agenda 21 documentation for the mayodan town council

8/2/2019 Agenda 21 Documentation for the Mayodan Town Council

1/59

For the entire Mayodan Town Council and the Town Attorney Philip Berger,

Documentation & References on Agenda 21, ICLEI, NAFTA

Super Highway, and Trans-Texas corridor

This Documentation is submitted to the Town of Mayodan clerk right on March 12, 2012 and is inrelevance with the Town of Mayodan, under the facts that Agenda 21 threatens the town of Mayodan,

and is in relevance with the Public Comment by Mr. Brian D. Hill the admin/founder of USWGO

Alternative News. This documentation is provided as a informer to educate the town council on thedangers of Agenda 21, ICLEI's involvement, the NAFTA Super Highway, and the Trans-Texas corridor

thanks to the interview of Dr. Michael Coffman, Ph.D., and documents collected and is in USWGO

Records.

Please make copies to every town councilperson and even the town attorney and state senator Philip. E.

Berger as this issue affects the state as well. This is all the documentation I was able to produce but

some documentation is well over 300 pages long which won't just be expensive for me to produce butalso cost the town a good fortune as well to make copies so I will only reference the links to documents

with large pages for the town council to investigate on their own. The documentation with not many

pages will be included and attached to these set of documents on Agenda 21 to back up my 3-minutespeech at the Public Comment period around March 12th 2012.

Sincerely,Brian D. Hill

USWGO.COM [email protected]

DISCLAIMER:All documentation printouts from newspaper articles and other forms of copyrighted material are

provided to the Town of Mayodan and to the Internet for the preservation of the documentation given to

the Town of Mayodan to be on the Public Record for official governmental purposes and is compliant with

Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 Fair Use Exemptions under the 1976 Copyright Act now known as the Digital

Millennium Copyright Act. USWGO makes no money off of any informational material, and USWGO

intends No harm from any information referenced and included within this document and attached

documents to the town of Mayodan. USWGO releases this information only for informational,

educational, news reporting, political, and public records purposes. Any lawsuits against USWGO will be

viewed as a violation of their rights to expose the truth, rights provided under Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,

and the 1stand 10thAmendment rights. It is not an act of piracy to print documentation from newspapersand news sites to give to the Town of Mayodan.

For this case, Copyright Infringement lawsuits are nullified through the North Carolina State

Constitution Article I Section 15. Education. The people have a right to the privilege of education, and it

is the duty of the State to guard and maintain that right. Any copyright infringement lawsuit and Anti-

Piracy attack is considered an attack on USWGO Educating the masses therefore nullified under the U.S.

Constitution; Bill of Rights; 10th Amendment which guarantees states rights against Federal and UnitedNations anti-sovereign oppression. Any copyright lawsuits against USWGO or Brian D. Hill shall

guarantee repercussions in the form of a counter-lawsuit against the plaintiffs and who they represent. We

put this disclaimer due to what Righthaven LLC attempted last year with their lawsuit over a posting

against the TSA Agents. All rights to educate Government officials including County, Town/City, State,

and National are protected and reserved by USWGO; Fair Use Doctrine; NC Constitution Art. I Sec 15;

an D. HillDigitally signed by Brian D. Hill

DN: cn=Brian D. Hill, o=USWGO Alternative

News and Political Action Center, ou=Public

Records division of USWGO Alternative

News, [email protected], c=US

Date: 2012.03.12 12:19:42 -04'00'
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/59

1st Amendment Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.

See here for explanation to why we threaten counter-lawsuits against copyright enforcement

organizations:

http://www.wxii12.com/news/26956369/detail.html

Table of Contents:

(1)Agenda 21 Documentation(a)Taking Liberty - How private Property in America is being abolished, By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D. (6

Pages)

(b)Rick Perry tied to Agenda 21: Selling Texas to foreigners, jabs Obama for same (Examiner.com) (3 Pages)

(c)Understanding Sustainable Development - Agenda 21 - For the people and their Public Officials (14 Pages)

(2)NAFTA Superhighway

(a)House Concurrent Resolution 40; 110th Congress 1st Session; NAFTA Superhighway (4 Pages)

(b)House Concurrent Resolution 487; 109th Congress 2D Session; NAFTA Superhighway (3 Pages)(c)SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 387; 2007 session; Virginia Government; NAFTA Superhighway (2

Pages

(d)The NAFTA Superhighway; Congressman Ron Paul's Official Government website (paul.house.gov )

(1 Page)(e)Congressman Paul Opposes NAFTA Superhighway; Congressman Ron Paul's Official Government website

(paul.house.gov ) (1 Page)

(3)Trans-Texas Corridor(a)Local toll authority wins bid against Spanish firm in North Texas Landline Magazine (2 Pages)

(b)Much ado about nothing: Texas transportation overhaul bill dies Landline Magazine (2 Pages)

(c)Spanish firm using loan from U.S. to build segments of Texas toll road Landline Magazine (2 Pages)

(d)Regional council prefers Texas public agency to build toll road Landline Magazine (2 Pages)

(e)Texas transportation overhaul bill still in the works Landline Magazine (2 Pages)(f)Public hearing, protest rally center on Trans-Texas Corridor Landline Magazine (2 Pages)

(g)TxDOT says Trans-Texas Corridor is dead Landline Magazine (2 Pages)

(h)Trans-Texas Corridor draws public comments, outcry Landline Magazine (2 Pages)

(i)Spanish company lands four infrastructure projects Landline Magazine (2 Pages)

(4)Reference Materials


3/59

Agenda 21

Documentation(a)Taking Liberty - How private Property in America is being abolished, By

Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D. (6 Pages)

(b)Rick Perry tied to Agenda 21: Selling Texas to foreigners, jabs Obama for

same (Examiner.com) (3 Pages)

(c)Understanding Sustainable Development - Agenda 21 - For the people and

their Public Officials (14 Pages)

Total 23 Pages of Documentation and print-outs from at least 1 news website.


4/5930 RANGE MAGAZINE FALL 2005

The poster showed the lower 48 statesoverlaid with hundreds of red islands repre-senting wilderness areas interconnected by

thousands of red ribbons called corridors, allsurrounded by yellow buffer zones. Smallgreen patches were human occupationzones. The agenda was so outrageous itwould have been discounted, except that Sen.

Hutchinson had the proof in her hands. Thedate was Sept. 29, 1994, and the agenda wascalled the Wildlands Project.

Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell(D-ME), along with several other senators,withdrew the scheduled cloture vote on thetreaty and a vote was never taken. Thatshould have been the end of it, but in reali-

ty it was only the beginning.Follow the Money

While environmental concerns may be legiti-

mate in some cases, many of the accusationmade by environmental nongovernmenorganizations (NGOs) today are nothingmore than perceptions created to indoctri-nate the public and cause unfounded fear tha

TAKING LIBERTYHow private property in America is being abolished.

By Michael S. Coffman,Ph.D.

All maps (except for Wildlands Project map,below) created by Environmental Perspectives, Inc.,produced and funded by American Land Foundation and Stewards of the Range.

Normal Use

Indian Reservations

Military Reservations

One hour before the U.S. Senate was to adopt the United Nations Treaty on Biodiversity

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) went to the floor with a 300-plus-page draft copy of

Chapter 10 of the United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment and a 4x6 poster.

SIMULATED RESERVE AND CORRIDOR SYSTEM TO PROTECT BIODIVERSITY

AS MANDATED BY THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY,

THE WILDLANDS PROJECT, UNITED NATIONS AND U.S. MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE

PROGRAM,AND VARIOUS U.N.AND U.S. HERITAGE PROGRAMS

Taken from: The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8a-e; United Nations Global Biodiversity Assessment, Section 13.3.2.2.3;US Man and the Biosphere Strategic Plan, UN/US Heritage Corridor Program, The Wildlands Project, WildEarth, 1992.

