Give us more government, please!

See anything in common
with this report?

Progress report, compiled from the national reports to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development five years after Agenda 21 was adopted in Rio de Janeiro.

Agenda 21 implementation

From eco-logic, May/June, 1998

Agenda 21 has never been debated or adopted by the Congress of the United States. Nevertheless, it is being vigorously implemented by the administrative agencies of the federal government, and by other nations around the world. More than 150 nations, including the United States of America, are participants in the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). America's participation is not the result of an international treaty, ratified by Congress. America's participation is the result of George Bush signing Agenda 21 at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio, and the current administration's desire to implement its objectives.

Participating nations voluntarily submit an annual report to the CSD. In April, 1996, another massive gathering in Rio, evaluated the progress toward the implementation of Agenda 21, five years after it was adopted. Staggering progress has been made world wide, and particularly in the United States. The following chart indicates progress made toward 32 specific Agenda 21 objectives. The solid lines indicate the percentage of participating nations that have programs in place to achieve each of the objectives, or activities, listed on the left. The striped lines indicate the percentage of participating nations that are currently developing such programs. Look carefully at the program activities, and the percentage of nations that already have active programs in place for each activity; Global implementation of Agenda 21 is much very close to reality. In the United States, programs are already in place to achieve each of the objectives. The United Nations rates as "very good" the progress of the United States in each of these categories.

The UN's analysis of each nation's report is available on the UN web site. A closer examination of what the UN has to say about the United State's implementation of Agenda 21 is most revealing. One of the 32 specific objectives of Agenda 21 is to create a "National Coordinating Body" in each nation. Of the more than 150 participating nations, 73% already have such a body, and an additional 9% are in the process of creating a National Coordinating Body. In the United States, the National Coordinating Body is the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The United Nations report says:

"In the United States, the PCSD was conceived to formulate recommendations for the implementation of Agenda 21."

The UN report was prepared from information supplied by the U.S. State Department. The report says further:

"The fundamental objective of the Council was to forge a consensus among the various stakeholders (government, business and industry, private citizens, non-profits, labor, etc.) and create a viable sustainable development strategy that articulated the interests and concerns of all groups."

In America, the Constitution requires that consensus on public policy be hammered out in public by elected officials, not by 28 appointed individuals, carefully selected because of their known support of the principles expressed in Agenda 21. This UN description of the PCSD is found in a section of the report entitled "Integrated Decision-making," also known as the "consensus" process. All federal agencies have now adopted this "consensus" process to by-pass Congress and other elected bodies, to build consensus on Agenda 21 activities at the local, state, and national levels. The UN report describes America's progress in each of the activity areas in glowing terms. The report boasts that:

"The government has included representatives of NGOs in the National delegation to every session of the Commission on Sustainable Development as well as at other major international meetings."

NGOs play a vital role in the consensus process. Through the new "partnering" programs of all federal agencies, selected NGOs are funded to generate support for specific objectives, then provided a seat on the official U.S. delegation to UN meetings to demonstrate "civil society" support for UN and Agenda 21 programs.

"Most family planning interventions are conducted by NGOs such as Planned Parenthood. In preparation for the International Conference on Population and Development, public meetings were held throughout the U.S. to facilitate the participation of NGOs and individuals."

According to the report, the U.S. spent $25 million "on the development of new contraceptive methods." The U.S. Department of Human Services is credited with changing America's attitude about contraceptives:

"In other words, policy has shifted from discouraging contraception on the basis of age and marital status to promoting it to all who do not have access to service."

"Sustainable Development in School Curriculum" is one of the 32 specific objectives of Agenda 21. This objective has been achieved in 63% of the participating nations, and in process in another 17%. In America:

national strategy on education

Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a major conduit through which Agenda 21 programs and policies flow into the United States, without the benefit of Congressional debate or decision. Many of the initiatives are introduced by NGOs, funded by the EPA through their "Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program." In 1996, the EPA reported the following Challenge Grants.

Source: State Department report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development.

