Posted by dljholt on 05/19/11
Last updated 05/25/11

WHAT IS SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT?

Sustainable Development is the 1992 action plan set forth by the United Nations in 40 chapters of a socialist political agenda called Agenda 21 to control every aspect of life. Some of the more important goals are: Change Consumption Patterns; Promote Sustainable Human Settlements; Plan & Manage All Land Resources, Ecosystems, Deserts, Forests, Mountains, Oceans, Fresh Water; Agriculture; Rural Development; Biotechnology; Ensuring Equity; an increased role for Non-Government Organizations (NGOs); and define the role of Business and Financial Resources. All this was to be accomplished on a global, national, and local scale.

THE 5 PATHS TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
WILDLANDS · SMART GROWTH · STAKEHOLDER COUNCILS AND UNELECTED GOVERNING BOARDS (Bureaucracies) · PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS · EDUCATION

The first two paths to "sustainable development" calls for strict land use policies designed to tell humans where and how they will live.

THE WILDLANDS PROJECT was conceived by Dave Foreman, author of "Earth First". Half the land area of the entire United States will be designated "wilderness areas," where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas will be interconnected by "corridors of wilderness" to allow migration of wildlife, without interference by human activity. Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia as they are now in Idaho and Montana.

The abominable plan is to herd humans off the rural lands and into "human settlements" one step at a time. From the diabolical mind of Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN's Biodiversity Treaty making it international in scope. The treaty was rejected by the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless, it has made its way down the chain of command using rule-making authority administratively.

It begins with a large wilderness reserve areas where there is no human activity such as national parks. One such area in the Commonwealth is the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area which covers approximately 1800 square miles in Virginia. These areas are for the most part, roadless areas where cars are off limits. Around the park is a highly regulated buffer zone which consists of mostly agricultural and forestal land where human activity is strictly limited.

Strict regulations and special permit requirements for every activity related to farming, logging, livestock, mining etc. make it difficult for the land owner to realize a profit, Add to that the down-zoning to require 25 or more acres to build one home and it is unlikely there will be any future development of the land. Eventually the land owner is forced to take conservation easement relief to reduce the tax liability for the land in order to save it and survive. In exchange for tax relief, the land owner agrees that the land will forever be preserved void of any future human activity. As rural land is removed from the tax base, the tax burden increases to the remaining land owners. This is just one of many programs to redistribute wealth.

The preserved land then becomes part of the wilderness reserve and the buffer zone is now expanded outward around the now larger wilderness reserve. The process is perpetuated and, like a cancer, it is ever expanding and the goal of locking away 50% or more of America's landscape is achieved.

Many rural land owners have long envisioned that if they invest their life's work in land, they could retire on the profits of future development of their property. But central planning to preserve rural land and limit growth to within the new urban boundaries extinguishes any hope of realizing that dream. How will they support themselves in their twilight years when their only potential source of income is diminished?

SMART GROWTH is the counterpart for the wildlands. As human activity is moved from rural lands, smart growth policies dictate the establishment of high-density government controlled, government subsidized feudalistic zones of cooperation called "human settlements" in the UN charter. Virginia calls them "urban development areas".

The areas designated for urban development will consist of mixed use subsidized housing funded by our state treasury and all managed by non-government boards that resemble "Home Owners Associations." Housing units will be designed to provide most of the infrastructure and amenities required by the residents. Shops and office space will be an integral part of each unit, and housing will be allocated on a priority basis to people who work in the unit - with quotas to achieve ethnic and economic balance. Schools, daycare, and recreation facilities will be provided. Each unit will be designed for bicycle and foot traffic, to reduce, if not eliminate, the need for people to use automobiles. There is little focus on the building or expansion of roads and more emphasis on public transportation.

The plan is to limit growth to within the urban boundaries to prevent sprawl; reduce the carbon footprint to eliminate the undefined, unsubstantiated science of "global warming"; reduce the impact of humans on the environment outside the urban boundary zone.

A natural consequence of growth limited to within the UDAs is the shortage of land which results in a much higher cost for housing. Higher housing costs means higher taxes. Housing costs are further increased as green building codes are imposed that require the use of internationally approved "green seal" materials.

There are strict regulations imposed to require a permit to remove a tree, disturb land for any reason such as tilling for a vegetable or flower garden, landscape regulations to dictate what plant species can be planted, what materials can be used to build a home, a tiered rate for water consumption that has the potential of a high increase in the cost of water especially for those with large families, energy efficiency standards and energy audits that will result in limits on consumption and result in the expensive refitting of a home in order to meet ones' daily needs for water and energy.

The third path is the most important to the implementation of sustainable development policies. It is the use of "STAKEHOLDER COUNCILS" and "GOVERNING BOARDS". These unelected bodies draft the plans and establish the policies, set fees, and in many cases can create debt all at the expense of the taxpayer. Many even have the power of eminent domain.

Sustainable development policy dictates this transformation of the policy-making process. The idea that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is the idea that set the United States apart from all previous forms of government. It is the principle that unleashed individual creativity and free markets, which launched the spectacular rise of the world's most successful nation. The idea, and the process by which citizens can reject laws they don't want, simply by replacing the officials who enacted them, makes the ballot box the source of power for every citizen, and the point of accountability for every politician.

When public policy is made by elected officials who are accountable to the people who are governed, then government is truly empowered by the consent of the governed. Sustainable development has designed a process through which public policy is designed by professionals and bureaucrats, and implemented administratively, with only symbolic, if any, participation by elected officials and the public. The professionals and bureaucrats who actually make the policies are not accountable to the people who are governed by them.

