The standard points made by those who deny any Agenda 21 connection is that:

• Local planning is a local idea.
• Agenda 21 is a non-binding resolution not a treaty, carries no legal authority from which any nation is bound to act. It has no teeth.
• The UN has no enforcement capability.
• There are no “Blue-Helmeted” UN troops at City Hall.
• Planners are simply honest professionals trying to do their job, and all these protests are wasting their valuable time.
• The main concern of Agenda 21 is that man is fouling the environment and using up resources for future generations and we just need a sensible plan to preserve and protect the earth. What is so bad about that?
• There is no hidden agenda.
• “I’ve read Agenda 21 and I can find no threatening language that says it is a global plot. What are you so afraid of?”
• And of course, the most often heard response – “Agenda 21, what’s that?”

And after they have proudly stated these well thought out points, they arrogantly throw down the gauntlet and challenge us to “answer these facts.”

Well, first I have a few questions of my own that I would love to have answered.

Will one of these “innocent” promoters of the “Agenda 21 is meaningless” party line, please answer the following:

• If it all means nothing, why does the UN spend millions of dollars to hold massive international meetings in which hundreds of leaders, potentates and high priests attend, along with thousands of non-governmental organizations of every description, plus the international news media, which reports every action in breathless anticipation of its impact on the world?
• It if all means nothing, why do those same NGO representatives (which are all officially sanctioned by the UN in order to participate) spend months (sometimes years) debating, discussing, compiling, and drafting policy documents?
• If it all means nothing, why do leaders representing nearly every nation in the world attend and, with great fanfare, sign these policy documents?

Time after time we witness these massive international meetings, we read the documents that result from them, and when we question their meaning or possible impact on our nation, we are met with a dismissive shrug and a comment of “oh, probably not much…”

Really? Then why? Why the waste of money, time, and human energy? Could it be that the only purpose is to simply give diplomats, bureaucrats, and NGOs a feeling of purpose in their meaningless lives, or perhaps a chance to branch out of their lonely apartments? Or could it really be that these meetings and the documents they produce are exactly as we say they are – a blueprint for policy, rules, regulations, perhaps even global governance that will affect the lives, fortunes, property and futures of every person on earth? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Why the fear of Agenda 21? 

            Those who simply read or quickly scan Agenda 21 are puzzled by our opposition to what they see as a harmless, non-controversial document which they read as voluntary suggestions for preserving natural resources and protecting the environment. Why the fear? What exactly bothers us so much?

The problem is, we who oppose Agenda 21 have read and studied much more than this one document and we’ve connected the dots. Many of us have attended those international meetings, rubbed elbows with the authors and leaders of the advocated policies, and overheard their insider (not for public distribution) comments about their real purpose.

Here are a few examples of those comments made by major leaders of this movement as to the true purpose of the policies coming out of these UN meetings:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Christine Stewart (former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

“Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” Report from the UN Commission on  Global Governance.

All three of these quotes (and we have many) indicate using lies and rhetoric to achieve their goals, and that those goals include the elimination of national sovereignty and the creation of a “seamless system” for global governance. Again, do these quotes have meaning and purpose – do they reveal the true thoughts of the promoters of these policies, or were they just joking?

For the past three decades through the United Nations infrastructure, there have been a series of meetings, each producing another document or lynchpin to lay the groundwork for a centralized global economy, judicial system, military, and communications system, leading to what can only be described as a global government. From our study of these events, we have come to the conclusion that Agenda 21 represents the culmination of all of those efforts, indeed representing the step by step blueprint for the full imposition of those goals. Here’s just a sample of these meetings and the documents they produced:

• In 1980, West German Chancellor Willy Brandt chaired the Commission on International Development. The document, or report coming out of this effort, entitled “North-South: A program for Survival,” stated “World development is not merely an economic process, [it] involves a profound transformation of the entire economic and social structure…not only the idea of economic betterment, but also of greater human dignity, security, justice and equality…The Commission realizes that mankind has to develop a concept of a ‘single community’ to develop global order.”

• That same year Sean MacBride, a recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize, headed up a commission on international communications which issued a report entitled “Many Voices, One World: Towards a New, More Just and More Efficient World Information and Communication Order.” The Commission, which included the head of the Soviet news Agency, TASS, believed that a “New World Information Order” was prerequisite to a new world economic order. The report was a blueprint for controlling the media, even to the point of suggesting that international journalists be licensed.

• In 1982, Olof Palme, the man who single-handedly returned Socialism to Sweden, served as chairman of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. His report, entitled “Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival,” said: “All States have the duty to promote the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international control…” The report went on to call for money that is saved from disarmament to be used to pay for social programs. The Commission also proposed a strategic shift from “collective security” such as the alliances like NATO, to one of “common security” through the United Nations.      

• Finally, in 1987, came the granddaddy commission of them all, The Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development. Headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Vice President of the World Socialist Party, the commission introduced the concept of “Sustainable Development.” For the first time the environment was tied to the tried and true Socialist goals of international redistribution of wealth. Said the report, “Poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.”

These four commissions laid the groundwork for an agenda of global control; A controlled media would dictate the flow of information and ideas and prevent dissent; control of international development manages and redistributes wealth; full disarmament would put the power structure into the hands of those with armaments; and tying environmentalism to poverty and economic development would bring the entire agenda to the level of an international emergency.

One world, one media, one authority for development, one source of wealth, one international army. The construction of a “just society” with political and social equality rather than a free society with the individual as the sole possessor of rights. The next step was to pull it altogether into a simple blueprint for implementation.                    

During the 1990s, the UN sponsored a series of summits and conferences dealing with such issues as human rights, the rights of the child, forced abortion and sterilization as solutions for population control, and plans for global taxation through the UN.

Throughout each of these summits, hundreds of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worked behind the scenes to write policy documents pertaining to each of these issues, detailing goals and a process to achieve them. These NGO’s are specifically sanctioned by the United Nations in order to participate in the process. The UN views them as “civil society, the non governmental representatives of the people. In short, in the eyes of the UN, the NGOs are the “people.”

Who are they? They include activist groups with private political agendas including the Environmental Defense Fund, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, Zero Population Growth, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, the National Education Association, an d hundreds more. These groups all have specific political agendas which they desire to become law of the land. Through work in these international summits and conferences, their political wish lists become official government policy.

