Agenda 21 - More and More, People are catching on!

[dumass]

Agenda 21 - More and More, People are catching on!
Bebe

....little help?

[LYIN' KING]

No wonder I was having trouble finding reference to the comments above anywhere in this thread . . . http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showp...74&postcount=5

[dumass]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

No wonder I was having trouble finding reference to the comments above anywhere in this thread . . . http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showp...74&postcount=5

Ya, sure could use some intelligent company over here:
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showt...1#post13521081
#OccupyWallStreet

Originally Posted by CJHeap

People who do care about land use ect, already do vote.

Not true, at a core group meeting during our battle last year with the USFS, 4 out of 6 members present at one meeting WERE NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE. yES, 4 OF 6 NOT REGISTERED, AS FAR AS i KNOW THEY STILL HAVE NOT REGISTERED.
(neither are their wives and girlfriends afaik)



Guess who was?
Interview-Why she loves welfare, food stamps, and Obamacare - YouTube

Originally Posted by CJHeap

This is another demonstration of how moronic you are. The people who he mobilized last time will not come out next time since he did not pay their rent.

Who do you think they'll vote for, Newt? (Hint: he's not black, single issue BLACK voters, duh, hello????)

NEWT GINGRICH TO AMERICA: "I'LL SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER AGAINST UN AGENDA 21 ON THE FIRST DAY I TAKE OFFICE"!
Gingrich tells crowd he’ll cut funding to eco-friendly UN program as president

Here is a video of Gingrich talking to the East Orlando Tea Party about Agenda 21:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=7p8ZL42MSZY

Raul Grijalva's campaign was registering people wholesale, who do you think THEY will vote for?

03-21-2010, 05:57 PM

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/varide
If you need a ride to the polls, please call 877-XXXXXXX

4 more years? I fucking hope not.







I'm still waiting for you, CJHeap, to actually state that you ARE registered and voting, are you?

Originally Posted by CJHeap

BTW, in your rant trying to prove something with the geezer, do you even realize who that old commie is ? Do you realize who the others with him were? They are the same old protesters from the 60's so in other words, they mean nothing.

btw, do you really not know who Woody Guthrie, Arlo Guthrie and Pete Seeger are? (no not Bob_Seger, if you're grown up enough to khow who that is) Son of a bitch, do we need to fix the education system.

You seem to fail to remember (if you were around then, I was) the '60s. I don't know how to bring you up to speed in the new milenniun, but things changed radically due to "those old commies" and it wasn't all bad. If you underestimate your opponents and fail to learn their successful techniques, we will get another dose of "change". I'm not sure we could ever recover from the effects of that.

[Kurtuleas]

Please watch your language in the land-use forums. It OK in chit-chat and other places on here...but not in land-use.

[JK3078]

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

"...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

Maurice Strong is one of the unelected world financial leaders. And is heavily involved in both the U.N. and Agenda 21.

The whole housing bubble was engineered to reduce or eliminate suburban housing.

THese are the people who want to go back to the slave and serf days where all of us will be lucky to be alive let alone feed our kids.

These people have declared war on us and have struck the first major blow. The question is are we going to fight back of run and hide like scared schoolgirls?

And yet those that fight against tyranny, power grabs and the erosion of our civil libertys are "fringe whackos." Sad times indeed.

[Mad Machinist]

Originally Posted by dumass

....little help?

How about the billions spent every year to "study and prove" a global warming problem that does not exist? That money would go a long way in rebuilding our infrastructure.

[LYIN' KING]

Oh brother, on the back of "foreclosures" here we go . . .

Architects at MoMA think they have the answer

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012...omes.cnnmoney/

or . . . http://inagist.com/AliVelshi/174189615064940545/

[Mad Machinist]

Originally Posted by LYIN' KING

Oh brother, on the back of "foreclosures" here we go . . .

Architects at MoMA think they have the answer

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012...omes.cnnmoney/

or . . . http://inagist.com/AliVelshi/174189615064940545/

I threw up in my mouth a little on that one.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Mad Machinist

I threw up in my mouth a little on that one.

You should have had a projectile regurgitation, it would have been more appropriate!!!

Let’s take all the foreclosure properties in tight inner city areas created by banks too big to fail, buy up all the rest that are open with bail out money the banks got, ban cars, erect huge new structures or use the existing ones and fill ‘em with small housing cells. Then we can stuff ‘em with free bicycles and people on welfare, some of whom lost everything when they were enabled by banks too big to fail.

If this isn’t a subtle indication of the direction we are being taken then the cost of gas should be, of course it didn’t get to over $4 as gradually as our current POTUS would have liked back in 2008 . . . Obama Supports High Gas Prices If They're Gradually Hiked - YouTube

After all, according to Rahm Emanuel back in 2008 . . . "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”!
Rahm Emanuel on the Opportunities of Crisis - YouTube

Can you see any Cloward-Piven strategies at play here, in part aiding a gradual transition to the policies contained in the topic of this thread?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward...Piven_strategy

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...tegy_of_e.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...overnment.html

They want as much damage as they can get from any disaster. Just like they want the price of gas/oil as high as it can get. Protecting the environment by preventing multiple-use sustained-yield of public land is just a front for them to do all they can to make things worse, at any cost.