Recipient	Amount	Program Title
Wilson College	48,000	Community Supported Agriculture in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Olympic Peninsula Foundation	100,000	Washington Wood Smart Certification Program
University of North Carolina Arboretum	50,000	Sustainable Craft Industry in Appalachia
New Orleans Building Materials Exchange	72,070	Building Materials Exchange in New Orleans
New Hampshire Forest Sustainable Standards Work Team	26,000	Sustaining Forestry in New Hampshire
Friends of the Rappahannock	20,000	Marketing the Economic Benefits of Sustainable Development in the Rappahannock River Watershed
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission	20,000	Preserving Sustainability in Central Virginia Region
Nebraska State Recycling Association	75,000	EcoPark Development in Omaha
Colleton County Research Development Board	42,000	Implementing a Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development in South Carolina
Arizona State University	70,866	Sustainable Neighborhood Design for the Desert Southwest

In 1997, the EPA reported 42 "Challenge Grants," but chose not to report the name of the organization that received the money or how much money was awarded. A description of the funded projects is available on the EPA web site at the following address:

http://134.67.55.16.7777/DC/OSE/CWeb.nsf...bbd9a46d3f852565f7004d3f16?OpenDocument

Honest! (This file is not easily accessible, but you can try.) Some of the program titles are: Fish for the Future (Oregon); Kansas City Area Sustainable Land Use Initiative; Coastal Georgia Greenway; Building a Sustainable Community from the Ground Up (Kentucky): San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners (SLUG); Community Bicycle Shop (Washington).

Social Aspects of Sustainable Development

As early as 1976, the UN adopted a policy relating to land use and population distribution:

"All countries should establish as a matter of urgency a national policy on human settlements, embodying the distribution of population...over national territory. Such a policy should be devised to facilitate population redistribution to accord with the availability of resources." (Recommendation A.1, HABITAT I, Vancouver).

The Commission on Sustainable Development's report laments "The U.S. does not have an official population policy.... The U.S. also has no specific policies to modify the spatial distribution of the population." The report applauds, however, the U.S.'s expenditure of $25 million "on the development of new contraceptive methods," and the $144 million spent on "all aspects of population research."

The UN report says that in America, the Department of Health & Human Services operates an Office of Population Affairs (OPA) which serves nearly 5 million people through a network of 4,800 clinics to provide "contraceptive services and supplies." Moreover, USAID works through the United Nations Population Fund to provide population control assistance in 60 countries. The report says that in America, "policy has shifted from discouraging contraception on the basis of age and marital status to promoting it to all who do not have access to services."

Education

Education is a key ingredient in the transformation to a sustainable society. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development reports that in America, "the national strategy on education is prepared by the Department of Education and includes such programmes as Goals 2000 and School to Work" (emphasis added). The National Environmental Education Advisory Council to the Department of Education consists of eleven individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator and includes representatives of women, NGOs, and local authorities (visioning councils). The U.S. State Department reported to the UN that:

"At the primary school level, school curricula have already been reviewed and revised, and at the secondary school level, the revision of school curricula is being undertaken currently to address environment and development as a cross cutting issue."

The State Department also told the UN:

"The U.S. has been involved in several awareness raising programmes and activities aimmed at the population at large (Earth Day, industry supported campaigns, Ad Council, Program KAB, Arbor Day, GLOBE Program, Discovery Channel, National Geographic programmes, CNN, ZooQ, As it Happens, and water clean-up programmes."

While land use and zoning regulations are still considered to be a matter of local control,

Land Use Systems Technology Program

Sustainable Communities Development System"

cologic

Agriculture

The transition from free-market agriculture to managed sustainable agriculture is well advanced in America, according to the UN report. Sustainable agriculture is defined in American law (Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 - 7 USE 3101) to be:

"an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agriculture economy depends; make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm operation; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and members of rural communities, and society as a whole."

To achieve sustainable agriculture in America, the U.S. Department of Agriculture works "in concert with the President's Council on Sustainable Development" to implement several programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EPUIP), and the Farmland Protection Program, which was created to purchase development rights on up to 137,600 ha of private property. The Conservation Reserve Program has an additional 36 million acres of private property out of production, at least temporarily.

Atmosphere

The USDA also funds the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) to provide information and advocacy to NGOs and the public. Other USDA programs in place to promote sustainable agriculture include the Integrated Farm Management Systems; Integrated Pest Management; Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas; and the Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. The Soil Conservation Service has been transformed into the Natural Resource Conservation Service with agents in virtually every county "to assist landowners with resource planning." A revolving loan fund has been established to assist farmers in becoming sustainable through the development through the development of "non-food, non-feed, non-traditional agricultural products" such as the "manufacture of paper from straw; manufacture of high-quality furniture from low-quality logs; the use of kenaf as a mat for seeding lawn grass making newsprint and fiberboard; and the use of milkweed as a filler for pillows and comforters."

