanced to identifying the causes of it. Once you accept that there's no such thing as global warming, or that the environment really isn't being seriously degraded by human use, then you might start looking for the culprits who are using legislation as a tool toward their nefarious ends. But if the ends aren't all that nefarious, the motiviations of the participants aren't all that compelling except in a dramatic sense.

by the way, you shouldn't see this as "get(ing) hit with the usual attack".. it's not an attack, it's a response. If you are lucky enough to "usual(ly)" get a response, then I'd take that as a sign that there's something in your post that may be worth a response. That's a good thing, or should be.

Rosa Koire · 02-03-2012 11:08 AM

Trying to wade through your 'points'. Somehow you are missing my point. Is it just because you want to argue? I'm not talking about global warming/climate change. This is akin to the JFK assassination--we'll still be arguing about it in 2050. With the implementation of the precautionary principle you could have a million scientists refuting global warming/climate change and it still would be used as the driver for this global domination plan.

Your 'follow the money' idea is ok, but not necessary, and you and I are not fully equipped to do that.

What you CAN do is look at the actual impacts and design of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development now, today, on your freedom. As I said, I am not an anarchist--that seems to come up in the defense of UN A21/SD all the time--you'll get the 'why should some guy be able to put a pig farm up next to my house' argument in favor of extreme restrictions. This is a smoke screen. There are zoning rules etc already. If you understand how a General Plan works versus individual zoning you'll know that a GP change does not require notification, where a zoning change does. So your property use can be changed in the GP without you being aware of it. This is a way to restrict and limit our uses without notifying us. That's just one element of how UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is being implemented.

Anyway, if your point is that 'the ends aren't all that nefarious' then you are just unaware of the widespread implications of the regulatory and administrative means of implementing this plan. I'll say again: It is a whole life plan. It involves the educational system, governmental system, transportation, food production, water, land use, industry, domestic and foreign policy, and more. It is means to inventory and control all resources--human and natural---and means of production in the world.

I'm going to take an exit from your list now but I encourage you to please educate yourself about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, about how it impacts you in terms of personal surveillance and private property rights, with the knowledge that you are your own property. The most fundamental rights you have are those of life and liberty. We're not playing games here. Have the courage to question what sounds nice to you: the politics of green. Why you would believe that a government that brought you the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran/Contra, yellow cake uranium and WMD's etc. has somehow now morphed into that caring concerned protector of your environment (and oh, by the way you'll have to give up everything for the common good) is beyond me. This is a global plan and it is implemented locally. There are many seemly 'common good oriented' local groups which are on-board with the Agenda. Public/private partnerships. Do your research. Start with Ygrene, Dennis Hunter, Leadership Institute of Ecology and the Economy, Climate Adaptation Plans, ICLEI, and One Bay Area. Read your Greek history and look for the Trojan Horse.

Thanks very much for this open forum,
Rosa Koire
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com
www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

to keep belaboring my point: your and Rosa's posts are both suffering from the same flaw. The whole issue of "whose purpose does it serve" has nothing to do with the issue! It's not proof of anything, and continuing to drag it in dilutes the credibility of your other points. If this seems like evidence to you, why should I believe your judgement about your other evidence??

Of course there's a place where this is relevant information; where the cliche "follow the money" is key. That is after you've established your premise and you've advanced to identifying the causes of it. Once you accept that there's no such thing as global warming, or that the environment really isn't being seriously degraded by human use, then you might start looking for the culprits who are using legislation as a tool toward their nefarious ends. But if the ends aren't all that nefarious, the motiviations of the participants aren't all that compelling except in a dramatic sense.

by the way, you shouldn't see this as "get(ing) hit with the usual attack".. it's not an attack, it's a response. If you are lucky enough to "usual(ly)" get a response, then I'd take that as a sign that there's something in your post that may be worth a response. That's a good thing, or should be.

**"Mad" Miles** · 02-03-2012 02:12 PM

Straw Men are so easy to burn!

https://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v07n2/wiseuse.html

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...e_Use_Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wise_use

https://www.watchsonomacounty.com/20...-sr-coalition/

**rossmen** · 02-03-2012 02:18 PM

wait rosa koire!

podster isn't the only wacco reading your posts. i want to ask you some questions, and e bulletin boards are something i have limited time for. i guess this is true for you too.

question #1; i understand you believe the onebayarea plan will limit new construction to prefered development areas, i guess through general plan updates which change zoning? as well as mta funded development subsidies in pda's?

personally i don't have a problem with the incentive part of this, just the prohibition part. i would like to see less zoning and pmrd/code prohibition (for residential infill). i am an anarchist, and proud of it. are you still here?

Posted in reply to the post by Rosa Koire:

Trying to wade through your 'points'. Somehow you are missing my point. Is it just because you want to argue? I'm not talking about global warming/climate change. This is akin to the JFK assassination--we'll still be arguing about it in 2050. With the implementation of the precautionary principle you could have a million scientists refuting global warming/climate change and it still would be used as the driver for this global domination plan.

