Agenda 21

Agenda 21: The BLM Land Grabbing Endgame




By Michael Snyder

Agenda 21: The BLM Land Grabbing Endgame




Why is the federal government so obsessed with grabbing more land?  After all, the federal government already owns more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states.  Why are federal bureaucrats so determined to grab even more?  Well, the truth is that this all becomes much clearer once you understand that there is a very twisted philosophy behind what they are doing.  It is commonly known as “Agenda 21″, although many names and labels are used for this particular philosophy.  Basically, those that hold to this form of radical environmentalism believe that humanity is utterly destroying the planet, and therefore the goal should be to create a world where literally everything that we do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of “sustainable development”.  In their vision of the future, the human population will be greatly reduced and human activity will be limited to strictly regulated urban areas and travel corridors.  The rest of the planet will be left to nature.  To achieve this goal, a massive transfer of land from private landowners to the federal government will be necessary.

So the conflict between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM is really just the tip of the iceberg.  The reality is that the BLM has their eyes on much bigger prizes.

For example, Breitbart is reporting that the BLM is looking at grabbing 90,000 privately-held acres along the Texas/Oklahoma border…

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.
Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.
“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Needless to say, officials down in Texas are not pleased about this.  In fact, just check out what the attorney general of Texas is saying

Gen. Abbott sent a strongly-worded letter to BLM Director Neil Kornze, asking for answers to a series of questions related to the potential land grab.
“I am deeply concerned about the notion that the Bureau of Land Management believes the federal government has the authority to swoop in and take land that has been owned and cultivated by Texas landowners for generations,” General Abbott wrote. “The BLM’s newly asserted claims to land along the Red River threaten to upset long-settled private property rights and undermine fundamental principles—including the rule of law—that form the foundation of our democracy. Yet, the BLM has failed to disclose either its full intentions or the legal justification for its proposed actions. Decisions of this magnitude must not be made inside a bureaucratic black box.”
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart Texas, General Abbott said, “This is the latest line of attack by the Obama Administration where it seems like they have a complete disregard for the rule of law in this country …And now they’ve crossed the line quite literally by coming into the State of Texas and trying to claim Texas land as federal land. And, as the Attorney General of Texas I am not going to allow this.”

Does the federal government actually need more land?

As I mentioned above, the feds already own more than 40 percent of the land in 9 different U.S. states

Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent

The federal government does not need more land.  But there is an obsession to grab more so that the dictates of Agenda 21 can be implemented.

The map that I have posted below is a simulation of what the endgame of Agenda 21 might look like.  If these radical environmentalists get their way, the only areas that will be allocated for normal human use will be the areas in green…


If you do not go along with the “sustainable development” agenda, you risk being labeled a “threat” to be dealt with.

For example, Senator Harry Reid has used the label “domestic terrorists” to describe those that showed up to support Cliven Bundy at his ranch.

Reid could have used lots of other labels.  But he specifically chose to call them terrorists.  And considering what the law allows the feds to do to “terrorists”, that is quite chilling.

And don’t think that if you just stay quiet that you won’t get labeled as a “terrorist”.  In fact, there is a very good chance that you already fit several government criteria for being a terrorist.  Just check out the list below.  It comes from my previous article entitled “72 Types Of Americans That Are Considered ‘Potential Terrorists’ In Official Government Documents“…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

Do any of those criteria apply to you?

If so, then you are a “potential terrorist” according to the U.S. government.

We live at a time when the federal government is becoming increasingly oppressive.  Just consider the following excerpt from a recent article by John W. Whitehead

It’s not just the Cliven Bundys of the world who are being dealt with in this manner. Don Miller, a 91-year-old antiques collector, recently had his Indiana home raided by the FBI, ostensibly because it might be in the nation’s best interest if the rare and valuable antiques and artifacts Miller had collected over the course of 80 years were cared for by the government. Such tactics carried out by anyone other than the government would be considered grand larceny, and yet the government gets a free pass.

