Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Real Threat? – Rachel Alexander – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Americans are so focused on Congress and Obama at the federal level of government right now that most are overlooking the socialism creeping in at the local level through Agenda 21. It is easy to overlook local government since people are saturated with too much information in the internet age. Compounding this is the fact that Agenda 21 is a dull topic, and it becomes understandable how it has been able to fly mostly under the radar since 1992, slowly working its way into our cities and counties.

Agenda 21, which reportedly means an agenda for the 21st century, is a United Nations program launched in 1992 for the vague purpose of achieving global “sustainable development.” Congress never approved Agenda 21, although Presidents Obama, Clinton and George H.W. Bush have all signed Executive Orders implementing it. 178 other world leaders agreed to it in 1992 at the Rio Summit. Since then, the U.N. has mostly bypassed national governments, using Agenda 21’s International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (“ICLEI”) to make agreements directly with local governments. ICLEI’s U.S. presence has grown to include agreements with over 600 cities, towns and counties here, which are now copying the land use plans prescribed in Agenda 21.

Some conservatives are trying to attract attention to Agenda 21 by labeling it a secret conspiracy to create a one world government. While that will wake some people up, it will turn off others. It does not matter whether it is a conspiracy or not. There are people on the left side of the political spectrum – who may even believe they have good intentions – working together to spread their vision for society worldwide. Whether they meet in dark rooms or openly in public meetings is irrelevant; they are having great success convincing local governments in the U.S. to adopt their socialist and extreme environmentalist programs under the guise of feel-good buzz words. Left wing billionaire George Soros’s Open Society has provided $2,147,415 to ICLEI. Van Jones’ Green for All and the Tides Foundations’ Apollo Alliance are also reportedly ICLEI contributors.

Agenda 21 ostensibly seeks to promote “sustainability” (the latest revisionist word for “environmentalism,” since Americans have learned too many negative things about environmentalism). “Sustainability” is an amorphous concept that can be interpreted to an extreme degree that would regulate and restrict many parts of our lives. When will the level of carbon emissions be low enough? How much must we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels? Preserving the environment is a dubious science, and what steps are really necessary to protect the environment are anyone’s guess.

Agenda 21 promotes European socialist goals that will erode our freedoms and liberties. Most of its vague, lofty sounding phrases cause the average person’s eyes to glaze over, making it easier to sneak into our communities. The environmentalist goals include atmospheric protection, combating pollution, protecting fragile environments, and conserving biological diversity. Agenda 21 goes well beyond environmentalism. Other broad goals include combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, and reducing private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, and privately owned farms. It seeks to cram people into small livable areas and institute population control. There is a plan for “social justice” that will redistribute wealth.

Once these vague, overly broad goals are adopted, they are being interpreted to allow massive amounts of new, overreaching regulations. Joyce Morrison from Eco-logic Powerhouse says Agenda 21 is so broad it will affect the way we “live, eat, learn and communicate.” Berit Kjos, author of Brave New Schools, warns that Agenda 21 “regulation would severely limit water, electricity, and transportation – even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas, it would monitor all lands and people. No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and information system.” Even one of the authors of Agenda 21 has admitted that it “…calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…” These steps are already being enacted little by little at the local levels.

Since the U.S. is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and uses more energy than any other country, it stands to lose the most from environmental regulations. The goal of “sustainability,” which comes down to using government to heavy-handedly accomplish vague goals of caring for the earth, goes contrary to our free market capitalism. Even more unfair, struggling third world countries and communist countries that cannot financially afford to comply with the onerous environmental regulations will continue their high levels of fossil fuel consumption, and the U.S. will be forced by U.N. regulators to conserve even more to make up for those countries.