Your 'follow the money' idea is ok, but not necessary, and you and I are not fully equipped to do that.

What you CAN do is look at the actual impacts and design of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development now, today, on your freedom. As I said, I am not an anarchist--that seems to come up in the defense of UN A21/SD all the time--you'll get the 'why should some guy be able to put a pig farm up next to my house' argument in favor of extreme restrictions. This is a smoke screen. There are zoning rules etc already. If you understand how a General Plan works versus individual zoning you'll know that a GP change does not require notification, where a zoning change does. So your property use can be changed in the GP without you being aware of it. This is a way to restrict and limit our uses without notifying us. That's just one element of how UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is being implemented.

Anyway, if your point is that 'the ends aren't all that nefarious' then you are just unaware of the widespread implications of the regulatory and administrative means of implementing this plan. I'll say again: It is a whole life plan. It involves the educational system, governmental system, transportation, food production, water, land use, industry, domestic and foreign policy, and more. It is means to inventory and control all resources--human and natural---and means of production in the world.

I'm going to take an exit from your list now but I encourage you to please educate yourself about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, about how it impacts you in terms of personal surveillance and private property rights, with the knowledge that you are your own property. The most fundamental rights you have are those of life and liberty. We're not playing games here. Have the courage to question what sounds nice to you: the politics of green. Why you would believe that a government that brought you the Gulf of Tonkin, Iran/Contra, yellow cake uranium and WMD's etc. has somehow now morphed into that caring concerned protector of your environment (and oh, by the way you'll have to give up everything for the common good) is beyond me. This is a global plan and it is implemented locally. There are many seemly 'common good oriented' local groups which are on-board with the Agenda. Public/private partnerships. Do your research. Start with Ygrene, Dennis Hunter, Leadership Institute of Ecology and the Economy, Climate Adaptation Plans, ICLEI, and One Bay Area. Read your Greek history and look for the Trojan Horse.

Thanks very much for this open forum,
Rosa Koire
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com
www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com
www.PostSustainabilityInstitute.org

**rossmen** · 02-03-2012 02:27 PM

yeah witch hunts are so much fun!

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Straw Men are so easy to burn!

https://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v07n2/wiseuse.html

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...e_Use_Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wise_use

https://www.watchsonomacounty.com/20...-sr-coalition/

Rosa Koire · 02-03-2012 04:45 PM

OK, you brought me back with that article in the PD. Did you read it? What did I do? I did my civic duty. I'm on the steering committee of a group which prefers not to publish the names of its members. Why? Read this article and you'll see. It's a smear. The reporter misquoted me, brought my partner into the article though I didn't mention her, lied about her, and interviewed people who are fundamentally dishonest. Can you blame people for not wanting to be subjected to this? Why was it written? Because I reported Michael Allen (now Assemblyman) to the Fair Political Practices Commission because of his serious conflict of interest while serving on the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. All of his invoices and notes are on our website (www.SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com) with full proof--the actual bills. He was found guilty and fined.

What's this article about? It was written to show whistleblowers what they can expect if they have the guts to do what I did. And it's working, right? This article was written in 2010. But people like you are still using it to try and smear me. Typical. If you can't attack the facts smear the person.
Notice I use my full name? Why don't you?
Rosa Koire

Just went and took a look at your other links. What a joke. Now I'm supposedly in the pay of big oil too. I don't know who you are Mad Miles, but your silly attack is just a waste of cyber space.

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Straw Men are so easy to burn!

https://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v07n2/wiseuse.html

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...e_Use_Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wise_use

https://www.watchsonomacounty.com/20...-sr-coalition/

**someguy** · 02-03-2012 05:13 PM

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

to keep belaboring my point: your and Rosa's posts are both suffering from the same flaw. The whole issue of "whose purpose does it serve" has nothing to do with the issue! It's not proof of anything, and continuing to drag it in dilutes the credibility of your other points. If this seems like evidence to you, why should I believe your judgement about your other evidence??

Why are you purposefully leaving out this quote of mine " In my extensive research on this issue, I have come to the conclusion that most likely Carbon Dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuel, is not driving our weather patterns. There is far too much scientific corruption (climate-gate emails, consensus based science) and misinformation put forth by the Maltheusians to spread alarmism and further their agenda. There are straight up major flaws in the conclusions gathered from the real scientific evidence that exists on the subject on man made climate change."?

You know as well as I that I have been heavily involved in the scientific debates here on Wacco and have presented scientific facts to back up what I say. Your false statement that I only look at who this serves is absurd and you know it. I don't think people like you deserve my attention any longer. Ciao.

**podfish** · 02-03-2012 06:31 PM

Posted in reply to the post by someguy:

Why are you purposefully leaving out this quote of mine... Your false statement that I only look at who this serves is absurd and you know it.

these wild swings between detail and broad claims are what I'm addressing! good example! I don't see my "false statement"...