This is the "new collaborative decisions process," called for by the President's Council on Sustainable Development and is being used to steer communities to a "consensus" of a predetermined goal. Because the policies are developed at the top, by professionals and bureaucrats, and sent down the administrative chain of command to state and local governments, elected officials feel they have little option but to accept them. Acceptance is further ensured when these policies are accompanied by "economic incentives and disincentives," along with lobbying and public relations campaigns coordinated by government-funded non-government organizations not to mention the lobbying efforts of all the other special interests which stand to gain from the new policies.

The fourth path is PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS. Today, many freedom organizations are presenting PPPs as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.

In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-complete clauses and specific guarantees for a return on their investments. Only those approved by the internationally recognized green building certification system called Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) will survive.

As a result, they can charge what they want and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise and will result in the opposite of economic development. One only needs to look to history with all the jobs that have been sent abroad to see the negative impact on jobs when government selects the winners and losers in business.

The last and final path, EDUCATION, to ensure that sustainability principles will be the new standard for future generations. Since freedom-loving people would never willingly submit to such totalitarian control, education became the "key" to sustainable development. Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 called Education, Public Awareness, and Training, made clear an intention to integrate Agenda 21 into ALL curriculum as a de facto international education standard.

Education for Sustainable Development began in the U.S. with the No Child Left Behind Act to reenforce the United States' commitment to UNESCO's goals for education.

Today, President Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) holds states "accountable" to implement their previously signed agreements. States and districts that refuse to "align" their standards, curriculum, and assessments with these so-called "world-class standards" will lose federal funding. NCLB requires full implementation by the end of 2014 - which just so happens to be the final year of The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. What a coincidence!

The US Department of Education carefully insulated themselves from critics of this radical agenda by funding tax-exempt, non-government organizations (NGOs) to do their dirty work. Sometimes an NGO is several layers removed from its true funding source.

What You Can Do

Sustainable Development is restructuring our lives and is targeting our children through an educational regime that seeks to develop collectivist attitudes, values and beliefs. Sustainable Development documents call for the abolishment of private property and the freedom that private property supports. It supplants long-standing State laws and causes irreparable harm to our economy and our society. If individual members of our society do nothing, the continuing loss of liberty will result in increasing social confusion and discord, rising resource shortages, financial decay and a dimming future for us and our posterity.

The looming battle of ideas should be recognized as a classic - and perhaps ultimate - battle between Liberty and Tyranny. The social, economic, and political transformations Sustainable Development requires will mean the suppression of unalienable rights for all people.

If Americans, with your help, come to a timely understanding of the threat and face the challenge squarely, the deceptive fraud of Sustainable Development will quickly come to light. Together, we will rise to restore Liberty through a renewal of reason and respect for the dignity of individual determination. The future of the freedom once taken for granted in America depends on us recognizing and countering the threats of Sustainable Development.

6 Practical Steps to Restore and Protect Liberty

1. Recognize and resist the trend to replace political boundaries with "regional governance." Recognize that this form of government leads to a breakdown of accountability to the citizenry.

2. Refuse local government receipt of federal or state money for new Sustainable Development programs because they breach the American system of federalism and raid the treasury. Withdraw from established Sustainable Development programs.

3. Avoid local government partnerships with the federal government, NGOs, foundations and corporations that advance the anti-liberty Sustainable Development agenda. Do not surrender your town or county to the insider privilege of Sustainable Developers and their monied interests.

4. Understand and enforce the role of public officials in your community to administer government in a manner that protects individual liberty and ensures equal justice.

5. Know and understand the Constitution, to which elected officials swore an oath with particular attention to Article 1, Section 8, the 9th and 10th Amendments, which address the limitations on federal power, and the 14th Amendment, which limits the states' police power.

6. If your locality is a dues-paying member of ICLEI, kick ICLEI out.

7. Use "Coordination" as a means of protecting localities from the over-reaching powers of federal government and bureaucrats. Learn more about Coordination at http://americanstewards.us

Posted by dljholt on 04/11/11
Last updated 04/11/11

I think we can envision what sustainable development might mean based on the meaning of the words and a little common sense. Probably the first thought that comes to mind is the continued prosperity of something such as a business. Other things that come to mind is common sense development to keep taxes down, a clean environment, good schools, free enterprise. All of these things are the essence of sustainable development to the average citizen.

What sustainable development isn't, is the abolishment of private property rights, a bloated over-reaching government, government sanctioned monopolies, erosion of individual freedom, and the redistribution of wealth which is the essence of Chesterfield County's “new comprehensive plan”.

This form of “Sustainable Development” (capital letters) is a recipe for the destruction of capitalism. If you think I'm kidding, look at what is happening in California. Over the past two decades, regulations incrementally imposed to implement Sustainable Development polices have choked free enterprise out of existence. Businesses are leaving the state in droves. Housing costs have risen to eleven times the annual income of its residents. Even though energy and water consumption is down, the cost to each household is higher and in the absence of any expansion of infrastructure to deliver resources. Unemployment and foreclosure rates are the highest in the nation. The state is essentially bankrupt.

This hardly sounds like what we envision as sustainable development.

The county government is not completely to blame. After all, they are only following the directives of our federal government. The county is rewarded with generous funding for the implementation of the egregious programs that consequently resolve some of the problems of local government, many of which were created by the federal government in the first place.

How convenient!

The Chesterfield County planning staff asserts that they helped the Renaissance Planning Group write the plan and I have no doubt that is true. I also have no doubt that in doing so, they have no idea of the nefarious underpinning of the plan.

