TV Ad: "I Have Lived A Good Life." U.N. Agenda 21 Openly Advertising That Our Elderly Commit Suicide
11/12/2012
This should raise the hair on the back of your neck. This is what the UN wants. Eugenics are fairly big in their program as well. The "underground rulers" of the planet want a "perfect world". Coffee got this from The Mad Jewess.
104 Comments
Comments are closed.
Thanks for reblogging this.
While it may be a hoax, as Paulette said was possible, or whether it is a prophecy, I do know about the program proposed in Agenda 21. It is very real. People have to know.
I know it’s very real. I’ve posted about it in the past including documents and videos. Agenda 21 is about controlling everything – the people, the land, the money…
You’ve seen mine as well. Oh yeah, this is some scary shit.
Yes it is – even scarier that a lot of people don’t even know about it
Which is why we have to stay on it. To teach those who don’t know.
Sarah Palin said they are Death Panels in ObamaCare and they laughed at her.
Then they admitted to it, poet. Not in those exact words, but concept.
Well, Poet, “THEY” IS stupid!
OR, “THEY ARE”…either way…IT IS STUPID to just threaten UNLESS YOU INTEND TO BACK IT UP WITH ACTION.
Give it time. They’ll see.
Not a UN ad. The UN doesn’t run ads. It’s a Glenn Beck creation. You’ve been hoaxed.
Glenn Beck is about making you think that, so you’ll subscribe to his channel and he can make money. But for the gullibles, he’d be in the unemployment line right now. Even if you like him, don’t enable him — make him get an honest job.
Research Agenda 21. Go ahead, I dare you to find the truth. I’ve spent days with my head on line, studying everything from the original documents on. Ed, don’t pull an Alinsky, where if you don’t like the message you attack the messenger. Seriously, I’ll figure you just don’t know the truth. Go look for yourself.
If you’ll check my comments, you may note I’ve proposed that. It may not be real yet, but note the word YET. Prophecy? Maybe.
Can you quote from any of the original documents for us any of the harms you claim to find? Stop working hard to be rude, and work for accuracy, please.
The message is a false one. That’s all I’ve said. You’ve been hoaxed. I don’t know who the messenger is, but it’s probably not an honorable person — is it you? If it is you, I’m sorry you stooped so low. Not sure why you think I’m attacking you otherwise, because I didn’t.
Got facts? Please show ‘em.
Ed, I disagree with you. Beck was the ONLY person on TV that explained Obama, his past associates, his agenda and how it all works.
Yes, he does need $ … Good Lord! Fox Fired him for doing his job and maybe it might have had a little to do with it that he referred to Obama as “Fuck-face” on nation wide TV.
Not many people would have known about ALL of Obama’s background without Beck.
If you don’t like him…don’t watch him….Free country…and all, turn the channel or get off his site. We still have that choice, thank goodness.
As I have agreed, those are quite probably Beck creations. But I think them prophetic. You want me to do your research for you? Already did, but then you would have to go back through my files to about 6 months ago. Okay, this one is a bit more current than most of mine:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html
You want the original documents?
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf
Not clear enough? Stand by, I’ll get a picture for you.
I gave you that link to the UN documents. Where in there is there any harm like the ones Beck hoaxes up, or that you claim to fear?
Yes, Agenda 21 exists — it’s an effort to create support for wise agricultural practices and wise environmental protection practices so that we have adequate pure water and adequate food resources to feed 9 billion people (2 billion people more than the planet now holds). I’m not disputing that.
I’m disputing the hoaxes that claim Agenda 21 is nefarious, trying to do the opposite of what the UN works for.
Can you point to any document which calls for any unwise action? There is no call for population control, and in fact the opposite. There is no call to end private property, in fact there are calls to reinforce the protections for farmers to keep their lands. There are no calls to oppress populations — Agenda 21 gets opposition from communists because of the free-market-supporting philosophy it espouses.
Can you shows any problems, without resorting to hoax groups like Glenn Beck’s or so-called AmericanThinker? Where is the harm, really?
Enjoy your KoolAid, ignore the almond flavoring. This is obviously something that seems good on the surface. To you. If you did a Rip van Winkle, do you think what you woke up to would be what you went to sleep on?
From the UN document you provided the link to, the Preamble of Agenda 21:
1.1. Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.
1.2. This global partnership must build on the premises of General Assembly resolution 44/228 of 22 December 1989, which was adopted when the nations of the world called for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and on the acceptance of the need to take a balanced and integrated approach to environment and development questions.
1.3. Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments. National strategies, plans, policies and processes are crucial in achieving this. International cooperation should support and supplement such national efforts. In this context, the United Nations system has a key role to play. Other international, regional and subregional organizations are also called upon to contribute to this effort. The broadest public participation and the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups should also be encouraged.
1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations.
1.5. In the implementation of the relevant programme areas identified in Agenda 21, special attention should be given to the particular circumstances facing the economies in transition. It must also be recognized that these countries are facing unprecedented challenges in transforming their economies, in some cases in the midst of considerable social and political tension.
1.6. The programme areas that constitute Agenda 21 are described in terms of the basis for action, objectives, activities and means of implementation. Agenda 21 is a dynamic programme. It will be carried out by the various actors according to the different situations, capacities and priorities of countries and regions in full respect of all the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. It could evolve over time in the light of changing needs and circumstances. This process marks the beginning of a new global partnership for sustainable development.
* * * * *
* When the term “Governments” is used, it will be deemed to include the European Economic Community within itsareas of competence. Throughout Agenda 21 the term “environmentally sound” means “environmentally safe andsound”, in particular when applied to the terms “energy sources”, “energy supplies”, “energy systems” and “technology” or “technologies”.
Where is there harm “in recognizing these countries are facing unprecedented challenges,” where is there harm in trying to transform economies of third-world nations to first-world status, where is there harm to protecting farms and people, and the food production upon which they depend?
Beck says there is a call for population control? I’ve asked you to show that before. You pointed to an inaccurate “quote” from a document Henry Kissinger worked on 40 years ago.
Seriously? We’re all from Missouri on this issue: Show us.
Regret the formatting difficulty. A sharp reader can figure it out.
If you don’t know where there is a problem in the documents, just say so. Show me the Kool-Aid package (apologies to Kool-Aid). You keep claiming I’m missing something — show me what’s missing.
I’m fine with your admitting that you’ve made a leap of faith. I think it’s a misplaced leap, but I respect the honesty of saying you can’t show what you claim.
