Agenda 21: The U.N. Plan for “Sustainable” Communities

By Berit Kjos – 1998
(information added: Note: This global contract binds all nations to the collective vision of “sustainable development.” They must commit to pursue the three E’s of “sustainability”: Environment, Economy and Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations, economic manipulation, and social equity. (See also Habitat 2)

“…current lifestyles and consumption
patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels,
appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not
sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the
multilateral system, including the United Nations…”
[1]
 Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992
UN Conference on Environment and Development

Agenda 21, the UN blueprint for global
transformation, sounds good to many well meaning people. Drafted for
the purpose of
creating “sustainable societies”, it has been
welcomed by nations around the world. Political, cultural, and media leaders
have embraced its alluring visions of social justice and a healthy planet.
They hide the lies behind its doomsday scenarios and fraudulent science.
Relatively few consider the contrary facts and colossal costs.

After all, what could be wrong with preserving resources for
the next generation? Why not limit consumption and reduce energy
use? Why not abolish poverty and establish a global welfare system
to train parents, monitor intolerance, and meet all our needs?
Why not save the planet by trading cars for bikes, an open market
for “self-sustaining communities,” and single dwellings
for dense “human settlements” (located on transit lines)
where everyone would dialogue, share common ground, and be equal?

The answer is simple. Marxist economics has never worked.
Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates
oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental “scientists”
who depend on government funding and must produce politically
useful “information” will lead to economic and social
disaster. 3

Even so, local and national leaders around the world are following
the UN blueprint for global management and “sustainable
communities,” and President Clinton is leading the way.
A letter I received from The President’s Council on Sustainable
Development states that –

“In April 1997, President Clinton asked the council to advise
him on: next steps in building a new environmental management
system for the 21st century… and policies that foster U.S.
leadership on
sustainable development internationally. The council
was also charged to ensure that social equity issues are fully
integrated…” (Emphasis added)

Many of our representatives are backing his plan. In a 1997
letter congratulating the Local Agenda 21 Advisory Board in Santa
Cruz for completing their Action Plan, Congressman Sam Farr wrote,

“The Local Agenda 21 Action Plan not only has local significance,
it also will have regional and national impacts. As you know,
the President’s Council on Sustainable Development is
beginning Phase III of its work with an emphasis on sustainable
communities.”4 (emphasis added)

This agenda may already be driving your community
“development”,
so be alert to the clues. Notice buzzwords such as “visioning,”
“partners,” and “stakeholders.” Know how to
resist the consensus process. Ask questions, but don’t
always trust the answers. Remember, political activists, like
self-proclaimed education “change agents”, have put
expediency above integrity. As North Carolina school superintendent
Jim Causby said at a 1994 international model school conference,
“We have actually been given a course in how not to tell
the truth. You’ve had that course in public relations where you
learn to put the best spin on things.”5

To recognize and resist this unconstitutional
shadow government
of laws and regulations being imposed on our nation without congressional
approval, take a closer look at its history and nature.

Agenda 21

This global contract binds governments around the world to
the UN plan for changing the ways we live, eat, learn, and communicate
– all under the noble banner of saving the earth. Its regulations
would severely limit water, electricity, and transportation –
even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas.
If implemented, it would manage and monitor all lands and people.
No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global
tracking and information system

This agenda for the 21st Century was signed by 179 nations
at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992. Among other things, it called for a Global Biodiversity
Assessment of the state of the planet. Prepared by the UN Environmental
Programme (UNEP), this GBA armed UN leaders with the “information”
and “science” they needed to validate their global
management system. Its doomsday predictions were designed to
excuse radical population reduction, oppressive lifestyle regulations,
and a coercive return to earth-centered religions as the basis
for environmental values and self-sustaining human settlements.

The GBA concluded on page 763 that “the root causes of
the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use
resources.” The main culprit? Judeo-Christian values. Chapter
12.2.3 states that-

“This world view is characteristic of large scale societies,
heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances.
It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred
attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established
about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious
traditions.

“Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism,
Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective
of humans as members of a community of beings including other
living and non-living elements.”6

Maurice Strong, who led the Rio conference, seems to agree.
His ranch in Colorado is a gathering place for Buddhist, Bahai,
Native American, and other earth-centered religions. Yet, while
spearheading the restructuring of the United Nations (see ” World Heritage Protection?“),
he also helped design the blueprint for the transformation of
our communities. And in his introduction to The Local Agenda
21 Planning Guide,  he called local leaders around the world to
“undertake a consultative process with their populations
and achieve a consensus on ‘Local Agenda 21’ for their communities.”

Achieving that consensus meant painting scary scenarios of
a hurting, dying planet that frighten children, anger youth,
and persuade adults to submit to the unthinkable regulations.
(See “Saving the Earth“)
It means blaming climate change on human activities and ignoring
the natural factors that have – throughout time – brought cyclical
changes in climate, storm patterns, wildlife migration, and ozone
thinning (there has never been a “hole”).

Natural factors you seldom hear about: the earth’s orbit around the sun the gravitational pull of the moon (affects tidal forces and trigger volcanoes which cool the earth and produce El Ninos) major volcanic eruptions which affect the ozone layer far more than all human activity sunspot activity (times of great solar turbulence which heat the earth and recurs every nine to thirteen years) the earth’s relationship to other stars and planets storm tracks the earth’s magnetic field (deflects storm tracks) the annual decrease of stratospheric ozone each southern winter (our summer) when the sun’s seasonal absence prevents ultraviolet rays from interacting with oxygen and producing ozone.

Local Agenda 21

Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each
community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21:

“Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with
its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises and
adopt ‘a local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building,
local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic,
community, business and industrial organizations and acquire
the information needed for formulating the best strategies.”
(Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1,3.)

This tactic may sound reasonable until you realize that the
dedicated “Stakeholder Group’ that organizes and oversees
local transformation is not elected by the public. And the people
selected to represent the ‘citizens’ in your community
will not present your interests. The chosen ‘partners’,
professional staff, and working groups are implementing a new
system of governance without asking your opinion.

They probably don’t even want you to know what they are doing
until the regulatory framework is well under way. You may read
in your local paper about “visioning”, working groups,
Total Quality Management, and partnership between churches, welfare
and social service agencies, and other community groups. These
are clues that, behind the scenes, the plan is moving forward.

The goals and strategies are outlined in Sustainable America,
the report from our President’s Council on Sustainable Development
(PCSD). President Clinton’s PCSD is merely one of about 150 similar
councils established by nations around the world, all following
guidelines from the United Nations Commission on Sustainable
Development.

The same steps and strategies are detailed in The Local Agenda
21 Planning Guide: An introduction to Sustainable Development.
This “planning framework for sustainable development at
the local level” was prepared by The International Council
for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) in partnership with
the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the International
Development Research Centre of Canada. Remember, UNEP also prepared
the GBA which supposedly proves the environmental “crisis.”
Could there be a conflict of interest here?

ICLEI’s step-by-step plan for transforming communities was
made available to reporters during the 1996 UN Conference on
Human Settlements (Habitat II). I started to read my bulky copy
on the flight home from Istanbul. I soon learned how Stakeholders
can broaden their working base and still maintain the original
consensus: they simply seek partners who share their vision.
After all, partners who challenge the Stakeholders’ ideology
would cause gridlock and slow progress. (Such gridlock is one
of many criticism of the American political system voiced at
various global conferences.)

