AGENDA 21- OBAMA'S RURAL COUNCIL EXECUTIVE ORDER
ATTACK OF THE NGOs
White House Rural Council
Agenda 21 and Obama’s Rural Council?
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh, June 14, 2011, Canada FreePress
On June 9, 2011, an Executive Order established the White House Rural Council with 25 executive branch departments including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, National Drug Control, Environmental Quality, Labor, Commerce, Interior, EPA, Housing, Health, Education to name just a few.
The order covers 16% of the American population who lives in rural counties because they “supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation.”
“Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential in winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead.” What kind of future are we supposed to win? Are we losers right now? This is very vague, what years ahead?
“To enhance the Federal Government’s efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities.” As a world traveler, I can attest that Americans already have the highest standard of living in rural areas, prosperity, and excellent quality of life when compared to anybody else.
A recent article in Washington Post appeared with the innocuous title, “What we need: Smarter growth plans.” The author is Roger K. Lewis, a practicing architect and professor emeritus at the University of Maryland. Who can possibly object to “smarter growth plans?” Except that “smart growth plans” is the euphemism used by the United Nations for its Agenda 21, a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty.
Roger K. Lewis suggests that “smart growth” was designed by market forces driven by “green building.” He makes no mention of Agenda 21 and ICLEI objectives and intrusion into our society since the early 1970s or the agreement signed in 1992 that went under the radar of the American people’s understanding of the complex negative ramifications for our economy and our liberties.
I have not met Americans who think, “sprawl-producing planning, zoning and mortgage templates are obsolete” as the author claims. Would Americans willingly give up their land and homes with or without compensation in exchange for a move to a densely populated high-rise, with no parking garages, no access to cars, like rats fenced in a grey concrete maze?
Communist “social engineering” confiscated land and homes for agriculture. People were forced to move into many-storied, tiny cinder block apartments without any compensation for the land or homes bulldozed. They were forced to commute by bicycles or public transit.
Lewis deems subdivision developments with low-density, detached, single-family homes as outdated. He calls the areas educationally dysfunctional and unsafe. American suburbia was built, he says, on four assumptions that have lost validity today:
Unlimited supply of land
Inexpensive and inexhaustible supply of oil
Homogenous land use
The American dream to own and inhabit a mortgaged house.
I am not sure on what research Lewis based his conclusions, but we have huge domestic oil reserves if permits were issued to drill. We also have a vast land mass. Some areas have 70 or less inhabitants per square mile. Americans still want to own their own home and want to live in a homogeneous community of other homeowners. Just because power hungry bureaucrats at the United Nations have decided to “preserve” land and the environment for the future of the planet and its animals, neglecting the future of humans, does not mean Americans agree to this vision.
“Much of America’s land cannot and should not be developed.” Who are you to decide for us, Mr. Lewis and why? Last time I checked we were free people who determined their own life choices.
“Dependency on oil and limitless use of cars pose daunting environmental, economic, and geopolitical problems.” Who is going to decide the limit to our car use? Is it going to be done by law, more regulations, or executive order?
A handful of environmentalists, the EPA, and the United Nation’s dictators, using faulty debunked data from the University of East Anglia or phony research are trying to separate Americans from their land use, cars, trucks, and the open-wide roads.
Lewis continues his Agenda 21 fallacy. “The traditional nuclear family—mom, dad, two to three kids and one or two pets—is now a minority of America’s households.” I am positive that this man is not describing America that I know and see every day. His statements continue, “Today a majority of households are people, young or old, living alone; couples or sets of unrelated individuals of various ethnicities, ages and tastes.”
Agenda 21 and Mr. Lewis suggest building high-rises in “designated areas within municipalities where new development and re-development is feasible and desirable.” Affordable housing is a priority and so are environmental standards.
It is obvious that “smart growth plans” or Agenda 21 designed by United Nations will affect our future choices in how we live and where. EPA will be involved and will twist the arms of those who do not adopt “smart growth plans,” denying grants to states and cities and levying other penalties. By the time Americans realize the implications of Agenda 21“smart growth,” they will lose their homes and lands with no compensation. At least people who lost property under Eminent Domain have been compensated.
The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of 600 national, regional, and local government associations who promote “sustainable development” and protection of the environment because of man-made global warming that does not exist.
“Sustainable development” is the United Nations effort to contain and limit economic development in developed countries and thus control population growth. It is “sustainable de-growth,” plain and simple. The focus is “low-income agriculture” and to set limits on the developed world.
United Nations and its affiliates believe that first world countries polluted significantly during their development while urging third world countries to reduce pollution thus impeding their growth. Implementation of “sustainable development” would revert our society to a pre-modern lifestyle.