When making a case/argument (argument in the technical, not pejoritive sense) you build to a conclusion by presenting supporting evidence. Each piece can be then considered to see if the conclusion indeed does follow from the defensible claims.
When mixing indefensible claims with others that may indeed have validity, you weaken the overall argument. That's what my post said, if you go back and look at the words used. I don't think there's a lot of mystery about the predilections of most of those posting here; unless the threads are intended to be an exchange of rants, it might be a good idea to think about how to get your readers to consider new ideas. You won't (and I won't either) get any traction by appealing to authorities that aren't authoritative to those with opposing viewpoints. Nor will you strengthen an argument by bringing in unsavory supporters of opposing views to damn them by association. It's easier for those who -are- willing to change their views to consider your points if you only push the strongest ones. They get lost in the noise.
You may notice I don't tend to push arguments here myself; I'm more interested in the debate, and I do often try to keep them on track so I'm not reading opposing polemics. Selfish of me - I'm not really doing it for your own benefit. There are a lot of wacco arguments being made as to why low-level RFI hurts people, or as to why our air's being poisoned, or how supporters of the environment are nothing but ineffective pawns, or why we shouldn't care about human impact on climate. There are also good arguments being made on all those lines. I'm not blind to the co-opting of well-intended movements by those in power. I don't think it's prima-facie impossible that the climate can be impacted by humans, or that airplanes are spraying crap into the air, or that EMF is affecting us. It's just that I can't find advocates for those positions who seem to understand the difference between strong and weak arguments!!

I don't think people like you deserve my attention any longer. Ciao.

"people like you"... uh, what kind is that??

**"Mad" Miles** · 02-03-2012 07:47 PM

Ms. Koire,

You're new to Waccovia, so I'll forgive your ignorance. My full name is available under my profile. Many people use nom de keyboard's here, it's part of the culture. (The debate about whether everyone registered on waccobb.net should be required to give their Meat World name in their Public Profile, and if so, how to enforce that, is a very old and interesting one. It can be found in this sites archive.)

The "Straw Men" I was referring to were the ones you attack in your arguments.

The Wise Use links I provided were to show that people who foreshadow and privilege private property rights to argue against environmental protection, imminent domain uses to achieve social goals and see a bogeyman of collectivism around every corner (communitarianism in your parlance) have a historical track record. Starting back in the late eighties in deploying the particular style of argumentation, and the particular focus you have on governance issues, as a mask for an ideological agenda. Of course, the "debate" and the tactics you use, go back far, far longer.

I linked the article about your "work" because after reading your "contributions" on Watch Sonoma County (which I do not read regularly, I saw them while looking for your published pronouncements. Recently I was told by my brother, about the debates there. I avoid such venues as I find most of them to be exercises in futility and frustration. I make an exception here, and on Facebook.) I thought folk here, not already familiar with your modus operandi, might be interested.

As for your beef with Michael Allen, it's pretty well covered in the available record. Let's just say your take on his "crime" is very similar to your campaign to stop the oppressive one world government that's going to enslave us all!!!

For anyone else reading this, read the FPPC decision before you swallow Ms. Koire's version of events. Assemblyman Allen has apologized and paid his fine. I see no apologies forthcoming from Ms. Koire for her exaggerations and fear mongering. Nor do I expect any, ever.

Full Notice: While I'm a partisan Green Party of the United States of America member (since 1987, although GPUSA preceded GPUS, convoluted history not relevant here) I met Michael Allen while attending Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County meetings at the old SEIU 707 offices on 4th Street in Santa Rosa, back in 2000-2002.

I found him sharp, funny, caring, a union leader with admirable knowledge and political perspicacity. Sort of a moderate smart aleck with a heart of gold. I grew to admire him, still do. He's my Facebook friend in the last year and a half.

He belongs to the wrong political party given his values, but he's far from alone in that. I don't need to defend him, because he's more than able to do it for himself. We are not personal friends. I've never hung out with him. In recent years most of what I know about his political career, I read in the PD. And since August before last, on Facebook.

I was County Secretary and Treasurer for the Green Party of Sonoma County in the 2000 election cycle. Due to late filing of financial statements to the FPPC we were fined some five or six grand in February of 2001. This was due to the fact that I am not a bookkeeper, had numerous other onerous and time consuming voluntary duties, ended up Treasurer because the guy doing it wasn't even balancing the checkbook, and my pleas for data-entry and expert bookkeeper help, along with software to make it efficient, were unmet by the campaign coordinator and the group as a whole, until the filing deadline was looming (never got the software, but someone who knew what they were doing jumped in at the last minute and saved my/our ass, but not before we filed a few days late.)

I got the fine down to about two grand, by telling the appropriate bureaucrats the unvarnished truth and throwing myself and my county party on their mercy. Something they had no incentive to give, to cut us a break, because those jobs are filled by Democratic Party patronage hiring.

Did I get a thank you from the remaining active members of the GPSC? Not even.