Core Reserves and Corridors:little to no human use

Buffer Zones: highly regulated use

Border 21/La Paz Sidebar Agreement of NAFTA:120-mile-wide international zone of cooperation


5/59FALL 2005 RANGE MAGAZINE 31

generates income for the NGO. Environmen-tal fear has become a multibillion-dollar busi-ness that preys on unknowing urbanites.

Seventy-seven percent of all Americanslive in about three percent of Americas landarea classed as urban by the U.S. Bureau ofCensus. The number only climbs to a littleover six percent when all developed areas are

included. Activist NGOs have found it easy toleverage legitimate environmental concernsinto profitable campaigns that have marginal

or negative environmental benefits.Why Property Rights Matter

Because urbanites out-vote rural residents bya 3-to-1 margin,they can pass laws that harmrural residents in the belief we need moregovernment land and open space. Yet, mostenvironmental laws strip rural citizens oftheir ability to use proven management prac-tices to provide goods and services to urban-ites. As a result, groceries, appliances, lumberand other commodities cost more.

The higher cost of goods and services isnot the most dangerous threat to America.Our founding fathers recognized the criticalnature of private property rights as they werefirsthand witnesses to the abuse of power thatoccurs when government controls private

property. James Madison and others evenclaimed that the entire purpose of govern-ment is to protect private property. Theyknew that private property is the foundationto liberty and wealth creation.

Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian citizen,completed a massive study for the WorldBank in the early 2000s, the findings of which

were published in The Mystery of Capital.De Sotos team studied many nations for sev-eral years to determine why capitalism tri-

umphs in the West and fails in Third Worldnations. He found that strong property rightsare the basis of liberty and wealth creationjust as was claimed by Americas foundingfathers.

For instance, equity loans on personalhomes provide the funding for 70 percent ofall small business starts in the United States.Small businesses are the economic backboneof America. This would not be possible with-out strong property rights.In turn,unencum-bered legal property rights allow banks thesecurity needed to make the loan in a fewdays or weeks.

This is not the case in Third Worldnations. Because of arbitrary regulationsand corresponding corruption, de Soto

found that it takes 10 to 20 years and manypayoffs to register property ownership inthese countries. Hence, impoverished citi-zens do not register their ownership so theirproperty rights are not legally established.De Soto calls this real but unregisteredproperty dead capital because its equity isnot available for investment. No equity

means no capital to build wealth. Since citi-zens cannot build wealth, neither can thenation, condemned to perpetual poverty no

matter how many socialist income-redistri-bution plans are imposed by the UnitedNations.Manipulating Property Value

Loss of liberty to faceless bureaucrats who usea corrupt and arbitrary regulatory system totheir own advantage is happening to moreand more rural citizens in the United States.

Rural citizens are not alone. A growingnumber of communities are faced with arbi-trary regulations under the umbrella ofsmart growth and urban-growth bound-aries.Depending on who draws the arbitraryboundary, low-value agricultural land caninstantly be worth millions. Immediatelyacross the urban-growth boundary, thesearbitrary regulations prohibit development

Area classified as urbanby U.S. Bureau of Census

URBAN AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES

The U.S. Bureau of Census reports that 77 percent of all American citizens are jammed into 3 percentof the land called urban areas. Nearly 94 percent of the U.S. is still classified as undeveloped rural area.


6/5932 RANGE MAGAZINE FALL 2005

and the value of the land remains low. Within100 yards, one landowner reaps millions andanother gets nothing. Arbitrary regulationno matter how noble the intentalwaysbreeds corruption.

Studies conducted by the Harvard Insti-tute of Economic Research clearly show thisenormous economic impact. Quarter-acre

lots in cities with minimum smart-growthregulations average $10,000 to $40,000 perlot, while similar lots in cities imposing heavysmart-growth regulations average $200,000 to$600,000 per lot. There is a strong correlationbetween the time it takes to get a permit andthe cost of the land, just as de Soto found inThird World nations.

Harvard economists Edward L. Glaeserand Joseph Gyourko, in their paper The

Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability(March 2002), emphasized that the entireincrease was due to smart-growth regula-tions. These feel-good regulations representa huge drag on future urban economy.

Little did I know when I prepared themap Sen. Hutchinson used on the Senatefloor, that environmental operatives werealready in key positions of our government,ready to implement the antiproperty rightsdirectives of the United Nations Treaty onBiodiversity.Although the treaty did not passthe Senate, they were able to shift gears, devel-oping the authority necessary to implementthe Wildlands agenda under an administra-tive cloak that didnt require congressionalapproval. It has been just over 10 years sincethey actively began transforming Americainto a Wildlands. What is most frightening ishow much they have accomplished in thatshort period.

For anyone who doubts that environmen-talists are serious about destroying privateproperty in America, redistributing thewealth, and reducing the use of our naturalresources, those doubts should be put to rest.They are more than halfway there.

The Wildlands ProjectUnder the Wildlands Project, the UnitedStates would be transformed from a land

where people can live where they choose andtravel freely, to a Wildlands-dominated land-scape where people live in designated popula-tion centers with limited travel allowedthrough highly restricted corridors. TheWildlands Project is the master plan for boththe United Nations Agenda 21 and Biodiver-sity Treaty. In classic socialist utopian ideal-

ism, Agenda 21 defines how every humanbeing must live in order to save mother earth.The Wildlands Project represents a grandiosedesign to transform at least half the land areaof the continental United States into animmense eco-park cleansed of modernindustry and private property.

Wildlands Project coauthor Reed Nossexplains their intent: The collective needs ofnonhuman species must take precedence over

the needs and desires of humans.Federal Programs

While many key laws like the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA), Clean Water Act anddozens of others that would facilitate imple-

mentation of the Wildlands agenda werealready in place, environmentalists needed toidentify areas that had no protection in orderto begin converting land to conform to theiragenda. The Clinton administration under-took two major programs with no congres-sional oversight during the 1990s to identifyand begin targeting these areas. They were theGap Analysis Program (GAP) and the Road-less Area Rule.

The GAP process starts by analyzing exist-ing protected government land, then overlaysgeographical data of vegetation habitat, ani-mal distribution and property ownership.Land ownership is further divided into stew-ardship classes: (1) is fully protected (suchas wilderness areas); (2) is mostly protected(national parks and many wildlife refuges);(3) is partially protected (national land-marks and multiple use areas like U.S. ForestService lands); and (4) is no known landprotection (usually private land). Classes 1and 2 are often combined.

Although GAP sounds innocent, evennoble, it is designed for the sole purpose of

defining where gaps exist between alreadyprotected areas and those that require protec-tion. These gaps are huge in Midwestern andEastern states where very little governmentland exists.Federal, state or local governmentalready own over 40 percent of the land areain the United States; however, most of thifederally owned land is in the West.

The only way to close these gaps is by tak-ing private property through condemnationconservation easements or uncompensatedregulations. In most cases, access to this landrepresents a rural familys livelihood and GAPrepresents a direct threat to their way of life.

The second federal program implement-ed at the end of the Clinton administration ithe U.S. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RA). RA established blanketnationwide prohibitions generally limitingtimber harvest, road construction and reconstruction within 58.5 million acres of inven

toried roadless areas on national forests andgrasslands. The lives of thousands of peopledepend on these historically availableresources for their living in forestry, livestockproduction and mining for critically neededminerals. This was one of the first majoefforts to convert already restricted government lands into Wildlands status,and accelerated the process of extinguishing the use oprivate lands within these areas.

On July 14, 2003, the U.S. District Courfor the District of Wyoming issued a permanent injunction and set aside the roadless

rule. However, the U.S. Forest Service issued anew rule on May 5, 2005, that allows theroadless rule to be imposed with the permission of the governor of each state.

Already existing laws such as the ESA havemade it easier for environmentalists to pushtheir Wildlands agenda. By threateninglandowners with species listings or habitadesignations, they can force private propertyowners into signing conservation easementsor into giving away a large portion of theiproperty to the government or to a land trustas mitigation in order to use just a small portion of their land.