In the same way, the government insists it can carry out all manner of surveillance on us—listen in on our phone calls, read our emails and text messages, track our movements, photograph our license plates, even enter our biometric information into DNA databases—but those who dare to return the favor, even a little, by filming potential police misconduct, get roughed up by the police, arrested, charged with violating various and sundry crimes.

This was not what our founders intended.

Our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day, and most Americans don’t even seem to care.

In the end, we will pay a great price for our apathy.

This article first appeared here at The Truth.

About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth. His new thriller entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on


Image credit:

G Edward Griffin – Agenda 21 – Save Long Island Forum 1/18/14 (Video)



G Edward Griffin – Agenda 21 – Save Long Island Forum 1/18/14 (Video)


2-6-2014 9-48-42 PM


YouTube Preview Image


( H/T Liz Abbott )

Published by wearechangect

The legendary author G Edward Griffin was the headline speaker at the Save Long Island Forum talking about the eugenic plans of the UN’s Agenda 21 to covertly exterminate most of the world’s population.

Learn more about Save Long Island:
Check out the Save Long Island Forum website to see a list of all the speakers:

Tom DeWeese Discusses Agenda 21 on Fox News



Tom DeWeese Discusses Agenda 21 on Fox News


Video capture

Video capture


YouTube Preview Image

Published by Tom DeWeese

For more information on Agenda 21 please visit:

Putting bicycles ahead of people



By Tom DeWeese

Putting bicycles ahead of people



Heavy equipment tearing out the trees in front of the Granato home.

This is a story of raw power, collusion and government corruption. A story that is taking place in countless towns all over America. A story of “reinvented” government, where self-proclaimed private “stakeholders” and pressure groups set the rules, local elected officials rubber stamp them, and non-elected regional governments enforce them, sometimes with an iron fist – all with no input from citizens, and apparently no rights for private citizens and property owners to stop them or even have a say.

It’s the story of the destruction of private property rights in America. Of injustice and tyranny. Of unaccountable government run amok. We need to take action! (See below, in blue, for what you can do.)

Jennie Granato is a tax-paying citizen of Montgomery County, Ohio. She and her family own a 165-year-old historic house and farm just outside of Dayton. They’ve lived there forty years. On July 31, Jennie’s front yard was demolished – thanks to local, county and planning commission bureaucrats!

The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) has begun seizing people’s private property for its latest “essential” project – a $5-million bike path extension! It has seized almost all of Jennie’s front lawn. The bike path will come within just a few feet of her front door!

Jennie and her family tried for over a year to negotiate and reason with this unelected planning commission. Unfortunately, their neighbors were advised by lawyers not to say anything publicly about the pending land grab, so the media viewed it as a non-story. The county and its appraisers kept stalling, saying they wanted a meeting with Jennie, even as they ignored her pleas and offered a pittance for taking her front yard, and likely driving the value of her home down by tens of thousands of dollars.

The meeting never came – and officials didn’t even allow Jennie’s uncle to speak at a hearing. But the bulldozers certainly came! Last week, with no warning, they just started demolishing trees. Jennie and her family still own the property – BUT the county has barged in, torn out their trees and destroyed their front yard! They will never be able to walk out their front door again, without worrying that they will be run over by bicyclists roaring by at 10 or 20 miles per hour, just inches from their bottom step.

The government trucks and bulldozers also precipitated an even worse tragedy. Jennie’s 85 year old mother became so upset over seeing the government’s heavy machinery destroying her yard and favorite trees that she suffered a heart attack and died.

Of course the government refuses to accept any responsibility for this tragedy. It was just promoting the “public welfare” of the private “stakeholders” and pressure groups it works with.
That too has become far too common. The government and these groups want more and more control over our lives, more power to tell us what we can and cannot do with our property and lives. But they accept no transparency and no accountability, responsibility or liability when their actions hurt … or even kill … someone – or when they destroy the property values, peace and integrity of a home.

The MVRPC is an unelected regional government force driven by federal Sustainable Development grant money. It never faces voters over its actions or positions of seemingly unbridled power. It simply deals with other government agencies – local, state and federal – and with private groups like the American Planning Association, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability, and a hoard of other organizations that represent faux “conservation and environmental” interests whose real motivation is money, and the power to control our lives.