AmericanThinker said Agenda 21 is “a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with anti-American, anti-capitalist overtones.”
It’s also “arguably” a sustainability agenda (which means “more food production”) which is an amalgamation of free-market and anti-environmentalism brushed with anti-Soviet and pro-capitalist overtones.
As I noted, it calls for protection of private property, it calls for protection of every nation’s sovereignty, it rather celebrates the small farmer and the free enterprise models as saviors of the third world. Programs don’t argue for collectivization, but instead try to get resources to small farmers so they can compete. That’s called “free market.”
Socialism? Where? “Anti-American?” Where?
All of the sections of the nation off limits to human habitation kind of argue with that.
Try the ones I just put up.
On the briefest of reads, within the first paragraph, the entire socialist agenda involved is blatant.
What definition of socialism are you using? No call for collectivization, even; Agenda 21 documents countermand calls for government ownership or control of food production — that’s anti-socialist, if you’re paying attention.
Don’t read so “briefly” that you miss what’s said.
Socialism? You accuse me of swallowing something gullibly — because you have?
First paragraph to which you refer:
You deny that? We’ve lost more than 30% of the heritage beef ranchers in Texas in the last two years — out of business, no beef from them in the future, forever. Herds sold off and slaughtered. Monsoons screwed up in India, and fouled up rice crops and wheat crops in China. Dry winter and spring floods fouled up our winter wheat crops, drought and unseasonable rains fouled up the corn crops.
“We stand at a defining moment in history” applies to all times since probably 40 B.C. — but it’s true now, don’t you agree?
Poverty increased even in the U.S. Hunger remains, and it’s the product of and driver of wars across North Africa (see South Sudan). Arsenic poisoning of people — from their well water — cripples agricultural production in India and Pakistan. In 1800, about 95% of Americans were literate enough to read the Declaration of Independence; today literacy experts fear fewer than 50% of Americans can understand the document (adults, too, not just kids).
Rain forests are in long-term decline; arctic tundra is in long-term decline; arboreal forests are in long-term decline; savannahs and productive plains are threatened by urbanization and desertification.
So, this first paragraph states, very briefly, problems we face.
How is understanding real problems, “socialist?” Fixing problems is a human enterprise, a human instinct, that is opposite of socialism.
You think problems go away if we ignore them? That’s what the Soviets did, ignored the decline of the Aral Sea and the Caspian Sea. History shows us that doesn’t work.
What do you propose instead? So far you’re supporting the failed socialist history, not Agenda 21.
You’re anti-development? That’s anti-free market.
Especially in a world where new nations seem to spring up annually, we need international cooperation, such as the U.S. cooperation with Canada in managing the St. Lawrence Seaway, or the fishing grounds off of Nova Scotia. (There were just over 50 nations who joined to establish the United Nations, and about 100 nations in the world in 1945; today there are nearly 200 separate nations. With this rapid deconsolidation of government, international cooperation in some issues becomes more important.)
I think you’re imagining socialism there, that does not exist on a slightly less brief reading.
You’re making false accusations, in other words. I’ve asked repeatedly for you to point out any of the evils you claim are in Agenda 21. You point to hoaxes by Glenn Beck and others.
Glenn Beck hoaxes are evil by Glenn Beck, not by the UN, you know?
What section of the nation is off-limits to human habitation? Only weather, poor soil and lack of potable water have limited our occupation of U.S. lands — and we’ve gotten around that in many places, like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City (you regard those as hotbeds of socialism, I take it).
I’ve lived among the Mormons. Beck is not even a Stake Patriarch, let alone a prophet.
Seriously, if you so easily mistake someone pulling your leg for prophecy, you need to get a new perspective. There’s something wrong, and it’s not with the UN.
Dude, You will not hear the truth so obvious to one not enamored of the concept. And again you use the Alinsky “attack the messenger” tactic. I obviously have nothing to say to you that you will hear, this is not the place for you to see the message. I truly hope you find the truth someday.
I’d be glad to hear the truth. Let me repeat: Show us where any of the harms you claim are even mentioned in any Agenda 21 document.
You’re repeating groundless charges, false claims, and hoaxes.
Can you make a case, without relying on the whopping falsehoods of Glenn Beck?
How many times must I ask before you even try?
I just put up several others NOT Beck. I went away from Beck just so you would see it is not he alone.
1. Any that cite actual Agenda 21 documents, or more hoaxes?
2. Where?
Instead of continuing on this one, why don’t you refer to some of my newer posts. You might find what you’re looking for in one of them.
Do you really not know about this, or are you a company agent trying to attack and discredit it?
Soil conservation is an issue I’ve followed for 50 years. UN issues I’ve touched on professionally several times over the years.
Do you have a background in environmental law, policy, or international law?
No, but I do still believe the free market is the greatest system ever. And I believe this is OUR country, not to be controlled by other countries desires for our goods. Let US grow it, we will trade what you can provide for what we can provide. Let US extract our own energy, rather than be forced to buy it from you. If you can sell it to us cheaper than we can make it ourselves, sure we’ll trade you 5 bushels of wheat for a drum of crude oil. Why should we be concerned with a global socialist heirarchy?
That’s what Agenda 21 says. You’re opposed to Agenda 21. I think you’re very, very confused.
Not free market economy. Centrally controlled targeted distribution. Compressed living environments, state controlled farms and ranches, Read more closely.
State controlled farms? Again, I wish you’d read the actual documents — Agenda 21 is OPPOSED TO STATE CONTROLLED FARMS AND RANCHES and encourages private enterprise and entrepreneurship instead. Excuse the hiccup.
Of course, you’re not listening anyway, right?
Basically milk toast, integrally calling on the strengthening of private enterprise and entrepreneurship, and completely the opposite of your claim that it calls for state controlled farms.
I’m beginning to think you’re intentionally misrepresenting Agenda 21.
You are looking through filtered lenses, I have nothing for you. Sure, it’s a wonderful concept. Go with it, support it with all your might.
Sorry I’m late but I will add this anyway.It is long and will by necessity(due to linkage and other more temporal duties) be a multi-part process. So with hosts indulgence..
The ads in the original post are not genuine but in my opinion are a form “satire” for lack of a better word of the opponents of this UN inspired monstrosity. This is hardly a bad thing as they essentially expose in plain language the mindset of the self proclaimed international intelligentsia as embodied in institutional leftist shit holes like the UN and subscribed to by dishonest and intellectually empty puppets like the “liberals” in this country. This agenda has been advanced by purposefully vague language in order to confuse the population they are trying to control. They use terms that have been emptied of meaning and through the mendacity of pseudo intellectual like George Lakoff have essentially been endowed with a meaning that is exactly the opposite of what most people have been taught.