Was I a career criminal politician? If anybody thinks so, I've got bagmen ready to collect your contributions to my empire building standing by!!!

There are many sides to every story. And the story Ms. Koire keeps telling, obviously, if you pay some attention, is full of bias, cant, opportunism, paranoia and self-promotion. That's cool. Plenty of other fish in that sea.

There are those who do, and those who prevent others from doing. Active and Reactive Force. Read up. I recommend Gilles Deleuze's, Nietzsche and Philosophy, for a very good exploration of the interplay between Active Force, Reactive Force and Ressentiment. Life changing stuff. I read it in 1982.

I have no doubt that Ms. Koire is sincere, convinced she knows exactly what she's doing, considers herself a force for good, social justice, liberty and many other admirable things. She's (you're) obviously intelligent and hard working. But, in my informed opinion, she's wrong in her conclusions about what real problems face all of us and what to do about it.

She'll garner plenty of attention (already has) and will mobilize plenty of people to attack "the system" in the name of defending their private property, prosperity and freedom. Google her. Read her comments on Watch Sonoma County. Read about her associations and tactics. Decide for yourself.

I'm all for rousing appropriate and effectively targeted public outrage at the crimes of corporations, and business associations, large government bureaucracies and alliances among and between all of those types of groups, regionally, nationally, internationally. But, there's a lot of nasty stuff going down. I choose to tilt at windmills that more closely resemble real threats, and prefer to not invest my efforts in preventing complete fantasies made up from biased reading and preconceived notions about the dangers of collective efforts. Efforts to address our dilemma, stemming from a rapacious economic system not subject to individual or conscious control, and the fallout from that fundamental systemic flaw. But most of you familiar with me here, already knew that.

Ms. Koire, before you trip the litmus test for hypersensitivity and emotional reactivity that my nom de keyboard here accidentally provides, the "Mad" (note the scare quotes indicating irony) in my handle is the result of calling myself a mad forwarder of political emails (still guilty) and a woman addressed me as mad miles.

I liked it, so I took it for my own. Partly because I'm a bit of an Anglophile and I am "passionate". That it became a marker for those who can't resist personalizing the argument when they have nothing else substantive to say, was completely accidental. It's served as a very useful accident in the subsequent years.

Just found this! "Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot"

**podfish** · 02-03-2012 10:36 PM

Just found this! "Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot"

boy, just when my last post about not using unsavory associates to devalue an argument... a fat pitch comes right down the middle.
Fox news, Tea party, Gingrich, One World Order... all the usual suspects. Regardless, it's nice to have a richer context for this thread.

**ubaru** · 02-03-2012 11:12 PM

How do you like this Agenda folks? You can't even own your own rainwater. Be sure to check out the last 6 paragraphs.

Liz

Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water

Monday, July 26, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
https://www.naturalnews.com/index-HRarticles.html

(NaturalNews) Many of the freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S. are quickly eroding as the nation transforms from the land of the free into the land of the enslaved, but what I'm about to share with you takes the assault on our freedoms to a whole new level. You may not be aware of this, but many Western states, including Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.

As bizarre as it sounds, laws restricting property owners from "diverting" water that falls on their own homes and land have been on the books for quite some time in many Western states. Only recently, as droughts and renewed interest in water conservation methods have become more common, have individuals and business owners started butting heads with law enforcement over the practice of collecting rainwater for personal use.

Check out this YouTube video of a news report out of Salt Lake City, Utah, about the issue. It's illegal in Utah to divert rainwater without a valid water right, and Mark Miller of Mark Miller Toyota, found this out the hard way.

After constructing a large rainwater collection system at his new dealership to use for washing new cars, Miller found out that the project was actually an "unlawful diversion of rainwater." Even though it makes logical conservation sense to collect rainwater for this type of use since rain is scarce in Utah, it's still considered a violation of water rights which apparently belong exclusively to Utah's various government bodies.

"Utah's the second driest state in the nation. Our laws probably ought to catch up with that," explained Miller in response to the state's ridiculous rainwater collection ban.

Salt Lake City officials worked out a compromise with Miller and are now permitting him to use "their" rainwater, but the fact that individuals like Miller don't actually own the rainwater that falls on their property is a true indicator of what little freedom we actually have here in the U.S. (Access to the rainwater that falls on your own property seems to be a basic right, wouldn't you agree?)

Outlawing rainwater collection in other states

Utah isn't the only state with rainwater collection bans, either. Colorado and Washington also have rainwater collection restrictions that limit the free use of rainwater, but these restrictions vary among different areas of the states and legislators have passed some laws to help ease the restrictions.

In Colorado, two new laws were recently passed that exempt certain small-scale rainwater collection systems, like the kind people might install on their homes, from collection restrictions.

Prior to the passage of these laws, Douglas County, Colorado, conducted a study on how rainwater collection affects aquifer and groundwater supplies. The study revealed that letting people collect rainwater on their properties actually reduces demand from water facilities and improves conservation.