Copyright 2013 American Policy Center
Republished with permission

Eminent Domain and the Decline of Detroit



Eminent Domain and the Decline of Detroit


There are about 100 reasons why Detroit is what it is today. More than that. But one of them, according to the attached article, is the city’s abuse eminent domain over the years.

(From The Volokh Conspiracy)

For many years, Detroit aggressively used eminent domain to promote “economic development” and “urban renewal.” The most notorious example was the 1981 Poletown case, in which some 4000 people lost their homes, and numerous businesses were forced to move in order to make way for a General Motors factory.

Click here for the article.

Image credit:

The Real Solution to Agenda 21



By CDay

The Real Solution to Agenda 21

Image source

Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy theory. It is an easily viewable global plan that can be found executed in your local county. If you live near a metro area, you just need to look up your local county’s ‘comprehensive growth plan’ on Google to see the extent of this plan. You will see maps of your street, future train lines designed to transport workers to designated work areas, areas allowing mixed use, areas allowing 120 residential dwelling units per acre in Manhattan-like density, and maps of greenspace unsuitable for human habitation.

Anything built in the future must comply with this pre-drawn Agenda 21 map before being approved by the local building authority. How is it that zoning law, which was traditionally locally written, seems so suddenly uniform throughout the United States? Because the United States signed a global treaty in 1992, passed federal laws mandating that local counties write comprehensive growth plans, and arranged national educational seminars for unelected bureaucrats to attend.

It is obvious that the plan is to create gridlock in the near future so that people will absolutely demand city-like design in the suburbs and welcome new infrastructure taxes. The problem is, it’s a one-size-fits-all policy designed by people in Brussels who have little clue how US suburban areas are built today.

While New York could easily accommodate areas with 120 dwelling units per acre with its streamlined subway system, a suburb with a few winding residential streets will merely suffer impossible gridlock. A suburb has no room for train stations. Stores are so far apart from residential houses, that even if a train dumps you off at one destination, you will still need a ride home with a car through all of the gridlock. Nothing short of burning these suburbs down would do the trick of complete redevelopment Agenda-21 style.


The Smoking Gun: A direct link between Agenda 21 and local planners


6-6-2013 8-25-37 PMSource:

By Tom DeWeese

Here it is… The Smoking Gun

The direct link between Agenda 21 and local planners


When the fight started against Agenda 21, those of us working to expose it were largely ignored by the main stream media and even the established Conservative movement and its media. Too far out there, they said, to be taken seriously.

Then, as more and more Americans began to experience the dire effects of Sustainable Development in their daily lives, suddenly our message began to take hold. Today, thousands of Americans have taken up the fight. And anti-Agenda 21 activists are storming planning meetings, demanding answers. State legislatures and even some county and city governments are passing legislation against it. It seems the Agenda 21 fight is everywhere.

So, now, proponents of the Sustainable Development policy are alarmed and working feverishly to counter our claims that such controls over local development and energy policy have their roots in international policy. In particular, our claims that these planning policies come from the UN’s Agenda 21, that was introduced to the world at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.

Their most often used description of Agenda 21 is an “innocuous, 20 year old document that has no enforcement power.” Continuously we hear that local planning programs, especially from such groups like the American Planning Association (APA) have no connection to Agenda 21 or the UN. It’s all local – or as the APA says in its document, Glossary for the Public, “There is no hidden agenda.”  In its “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts” document found on the APA website, the group goes to extreme measures to distance itself and its policies from Agenda 21, specifically saying “The American Planning Association has no affiliation regarding any policy goals and recommendations of the UN.”

Well, then it would be interesting to hear the APA explain this information found in one of its own documents from 1994. The document was an APA newsletter to its members in the Northern California (San Francisco Area). The article was a commentary entitled “How Sustainable is Out Planning, by Robert Odland. It was written just two years after the UN Earth Summit at which Agenda 21 was first introduced to the world. The document can be viewed here.