ICLEI wants to keep the environment as pristine as possible through “ideal-seeking behavior.” These euphemisms are not clearly defined in terms of what or who will evaluate or set the standards for this “ideal-seeking behavior.”
Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure to manage, count, and control assets. It is not concerned with protecting the environment or the world’s resources. Agenda 21 wants change from old sector-centered ways of doing business to new approaches. The “desired future state” should be to pursue “economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity.”
“Social equity” is the new euphemism for “social justice” the Marxists in our government have been using a lot lately. Who gave them the authority and the mandate to initiate such change? I do not remember the American people being asked through a referendum whether we wanted our way of life to be fundamentally changed according to mandates set up by the United Nations. How will population growth control be achieved in order to protect the precious environment?
There are four tiers to UN’s “sustainable development” plan:
In 2001 UNESCO, in The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, stated that cultural diversity is as important as biodiversity in the sense of a more satisfactory, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence. Who is to decide the level and quality of the population’s satisfaction, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence? Human needs must be met while preserving the environment for the future. Again, who will decide what our needs are in order to preserve the future?
In February 2011 in Nairobi, Kenya, ICLEI attended a United Nations conference as representative of the interests of local governments. “In collaboration with partners such as UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance and ICLEI, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Protection) is working to make cities more livable, better prepared for the multiple environmental challenges they are facing, as well as giving them a stronger voice in the international climate negotiations.” Last time I checked, global warming has been debunked as a hoax and UN rapidly changed its name to climate change, continuing the attempt to fleece developed countries. In addition, who decides these international climate negotiations and why? What are we negotiating? Carbon credits?
In October 2009 in Bangkok, ICLEI stated, “local governments are offering national governments our partnership in the fight against climate change.” ICLEI wants local governments to collaborate with national governments to fight against climate change, the very change that has been scientifically debunked.
Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states clearly, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation, ...No State shall,... enter into an Agreement or Compact with another State or with a foreign power…” The counties and cities that are members of ICLEI in the U.S. through its national organization are attempting to implement foreign policy, which our Constitution forbids. What mayors and municipal governments are doing is plain unconstitutional.
“Mayors and local governments set forth the following commitments to implement sub-national, national, and international frameworks by providing resources, authority, and mandate to carry forward climate protection roles and responsibilities.”
There is no law or act of Congress to authorize the aiding and abetting of foreign policy globalism by state and local governments. We have to protect our sovereignty by banning cities and counties to be members of ICLEI, an organization that promotes United Nation’s Agenda 21/“smart growth” which is detrimental to American economic interests, liberty, and sovereignty.
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Most recent columns
“Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Modern Conservative, Anystreet.org, Romanian Conservative, Lucianne) and speaker who recently published a book about her 20-year experience with communist life, “Echoes of Communism,” available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, social engineering, and confiscation of property, among other subjects.
Dr. Johnson can be reached at: email@example.com
From the Federal Register: Title 3-- The President [[Page 34841]]
Executive Order 13575 of June 9, 2011 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-06-14/html/2011-14919.htm
RURAL AMERICANS – FARMERS – ANYONE WHO EATS: BEWARE
"We are from the Government and We are here to Help!"
JUNE 9, 2011
President legislates from the Oval Office and signs Executive Order to ensure Rural America will participate in Agenda 21 goals. Globalization and its implementation arm - ICLEI getting a Partner to reach into Rural America.
SUMMARY OF THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER:
1. Federal Control of Rural American Resources (Food, Health, Energy, Education/Schools, Property, Water and Lives).
2. Increased Federal Regulation through Executive Order (Legislation from the Oval Office) (http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/warber0606.htm
3. More Regulation of Food production
4. More Regulation of Land use
5. Agenda 21 implementation accelerates in Rural America
6. Implementation of Cap and Trade
“identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities”.
7. No definitions of what “Rural America” is. Matter of fact, no definitions at all.
8. More Lawmaking through Regulation (State and Local levels)
9. More State/County Control over your city/town due to grant money distribution
10. Less Local participation due to Regionalization
11. More Federal Jobs funded at Tax Payer Expense
12. Rights Issues: Your Voice. You can not “Un-elect” appointed committee members. You can not contact your elected representative on an issue because this is legislation through committee regulation. (Strings attached to all that tax payer funded grant money)
Read Full Executive Order Below or at link provided:
EXECUTIVE ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE WHITE HOUSE RURAL COUNCIL http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2011ruralcouncil_eo_rel.pdf
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU?