The federal government has spared no expense to ensure that their objectives are met. For the past two decades, K – 12 public schools as well as colleges and universities have received generous grants to indoctrinate our unsuspecting youth in the principles of what they define as “Sustainable Development”.

The comprehensive plan is said to be a “blueprint for the future” to serve as a guide to mange future growth, encourage economic growth and jobs, encourage the most efficient use of resources, etc. but does not legally control land use or regulations in the way that a zoning ordinance does. But then it goes on to list 150 specific actions in an action matrix that are intended to carry out the goals. The very first section of the action matrix, then describes in general terms, the ordinances and regulations to achieve the goals.

In truth, it reads like a Marxist Manifesto. The document clearly states that the plan is to establish and maintain the “community well-being”. The glossary in the back of the comprehensive plan defines “community well-being” as:

“An optimal quality of healthy community life, which is the ultimate goal of all the various processes and strategies that endeavor to meet the needs of people living together in communities. It encapsulates the ideals of people living together harmoniously in vibrant and sustainable communities, where community dynamics are clearly underpinned by social justice considerations.”

The words “social justice” certainly raises suspicions? Why would such a term appear in a “guide” to manage growth in our community? What does “social justice” really mean?

The web definitions of “social justice” are:

• The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.

• An adherence to the theory that proprietorship and the authority of the means of production, capital, land, etc. should belong to the entire community.

• A redistribution of wealth; Socialism

So what is “socialism”?

Here are just a few of the web definitions of “socialism” but all say the same thing in different ways:

• A political theory advocating state ownership of industry

• An economic system based on state ownership of capital

• The Marxist theory of a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

So then one wonders, what is it in the plan that would lead us to “social justice”?

The following proposals in the plan would certainly lead us down the path to “social justice”:

Land Use Categories: With the stroke of a pen, there will be a transfer of wealth through down-zoning and up-zoning that will significantly reduce the value of ¼ of the land referred to as “countryside” and a sharp increase in the value of land in the low-income areas targeted for high-density development of “urban development areas” (UDAs).

Conservation Easement: Steep down-zoning extinguishes the hope of rural land owners that they may some day retire on the profits of future development of their land. It increases the likelihood that the rural land owner will regain some of the losses by committing most of their land to conservation easements. A redistribution of tax liability occurs when those who agree to conservation easement can reduce their adjusted gross income by 50 – 100% per year for up to 16 years. In doing so, they are essentially transferring the tax burden to the rest of the community.

Conservation easement is a wealthy rural landowner's dream. He could conceivably build a multimillion dollar mansion on hundreds of acres of land and pay only $100 or $200 in property taxes in addition to a 50% reduction in adjusted gross income by putting the majority of the property in conservation easement.

Investment and maintenance in bicycle trails and walkable paths in favor of the 5 – 6% of those who travel by foot and/or bicycle will be added to the tab.

Property Tax exemption is another entitlement for workforce housing.

Public/Private Partnerships: The plan encourages private/public partnerships which translates into monopolies, corporate tax breaks, and higher prices paid by the consumer.

Agriculture: An agricultural strategy calls for more incentives for landowners to conserve property.

Land Conservation Tools: Tools used to encourage conservation of more public and private lands to include land use taxation programs, purchase and transfer of development rights, easement programs. All of these programs serve to redistribute assets and tax liability.

Cultural Resource Funding: The plan calls for funding of “cultural resources”. Public funding for the arts? Really?

Historical Preservation: The plan calls for more preservation of historical areas. Typically what we see is the incremental expansion of land preserved around historical sites over time. Such is the case with the Petersburg Civil War Battlefield which already encompasses 2600 acres of preserved land. Congressman Forbes and Senator Webb are proposing adding another 7200 acres which will nearly quadruple the amount of land of this historical site. Technically, one could argue that all of the land in America is historical in one way or another. The question is, where do we draw the line? As more land is taken off the tax roles, the tax burden increases for the rest of the landowners in the community.

Federal Grants and Funding: The plan encourages taking advantage of the many government funded programs available that would help fund the implementation of the plan. What this means is that taxpayers will foot the bill for countless subsidies and federal grants to the local government and NGOs for the many programs for local community development activities such as affordable housing, anti-poverty programs, and infrastructure development, energy, water etc.. Add to that the many tax breaks awarded to development firms and landowners for LEED certified building materials, Energy Star appliances, and energy efficient construction for the new urbanism design.

Add to that the 150 items in the action matrix to include food production, forestry, a tiered water rate, energy efficiency and reduction, tree removal, landscape regulations, green building codes, housing design, river access, septic and utility ordinances, grading and clear cutting standards, aesthetics of building fronts, low-income housing, greenways and trails specific plans, etc.. The real question is, what rights can a landowner keep?

If you think this form of Sustainable Development is unique to Chesterfield County, think again. The maps may be different, the words may change, but the policies are all the same for every locality across the nation and around the world. The common goal of every locality is government control of the economy, land, individuals, and the total destruction of Capitalism.

James Madison said, "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own." Thomas Jefferson announced that "the defense of private property is the standard by which every provision of law, past and present, shall be judged."

The Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, largely written by George Mason, declared "that all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." Arthur Lee of Virginia called private property "the guardian of every other right."

You either have the right to own and control property or you become property!