The fifth paragraph of the article says, “Vice President Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance addressed many of the general issues of sustainability. Within the past year, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development has been organized to develop recommendations for incorporating sustainability into the federal government. Also, various groups have been formed to implement Agenda 21, a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable development that was adopted at the recent UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro (the “Earth Summit.”)     

In one paragraph, this document brings together the APA, Agenda 21, the UN’s Earth Summit, Al Gore, Sustainable Development, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, NGO groups with the mission of implementing Agenda 21 and the description of Agenda 21 as a “comprehensive Blueprint” for Sustainable planning. It sounds like it came verbatim from one of my speeches!

A couple of paragraphs higher in the article, it says, “A common misconception is that sustainability is synonymous with self-sufficiency; on the contrary, sustainability must recognize the interconnections between different levels of societal structure.”  That “societal structure” is “social justice,” as described in Agenda 21. A visit to, which the APA is a member, will find in its Statement of Principles this quote: “We believe planning should be a tool for allocating resources…and eliminating the great inequalities of wealth and power in our society … because the free market has proven incapable of doing this.”

The United Nations blatantly advocates that Capitalism and private property rights are not sustainable and pose the single greatest threat to the world’s ecosystem and social equity.  And, while sometimes using different words, the APA is helping communities across the nation enforce these ideas, while swearing it is all a local idea, designed from local input.

As George Orwell masterfully put it in his epic novel “Animal Farm,” it’s become difficult to see the difference between the pigs and the farmers – or the APA and the UN.

Sustainable Development is not implemented in the open, as the APA claims, but in back rooms filled with the proper NGO organizations, which surround your elected officials and pressures their actions. In that way it is changing our American society and form of government, making government more powerful and more invasive in our daily lives. Sustainability is anti free enterprise, anti private property, and anti individual – and that’s why we oppose it.

Copyright 2013 American Policy Center


Image added to original article.

UN Agenda 21′s Sustainability: Now It’s Being Pushed At Biltmore Estates




UN Agenda 21′s Sustainability: Now It’s Being Pushed At Biltmore Estates
BILT E3Somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea, there is truth. Today a friend of mine, who home-schools her children, received an invitation to the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC for a home-schoolers’ Fall celebration. (See promo below) The theme?  What else…but “Sustainability!!”  The irony of seducing children into a “celebration” of self-imposed deprivation, but holding the celebration at a massive home that represents the grand success of capitalism, is a stretch of the imagination….don’t you think? Actually there is a trend of wealthy foundations funding the indoctrination of children to not aspire to the high measure of success that built those foundations. Google that.  You’ll find thousands of them.  The irony is beyond description.

If you have never been to the Biltmore, you have missed seeing a glorious example of architecture and landscape from the heady days of our growing economy in the late 1800′s and early 1900′s.  The Vanderbilt fortune built this place for family enjoyment, entertaining, and to house a collection of beautiful art and history pieces.  I loved to go there years ago. Truly, it is gorgeous and one of my favorite places in North Carolina. Now they are pushing the “Sustainability” ideology to tourists and as you can see, students.  They have also wrecked part of the landscape with a large section of solar panels.  It’s a shame.  Et tu Biltmore?

Almost every day another friend of mine sends me copies of email invitations he gets for LEED green business symposiums for “Sustainability.”  Wherever you look, the word “Sustainability” shows up on advertising, products, school curricula, foods, energy bills, real estate, and more.  Are you sick of it yet???


I wonder what the human condition is that causes a herd of people to stampede toward self-destruction.  A word, “Sustainability,” has become a drug fix for something so obtuse, stupid and wrong.  What would cause a person to allow a faux religion based on nonsense restrict their ability to live as prosperously as possible?  Granted, we have seen cults commit suicide, so there is something to this. I am watching an entire society jump onto a death wagon, and doing so with such misguided enthusiasm as to not be believable.

