Tag Archives: agenda 21

US

Could The U.N. Take Control of The Alamo?

16 Comments

San Antonio politicians and leaders are working to get the Alamo designated as a United Nations World Heritage Site, which is part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or Unesco.

If that happens, the U.N. could have influence in the way Texas manages and takes care of the Alamo. Besides the Alamo, there are four other Spanish colonial missions in San Antonio considered for inclusion.

One state politician told BenSwann.com’s Joshua Cook that Texans got visibly angry when they heard about this. “Texans are incensed with the idea of this effort,” the state politician added.

But Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Peterson said that theories are incorrect: “Some folks might think that getting on this list means the U.N. has some sort of influence at the Alamo. Those folks must not be from around here,” Patterson said. “The people of Texas own the Alamo now and in the future. Nothing is going to change that.”

But, as seen recently, projects in the area of the Alamo are receiving extra scrutiny, to not interfere with the site’s World Heritage Site application.

One case in particular is a proposed 26-story hotel and time-share building atop the Joske’s Building at the Alamo Plaza, which could jeopardize the designation.

“No one on the council is going to do anything that jeopardizes the World Heritage designation,” said San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro.

Another interesting side of this story is Unesco itself. There is federal law forbidding the payment of dues to Unesco. The U.S. is two years behind in dues and could lose its vote on the group’s governing conference completely. There is a congressional ban on contributing to U.N. agencies that admit Palestine. Unesco admitted Palestine in 2011.

One politician expressed concern about the U.N. using its influence to diminish the 2nd Amendment at the Alamo.

In Texas this is a red hot issue. Texans are angry that the U.N. would choose the Alamo, a symbol of Texas independence, to gain more influence and a foothold in the U.S.

US

Agenda 21 Strikes Again: County Uses Eminent Domain to Preserve “Open Space”

Video 18 Comments

The views from the deck of Andy and Ceil Barrie’s small, century-old cabin were breathtaking. Unfortunately, their dreams became a nightmare when they found out that their local county was trying to take their property using eminent domain.

Open space “is all it’s ever been,” said Andy Barrie to the Associated Press. “I feel like I can’t trust my government.”

The property in question is a 10-acre parcel surrounding the cabin in the midst of the White River National Forest.

Now the county government, alarmed that the couple drives their ATV up a 1.2-mile old mining road to the cabin, wants to take the Barrie’s land — and it’s doing so by claiming eminent domain. Rather than using the practice of government seizure of private property to promote economic development, the county is using it to preserve open space.

The move shocked the Barries. They have allowed hikers to travel through their property, had no plans to develop the land and were negotiating with the county at the time it moved to condemn the property.

Summit County Attorney Jeff Huntley said the county had to act after the Barries insisted on being able to use motorized transport to get to the cabin. “People in this community are very intent on preserving the back country,” he said.

Experts in eminent domain say it’s rare for governments to use that power to create parks or open space.

“It’s not that you can’t do it, but they don’t do it much,” said Dana Berliner, who was co-counsel in the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the constitutionality of eminent domain. “There’s typically other ways of doing open space than just taking land.”

The couple has spent $75,000 to fight this, and they continue to have to fight.

The devastating effects of Agenda 21 is happening everyday in the U.S. This blue print for globalist to confiscate private property in the U.S. is a huge threat to our Liberty. Watch Ben Swann talk about Agenda 21 here.

Politics, US

BREAKING: Oklahoma legislators vote to nullify Agenda 21

23 Comments

OKLAHOMA CITY, Mar. 4, 2014 – A bill that would nullify Agenda 21 in Oklahoma passed through the state house today.

“This bill protects your private property from being acquired by eminent domain from without a public vote or public hearing,” said bill sponsor, Rep. Lewis Moore.

HB2807, known as the “Oklahoma Community Protection Act,” would prohibit any state agency or political subdivision from adopting or implementing “policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe upon or restrict private property rights without due process.”

It also would void any previous commitments which may have been made under Agenda 21 or a similar program.

It reads, “any debt or commitment to an international or federal entity whereby the citizens did not have the ability to exercise their constitutional rights shall be considered null and void.”

The bill passed by a vote of 66-26.

The United Nations passed Agenda 21 in 1992 at its Conference on Environmental and Development. The global initiative encompasses a wide range of programs meant to promote “sustainability.” It works its way into the U.S. system through a back door strategy, targeting local governments. Objections to Agenda 21 include violations  of personal property rights, the erosion of state and local authority, and  binding of the United States to international agreements contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

HB2805 now moves to the state senate, where it will first need to be passed by a committee before the full senate has an opportunity to concur.

The Tenth Amendment Center, a national think tank focused on reclaiming state power from the federal government, has been following the bill closely and working directly with legislators to ensure its success.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

US

California’s Dangerous Idea: Give unelected bureaucrats the power to confiscate the private property of Americans

99 Comments

 

California’s Senate Bill 1 is what the founding fathers fought against.  Straight from the U.N. Agenda 21’s playbook, SB1 will give power to a county to form a “Sustainable Communities Investment Authority” (SCIA). These Authorities have the power of eminent domain and can confiscate private property to build “sustainable communities.” The bill essentially paves the way for the loss of any true private property in California, resulting in the loss of freedom and driving down home values. If the Senate passes the modified bill, only Governor Jerry Brown (D – CA) will stand in its way of becoming law.