Taking Liberty in NorthwestThe government owns 60 percent of Oregonand 42 percent of Washington, so the immediate focus in the Pacific Northwest has beento complete the conversion of these lands intoWildlands and target the private lands withinthese areas. The ESA has so far been thebiggest tool for accomplishing this goal. Thedesignation of the spotted owl gave the environmentalists the surrogate they needed. Thespotted owls habitat occupies everything

FOR ANYONE WHO DOUBTS THAT ENVIRONMEN-

TALISTS ARE SERIOUS ABOUT DESTROYING PRIVATEPROPERTY IN AMERICA, REDISTRIBUTING THE

WEALTH, AND REDUCING THE USE OF OUR NATURAL

RESOURCES, THOSE DOUBTS SHOULD BE PUT TO

REST. THEY ARE MORE THAN HALFWAY THERE.


7/59

west of the Cascade mountain ranges center-

line, which includes large tracts of privateproperty. The intention was never to save thebird, but to make ghost towns out of entirecommunities.

The federal government, State of Oregonand environmental NGOs collaborated tocompletely shut down agriculture in the Kla-math Basin of south-central Oregon in 2001.Federal agents misrepresented the amount ofwater needed for endangered suckerfish inKlamath Lake, resulting in the loss of all irri-gation water to farmers in the basin andturning farmland into dustbowls. The envi-

ronmental NGOs fulfilled their mission.Even though their land essentially

became worthless, the State of Oregon didnothing to help the farmers. Thousands ofKlamath residents lost their jobs, and busi-nesses that supported farming faced financialruin. Later that summer,the National Acade-my of Sciences reviewed the data supportingthe court decision and found no clear evi-dence that high lake levels benefited the fishor convincing scientific justification for notallowing the farmers to continue to use the

FALL 2005 RANGE MAGAZINE 33

ENDANGERED SPECIES BY COUNTY56 species or species groups

out of more than 1,200 endangered species

Privately owned

Federally owned

Indian Reservations

State and Locally owned

Environmental NGO owned

GAP 1 & 2 protected Wildlands

Roadless Areaspossible future Wildlands

AREAS IDENTIFIED AS GAP CLASSES 1 & 2 PROTECTEDWILDLANDS AND DESIGNATED ROADLESS AREAS

ON U.S. FOREST SERVICE LAND

Many counties have morethan one species listed intheir county even though only onespecies is shown on the map.


8/59

water for irrigation. In fact, evidence showedthat the suckerfish seemed to do better whenthe farmers used the lake water for irrigation.In reality, an arbitrary ESA decision based onhighly questionable science brought econom-ic devastationto an entire region.

On the eastern side of the Cascade Moun-tain Range, the federal GAP analysis showedthat large tracts of land were already protect-ed or nearly protected, but there were stillmany ranchers, miners and foresters whoused these lands and held legitimate propertyrights. A concerted effort was made throughthe Clinton administration to begin thetransformation of this region through theInterior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Manage-ment Project in 1993.

The project attempted to develop cooper-ative management strategies between federal,

state and local governments to control landuse over the 64-million-acre Columbia BasinEcosystem east of the Cascade mountainsinto Idaho, western Montana and northwestWyoming. Citizens strongly opposed it and in2003, after a 10-year study, only federal agen-cies and NGOs continued the program.

Individuals living within populated areasof the Northwest are also beginning to feel theeffects of the Wildlands agenda to moveurban growth into designated human occu-pation zones. For example, in 1979 planners

drew an Urban Growth Boundary linearound Portland, Ore., to control urbansprawl. Land values within the smart-growthboundary skyrocketed. Land values outsideplummeted.

Smart growth causes severe economic

hardship. In 1990, two out of three familiescould afford a home in the Portland area.That figure dove to one out of three by2000. The problem became so bad that in2004 the citizens of Oregon overwhelminglypassed Measure 37, requiring just compen-sation for landowners suffering from smart-growth regulations and other land-controlrestrictions.

Taking Liberty in SoutheastExcept for parts of Florida and the southernAppalachians, the Southeast generally hasvery little federal, state and local government

land that activists can use to lobby for creat-ing Wildlands. So, to speed the process upand help identify private land for Wildlandsprotection,Region 4 of the U.S.Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA) and the Univer-sity of Floridas GeoPlan Center conducted aGAP analysis called the Southeastern Ecolog-ical Framework Project in 1999-2000.

The project prioritized ecological areas inthe Southeast that need protection. BecauseGAP gives such a high priority to ecosystemsover people, more than 60 percent of the

Southeastnearly all rural areas and privatelandwas identified as having a high protec-tion priority.

Florida has already undertaken a numberof statewide initiatives to implement theWildlands Project under a variety of namesof which the Greenways Planning Project andSave Our Rivers Program are the largest.

During the 1990s these programs wereunder the umbrella of the Preservation 2000Act, changed by the Florida Legislature in2000 to Florida Forever. The goal was to placeas much as 80 percent of Florida into Wildlands reserves and corridors, which they calhubs and linkages.

By 1999, Florida had purchased 1.3 million acres through the Save Our Rivers Program. After 2000, the same program targetednew lands for acquisition by green-lining ahuge area of land.Green-lining typically lockthe land value at rock-bottom prices, denying

the landowner any chance for receiving high-est and best value for his land, thereby skimming the landowners equity for thegovernment.

By 2005, Florida had purchased anothe800,000 acres throughout the state increasingstate ownership from 29 to 37 percent.

The state used conservation easements toacquire development rights on an additiona315,000 acres at about one-third the cost o

34 RANGE MAGAZINE FALL 2005

During the Clinton administration all land east ofthe Cascade Mountain Range of Oregon andWashington was classified as the Interior Colum-bia Basin Ecosystem Management Program(ICBEMP) ostensibly to develop ecosystemmanagement strategies that would protect the corevalues of nature. However, other places where thisapproach has been used, such as the ColumbiaGorge National Scenic Area or the AdirondackState Park in upstate New York, reveal that allproperty rights come under the control ofgovernment bureaucracies. The Defenders ofWildlife have proposed additional areas to beincluded as GAP 1&2 Wildlands in Oregon.

LAND OWNERSHIP INOREGON/WASHINGTON

LAND CONTROL INSPOTTED OWL HABITAT

Most people are unaware that 60 percent of

Oregon and 42 percent of Washington areowned by the federal, state or local government.

The endangered spotted owl was used by

environmental NGOs and wildlife biologiststo shut down much of the logging in westernOregon and Washington even though it waslater determined that the owl thrived insecond-growth forests.

WILDLANDS PROPOSALS

BY NGOs

FederalLandIndianReservations

GAP Protected1&2RoadlessAreas

State &Local LandSpotted OwlHabitat

ICBEMP

NGO Proposed

Wildlands

PrivateLand

FederalLand

IndianReservations

State & LocalLand

Spotted OwlHabitat


9/59FALL 2005 RANGE MAGAZINE 35

what the state would have had to pay to buythe land outright. The landowners often sellthe easement for quick cash, figuring the landwill never have much future value. Or thelandowner sells the easement because regula-tions have made it increasingly difficult tomake a living on or to otherwise use the land.

Florida is cannibalizing its private land in

the name of protecting nature. It is not theonly state in the East that is doing so.Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, RhodeIsland and New York are also following close-ly in Floridas footsteps. These states are alsoidentifying greenway hubs and linkages forthe Wildlands Project.

Taking LibertyLocal communities will always need regula-tions that focus on true harm, nuisance andpublic health. A healthy economy is requiredto protect the environment. If the local, stateor U.S. economy declines because arbitrary

regulations limit or remove private propertyfrom production, it is highly probable thatthe very efforts to protect the environmentwill eventually cause its decline.