In fact, through the UN infrastructure the NGOs sit in equality to government officials from member nations including the United States. One of the most powerful UN operations is the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). Created in 1973 by the UN General Assembly, the UNEP is the catalyst through which the global environmental agenda is implemented. Virtually all international environmental programs and policy changes that have occurred globally in the past three decades are a result of UNEP efforts. Sitting in on UNEP meetings, helping to write and implement policy, along with these powerful NGOs are government representatives, including U.S, federal agencies such as the Department of State, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

This, then, is a glimpse of the power structure behind the force that gathered in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 for the UN-sponsored Earth Summit. Here, five major documents, written primarily by NGOs with the guidance and assistance of government agencies, were introduced to the world. In fact, these final documents had been first drafted and honed though the long, arduous series of international conferences previously mentioned. Now, at Rio, they were ready for adoption as a blueprint for what could only be described as the transformation of human society.

The five documents were: the “Convention on Climate Change,” the precursor to the coming Kyoto Climate Change Protocol, later adopted in 1997; the “Biodiversity Treaty,” which would declare that massive amounts of land should be off limits to human development; the third document was called the “Rio Declaration,” which called for the eradication of poverty throughout the world  through the redistribution of wealth; the fourth document was the “Convention on Forest Principles,” calling for international management of the world’s forests, essentially shutting down or severely regulating the timber industry; and the fifth document was Agenda 21, which contained the full agenda for implementing worldwide Sustainable Development. The 300 page document contains 40 chapters that address virtually every facet of human life and contains great detail as to how the concept of Sustainable Development should be implemented through every level of government.

What did the United Nations believe that process entailed? In 1993, to help explain the far-reaching aspects of the plan, the UN published “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet.” Here’s how the UN described Agenda 21 in that document: “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.”  I have never read a stronger, more powerful description of the use of government power.   

However, critics of our efforts against Agenda 21 rush to point out that Agenda 21 is a “soft law” policy – not a treaty that must be ratified by the U.S. Senate to become law. So it is just a suggestion, nothing to be afraid of. To make such an argument means that these critics have failed to follow the bouncing ball of implementation.

Following the bouncing ball to implementation

             It started when, at the Earth Summit, President George H.W. Bush, along with 179 other heads of state signed agreement to Agenda 21. One year later, newly elected President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order # 12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The Council consisted of 12 cabinet secretaries, top executives from business, and executives from six major environmental organizations, including the Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, the World Resources Institute, and the National Wildlife Federation. These were all players in the creation of Agenda 21 at the international level – now openly serving on the PCSD with the specific mission to implement Agenda 21 into American policy.

It is interesting to note that in the pages of the PCSD report entitled “Sustainable America: A new Consensus for the Future, it directly quotes the Brundtland Commission’s report “Our Common Future” for a definition of Sustainable Development. That is about as direct a tie to the UN as one can get. The PCSD brought the concept of Sustainable Development into the policy process of every agencies of the US federal government

A major tool for implementation was the enormous grant-making power of the federal government. Grant programs were created through literally every agency to entice states and local communities to accept Sustainable Development policy in local programs. In fact, the green groups serving on the PCSD, which also wrote Agenda 21 in the first place, knew full well what programs needed to be implemented to enforce Sustainable Development policy, and they helped create the grant programs, complete with specific actions that must be taken by communities to assure the money is properly spent to implement Sustainable Development policy. Those are the “strings” to which we opponents refer. Such tactics make the grants effective weapons to insure the policy is moving forward.

From that point, these same NGOs sent their members into the state legislatures to lobby for and encourage policy and additional state grant programs. They have lobbied for states to produce legislation requiring local communities to implement comprehensive development plans. Once that legislation was in place, the same NGOs (authors of Agenda 21) quickly moved into the local communities to “help” local governments comply with the state mandates. And they pledged to help by showing communities how to acquire the grant money to pay for it – with the above mentioned strings attached.

We’re told over and over again that such policies are local, state and national, with no conspiracy of ties to the UN. Really? Then how are we to explain this message, taken from the Federal Register, August 24, 1998, (Volume 63, Number 163) from a discussion on the EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program? It says, “The Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program is also a step in Implementing ‘Agenda 21, the Global Plan of Action on Sustainable Development,’ signed by the United Stats at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. All of these programs require broad community participation to identify and address environmental issues.”      

Or consider this quote from a report by Phil Janik, Chief Operating Officer of the USDA – Forest Service, entitled “The USDA-Forest Service Commitment and Approach to Forest Sustainability” “In Our Common Future published in 1987, the Brundtland Commission explains that ‘the environment is where we all live; and development is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode.”  In short, Janik was explaining to his audience (the Society of American Foresters) just where the Forest Service was getting its definition of Sustainable Development – the report from the UN Commission on Global Governance.

Meanwhile, the NGOs began to “partner” with other governmental organizations like the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of County Administrators and more organizations to which elected representatives belong to, assuring  a near that a near universal message of Sustainable Development comes from every level of government.

Another NGO group which helped write Agenda 21 for the UN Earth Summit was a group originally called the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).  It now calls itself ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. After the Earth Summit in 1992, ICLEI set its mission to move into the policy process of local governments around the world to impose Sustainable Development policy. It now operates in more than 1200 cities globally, including 600 American cities, all of which pay dues for the privilege of working with ICLEI. Like a cancer, ICLEI begins to infest the local government policy, training city employees to think only in terms of Sustainable Development, and replacing local guidelines with international codes, rules and regulations.

So it’s true, there are no UN blue helmeted troops occupying city halls in America, and yes, the UN itself does not have enforcement capability for this “:non-binding” document called Agenda 21. However, it does have its own storm troopers in the person of the Non-governmental Organizations which the UN officially sanctions to carry on its work. And that is how Agenda 21, a UN policy, has become a direct threat to local American communities.

Why we oppose Agenda 21

It’s important to note that we fight Agenda 21 because we oppose its policies and its process, not just its origins. Why do we see it as a threat? Isn’t it just a plan to protect the environment and stop uncontrolled development and sprawl?

As Henry Lamb of Freedom 21 puts it, “Comprehensive land use planning that delivers sustainable development to local communities transforms both the process through which decisions that govern citizens are made, and the market place where citizens must earn their livelihood. The fundamental principle that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process…the natural next step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own the land that the government controls.” 