First of all I want you to read the opening paragraph: See the word “sustainable”? Replace it with the word “ACCEPTABLE”. That is what sustainable means. This Executive Order is all about the Feds telling rural America what is acceptable to THEM. It is no longer a local choice, or locally controlled. The Feds, several states, counties, and local governments have already fallen into the ICLEI (http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=global-themes
) trap and have begun to implement parts of Agenda 21 through their governments. With this Executive Order, the Feds have moved to escalate their implementation in Rural America.
Ask yourself why do we need a rural program that proposes: “The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands”? We just passed universal health care, and I do not know of any community that does not have educational facilities for all of its residents. How do you think the Feds foster economic growth under this plan? (Jobs, deficits, spending, economic decline – not revenue – is the problem.)
This executive Order touts the expansion of outdoor activities on public lands when the reality the feds have already exposed their plans to cut back access to public lands, and have infringed on property rights, land and water rights. (See http://www.morphcity.com/home/90-epic-fail-global-warming-solutions
Just how will the Feds control the local government? Through grants. Yes -money. Your tax dollars. The feds will set aside money for rural communities, administered by the state, to institute grant (free money) programs that local communities gladly participate in. Local governments will look at this grant money as a way to supplement its dwindling budgets, and without question will agree to Federal requirements. Not only is this the process that has over-burdened states and local budgets for years – this is the process that has moved the federal agenda into every community in America.
This Executive Order gives control over our local planning and development to a Federal committee. We will no longer be able to voice our concerns, opinions, or grievances at the local level. This Executive Order virtually eliminates local government’s ability to set policies that benefit rural areas without approval from the Feds.
Why an APPOINTED committee to “coordinate” this effort? Committee members will be made by appointment of agencies, offices, and departments. This Executive Order sets up another committee to regulate all aspects of rural life. Residents and local governments will have no opportunity to redress any grievances as these appointees are not elected.
Why is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) involved so the Federal government can promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America? The majority of agencies listed in this Executive Order are already under DHS, and Janet Napolitano will sit on the council.
“The Department of Agriculture shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations”. So the funds are set aside. Right. We are broke yet we have money sitting ready for yet another expansion of the Federal government. With DHS oversight and the DHS unlimited budget - yes unlimited, I am sure the Feds have plenty of money to move this agenda right into rural America. (The Department of Homeland Security has no oversight as they directly report to the President, and the perk is that DHS can demand more funds from Congress as part of their written budget through fiscal year 2012 - not ask – but demand) Remember – no matter what YOU, the taxpayer will foot the bill for this expansion of government.
“The Council shall coordinate its policy development through the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council”. WHY do we need yet another council to cover a specific 16% of the country? Because Rural America still has some degree of control over resources, and we are resistant to globalization. This Executive Order allows the federal government to implement Agenda 21 right in the heart of America’s food basket. This ultimately could bring the end to rural life as we know it. By asking for the Agricultural departments to participate, they will mitigate resistance. Yes, control the food and you control the population. Think about this and research how well it worked out for California.
This Executive Order will coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas; and “identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities”. Geographic regions – i.e. Target Areas. Just like FEMA or states (http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/regionalism-death-of-the-american-system-of-government/
) completely regionalized. This Executive Order sets up regions and removes the barrier to ICLEI’s town-by-town focus and stream lines the effort to implement Agenda 21.
Finally: “This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations”. Remember there are no laws that restrict the Department of Homeland Security – thus, unlimited power over Rural America.
Under pretenses that are false (based on past statements, actions and performance), the Federal Government is attacking the United States using Agenda 21, ICLEI tactics but it is much more direct this time. The actions are simple and the results - measured but disastrous.
Ask yourself how the Federal Government’s agenda gets into our schools – into the thoughts of our children? The States offer grants or loans to schools. The State then promotes to or seeks out interested School Districts to apply. The same rules apply here. Every dollar has federal strings attached. The very same way this Executive Order will ensure rural America’s compliance and put our food supply in absolute danger through the Rural Council.
The government has the Rural Council to help "stimulate" the rural economy. The Feds just want to help, right? Their initial target audience will be agricultural organizations, Why? Say you are a farmer and a Federal Government representative knocks on your door asking you to apply for a loan or grant - just to help you out - would you think they would get very far? But if the [trusted cattle or growers' association, your neighbor] promoted it then you might be a lot more interested and believe everything to be on the up and up, right?
There is no doubt at all that Rural America in general is hurting right now; farmers are stretched and some have already had to suck in their pride to take one form of government assistance or another just to feed their families in this declining economy. When the government starts throwing this money out there with the support of trusted agricultural organizations the temptation to apply will be huge. But if the "help" is accepted the risk of losing is even greater.
The government never wants to give you something for nothing and while they speak out one side of their mouth telling you that this is to boost the dying economy, to help the rural communities and push forward on energy solutions... there will remain the high risk of default on loans and loopholes that farmers or businesses will have to jump through to receive grants. The red tape has "control" written all over it; it may even dictate what can or must be grown on a property just in order to be eligible to apply, whether accepted or not. In the short term, it may sound great but in the long term it will bankrupt farms and businesses, discredit once-trusted organizations and break the hearts and pride of generations of Rural Americans while at the same time limiting Americans who depend on our rural breadbaskets for food and further destroy the American Dollar.
I just want to remind everyone that Government money does not come from thin air; it comes from you and me, the American taxpayers. Every time the Feds hand out grants or loans we are footing the bill. The dollar is in free-fall, our economy is in the toilet, and we barrow 41 cents of every dollar. Just ask yourself, can we afford another Federal program?
Some say a one world government would be a good thing while others shy away but otherwise do nothing to stop it. Most Americans that do know there is more than a strong potential for a New World Order don't think it would be so bad assuming that the world would be governed by a document like the United States Constitution. But it has been proven by performance that Globalization will not be ruled by anything close to the rule of law.
The freedoms that have been known by older generations will not be shared by the new. The destruction of the United States Constitution is all but complete. We no longer have a 2 party system... we have the party of "d" AND "r" as one. We no longer have 3 branches of effective government... we have runaway presidents (plural), a legislative branch that either works against the people, puts on a show (generally right before an election cycle) or is bypassed altogether by executive order, presidential directorate or backdoor regulation (mainly through DHS agencies) AND lifetime justices who have done and will continue to do nothing about it. There is no 10th Amendment or 4th Amendment. The Patriot ACT supersedes the Constitution and the majority of your rights and freedoms are mere illusions that the government GRANTS you in order to keep you passive while they keep chipping away at the last bits of our foundation of freedom. There is no doubt that we are sitting on a time bomb.
Who WE Need To Contact: ALL OF US need to get this information out!
FARMERS (CATTLE, SHEEP, HORSES, POULTRY, FISH, MUSHROOMS, EGGS, CORN/PRODUCE, BERRIES, ETC)
CITY AND COUNTY COUNCILS
BULLSHIT NEWS STATIONS
PATRIOTIC ACTION NETWORKS
OUR STATE GOVERNMENTS
AGENDA 21 GROUPS
STATE TRIBES & TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR OFF-YEAR ELECTION
POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2012 ELECTIONS
LOCAL FARMERS (DAIRY, MEAT, VEG)
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
SMALL BUSINESSES IN RURAL AREAS
HUNTERS / BOATERS / OUTDOORSMEN
MOM & POP GROCERY STORES
YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, CO-WORKERS, YOUR INNER CIRCLE
ANYONE WHO NEEDS TO EAT TO LIVE
EXECUTIVE ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE WHITE HOUSE RURAL COUNCIL http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2011ruralcouncil_eo_rel.pdf
FARMERS BEWARE "We are from the Government and We are here to Help!"
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release June 9, 2011
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WHITE HOUSE RURAL COUNCIL
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to enhance Federal engagement with rural communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy.
Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.
To enhance the Federal Government's efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities.
Sec. 2. Establishment.
There is established a White House Rural Council (Council).
Sec. 3. Membership.
(a) The Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall also include the heads of the following executive branch departments, agencies, and offices:
(1) the Department of the Treasury;
(2) the Department of Defense;
(3) the Department of Justice;
(4) the Department of the Interior;
(5) the Department of Commerce;
(6) the Department of Labor;
(7) the Department of Health and Human Services;
the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(9) the Department of Transportation;
(10) the Department of Energy;
(11) the Department of Education;
(12) the Department of Veterans Affairs;
(13) the Department of Homeland Security;
(14) the Environmental Protection Agency;
(15) the Federal Communications Commission;
(16) the Office of Management and Budget;
(17) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(18) the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
(19) the Council of Economic Advisers;
(20) the Domestic Policy Council;
(21) the National Economic Council;
(22) the Small Business Administration;
(23) the Council on Environmental Quality;
(24) the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs;
(25) the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or the Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate.
(b) A member of the Council may designate, to perform the Council functions of the member, a senior-level official who is part of the member's department, agency, or office, and who is a full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government.
(c) The Department of Agriculture shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.
(d) The Council shall coordinate its policy development through the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council.
Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council.
The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration's engagement with rural communities. The Council shall:
(a) make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;
(b) coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;
(c) coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas; and
(d) identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) The heads of executive departments and agencies shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Council. Each executive department and agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 9, 2011.