Posted 04/11/11 Murphy Girl Murphy, TX

Good article. However, I think the second paragraph above: "What sustainable development isn't,"....you actually meant to say what sustainable development IS.. Thanks for posting this. We all need to hear every angle involving Sustainable Development, a.k.a Agenda 21, in order to grasp what all these nice sounding phrases mean to the individual. -Barbara

Posted 04/11/11 dljholt Midlothian, VA

Thanks Barbara! No I said it the way I meant it. To most people, that isn't what sustainable development is.

Posted 04/11/11 Willij4lib Monroe, WA

Very good article dljholt, excellent contribution, Sustain late 13c., from O.Fr. sustenir  "hold up, endure," from L. sustinere  "hold up, support, endure," from sub  "up from below" + tenere  "to hold" (see tenet). "Hold up, endure" to establish the truth of; confirm I have looked up this word several times in many different settings and the best I have been able to locate is this; To survive at a particular level or hold up indefinitely. So when I express sustainment, I express it with the thought of something existing at a good level to a great level. To sustain at a level below survival just makes no sense. One has to first learn that to sustain a business means to hold it at a level where it can survive and not have to shut its doors. Cities attempt to use this concept as well only there is one major difference. A company is filled with contributors that all do their part in the influence of the company being able to sustain or stay in existence. In order to do this a company would have to measure results to assure this level is met constant. But a city has no contribution because it has no product to bring about contribution and exchange which in turn allows the sustainment. It starts out as deficit and as it grows so does the deficit grow and to make it up comes the creation of ideas on how to take exchange from those who are contributing to sustainment of a company. For a company to be fully sustainable so does all the contributors because if the contributor do not nor shall the company. As well if the city does not sustain neither shall the company so each must know what the level is and all this entails. Only those not contributing keep killing sustainments and then demand more from those contributing. Cities and states and Federal Government are all deficit because they offer nothing in exchange literally, they only demand more for their sustainment and not the sustainment of the community. There is a point when the exchange becomes way out of control and starts to effect the companies ability to sustain and all the sudden find themselves in that spot of unable to sustain. It lacks understanding as well becomes misdefined and obscure from the original text. The one definition that best fit this response is; "To establish the truth of" To establish is to make something known clearly, truth is what is visible and can be confirmed. So here we have sustainment to do by performance, show clearly the ability to sustain by the actions of doing so and verifying it with vision it is being done and agreed upon. The cities and the states are out of agreement with those who contribute to sustainment levels by over extending themselves and there no service capabilities except to those who do not contribute to sustainment. This is not sustainment, this is the destruction of the concept of sustaining anything at any surviving level and has become overly apparent. But who is it really that is accountable for sustainment? Those contributing or those who do not contribute at all? This is the answer to the question and should be learned.

Posted 04/12/11 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

"Social justice" is about the depreciation of the value of the individual.... and it comes straight out of Feuerbach filtered through Marx.

Posted by dljholt on 04/10/11
Last updated 04/10/11

The right to own private property unfettered by excessive government control is under attack in Virginia. Private property is a fundamental right that distinguishes us as a free people, The framers of the constitution understood the importance of protecting private property rights. The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Despite constitutional protection against property confiscation, state and local governments have found a subtle way to limit private property rights: regulatory takings. Regulatory takings are an effective way for lawmakers and bureaucrats to pursue their policy goals without having to pay for them.

Such takings are often achieved through laws that restrict the right of landowners to use their property. These laws ostensibly benefit the general public though there is often disagreement as to the extent or even the existence of the benefit. These benefits must be paid for by someone, and since government officials usually possess more good intentions than they do money, they use regulatory takings to shift the expense to private property owners.

The following are examples:

Wetland Laws: A property owner is denied the use of his/her property because there may be standing water. Often the standing water isn't even on the property but adjacent to it. The courts have generally ruled that unless the loss of property approaches 100 percent, he/she is entitled to no compensation even though the property may be virtually useless for its intended purpose. The benefit of protecting wetlands may or may not be realized by the general public but the entire cost of the loss of use of the property is on the landowner.

Zoning Ordinance: A small business man purchases property and opens a coffee shop. The township zoning commission passes an ordinance that prohibits him from placing a sign on his property advertising his business. His ability to operate his business and generate a profit has been seriously harmed. Even though the value of the property is substantially diminished, he receives no compensation and is expected to bear the cost of the supposed aesthetic value realized by local citizens and visitors to the area.

Environmental Regulation: A landowner purchases two lots in a rural area. One to build his home now and one as an investment for development in 20 years to pay off his mortgage just in time for retirement. There is no public water and sewer infrastructure so he digs a well, installs a septic tank and drain field on the lot where he will live. By the time he's set to sell the other lot, there is a new regulation that prohibits a septic tank and drain field and in the absence of public infrastructure, he is unable to sell the land for development extinguishing his plan for the pay off of his mortgage so he cannot retire. He must also continue to pay taxes on land that is now useless to him.

While it is politically expedient to pass laws that promise benefits for the majority at the expense of individual property owners, our elected officials should be committed to protecting individual freedom by strengthening private property protections.

In the absence of leadership by elected officials, residents of a state may be forced to promote ballot initiatives so voters can decide if they want their private property protected from regulatory takings. Perhaps the only recourse is for citizens of the Commonwealth to pass a measure that stipulates that when the government imposes a restriction on the use of private property, it has to pay the landowner for the value lost as a result of that restriction. If the government chooses not to - or cannot afford to - pay the landowner, the restriction does not take effect.

Unfortunately, citizens often are not concerned about protecting private property rights until the government takes an action that affects them directly. By then, however, it may be too late. Virginia property owners should demand that their private property be protected from regulatory takings.