America's efforts to achieve Agenda 21's objectives relating to the atmosphere are rated as "good." The State Department report to the UN boasts that the EPA, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are "full-fledged" members of the President's Council on Sustainable Development. "The President's Climate Change Plan includes nearly 50 initiatives..." according to the report. The U.S. supports the "conservation and enhancement" of carbon sinks, which is biomass and forests (bioregions), whether publicly or privately owned. The report boasts that the U.S. spent $31.9 billion on air pollution abatement in 1993.

Biodiversity

Interestingly, the Convention on Biological Diversity is described as "signed in 1993, but not yet ratified." Nevertheless, the report says "Cooperative efforts involving various levels of government and the private sector are underway to implement the biosphere reserve concept in several regions." The Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Program (SAMAB), and the International Sonoran Desert Alliance, "a cluster of biosphere reserves in northwestern Mexico and Arizona," are identified as example of implementation of the objectives of Agenda 21. The Nature Conservancy is particularly identified as having "pioneered" biodiversity conservation.

To achieve the objectives of Agenda 21, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the report identifies several federal initiatives, including: the National Biological Service; Interagency Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources; Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force, and the Ecosystem Management Initiative.

"Ecosystem management strategies have been adopted by the Department of Interior, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, EPA, and NOAA. In some cases, broad-scale organizational frameworks are being implemented. For example, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in the Department of Interior has defined approximately 50 ecosystem units across the country as a basis for future planning related to sustainable management...."

The report says that USAID provides funding to the Biodiversity Conservation Network, which coordinates NGOs and "private sector partners," as well as to the Indonesia Biodiversity Foundation, the Mexican Conservation Fund, and a $3 million grant to Conservation International.

Forestry

"Forest legislation has recently been revised to help combat deforestation envisaged under chapter 11 of Agenda 21 and includes The Forest Stewardship Act of 1990; the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1990; America the Beautiful (1990); an the National Indian Forest Resources an Management Act," according to the State Department report to the UN. The President's Forest Plan adopted for the Pacific Northwest region is described as "the best example of policy following the UNCED [Agenda 21] forest principles."

The report says that the "American Forest an Paper Association, which represents 95% of the industrial forest land in the U.S., approved a set of Sustainable Forestry Principles and Guidelines. With the help of NGOs which continue "to draw attention to disparities between sustainable goals and current practices," and plans developed at the state level, "resource plans will ultimately bring millions of hectares of nonindustrial private forest lands under stewardship management."

Conclusion

While by no means complete, this summary of the United States' report to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development should put to rest any doubt that the Clinton/Gore Administration is, in fact, deliberately implementing Agenda 21 in America. Where laws have been revised, Congress has not been told that the purpose of the revision is to comply with the mandates of Agenda 21. Where policies can be implemented administratively, Congress is not even consulted. At the state and local level, elected officials are deliberately by-passed until local support can be generated by a "stakeholders" council, led by NGO professionals, funded by the federal government or by foundations in "partnership" with the federal government.

Agenda 21 embraces virtually every aspect of human life; it is being implemented aggressively in the United States. Congress has never examined the totality of the Agenda. Instead, Congress is fed only bits and pieces in the context of "protecting the environment." The ultimate objective of Agenda 21 is to establish "international norms" of personal behavior that are dictated by a handful of the world's enlightened elite who believe they know best how people ought to live. The UN Commission on Sustainable Development is not the result of a treaty ratified by the Senate. America participates in the UN organization by Executive Decree. Through the Clinton/Gore Administration, America is actually driving the agenda globally, and making it possible for the UN to dictate, not only in America, but around the world, how all people must live.

Sustainable Development Menu

Did they take up a collection among themselves to pay for their follies?

E/S...thanks for the ping. Are you the keeper of the list?

Did they take up a collection among themselves to pay for their follies?

Doubtful. They're all there at public expense. But rest assured, if you live in a state with one of these "urban environments" they'll find a way to reach into your pockets.

UN's Agenda 21 Targets Your Mayor
By Tom DeWeese
Jun 5, 2005, 22:00

Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA. The Center maintains a website at www.americanpolicy.org.

We've all seen the bumper stickers, "Think Globally - Act Locally." It's a creation of those who seek to impose international guidelines, rules and regulations on how we all live. Americans are about to find that it's not just an empty slogan.