Obama signed Executive Order 13575 earlier this month, establishing a “White House Rural Council” prescribed by Agenda 21. The amount of government Obama has directed to administer this is staggering. Obama committed thousands of federal employees in 25 federal agencies to promote sustainability in rural areas, completely bypassing Congressional approval. Some of these agencies are unrelated to rural areas. The agencies will entice local communities into adopting Agenda 21 programs by providing them millions of dollars in grants. Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh writing for Canada Free Press analyzed the order and wrote, “it establishes unchecked federal control into rural America in education, food supply, land use, water use, recreation, property, energy, and the lives of 16% of the U.S. population.”

Tea party groups, talk show host Glenn Beck, and organizations like Freedom Advocates, Catholic Investigative Agency and Sovereignty International are working hard to expose Agenda 21, but there is only so much a few can do. Some local governments have become aware of what Agenda 21 is really about and dropped out of ICLEI this year. The Carroll County Board of Commissioners, Montgomery County in Pennsylvania and the city of Edmond, Oklahoma have all withdrawn their participation.

It will be difficult to defeat Agenda 21 because it requires changing the attitudes of over 600 separate localities across the U.S. Ideally, a conservative president could roll back the executive orders implementing it, but considering Republican President H.W. Bush was a disappointment in this area that may be too much to hope for. If Republicans take over Congress they could challenge the huge power grab Obama made with Executive Order 13575 and ban Agenda 21 in the U.S. For now, local activists must champion this issue, much like Texans for Accountable Government has done, educating local boards and commissions and serving on them. Agenda 21 is a tedious and overwhelming topic, and until it can be explained in an easy-to-understand way that interests the average American, it will be tough to beat back.

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?action=recommend&api_key=143685698988231&channel_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs-static.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fconnect%2Fxd_proxy.php%23cb%3Df3804c95caebb8c%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Ftownhall.com%252Ff349a0825b49906%26relation%3Dparent.parent%26transport%3Dpostmessage&extended_social_context=false&href=http%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Fcolumnists%2Frachelalexander%2F2011%2F07%2F02%2Fagenda_21_conspiracy_theory_or_real_threat%2Fpage%2Ffull%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&node_type=link&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=190
Advertisements

Energy Scam.. change in the wind?

The Great Renewable Energy Scam: Is There A Change in the Wind?

by Patrick J. Michaels

 

This article appeared in Forbes.com on January 19, 2012.

 

 

People don’t like being forced to purchase things they may not want, which is why over half of us are hoping that the Supreme Court throws out the individual insurance mandate in President Barack Obama’s health care plan.

There’s also a worldwide rebellion brewing against being forced to purchase expensive electricity produced by so-called “renewable” sources, now being exacerbated by the availability of very cheap natural gas from shale formations.

But, here in the U.S. there are some 30 different statewide “renewable portfolio standards” (RPSs) that also mandate pricey power, usually under the guise of fighting dreaded global warming.

RPSs command tha. a certain percentage of electricity has to come from wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass. Given that this power generally costs a lot more than what comes from a modern coal or gas plant, your local utility passes the cost on in the form of higher bills, which the various state utility commissions are only too happy to approve in the name of saving the planet.

When are governments going to learn that they ought to butt out of the energy business?

RPSs generally do not include hydroelectric power, which produces no carbon dioxide. It’s also much more predictable than solar or wind, and costs about the same as the average for gas and coal combined. It’s not in the portfolio standards because dams are soooo 20th century, and it isn’t a darling of the green lobby, like solar, wind and biomass. But hydro can deliver more juice than solar is ever likely to.

Nor do RPSs allow for natural gas. There are massive quantities in shale formations around the country, and new horizontal drilling techniques are releasing so much of it that it is now the cheapest source of electrical power. If our environmentalist friends were at all serious about climate change, they would enthuse over it becaus. it produces significantly less carbon dioxide than an equivalent quantity of coal when used for power generation. Instead, they are horrified that cheap gas will destroy solar and wind.

Their worries are quite well-founded. In November, NextEra Energy, the country’s largest wind-energy producer, said it would develop no new wind projects this year, as utilities sell cheaper gas power.