To enforce the policy, local government is being transformed by “stakeholder councils” created and enforced by the same NGO Agenda 21 authors. They are busy creating a matrix of non-elected boards, councils and regional governments that usurp the ability of citizens to have an impact on policy. It’s the demise of representative government. And the councils appear and grow almost overnight.

Sustainablists involve themselves in every aspect of society. Here are just a few of the programs and issues that can be found in the Agenda 21 blueprint and can be easily found in nearly every community’s “local” development plans: Wetlands, conservation easements, water sheds, view sheds, rails – to- trails, biosphere reserves, greenways, carbon footprints, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage areas and comprehensive planning. Every one of these programs leads to more government control, land grabs and restrictions on energy, water, and our own property. When we hear these terms we know that such policy originated on the pages of Agenda 21, regardless of the direct or indirect path it took to get to our community.

You’ll find Watershed Councils that regulate human action near every trickling stream, river, or lake. Meters are put on wells. Special “action” councils control home size, tree pruning, or removal, even the color you can paint your home or the height of your grass. Historic preservation councils control development in downtown areas, disallowing expansion and new building.

Regional governments are driven by NGOs and stakeholder councils with a few co-opted bureaucrats thrown in to look good. These are run by non-elected councils that don’t answer to the people. In short, elected officials become little more than a rubber stamp to provide official “approval” to the regional bureaucracy.

But the agenda outlined in Agenda 21 and by its proponents is a much bigger threat that just land use planning. They openly advocate massive reduction of human populations. Some actually call for as much as an 85% reduction in human populations in order to “save the planet.” David Brower of the Sierra Club said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.”  The UN’s Biodiversity Assessment says, “A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.”

They also openly advocate the destruction of modern society as Maurice Strong, the head of the Earth Summit said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrial nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

This issue then is not about simple environmental protection and modern planning. It is about a complete restructuring of our society, our values and our way of life. They use as their model an urgency based on global warming and climate change, claiming there is no need for discussion on these dire issues. Yet science is showing more and more proof that there is no man-made global warming. Are we to completely destroy our society based on such a shaky foundation?

And that is just what the proponents are rushing to do.

Barack Obama has issued a flurry of Executive Orders to bypass the Congressional process and dictate sustainable policy. In 2011 Obama issued EO # 13575 creating the White House Rural Council. It brings together 25 Cabinet Secretaries to enforce multi-jurisdictional enforcement of farming virtually controlling every decision for food production. It is a major assault on American farm production intended to enforce Sustainable farming practices. In truth it will only lead to food shortages and higher prices as farmers have no ability to make a decision without the approval of 25 government agencies, working at cross purposes and causing chaos in farm production.

On May1, 2012, Obama issued EO # 13609, dictating that the government must enforce coordination of international regulatory policy. Those international regulatory policies are UN-driven and the basic translation means enforcement of Sustainable Development policy.

But, again, skeptics of our fears of Agenda 21 continue to argue that it is all voluntary and if the US or local governments want to enforce it they are free to do so – nothing to fear but ourselves.  Well, even if that were true, that’s all about to change. On June 15 – 23, international forces are again converging on Rio for Rio+20. The stated intention is to complete the work they began in 1992.

Specifically called for is a UN treaty on Sustainable Development. If passed by the Senate and signed by the Obama Administration, that will eliminate any ambiguity about where the policy is coming from. Moreover, documents produced so far for the summit call for a global council, new UN agencies, budgets and powers, and “genuine global actions” in every nation – to ensure “social justice,” poverty eradication, climate protection, biodiversity, “green growth,” and an end to “unsustainable patterns of consumption.” Again, thousands of NGOs, diplomats and world leaders will spend a lot of money and time in the Rio+20 effort. Is it all just for fun, or does it have a purpose with strong consequences for our way of life?

The fact is, we fight Agenda 21 because it is all-encompassing, designed to address literally every aspect of our lives. This is so because those promoting Agenda 21 believe we must modify our behavior, our way of doing everyday things, and even our belief system, in order to drastically transform human society into being “sustainable.”

We who oppose it don’t believe that the world is in such dire emergency environmentally that we must destroy the very human civilization that brought us from a life of nothing but survival against the elements into a world that gave us homes, health care, food, and even luxury.  Sustainable Development advocates literally hope to roll back our civilization to the days of mere survival and we say NO. Why should we? We have found great deception in the promotion of the global warming argument. We believe in free markets and free societies where people make their own decisions, live and develop their own property. And we fully believe that the true path to a strong protection of the environment is through private property ownership and limited government. Those who promote Agenda 21 do not believe in those ideals. And so we will not agree on the path to the future. And our fight is just that – a clash of philosophy. There is very little room for middle ground.

The United States has never been part of a global village in which rules for life have been handed down by some self-appointed village elders.  We are a nation of laws that were designed to protect our right to our property and our individual life choices while keeping government reined in. We oppose Agenda 21 precisely because it represents the exact opposite view of government.

Let me begin by asking you a few questions. They may seem rather silly – but I have a point. So, please, just indulge me for a moment – just answer with a show of hands:

How many of you know of Adolf Hilter – and that he was evil? How many of you know Mao Tse Tung – and that he was evil? How many of you know of Lenin and Stalin – and that they were evil?

How many of you know of Maurice Strong – and that he is evil?

They’ve called out the big guns!

And their intention is to crush me, the American Policy Center (APC) and our battle to stop the UN’s Agenda 21.

For years they ignored us as we tried to sound the alarm that Agenda 21 was a plan to completely transform our American form of government.

More recently they have attempted to make light of our battle, ridicule us and call us radical fringe conspiracy theorists.

But that mild tactic isn’t working.

Our successful and growing campaign against Agenda 21, that has caused more than 50 American communities to end their membership in the UN’s ICLEI; legislation in several states in support of private property rights; and a growing army of activists opposing Agenda 21 in nearly every city in the country – has scared them!

So today, they intend to stop us now – forever And they are sparing no expense – they are using everything they have to crush us.

First, they are using their power in the main-stream media to label us at a bunch of nuts who could be violent.

Who am I talking about? All the forces on the Left who are pushing the UN’s Agenda 21 into nearly every community in our nation.