From June 1 through 5, 2005, the city of San Francisco was the site of an international conference called "World Environment Day." But the agenda of this conference was much bigger than just another hippy dance in the park. This meeting of the global elite had a specific target and an agenda with teeth. The goal was the full implementation of the UN's Agenda 21 policy called Sustainable Development, a ruling principle for top-down control of every aspect of our lives - from food, to health care, to community development, and beyond. This time, the target audience is our nation's mayors. The UN's new tactic, on full display at this conference, is to ignore federal and state governments and go straight to the roots of American society. Think globally - act locally.

As part of their participation in the conference, mayors were pressed to commit their communities to specific legislative and policy goals by signing a slate of United Nations accords. Two documents were presented for the mayors' signature.

The first document is called the "Green Cities Declaration," a statement of principles which set the agenda for the mayors' assigned task. It says, in part, "Believing as Mayors of cities around the globe, we have a unique opportunity to provide leadership to develop truly sustainable urban centers based on culturally and economically appropriate local actions." The Declaration is amazingly bold in that it details exactly how the UN intends to implement a very specific agenda in every town and city in the nation. The document includes lots of rhetoric about the need to curtail greenhouse gases and preserve resources. But the final line of the Green Cities Declaration was the point of the whole affair: "Signatory cities shall work to implement the following Urban Environment Accords. Each year cities shall pick three actions to adopt as policies or laws."

The raw meat of the agenda is outlined in detail in the second document, called the "Urban Environment Accords." The Accords include exactly 21 specific actions (as in Agenda 21) for the mayors to take, controlled by a time table for implementation.

Here's a quick look at a few of the 21 agenda actions called for. Under the topic of energy, action item number one calls for mayors to implement a policy to increase the use of "renewable" energy by 10% within seven years. Renewable energy includes solar and wind power.

Not stated in the UN documents is the fact that in order to meet the goal, a community would have to reserve thousands of acres of land to set up expensive solar panels or even more land for wind mills. Consider that it takes a current 50 megawatt gas-fired generating plant about 2-5 acres of land to produce its power. Yet to create that same amount of power through the use of solar panels would require at least 1,000 acres. Using wind mills to generate 50 megawatts would require over 4,000 acres of land, while chopping up birds and creating a deafening roar. The cost of such "alternative" energy to the community would be vastly prohibitive. Yet, such unworkable ideas are the environmentally-correct orders of the days that the mayors are being urged to follow.

Energy Actions two and three deal with the issue of reducing energy consumption. Both of these are backdoor sneak attacks by the UN to enforce the discredited Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, which President Bush has refused to implement. Kyoto would force the United States to reduce its energy consumption by at least 30 percent, forcing energy shortages and severely damaging the nation's economy. Kyoto is the centerpiece of the UN's drive to control the world economy and redistribute wealth to Third World nations. It would do nothing to help the environment. Yet, the mayors are being pushed to help implement this destructive treaty city-by-city.

Perhaps the most egregious action offered in the Urban Environmental Accords deals with the topic of water. Action number twenty calls for adoption and implementation of a policy to reduce individual water consumption by 10% by 2020. Interestingly, UN begins by stating: "Cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per day will adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by 10 percent by 2015."

There is no basis for the 100 liter figure other than employing a very clever use of numbers to lower the bar and control the debate. One must be aware that 100 liters equals about 26 gallons per person, per day. According to the UN, each person should only have 10% less than 26 gallons each day to drink, bathe, flush toilets, wash clothes, water lawns, wash dishes, cook, and more.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Americans need about 100 GALLONS per day to perform these basic functions. Consider also that there is no specific water shortage in the United States. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, annual water withdrawal across the nation is about 407 billion gallons, while consumption (including evaporation and plant use, is about 94 billion gallons. Such restrictions, as outlined in the Urban Environment Accords, are really nothing more than a major campaign by the UN to control water consumption. Yet the nation's mayors are being pushed to impose policies to take away our free use of water.

The rest of the Accords deal with a variety of subjects including waste reduction, recycling, transportation, health, and nature. Perhaps the most blatant promise of action is Action number sixteen in which the mayors are supposed to agree to: "Every year identify three products, chemicals, or compounds that are used within your city that represents the greatest risk to human health and adopt a law to eliminate their sale and use in the city."

There you have it. Every year, our nation's mayors are to promise to ban something! What if there isn't a "chemical or compound" that poses a risk? Gotta ban something anyway. That's not an idle threat. In the 1990's Anchorage, Alaska had some of the most pristine water in the nation. It had no pollution. Yet the federal government ordered the city to meet strict federal clean water standards that required it to remove a certain percentage of pollution. In order to meet those requirements, Anchorage was forced to dump fish parts into its pristine water so that it could then clean out the required quotas. Your city's mayor may have to ban the ink in your fountain pen to meet his quota - and ban it he will.

And what is the mayor's reward for destroying private property rights, increasing energy costs on less consumption, and banning something useful every year? He gets green stars. That's right. According to UN documents, if your mayor can complete 8-11 of the prescribed 21 actions, the town will get a green star and the designation, "Local Sustainable City." 12-17 actions completed will garner two green stars and the designation, "National Sustainable City." 15-18 actions completed will bring in three green stars and the title "Regional Sustainable City." Finally, the energizer bunny mayor who gets 19-21 actions completed will get a full four green stars and the ultimate designation of "Global Sustainable City." Certainly he or she will also get a plaque and get to sit at the head table at the next UN Sustainable Development conference.

In the San Francisco summit, the mayors were wooed by the elite, from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Maurice Strong, to Senator Diane Feinstein, to Hollywood activists Robert Redford and Martin Sheen, to chimp-master Jane Goodall. All the usual suspects were there to press the flesh and push the agenda. Businesses like Mitsubishi, which hope to make huge profits from green industry by using such policy to destroy competition, helped pay for the event. The news media was well represented too, not in a journalistic role to report the news, but as full-fledged sponsors helping to spread their own brand of propaganda. All understood that a new governing elite, elected by no one, answerable to their own set of standards, is being created for the care and feeding of us all. With the right contacts and the proper show of public spirit, there are riches and power to be created. Even for your local mayor.

Sustainable Development is truly stunning in its magnitude to transform the world into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society. It is a scheme fueled by unsound science and discredited economics that can only lead modern society down the road to a new dark ages. It is a policy of banning goods and regulating and controlling human action. It is systematically implemented through the creation of non-elected visioning boards and planning commissions. There is no place in the Sustainable world for individual thought, private property or free enterprise. It is the exact opposite of the free society envisioned by this nation's founders.

Even before the San Francisco conference, the UN's influence over the nation's mayors has been felt as 132 U.S. mayors have moved to implement the Kyoto Treaty in defiance of the Bush Administration's rejection of it. Moreover, the treaty is the centerpiece of the agenda for the national meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, slated for Chicago just one week after the San Francisco meeting. Think globally and act locally is no longer just a slogan on the back of a Volvo. It's a well entrenched national policy bleeding down into your local community, carried there by Judas goats who have been elected by you.

America's mayors are the elected representatives closest to the people. They are the ones that our founders intended to have the most influence over our daily lives. If the UN succeeds in its efforts to enforce Sustainable Development policy through our mayors, the process will accelerate at an astounding rate and locally-controlled government will cease to exist. But signs, adorned with green stars, will certainly greet us at every city limit line as the inhabitants, stripped of their property rights; buried under huge tax burdens; struggling under reduced energy flow, shuffle on as their proud mayor gleams in the global limelight under the banner "think globally and act locally."

Environmentalism is socialism by another name. It looks green on the outside but is red on the inside. The objective is the same: to expand government, limit private choices, and to transfer decision-making authority from the people's elected representatives to bureaucracies and non-governmental institutions. If you believe all of this is the best means of preserving the earth's "green space" then you'll love this agenda.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

Our 'city' is too small to have a mayor invited to this conference. Nonetheless, as a university town, we have (sadly) been at the forefront of research and trial studies for many of the things listed here.

Thanks to your taxes, we have a fleet of Compressed Natural Gas buses that shuttle students in to town (subsidized rates, of course).

We're working toward recycled sewage with a program called Beneficial ReUse that will treat sewage for 24 hours through reverse osmosis, pipe it across town to dissipate the heat (and make the source less evident), then dump it into an intermittent stream where it'll go down sinkholes into the groundwater. No water shortage drove this innovation - our community of about 100,000 sits on an underground lake that could provide water for a million people...

The university is pushing all parking to the outermost in its effort to become a 'walkable' campus.