 

Patrick J. Michaels is a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute.

More by Patrick J. Michaels

When are governments going to learn that they ought to butt out of the energy business? RPSs that specify certain technologies are essentially picking winners and losers based more upon political pull than market logic.

One needs to look no further than ethanol as a motor fuel, mandated by the feds. Sold as “renewable” and reducing pernicious carbon dioxide emissions, it actually produces more in its life cycle than simply burning an equivalent amount of gasoline. It also—unconscionably—consumes 40% of U.S. corn production, and we are the by far the world’s largest producer of this important basic food.

The popular revulsion against ethanol has succeeded in cutting its massive federal subsidy, of $0.54 per gallon, which ran out on Dec. 31. But that doesn’t stop the federal mandate. Last year it was for roughly 14 billion gallons from corn and it will be nearly 15 billion in 2012. By 2022, up to 20 billion gallons will be required — all from corn — unless there is a breakthrough in so-called “cellulosic” ethanol, which, no matter how much money the government throws at it, hasn’t happened. Indeed, the largest cellulosic plant, Range Fuels, in Camilla, Ga., just went bankrupt. The loss to American taxpayers appears to be about $120 million, or about 25% of a Solyndra.

Don’t expect Congress to zero the ethanol mandate anytime soon. Farm country tends to be conservative on pretty much everything except propping up corn prices, which is what ethanol mandates do.

Having seen the ethanol debacle, will the states put solar and wind in their rightful (small) niches by repealing the RPSs? Increasing utility bills with renewable mandates is politically dangerous, and there is less and less political will to subsidize and otherwise prop up energy sources and technologies that cost too much.

Look for a movement in the many state legislatures that approved the outrageous RPSs without asking people how they liked being forced to buy something they don’t want. Or will cheaper natural gas and hydro be allowed in the standards in the place of wind and solar? There is likely to be some legislation introduced this year and a lot more in the future, as the U.S. catches on to the great renewable energy scam.

» Segel: Green Energy – America’s Lie

Segel: Green Energy – America’s Lie

By Thomas D. Segel

It is doubtful that if a truly honest person could be found, Americans would elect that individual to public office.  We have historically managed to gather a collection of fork tongued intellectuals and slick talking con artists together into one large gang and allow them to run the country.  You think not!  Well it is not only in America.  Liars have been running the governments of all nations since the days when Plato and Aristotle spoke on this human failing.

One of the biggest deceptions being voiced by our current Administration and its minions in Congress concerns the viability and practicality of Green Energy. Those who have already swallowed this government mythology have strongly bought into the idea that these multiple alternative energy sources will end our need for fossil fuels, clean up our environment, reduce costs and save the planet.

You have read in previous articles my rage about the government lies related to corn-based ethanol.  It not only limits one of our main food sources, but also drives up the price on dozens of products from soda pop to plastics that utilize corn in their manufacture.

Farmers can grow and average of 7,110 pounds of corn per acre.  This can be processed into 328 gallons of ethanol.  That same corn requires 140 gallons of fossil fuel, which at today’s pump prices, would total more than $1200.  Using that rationale, ethanol has already been heavily subsidized even before it is processed from the raw corn.  During the processing there is only 8 percent extracted in the form of alcohol, with more energy expended to reach that point.  An additional process is required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol needed for mixing with gasoline.  It requires 131,00 BTUs of energy to make one gallon of ethanol and that one-gallon only produces 77,000 BTUs of energy, or a loss of 54,000 BTUs of energy for each gallon of ethanol produced.  It costs $1.74 per gallon to produce ethanol. 95 cents is the cost to produce a gallon of gasoline.  On top of all this, the government is subsidizing ethanol to the tune of $1 billion a year.  You do the math on the value of this green energy source.