I observe the people promoting the ideology of shrinking life expectations are some of the wealthiest.  Those same people are hardly living what they are preaching.  They are not shrinking their own life expectations.  But they sure are happy preaching this nonsense to children and the poor mental midgets with good intentions who want to buy into something that will make them “feel good.” What makes a person feel good about telling the rest of society that they must lower their life-styles?  Instead of telling our children they should shoot for the moon and become as successful as they can, Common Core is telling our school children they should feel guilty about living, procreating, and using resources to support their lives….they MUST be “Sustainable.”  They are separating our children from the future guaranteed in the Constitution, the American Dream.  And using the false doctrine of “Sustainability” to do it.

In case you think I am saying everyone can own a Biltmore Estate, which is not what I am saying.  But I am saying it is very wrong to tell children they can’t even aspire to the mid level success of suburbia.  That is what “Sustainability” teaches…that the “affluent middle class is ‘unsustainable.’ “Check Maurice Strong for that quote.  What are we doing to our children?  Do I want to go give Biltmore my money to tour there anymore?  No.  Don’t use my money to wreck our children’s futures.

Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Ban UN Agenda 21



Oklahoma House Passes Bill to Ban UN Agenda 21By Alex Newman

Following Alabama’s lead, lawmakers in the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to approve popular legislation protecting private-property rights and banning a controversial United Nations “sustainable development” scheme known as Agenda 21, which critics say represents a serious threat to American values and liberty. If approved by the Senate as expected, the law would also prohibit state and local governments from working with the UN or its affiliates to implement any sort of “international law” that violates the U.S. or Oklahoma constitutions.

The bill, H.B. 1412, was passed in the state House last week on a bipartisan vote, with a Republican-led coalition of 67 supporting the legislation against 17 Democrats who opposed the measure. It originally passed out of the States’ Rights Committee in late February and is now in the state Senate, where a broad coalition of activists — supporters of national sovereignty, private property, the Constitution, individual liberty, Tea Party groups, and more — is working to ensure its passage.

Of course, Oklahoma is just the latest state to take action against the highly controversial UN plan, which calls for a transformation of human civilization under the guise of promoting so-called “sustainability.” In May of last year, Alabama became the first state to officially ban UN Agenda 21 after a law to protect private property and due process rights was signed by Gov. Robert Bentley. The wildly popular bi-partisan legislation was approved unanimously in both houses of the state legislature.

Before that, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Tennessee adopted a resolution blasting the dubious UN agenda as a radical “socialist” plot at odds with individual liberty, private-property rights, and the U.S. Constitution. Lawmakers in Kansas followed suit. Numerous other state governments, under heavy pressure from activists across the political spectrum, are also working to ban the “sustainable development” scheme in their jurisdictions. City and county governments, meanwhile, are taking action to protect residents, too.

In Oklahoma, lawmakers said legislation was needed to defend citizens and their rights from the UN scheme as well. Despite having never been ratified by the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution, supporters of the bill explained, officials at all levels — especially the federal executive branch, mostly using unconstitutional “grants” and decrees — have been quietly working to implement the controversial 1992 international agreement across America.

“House Bill 1412 is a short little bill, barely two pages long; it deals with a big topic though, protecting personal property rights,” noted Republican Rep. Sally Kern, who sponsored the legislation in the Oklahoma House. “This bill is specifically dealing with the intrusion of our government into personal property rights that has been happening for the last 20 years and is getting worse through the Agenda 21 of the UN, their sustainable development program.”

Rep. Kern pointed out that as many as 10 federal agencies under multiple U.S. administrations — George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama most recently — have been working to implement the UN scheme. She also offered numerous examples of the agenda being foisted on Oklahoma, noting that other states have passed similar legislation to protect citizens as well.

A handful of Democrats, apparently ignorant about UN Agenda 21, sounded confused during the questioning session on the House floor, asking bizarre questions such as whether or not cities would be barred from building bike lanes. Rep. Kern answered well. While noting that it is important to protect the environment, Kern said Oklahoma should not be subservient to outside forces — plus, as countless analysts have pointed out, Agenda 21 has little to do with protecting nature anyway.

“One of the goals of the United Nations Agenda 21 Initiative is to influence governments,” Kern explained. “My constituents are concerned about that influence and about their property rights being infringed upon by government regulations that originated from Agenda 21. My legislation addresses those concerns by protecting individual property rights.”