We've had our 'visioning' to determine that what the stakeholders really want is open space, bike trails and little growth. That's because the trained facilitators used words creatively when people expressed opposition to any of the 'sustainable' ideas.

EPA should be shut down for funding this stuff!

Think of smart growth as government sprawl. Think of smart growth as inflicting collective federal zoning on local communities, telling property owners and businesses what can and can’t be done on their property.

Smart growth has a number of objectives in mind in order to achieve its primary goal - control of property.

One goal is to remove land decisions far away from elected representatives, government closest to the people, and into the hands of unelected bureaucrats, government farthest from the people.

Another smart growth goal is to take choice away from individual citizens, as enshrined in the state constitution, and give that choice to bureaucrats for the common good. Group or collective rights are paramount in socialist countries and trump decisions desired by the individual. Socialists call this collectivism.

The biggest problem for the socialists trying to build a sustainable socialist community is the individual and his rights. People having a ball building wealth for their family, the community and themselves is a huge impediment to establishing utopia. Thus, individuals must be controlled.

Individuals are difficult to control through elected officials. If they mess up, voters can throw them out. The best way to control individuals is to give complete power to unelected bureaucrats. That way they can commit countless harassments, errors and abuses to build utopia and remain in power, unchecked by the people through the ballot box.

Any unelected, unaccountable group with power to write law, judge law and execute law is, by definition, a dictatorship. The American system separates these powers into branches accountable to the citizens. It prevents the establishment of an unaccountable governing body dictating laws to the citizens. Smart growth is an effort to collectivize property under the rule of unelected planning councils. The Russian people called these unelected councils soviet socialists.

The most common buzzwords in the smart growth lexicon are “sustainable growth” for “sustainable communities.” The word “sustainable” will be used by land planners to beat property owners over the head in order to persuade them to give up individual rights in favor of the socialist “common good.” Sustainable development means “we want to control everything.”

The premier organization for pushing the bureaucratic control of property is the American Planning Association. It has written a “Growing Smart” legislative handbook, with the support of federal bureaucrats, that legislators are urged to use to control property.

Its key provisions limit opportunity, economic growth and significantly interfere with the rights of people to use their property.

One of its dictatorial recommendations include governments seizing homes and businesses under eminent domain if a building doesn’t meet a bureaucrat’s definition of “aesthetics.” How a building looks should not be public policy, but an individual choice.

It will also label homeowners and business owners as criminals for violation of land use regulations.

So what’s wrong with sustainable development, smart growth, viewsheds, biological diversity and all the other utopian buzzwords? All these words are designed to tell citizens where and how to live. Our government shouldn’t be in that business. That’s what socialist governments do. And land and businesses should certainly not be controlled by unelected bureaucrats.

In reality, smart growth means no growth and sustainable development means no development. They are the ultimate environmental big lies.

"So what’s wrong with sustainable development, smart growth, viewsheds, biological diversity and all the other utopian buzzwords? All these words are designed to tell citizens where and how to live. Our government shouldn’t be in that business. That’s what socialist governments do. And land and businesses should certainly not be controlled by unelected bureaucrats.

In reality, smart growth means no growth and sustainable development means no development. They are the ultimate environmental big lies."

Amen to that, Sergeant Dave. Well said. Madison's EnviroWacko Mayor Dave is a total fruitloop on this issue. His ultimate goal is to turn Madison, WI into Seattle, WA. (We're trying to convice him to just MOVE there. Maybe in 2006? Fingers crossed!)

Many of these socialist schemes marching under the monicker of "smart growth" and "sustainable development" are gross violations of property rights, court decisions and congressional intent.

In these cases, the court can be your friend. Unfortunately the courts are hideously expensive - start at $200,000 and go up from there.

Also stripping planning councils and their socialist paid advisors of sovereign immunity is another good tool.

But it's best to smash these socialist schemes in local governments before they gain footing. Telling people that their property rights are about to be strip mined by unelected bureaucrats will get people active.

Protect Private Property Rights!

Stop the attacks on our Freedoms by the wacko, extreme left-wing, lunatic fringe, dirt worshipping Green Jihadist, enviro-nazis terrorist's and their toadies in the media!

Drill for oil and gas, build more oil refineries, build more power plants, including nuclear!

Protect The Forest ... Eradicate The Greenies!

Fighting Irresponsible Radical Environmentalism!

Freedom Is Worth Fighting For!

Be Ever Vigilant!