Personally, I don't think a study was even necessary to come to this obvious conclusion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that using rainwater instead of tap water is a smart and useful way to conserve this valuable resource, especially in areas like the West where drought is a major concern.

Additionally, the study revealed that only about three percent of Douglas County's precipitation ended up in the streams and rivers that are supposedly being robbed from by rainwater collectors. The other 97 percent either evaporated or seeped into the ground to be used by plants.

This hints at why bureaucrats can't really use the argument that collecting rainwater prevents that water from getting to where it was intended to go. So little of it actually makes it to the final destination that virtually every household could collect many rain barrels worth of rainwater and it would have practically no effect on the amount that ends up in streams and rivers.

It's all about control, really

As long as people remain unaware and uninformed about important issues, the government will continue to chip away at the freedoms we enjoy. The only reason these water restrictions are finally starting to change for the better is because people started to notice and they worked to do something to reverse the law.

Even though these laws restricting water collection have been on the books for more than 100 years in some cases, they're slowly being reversed thanks to efforts by citizens who have decided that enough is enough.

Because if we can't even freely collect the rain that falls all around us, then what, exactly, can we freely do? The rainwater issue highlights a serious overall problem in America today: diminishing freedom and increased government control.

Today, we've basically been reprogrammed to think that we need permission from the government to exercise our inalienable rights, when in fact the government is supposed to derive its power from us. The American Republic was designed so that government would serve the People to protect and uphold freedom and liberty. But increasingly, our own government is restricting people from their rights to engage in commonsense, fundamental actions such as collecting rainwater or buying raw milk from the farmer next door.

Today, we are living under a government that has slowly siphoned off our freedoms, only to occasionally grant us back a few limited ones under the pretense that they're doing us a benevolent favor.

Fight back against enslavement

As long as people believe their rights stem from the government (and not the other way around), they will always be enslaved. And whatever rights and freedoms we think we still have will be quickly eroded by a system of bureaucratic power that seeks only to expand its control.

Because the same argument that's now being used to restrict rainwater collection could, of course, be used to declare that you have no right to the air you breathe, either. After all, governments could declare that air to be somebody else's air, and then they could charge you an "air tax" or an "air royalty" and demand you pay money for every breath that keeps you alive.

Think it couldn't happen? Just give it time. The government already claims it owns your land and house, effectively. If you really think you own your home, just stop paying property taxes and see how long you still "own" it. Your county or city will seize it and then sell it to pay off your "tax debt." That proves who really owns it in the first place... and it's not you!

How about the question of who owns your body? According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark office, U.S. corporations and universities already own 20% of your genetic code. Your own body, they claim, is partially the property of someone else.

So if they own your land, your water and your body, how long before they claim to own your air, your mind and even your soul?

Unless we stand up against this tyranny, it will creep upon us, day after day, until we find ourselves totally enslaved by a world of corporate-government collusion where everything of value is owned by powerful corporations -- all enforced at gunpoint by local law enforcement.

Posted in reply to the post by Rosa Koire:

We have to stand and fight for private property rights, for personal rights, civil rights, human rights. The real rights, not the ones that are manipulated and manufactured by the smooth talking directors of 'our common future.' Communitarianism is that international law that says that you can't hold any land or water as an individual because it is inequitable. Any private ownership is inequitable. This is an incremental movement away from private land holdings. We may be old enough to finish our lives without seeing the complete end of it, but 2050 is the drop dead date, and it is actually slated for 2035. I wish that I was making this up. Ownership of property includes that of your own person. This is the truly terrifying element of this plan, and is exemplified by the increased surveillance and acculturation toward invasive technology. Look how easy it is to monitor every exchange we have now.

Awareness is the first step in the Resistance.
Thanks for the note. Glad to have the discussion.
Rosa
www.DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com

**Larry Robinson** · 02-04-2012 08:05 AM

For a little background on this anti-green movement, you might want to read this well-researched article from the NY Times:

Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot

The New York Times
By LESLIE KAUFMAN and KATE ZERNIKE

Across the country, activists with ties to the Tea Party are railing against all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. They brand government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.

They are showing up at planning meetings to denounce bike lanes on public streets and smart meters on home appliances — efforts they equate to a big-government blueprint against individual rights.

“Down the road, this data will be used against you,” warned one speaker at a recent Roanoke County, Va., Board of Supervisors meeting who turned out with dozens of people opposed to the county’s paying $1,200 in dues to a nonprofit that consults on sustainability issues.

Local officials say they would dismiss such notions except that the growing and often heated protests are having an effect.

In Maine, the Tea Party-backed Republican governor canceled a project to ease congestion along the Route 1 corridor after protesters complained it was part of the United Nations plot. Similar opposition helped doom ahigh-speed train line in Florida. And more than a dozen cities, towns and counties, under new pressure, have cut off financing for a program that offers expertise on how to measure and cut carbon emissions.

“It sounds a little on the weird side, but we’ve found we ignore it at our own peril,” said George Homewood, a vice president of the American Planning Association’s chapter in Virginia.