The end result will not be the eco-utopiathe greens envision. It will be a land ownedby government and elite land trusts. Intruth, the Wildlands agenda is not aboutwhether Americas land and resources willbe used for human benefit; it is about whowill own them. Private property rights areas important to the environment as they areto people. s

Dr. Michael Coffman is president of Environ-mental Perspectives, Inc., in Bangor, Maine.He has a Ph.D. in forest sciences and hastaught and conducted research in ecosystemclassification, global warming and acid rain for25 years before founding Environmental Per-spectives. He can be reached at 207-945-9878.

In 1999-2000 the Environmental Protection Agency and University of Florida conducted a study of GAP andother data called The Southeastern Ecological Framework Project. The project attempted to prioritizeecological areas in the Southeast that wildlands ecologists believe need protection. Sixty percent of the eightstates received a high priority or significant status for protection. The final resulsts of the SEFP delineated 43

percent of the eight-state area as qualifying as hubs or linkage status. Of this, only 9 percent was alreadyprotected while 52 percent is privately owned uplands that have to be acquired or condemned.

Taking Liberty on the Web!

Taking Liberty is a sophisticated Web-basedanimated program with narrations and stun-

ning visuals showing the progress environmen-talists have made and what programs they areusing in their efforts to implement the radicalWildlands agenda. It is funded and produced bythe American Land Foundation in Taylor,Texas, and Stewards of the Range in Meridian,Idaho. The program can be viewed at. CDs of the programcan also be purchased on the Web site or bycalling 1-800-452-6389. They are $15 each; 4-9for $12 each; and 10 or more for $10 each. Themaps shown in this article (a few of many) andin the program are also available for purchase.

SOUTHEASTERN

ECOLOGICAL

FRAMEWORK

PROJECT

Priority Ecological Areas

Significant Ecological Areas

FLORIDA PRIVATE LAND

ACQUISITIONS

SINCE

EARLY 1990s

Since the 1990s the Florida Preservation 2000and the Florida Forever Programs have acquiredover three million acres (11.5 percent) of privateland to be included in the Greenways Project.

GOAL

Future WildlandHubs & Linkages

Federal LandState LandNGO LandGAP Status 1&2

Private LandAcquisitions


10/59

Perry tied to Agenda 21: Selling Texas to foreigners, jabs Obama for... http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-antonio/rick

3/7/2012


11/59

job as Perrys aide, steers the $7 billion corridor P3 to his former employer Cintra,


3/7/2012


12/59


3/7/2012


13/59

Presented as a public service from:

UnderstandingSustainable

Development

F h Ppl nhi Publi Off iil

Pp by

Fre edom A dvocatesRecognize Unalienable Rights

www.FreedomAdvocates.org

Age nda 21


14/59

Understanding Sustainable Development Agenda 21

able of Contents:

What is Sustainable Development? ............................. 2

Historical Development and Origins

The Antithetical Foundations of Liberty

and Sustainable Development

mplementing Sustainable Development ..................... 6

Equity: Using the Law to Restructure Human Nature

Economy: The International Redistribution of Wealth and

the Creation of Public/Private Partnerships

Environment: Nature Above Man

Educating the Youth to Mold the Minds of Tomorrow

Stakeholder Councils

Restructuring American Government

Funding Sources

Political Support

ustainable Development Land Use Programs ......... 16

The Wildlands Network

Smart GrowthThe North American Union and the Trans-Texas Corridor

Abusing Eminent Domain to Promote

Public/Private Partnerships

What You Can Do ...................................................... 22

6 Practical Steps to Restore and Protect Liberty

Freedom Advocates P.O. Box 3330 Freedom, CA 95019

831.684.2232

Fourth Pri nting (Revised) - 2004, 2005, 2007, 2010

Freedom Advocates is a 501(c)(3) public benefit cor poration.

Your tax deductible contribution is valuable for the continuation of our work.

SM

IntroductionYou may have heard people talking about Sustainable

Development in public meetings, on television and on

the radio. Consultants talk about it, university professor

lecture on it, and at all levels of government, it is now

being mandated. But what is Sustainable Development?

That is precisely the question this guide is intended

to address. In the following pages, you will read of

the origins of Sustainable Development, its theoretical

underpinnings, its major programs, and how it is

implemented.

When you have finished reading this document, you

will have the knowledge necessary to begin identifying

the vast array of Sustainable Development programs that

exist and continue to arise.

Please recognize this document for what it is: a uniqu

opportunity to learn more about Sustainable DevelopmenThen you can make a difference in your community by

supporting present and future actions that restore and

protect the rights and well-being of you, your family, and

your fellow citizens.

More information on the nature and consequences

of Sustainable Development is available from Freedom

Advocates. (http://www.FreedomAdvocates.org)

1



15/59

What is SustainableDevelopment?

The most common definition of Sustainable Development given

y its proponents is a statement found in the Bruntland Report, Our

ommon Future, released during the 1987 United Nations World

ommission on Environment and Development:

Development that meets the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs.

Historical Development and Origins

Even the term sustainable must be defined, since on the

rface it appears to be inherently positive. In reality, Sustainable

evelopment has become a buzz term that refers to a political

enda, rather than an objectively sustainable form of development.

pecifically, it refers to an initiative of the United Nations (U.N.)

lled Sustainable Development Agenda 21. Sustainable Development

genda 21 is a comprehensive statement of a political ideology that

being progressively infused into every level of government inmerica.

Known around the world simply as Agenda 21, this initiative is

comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally, and

cally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments,

d Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the

vironment. 1

Agenda 21 was unveiled in 1992 during the United Nations

onference on Environment and Development (UNCED), commonly

1. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm

2


2. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) submitted a resolution (H.J. Res. 166) to the

103rd Congress on March 29, 1993 urging the President and Congress to

assume a strong leader ship role in implementing the decisions made at

the Earth Summ it by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda

21 and other Earth Summit agreements.... Though that bill stalled in

the Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Trade and Environment, itsrecommendations have been implemented through various actions by the

President, and Congress.

3. Soft law policy is not binding. This is a common procedure in the U.

policy development strategy. Soft law documents are quite often followe

treaties or covenants, which are binding international law; alternately, soft

can find immediate application through local legislation or policy without

internationally binding agreement.

known as the Rio

Earth Summit, wh

more than 178 nat

adopted Agenda 2

and pledged to eva

progress made in

implementing the

plan every five ye

thereafter. Presid

George H. W. Bus

the signatory for t

United States.

Although Con

never authorized

the implementatio

of Agenda 21 2(as

a soft-law policy

recommendation 3

a treaty it needs

ratification), in 19

President Bill Clint

established, by Exe

Order, the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (PCSfor the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the United States.

3


Image 1: The United Nations website clearly

displays Agenda 21 documents


16/59

4. Lawrence, J. Gary, The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium,

The Millennium Papers, UNED-UK, Issue 2, (1998), 3.

CSD operated through 1999, but its actions to promote Sustainable

evelopment have taken root, and now exert an increasing influence

communities across America.

International organizations such as the U.N., and its accredited

on-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), generally consider

ustainable Development and Agenda 21 to be synonymous.

herefore, in order to avoid confusion and equivocation, Sustainable

evelopment will be the term used throughout this document to refer

both. Agenda 21 will only be used to refer to the actual document

om the Rio Earth Summit.

At times, the political agenda embodied in Sustainable

evelopment is implemented under other names for purposes of

litical expediency. J. Gary Lawrence, a planner for the city

Seattle, and advisor to the Presidents Council on Sustainable

evelopment, said in 1998, that, Participating in a U.N. advocated

anning process would very likely bring out many ... who would

tively work to defeat any elected official ... undertaking Local

genda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as

omprehensive planning, growth management, or smart

owth.4

he Antithetical Foundations of Libertyand Sustainable Development

Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.

John Adams

It has long been known that liberty is tied to the institution of

ivate property. The Decalogue codified private property in four

ords: Thou shalt not steal.

Private property and freedom are inseparable.