Perfect example . . . the Gulf oil spill. Wonder why the Environmentalists were not screaming at the top of their lungs and POTUS seemed to do nothing but shutdown all off shore oil operations while Bobby Jindel of LA had his boots on in oil filled marshes screaming for help?

The quickest way to bring this economy to it's knees is to do it through expensive oil and our Government spending money we don’t have. With the threat of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz one would think we’d be doing a bit more to prepare for that than having discussions about tapping the strategic oil reserves?

Just the ramblings of a nut case . . .

[LYIN' KING]

SPEECH GIVEN BY COMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT.

RIO DE JANEIRO, JUNE 12, 1992


Mr. Fernando Collor de Mello, President of Brazil;
Mr. Boutros Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations;


An important biological species is endangered due to the accelerated and progressive destruction of its natural living conditions: man.

We are becoming aware of this problem only now when it is almost too late to tackle it.

It is worthwhile indicating that the main responsibility for the brutal destruction of the environment lies with the consumer societies. They are the offspring of the old colonial metropolises and of imperialist policies that also begot the poverty and backwardness which are today the scourge of the overwhelming majority of humanity.

These societies, with only 20 percent of the world population, consume two thirds of the metals and three fourth of the energy produced in the world. They have poisoned oceans and rivers and contaminated the air; they have weakened and opened holes in the ozone layer and saturated the atmosphere with gases that impair climate conditions with catastrophic effects that we are starting to feel.

Forests are disappearing and deserts growing while billions of tons of fertile soil end up in the oceans every year. Numerous species face extinction. Overpopulation and poverty lead to desperate efforts for survival, even at the expense of Nature. The Third World nations cannot be held accountable for this, for only yesterday they were colonies and today they are still exploited and plundered by an unjust world economic order.

The solution cannot be to put off the development of those who need it most. The truth is that everything that today contributes to underdevelopment and poverty is tantamount to a flagrant attack on the ecology. As a result, tens of millions of men, women and children perish every year in the Third World, far more than in each of the two world wars.

The unequal terms of trade, protectionism and the foreign debt are also an assault on the ecology and facilitate the destruction of the environment.

A better distribution of wealth and of the technologies available in the world could spare humanity such devastation. Less luxury and waste in a few countries could bring about a reduction of poverty and hunger in a large part of the planet.

Let’s put an end to the transfer of lifestyles and consumer habits to the Third World that ruin the environment. Let human life be more rational. Let a just international economic order be implemented. Let science work toward a sustainable development without contamination. Let the ecologic debt be paid and not the foreign debt. Let hunger disappear and not man.

Now that the alleged threat of communism no longer exists, neither the pretexts for cold wars, the arms race nor military expenditures, what prevents the immediate use of those resources to foster development in the Third World and to thwart the planet’s ecologic destruction?

Let selfishness and hegemonism cease, as well as callousness, recklessness and deceit. Tomorrow it will be too late to do what should have been done a long time ago.

Thanks.

(Ovation)

Source: http://www.walterlippmann.com/fc-dia...lizations.html

[LYIN' KING]

Leaked Document Reveals Rio+20 Sustainable Development Goals

John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 January 2012 09.41 EST


Countries will be asked this summer to sign up for 10 new sustainable development goals for the planet and promise to build green economies at the first earth summit in 20 years.

According to a leak of the draft agenda document seen by the Guardian, they will also be asked to negotiate a new agreement to protect oceans, approve an annual state of the planet report, set up a major world agency for the environment, and appoint a global "ombudsperson", or high commissioner, for future generations. Dozens of heads of state, political leaders and celebrities are expected to go to the UN's Rio+20 sustainable development meeting, to be held in Brazil in June.

John Major, Fidel Castro and George H W Bush were among the leaders who attended the original earth summit, which was the world's biggest ever political gathering. But David Cameron has said he is not planning to attend Rio+20, despite promising to lead the "greenest government ever" and the date of the summit being changed to avoid a clash with the Queen's diamond jubilee.

Unlike the 1992 earth summit when over 190 heads of state set in motion several legally binding environment agreements, leaders this time will not be asked to sign any document that would legally commit their countries to meeting any particular targets or timetables. Instead, they will be asked to set their own targets and work voluntarily towards establishing a global green economy which the UN believes will reduce poverty and slow consumption.

Although the agenda could change in the next six months, it looks likely they will be asked to pledge to use stretched resources better and reform the subsidy system of fossil fuels which encourages climate change.