These include, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI); the American Planning Association (APA); the Sierra Club: and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to name a very few.

They have massive war chests, powerful government contacts, and an agenda to transform America’s government structure.

And APC is in their way!  So now they are using all of their influence, power and money to stop me.

It started last December as the Washington Post ran a story on Anti- Agenda 21 activists in Virginia that have organized to stop Sustainable Development programs (Agenda 21) in numerous cities. The Post article painted these activists as extremists, using terms like “ultra conservative.” They accused us of “shouting down” officials, and “delaying” public planning meetings.

In February, a front page article in the New York Times carried a headline “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” Again, our cause was reported to the public as being just a bunch of nuts stopping the hard work of legitimate government.

Said one news article entitled “Anatomy of a conspiracy theory,” “it’s a really good scare story. It’s big on fear, it’s big on fiction, and it’s short on fact.”

Planners who are busy enforcing Agenda 21 in communities across the country, are portrayed in most of the news media as just honest professionals who are trying to do their job, but are being bothered and delayed from their work by these bothersome right wing fanatics.

There is no attempt to even consider our position. We are just nuts to be pushed aside and out of the way. 

These are extreme tactics by an elite who do not want you to have a say in how your property or your life is going to be affected by these policies.

While attacking me, groups like the American Planning Association are feverishly working to cover their tracks and hide their true intent. In fact, the APA is now organizing “boot camps” to train their people to counter and attack our efforts against Agenda 21.

In each of these articles, and in many more that have been published across the country, I and APC have been singled out as the leader of the anti-Agenda 21 movement.

Certainly I and APC are leaders in an effort to oppose government policy – but never have we advocated violence or civil disobedience – but that is what we are being accused of.

They intend to stop at nothing to make sure our movement is crushed.

And here is why their attacks and charges against me and APC are so dangerous.

Most recently the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has singled me out in an article entitled “Antigovernment Conspiracy Theorists Rail Against UN’s Agenda 21 Program.”

In another article SPLC issued about APC’s Freedom Action Conference last year, it reported “Patriot Rhetoric Becomes Increasingly Violent,” and it said participants at our conference were “united by rage.”

I am not “anti-government.” I am against a government “policy” (Agenda 21/Susatainable Development) that I believe is BAD for our country.  My opposition to this policy is no different than any opposition to policy that has ever been debated in the halls of congress, in presidential debates, or in letters to the editor.

It’s simply freedom of speech – the right to speak out against issues.  It’s honest, open debate. But those enforcing Agenda 21 do not want open debate. They work behind the scenes, in back rooms, hiding their efforts.        

But, the reason the attack by the SPLC is so dangerous is that this far- left hate group has very close ties to the federal Department of Home land Security.

The SPLC runs government-sanctioned police training programs, in which they teach law enforcement officers that groups like APC are possible domestic terrorists that need to be watched.

In 2009 the SPLC helped the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to produce a document entitled “Right-wing Extremism…” that labeled anyone who advocates Constitutional authority is a potential domestic terrorist.

A few weeks later, with the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center, DHS issued a second report entitled “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” in which DHS said those Americans who express concerns over the economy, loss of jobs, antagonism towards the Obama Administration, anti-abortion, anti- illegal immigration, and oppose global governance – are extremists, bordering on terrorism.         

In 2010, The SPLC specifically targeted me and the American Policy Center and out “Freedom Action Conference” we held in Valley Forge, PA in a report entitled “Patriot Rhetoric Becomes Increasingly Violent.” They said we were “united by rage.”

Now, the SPLC has specifically targeted my efforts against Agenda 21.

I take the SPLC involvement in the growing attacks on our anti-Agenda 21 efforts as a dire threat against me, APC and all the patriots now opposing Agenda 21 in communities across the nation.

It could lead to government-monitored tea party meetings; charges of conspiracy against the government and even arrest and jail for those of us who are speaking out in opposition to Agenda 21.

I will not stop. I will not surrender to their threats.

I’m a big boy. I can take their personal attacks. But I need to do more than be their punching bag and the brunt of their jokes. I need to punch back.  I need to counter their lies to bring more Americans into our camp against Agenda 21.

I’ve had tremendous success wherever I can get a voice where people can hear my message. Hundreds of anti-Agenda 21 groups have sprung from my efforts. Debates against this very dangerous policy are being waged in city halls nationwide. More elected officials are now listening to us and legislation is starting to be introduced in state legislatures against Agenda 21 policy.

But now that our opponents are stepping up their efforts to stop us, now that the news media is being used to label us as dangerous extremists, all of our success could be wiped out. Worse, legal action could be taken against me, APC and others who have bravely stood up to stop Agenda 21.    

I’ve brought a lot of people into this fight and now I have to provide them with the means to fight back. I have to counter their control of the news media. I have to reach more elected officials on the federal, state and local level to counter the influence of the SPLC.

And for that I need your help.

I have been busy creating new tools to teach activists how to fight back. I wrote to you a few weeks ago about my new “Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit.” That’s just a start.

I am now working with another activist to create a training seminar that will be aired over the Internet. We will teach activists across the country how to counter the lies and the attacks of the American Planning Association and ICLEI.

As I’m sure you know, I am busy speaking across the nation. Last year I was in 12 states delivering 38 talks on Agenda 21. This year, so far, I have been in 10 states delivering 17 talks, with many more to come.

In between trips I am writing articles and being interviewed on the radio and television. Already this year I have been on Fox News, Janet Parshall’s radio show and on the Francis Swaggart television show, to name just a few.

And that busy, successful effort to reach the public about Agenda 21 has made me the number one target of the Agenda 21 forces.

These people we are fighting have massive war chests of money (mostly taken from your tax dollars). They have control of the news media. And they have strong ties to powerful politicians.

But you and I have the truth.

I need your help to get that truth out.

I need your financial support – now more than I ever have before.

The only thing that keeps me and APC in this battle is your generous financial support of my activities. You are the reason we have achieved so much. Without you I could have done none of it.

There would be no articles, no interviews and no travel without you. There would be no American Policy Center and no DeWeese Report. Your donations make it possible.

CJ,  Will you help me now – as I am under the most severe and dangerous attacks of my life?