George Washington

4


5. Soapes, Emily Williams. The American Experiment: Living with the

Constit ution. Prologue: Journal of the National Archives 19, no.3 (Fall 1

185-189.

6. See also Machan, Tibor, Private Rights & Public Illusions, Transaction

Publishers, New Brunswick (1995).

The institution of private property was understood by those

who participated in the American Experiment 5and its principles

were consequently included in the Declaration of Independence,

Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.6 The right to property as ou

in those documents is premised on an owners determination of i

provided that such use does not distu rb the equal r ights of anothe

all Menare endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence

5


Nature

Source

Individual Rights

U.S. Declaration of Independence

Community Rights

U.N. Declaration of Human Rights

Purpose of

government

Protect the natural or

unalienable rights of each

individual

That all Men are

created equal, that they

are endowed by their

Creator with certainunalienable rights...

In short Youre born with rights,

government exists to protect

them. You and the product of

your labor belong to you.

Control the individual for

the greater good of a global

community

Rights and freedoms

may in no case be

exercised contrary to the

purposes and principlesof the United Nations

Government grants, restricts

or withdraws your rights

according to its needs. You

and the product of your labor

belong to the community.

Which Philosophy of Rights?

2007 FREEDOMADVOCATES


17/59

7. Nullificat ion of the right to the reasonable use of ones property affects

by extension the right to private action and the freedom of expression. Shaw,

Michael, What is Private Property? Liberty Garden (2003).

8. Heywood, V.H. (ed.). Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations

Environment Progra mme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995): 767,

782. This document likewise condemns inappropr iate social structures (p 763),

golf courses (p 970), and the attitudes toward nature found in Judeo-Christian-

slamic religions (pp 766, 838).

In contrast to the unalienable rights found in Americas founding

cuments, the United Nations Charter and the Declaration of Human

ghts are based on a very different idea: rights are granted and

scinded by men.

The Sustainable Development political agenda originates in the

unding documents of the United Nations. This isnt surprising,

nce the myriad of countries represented in the drafting of Agenda

have widely divergent forms of government, and must have a point

agreement (a least common denominator) to rally around and

e U.N. Char ter provides that point. However, for progress to beade in implementing Sustainable Development in the United States,

nalienable rights such as the right to property must be eroded,

tacked, and struck down altogether. 7, 8

mplementingSustainable Development

The authors of Agenda 21 have said it will affect every area of

fe, grouped according to three objectives: Equity, Economy, and

nvironment (known commonly as the 3 Es). By defining these

rms vaguely, a litany of abuses have resulted. Furthermore, bybber-stamping pre-conceived plans, using manipulative visioning

ssions to garner the appearance of public buy-in, and acquiring

ants from sources with questionable motives, the entire process of

mplementing Sustainable Development policies is suspect.

6


Equity:Using the Law to Restructure Human Natu

The authors of the Sustainable Development action plan

recognized that their environmental and economic objectives, an

corresponding transformation of the American system of equal ju

to a system of "social" justice, are rad ically divergent from the v

and objectives of the average person. Therefore, in order to achitheir objectives, they call for a shift in attitudes that can be seen

the educational programs developed by its proponents. This is th

premise of Sustainable Development: That individual human wan

needs and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates o

planners. Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair of the International Counci

Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), and Clerk of the Circui

and County Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida, has said that

individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective

the process of implementing Sustainable Development. 9

7


9. Peros, Joan, unpublished report, UNCED Rio+10 Summit Johannesbu

South Africa (2002).

Environment

Equity Economy

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMEN


18/59

Economy:The International Redistribution ofWealth and the Creation of Public/PrivatePartnerships

...current lifestyles and consumption patterns

of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake,

use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air

conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.

Maurice Strong,Secretary General, U.N. Conference on Environment and

Development, 1992. (Also known as the

Rio Earth Summit , where Agenda 21 was unveiled.)

According to its preamble, The developmental and environmental

jectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial f low of new and

ditional financial resources to developing countries. Language

roughout Agenda 21 erroneously assumes that life is a zero-sum

me (the wealth of the world was made at the expense of the poor,

aking them even poorer). This critique of economic ills denies the

genuity of private action, individual determination, and truly free-

arket innovation, and leads inevitably to the conclusion that if the

nditions of the poor are to be improved, wealth must be taken f rom

e rich. Sustainable Development embodies this unjust redistributionwealth both in theory and in implementation, effectively lowering

e standard of living in America to that of the rest of the world.

he Draft Covenant on Environment and Development states in

rt icle 8: equity will be achieved through implementation of the

ternational economic order ... and through transfers of resources to

veloping countries.... When in fact such justif ication covers up the

al transfer of power and resources which is to the elite cabal that

ives world government.

In addition to its appeal for the international redistribution

wealth, Sustainable Development is actually restructu ring the

onomy, molding it not on private enterprise but on public/private

rtnerships.

8


Public/private partnerships bring businesses desiring the prot

offered by governments legalized force together with governmen

agents that want the power that comes with economic control. T

power of economics, and the force of government, must serve as

check and balance on each other; combining the two will ultimat

result in tyranny. Free enterprise is lost amid subsidies, incentiv

tax-breaks, and insider privilege, and with it goes the notion that

customer is the final determiner of how resources are allocated i

production. The Sustainable Development partnerships involv

some corporations domestic and multinational some tax-exem

family foundations, select individuals, and collectivist politicians

their administrations. Of these participants, only elected politici

are accountable to the public for their actions.

Environment:Nature Above Man

Americans support laws and regulations that are designated t

effectively prevent pollution of the air, water, or the property of

another. Yet, it is increasingly clear that Sustainable Developme

uses the environment simply as the means to promote a political

agenda. For example, Al Gore says that Sustainable Developmen

bring about a wrenching transformation of American society. 1

Sustainable Development is ostensibly concerned with

the environment; it is more concerned with restructuring the

governmental system of the worlds nations so that all the people

of the world will be the subjects of a global collective. Many of

its proposed implementation strategies require the surrender of

unalienable rights.

9


10. Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs,

moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of

genuine change these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy

the publics desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching

transfor mation of society will not be necessary. Gore, Al, Earth in the Ba

Plume (1993): 274.


19/59

This fact alone casts a serious shadow of doubt on the motives

Sustainable Development planners who would discard the

nalienable rights to life, liberty, and property in order to pursue

ubious programs. 11 When Sustainable Development is implemented,

dinary people will be left unprotected from de facto decrees placing

ture above man, while relegating man to the status of a biological

source. 12

ducating the Youth to

Mold the Minds of TomorrowAll who have meditated

on the art of governing mankind

have been convinced that the fate of empires

depends on the education of youth.

Aristotle

One means that Sustainable Developers use to ensure continuing

pport of their anti-human programs is through molding the minds of

e next generation. Chapter 25 of the U.N. Sustainable Development

genda 21 calls for the need to enlist and empower children and

uth in reaching for sustainability.

Even a cursory look at the federally-mandated curriculum beingught in classrooms in every government school in America would

ow that the doctrines of Sustainable Development are finding their

ay into every subject. French classes are used to teach students to

ave the earth; economics classes feature lectu res discouraging

dividual initiative in the marketplace and decrying private

wnership; history classes obscure the importance of Americas

unding documents; mandatory service-learning programs enlist

udents to work for government-approved Sustainable Development

10


11. cf. Taylor, Jerry, Sustainable Development: A Dubious Solution in Search of

a Problem, Cato Institute (2002).

12. Bureau of Land Management, Internal Working Document for ecosystem

management, (March 1994).

partner organizations. The list goes on and on.

While taxpayers foot the bill for the increasing costs of

government education, parents are increasingly shut out of decisi

crucial to the molding of their childs mind. Controversial progr

designed for values clarification are being performed in govern

schools that employ powerful behavior control techniques and p

pressure to make [a] developing child question his or her individu

worth and values, and are designed to disrupt parental oversigh

in the upbringing of their children, according to Professor of

Organizational Behavior, Brent Duncan.