Wind energy may be the closest we have come to reaching balance of cost vs. result.  It too, has limited value. There just might be strong value in wind farms located in Deep South Texas. Most of the time there is wind blowing off the Gulf of Mexico.  However, national studies have revealed that a utility company can only count of wind generated electricity for about 30% of its power.  The remainder of the time wind is not blowing strong enough to yield satisfactory electrical output.

Since each turbine blade is more than 120 feet in length, the noise level of wind driven energy is severe.  People who reside within a mile of a wind farm must suffer a continuing noise background and incorporate it into their daily lives.  In reality it means wind farms must be located far away from population centers, thus increasing the cost of connecting them to the main grid.

“So”, you ask, “what about solar?”  It has been touted as being silent and quietly operating every day.  It has been praised for adding to the savings on electricity.  It places no pollutants into the air or our overall environment.

My best example of solar folly can come right from my hometown of Harlingen, Texas.  The city fathers have been elated at their newest contribution to green energy.  Headlines in the daily newspaper read “Solar Panels Equal Savings for Harlingen.  Just what are those savings?

Through the American Reinvestment Recovery Act, which many citizens refer to as “Porkqules”, the city received a grant of $645,100 to install 308 solar panels on a municipal building.  According to City Commissioner Robert Leftwich, “This will save the city money in the long run and will create a more sustainable and economically responsible model.”

Well, the commissioner must have forgotten his calculator.  By the city’s own estimates these panels will save the taxpayers $7,500 a year in energy costs.

If some quick math is undertaken it can be seen that in 25 years a savings of $187,500 will be realized by Harlingen.  Since the project has a cost of more than $600,000, which already came out of taxpayer pocketbooks…and since the life span of a solar panel is only 25 years, the American public has taken another tax loss beating.

But, go ahead America; keep buying into the fraud of Green Energy.  After all more than 40% of you are not putting any money into the operation of our nation.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:

Vote Saved. Rating: 10.0/10

Just the tip of the “iceberg”…

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

Radical Muslims, Environmentalists, and the Green Jihad

By Mark Musser  |  April 25, 2011

Being the progressive Muslim that he paints himself to be, Rep. Keith Ellison was very impressed with Matin’s abilities and proudly decided to endorse his book.

(A Special Report from the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism)

Rep. Keith Ellison, the Muslim Congressman from Minnesota who shed tears in protest over the congressional hearings on the growing radicalization of Muslims in the U.S., wrote the foreword to a book entitled Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Protecting the Planet. In Arabic, “deen” means religious creed. The author of Green Deen is Ibrahim Abdul Matin. He wrote his book to demonstrate that there is a close relationship between Islam and modern environmentalism.

It turns out Ellison would have been a good witness to how Muslims are being radicalized as foot solders not only for global Jihad but for a “green” future. It is an unholy alliance that threatens our future but which escapes the attention of media predisposed to believe that radical Muslims working with environmentalists could only produce positive results.

What is fascinating is that Matin works in New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s environmental planning department as a policy advisor for New York City’s long term sustainability, and was one of the Muslims promoting the idea that the new mosque being considered near Ground Zero should be a green one. In fact, Matin devotes one whole chapter of his book to “Green Mosques” and provides a list of environmentally friendly practices that can and should be implemented at each local mosque. Being the progressive Muslim that he paints himself to be, Keith Ellison was very impressed with Matin’s abilities and proudly decided to endorse his book.

One of the reasons Ellison decided to work with Matin was because of his own growing personal involvement in the green movement, which surprisingly enough, is becoming more popular among Muslims. In an interview posted on the DC Green Muslim’s website, Ellison commented that “my involvement in politics is really rooted in my desire to try to promote unity among people, trying to promote unity with the Earth and creation, and trying to promote justice.” Ellison is also involved in an organization called the “Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota (EJAM).” Ellison, the first Muslim Congressman in U.S. history, thus believes in green Islamic social justice of sorts—a veritable Islamic political ecology.