Will you, today, send a contribution? I’ve never needed it more than I do now. It will keep me on the road. It will give me the time needed to produce more writings, attend vital meetings, and organize with leaders across the country.

In short, your financial  support buys me time!  What ever amount, please send it today – as the attacks and the urgency to fight back is growing with each passing day.

In fact, the very best way you can help me stay in this fight is to pledge a contribution of $10, $15 or even $25.

The American Policy Center has fought to stop Agenda 21 for nearly 20 years. I have been beating a drum beat of warning. I have sounded the alarm that Agenda 21 will destroy America’s Constitutional Republic and replace it with a top-down control of government in which you have no vote on what government does.

Surely today you feel that is happening at every level of government – surely you can see that government will not listen. This is what I have been warning you about. This is what I am fighting to stop. – a government out of control  – a government of tyranny.

Finally, Americans are starting to listen and to fight back. The forces of tyranny are running scared, desperate to stop me and APC. Now is the time for you and me to step up our efforts and stop THEM!

Through this long fight for American liberty, you have been a loyal supporter of APC. Please step up now to keep APC in this fight against these massive and dangerous attacks.

Together you and I can defeat them – and they know it.

For Liberty,

Tom DeWeese
President
americanpolicy.org/donate

P.S.  The Left is doing everything possible to crush APC’s fight against Agenda 21. But we are gaining ground as thousands of activists in hundreds of communities are taking up the fight. I desperately need your support right now to continue to lead this fight on to victory. Please help me.

Such is the case now with the enforcers of Agenda 21 and its policy called Sustainable Development. For the past several years, those imposing this policy have denied its United Nations origins, ignoring the many documents that clearly prove that the very term “sustainable development” can easily be traced back to the 1987 UN report titled, “Our Common Future.” That radical report has been used by the UN as a virtual springboard for a “wrenching transfor- mation” (Al Gore’s words) of human society. The words “sustainable development” are used in nearly every federal, state, and local development plan; on nearly every federal, state, and local government web site; and in nearly every public statement on new development policies. We even had a President’s Council on Sustainable Development, created by an Executive Order of Bill Clinton, with the stated purpose to impose the policies of Agenda 21 into United States law. Many serving on the Council helped write Agenda 21, including John Sawhill of the Nature Conservancy, Jay Hair of the National Wildlife Federation and Michele Perrault, international Vice President of the Sierra Club.

So, the exact words “Sustainable Development” come from UN documents and its exact policies are imposed at the local level – yet, we are told by its proponents, none of these development plans have anything to do with UN policy. It’s an amazing tap dance. As local residents question their county commissioners, city councilmen, mayors, state legislators, and governors about the origins of their policies, it has become routine for these “representatives of the people” to get a puzzled look on their faces and a wrinkle in their brows, as they say, “I’ve never heard of Agenda 21.” “That’s just a conspiracy theory.”

Yes, we’ve heard it for years now. But as more and more citizens begin to learn the truth and opposition builds, what is the response of the Sustainablists? Do they now stand up and proudly defend their policies?” Do they attempt to open debate and allow other voices to be heard in a legitimate discussion about our “Common Future?” Do they try to find reasonable solutions for citizens who have become victims of such policies? None of the above.

First they have ignored those protests with the usual, “don’t know what they are talking about.” Then they have tried to ridicule those of us who have led the charge against the policy, calling it a conspiracy theory. As our anti-Agenda 21 movement has picked up steam, they have enlisted the big guns to attack our credibility, including front page articles in the New York Times, and in the pages of the Washington Post. Each of those articles took the position that protestors at public meetings are simply wasting the valuable time of legitimate professional planners who are just trying to do their jobs. How dare we question their motives or the origins of their schemes? There’s serious business going on here. Will the peasants please get out of the way of progress?

But such arrogant, strong armed tactics which used to confuse and disperse opposition has ceased to work. Too much information is out there and too many citizens have become victims of the policies of Sustainable Development. Opposition has become fierce and organized in the face of this wrenching transformation of our lives.

So, since they can’t beat us with strong arms, the Sustainablists are rushing to change the entire playing field, changing tactics, re-educating their storm troopers to employ non- confrontational new-speak, and rewriting the dictionary to “avoid polarizing jargon.” In an attempt to neutralize their opposition they seek to lull us all into believing the policies they continue to enforce aren’t Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. There is no hidden agenda, they now promise. It’s just local planning by local officials, so they claim with a straight face.

Hiding their agenda in “new speak”

The worst of the worst of the Sustainablists is the American Planning Association (APA). So panicked is this American Trojan Horse over growing opposition to its policies that APA has organized a “Boot Camp” to teach its operatives how to counter our opposition. Recently APA released a memo entitled “Glossary for the Public.” It is quite telling on how an organization that is supposed to be one of the most respected planning groups in the nation, operating in nearly every city, will teach its people to lie at all costs in order to maintain their power and influence in our communities.

Say’s the introduction to this memo, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” Here is a list of words the APA warns planners not to use – because they cause “critics to see red,” as they have become “highly politicized and generate suspicion among some citizens:”
Affordable; Agenda 21; Collaboration; Consensus; Delphi technique; Density; Livable; Localized planning; Long-term; region-wide planning; Organize and facilitate; Public visioning; Public- Private Partnerships; Regional, regionalism, regional planning; Smart growth; Stakeholders; Sustainability; Walkable.

So, the very policy they are implementing, the policy they have invoked time and again – Sustainability – is no longer to be used. So, what instead? Say’s the APA memo, “Some may find the words “district‟ or “central‟ to be an indication of a “top down‟ or “Big Brother‟ process. Using the common word “downtown‟ or “business area‟ may be more neutral and preferable.”

More words not to use: “Code enforcement, design review, design review standards.” Why? Explains the APA memo, “Avoid talking about or linking plans and planning with regulatory matters.” It is apparently necessary to point out to these stealth controllers of our lives that their planning process has everything to do with regulatory matters and that is precisely why we are objecting to and
fighting their policies in the first place!

It’s the “regulatory matters” that are taking our private property rights and creating victims.