Kern said it was “very easy” to see what was going on and which organizations were linked to the controversial global plan, urging fellow lawmakers to do some research and check out the UN website itself. “You can go and look up the President’s Council on Sustainable Development,” she added, singling out ICLEI — formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives — as one of the UN-linked groups working to foist the controversial “sustainability” plan on America and the world.

The ultimate UN plan was outlined and agreed to by national governments and dictatorships worldwide at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts (sic) on the environment,” the UN admits on its website, sparking suspicions from analysts who point out that virtually every aspect of human existence has some “impact” on the “environment.”

When one realizes that the UN considers carbon dioxide — a gas exhaled by humans and necessary to plant life — to be a pollutant, the true scope of the global agenda becomes clear. Plus, as the UN admits in its documents, the global organization believes private ownership of land should be curtailed. Other official papers and statements reveal that the UN is seeking a “complete transformation” of the global economy in ways that are completely at odds with national sovereignty, individual liberty, American traditions of self-governance, and more. Even individuals’ thoughts are in the crosshairs, according to UN documents.

The Oklahoma bill passed by the House last week reads: “The state or any political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe upon or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.” Also prohibited under the measure is state or local government participation in “any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Oklahoma Constitution.”

The legislation also ensures that state and local governments are barred from working with UN-linked groups promoting the controversial agenda. “Since the United Nations has accredited or enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development around the world, the state and all political subdivisions of the state shall not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, receive funds contracting services or give financial aid to or from any nongovernmental or intergovernmental organizations accredited or enlisted by the United Nations,” the bill continues.

Unsurprisingly, a few members of the increasingly discredited establishment press sought to demonize or ridicule supporters of the legislation, variously claiming that opposition to Agenda 21 was either a “conspiracy theory” or that the UN scheme is harmless. It remains unclear why supporters of the UN plot continue to falsely allege that opponents consider it a “conspiracy” — a conspiracy is secret by definition, and the global organization has documents about Agenda 21 and the goals all over its website.

Analysts have also pointed out that if, as some proponents of the scheme claim, the UN agenda is non-binding and does virtually nothing, such fiendish opposition to laws protecting private property and due process would seem bizarre, almost ludicrous. However, despite half-baked efforts by the UN and its allies to vilify opponents of Agenda 21, it appears that grassroots pressure within both parties is having a significant effect.

The Oklahoma legislation to ban Agenda 21 will be assigned to a state Senate committee soon — probably within the week, according to sources in the legislature. If it eventually passes, as analysts and lawmakers widely expect, the bill would go to Republican Governor Mary Fallin to be signed into law. The governor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Smart Meter Bills HB373 and SB283


Bill to Limit Grand Jury Foreperson Length FiledSource:

A bill has been filed in the State legislature to allow customers to opt out of smart meters, HB373 and SB283.

Here is a petition on the subject.

This website has some information on the subject and you can learn more about the subject through a web search.

Dr. Ken Monar discusses some of the problems that arise in trying to legislate a complicated matter where technology is ever changing.


Sirs, Madams:

Please consider signing on as cosponsors to the Bill by Womick and Ketron regarding the use of mandatory installation of so called “Smart Meters”.

Having read this proposal, I consider it extremely modest as I do not believe that the long term safety has been demonstrated for these devices. Passage of the as written Bill will at least help balance “interest” between the consumer and providers and give choice to informed customers.

If it were up to me, I would ban the technology as junk and a waste of money. (see below)