Posted 04/12/11 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

Property rights have taken a big hit in recent years in decisions by SCOTUS. Every time it happens......we need to make an issue out of it. Perhaps we need to force this into a referendum issue here in Florida. Thanks for the post.

Posted 05/16/11 Michael P G Virginia Beach, VA

Virginia Citizens do not have property rights. The state always has claim to your property through eminent domain and taxation.

Posted by dljholt on 04/01/11
Last updated 04/10/11

Written by Tom DeWeese of American Policy Center with contributions by Donna Holt

WHAT IS SUSTAINBLE DEVELOPMENT?

Sustainable Development is the 1992 action plan set forth by the United Nations in 40 chapters of a socialist political agenda called Agenda 21 to control every aspect of life. Some of the more important goals are: Change Consumption Patterns; Promote Sustainable Human Settlements; Plan & Manage All Land Resources, Ecosystems, Deserts, Forests, Mountains, Oceans, Fresh Water; Agriculture; Rural Development; Biotechnology; Ensuring Equity; an increased role for Non-Government Organizations (NGOs); and define the role of Business and Financial Resources. All this was to be accomplished on a global, national, and local scale.

THE 5 PATHS TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
WILDLANDS · SMART GROWTH · STAKEHOLDER COUNCILS AND UNELECTED GOVERNING BOARDS (Bureaucracies) · PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS · EDUCATION

The first two paths to "sustainable development" calls for strict land use policies designed to tell humans where and how they will live.

THE WILDLANDS PROJECT was conceived by Dave Foreman, author of "Earth First". Half the land area of the entire United States will be designated "wilderness areas," where only wildlife managers and researchers will be allowed. These areas will be interconnected by "corridors of wilderness" to allow migration of wildlife, without interference by human activity. Wolves will be as plentiful in Virginia as they are now in Idaho and Montana.

The abominable plan is to herd humans off the rural lands and into "human settlements" one step at a time. From the diabolical mind of Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN's Biodiversity Treaty making it international in scope. The treaty was rejected by the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless, it has made its way down the chain of command using rule-making authority administratively.

It begins with a large wilderness reserve area where there is no human activity such as a national park. One such area is the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area which covers approximately 1800 square miles in Virginia. These areas are for the most part, roadless areas where cars are off limits. Around the park is a highly regulated buffer zone which consists of mostly agricultural and forestal land where human activity is strictly limited.

Strict regulations and special permit requirements for every activity related to farming, logging, livestock, mining etc. make it difficult for the land owner to realize a profit, Add to that the down-zoning to require 25 or more acres to build one home and it is unlikely there will be any future development of the land. Eventually the land owner is forced to take conservation easement relief to reduce the tax liability for the land in order to save it and survive. In exchange for tax relief, the land owner agrees that the land will forever be preserved void of any future human activity. As rural land is removed from the tax base, the tax burden increases to the remaining land owners. This is just one of many programs to redistribute wealth.

The preserved land then becomes part of the wilderness reserve and the buffer zone is now expanded outward around the now larger wilderness reserve. The process is perpetuated and, like a cancer, it is ever expanding and the goal of locking away 50% or more of America's landscape is achieved.

Many rural land owners have long envisioned that if they invest their life's work in land, they could retire on the profits of future development of their property. But central planning to preserve rural land and limit growth to within the new urban boundaries extinguishes any hope of realizing that dream. How will they support themselves in their twilight years when their only potential source of income is diminished?

SMART GROWTH is the counterpart for the wildlands. As human activity is moved from rural lands, smart growth policies dictate the establishment of high-density government controlled, government subsidized feudalistic zones of cooperation called "human settlements" in the UN charter. Virginia calls them "urban development areas".

The areas designated for urban development will consist of mixed use subsidized housing funded by our state treasury and all managed by non-government boards that resemble "Home Owners Associations." Housing units will be designed to provide most of the infrastructure and amenities required by the residents. Shops and office space will be an integral part of each unit, and housing will be allocated on a priority basis to people who work in the unit - with quotas to achieve ethnic and economic balance. Schools, daycare, and recreation facilities will be provided. Each unit will be designed for bicycle and foot traffic, to reduce, if not eliminate, the need for people to use automobiles. There is little focus on the building or expansion of roads and more emphasis on public transportation.

The plan is to limit growth to within the urban boundaries to prevent sprawl; reduce the carbon footprint to eliminate the undefined, unsubstantiated science of "global warming"; reduce the impact of humans on the environment outside the urban boundary zone.

A natural consequence of growth limited to within the UDAs is the shortage of land which results in a much higher cost for housing. Higher housing costs means higher taxes. Housing costs are further increased as green building codes are imposed that require the use of internationally approved "green seal" materials.

There are strict regulations imposed to require a permit to remove a tree, disturb land for any reason such as tilling for a vegetable or flower garden, landscape regulations to dictate what plant species can be planted, what materials can be used to build a home, a tiered rate for water consumption that has the potential of a high increase in the cost of water especially for those with large families, energy efficiency standards and energy audits that will result in limits on consumption and result in the expensive refitting of a home in order to meet ones' daily needs for water and energy.

The third path is the most important to the implementation of sustainable development policies. It is the use of "STAKEHOLDER COUNCILS" and "GOVERNING BOARDS". These unelected bodies draft the plans and establish the policies, set fees, and in many cases can create debt all at the expense of the taxpayer. Many even have the power of eminent domain.