The ICLEI Planning Guide suggests that Stakeholders select
two kinds of people to serve their agenda: (1) ordinary people
who don’t have “a stake” in the old system and would
expect to gain power by establishing a new political system,
and (2) media, business, political, church, and education leaders
who must be wooed and persuaded to promote the transformation
within their sphere of influence. The following ICLEI list includes
both:

A. Community Residents: women, youth, indigenous people,
community leaders, teachers

B. Community-Based Organizations: churches, formal
women’s groups, traditional social groups, special interest groups

C. Independent Sector: Non-governmental organizations
(NGO). academia, media

D. Private/Entrepreneurial Sector: environmental service
agencies, small business/cooperatives, banks

E. Local Government and Associations: elected officials,
management staff, regional associations

F. National/Regional Government: planning commission,
utilities, service agencies, financial agencies.7

All participants must embrace the collective vision of a “sustainable
community”. They must commit to pursue the three E’s of “sustainable development”: Environment, Economy and
Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental
regulations, economic controls, and social equity.

“Sustainable development is a process of bringing these
three development processes into balance with each other,”
states ICLEID’s Agenda 21 Planning Guide on page 21. “The
implementation of a sustainable development strategy therefore
involves negotiation among the primary interest groups (stakeholders)
involved in these development processes. Once an Action Plan
for balancing these development processes is established, these
stakeholders must each take responsibility and leadership to
implement the plan.”

Meanwhile, opposing voices must be silenced. “Implementing
the ‘sustainable agenda’ requires marginalizing critics,”
says Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, a conservative
public interest group in Washington, D.C. dealing with consumer
and environmental issues. He explains,

“Distinguished scientists who disagree with the globalist agenda
are ridiculed and said to speak for conservative interests or
industry (whether or not they receive industry funding) and their
scientific arguments are never heard. Some of these marginalized
critics are very distinguished scientists, like Dr. Frederic
Seitz, former president of the National Academies of Science
and a sharp critic of ozone depletion and global warming theories,
Dr. S. Fred Singer, who help establish the satellite and balloon
measuring devices to track global warming, and Dr. Edward Krug,
who served on NAPAAP, among others. Some, like Dr. William Happer
were even fired from their jobs questioning environmental dogma
(in his case, on the issue of ozone depletion).”8

Ignoring these facts, nearly two thousand communities around
the world are following this UN blueprint for change with support
from ICLEID – and subject to its tracking system. Apparently
the Santa Cruz model is leading the way in the United States.

Local Agenda 21-Santa Cruz
was birthed in 1993 by the local chapters of the United Nations Association and ACTION
(Agenda 21 Community Team Work in Operation). The original stakeholders began to
“envision a sustainable future,” choose compatible “partners”, and organize the twelve
Round Tables which evolved into twelve Special Focus Areas
(for summaries of each plan, read
Local Agenda 21 Pt.2 -Santa Cruz – Key points from the twelve Focus Groups):

Agriculture
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Management

Education
Energy
Housing
Population
Public Health

Resources and Recycling
Social Justice
Toxic Technology & Waste Management

Transportation
Viable Economy

Each item is linked to special interest groups,
non-governmental organizations, and globalist advocates who have been given authority
(by no elected official) to plan the regulations that will control our lives.

Would you like a glimpse of the special interest groups that guide this Agenda? Its list
of donors and supporters includes feminist, globalist, environmental, and welfare
organizations such as the Sierra Club, Earthlinks, Women’s International League for
Peace and Freedom, Greener Alternatives, Pacific Bell, Peace Child, United Nations
Association-USA, Environmental Ecological Services, Change Management System, Countywide
Joint Task Force on Sexual Harassment, Prevention and Education, and the Human Care
Alliance (about 80 service providers and community groups), and the Welfare and
Low-Income Support Network. Remember, “welfare” means far more than caring for the
needy. Social service leaders tend to push a socialist agenda and many have little
tolerance for Christians who resist their intrusive family policies.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), The Regional Alliance for Progressive Policy,
Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, and Beyond Beijing (primarily
feminists who attended the 1995 UN Conference on Women) are all part of a Task Force
helping establish the guidelines for the Social Justice (Equity) and welfare branch of
the Agenda. According to Local Agenda 21-Santa Cruz, their focus is the exploration of
viable means to “alleviate the violence of poverty.”