More words to be eliminated: Councils of governments; metropolitan planning organizations; regional planning; Density; clusters; Eminent domain; police powers; Green infrastructure; Mixed-use development; Urban growth boundary; Zoning; and many more. The entire language of Sustainable Development is to be eliminated. And yet, says the memo to the planners – “stay on message.”
What will the message now be? Some examples of the new speak now provided by the APA: “We have a responsibility to think through the long term consequences of our decisions. Planning enables us to do that.” “We need to understand together how to make sure our local community and our local economy are strong enough for our children to grow up and have a good life here. Planning helps us do that.” We need to make decisions that are careful, cost effective, efficient, and fair to everybody. That is the purpose of this meeting. There is no hidden agenda.”

In every one of those canned descriptions of the “planning process” you will find the tenets of Agenda 21. The use of the word we is the standard “Delphi technique” of the consensus process they are trying to hide. The reference to the future for the children is right out of the UN Agenda 21 definition: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Of course, as we have learned, that to accomplish such an innocent-sounding goal, means locked away lands and resources. Agenda 21.

The APA intends to dazzle citizens with meaningless statements designed to appeal to their personal interests, appeal to their local patriotism, and crush them with the results when they aren’t watching.

As Henry Lamb, of Freedom 21 describes the true American tradition of planning, “The process is truly similar to a sausage-making machine. At open meetings, ordinary citizens are free to suggest new ideas about community needs, for consideration by the governing authority. Other citizens are free to oppose those ideas. Ultimately the elected officials discuss and debate the suggestions then vote.” Now is that so hard? But none of those easy and established practices of honest and open government are used by the APA and their ilk. In fact, they are adamantly opposed and crushed every step of the way.

The American Planning Association and their allies have chosen to counter the anti-Agenda 21 movement with lies, double speak and stealth. Why? Aren’t they proud of their policies? I guess Seattle planner J.Gary Lawrence said it best when he admitted several years ago that “participating in a U.N. advocated planning process would very likely bring out many…who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21. So we will call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” Now, even those words have caught up with their secret agenda. Soon they will have to start inventing their own words.

How to fight back

However, those citizens who want to end this deception and take back their communities don’t have to wait for the next round of lies and secret tactics. They can begin to fight back right now.

As many know, I have been working to create a “Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit.” It’s now ready and it is the most comprehensive tool ever created to provide a complete education on Agenda 21 and the tools necessary to combat it. With this specially designed Action Kit you and I can begin to turn the tables on those who are working at every level of government to destroy our unique system of freedom. You will be fully armed to stand up to any challenge presented; any planner trained by the APA to lie; and to any elected official who still proclaims ignorance of Agenda 21.

Included in the Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit are four DVD presentations; an overview presentation of Agenda 22 by me; connecting the dots to other issues by Dr. Michael Coffman; connecting the dots to the public education curriculum by Mike Chapman; and connecting the dots to rural areas and farming by Don Casey. In addition, there are two workshops; one presented by Beverly Eakman on tactics to stop the group manipulation tactics (consensus); and a workshop presented by Dan Byfield of American Stewards of Liberty on “Coordination.” The Kit also includes manuals from each of these experts. In addition, there is a 14 minute power point presentation created by by John Anthony specifically designed for showing to busy elected officials.

But, that’s not all in the Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit. Included is a detailed manual, with a complete history of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, from the back rooms of the UN to local government. In addition, it details policies such as regionalism; sustainable farming, conservation easements, sustainable medicine; the lies of global warming; smart growth; the Agenda 21 links to the education curriculum and to Christian churches; and more details about ICLEI than you have probably ever seen. In addition, the manual details the top planning groups, their histories and their planning goals.

And more: The heart of the Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit is the Work Book. Here you will find details on how to fight back; a primer on creating a Property Rights Council; copies of actual legislation being used successfully to protect rights and repeal regulations; how to begin researching these policies in your town; links to Agenda 21 and the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development; analysis of actual development plans, showing their direct links to Agenda 21; actual documents from the Federal Register showing direct links between the Environmental Protection Agency and Agenda 21; and a speaker’s bureau featuring some of the top experts in the nation that you can bring to your community. Above all, the workbook includes reprintable handouts that you can use at public meetings. There is even a CD containing those handouts that you can load into your computer and copy from there.

And finally, there is a manual with stories of the victims of Sustainable Development – people who have lost their homes; seen their livelihoods destroyed; even gone to jail for offences as silly as filling in a ditch. These stories are important because the Sustainablists like the American Planning Association will again get that puzzled look on their faces and that wrinkle in their brow as they say, “why, I’ve never heard of anyone being victimized by these policies.” After reading these horror stories you’ll never again question if you are right or not. The drive for justice will keep you in the fight.

I’ve worked on this project for months trying to be certain that it contains everything possible to help activists fight back. I have consulted activists about what tools they need and I have worked with the top experts to provide them. The full Stop Agenda 21 Action Kit can be ordered from the American Policy Center Web site at http://americanpolicy.org.

For over 20 years, Agenda 21 has made a steady, unchecked advance across America, eradicating property rights in the name of Sustainable Development, while cloaked in environmentally friendly terms like open space, smart growth and climate change. It is changing our style of government, our way of life, and our hope for a happy, peaceful future.

The latest tactics by the American Planning Association reveals the dark intent of the Sustainablists and the lengths they will go to hide their goals. Honest intent doesn’t have to hide in lies and double speak. Those are the tactics of tyranny.

Arm yourselves well, my fellow freedom fighters. Arm yourselves with the truth of the tyranny of Agenda 21. Get the knowledge. Learn their tactics — and let’s take these liars down as we take America back.

A little history: in 1972, as the environmental movement was getting its start through popular efforts to stop pollution in our rivers and air, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (later called the Clean Water Act).The law prohibited the discharge of pollutants into “navigable waters” without a federal permit. The problems began when the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers made a power grab by enforcing the act over ponds, occasional mud puddles, and even dry lands by labeling them as wet lands.

The result has been disastrous to property owners and businesses, sometimes even leading to jail sentences to “violators.”

The result of such outrageous interpretations of the Clean Water Act has led Senator Paul to introduce his bill to do the following:

Redefine “navigable waters” to explicitly clarify that waters must actually be navigable in fact, or “permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water that form geographical features commonly known as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes that are connected to waters that are navigable-in- fact.”

 Excludes ephemeral or intermittent streams – the streams that sometimes form when rain falls – from federal jurisdiction.