Sustainable development policy dictates this transformation of the policy-making process. The idea that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is the idea that set the United States apart from all previous forms of government. It is the principle that unleashed individual creativity and free markets, which launched the spectacular rise of the world's most successful nation. The idea, and the process by which citizens can reject laws they don't want, simply by replacing the officials who enacted them, makes the ballot box the source of power for every citizen, and the point of accountability for every politician.

When public policy is made by elected officials who are accountable to the people who are governed, then government is truly empowered by the consent of the governed. Sustainable development has designed a process through which public policy is designed by professionals and bureaucrats, and implemented administratively, with only symbolic, if any, participation by elected officials and the public. The professionals and bureaucrats who actually make the policies are not accountable to the people who are governed by them.

This is the "new collaborative decisions process," called for by the President's Council on Sustainable Development and is being used to steer communities to a "consensus" of a predetermined goal. Because the policies are developed at the top, by professionals and bureaucrats, and sent down the administrative chain of command to state and local governments, elected officials feel they have little option but to accept them. Acceptance is further ensured when these policies are accompanied by "economic incentives and disincentives," along with lobbying and public relations campaigns coordinated by government-funded non-government organizations not to mention the lobbying efforts of all the other special interests which stand to gain from the new policies.

The fourth path is PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS. Today, many freedom organizations are presenting PPPs as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.

In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-complete clauses and specific guarantees for a return on their investments. Only those approved by the internationally recognized green building certification system called Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) will survive.

As a result, they can charge what they want and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise and will result in the opposite of economic development. One only needs to look to history with all the jobs that have been sent abroad to see the negative impact on jobs when government selects the winners and losers in business.

The last and final path, EDUCATION, to ensure that sustainability principles will be the new standard for future generations. Since freedom-loving people would never willingly submit to such totalitarian control, education became the "key" to sustainable development. Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 called Education, Public Awareness, and Training, made clear an intention to integrate Agenda 21 into ALL curriculum as a de facto international education standard.

Education for Sustainable Development began in the U.S. with the No Child Left Behind Act to reenforce the United States' commitment to UNESCO's goals for education.

Today, President Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) holds states "accountable" to implement their previously signed agreements. States and districts that refuse to "align" their standards, curriculum, and assessments with these so-called "world-class standards" will lose federal funding. NCLB requires full implementation by the end of 2014 - which just so happens to be the final year of The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. What a coincidence!

The US Department of Education carefully insulated themselves from critics of this radical agenda by funding tax-exempt, non-government organizations (NGOs) to do their dirty work. Sometimes an NGO is several layers removed from its true funding source.

What You Can Do

Sustainable Development is restructuring our lives and is targeting our children through an educational regime that seeks to develop collectivist attitudes, values and beliefs. Sustainable Development documents call for the abolishment of private property and the freedom that private property supports. It supplants long-standing State laws and causes irreparable harm to our economy and our society. If individual members of our society do nothing, the continuing loss of liberty will result in increasing social confusion and discord, rising resource shortages, financial decay and a dimming future for us and our posterity.

The looming battle of ideas should be recognized as a classic - and perhaps ultimate - battle between Liberty and Tyranny. The social, economic, and political transformations Sustainable Development requires will mean the suppression of unalienable rights for all people.

If Americans, with your help, come to a timely understanding of the threat and face the challenge squarely, the deceptive fraud of Sustainable Development will quickly come to light. Together, we will rise to restore Liberty through a renewal of reason and respect for the dignity of individual determination. The future of the freedom once taken for granted in America depends on us recognizing and countering the threats of Sustainable Development.

6 Practical Steps to Restore and Protect Liberty

Insist that local elected officials:

1. Recognize and resist the trend to replace political boundaries with "regional governance." Recognize that this form of government leads to a breakdown of accountability to the citizenry.

2. Refuse local government receipt of federal or state money for new Sustainable Development programs because they breach the American system of federalism and raid the treasury. Withdraw from established Sustainable Development programs.

3. Avoid local government partnerships with the federal government, NGOs, foundations and corporations that advance the anti-liberty Sustainable Development agenda. Do not surrender your town or county to the insider privilege of Sustainable Developers and their monied interests.

4. Understand and enforce the role of public officials in your community to administer government in a manner that protects individual liberty and ensures equal justice.

5. Know and understand the Constitution, to which elected officials swore an oath with particular attention to Article 1, Section 8, the 9th and 10th Amendments, which address the limitations on federal power, and the 14th Amendment, which limits the states' police power.

6. If your locality is a dues-paying member of ICLEI, kick ICLEI out.

7. Use "Coordination" as a means of protecting localities from the over-reaching powers of federal government and bureaucrats. Learn more about Coordination at http://americanstewards.us

Posted by dljholt on 02/23/11
Last updated 04/01/11

Written by James Simpson

Part I traced the sustainable development movement to longstanding U.N. environmental and population initiatives with unmistakably Marxist goals. They talk about saving the environment, but most of the fine print refers to “equity,” “social justice,” “fair distribution” and other Marxist terms. “Global warming” is the latest scare tactic, but population control never left the scene. The U.N.’s answer: free condoms.

As I said before, these people are nuts.

..........Also see Related Research on Agenda 21

• China's Empty Cities Are Result of UN Agenda 21?
• Agenda 21: A Global Economic Disaster in the Making
• Agenda 21 Part II: Globalist Totalitarian Dictatorship Invading a Town near You
• Agenda 21 UN: The History of Sustainable Development - Connecting the Dots
• Sustainable Communities - A Transformation of Virginia

The discredited work of Dr. Paul Ehrlich, population prophet of doom, and Obama’s lunatic Science Czar, John Holdren, are referred to in U.N. population studies, and Ehrlich was cited in Agenda 21’s Biodiversity Assessment Report under “Gender Perspectives.” That’s right; the feminists have a special perspective on global warming too.

What was that someone said about women and talking? 

So the pretext doesn’t matter. They will always find one, because in their minds the solution to everything, poverty, overpopulation, environmental degradation, or even who should win Dancing with the Stars, is Socialism. And the way they get there is by creating a crisis. 

To promote their socialist nightmare, Marxists must use deceptive language and tactics. In “Sustainable Development” they have found a magic mantra. It has allowed them to insinuate all their socialist fantasies into our legal code, under our noses, with little or no fanfare, scant public debate and graveyard noises from our treacherously AWOL mass media, right down to the local level – with our permission. Agenda 21, a UN initiative that was never endorsed by the U.S. Senate, as  all international agreements must be, has penetrated into the ordinances of county and city governments all over America. (Click Wild Lands Map for Detail)

They have accomplished this through a little-known (to us) vehicle called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) – Local Governments for Sustainability. Quoting ICLEI documents from this article(emphases added):

Our campaigns, programs, and projects promote Local Agenda 21 as a participatory, long-term, strategic planning process that addresses local sustainability while protecting global common goods. Linking local action to internationally agreed upon goals and targets such as Agenda 21, the Rio Conventions, the Habitat Agenda, the Millennium Development Goals and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation is an essential component.[Sic] 

Chapter 3, Section 1 states, "The eradication of poverty and hunger, greater equity in income distribution and human resource development remain major challenges everywhere. The struggle against poverty is the shared responsibility of all countries."

As explained in Tuesday’s article, this project has everywhere and always been about socialism. They don’t even hide it too well.

In his opening statements at the 1992 Earth Summit, billionaire U.N. bureaucrat and compulsive totalitarian Maurice Strong (also Al Gore’s partner in their carbon credit business), said:

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations.

This is perhaps the most concise statement of Agenda 21’s real goals.

Do I have to repeat myself? These people are nuts! 

Strong echoes the sentiments of former Soviet leader and secular messiah Mikhail Gorbachev, who said: 

Do not do unto the environment of others what you do not want done to your own environment...My hope is that this (earth) charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments, a 'Sermon on the Mount', that provides a guide for human behavior toward the environment in the next century. 

Ironically, while Republican and Democrat alike rush to embrace sustainable development at the local level, even quasi-socialist states like Great Britain are abandoning it. From the London Telegraph:

Hurrah! Our useless Coalition government has finally done something useful by axing one of its more pointless and hateful quangos, the Sustainable Development Commission. 

Recall from Tuesday’s article that Agenda 21 was imposed on this country when Bill Clinton, defying the U.S. Senate’s will, created our own version, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, by executive order.

The Telegraph article pulls no punches: 

“Sustainability” is not nearly as politically neutral as its cuddly, warm name sounds. A bit like “multiculturalism” or “diversity”, “sustainability” is one of those weasel concepts which has been foisted on our language and culture by the hard left, linguistically masquerading as something unimpeachably caring and reasonable while in fact advancing a policy agenda designed to increase state control, remove property rights and liberty, and brainwash the gullible into ceding more and more of their democratic rights to UN and EU bureaucrats.

Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, a leader in exposing the radical goals of “sustainable development,” has called Agenda 21 “the greatest threat ever perpetrated against the American ideal of liberty.” 

Here is a list of the more than 600 U.S. cities, towns and counties currently participating in ICLEI’s Local Governments for Sustainability.

ICLEI has succeeded in implementing the sustainability agenda through something called the Delphi Technique. All activists need to understand the Delphi Technique. Originally created by the Rand Corporation as a consensus building methodology for scientists, Delphi has morphed into a subversive tactic for imposing malevolent leftist agendas on an unsuspecting public who would never agree if they understood. 

A key feature of the Delphi Technique is to identify the “good guys,” i.e. those who go along with the predetermined agenda, and isolate the “bad guys,” thereby removing any obstructionists. It is a sophisticated application of Alinksy’s Rule #13: pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

In order to motivate the “good guys,” ICLEI has created a rating system for counties based on how well they implement Agenda 21. King County, Washington has become the proud test bed for this new system. Listen to this bloviating county executive: 

“We are honored to be selected and look forward to piloting this innovative efficiency program," said King County Executive Dow Constantine. "The Pacific Northwest and King County have a lot to gain by protecting the climate, and I am happy we are going to be using all available tools to measure how we make a difference.”

Note that local governments receiving a poor rating can now be identified as “bad.” For the young “enlightened” couple seeking a place to settle, such a place obviously won’t do. The city/county is also much less likely to receive “sustainability” funds available from federal and state government, so while they are on the hook to adopt Agenda 21 initiatives, they will have to fund it themselves. The rating system thus creates strong financial incentivesfor local governments to compete to be the “best” and serious consequences for those who do not. 

And the above-referenced article about King County, perhaps inadvertently, has exposed the radical nature of this organization: 

The STAR Community Index ™ (STAR) is a groundbreaking software tool being developed by ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability USA, in partnership with the US Green Building Council (USGBC), the National League of Cities, and the Center for American Progress. (Emphasis added.)

You may recognize the Soros funded Center for American Progress. It is run by John Podesta, Clinton administration Chief of Staff and Obama Transition Team director. Podesta is also on the board of the Apollo Alliance, formerly run by Green Jobs Czar, self-described communist, Van Jones.

CAP has been described by Weather Underground Obama supporter Mark Rudd as Obama’s “government in waiting.” Members include Open Society Institute President and SDS founder Aryeh Neier, Van Jones and a laundry list of other radical leftists. The National League of Cities isn’t much better.

Here is another example of the Delphi Technique in application and a revealing illustration of where they are attempting to go with it. The Baltimore County government’s Office of Planning devotes an entire section to developing the concept of a “Green Transportation Hierarchy,” kind of an upside-down takeoff on Abraham Maslow[1]’s “ Hierarchy of Needs.”

They identify those transportation modes that contribute to “global warming” ranked from least (pedestrians) to most (our cars). 

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out who are the “bad guys” here. It is interesting to note that taxis are preferred over high occupancy vehicles. Do taxis carry more people? Usually not, but taxis are not privately owned, like carpool vehicles using the HOV lanes usually are. The thrust clearly favors public transportation and the ultimate goal is walking and biking, the common modes of transport in communist China.

Yes, they want our cars too. 

This is made explicit in the push for “20 minute neighborhoods.” Portland, Oregon is taking the lead in this initiative. Here is there justification (emphases mine): 

Desires for sustainable living: increased energy conservation, support for local businesses, active and healthier lifestyles and improving community connections and equity has led to an interest in fostering the development or redevelopment of walkable communities, or 20-minute neighborhoods, in Portland.  

Before the 1920s, when autos were rare and few people had access to a car on a regular basis, most people lived in 20-minute neighborhoods by necessity. As cars became more available, proposals to preserve 20-minute neighborhoods entered planning literature. In 1929, the “Neighborhood Unit” by Clarence Perry described successful neighborhoods as those that offer accessibility to the spectrum of day-to-day human needs. He proposed defining these neighborhoods in terms of a one-quarter mile walk.

Despite well-recognized interest in keeping 20-minute neighborhoods in the late 1920s, and beyond, during the second-half of the 20th century, the trend across the United States was toward providing auto-oriented residential and commercial environments.

Yep, autos, the villain. So here’s the pitch:

However, increased interest in improving sustainability—responding to challenges posed by climate change by reducing car trips and decreasing energy use in general, the need for affordable housing and to reduce housing-related costs, the need to stay physically fit and live healthily and wants to support local businesses—has renewed interest in walkable environments or 20-minute neighborhoods.

Walkable communities are defined specifically, too:

Some studies have shown that a 20-minute walk equates to approximately 1 mile walking at a fast pace; however, the average person could walk between ¼ to ½ a mile under safe, conducive walking conditions, (e.g. sidewalks and short blocks).

To emphasize the importance of short distances for walking, we used an analysis area with dimensions of 500 by 500 feet and used the frequency of intersections and the presence of sidewalks as factors in walkability.

They want to herd us into ¼ mile neighborhoods. And population density is specified as well: a minimum density of 12-18 households per acre. Welcome to the Soviet Union!

How many times do I need to say it?  These people are nuts!

The country is awash in this crap. The Maryland State government is virtually bursting with “Sustainability” initiatives like Governor O’Malley’s Smart, Green and Growing. The state Department of Natural Resources hosts a Sustainability Network page, where you can link to organizations promoting sustainability in every county in the state.

The Maryland state government created a new “Sustainable Growth Commission” in 2010. The year before, it passed the “Smart and Sustainable Growth Act of 2009,” which requires county planning officials to take a special course. You can see the study guide here . The guide is a road map to the “sustainable” future, which will force us all into cities, crowd us close to public transportation, bike paths and into “walkable neighborhoods”:

“…encouraging shorter drive times, locating housing closer to work, minimizing shopping trips, and giving our kids real options to walk and ride bikes to school, parks and playgrounds…” while reducing our “carbon footprint.”

But the drive to push us into cities would not be complete without an equally aggressive effort to chase us out of the country.

Earth First! is a radical environmental group branded by the FBI as domestic terrorists, a fact they are proud of. Believe it or not, Dave Foreman, Earth First’s co-founder who pioneered in the use of tree spikes (left), has been an intimate partner in development of the “sustainability” agenda.

His “Wildlands Project,” now called the Wildlands Network, was adopted by the U.N. Biodiversity Treaty. Here is what he has to say:

We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects… We must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.

This is getting old: these people are nuts!

The goal is to make 50 percent of the land in every state inaccessible by man (except, of course, the “good guys”.) According to Tom DeWeese, much has been accomplished already:

Today, there are at least 31 Wildlands projects underway, locking away more than 40 percent of the nation’s land. The Alaska Wildlands Project seeks to lock away and control almost the entire state. In Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, Montana parts of North and South Dakota, parts of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Texas, Utah, and more, there are at least 22 Wildlands Projects underway. For example, one project called Yukon to Yellowstone (Y2Y) – creates a 2000 mile no-man’s land corridor from the Arctic to Yellowstone.

An excellent video by Dr. Michael Coffman explains it all. The six minutes are worth your time. Just click on the picture:

If I haven’t convinced you, Dr. Coffman’s video should. (link to Taking Liberty) The metastasized cancer of Agenda 21 must be ripped out root and branch from our body politic. Local governments and state legislatures must be confronted and forced to repeal the myriad laws, ordinances, zoning codes and regulations that advance this globalist agenda. It simply must be tackled now. This is a perfect issue for local Tea Party groups and must become a focal point of our efforts to reclaim our country.   .

The Wildlands map is particularly stunning, showing exactly how they plan to herd the entire U.S. population into tiny urban centers and put most of the country completely off limits (except for the “good guys” of course.)