Stakeholder Councils Restructuring American Government

"I believe there are more instances

of the abridgement of the freedom of the people

by gradual silent encroachments of those in power,

than by violent and sudden usurpations."

James Madison

The way that Sustainable Development is carried out in local

communities around the world is particularly alarming, especiall

those who seek accountability in government. Operating within system of stakeholder councils, organized to give any th ird partie

stake in the control over property in neighborhoods, proponent

Sustainable Development systematically promote their own ideas

marginalize any local opposition, particularly those individuals w

advocate the freedom to use and enjoy private property.

The product of a stakeholder council, often called a consens

statement or a vision statement, is typically approved by loca

governments without question, requiring citizens to submit to the

questionable conclusions of a non-elected regional authority that

accountable to the voters.

11



20/59

Once a problem has been identified, every NGO, non-profit,

local government body has a vast stock of Sustainable Developm

solutions at hand, provided by the International Council for Loca

Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). Indeed, ICLEI has a veritabl

treasure t rove of boilerplate solutions for change agents, enabling

them to identify problems with the goal of implementing

predetermined outcomes that advance Sustainable Development

policies. 16

ICLEI, launched in 1990 at the World Congress of Local

Governments for a Sustainable Future, is based in Toronto, Cana

but has offices around the globe, including Oakland, California.

stated mission is to provide policy recommendations to assist loc

governments in the implementation of Sustainable Development.

13


Image 2: ICLEI, aka The International Council for Local Environmental Ini

Stakeholder council meetings are typically arranged under the

spices of soliciting input from community members on a project.

his project may be initiated by local public officials, a local non-

ofit organization, a national or regional non-profit organization, or

NGO. 13 It is very rare for community members to instigate the

akeholder visioning process.

A typical stakeholder council meeting is run by a trained

cilitator. 14 It is not the facilitators job to make sure that all views

e entered into the record. His job, instead, is to guide the group

arrive at a consensus on the project. The consensus process has

mechanism for recording minority views. Since he is being paid

the organization responsible for the project, it is in his interest

arrive at a consensus sympathetic to the desired outcome of the

oject. Tactics vary between the facilitators, but consensus generally

reached by using subtle means to marginalize opposition, such as

cording only the good ideas, and allowing criticism only for the

ad ideas.

A Sustainable Development stakeholder meeting in Greenville,

outh Carolina, was adjourned with a frank admission by the paid

cilitator that they had not reached the consensus that he needed to

pport the predetermined plans. 15

Why all the effort to gain support for programs few citizens want?

he answer to this question lies in the origin of each specific project.

ustainable Development projects are often initiated at the di rective

12


13. Recall that many Non-Governmental Organizations are accredited by the

U.N., making them international, or multinational in their political purpose.

n this sense, they might be more appropriately called Global Governance

Organizations.

14. Professional facilitators are freque ntly paid thousands of dollars for only a

few hours of work.

15. Dill, Bob, Land Use Leaders Declare Defeat; Wrong Consensus Reached,

Meetings Cancelled, Times-Examiner, Greenville, South Carolina. Steven Lipe,

he meeting organizer, announced that the consensus is that we dont have

enough people to make change. As far as I am concerned, our meeting is done.

of NGOs or non-profit organizations that have or create fear o

problems that are portrayed as a crisis: development near a ripari

corridor, poor water management infrastructure, or too many car

the freeway are common examples.

16. cf. Taylor, Jerry, op cit.

ICLEI: Local Governments for Sustainabil

is directing policies that cause:

- stack em and pack em housing- trafc congestion

- inaccessible open space

- managed control over our lives

- mismanagement of water supplies

- prohibition on natural resource manag

leading to increased re hazards and p

property restrictions


21/59

a recent document, ICLEI confirmed its dedication to the U.N.

andate: Local Action 21 strategies [i.e. those formulated at the

02 Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa] will ensure the

nwavering, systematic implementation of local action plans over the

xt decade. 17

Essentially, Sustainable Development claims knowledge of all

stainability issues and has stock solutions that can be applied in

ockholm, Boulder, Santa Cruz indeed, anywhere.

Around the world, ICLEI is responsible for communicating with

cal special interests to t ranslate international policy objectives

to local and regional legislation. 18 Every county in America now

s Sustainable Development directives guided by federal agencies,

GOs, and/or ICLEI.

unding Sources

The list of money sources for the implementation of Sustainable

evelopment is impressive. American taxes fund the federal agencies

esent focus: implementing Sustainable Development. Over two

ousand NGOs are accredited by the United Nations for the purposeimplementing Sustainable Development in America, and are

ven massive tax advantages. Some of these NGOs are the Nature

onservancy, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the

merican Planning Association, the National Teachers Association,

e U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Farm Bureau.

14


17. Otto-Zim merman, Konrad , Local Action 21: Motto, Mandate, Movement,

nternational Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Toronto (2003):

2. See ICLEIs website for more information: http://www.iclei.org.

18. Note that ICLEIs objectives presuppose the notion that the goal of

mproving the conditions of the world can only be achieved through legislation,denigrating the intelligence and ingenuity of individuals in facing their

particular circumstances, and placing them under the increasing oversight of

government planners.

After government and non-profit funding schemes, the third

leg of the Sustainable Development financial insiders is a grou

of tax-exempt family foundations. These include the Rockefeller

Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Turner Foundation, the D

and Lucille Packard Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, th

Carnegie Foundation, the McArthur Foundation, and local comm

foundations.

Political Support

When George H. W. Bush signed the Rio Accords at the Ear t

Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, he pledged the United States

support for Agenda 21. A year later, when Bill Clinton created th

Presidents Council for Sustainable Development by Executive O

he laid the foundation for a proliferation of intermediate and loca

stakeholder councils that would set out to reinvent the structur

United States government.

As Sustainable Development policies permeate every county

America, it has become apparent that the conf lict is not a dynam

Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative, or left vs. righ

fact, the implementation of Sustainable Development is occur rin

bi-partisan basis.

15


ICLEI was inst rumental in the development of Agenda 21, having

afted Chapter 28 in 1991 in preparation for the upcoming summit.


22/59

Sustainable DevelopmentLand Use Programs

Sustainable Development is a plan for global control including the

striction of land-use and resource extraction. The land use element

Sustainable Development calls for the implementation of two action

ans designed to abolish private property: the Wildlands Network and

mart Growth. Upon final implementation of these plans all human

tion is subject to control.

16


Image 3: Prepared by Dr. Michael Coffman, Environmental Perspectives, Inc.

Since all things ultimately come from natural resources on ru

lands, the transfer of the landscape from citizen control to gover

control will make it easy for government and its partners NGO

certain foundations and certain corporations to control what w

have, what we do, and where we go. The transformation of free

societies into collectivized societies through Sustainable Develop

ensures the dominance of a ruling elite which, by defin ition, exc

all but a very select few.

The Wildlands Network

The Wildlands Network (aka Wildlands Project) is the plan to

eliminate human presence on at least 50 percent of the Americ

landscape,19 and to heavily control human activity on most of the

of American land. Examples of the piece-by-piece implementatio

the Wildlands Network include road closings, the policy of breac

dams and the adoption of United Nations World Heritage Sites

are systematically being closed to use.

Conservation biologists now agree that protecting isolated

pockets of habitat isnt enough to protect our bears, jaguars,

beavers, birds and other wildlife the only way to protect them i

practice conservation on a continental scale, announced WildlaProject Executive Director, Leanne Klyza Linck, at the Society o

Environmental Journalists Conference on September 12, 2003.

The most significant tools of the Wildlands Network is the ra

expanding imposition of habitat protection provisions under th

17


19. Reed Noss, who made this asser tion in 1992, reiterated his commitmen

in a recent interview: Fifty percent is an estimate I made years ago of

the proportion of an average region that would need to be managed for

conservation in order to meet well-accepted conservation goals ... [It] turns

out I was pretty much on the mark ... (Range Magazine, Fall 2003, p42) N

has been the Science Editor for Wild Earth, the quarterly publication of the

Wildlands Project.

aken From: The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Article 8a-e; United Nations Global Biodiversityssessment, Section 13.4.2.2.3; US Man and the Biosphere Strategic Plan, UN/US Heritage Corridor Program, Theildlands Project, WildEarth, 1992. Also see Science, The High Cost of Biodiversity, 25 June, 1993, pp 1968 -1871

nd the Border 21 Sidebar of NAFTA. The very high percentage of buffer zone in the West is due to the very highercentage of federal land. NOTE: Do not use this map for real estate purposes.

Copyright 1997, Environmental Perspectives, Inc. (207) 945 -9878


23/59

ndangered Species Act, the adoption of conservation easements

d direct land acquisitions from battered willing sellers.

The Wildlands Network seeks to collectivize allnatural resources

g., water) and centralize all use decisions under government

rection, often implemented through public/private partnerships.

mart Growth

The rural land-use plan embodied in the Wildlands Network isextricably tied to its urban counterpart, Smart Growth. As human

ings are barred from rural land, there will be a concentration

human activity in urban areas. Through Smart Growth, the

frastructure is being created for a post-private property era in which

uman action is subject to centralized government control. With

e combined implementation of Smart Growth and the Wildlands

etwork, humans will be caged and the animals will run free.

Sometimes called comprehensive planning or growth

anagement, 20 Smart Growth is the centralized control of every

pect of urban life: energy and water use, housing stock and

location, population levels and control, public health and dietar y

gimens, resources and recycling, "social justice" and education,

xic technology and waste management, transportation modesd mobility restrictions, business and economic act ivity including

pping and trading energy.

Smart Growth policies include:

Transportation plans that reduce the freedom of

mobility, forcing people to live near where they work,

and transforming communities into heavily-regulated

but self-sufficient feudalistic transit villages.

18


20. ...we call our [U.N. advocated planning] processes something else, such as

comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth. Lawrence, J.

Gary, op cit.

Plans to herd citizens into tax-subsidized,

government controlled, mixed-use developments,21

called human settlements. These settlements are

sometimes distinguished from one another by how

productive or useful the citizens are for society.22

Heavy restrictions on development in most areas,

and the promotion of extremely dense development,

constructed and managed by government partners, in

other selected areas.

Rations on public services, such as health care,

drinking water23 and energy resources (and sources).

A typical day in the Orwellian society created by Smart Grow

would consist of an individual waking up in his government-

provided housing un it, eating a ration of government-subsidized

foods purchased at a government-sanctioned grocery store, walk

his children (if he has any) to the government-run child care cent

boarding government-subsidized public transit to go to his gover

job, then return ing to his quarters later that evening.

19


21. The lure of paying as little as $150 per year in taxes on properties valu

at $1.5 million has led to high occupancy in some developments in Portland

Oregon, for example.

22. The Smart Growth plan for Richland County, South Carolina, for exam

distinguishes between employment-based villages, and non-employmen

based villages, with special gated communities set aside for the wealthy

individuals responsible for the plan. Most of the non-employment-based

villages are slated to be built in areas currently populated by the descenda

liberated slaves.

23. Reasonable access to water in urban areas is defined as the availabili

20 litres per capita per day at a distance no longer than 1,000 metres. Glo

Water Supply and Assessment Report 2000.


24/59

20


he North American Unionand the Trans-Texas Corridor

The Trans-Texas Corridor is a major component in the creation

a North American Union (NAU). The Corridor facilitates the

litical-economic equalization of Mexico, Canada and the United

ates through the establishment of trade routes, toll roads, utility

nes and inland ports. These systems are to be developed, managed

d owned by various multi-national corporations working in public/

ivate partnership with government(s).24, 25

Image 4: The Trans-Texas Corridor as originally displayed

on the North Americas SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO) website,

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

24. Corsi, Jerome R., The Late Great USA - The Coming Merger with Mexico

and Canada (Chapter 6), World Ahead Media, Los Angeles, CA (2007).

25. Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom: htt p://www.TexasTurf.org


21

In order to meet the global equalization objectives of the econ

E (see page 8), the Sustainable Development system requires gl

management of trade directed by the World Trade Organization

(WTO) pursuant to policy created by the World Bank.

This system of managed trade necessitates bringing down

American production and middle class standards of living to a

sustainable level. Similar to the European Union, the North

American Union calls for an eventual merger of countries (Canad

Mexico, and the United States). By design, this leads to regional

governance that sacrifices our unalienable rights and national

sovereignty. 26

Abusing Eminent Domain to PromotePublic/Private Partnerships

The anti-private property Supreme Court decision,Kelo v. Ci

of New London, 27 enables projects like the Trans-Texas Corridorto transfer private property and/or public infrastructure to privat

entities including foreign corporations. The Kelo decision neutra

the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment. 28

America is being transformed.

26. Henry Lambs DVDs contain information on the North American Un

and the Trans-Texas Corr idor: https://secure.free dom.org/eco/nauboth.dy

27. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005); 125 S. Ct. 2655.

28. Institute for Justice: http://www.ij.org/


25/59


22

What You Can DoOnce again a majority of this court has proved that if

enough people get together and act in concert,

ey can take something and not pay for it. .. . But theft is still

theft. Theft is theft even when the government approves of

the thievery... Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does

not enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the

legitimacy of the government.

Justice Janice Brown,dissenting opinion,

San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco 29

Sustainable Development is restructuring our lives and is targeting

ur children through an educational regime that seeks to develop

llectivist attitudes, values and beliefs. Sustainable Development

cuments call for the abolishment of private property30 and the

eedom that private property supports. It supplants long-standing

ate laws and causes irreparable harm to our economy and our

ciety. If individual members of our society do nothing, the

ntinuing loss of liberty will result in increasing social confusion

d discord, rising resource shortages, financial decay and a dimming

ture for us and our posterity.

The looming battle of ideas should be recognized as a classic and

rhaps ultimate battle between Liberty and Tyranny. The social,

onomic, and political transformations Sustainable Development

quires will mean the suppression of unalienable rights for all

ople.31

29. No. S091757., SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 27 Cal. 4th 643; 41

P.3d 87, March 8, 2002

30. Heywood, V.H. (ed.). op cit.

31. For a more comprehensive discussion of this topic, see the Freedom 21

Alternative to the U.N.s Agenda 21 Program for Sustainable Development.

http://www.freedom21.org/alternative/preface.shtml


23

If Americans, with your help, come to a timely understanding

of the threat and face the challenge squarely, the deceptive fraud

Sustainable Development will quickly come to light. Together, w

will rise to restore Liberty through a renewal of reason and respe

for the dignity of individual determination. The future of the fre

once taken for granted in America depends on us recognizing an

countering the threats of Sustainable Development.

6 Practical Steps to

Restore and Protect Liberty1. Recognize and resist the trend to replace political boundari

with regional governance. Recognize that this form of governm

leads to a breakdown of accountability to the citizenry.

2. Refuse local government receipt of federal or state money

new Sustainable Development programs because they breach the

American system of federalism and raid the treasury. Withdraw

established Sustainable Development programs.

3. Avoid local government part nerships with the federal

government, NGOs, foundations and corporations that advance t

anti-liberty Sustainable Development agenda. Do not surrender

town or county to the insider privilege of Sustainable Developers

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 A rticle 1, Sec

8, the 9th and 10th Amendments, which address the limitations o

federal power, and the 14th Amendment, which limits the states

police power.

6. Kick ICLEI out of your town. Reference ICLEI Primer at

www.FreedomAdvocates.org


26/59

24


Freedom Advocates Neighborhood Toolsamphlets:


You may have heard people talking about Sustainable Development

in public meetings, on television and on the radio. Consultant s talk

about it, university professors lecture on it, a nd government entities are

increa singly implementing it. But what is Sustainable Development?

That is precisely the question this pamphlet is intended to address.

Bulk Pricing:

1 - 10 copies $4.00 each100 - 1000 copies $3.00 each

1000 + copies Call: 831.684.2232

Add $2.00 shipping for 1-10 copies of either pamphlet, call for shipping costs for orders over 10)

udio:8 Hours of Radio Interv iews and Presentations from the

Freedom 21 Santa Cruz Radio Show

America is being transformed from the land of the free to the land

of the controlled via mechanisms that target the middle class. Knowing

reality the threat and the potential is the foundation for restoring and

preserving liberty. Hosted by Michael Shaw, Freedom Advocates, with

the following guests and topics:

Abolishing Private Property - Dr. Michael Coffman (2 hours)

Screening your Child for Mental Health Dismantling the Family - Dr. Karen Effrem

Central Banking and Sustainable Tyranny - Dr. Edwin Viera

Fabian Socialism, Regionalizing England, and the European Union - Robert Theobald

The All Out War on Natural Law - William Roberts (2 hours)

Price: $25.00 (Plus $4.00 shipping)

Yes! I need to know more!Please send me:

___ Understanding Sustainable

Development Agenda 21

___ Sustainable Development:

Global to Local Action Plans

___ War on Reason Audio CD sets

__ _ A mericas Choice DVDs

___ Total Items

$___ ___ ___ _ Total Price with Shipping

Name: __ ________________ __________

Address: ______ ________________ _____

City: _____________________________

State: ________ Zip: _________________

Phone: __________ ________________ __

Email: ____________________________

Enclosed is my check or money ord

$________

Please make checks payable to:

Freedom AdvocateP.O. Box 3330

Freedom, CA 95019

831.684.2232

831.685.1472 (Fax)

www.FreedomAdvocates

The Most Comprehensive Expos of Sustainable Development to Featuring Five of the Nations Leading Ex

Liberty! A Life of Ones Own

Michael Shaw, Freedom 21 Santa Cruz, CA, now Freedom Advoc

Transformational Education:

Preparing our Children for Global Citizenship

Michael Chapman, Ed Watch, MN

The Smart Growth Fraud

Michael Coffman, Sovereignty International, ME

Exposing Group Manipulation Tactics

Beverly Eakman, National Education Consortium, MD

Sustainable Development: The Wrenching Transformation ofTom DeWeese, American Policy Center, VA

A Six Hour Presentation on DOnly $49!

$29 Special Price

with this order form!(Includes shipping)

Produced by the American Policy Center in

association with Freedom 21 Santa Cruz


For more Freedom Advocates products, call: 831.684.2232, or

our Store at: http://www.FreedomAdvocates.org

Video:

Sustainable Development:Global to Local Action Plans

This thorough expos is the third in a series of Freedom Advocates

pamphlets. It provides an analysis of how sustain able policy invades and

directs your county through its global to local action plan. The booklet

is designed to provide information that you and your community need

in order to preserve liberty at the local level. Understand and join in the

battle to prevent globalist policies from swallowing up our unalienable

rights.

Bulk Pricing:

1 - 100 copies $5.00 each

101 - 1000 copies $3.00 each

1001 + copies Call: 831.684.2232

UnderstandingSustainable

Development

F h Ppl n

h i P u b l i Of f i i l Pp by

Freedom AdvocatesRecognize Unalienable Rights

www.freedomadvocates .org

Agenda 21


27/59

NAFTA Superhighway(a)House Concurrent Resolution 40; 110th Congress 1st Session; NAFTA

Superhighway (4 Pages)(b)House Concurrent Resolution 487; 109th Congress 2D Session; NAFTA

Superhighway (3 Pages)

(c)SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 387; 2007 session; Virginia

Government; NAFTA Superhighway (2 Pages

(d)The NAFTA Superhighway; Congressman Ron Paul's Official

Government website (paul.house.gov ) (1 Page)

(e)Congressman Paul Opposes NAFTA Superhighway; Congressman Ron

Paul's Official Government website (paul.house.gov ) (1 Page)

Total 11 Pages of Documentation and print-outs from at least 0 news website.

All documentation from the U.S. And State Government sources.


28/59

IV

110TH CONGRESS1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 40

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage

in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union

with Mexico and Canada.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 22, 2007

Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. PAUL,

Mr. STEARNS, Mr. DUNCAN, and Ms. FOXX) submitted the following con-

current resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transpor-

tation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign

Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdic-

tion of the committee concerned

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States

should not engage in the construction of a North Amer-

ican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway

System or enter into a North American Union with Mex-

ico and Canada.

Whereas the United States Departments of State, Commerce,

and Homeland Security participated in the formation of

the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March

23, 2005, representing a tri-lateral agreement between

the United States, Canada, and Mexico designed, among

VerDate Aug 31 2005 03:23 Jan 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC40.IH HC40


29/59

2

HCON 40 IH

other things, to facilitate common regulatory schemes be-

tween these countries;

Whereas reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has im-

plemented regulatory changes among the three countriesthat circumvent United States trade, transportation,

homeland security, and border security functions and

that the SPP will continue to do so in the future;

Whereas the actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border

security by eliminating obstacles to migration between

Mexico and the United States actually makes the United

States-Mexico border less secure because Mexico is the

primary source country of illegal immigrants into the

United States;

Whereas according to the Department of Commerce, United

States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have sig-

nificantly increased since the implementation of the

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);

Whereas the economic and physical security of the United

States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its

borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA and

the SPP;

Whereas the regulatory and border security changes imple-

mented and proposed by the SPP violate and threaten

United States sovereignty;

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west

coast of Mexico through the United States and into Can-

ada has been suggested as part of a North American

Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries;

Whereas the State of Texas has already begun planning of

the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transpor-

tation project beginning at the United States-Mexico bor-



30/59

3

HCON 40 IH

der, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA

Superhighway System;

Whereas it could be particularly difficult for Americans to

collect insurance from Mexican companies which employMexican drivers involved in accidents in the United

States, which would likely increase the insurance rates

for American drivers;

Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United

States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate main-

tenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a con-

duit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs,

illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would likely in-

clude funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled

by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty

of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate1

concurring), That2

(1) the United States should not engage in the3

construction of a North American Free Trade4

Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;5

(2) the United States should not allow the Se-6

curity and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to imple-7

ment further regulations that would create a North8

American Union with Mexico and Canada; and9

(3) the President of the United States should10

indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other11



31/59

4

HCON 40 IH

proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the1

United States.2



32/59

IV

109TH CONGRESS2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 487

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage

in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union

with Mexico and Canada.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 2006

Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr.

TANCREDO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was re-

ferred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in ad-

dition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration

of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee con-

cerned

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States

should not engage in the construction of a North Amer-

ican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway

System or enter into a North American Union with Mex-

ico and Canada.

Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United

States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have sig-

nificantly widened since the implementation of the North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);

VerDate Aug 31 2005 06:24 Sep 29, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HC487.IH HC487


33/59

2

HCON 487 IH

Whereas the economic and physical security of the United

States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its

borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA;

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the westcoast of Mexico through the United States and into Can-

ada has been suggested as part of a North American

Union;

Whereas it would be particularly difficult for Americans to

collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ

Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United

States, which would increase the insurance rates for

American drivers;

Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United

States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate main-

tenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a con-

duit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs,

illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would be funded

by foreign consortiums and controlled by foreign manage-

ment, which threatens the sovereignty of the United

States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate1

concurring), That2

(1) the United States should not engage in the3

construction of a North American Free Trade4

Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;5

(2) the United States should not enter into a6

North American Union with Mexico and Canada;7

and8

VerDate Aug 31 2005 06:24 Sep 29, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC487.IH HC487


34/59

3

HCON 487 IH

(3) the President should indicate s

agenda 21 documentation for the mayodan town council

Documents