To eliminate poverty and to create the laws and
incentives that will establish environmental, social and economic “equity”, the people
must embrace the new paradigm (or world view). They must accept the new global values
touted by the GBA and learn to see social issues from a global perspective. “Local
efforts should focus on community education and outreach, grassroots organizing, and
monitoring the impacts of federal welfare reform implementation,” states Santa Cruz’
Local Agenda 21 Action Plan. Indeed, life-long education is the heart of the agenda. Who
would willingly give up cars, private back yards, and freedom to hike in local forests
unless they share a vision that’s worth the sacrifice?

The agenda for education.
In the fall of 1994, President Clinton’s Council on
Sustainable Development (PCSD) came to the Presidio – the former army base in San
Francisco that now houses the Gorbachev Foundation USA and dozens of other globalist and
environmental organizations networking with the United Nations. Here, overlooking the
Golden Gate Bridge, they met with The National Forum on Partnerships supporting
Education about the Environment.

Their joint report, “Education for Sustainability,” became a model for sustainable
education. According to the Santa Cruz Action Plan, it focused on 6 themes:

• Interdisciplinary approaches

• Lifelong
  Learning

• Systems
  thinking (See “World Heritage Protection?)

• Partnerships
  

• Multicultural
  perspectives

• Empowerment

To understand these terms and the new international
education system they represent, you may want to read
Brave New Schools. Those
who don’t realize that today’s change agents hide globalist ideology behind traditional
words, can easily be drawn into the web of deception by the noble sentiments. These
arguments from the Education section of Santa Cruz Local Agenda 21 show how persuasive
their propaganda can be to an unsuspecting public:

“In light of the current world situation, including
the obvious degradation of the global ecosystem, population crisis, outbreaks of
violence… there is an obvious need for education that puts forth a clear vision of a
whole system of ecological thinking. In recent years, there has been a great deal of
emphasis on environmental education and nature studies, but little has been done to
teach about eco-efficiency, sustainable lifestyle practices, and the worldwide
movement concerning sustainable development.

“The overall understanding is that we must learn from
nature how to create sustainable communities— observing: interdependence and
organization, form and substance, the pattern of life, cooperation and partnership,
and diversity….  A broader perspective (beyond schools) must be encouraged,
including proactive learning opportunities throughout the community.

“Educational and rewarding volunteer opportunities
exist throughout SCC. Most Americans are ill equipped to make the lifestyle changes
necessary to turn the degradation around. Our collective experience over time has
shown that knowledge alone does not necessarily change behavior and incite people to
action. Support structures and incentives are also needed.”

This UN directed education plan has already become
familiar to many of us. The international system – built on the UNESCO goals that our
government embraced with the introduction of America 2000 and the adoption of Goals 2000
– has already transformed our schools. Listen to these familiar policies listed in the
Local Agenda 21.

“Educational systems encourage relevant, experiential
learning and promote a sustainable, healthy life for all beings. Students embrace.
global interdependence and the need to adopt fully sustainable practices locally and
globally…. Focus is placed on teaching how to learn and how to enjoy learning. This
involves:

1. Cooperative
   learning in groups which is learner-directed, empowering and participatory
   

2. Development
   of an integrated core curriculum at all levels which emphasized the theme of unity
   and interdependence of humanity, all species and the Earth.

3. Development
   of an integrated core curriculum at all levels which emphasized the theme of unity
   and interdependence of humanity, all species and the Earth.

4. Student
   participation in developing their own curriculum.

5. Mixed age
   groups in the learning process.”

Learning that seems “democratic” (in contrast to
authoritative) and cooperative (in contrast to individual) is key to winning the consent
of the masses. All ages must participate, and each group member becomes accountable to
the group – and to the politically correct “science” information used by the trained
facilitator to move the dialogue toward the “right” choices and actions. Few realize the
extent of the manipulation. See
Brainwashing in America

In the Soviet Union, this Hegelian dialectic
(consensus) process was used to shift the loyalties of Soviet children from absolute
truths to the evolving soviet ideology. Today it is used in American schools,
communities, and workplaces – with support and direction from the President’s Council on
Sustainable Development and other NGOs that share its global vision.

Far-reaching Networks.
Are you confused by all the organizations, programs, and buzzwords that fit into the big
picture? Do you find it hard to match the pieces in this immense puzzle? I do. One
reason so few people try to understand the patterns of change is its complexity. And it
gets worse.

“Encourage networking,” states the Santa Cruz Action
Plan. You saw the links between feminist, environmental, welfare, and government groups.
But countless other groups and organizations are also involved in the endless web of
deception. No wonder, since networking, like dialogue, helps spread the nets that will
pull in the masses.

Last year, I received from the PCSD a published report
titled Public Linkage, Dialogue, and Education. It was prepared by the PCSD Task Force
on Public Linkage, Dialogue, and Education. To plan the initial draft, this group met in
the Officers Club at the Presidio with various global,
UN, and environmental leaders now housed at the former armor base. This draft included a
call for a linkage between “job opportunities” and education standards for politically
correct “understanding” of environmental, economic, and social issues from a global
perspective:

“Develop essential learning standards on sustainable
development for all students in order to promote a basic understanding of the
interrelationship between environmental, economic and equity issues and a basic
competency in sustainable living. Meeting learning performance standards will help
ensure job opportunities in an emerging sustainable economy and promote responsible
citizenry in a global, interdependent society.”9

Considering the background of this “international
roundtable”, it’s no wonder that the final report calls for a shift in public
consciousness from the old nationalistic-free enterprise system to the new globalist-socialist
paradigm. Its main three objectives were to-

• Ensure that awareness, knowledge, and
  understanding of sustainability become part of the mainstream consciousness, both
  nationally and internationally.
• Awareness and concern about environmental,
  economic, and equity issues must become firmly rooted in public consciousness.

  Engage key domestic constituencies in a dialogue about sustainability to produce
  consensus.

• Foster the skills, attitudes, motivation, and
  values that will redirect action to sustainable practices and produce the commitment
  to work individually and collectively toward a sustainable world.
• Individuals must bring their actions into accord
  with a sustainable future. Conflict resolution skills must be applied to organize
  groups to act on issues related to sustainability.”10

Remember, those who define the terms will write the
rules. Those whose “science” will “educate” the masses, will control public beliefs and
behavior.

In Santa Cruz, the PCSD Task Force on Linkage,
Dialogue, and Education helped launch The Household EcoTeam Program and Sustainable
Lifestyle Campaign in Santa Cruz County.
Household EcoTeam? Sustainable Lifestyle Campaign? We know the government wants to train
parents in politically correct child-raising. Do they also want to train households in
politically correct lifestyles?

They certainly do. In partnership with Global Action
Plan and ACTION-Santa Cruz, the above PCSD Task Force “helped participants implement
sustainable lifestyle practices in their own households as they worked together on a
team with a trained coach and followed a workbook focusing in 6 action areas” (reducing
garbage, water efficiency, home energy efficiency, transportation, eco-wise consuming, &
empowering others).11

Other links include the National Association of
Counties and the U.S. Council of Mayors. Following recommendations from the PCSD, they
“have established a Joint Center for Sustainable Communities to facilitate collaborative
planning.”

Remember, the PCSD is linked to the UNCSD (UN
Commission on Sustainable Development), which is linked to more than 150 other nations
implementing Agenda 21, which are linked to ICLEID, which is linked to the Canadian
government, which is linked to the United Nations, which Is linked to the Presidio,
which is linked to ACTION-Santa Cruz, which is linked to Global Rivers Environmental
Network, which is linked to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, which is linked to
the White House, which is linked to the Department of Education. and on and on.