The protests date to 1992 when the United Nations passed a sweeping, but nonbinding, 100-plus-page resolution called Agenda 21 that was designed to encourage nations to use fewer resources and conserve open land by steering development to already dense areas. They have gained momentum in the past two years because of the emergence of the Tea Party movement, harnessing its suspicion about government power and belief that man-made global warming is a hoax.

In January, the Republican Party adopted its own resolution against what it called “the destructive and insidious nature” of Agenda 21. And Newt Gingrich took aim at it during a Republican debate in November.

Tom DeWeese, the founder of the American Policy Center<https://americanpolicy.org/>, a Warrenton, Va.-based foundation that advocates limited government, says he has been a leader in the opposition to Agenda 21 since 1992. Until a few years ago, he had few followers beyond a handful of farmers and ranchers in rural areas. Now, he is a regular speaker at Tea Party events.

Membership is rising, Mr. DeWeese said, because what he sees as tangible Agenda 21-inspired controls on water and energy use are intruding into everyday life. “People may be acting out at some of these meetings, and I do not condone that. But their elected representatives are not listening and they are frustrated.”

Fox News has also helped spread the message. In June, after President Obama signed an executive order creating a White House Rural Council to “enhance federal engagement with rural communities,” Fox programs linked the order to Agenda 21. A Fox commentator, Eric Bolling, said the council sounded “eerily similar to a U.N. plan called Agenda 21, where a centralized planning agency would be responsible for oversight into all areas of our lives. A one world order.”

The movement has been particularly effective in Tea Party strongholds like Virginia, Florida and Texas, but the police have been called in to contain protests in states including Maryland and California, where opponents are fighting laws passed in recent years to encourage development around public transportation hubs and dense areas in an effort to save money and preserve rural communities.

One group has become a particular target. Iclei — Local Governments for Sustainability USA<https://www.icleiusa.org/>, an Oakland, Calif.-based nonprofit, sells software and offers advice to communities looking to reduce their carbon footprints. A City Council meeting in Missoula, Mont., in December got out of hand and required police intervention over $1,200 in dues to Iclei.

At a Board of Supervisors meeting in Roanoke in late January, Cher McCoy, a Tea Party member from nearby Lexington, Va., generated sustained applause when she warned: “They get you hooked, and then Agenda 21 takes over. Your rights are stripped one by one.”

Echoing other protesters, Ms. McCoy identified smart meters, devices being installed by utility companies to collect information on energy use, as part of the conspiracy. “The real job of smart meters is to spy on you and control you — when you can and cannot use electrical appliances,” she said.

Ilana Preuss<https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/author/ipreuss/>, vice president of Smart Growth America, a national coalition of nonprofits that supports economic development while conserving open spaces and farmland, said, “The real danger is not that they will get rid of some piece of software from Iclei” but that “people will be too scared to have a conversation about local development. And that is an important conversation to be having.”

In some cases, the protests have not been large, but they are powerful because officials are concerned about the Tea Party.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Gingrich has called Agenda 21 an important issue and has said, “I would explicitly repudiate what Obama has done on Agenda 21.”

The Republican National Committee resolution, passed without fanfare on Jan. 13, declared, “The United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called ‘sustainable development’ views the American way of life of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms; all as destructive to the environment.”

Other conservatives have welcomed the scrutiny of land-use issues, but they do not agree with the emphasis on Agenda 21.

Jeremy Rabkin, a professor of law at George Mason University specializing in sovereignty issues, said there were “entirely legitimate concerns about international standards that come into American law without formal ratification by the Senate.”

But some local officials argue that the programs that protesters see as part of the conspiracy are entirely created by local governments with the express intent of saving money — the central goal of the Tea Party movement.

Planning groups, several of which said they had never heard of Agenda 21 until protesters burst in, are counterorganizing.

Summer Frederick, the project manager for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in Charlottesville, Va., which withdrew its dues to Iclei and its support from a national mayors’ agreement on climate change late last year after a campaign by protesters, now conducts seminars on how to deal with Agenda 21 critics. (Among her tips: remove the podium and microphones, which can make it “very easy for a critic to hijack a meeting.”)

Roanoke’s Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to renew its Iclei financing after many residents voiced their support.

