The on-line links to the following articles can be found in the "issues archive" of our

Federal Issues Committee website [ http://www.indeedfree.com/fic/issues/archive.html ]

By Rob Bluey June 29, 2011

The Obama Administration generally employs one of two strategies to legislate without—and often in spite of—congressional action: (1) administrative decree establishing a new federal rule, or (2) a refusal to enforce existing federal law. In five separate policy areas, the President and the federal agencies under his command have spurned congressional authority to achieve Obama’s objectives.

1. Environmental Regulation: President Obama has made it his mission to impose economy-killing environmental regulations on America in spite of clear congressional opposition. Take the White House–backed cap-and-trade bill, which would have created a market for "carbon credits" that businesses would have to trade in order to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.

But in 2009, the Senate moved in the opposite direction. It removed the "card check" provision from the misnamed "Employee Free Choice Act," effectively sinking a measure that could have dramatically increased union membership by rescinding workers’ rights to a secret ballot election for union representation.

The NLRB’s new rule will reduce the length of elections from about six weeks to 10–21 days, thereby limiting employers’ abilities to present their own cases against unionization to workers—and making the formation of a union far more likely. Increased unionization was always card check’s purpose. The NLRB is now attempting to achieve the same goal without Congress’s approval.

3. Immigration Law: On immigration policy, the Obama Administration has not even waited for congressional action before charting its own legislative course. In May, Democrats reintroduced the DREAM Act—which would provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who came to the United States before they were 16—after the lame-duck Congress failed to pass it late last year.

More Bureaucratic Legislating Ahead: All of these examples demonstrate a striking lack of respect for the role of the legislative branch in American government. Despite paying lip service to Congress’s constitutional role as the sole source of the nation’s laws, the Obama Administration has ignored Congress wherever the people’s representatives have declined to codify his agenda.

This piece of legislation from the Oval Office 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.

Section 1, Policy states, "Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead."

There is no definition what rural America is. In fact, there are no definitions in this Executive Order at all. I emphasized the word "sustainable" because it is part of the "sustainable growth" plan of United Nation’s Agenda 21. Think of "sustainable" as what is acceptable to the federal government. …

This order is taking control over our existing executive bodies in the state and local governments. They will do so through federal grants with strings attached, enticing struggling farmers to accepting them as a short-term solution, thus entrapping them into future abdication of property, water, and agricultural land use. The feds are not helping them, they are stepping in to enslave. The government never gives "something for nothing." …

The feds will control local governments through supplemental grants that will be hard to reject in times when revenues are dwindling and budgets are falling short of local needs. Local governments will no longer be able to voice opinions and concerns and citizen grievances will be ignored.

Local governments will no longer be able to set policies without feds approval. Cap and trade implementation will be forced in rural areas and nobody will be able to stop it. Land use, public planning, and food production will be regulated by unelected federal bureaucrats who will set quotas of food production, water use, energy use, and land use. Based on my experience and history, central government planning has terrible consequences, causing shortages, disruptions, famine, and even death. …

No less than 25 federal agencies are charged with total control of rural life:

• The Departments of theTreasury, Defense, Justice, Interior, Commerce, Labor, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development
• Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission
• Office of Management and Budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Office of National Drug Control Policy
• the Council of Economic Advisors, the Domestic Policy Council, the National Economic Council, the Small Business Administration, the Council on Environmental Quality
• the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, and the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs

… The Domestic Policy Council and National Economic Council will coordinate this executive order. Why do we need to control 16% of the population that lives in rural areas? Because rural Americans still have control over resources, over our food supply, and they are resistant to globalization. Whoever controls the food supply controls the population.

Once rural areas are controlled by the fed, there will be no resistance, and rural life as we know it, will no longer exist. They will target certain regions, town by town, through ICLEI [International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives], until we are compliant with Agenda 21 goals, which are to stop energy development, energy use, land use, and conservation of all resources to the point of de-growth, a type of total population control. Once we are enslaved, there will be no mitigated resistance.

The government will work under false pretenses, using Homeland Security with its unlimited power and resources and other departments, through school districts, grants, agricultural associations, farm banks, police, and other local organizations.

Global government is real, it is here, and we are ignoring the signs, the rules, regulations, appointments, Patriot Act, executive orders, and the newly created councils. We no longer have three branches of government, a two party system, checks and balances, the rule of law, justice, or a Constitution that is followed.

by Tom DeWeese April 6, 2011 (from NewsWithViews.com and AmericanPolicy.org)

Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is racing across the nation as citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows, I am receiving more and more calls for tools to help activists fight back. Many complain that elected officials just won't read detailed reports or watch long videos. "Can you give us something that is quick, and easy to read that we can hand out," I'm asked.

So here it is. A one page, quick description of Agenda 21 that fits on one page. I've also included for the back side of your hand out a list of quotes for the perpetrators of Agenda 21 that should back up my brief descriptions.

A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That's how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.

According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.

Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people "to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment." Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social justice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.

Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.

Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, "Going Green," Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.

ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide "local" community plans, software, training, etc. Addition groups include American Planning Council, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.

The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.

More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1995, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to "harmonize" US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort "reinvent" government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.

"Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… " -Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR

"The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

"No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis." -The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.

"Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social justice." -From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.

"Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…" -Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable." -Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals." -Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development

"Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective." -Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project

"We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land." -Dave Foreman, Earth First.

Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment." -UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.

"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth." -J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.

By Henry Lamb July 09, 2011

To ordinary people, the word sustainable is an adjective that means the activity the word describes can continue forever. For example, since biblical days, farmers practiced sustainable agriculture by leaving their fields fallow every seventh year. In early America, farmers knew that for agriculture to be sustainable, the same crop could not be planted in the same field year after year. Sustainable agriculture has always been practiced by successful farmers. Farmers who didn't practice sustainable agriculture inevitably failed.

There can be no development without economic impact, of course; nothing new here. "Equitable," however, is a new requirement. Equitable means social justice, which means, as a beginning point, equal benefit from the earth's resources. Progressives have expanded the definition to include such things as a right to housing, health care and a livable wage, but at the very least, equitable means redistribution of wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not. To meet this requirement of sustainable development, government must empower agents to take wealth from one segment of the population and give it to others.

To be sustainable, according to the U.N. definition, development must have no negative environmental impact. This requirement demands a monitor of development activity and a judgment made to determine whether the activity results in a negative environmental impact. This monitor and judge is necessarily some entity empowered by government. Development that fails to meet these requirements is, by definition, not sustainable. Development that meets these requirements is declared by government to be sustainable.

Therefore, sustainable development is government-approved development.

In the context of sustainable development, any activity government describes as sustainable must be a government-approved activity. Sustainable agriculture, despite the fact that agriculture has been practiced sustainably since biblical days, must now be government-approved to enjoy the sustainable label. Government has now applied the word sustainable to communities, which means that for a community to be sustainable it must be government-approved.

Proponents of sustainable development, inside and outside the government, downplay this fundamental element of sustainable development. Instead, they tout the benefits to the environment of sustainable programs that promote recycling, renewable energy, conservation and the like. And an unknowing public drinks the progressive Kool-Aid.

The term sustainable sounds quite reasonable to people who have no idea that the U.N., the federal government and most local governments have qualified and redefined the term to mean government-approved. In some cities and counties, when officials enter into an agreement with ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) to monitor carbon emissions, they have no idea that they are also agreeing to compliance with a much broader application of sustainable development policies. Elected officials in some local governments have no idea that the comprehensive plan presented by their planning commission is deeply rooted in the principles of sustainable development set forth in Agenda 21.

All too often, businesses are shamed into taking a public stand in support of sustainable development.

Advertisements boast "going green" and "sustainability" with little or no understanding that what they are promoting is ultimately government approval of their every campaign, program and activity.

The requirement for government approval is the death of freedom. Put differently, freedom cannot exist where government approval is required. America is teetering on the brink of losing the freedom that made her a great nation. In pursuit of the deceitfully presented notion of sustainable development, America is unknowingly welcoming government to expand and impose its power to regulate virtually every human activity.

Sustainable development as defined in Agenda 21, regardless of how it is repackaged and resold, must be rejected at every level of government.

The purpose of government is not to redistribute wealth. The purpose of government is not to protect the environment. The purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of its citizens, and to defend those citizens from all enemies both foreign and domestic. When government fulfills this purpose, every person has an equal right to pursue personal happiness to the maximum extent of his abilities. No person is entitled to the wealth of another, regardless of Agenda 21 or any other U.N. declaration. Any person whose property or environment is damaged by another is entitled to recover those damages in court. This, too, is a legitimate function of government.

Activity that is, and is not, sustainable should be determined by nature, not by government. Sustainability is just the latest disguise government is using to shroud its incessant quest to control its citizens.

[1] sustainable development: http://www.screencast.com/t/h6r8JLSDkl

This is the goal of Agenda 21. Its recommendations are designed to produce this outcome. The program is called "Sustainable Development," which means in real terms "government-approved" development. Every recommendation in Agenda 21 requires government enforcement. Any activity that is preceded by the word "Sustainable," should be recognized as a "government-controlled" activity.

Sustainable Development brings the concept of "Amortization of Non-Conforming Uses." [1] This means that, over time, the right of private landowners to occupy their houses will automatically be extinguished, and owners will be forced to leave their property without just compensation. This is happening in both urban and rural areas of the country. One of the more blatant examples was revealed in an article published by the LA Weekly News, June 23: "L.A. County’s Private Property War." [2]

By Rachel Alexander July 2, 2011

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 21¹ 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 plans¹ 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 reducing² 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."³ 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 admitted⁴ 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 energy⁵ 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 13575⁶ 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 wrote⁷, "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 Beck⁸, and organizations like Freedom Advocates⁹, Catholic Investigative Agency¹⁰ and Sovereignty International¹¹ 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 Commissioners¹², 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 done¹³, 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.