I have documented on previous occasions how many in the “sustainability” believe the herd should be culled by 90% plus. This also a position that Malthusian hack and former science czar John Holdren would be very comfortable with. How utterly chicom of him.
Of course that’s just for the little people to follow. Our masters would never subject themselves to such limitations and Logan’s Run life spans as they consider their enlightened vision so mush of an asset to humanity that the sheer hypocrisy would be a small price to pay. Of course there is a racialist tinge to their agenda as only “Europeans” are subject to these strictures which is patently ironic since most of the over population centers are shit holes in southwest asia, Africa and any where Islam is the predominant societal building block.
What is also elided is that much of the reason for non replacement rate birth rates is the affluence of western society which allows us to be self indulgent on matters such as the radical Luddite environmentalism that threaten to bring the whole thing down. So keeping those “little brown people” the international left is so fond of(as useful props)poor and stupid through the phony promises of the egalitarian society actually add to the problem of global overpopulation. When the global left talks about over population they mean affluent freethinking and intelligent white people(their bien pensant asses excluded of course). Remember they like beggars cause they are easier to please(thanks Prof Reynolds)
The international left is objectively anti-human as they openly embrace abortion, euthanasia, the banning of DDT(Rachel Carson’s screed has killed more people than Mao and Stalin combined), the abolition of GMO’s,using food as fuel and an abhorrence of the greatest wealth creation mechanism, the free market in particular and individual liberty in general, the world has ever known. All this in an attempt to assuage their egos that they can outdo the benefits of a spontaneously and mutually beneficial consensual society. The result of their conceit will be a re-introduction of the Hobbesian view of life nasty, brutish and short. A spectacle of all against all as these mental midgets impose their zero sum exploiter/exploited vision. Of course they are the one who get to decide who is whom. What could gor wring with that. Some more in a bit.
But, FX! Ed says that Agenda 21 is all about free market growth! I saw the maps, I read the plan, I don’t see it but he does. How is that possible?
I will get to that CM Patience.
To put it short and up front Agenda 21 is the opposite of the free market in that self serving and self proclaimed elites direct economic activity based on factors other than actual economic efficiency and informational feedback. The elite like to claim that the price cues in the market economy are inefficient. Price cues are not perfect but they are a hell of a lot more informed and efficient than any group of self designated “intellectuals’ with banks of super computer and reams of data.
Postus interruptus by a really great Good Charlotte song
Back to our previous thought.
This is because those who generate these price cues, consensual actors in a free association, have a vested interest in getting these prices right otherwise economic disaster looms. Third party “experts” have no such incentive as they have very little riding on such a decisions(paraphrase of Dr Sowell). It is just one in a million as far as they’re concerned. Like those who do not pay explicit taxes they have very little skin in the game.
Agenda 21 is a manifestation of such wrong headed thinking as it replaces the self interest and well being of millions of decision makers in better position to make co-operative decisions that maximally benefit themselves and their locality with the rule of a one sized fits all plan conceived with not 1/1,000,000th of the input that went into making the price cues used for allocating resources. Invariably rubrics like Agenda 21 constricts choices to those that aggrandize power of those administering this boondoggle at the expense of those who are directly affected.
Like Mark Steyn so eloquently puts it “Big government means small citizens”
More in a bit.
Excellent! Absolutely excellent!
Your documentation is grotesquely wrong. Dr. Pianka warned that people who do not heed warnings about environmental dangers put the human race in a position where a 90% reduction by dread disease is almost inevitable.
But he doesn’t advocate it, nor did Holdren.
So, if you’ll make up stuff whole cloth on the harms side, and those are the ONLY harms you can find, may I assume your entire position is pure flatulence?
You’d flunk my basic research course with work like that.
Yeah Good Charlotte’s a pretty good band.
It’s like trying to light a candle in the wind, I know, no matter how much you need the light — but can you point to any Agenda 21 document which suggests any “elite” should “direct economic activity on factors other than actual economic efficiency and informational feedback?”
I’d love to see the document where you got that idea. You’ve stated the economic part of Agenda 21 exactly bass ackwards.
But now you don’t remember where the maps were, what they showed, nor what the plan was, nor where it was laid out?
If you saw it once, why can’t you show it to anyone else?
Well Ed since we don’t see eye to eye on any issue I wouldn’t expect too.
The advocacy is for a 90% reduction in human habitation of the planet. Now cull might be the wrong word. Perhaps attrition would be more correct as Holdren is certainly for restriction of peoples procreative choices unless of course it’s for killing children in the womb and outlawing technical advances that actually make human life more bearable And I’m sure like his former Obama compatriot he is all for the new IPAB(Death panels in the colloquial) about the rationing of care. If you can’t see the danger of such a mechanism then we have no basis for a rational discussion.
The left is anti-human except where their own precious and overrated assets are concerned.
His Mathusian doom saying has been outstripped by facts on the ground. His premise that denial and shared misery has been refuted again by the fact that it is prosperity and liberty that overcomes dire circumstances. These are the what the left looks to impose upon us in the name of fairness thorough any number of international treaties including CEDAW, LOST the small arms treaty and the UN resolution to make telling the truth Islam a international.
Oh are you a perfesser Ed? Wow, I am impressed. That would explain a why you are so gung ho for international control of Americans. Some ideas are so stupid only an academic
can believe them
Ed, enjoy your beverage. Ignore the slight hint of almond in the taste. I know I said that before, but it would seem the only way to get through is via repetition. I’ve put up more posts on the subject since, but you are stuck here. We can continue in some of those where I have put up later videos and such.
FX, thanks for attempting to assist on this one, but this individual wants to give his Beretta a blowjob.
Sorry that last post was a little sketchy. Typing mad is always a bad idea.
lol, FX, believe me, it happens to all of us.
I hear exactly what you’re saying cmblake6: “I know what I believe, and even though I can’t provide a scintilla of evidence to back my claims, anyone who doubts me can just go fish.”
Got it.
I expect others who wonder what Agenda 21 is about will take you up on your offer, and go fish. You won’t like what they catch.
Party on, Ed. You extract your meaning from the writings, I will extract a different meaning from the exact same writings. It is not that we have read different things, it is that we see a different definition from them.
Nevermind.