Everything is linked to Total Quality Management, the
process for managing and monitoring the development of human and natural resources as
well as commercial products. Schools, corporations, and government are adopting TQM
management, and Santa Clara County is no exception. The concept of “continual change” is
central to TQM, and the Santa Cruz Action Plan follows suit. Every part of this list
from its education plan relates to TQM:

“Continue to prepare students for rapid change by
teaching: …critical thinking, creative thinking, problem solving, cooperative
learning, student self assessment, multi-cultural equity, the use of interactive
technologies to foster learning & collaborative problem solving.”

Social Justice.
Remember the stakeholders that are defining social justice and preparing its standards?
They include NOW, Beyond Beijing, social welfare leaders, environmental groups – all the
voices that demand the abolition of Western culture, male leadership, and biblical
absolutes. Look at their vision for Santa Cruz County:

“Desired State: A Paradigm Shift
We envision a community that stretches itself from its historical conditioning and
ethnocentric comfort zones to increased cross-cultural empathy and understanding – a
community that avoids oppressive hierarchies, but instead passionately advocates for
inclusion, respect and cooperation with all members.”

Politically correct tolerance sets a new standard for
communication and inclusiveness. It immediately disqualifies biblical Christianity as
exclusive, hateful, patriarchal, and intolerant. Their list of practical suggestions for
change matches their vision:

• Train facilitators for the “paradigm shift” to be
  wholistic supporters of the value of diversity
• Develop an interagency approach to intolerance
  abatement
• Encourage the business sector to hold managers
  accountable for promoting minorities and women into management.
• Create a design for teaching the principle of
  universal security
• Continue with forums, meetings, events, and expand
  our social justice library with books, tapes, video tapes for community TV, and
  literature available for interested people…
• Involve college students and professors in social
  justice issues
• Bring in speakers; support individual clubs.

Of course, their utopian plan won’t work. People aren’t
naturally good. Fifty years ago, the Holocaust opened our eyes to human depravity, but
many have forgotten its message.

Modern socialist leaders claim to know how to
manipulate human nature. “We have to make better people,” urged Shirley McCune at the
1989 Governors Conference on Education. Nineteen years earlier, the ASCD (Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the curriculum branch of the NEA) published
To Nurture Humaneness in which Professor Raymond Houghton wrote,

“The critical point of behavior control, in effect,
is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at
hand. Man will not even know that it is about to happen.”12

This horrendous mission is now pressing forward under
the banners of Agenda 21 and its partners around the world. Only a solid, unshakable
commitment to truth will enable us to stand our ground. Only a clear understanding of
the evil forces driving this agenda will enable us to resist the mental manipulation
used to induce compliance.

If we didn’t know that our God has the future well
under His control, we would have every reason to fear. Many live in denial, refusing to
face the painful facts that expose this covert revolution and the gradual loss of our
freedoms – including the freedom to express our faith and share the gospel.

I don’t know when my Lord will return, but I have no
doubt that Americans will soon face the hostilities that are part of the normal
Christian life. “If they persecute me, they will persecute you,” said Jesus – and there
is no reason to believe that Americans has somehow earned the right to escape the
suffering that has molded faithful, single-minded, pure-hearted Christian for almost
2000 years.

As we stand together against the forces of evil, let’s
pray that God show each of us how we can best serve His plan and purpose.

Let’s not get sidetracked by peripheral issues, but
“let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run
with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus.” (Hebrews 12:1-2)

Remember, when Jesus told His disciples about the hard
times ahead, He added these words of comfort,

“These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you
may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have
overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

See also The U.N. Plan For Global Control: The Habitat II Agenda For information about the role of the feminist movement in this transformation, read A Twist of Faith  These three updates illustrate United Nations’ “progress” toward implementation of  its Marxist agenda:   1.  Agenda 21: Fact, not conspiracy. “While liberal journalists continue to claim that Agenda 21 is just a ‘conspiracy theory’ being advanced by right-wing crackpots, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Council for Environmental Law (ICEL) have released their fourth Draft of the International Covenant on Environment and Development. This document was designed from the beginning to convert the ‘soft-law’ non-binding Agenda 21 into firmly binding global law – enforceable through the International Criminal Court and/or the dispute resolution features of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. 2. The United Nations bans opposition to its Global Tax Design. “When United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced his plan ‘to fundamentally transform the global economy — based on low-carbon, clean energy resources,’ few realized he was calling for a new global tax….The UN’s one nation, one vote system has been used since its founding to render the U.S. impotent, regardless of the fact that we are its major financial donor….Banning the press and global tax opponents from its July 13-14 tax design meeting in Tokyo, Japan, for example, is anathema to a democratic process, but the UN is not a democracy. Rather, its unelected bureaucrats use a ‘collaborative decision-making process’ to reach ‘consensus’ with no debate or expressed opposition…..       “The purpose of the Fund is to enable the UN to implement its global blueprint for sustainable development called Agenda 21. This green agenda is the new Marxism that requires government ensured economic equity…. Granting the UN the right to tax would be like giving it a blank check for future use. …Two years ago, it estimated the cost at $600 billion annually for the next decade, but today its estimate is at least $1.9 trillion annually for the next 40 years or $76 trillion.” 3. The New ‘White House Rural Council’ = UN’s Agenda 21? “On June 9, 2011, President Obama signed his 86th Executive Order….E.O 13575 is designed to begin taking control over almost all aspects of the lives of 16% of the American people….      “Warning bells should have been sounding all across rural America when the phrase ‘sustainable rural communities’ came up. As we know from researching the UN plan for Sustainable Development known as Agenda 21, these are code words for the true fundamental transformation America.’ But how will burdened farmers and other tax-payers pay the extra costs…?”

ENDNOTES

1 Henry Lamb, ” Meet Maurice Strong,” Eco-Logic, November/December
1995.

2 Ibid. Maurice Strong was vice-president of Dome Petroleum
(by age 25), first executive director of the UN Environmental
Programme, founder of Planetary Citizens, director of the World
Future Society, founder and co-chair of the World Economic Forum,
member of the Club of Rome, trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation
and Aspen Institute, and member of the UN Commission on Global
Governance. He heads the Earth Council, which works with the
UN to implement an Earth Charter-a global code of conduct based
on earth-centered spirituality and globalist values. Its publication,
Earth Ethics, suggests that apes, our “fellow animals”,
should be treated as “full members of the community of equals.”

3 Much of the “peer reviewed” science which “proves”
that human activity causes ozone holes and global warming is
countered by award-winning non-politicized scientists who are
appalled that their names are used to validate the hoax. See “The UN Plan for Global Control.”

4 U.S. Congressman Sam Farr represents the 17th district in
California. I have a copy of this letter written June 3, 1997
on Congressional stationary.

5 Cynthia Weatherly, “The Second Annual Model School
Conference,” The Christian Conscience (January 1995); 36.

6 Global Biodiversity Assessment, 837-838, 839. This information
was provided by a friend who has a copy of the GBA but is traveling
abroad at this time. She had copied many quotations from this
report and gave them to me along with chapter and page numbers.
I cannot personally verify these references at this time. If
you have a copy of the GBA and discover a mistake in my references,
please inform me so that I can make corrections. Thank you.

7 ICLEID, p. 21. A similar list is given in the PCSD report,
Sustainable America.

8 From a personal note from Craig Rucker, January 20, 1998.
To contact CFACT for scientific data refuting ozone holes and
global warming theories, write CFACT, P.O. Box 65722, Washington,
D.C. 20035.

9 Booklet titled
The Seventh Meeting of the President’s
Council on Sustainable Development, The Presidio of San Francisco,
April 27-28, 1995, p. 39.

10 Public Linkage, Dialogue, and Education (The President’s
Council on Sustainable Development) 1997, p.16.

11 Local Agenda 21–Santa Cruz, Education section, p. 21.

12. Raymond Houghton,
To Nurture Humaneness: Commitment
for the ’70’s (The Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development of the NEA, 1970).