The exact content of the new global sustainable development goals (SDGs) will be decided by governments before the Rio meeting and will not be introduced until 2015. However, they are expected to cover "priority" areas such as oceans, food, energy, water, consumption and sustainable cities. Countries will have their progress measured. They will not replace the 10 millennium development goals set by the UN in 2000 which promised to free people from extreme poverty and multiple deprivations.

Governments will be expected to strengthen the Nairobi-based UN Environment Programme body which is widely thought to be underfunded and unable to address the growing threats to ecosystems. Unep is likely to be put on the same level as the World Health organisation (Who) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

The 20-page document celebrates progress made in the last 20 years in reducing poverty and developing IT industries, but it recognises that countries have largely failed to meet most of the environmental and developmental challenges and commitments they made two decades ago. "Unsustainable development has increased the stress on the earth's limited natural resources, and on the carrying capacity of ecosystems. Food insecurity, climate change and biodiversity loss have adversely affected development gains. We are deeply concerned that around 1.4 billion people still live in extreme poverty and one sixth of the world's population is undernourished, pandemics are omnipresent threats," it says.

Brazil, which will host the conference, is planning a massive parallel meeting for non-government groups and individuals to debate and put pressure on governments to act.

The agenda met with a mixed welcome from environment and development groups.

Stephen Hale, Oxfam's deputy advocacy and campaigns director, said: "This will kick-start the Rio negotiations. The UN deserves credit for a promising first draft. The world's governments need to respond with ambitious and concrete proposals, particularly on sustainable agriculture and food security where there is far more that the Rio summit can and must agree."

Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace UK, said: "This Rio summit comes after two decades of delays and broken promises on sustainable development which has left millions in poverty and pushed ecosystems to the brink of collapse. Whilst this draft text covers the key issues, it also demonstrates a dismal lack of urgency in tackling them. Goals to end destruction of ancient forests, tackle over-fishing, phase out dirty energy subsidies, and deliver access to clean energy for the poor are either open-ended or pushed back for years."

She continued: "There are certainly important and useful proposals here - not least, the plan to negotiate a new agreement on protecting oceans - which could see an end to the wild-west plundering of the high seas. But for Rio to be more than an elite talking shop, world leaders need to inject some ambition into the negotiation, right now. A vague commitment to act at some point in the future will no longer cut it with the millions of people who have become rightly cynical about voluntary pledges and empty words."

• This article was edited on 11 January 2012 to change a reference from the Brazilian government to the UN in Stephen Hale's comments.


Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ment-rio-goals

[Stonebone]

Thanks Lyin' King..... I'm literally falling asleep as I type. Must look into this more tomorrow.

[LYIN' KING]

Originally Posted by Stonebone

Thanks Lyin' King..... I'm literally falling asleep as I type. Must look into this more tomorrow.

Yeah, I hear we dogs need 16 hours of sleep per day to be at our best!!!

[LYIN' KING]

Here’s another piece of the Agenda 21 plan in play.

U.N. International Arms Trade Treaty July 2-27, 2012.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ATTPrepCom/


U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) has introduced legislation to prevent any arms treaty from infringing the right to keep and bear arms in this country.

The Second Amendment Sovereignty Act, S. 2205, would prohibit the administration from using "the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including small arms, light weapons, or related materials."

More: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/fe...de-treaty.aspx


Other Information: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient...w=1093&bih=475

[Bebe]

This is a new article about an old article.

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/sd-transform.html#N_1_

eco•logic Special Report
Sustainable Development: Transforming America

by Henry Lamb

Environmental Conservation Organization
Hollow Rock, Tennessee
December 1, 2005




As the "sustainable development" movement continues to gain momentum, it is worthwhile to step back and take a long look at the big picture, painted with a broad brush to reveal what the United States might look like as the movement's vision is more fully implemented over the next 50 years or so.

The picture painted here is based on official documents published by several government agencies and non-government organizations during the last decade. These documents were rarely reported in the news, and average working people have no idea what sustainable development really means, and even less knowledge of what is in store for the future. If the vision of sustainable development continues to unfold as it has in the last decade, life in the United States will be quite different in the future.

Even though this treaty was not ratified by the United States, it is being effectively implemented by the agencies of government through the "Ecosystem Management Policy." The U.S. Forest service is actively working to identify and secure wilderness corridors to connect existing core wilderness areas. (9)

Both state and federal governments have enacted legislation in recent years to provide for systematic acquisition of "open space," land suitable for restoration and rehabilitation, to expand wilderness areas, and to provide "viewsheds" beyond urban boundaries.

In the last days of the Clinton Administration, the Forest Service adopted the "Roadless Area Conservation Rule," which identified 58.5 million acres from which access and logging roads were to be removed. In the West, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are driving ranchers off the land by reducing grazing allotments to numbers that make profitable operations impossible. Inholders, people who have recreational cabins on federal land, are discovering that their permits are not being renewed. The Fish and Wildlife Service is forcing people off their land through designations of "wetlands," and "critical habitat" which render the land unusable for profit-making activities.