This means that city and county governments can create unelected bureaucracies with the power to do what’s necessary to create “sustainable communities.”  It also means that the definition of “blight” will change from the original definition of abandoned and decaying buildings on residential lots to a much wider definition including anything the bureaucracies need to create sustainable communities.

Not only would the government be able to use eminent domain to procure land for public transportation, it could take private homes within half a mile of that public transportation in the name of creating a sustainable community.  A private home is not really private if it could be taken at any time to create low income, low energy housing.

According to Lawrence J. McQuillan, “each Authority will be granted powers to build “Sustainable Communities” means jamming people into dense, urban centers using high-density residential housing and high-intensity retail and commercial buildings near mass transit corridors. To that end, SB 1 will grant each Authority unprecedented powers.”

Eminent domain has gradually grown to be one of the most oppressive government policies.  Since the SCOTUS’ decision in Kelo v. City of New London, eminent domain continues to be the enemy of property owners. Homeowners have lost their homes to private development projects.  People have been paid less for their land than they originally paid for it.  Businesses have even been forced to sell their buildings to corporations.  It has become perhaps the most clearly identifiable example of crony capitalism and corruption in the country. The government has failed to protect citizen’s natural rights: protecting life, liberty, and property.

In 2011, citizens voiced outrage over the ideas presented by activists, environmentalists and private developers. Property owners are worried that Senate Bill 1 will pass and the threat of increased taxes and possible property confiscation will become a reality in California. Read the full analysis of Senate Bill 1.

 

US

Town uses Agenda 21’s Zoning Tactic to Ban Family’s Dairy Goats

60 Comments

A Massachusetts couple engaged in a battle to keep their dairy goats since 2006 will be taking their case to a federal judge this month.  Alan and Susan Griffin allege that the town has been violating their civil rights and discriminating against them, and they are seeking to block the town from removing their goats, plus $2 million in damages including compensation for mental anguish and emotional problems.

Both Griffin and his wife are disabled, and Susan’s irritable bowel syndrome is actually the reason the couple keeps goats.  She cannot drink cow’s milk, but the raw goat milk lessens her symptoms.  At the time the town first tried to force them to get rid of their goats, the couple had 3 adult goats and 2 kids on their acre property, the back half of which is zoned for agriculture.

Neighbors, however, complained that the goats smelled and attracted flies, and that that robbed them of their right to enjoy their own properties.  This prompted city officials to argue that the Griffins should be banned from keeping goats on their property because only the back half is zoned for agriculture.  This means that animals must cross residential land when entering or leaving the property.

goat - pic

The extension of this argument, of course, is that no “livestock” animals – or possibly even agricultural products, if it’s taken even further – can even pass through residential areas, however infrequently.  This ruling takes place at a time where zoning restrictions are making it harder to even keep pets nationwide.  Some areas only allow one or two pets per household, and there have been numerous stories of people getting into serious trouble for helping sick and injured wildlife.

For instance, earlier this year 12 federal agents stormed into an animal shelter which had rescued a fawn and was in the process of moving it to a wildlife rehabilitation facility.  They killed the deer, named Bambi.  The agents had been notified of the deer’s presence by a visitor to the shelter.  In another case, a family who had rescued a deer was turned in by neighbors, and the family faced the prospect of the deer’s killing until it was released by an unknown person in the middle of the night.  In another case, a mother faced a $500 fine for taking an injured bird to a wildlife sanctuary in a birdcage, and in yet another, a man faced charges for feeding birds on his own property.

In the Griffin’s case, the town then proposed a settlement offer.  According to this offer, the town would limit the Griffins to keeping four adult goats and three kids on the property – more than the couple had at the time of the lawsuit, raising the question of why this was preferable to the town – as well as having manure kept at least 20 feet from any neighbor’s property line, and a fence placed along the couple’s property.  In addition, the town called for the sale or removal of kids during a certain time, and inspections of the property at least every six months.  The Griffins declined this offer.

In response, Griffin reiterated his rights, and also said of the goats, “They are just like human beings.  They don’t stink.  They don’t smell.”  The Griffins are close to their animals as most pet owners are to theirs.  Goats are highly intelligent animals, and the government is forcing a disabled couple to eliminate that source of companionship.  In addition, the sale of raw milk is illegal in Massachusetts, so it will be very difficult for Susan to obtain the milk, which improves her quality of life, without the goats.

Zoning regulations – and the high level of control they give the government over individuals – are a progressive ideal and indeed advocated in Agenda 21.  Paragraph 10.3 of the document states, “Land resources are used for a variety of purposes which interact and may compete with one another; therefore, it is desirable to plan and manage all uses in an integrated manner.”   In paragraph 10.4, the document acknowledges that much of this is already in place, “but [elements] need to be more widely applied, further developed and strengthened.”

The Griffins believe that private property rights must be protected.  Griffin’s goats lived on land zoned for agriculture, but the couple has faced problems simply because of neighbor complaints and because the goats must occasionally cross residential land.

The Griffins have experienced what many Americans are experiencing throughout the nation. Government continues to usurp the rights of property owners in America and those who want to be self sufficient are being targeted and sometimes raided by law enforcement.