 Restrains the EPA and Army Corps from regulating or “interpreting” the definition of a navigable water without Congressional authorization.

 Protects the rights of states to have primary authority over the land and water within their borders.  Prohibits federal agents from entering private
property without the express consent of the landowner

 Requires the government to pay double the value of the land to any landowner whose property value is diminished by a wetlands designation.

Why is it necessary to write such juvenile-sounding legislation to define what any reasonable person should already understand? Who doesn’t know what a river is? Apparently the EPA and Army Corps have little regard for such details as they zealously attack private property in the name of environmental protection. American citizens have been literally terrorized by these agencies and the consequences have been dire.

Some examples:

 Florida resident Ocie Mills planned to build a dream house for his son. He brought in 19 loads of clean building sand, cleared a dry ditch and began filling the ditch with sand to level the ground for the foundation. The Army Corps of Engineers sent him a notice demanding he immediately stop the fill because they considered the property to be a wet land. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulations (DER) sent out an agent who determined that the land was not a wetlands. Ocie resumed dumping fill on the foundation site. The Army Corps disagreed and sent US Marshalls to arrest Ocie and his son. In a trial with no legal representation Ocie was not allowed to submit evidence that the DER did NOT consider his land a wetland. As a result a panel of three federal judges sentenced both Ocie and his son to 21 months in jail with no parole and a fine of $5,250 each. Six years later in a retrial a judge ruled that the land was not a wetlands.

 John Pozgai served a three year prison term for violating the Clean Water Act on his property in Pennsylvania. His crime? Pozgai, a first generation immigrant who escaped communist Eastern Europe, bought property that was being used as an illegal dump. The dump contained a storm water drainage system and a storm water drainage ditch dating back to 1936. The township was responsible for maintaining the drainage ditch but failed to do so, and that failure caused flooding on the adjacent road and in the Pozgai home. It had done so for 20 years. When Pozgai bought the land he began to clean out thousands of dumped tires, many of which were blocking the storm water drainage ditch. The Army Corps of Engineers declared the standing water caused by the plugged drainage ditch to be a wetlands. John Pozgai, who survived the tyranny of communism, couldn’t beat the outrages of environmental zealots empowered with the force of government, which refuses to recognize private property rights.

 Charlie Johnson’s family has been growing cranberries on his small farm near Carver, Massachusetts since the 1920s. The federal government prepared to take Johnson to court, claiming that many of the cranberry bogs were created in violation of the 1972 Clean Water Act. The EPA asked for permission to enter Johnson’s property to collect data. Johnson gave his approval, believing he had nothing to hide. He later discovered that the EPA wanted to return his land to wetlands under the assumption that wetland conditions existed on the property before Johnson’s cranberry bogs were constructed. He explained the bogs were originally constructed on dry sandy land that formerly contained a variety of forested uplands. The EPA based its theory on a number of small aerial photos taken during spring thaws when much of the land is underwater because of melting snow. If Johnson loses his case he will be force to destroy his cranberry bogs and convert his property to artificial wetlands.

These are just a very few examples of the tyranny raining down on honest Americans who are simply trying to use their land and live in peace. When confronted by government officials they went to the “proper” authorities to assure they did the right thing. Many times they were misdirected by those very government agents and then trapped by it. Then they were fined, harassed and some went to jail for their “crimes.”

There is no room in a free society for such power-mad zealots in our government. Senator Paul’s bill is designed to bring a semblance of sanity and reason back to environmental regulations.
The EPA, Army Corps and other agencies of the government have been using the intimidation of government power to enforce the policies of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. These policies do not recognize private property rights and they have made a sham out of the rule of law and the court system, replacing it with rule by edict. Until now these outlaw agencies have terrorized American citizens without interference or control by their rightful masters – Congress.

However, little by little, in state legislatures and now in Congress, new legislation is being proposed to return sanity and control. Senator Paul’s Defense of Environment and Property Act is a start. It must be supported by everyone who professes allegiance to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. With such action, step by step, we can restore that Republic of our Founders. Call your Senators and demand they support S.2122.

Fighting Back

The battle to stop Agenda 21 in local communities and in state legislatures has taken several varied but effective paths. In my travels to speak to more than 38 groups in 12 states in 2011, I have been privilege to meet and work with some of the most amazing activists I’ve even encountered. I’ve also been able to meet with state legislators in four states, along with a large number of county commissioners and city councilmen – all eager to learn about Agenda 21 and how to stop it. Here are some of the results of their work in countering the massive power of those enforcing Agenda 21 across the nation:

Communities Leaving ICLEI

It started last January, 2011 in Carroll County, Maryland, as the newly elected Board of Commissioners, led by Richard Rothschild, voted to cancel the county’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). At the same time the Commission also terminated the contract of the county’s sustainable development director, and they sent the county planning commission back to the drawing board for the state-mandated comprehensive development plan – with instructions to not resubmit it until it protected private property rights and complied with the U.S, Constitution. Little did these new commissioners know, they were at the head of a tidal wave that was about to sweep the nation.

Following Carroll County, next came Amador County, California, as the county commissioners voted to end their membership in ICLEI; then came Montgomery County, PA; followed by Edmond, Oklahoma, Las Cruces, New Mexico. The successful battle against ICLEI in Spartanburg, South Carolina was sparked by County Commissioner Roger Nutt; Virginia became a hotbed of activity against Agenda 21 and ICLEI, especially through the efforts of activists like Donna Holt, Cathy Turner and Charles Battig, to name a few. As a result of their efforts, Albemarle County, Virginia (home of Thomas Jefferson), James City County, Virginia (where America basically started at James Town), Abington, Virginia and Lexington, Virginia, have all voted to throw ICLEI out; we can now add to this list Plantation. Florida; Carver, Massachusetts; Pinellas, Florida; Garland, Texas; Sarasota, Florida; Clallam County, Washington; Monmouth County, New Jersey, Chatham County, North Carolina and Somerset County, New Jersey.

Unofficial reports indicate that at least 54 communities have withdrawn from ICLEI in 2011 (though I don’t have all of them listed here because we don’t have official verification). In addition, while ICLEI set a goal of 1000 American cities as members by 2015, indications are that only 17 new cities joined ICLEI this past year. That would be a net reduction of 37!