My Womick/Ketron Bill Comments

  1. Section A, item (3): “Specify gateway devices labeled “FCC” and functioning as radio base stations”, “Operating in frequency range XXX – XXXX MHz and in power range XXX-XXX mW”.
  2. Section B, item (5): ["Obtain data from a customer's smart meter gateway device more than once a month, unless otherwise requested by the customer."] “Obtain data on total energy use only. Reporting data is a joint contract between consumer and provider, of said consumer’s personal effects and that such effects be accessible by the consumer for review (for self assessment). Data collection frequency may be determined by the provider, but the signal intensity must be limited to several hundred feet and data collection may not be intrusive to the consumer. No aerial collection of data may ensue. Data must be encrypted and emitted only on “query” request by sampling unit. This provision shall be extended to both FCC labeled devices and RFID reporting meters.”
  3. Add: All the monies (after amortized costs) resulting from the savings in time, personnel, and pensions should be returned to the county budget in annual increments and alloted to debt reduction, reducing property taxes, or alloted to the general fund. Any such mass installations should be subject to vote (referendum) prior to roll-out.
  4. Add: The State of Tennessee will implement accelerated aging studies” under worse case scenarios of geometry and intensity to mimic lifetime exposure (using rats) of “Smart Meter” technologies. Medical waivers by doctors will be permitted.

Regarding (1), since the Fukushima incident, we are learning that it is vogue to change allowable dose exposure, possibly rendering “FCC” labeling or other operational feature maleable in future renditions.Unlike simple technologies you must specify what it is you are regulating, since the future applications far exceed simple device function and those applications are not yet on the Table. Regarding (2), the original wording might be too restrictive for either provider or customer to have more data. The replacement puts the onus on the customer on how to respond to data and limits collection to reasonable power emission commensurate with current collection technologies being implemented.  Regarding (3,) People are often meant to feel that these are not subject to public discussion and merely corporate decisions.  At the end of the day, irrespective of the money stream or debts entered into, the taxpayer is responsible for paying for these technologies. Regarding (4), because of the nature of EM radiation, I do not believe that this can be known in advance nor am I confident such studies have been done.

Many developing technologies have inherent issues related to privacy and, in some cases, forced self incrimination. The Smart Meters have potential health effects as each is considered a “radio station” and must be an FCC listed device. This could result in dozens of radio stations right in line with living space in high density housing situations, focused on some child’s head while sleeping. Typically, the intensity of radiation from point sources diminishes with the distance, squared.

Also, many of the new technologies have “collectivist aspects” to their function. Even my informed consent may result in someone else receiving the radiation. You will find in the end that the primary results (of these federal mandates and technology developments) are:

  • higher long term costs to consumers and small business
  • higher costs of repair
  • more frequent breakdown

This has been true for all types of new electronic circuitry as they are prone to static charge failures and voltage spikes. It is a consumer who can decide between the value added and the additional costs or dangers, not the government. Some people buy safe cars, some sport cars.

Here are just a few items for consideration as you debate and a few suggested modifications of current legislation being proposed

General Considerations for Debate

  1. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE: for any health effects which might reasonably be shown to result from the installation should be assigned a-priori.
  2. WHAT CAN READ SIGNALS: No ancillary devices on other public utilities in the vicinity of the RFID meters or smart meters (e.g. power, telephone, etc) may read the signals and that such signals should be encrypted. Doing so should be made a criminal offense according the US Constitution with respect to privacy (person, papers, and “effects” (i.e. your stuff))
  3. WHAT SIGNAL IS MEASURED: Such devices only report on quantities they measure. (e.g. a suitably designed water meter RFID might also report acoustic signals as water is an excellent medium).
  4. ARE THE DEVICES MORE EFFICIENT: Prior to rollout of any metering device technology, it must be shown to consume less energy than the device it is replacing, with respect to its operational procedures. Otherwise, utilities must refund the cost difference from any collective benefits ensuing.
  5. ARE DEVICES MORE ROBUST: Such devices should be more resistant to voltage spike than analog devices. Otherwise, it does not meet the engineering requirement of “continuous improvement”.
  6. WHEN DO THEY EMIT SIGNAL: All devices (RFID or Smart Meter) should use intermittent signaling. As I understand it, many utilities are using “always on” for the RFID meters so that they can drive by faster and not have to “query, then receive”. This will raise costs of operation, but utilities are not reporting those details to their customers.
  7. WHAT ELSE CAN THAT SPECTRUM BE USED FOR LOCALLY: You must consult the experts on the available spectrum the technology will utilize and examine future possible alternative use infringement.

Ken Monar
Maryville, TN 37803

Go to Top