“The Tea Party people say they want nonpolluted air and clean water and everything we promote and support, but they also say it’s a communist movement,” said Charlotte Moore, a supervisor who voted yes. “I really don’t understand what they want.
”

Rosa Koire · 02-04-2012 08:52 AM

Hey, Larry. This is a smear article, can't you tell? Anyone who objects to this project is a 'tea party person' whether they are or not. Did you catch the way the government plans to handle objections in the future? They'll remove the microphone and the podium. The officials are so confused "I just don't understand what they want." This is a containment article. Why, Larry, would you be able to see this clearly if it were about, say, a nuclear plant protest, or a anti-war protest? Please, look at the issues and not the disinformation campaign. The government is fully invested in distracting you from seeing that this is an inventory and control plan with a green veneer.
Rosa Koire

Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:

For a little background on this anti-green movement, you might want to read this well-researched article from the NY Times:

Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot
The New York Times

By LESLIE KAUFMAN and KATE ZERNIKE

Across the country, activists with ties to the Tea Party are railing against all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy. They brand government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.....
”

**Dixon** · 02-04-2012 10:06 AM

I don't intend to get caught up in this contentious discussion. I haven't the time for it. I haven't even read most of the posts, especially the longer ones, and I'm not going to. So what I'm about to say is not particularly well-informed on the specific issues or arguments, and if I make a fool of myself--well, it wouldn't be the first time. But FWIW, I wanna say something about what looks to be the main psychological/social dynamic driving this dispute:

Most people in just about any population are about averagely intelligent. Half of the people in a population are of lower than average intelligence. Even most intelligent people don't have enough expertise in most areas of study to make very wise decisions, whether the area be medicine, fixing our cars, home repairs, or whatever. That's why we have experts to handle these things. Experts have their shortcomings, and some of them are inept or dishonest, but reliance on them is necessary in any society more complex than the Old Stone Age.

Reliance on people with expertise in public planning is more essential than ever in a world beset by huge, urgent, even unprecedented problems. Individual action, which is often shaped by ignorance, false beliefs, narrow self-interest and lack of foresight without the balancing factor of planning expertise is largely responsible for the multiple messes we as a species have created and must, unfortunately, be increasingly controlled in certain ways for the greater good, lest we continue to work at cross purposes and drag ourselves down to ultimate disaster. The American (and to some extent, global) way of life which includes astoundingly wasteful and destructive habits (habits which I need to change too) is simply not sustainable.

Are some rules wrongheaded, needlessly restrictive, even oppressive? Sure, but that doesn't refute the need for educated planning, nor the need for enforcement of the rules in the inevitable cases wherein people will resist. Rules which prevent us from killing each other through extreme levels of pollution (caused by single-family vehicles, spread-out communities, and other factors) are not essentially different from rules which prevent us from killing each other with knives or guns. But the destructiveness of, e.g., lifestyle factors which increase pollution is harder to see than the destructiveness of knives and guns, as is the need for rules to control such behaviors. This is especially true when our vision is blinkered by the distorting influence of narrow self-interest ("my property values will go down"), religious dogma, manipulation of public perceptions by entrenched industries, psychological defense mechanisms including denial, and the natural human inertia that makes it seemingly impossible to change deep-seated habits.

Does the necessary amount of social control increase the power of some factions of government at the expense of some of our freedoms? Yup. Does it increase the profits of some at the expense of others? Yup. Will that be abused in some cases? Yup. But it doesn't logically follow that the policies were primarily motivated by those intentions. If you think it does, your logic is simply fallacious.

When the main argument people make against something seems to be based on the assumption that anything which causes them to lose money or change how they live or experience much discomfort must be wrong, I see what the Critical Thinking community refers to as "egocentric and sociocentric thinking", i.e., self-centeredness. There is no moral or effective response to the huge crises we as a species face that doesn't involve lots of difficulty, lots of restraint (self- or otherwise) and, yes, lots of properties losing financial value. If you have specific criticisms of specific policies, fine, take that up as an issue. But if your position is that society (we as a group) doesn't have the right to enforce upon us necessary restrictions we don't like, it's time for you to evolve a little and look past your "rights" (which may not reasonably even be rights) to see what we need to do to secure a livable world for our grandkids. In other words, let's try to replace narrow self-interest with enlightened self-interest, which sees the common good as good for each individual.

Rosa Koire · 02-04-2012 11:11 AM

I guess you won't mind giving up your personal rights and freedom for the common good. After all, in your opinion, 'let's try to replace narrow self-interest with enlightened self-interest, which sees the common good as good for each individual.' Good luck to you. You won't be the one defining what 'enlightened self-interest' will be. But you said it yourself--you haven't read the information and you don't intend to. Congratulations, you'll be led like the rest.
RK

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I don't intend to get caught up in this contentious discussion. I haven't the time for it. I haven't even read most of the posts, especially the lnger ones, and I'm not going to. So what I'm about to say is not particularly well-informed on the specific issues or arguments, and if I make a fool of myself--well, it wouldn't be the first time. But FWIW, I wanna say something about what looks to be the main psychological/social dynamic driving this dispute:

Most people in just about any population are about averagely intelligent. Half of the people in a population are of lower than average intelligence. Even most intelligent people don't have enough expertise in most areas of study to make very wise decisions, whether the area be medicine, fixing our cars, home repairs, or whatever. That's why we have experts to handle these things. Experts have their shortcomings, and some of them are inept or dishonest, but reliance on them is necessary in any society more complex than the Old Stone Age.