It is frustrating. I think I’ve answered the question though. It’s all in how you read it.
Perfesser Ed says
I don’t know, how about 100 years of progressive re-interpretation of plain language to fit a creeping agenda of manipulation and control. I don’t have to wade through a bunch of legalistic euro-socialist diplospeak to know that it doesn’t matter what is written in the law but what you can get five dopes in black robes to accept as plausible. You can sit there and deny that this is what happened over the course of time(see the specious living constitution doctrine advocated by the proto-statist Woodrow Wilson et al) but that would make you look foolish.
These things are broadly and ambiguously written to provide for any interpretation that favors the state and their so called experts. This was the Wilsonian idea from 100 years ago and is now being implemented full bore by those who thrive on such ambiguity through multi thousand page behemoth pieces of legislation and lawless edicts by regulatory hacks. Those who make the law stand behind the letter of the law until they need it to say something different and then left is right and up is down.
Perfect.
I owed ya one.
Tango Yankee.
So it’s not just that you don’t have any evidence to back your claims, you ALSO claim, contrary to history, law, common sense and sanity, that there is a super secret agenda that, while never stated anywhere, and never acted on, you in your divine, mists-of-too-much-absinthe wisdom, can see, even though there isn’t any evidence that it exists! Right there next to the invisible pink unicorns and the colorless green ideas sleeping furiously, you claim your evidence resides — for anyone who can see past the pink elephants.
Those devious Agenda 21 nasty people! Not only do they not say anything about their evil intentions, they also don’t do anything evil! No one will ever suspect!
It’s a good thing you found each other. It’ll be fascinating to see whether hybrids-beyond-humans like you can breed, if anyone cares to wait around.
Oh, I don’t want to look foolish. No sirree! That’s why I asked cmblake6 to point me to the stuff you see. He’s been absolutely unable to do that. Perhaps you can step in and offer us the help we need not to look foolish, FX Phillips.
Now that I detect you’re here — I didn’t realize they made patchouli in that strength anymore, but you probably need it to stay legal outside of Colorado and Washington — surely you can point us to the statements, and the actions, that you claim are so harmful, since you say that the laws and writings don’t matter (do these guys communicate by telepathy? Zounds! Green Lantern himself couldn’t stand up to such nefariousness!).
Since, you say, there is nothing in print from Agenda 21 to suggest what they really want to do, you can point to actual actions that support your claims, right? While the evil-doers can keep their words secret — it’s only among people from 200 nations and involving a few hundred in each nation, so it’s wholly within the realm of possibility that they can keep this stuff secret with only 300,000 to 500,000 people knowing about their intent and actions — their actions must be fully manifest by now. After all, its 20 years since Rio. We’re 15 years past Kyoto. Surely, were the bad things you claim are to happen in the works, some of that would be oozing out for all to see, right?
So tell us about the actions taken under the Agenda 21 umbrella that support your view of the evil, against the beneficial and educational things actually mentioned in Agenda 21.
Here in the U.S., for example, we have a council in the executive branch to work on Agenda 21 action items, the White House Rural Council. They’ve already got a list of accomplishments, and while they look beneficial to very benign to me, if Agenda 21 were as evil as you say, these actions probably have some harmful effects you can describe. Take a look at these, and tell me which you find sinister:
1. The “carve-out” in the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Impact Investment Program to invest in distressed areas and emerging sectors such as clean energy. Small business, of course, isn’t socialism, but maybe you can correct our view on that.
2. U.S. Department of Labor’s offering job training information through the USDA’s county offices, getting a much greater reach to people in distressed areas, in distressed occupations, and where jobs are not, to get them information to get them great jobs. The jobs are almost always private sector jobs, but maybe you know of some new socialist private businesses.
3. Expanding the National Health Service Corps benefits to give rural hospitals more money to recruit physicians and nurses to small, 25-bed hospitals. These physicians and nurses would be engaged in private practice, but maybe you know of some conspiracy by physicians to abandon their 100-year strong free market advocacy. Yes?
4. Expanding computer access and people to service the computers in smaller hospitals in rural areas, so they can keep up with advances in urban and university hospitals. Of course, this makes the small hospitals more competitive, and it allows country people to get better health care closer to home, but the socialist and evil implications of good health care to farmers must be evidence somewhere, right?
You probably get the idea. I’ve named four of 17 programs the White House Rural Council already implemented. (They are explained at the site linked above.) To my eyes, of course, they looked like good use of government money to help out rural people, to improve their health, strengthen their businesses, to improve their crop methods, and otherwise make small family farms much more economically viable. Surely you can tell me what I’m missing, if I’m missing anything.
And if you can’t perhaps you can see my point: This doesn’t look so evil with the benefits flowing to small, free-market businesses in rural areas of the U.S., blocking creeping socialism, blocking any bizarre plans for reducing rural populations, etc.
We’re all from Missouri on this: Show us.
I don’t find that at all. Aid to educate the children of farmers tends to strengthen the freedom of the family, against government oppression, for example. This is why the Taliban in Pakistan tries to keep women and girls from getting an education. This is why racists blocked educational opportunities for minorities for decades, why it was against the law through much of the American South to teach slaves to read.
How does boosting education, building schools, giving internet connections, boosting libraries, push anything other than a freedom agenda? Please explain.
I don’t find any of the White House Rural Council programs to be “ambiguous,” nor do I find any of them that do not strengthen free market, American-style freedom.
Please explain.
You know, Wilson had his problems — he was a racial bigot, for example — but he didn’t “thrive on ambiguity,” nor did he advocate “multi-thousand page behemoth pieces of legislation.” Where did you get that load of crap about Wilson?
Wilson is most famous for his 14 Points, a rather brief and clear list of principles designed to produce a lasting peace in Europe and Asia after World War I. About 30 years before the Marshall Plan, Wilson advocated making trading partners out of our old enemies — free trade, non-socialist stuff. Wilson was a free marketer, an advocate of democracy, and an opponent of oppressive, authoritarian government at all turns.
Who told you otherwise, and why would you take anything more from that person? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, right?
Or, was that your argument?
In any case, cmblake6 has been unable or unwilling to point out where Agenda 21 goes off the rails. Can you?
The electrons here are free. Or come on over to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub and put down the explanation for what I think is a slightly larger, if much more skeptical, audience. I don’t censor for disagreement, so long as it’s not profane.
These are legal documents. While there may be some bending in making them conform to the five languages of the UN, they are not open to broad interpretations so that one nation can interpret them to require an oppressive socialist regime, which is prohibited under the UN Charter, and another nation can get a different takeaway. If you’re “extracting a different meaning,” it’s not the fault of Agenda 21 or the documents.
Your protestations notwithstanding, you can’t extract “a different meaning” without doing damage to the truth, to the facts.
In accusing people of skullduggery, to avoid bearing false witness one needs a bit stronger view of things other than “I’ll interpret them the way I want to.”
Either Agenda 21 is an evil plot, and you can show anyone where there is evidence to back that claim, or someone is making stuff up about Agenda 21, and that entity making the stuff up is evil.
As for you, either you’re with, or you’ve been suckered by them.
It remains interference with our sovereignty, directed by the UN.
It remains interference with our sovereignty by the UN.
Where is there any interference? Please be specific. How is it interference for the Boy Scouts to note that soil conservation is better than letting farmland erode? Where is there any more from the UN?
Things like if a person has standing water on their property, they have to stop building their house.
Perfesser Ed
You’re being deliberately obtuse and by extension foolish.
Read this book on Wilson’s real thinking on the constitution, the declaration and his ideology for governance and then we can talk about the real agenda Wilson sought to impose on this country. A despotic elite justified by his own messianic vision implementing vague and sweeping legislation. Sound familiar?
His crowning glory the fourteen points was really just one point. He wanted to make the US subject(and to be fair every country) to a super national organization for the express purpose of controlling their behavior. He was so hot for it that he tipped his hand to Clemeceau and Lloyd Geoyge to the point that they got mostly every thing they wanted out of the armistice just so he could have his little international coffee clatch. He like the current president thought that the power of his own manner of persuasion would be enough to keep countries from acting in what they perceived to be their own best interest. My own opinion on the whole League of Nations is this. WWII would have happened much earlier than it did but it would have happened. Perhaps it would have been less catastrophic but it would have still happened as how the hell were you going to stop a determined Hitler, Mussolini or Imperial Japan without brandishing arms?
Perfesser Ed says:
I don’t think it’s all that secret. Have you heard of little agency called the EPA which is now as I type this implementing parts of the Kyoto protocol by limiting carbon dioxide limits on certain industries?(note: I gave you the search page so you can pick whateeevvveeer you wanted). And no the liberal mouthpieces will not link those regs with Kyoto as that has the same connotation now that “liberal” has so it must be eupehmized. The possible exception is this article which associates the two by proximity
President Obama has pledged to reduce American emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, but his preferred approach, a nationwide cap-and-trade system for carbon pollution, was passed by the House in 2009 but died in the Senate the next year. United States emissions are down about 6 percent over the past five years, largely because of the drop in industrial and electricity production caused by the recession.
In January 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency began imposing regulations related to greenhouse gas emissions. The immediate effect on utilities, refiners and major manufacturers was minor, with the new rules applying only to those planning to build large new facilities or make major modifications to existing plants. Over the next decade, however, the agency plans to regulate virtually all sources of greenhouse gases, imposing efficiency and emissions requirements on nearly every industry and every region.
And that was the NY Times. No bastion of right winger global warming denialism.
So here we have a major new cost being imposed WITHOUT enabling legislation but through a dubiously construed section of Clean Air Act that was accepted by 5 politicians masquerading as judges( Massachusetts v. EPA) So much for narrow construction eh Perfesser Ed. Don’t think the pointy headed pseudo intellectuals at the UN don’t hold the same mind set as they are all in agreement that it is their genius that will save us all. In order to do that we must give up some of that pesky personal sovereignty and self government nonsense up to their benevolent and enlightened altruism.
I will continue in the next post as I have reached my link limit on this one
I know I blockquoted that NY times quote. Starts at President Obama ends at every region.
But to continue.
These regulations will shut down quite a few coal fueled power plants over the next few years. As with much of the current regimes actions the consequence of what they had done were deferred until teh Won was re-elected. And these are just the EPA regulations. There are thousands more that are in the pipeline for the implementation of Obamacare and the Dodd Frank bills written so that it is discretion of departmental experts(again the Wilsonian paradigm) not legislative consideration that determines what the law of the land is. Anyone who thinks that governmental bureaucrats will not abuse such discretion just hasn’t been pating attention to history. The idea of this is control without accountability pure and simple. And for Obama it is more of retribution for what he considers America’s rogue actions throughout the world as in his atavistic zero sum brain that our success causes someone else’s failure.
These are same people who have concluded that economic affluence equals the rape of mother Gaia when it is countries like this that were rich enough to even consider expensive measures to clean up after ourselves. Statist economic and social policy does not increase wealth they only redistribute it.
You remember Kyoto don’t you Ed? It was spiked 95 – 0 because among other things all countries weren’t equally responsible to cut down on green house gas emissions. It was also a rigged game because the Europeans had already taken measures where it was (they thought) an easy way to gain a competitive economic advantage on us.
This is a case where strict construction was advantageous until of course the Eurocrats realized even with a head start they couldn’t or wouldn’t meet their “legal” obligations so they did the typically European thing and quietly euthanized it. So much “legal” agreement Perfesser Ed.
Be back in second. Link limit again. Not complaining just saying
Want a land use example why don’t we visit the Sacketts
As the story proceeds you will find that this imperial agency not only set the rule but then declared it could not be challenged as well. Funny there is no law or regulation in America that is unchallengeable but EPA construes it’s mandate as unchallengeable the law be damned. If you think the social democratic(to put it nicely) consensus doesn’t feel the same way you are either deluding yourself or you are being disingenuous. The moral of the story is SCOTUS in a rare bit of lucidity smacked this over reach down 9-0. This was a bridge too far even for the four hardcore statists on the court.
Or how about this one where the EPA essentially intends to usurp owner property rights because of what can only be described as “puddles of water”.
These are not pursuant to any black letter law but meretricious interpretations of law in order to implement an industrial policy that has been rejected by congress. But these rule are legally binding and not subject to interpretation of the user eh Perfesser Ed.
But really federal usurpation of property rights predates the Agenda 21 codification
To be continued…
Some how I think I am safe in saying these people are quite happy with the property right restrictions and population redistribution schemes envisioned in Agenda 21.
As for implementation of this at the local level there are whole organizations that are committed to implementation of Agenda 21′s land use and high density housing requirements
But then there is also a national mandate as well to engage in “sustainability” Click on the link that says Executive order 12858 as it is a link to a PDF that I am not sure how to link. It is an EO that establishes an executive council whose sole purpose is to implement the subjugation of American free will.
But of course sophists like perfesser Ed engage in the deny, who are you gonna believe me or your lyin’ eyes dodge up right up until it becomes a fait accompli and then it become settled law. Right perfesser Ed?
Oh and by the way perfesser since you are such a sophist it does not matter how much evidence I could pile up in front of your face it would never be enough for you to admit that those who presume to rule us are tightening the screws on our God given rights as free men in order to satisfy whatever messiah complex the suffer from. I have laid forth numerous examples of the Agenda 21/ international watermelons movements(and it’s American antecedents) clear intent based on what I consider hysterical pronouncements, pseudo science and bad faith posturing all for the assuaging of their own fragile self esteem.
Denial that such frameworks such as Agenda 21, LOST, CEDAW, the recently passed UN Small Arms Treaty, the recently passed UN resolution that make telling the truth about Islam and international hate crime are all examples of the UN trying to bring US citizens into abject subservience to the sensibilities of an authoritarian international elite that seeks to make the UN an all encompassing super national jurisdiction. This flies in the face of all reality. The ICC, Tax Harmony, Agenda 21, LOST are manifestation in order to create that order.
But then deny until you get your way eh perfesser Ed.
Here’s Executive Order 12858. Can you tell us where there is any harm here?
“Recommend policies?” Oh, there goes the neighborhood. “Economic vitality?” We know you’re opposed to that.
Do you know what “vitality” means?
And the Council went out of existence in 1999.
You can’t spell, either FX. Or you can, but you’re not equipped with the frontal lobes to understand when it’s appropriate. You can call me “professor” if you choose, but then, I suspect almost anyone could be your professor, if you’d listen, which you won’t.
Here’s where the rubber meets the road, though — if you have any rubber to get traction, which I’m beginning to doubt: Can you tell us what nefarious things occurred under the 7-year “reign” of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development?
I’ll wager that until this moment, you don’t know anything the Council did, nor can you name the members, nor do you know their recommendations. (If the Road to Hell is really paved with good intentions, it’s because those will genuinely nefarious goals, like the anti-Agenda 21 group, who work to drive under the wheels of history any good idea that helps small farmers especially. Are you ADM’s payroll? Cargill’s? Monsanto’s? Putin’s? No? You’re carrying their water for free?)
Trevor Loudon is pulling your leg (I’m being polite).
Again, you duck, dodge and weave when I ask you to cite bad actions from Agenda 21. You give us a link to Trevor Loudon spouting nonsense. But time and again — at least the sixth time in recent discussion — you fail utterly and completely at presenting a scintilla of evidence that there is any population reduction program related to Agenda 21, any farm collectivization, or any other harm.
You’re out of gas. You’d have had gas if you’d chosen to follow a sustainable path, instead of the path of unsustainability.
As I said evidence was presented. It would not matter what evidence I presented it would be found wanting by your ideological predilections.
The fact that this agenda is advancing in the diminution of property rights through government intervention has been demonstrated ad nauseum. Shouting nah,nah, no it isn’t and then claiming evidence of the creep isn’t, isn’t an argument it is uneducated contrarianism.
No ducking or dodging I have answered you objections and then you imperiously sweep them aside as they don’t come delivered in a fully digested from the ass of you sainted UN bureaucrats. Quite frankly I am tired of arguing with a brick wall of contrarian imbecility.
You are invincible in your ignorance perfesser. God help your students and those they inflict your indoctrinated asininity upon. Again deny it as it happens then claim the debate is over. Been there done that.
Your side won. So it will manifest itself soon enough. The only satisfaction is you will get the government you voted for. Good and hard.
He was apparently well programmed, and thus programs the next generation. Certain optic receptors were apparently removed from his vision, FX, nothing he can see in that shade.
On my way down the list, I initially skipped this comment of yours, Ed. When I got to FX’s previous message, I noticed he had linked several sets of answers for you. Apparently you didn’t click his links, because they were extremely pointed as to the answers you apparently don’t want to hear. Up to you as to your amenability to these government plans.
All of these matter not to Ed. They have programmed him into that which they desire, FX.
Oh, they matter to me. They should matter to you, too — they are crass lies. You’ve been duped. Dhimmied. If Warner Bros. were doing a cartoon of anti-Agenda 21 issues, Daffy Duck would be the anti-Agenda 21 guy, and right now his head would be wrapped up like candy, labeled “Sucker.”
Diminishing property rights? Complete bullfeathers. You can’t offer a single instance where Agenda 21 has done any such thing — meanwhile, the anti-Agenda 21 XL Pipeline people are digging up Texas ranches and getting the people who own those ranches thrown in jail (see the story of Eleanor Fairchild, “Texas great grandmother arrested for trespassing on own property”) . Protecting private property rights? No, you’re doing exactly the opposite.
Government intervention? Shouting, “Ya, ya, mau, mau” doesn’t make it so. When the government doesn’t act much at all — and neither you nor any other Agenda 21 critic here has specified one single action by government which is harmful — it’s false to claim there is excessive government action, or oppressive government action. Taking opinions of people is democratic, not oppressive.
You’ve not answered any of my objections or questions. I provided a list of 17 actions the White House Rural Council got done, and asked you to specify which were harmful. You provided no answer. I’ve asked many times for you to specify where in ANY Agenda 21 document there is even a whiff of suggestion of population reduction — you’ve provided a great fog bank of videos and links to non-Agenda 21 sites whose opinions you echo, but which also fail to point to any Agenda 21 suggestion or action which justifies your hysterical claims.
Am I wrong? Can you link us to ONE place where you directly answer with a real harm, in specific?
Instead of answering, you attempt to ridicule me. Wrapping oneself in the cloak of “don’t listen to the man behind the curtain,” “don’t listen to what the guy actually says,” “don’t read the links” — the ultimate in Ozzian wizardry and argument, no?
You have a lot of gall, and a wealth of lack of information.
Ed, the only thing we have done is provide you with link after link regarding the governmental control of private properties, all done in accordance with “sustainability” requirements. You have not followed our links, obviously. Dude, up to you. The entirety of it is the government control factor. Sustainability is a good idea, and highly recommended. What is not a good idea is the being forced to do it. If you cannot see what we are talking about, enjoy your life. May you wear your chains lightly, and may we forget you were ever our countryman.
So may falsehoods, so little wood to add to Pinnochio’s nose . . .
Koire said Habitat 1 in the 1970s called for private land to be put into public ownership.
That’s absolutely false. Here’s the document to check to see for yourself: http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/1176_6455_The_Habitat_Agenda.pdf
It is still a UN program, controlled by the government, as to who, what, and where. You will not understand that factor. It is not that it is not a potentially good idea, simply refer to sentence 1.
Koire said “our economic collapse” (of the 1970s?) has shifted private land ownership into “more public” entities.
False. Private land ownership did not significantly change. Especially public ownership of land did not close off public access or use — some corporations bought up farms, but that’s not exactly in keeping with the goals of the UN program’s emphasis on smaller, family farms, nor is it in any way “socialistic.” If anything, it’s a dysfunction of capitalism at the extremes. In no case does it support a claim of government control of means of production.
Koire said Agenda 21 “sounds good,” but that’s because the UN uses public relations firms to make it sound good.
That’s false, The UN does not use public relations firms. Agenda 21 doesn’t include a public relations component.
In delivery, in the U.S., in Canada, in Europe, and in most nations, governments have held open meetings to seek the advice of citizens. This is direct input from the citizens to the process, however, and not “public relations.”
Why does she tell whopping falsehoods like that?
Koire said Agenda 21 in the U.S. is an “inventory and control process,” so that all economic production resources in the U.S. are to be inventoried, and put under government control.
Completely false. In the U.S., efforts to meet Agenda 21 resolutions have included talking to people on farms, in agricultural industries, and provided federal support to loans, grants and information to make farming easier and more protecting of farmers’ lands.
No inventory, no control.
Why does Koire tell whopping falsehoods like that? Where does she even get the idea, let alone the gall, to lie about American farmers like that?
I’m counting one whopping falsehood per minute in this recording of Rosa Koire.
It’s 34 minutes long.
It’s depressing to hear someone prevaricate so blithely like that. It’s even more depressing when I see you lapping it up.
If she doesn’t repent into telling a few facts, I’m going to ask once again that you point to specific issues, and not these general, non-specific, wholly unfactual fogs of animus to the U.S. flag. (Is she European?)
Agenda 21 controls “pretty much every aspect of your life.”
False. It’s entirely voluntary to every nation, and in the U.S., voluntary to every U.S. action.
Population control? Now she’s barking like a rabid dog. There’s no population control aspect to the Agenda 21 document.
I repeat, there is no population control aspect to Agenda 21. Don’t lie and claim it’s there for all to see — show us, if you dispute. Show me the language.
If you’ve gullibly accepted what this woman says without checking, go see the language for yourself — and then call our attention to it. (Hint: You won’t find it.)
As you will, Ed. We’ve given you cases, and references. If you don’t think they apply, you simply won’t. Believe as you will. Many thought Hitler was a nice man, only trying to pull his society together to control rampant inflation. Some see anything one way, some another. You are sold on this as a good thing. Que sera’.
You and FX provided a lot of links — and so far, not one of them has been a specific answer. I have given you the courtesy of going to those links. That I did not specifically comment on FX’s links does not mean I didn’t check them out — it does mean that, so far, I’ve not found any specific place where any of these pieces provides a single, specific claim of harm from Agenda 21.
As with your complaints: You’ve generally complained of “creeping socialism,” and oppressive government action. Instead, what I’ve found in every instance of U.S. action is the government listening to small, private farmers and small, rural businesses, and provided help to them, to stay successful, to protect their private property, and to protect their businesses.
Pointedly, nothing you’ve have listed has provided a single example of a government action that is oppressive, or not supportive of private property rights and free markets. Every link you’ve provided gives general condemnation to the UN, and nothing specific. Every specific I’ve found has been on my enterprise. I’ve provided you links, and you have failed to answer any one of them.
Were I asked, I’d have to say that I see no evidence you’ve checked out the references I provided you — you have responded to none of them — nor have you checked out the references you provided, since they do not provide any specifics to answer the specific questions.
You’re right, I don’t want to hear the crappy answers those sites provide. They are general, they do not support your claims, and they are generally snarky.
Up to your as to your unamenability to U.S. government aiding and protecting small, free enterprise rural businesses. I cannot understand how you can claim to support free market, small owners, and then condemn the supports given to those people as the opposite.
I can’t think of a single case you’ve referred to. Did I miss them?
Would you do me and your argument the favor of stating at least one specific case, and where the documentation is?
You’re right, many thought Hitler a generally good man for Germany. As he condemned international efforts to preserve peace and private property, he had a large cadre of people who generally agreed that he was doing something else. He ran his own anti-Agenda 21 operation.
I’m asking you for specifics. Don’t support the guy with the good haircut, support the guy who has solid specifics. Churchill, now, looks like a prophet because he insisted on looking at the specifics.
And so I’m asking you for specifics. Got any? Which example of creeping socialism and government oppression do you think best supports your case?
I’m checking back, but I cannot find any instant where you have offered one specific case, let alone plural.
As you will, Ed. As you will.
Look at the highlighted lines in the responses. Oh, wait, those colors have been removed from your vision spectrum.
You don’t, or you won’t, see what we are saying. That tells me all I need to know. You will not sway the readers of this site to accept that that beverage you attempt to hand them is not a coconut beverage, rather it is a “snowball” of the foul variety.
I see exactly what you’re saying — that’s the problem. You say “Agenda 21 is evil.”
As a patriotic person, I think, “Gosh! That’s bad!” As a person who’s seen a lot of people misled, I also say, “What’s the beef?”
You keep repeating you think Agenda 21 is bad. I got that.
But, can you tell us just what is bad about it? That American Thinker article you linked to way back when said that the UN suggested their intentions be hidden by calling the end result “smart growth.”
Why does American Think believe that’s a subterfuge? No explanation.
Maybe the answer is right before us: American Thinker is opposed to either “smart,” or “growth.” That’s the opposite of what you claim, but that’s the prima facie meaning of their claim. Maybe they are opposed to both “smart” AND “growth.”
But you said you favored growth. Why do you agree with American Thinker that your support of smart and growth, should be hidden away somehow, by claiming you oppose “smart growth?”
It’s not that I don’t see what you lay out: It’s that what you lay out is contrary to your earlier stated goals, or, or and, pure nonsense.
So, again, I ask: Can you offer at least ONE example of a harm from Agenda 21, a specific action, a specific recommendation — not something hoaxed up by Glenn Beck, not imaginary stuff, but a real, concrete action or policy proposal, that is harmful?
Not even one?
No, you’re not hiding well when you say I won’t see. Everyone else can see your anti-Agenda 21 emperor has no clothes.