Property Rights Council

As I arrived in Idaho last September to speak, I was told that a county commissioner wanted to have dinner with me. I said, fine. I’ve gotta eat! What I received from that dinner was nothing short of stunning. As I arrived at the restaurant I was ushered into a back room where about eight people awaited me, including Bonner County, Idaho attorney Scott Bauer and Bonner County Commissioner Cornel Rasor. They began to lay out a full-blown presentation for a plan to protect property rights in their county. They called it a Property Rights Council. This was to be an official arm of the county government, complete with a full time employee and a selected council of citizens who would oversee all county legislation and regulations to assure they didn’t violate private property rights. In addition, the plan was to connect the council’s activities with a state wide network of free market think tanks that would help make such judgments on the proposed legislation. Amazing idea! I mentioned it in my monthly report to APC supporters and it became a sensation. Tennessee activist Karen Bracken picked up the idea, spent hours discussing every detail with attorney Bauer and quickly organized a conference call of national activist leadership, and the idea is now spreading across the nation. Property Rights Councils will be an invaluable tool to counter ICLEI’s near total control of county government.

State Legislative Activity Against Agenda 21 It has truly been amazing to see anti-Agenda 21 efforts in state legislatures across the nation. My report here is only a fraction of the activities actually taking place, as I literally can’t keep up with the many meetings, hearings and resulting legislation that is being introduced. But here are a few of the highlights:

In the state of Washington, State Representative Matt Shea is succeeding in creating an ―Anti-Agenda 21 Caucus,‖ designed to educate fellow legislators to the dangers of Agenda 21 and to block passage or any such legislation. Eight House Members have joined so far.
A bill (Assembly Bill 303) has been introduced by Representative Mary Williams into the state legislature of Wisconsin to repeal state mandated smart growth legislation.

Smart growth legislation has been passed in almost very state and is the Sustainablist’s main weapon to enforce Agenda 21 policy in every county. Repeal of such legislation gives the local government the right to choose whether it wants to participate in Sustainable planning or not. The bill has already passed the Wisconsin House and is awaiting action in the state Senate.

Similar legislation has already been passed and signed by the Governor in the state of Florida. That means that Florida counties are now free from state mandates to write and impose comprehensive development plans.
The state of New Hampshire has two landmark bills before it. First is HB 1634, introduced by Rep. Amy Cartwright which prohibits ―the state counties or towns from implementing programs of, expending money for, receiving funds from, or contracting with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).‖ The second bill prohibits federal, state and local government agents from entering private property without the property owner’s written permission.

Republican National Committee Passes Anti- Agenda 21 Resolution

On Friday, January 13, 2012, Helen Van Etten, Republican National Committeewoman from Kansas, sponsored a resolution entitled ―Resolution Exposing United Nations Agenda 21.‖ It was adopted during the RNC’s general session that day. This resolution may now be used by all opponents of Agenda 21 to help convince lawmakers that this is a threat serious enough that one of the two major political parties now understands and opposes it. All Republican officeholders now have a valuable tool to stand united and oppose Agenda 21 – if they choose to use it. It is also a major weapon for local activists, who, till now have fought alone, constantly labeled fringe conspiracy theorists.

Mainstream Conservative Movement and Candidates Join The Fight

In addition, The Heritage Foundation has now acknowledged the threat of Agenda 21, in an article entitled ―Agenda 21 and the Threat in Our Backyard.‖ This is a sign that the mainstream Conservative movement is coming on board in the Agenda 21 fight.
A few months ago, I was contacted by the Newt Gingrich campaign after he had been pummeled with questions about his position on Agenda 21. When his answers weren’t satisfactory to the crowd, people shouted ―Call Tom DeWeese,‖ and he did. A few weeks later Gingrich appeared on the Sean Hannity radio show talking about Agenda 21, and then he even brought it up in one of the debates.

In his last week on Fox News, Glenn Beck used some of his remaining precious air time on an international news network to expose Agenda 21. I was very please to have been contacted by his producers to provide information for the program. And Beck provided a link the American Policy Center’s website so viewers could learn more.

The tin foil is falling off of our hats rapidly as the fight against Agenda 21 is quickly escalating into the main stream of the political debate.

Breaking up Consensus Meetings

One of the chief tools used by the pro-Agenda 21 forcesistheuseoftrainedfacilitatorsandconsensusmeetings. These are psychology-driven sessions designed to reach a predetermined outcome, as the participants are led to believe it is their own idea. It’s very effective in countering our arguments that Agenda 21 is implemented behind closed doors, against the will of the people. Of course, behind those closed doors is where the predetermined outcome and the tactics to enforce it is, well, determined.

That’s all starting to change as anti-Agenda 21 forces are learning counter techniques. First, author Beverly Eakman has produced a book entitled ―How To Counter Group Manipulation Tactics.‖ Beverly has studied this tactics for years and has learned how to stop its progress. Created by the Rand Corporation and known as the Delphi Technique, the process depends on the fact that there is no debate, no open discussion and no dissention allow. Beverly’s book show how that can be turned around on the facilitator, and in effect, ruin his day and his meeting’s outcome. Beverly teaches activist how to lay low and quietly upset the process. Others have taken a more blunt, in-you-face approach. It works too!

Case in point, at a recent meeting in San Francisco, about 50 anti-Agenda 21 citizens turned out for yet another controlled consensus meeting, only they refused to play by the rules (key to messing up the pre-planned process). They spoke out, they video-taped the process, they refused to put their names on sign up sheets (an intimidation tactic used by the Sustainablists), they continually corrected the facilitator’s incorrect statements, they did not participate in the ―phony voting process,‖ (again a tactic used in the Delphi technique to make you think you had a part in the outcome. As soon as you take one step in becoming part of the process, even to vote no, you are in the process). The protestors refused to give their names to the media and they brought in cameras and signs. Above all, they passed out flyers to every participant explaining the process being used on them and telling them their rights in a free assembly. No one was arrested in this process. Take away the power of consensus and you have gone a long way toward stopping Agenda 21. It simply cannot be implemented in a free, open society of free debate and transparency in government, as our local, state and federal governments were designed to be.

So, there you have it, a brief rundown of the growing battle to stop Agenda 21. 2011 was an amazing year in this fight to resort the Republic. But 2012 is already shaping up to be the year we finally crush Agenda 21.