Ellison first met Matin in 2008 at a Muslim American seminar caucus in Washington, D.C.  Matin was a fellow of “Green For All,” the very organization founded by communist Van Jones to help promote the financial wonders of the so-called Green Economy. Matin also helped organize Green For All’s National Day of Action calling for “Green Jobs Now” which more than 50,000 people attended. Ellison was very impressed by Matin’s influence at the caucus: “Ibrahim made an important connection that day—that the faith community needs to be involved in the green movement.” He went on to conclude his foreword by saying that “Green Deen brings faith communities into the environmental movement by changing the conversation from the facts of global warming to the fact that we all live and work here together and have a collective responsibility to keep this place clean and safe for everyone.”

While there is certainly no small controversy over exactly what a caliphate may be, especially with regard to how Sunnis and Shias view it, or how closely it may be tied to the ushering in of Sharia law, Islamic totalitarianism, terrorism and violence, it is a word that shows up often in Matin’s Green Deen. Matin innocuously translates the word “caliphah” to simply mean “steward,” a very environmentally-correct term. While this may satisfy the environmental consciousness of modern Western elites, this definition is, of course, very far removed from how most of Muslim history has understood this word.

However, no matter how green a Muslim may or may not be, by definition, the caliphate must still be an Islamic theocratic state under the dominion of Allah. Even though Matin maintains that he wrote his book to help rebrand Muslims from being considered terrorists to environmentalists, he still prefaces his entire book with the idea that “the earth is a mosque.”  This means at once that the environmental holism being espoused by Matin must necessarily be subject to Allah’s totalitarian authority over the earth. In other words, environmental holism and Islamic totalitarianism go hand in hand in Matin’s Green Deen.

Secret Conquest

If the entire earth is a mosque, as Matin maintains, then Allah’s boundaries are boundless, and this means that simultaneously Americans must live under the theocratic dictates of Allah, and environmentalism can easily be used alongside Sharia law to help bring America to its knees under Islamic jihadist control. While many on the left would naively consider such a possibility beyond the pale, something along these lines is exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood has in mind for the future of America. Indeed, in 1991, the radical Muslim Brotherhood espoused that “the process of settlement…in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In other words, something like environmentalism can be easily used as a jihadist tool in the hands of a green Muslim to help sabotage America from within. After all, Matin says that “Muslims have a personal connection to the color green,” and that “the favorite color of the Prophet Muhammad was green.”

More troubling is that Keith Ellison’s pilgrimage to Mecca in 2008 was paid for by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, which is just another name for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ellison also likes to attend Hamas rallies, and has even worked with communist front groups like the National Lawyers Guild. He even once went so far as to praise the terrorist record of Bernardine Dohrn—the wife of the infamous Bill Ayers. After converting from Roman Catholicism to Islam, Ellison also praised the likes of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam during his college days. This hot-wiring of the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, together with environmentalism, only helps to serve up an explosive eco-fascist concoction not seen since the 1930’s.

With such a cadre of characters and organizations under Ellison’s belt, is it any wonder that suspicions should arise over his activities, even over something as allegedly harmless as environmentalism? Which brings us back to Matin. Why in the world would Matin want Ellison’s endorsement if all he wants to do is try and show Americans that Muslims are not terrorists but are becoming progressive environmentalists? Neither should it be overlooked that the Muslim American Society also touts the Green Deen book. Matin even considers Malcom X to be a green Muslim, who was also one of his heroes as a child when he used to listen to his tapes. Such disconcerting connections betray the image that Matin’s Green Deen is as benign as it reads.

Indeed, Matin’s whole approach to energy is viewed as a green Muslim apocalyptic dichotomy between heaven and hell. Matin considers gas, coal and oil as energy from hell, i.e., from the ground: “it is dirty, and it is a major cause of pollution and climate change.  Energy from hell is non-renewable; it takes away from the Earth without giving back. It disturbs the balance of the universe and is therefore a great injustice.” As such, it appears that energy from hell needs to be placed under the caliphate control of Allah to help bring about a green Muslim social ethic on the earth: “one way we can stand out firmly for justice is by ending our reliance on oil and coal. Energies from hell are particularly devastating and unjust to people and the planet.”