Reliance on people with expertise in public planning is more essential than ever in a world beset by huge, urgent, even unprecedented problems. Individual action, which is often shaped by ignorance, false beliefs, narrow self-interest and lack of foresight without the balancing factor of planning expertise is largely responsible for the multiple messes we as a species have created and must, unfortunately, be increasingly controlled in certain ways for the greater good, lest we continue to work at cross purposes and drag ourselves down to ultimate disaster. The American (and to some extent, global) way of life which includes astoundingly wasteful and destructive habits (habits which I need to change too) is simply not sustainable.

Are some rules wrongheaded, needlessly restrictive, even oppressive? Sure, but that doesn't refute the need for educated planning, nor the need for enforcement of the rules in the inevitable cases wherein people will resist. Rules which prevent us from killing each other through extreme levels of pollution (caused by single-family vehicles, spread-out communities, and other factors) are not essentially different from rules which prevent us from killing each other with knives or guns. But the destructiveness of, e.g., lifestyle factors which increase pollution is harder to see than the destructiveness of knives and guns, as is the need for rules to control such behaviors. This is especially true when our vision is blinkered by the distorting influence of narrow self-interest ("my property values will go down"), religious dogma, manipulation of public perceptions by entrenched industries, psychological defense mechanisms including denial, and the natural human inertia that makes it seemingly impossible to change deep-seated habits.

Does the necessary amount of social control increase the power of some factions of government at the expense of some of our freedoms? Yup. Does it increase the profits of some at the expense of others? Yup. Will that be abused in some cases? Yup. But it doesn't logically follow that the policies were primarily motivated by those intentions. If you think it does, your logic is simply fallacious.

When the main argument people make against something seems to be based on the assumption that anything which causes them to lose money or change how they live or experience much discomfort must be wrong, I see what the Critical Thinking community refers to as "egocentric and sociocentric thinking", i.e., self-centeredness. There is no moral or effective response to the huge crises we as a species face that doesn't involve lots of difficulty, lots of restraint (self- or otherwise) and, yes, lots of properties losing financial value. If you have specific criticisms of specific policies, fine, take that up as an issue. But if your position is that society (we as a group) doesn't have the right to enforce upon us necessary restrictions we don't like, it's time for you to evolve a little and look past your "rights" (which may not reasonably even be rights) to see what we need to do to secure a livable world for our grandkids. In other words, let's try to replace narrow self-interest with enlightened self-interest, which sees the common good as good for each individual.

Iolchan · 02-04-2012 02:01 PM

Welcome to Delphi
& the Priests of Apollo

Larry Robinson quoted {N.Y.Times}:

"Planning groups, several of which said they had never heard of Agenda 21 until protesters burst in, are counterorganizing.

"Summer Frederick, the project manager for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in Charlottesville, Va., which withdrew its dues to Iclei and its support from a national mayors’ agreement on climate change late last year after a campaign by protesters, now conducts seminars on how to deal with Agenda 21 critics. (Among her tips: remove the podium and microphones, which can make it “very easy for a critic to hijack a meeting.”)

Roanoke’s Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to renew its Iclei financing after many residents voiced their support.

“The Tea Party people say they want non-polluted air and clean water and everything we promote and support, but they also say it’s a communist movement,” said Charlotte Moore, a supervisor who voted yes. “I really don’t understand what they want.”

"Summer Frederick, the project manager for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in Charlottesville, Va., which withdrew its dues to Iclei and its support from a national mayors’ agreement on climate change late last year after a campaign by protesters, now conducts seminars on how to deal with Agenda 21 critics. (Among her tips: remove the podium and and microphones, which can make it “very easy for a critic to hijack a meeting .”

That's the Delphi Technique in action, in a nutshell. Do you see how Agenda 21 is already being used to polarize people, and herd the sheeples among us into compliance with the stated plans of the power elite?

I noticed, when I attended the first Town Hall Meeting in Sebastopol, in December, how John Jenkel was Delphied, that is, subtly signaled to stop speaking, (& he was being remarkably well-behaved) when he began to tell the assembled Town Hallers that we are all still under Martial Law. An Inconvenient Truth.

Once more, I think that there should be a Series of plein air debates on this vitally important and contentious topic - of U.N. Agenda 21 - in the civic centers of all of the Towns in Sonoma County.

And, if Rosa Koire is willing to debate any speaker who wishes to promote this Agenda, perhaps the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy - or some other group, alleged by Ms. Koire to have signed on to One Bay Area, ICLEI, & U.N. Agenda 21, can - as a matter of honor - step up to the plate and provide an informed speaker who feels competent to debate Ms. Koire, in a Public Debate.

-- That is, if you are willing to allow all of the ramifications of ICLEI to be examined in Public, and exposed to Public Scrutiny.

Mark Walter Evans

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Re: A Must Read--U.N. Agenda 21

Similar Threads

What is the Larger Agenda Behind the NDAA?

Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21

More News from the Global Warming Agenda

Agenda for June 22 Meeting

Agenda for May 6 Meeting

Bookmarks