Got even a stitch of an argument? Not one?
I looked at those. I have raised specific analysis of several, and you’ve ignored that.
I can see color. Can you see at all?
And you’re still not concerned about people losing their ranches in Texas? Not to any cause?
All UN programs are voluntary to the states involved (except Security Council actions — but this isn’t Security Council).
Individual nations may do something, or do nothing.
A serious criticism of Agenda 21 is that there not only are no teeth, the recommendations that exist are mild. “Keep farmers financially viable. Protect crops. Feed people.”
Of course, you claim those specific policy goals are not the real ones, but you can’t offer any evidence of any other goals.
In the U.S., the programs carried out included loans to farm implement companies in small towns, support of free-market cooperatives for farmers, and aid to educate children of farmers at our nation’s leading Land Grant Colleges in better ways of farming.
Why do you object to that?
There’s not much of a program; since it’s from the UN it has no teeth; our government’s implementation has included ZERO “control.”
What are you complaining about?
Have you ever read the UN Charter? Do you know why the UN was founded by small-town farmer Harry Truman and valiant defender of freedom Winston Churchill? Do you have any idea what it is you’re complaining about? You don’t offer any evidence that you know.
The UN Charter bans actions that violate private property rights and national sovereignty.
Do you favor violating private property rights and national sovereignty? Since you won’t specify any error in Agenda 21, and you keep complaining about the UN as if it were some nasty guy like Joseph Stalin, would you at least explain yourself on this issue?
You keep saying that, generally. But I’m not finding any examples. Clearly I’m incompetent at reading your links the way you want them read.
Take me through this slowly, one step at a time. Pick one example.
Whose private property was taken over? Where, by what governmental entity? Where did this happen? When?
How did “sustainability requirements” play any role?
Walk me through one of your examples. Please.
I tire of your discourse. I have tried to explain, I have tried to point out where I have seen the error. As has FX, only to be insulted because of his occasional finger slips on the keyboard, or intentional humorous mispellings. It doesn’t matter, apparently neither of us will convince the other. If this be the cowards way out, or the adult “fed up with the arguing” variant, so be whichever you choose to see it as.
Sackett v. EPA has nothing to do with Agenda 21. The laws and regulations under which EPA and the Corps acted predate Agenda 21 — part of the Corp’s statutory authority dates to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The Clean Water Act was passed in 1972. (http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html)
Was this supposed to be one of your specific cases?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last March that the Sacketts can challenge the enforcement action in court. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf) So they won their case, a case that has nothing at all to do with Agenda 21.
Is that the only specific case you’ve got?
Why do you think the Sacketts should be able to steal duck habitat? Under common law, were I a duck hunter, I could sue them and have their plans declared a public nuisance, and permanently enjoin them from damaging the waterways. Under Agenda 21, the Sackett’s development of the property is assumed to be a good purpose, and not a nuisance per se.
Which of these three processes is more conducive to private property ownership, do you think, and why?
Got a case anything like this that is even tangentially related to Agenda 21?
Predates Agenda 21? http://reason.com/archives/1991/04/01/the-swamp-thing
Yeah, you’ve got a 1991 article, and again, it deals with good environmental protection laws that predate Agenda 21.
So, it doesn’t provide a whit of evidence against Agenda 21, you agree? (If you don’t agree, please explain how it relates.)
And, now that we know you’re anti-duck, anti-duck hunter, anti-fish, anti-fisherman, and pro-pollution, have we gotten to the real roots of your opposition?
Repeated insults over three or four posts are more than “occasional finger slips.”
They were not there when the Clean Water Act was passed, most of them, so they might be excused briefly for their ignorance about how pollution works, and why small tributary waterways are important to clean water in other places — and why protecting even small tributaries is important to protecting our rivers, lakes and oceans.
Water flows downhill, both surface and underground flows. Literally, pollutants introduced into waters in the Rocky Mountains will flow to the Pacific or the Atlantic, depending on which side of the Continental Divide the pollutant is introduced. The U.S. is required to protect habitat of migratory fowl under a couple of different treaties between the U.S. and Canada and the U.S. and other nations in the the Americas. This preserves U.S. ability to harvest migratory fowl, or otherwise get the benefits these birds offer, even though they may not nest or winter inside the U.S.
So even small ponds, which may empty into underground waterways or other waterways downstream, need to be kept clean. It’s against the law to pollute them, and in some cases it’s against the law to alter them, if they are habitat for fowl protected by treaty.
Again, the foundations of these laws are in the common law of nuisance. Landowners don’t have the right to infringe on the private enjoyment of their neighbors, and sometimes neighbors can be far away.
Not sure why this current crop of congressmen think this is new stuff. They may be bigger idiots than I had imagined — but these issues have been in and out of the courts repeatedly since about 1860. The long series of serious pollution events that led to the Clean Water Act should have been covered in your high school history courses, but your state may have decided to keep you ignorant of that for one reason or another.
No, private landowners don’t have the right to do whatever they wish, especially if their wishes involve poisoning their neighbors, stealing their neighbors’ water, causing degradation of their neighbors’ resources, or violation of federal law or treaty.
But it’s not Agenda 21.
Not Agenda 21.
Clean Air regulations are based on law that is at least 15 years old, and in some cases much older (our first Clean Air Act was passed in the 1950s).
Air is something humans, and all other animals, use to breathe, to live. Common law nuisance law, enforced for the past 400 years in the English-speaking world, holds that no one has the right to choke off the air of another, nor to dump garbage in that air. Our Clean Air Act tempers the harsh aspects of common law — at common law, if I lived downwind, I could simply sue and establish harm, and then require the polluter be shut down completely, no appeal. The Clean Air Act establishes a solid appeals process for polluters, but also lays out specific objectives a polluter must meet in order to keep a right to dump garbage in your air.
Many of these coal-fired power plants’ owners say they cannot afford to clean up their pollution, particularly with regard to mercury, which can kill and cripple in astonishingly small amounts.
Under federal regulation, we had enough new, cleaner plants coming on-line to make up for problems of closures. Some states, like Texas, decided to take over that regulation for themselves, and several states have goosed it up so that new, cleaner plants are not coming on line to replace closing plants.
But clean air produces great benefits to the health of the population at large, and in development of cities. Pittsburgh, for example, has turned into a hotbed of silicon-based industrial development since the steel mills were cleaned up — that turned out to be a blessing when the mills later shut down.
Not Agenda 21.