From One Hell to Another

With the likes of the OPEC oil cartel largely run by the Middle East, coupled with the environmental restrictions on the homefront, perhaps the earth indeed is becoming one giant mosque. Worse is that Matin’s Green Deen only promises to become more hellish, leaving America increasingly exposed to the harsh natural elements of the sun, storm and wind. Yet, Matin views such exposure as a gift from heaven. For him, solar and wind power are Allah’s answers to America’s energy problems: “energy from heaven comes from above. It is not extracted from the Earth and it is renewable…energy from above is a gift from heaven.” The problem now, however, is that America’s electrical grid is not ‘smart’ enough yet to incorporate Allah’s heavenly gifts into her energy system.

Matin also proudly notes in his book that the EPA received much needed help from a green Muslim by the name of Dr. Aziz Saddiqi. In the 1960’s Saddiqi was a young doctoral candidate who was doing groundbreaking research in the Houston area on chemical engineering. The University of Houston was so impressed with his work that he was offered a job: “Soon he found himself guiding the development of curriculum that would help the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency carry out its new mission of enforcing the Clean Air Act.” His chemical engineering expertise was much needed at the beginning to help the EPA get off of its feet: “In 1973 the EPA was only three years old and did not understand the full breadth of its power.” The EPA thus had a lot of growing up to do, and Dr. Saddiqi was at the heart of it all at the very beginning: “The EPA, its scientists, and its partner agencies needed to be trained on how to monitor pollution from smokestacks and other commonly used industrial practices.”

In fact, it seems that they were all on the learning curve together on this, as Dr. Saddiqui “had to learn how to explain his research in chemical engineering to this group of regulators.” Not to be outdone, Dr. Saddiqi “also authored the training materials used to teach EPA scientists how to sample ambient air and develop pollution controls.” Today, Dr. Saddiqi is in charge of the largest Islamic community in the United States called the Islamic Society of Greater Houston.

It is certainly comforting to discover that the EPA had a green Muslim helping them all out at the beginning on how to be good regulators. Environmentalism and the Islamic caliphate working together arm in arm at the very foundations of the EPA?  Green hippies and a green Muslim expert working hard together trying to come to grips with the full regulatory power of the Clean Air Act?

Conflict of Civilizations

However innocent some green Muslims and environmentalists may or may not be in this whole ecological experiment that America is increasingly rushing headlong into, ratcheting up secular problems with apocalyptic concerns and solutions will only feed radicalism and religious fervor. It also draws in the naïve and unsuspecting to do things that they would not normally do. By apocalypticizing their worries and concerns, environmentalists have managed to take something as banal and neutral as handling natural resources and have turned it into a gigantic worldwide ethic of ecological social justice requiring immediate action that now is even beginning to draw in the Muslims as well.

Muslims like Ibrahim Abdul Matin and Keith Ellison would do well to think again about the differences between Gaia, considered the spirit of the earth by environmentalists, and Allah. Though both have totalitarian goals, they are by no means the same. Ecological pantheism cannot be mixed with monotheism, even if the Muslim religion is symbolized by a crescent moon. At some point, these two ideologies will collide, and even though I am not a betting man, I would put my money on the growing juggernaut of Western pantheism. It has already largely devoured the Judeo-Christian worldview in America, and is well on its way to spitting out the pieces of what is left of free market capitalism.

Mark Musser is the author of “Nazi Oaks: The Green Sacrificial Offering of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust”. He wrote, “The ‘Green’ Mosque Near Ground Zero,” for Accuracy in Media.

Follow AccuracyInMedia on Twitter

   Find AIM on Facebook


Facts and descriptions for those who doubt the black clouds of radical terror plots will affect them in their home…

%d bloggers like this: