Tom DeWeese
President
American Policy Center
A Review of the
Environmental Stewardship of
American Fork Canyon
Resolution No. 2015-06-17R
I’ve been asked to review this
document to determine if it is related to Agenda 21. Normally, when someone
brings up Agenda 21 local officials and planners do an impatient eye roll and
start talking about non-existent conspiracy theories. And they assure us that
THEIR plans are all LOCAL. So, let’s get that out of the way first.
Here is some history:
Agenda 21 is the culmination
of several documents created over a series of UN sponsored events throughout
the 1980s and 1990s. It was presented as a final plan – a comprehensive
blueprint or the Agenda for the 21st Century for reorganizing human
society.
In 1992, 50,000 delegates made up of 179 heads of state, diplomats, business leaders, government bureaucrats and members of thousands of non-governmental organizations converged on Rio de Janeiro, to introduce to the world a document they called a “Comprehensive Blueprint” for reorganizing human society.
Obviously, they thought it was
pretty serious stuff.
Then Nancy Pelosi introduced
the idea to the US Congress that fall, calling it a Comprehensive Blueprint.
(I‘ve got the Cspan video on my website).
The UN, in a 1993 publication described Agenda
21 like this: “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.”
In 1994, the American Planning
Association (one of the largest and respected planning groups in the nation)
put out a newsletter calling Agenda 21 a Comprehensive Blueprint.
In 1997 the United States
issued a 70 page report to the United Nations on the progress the US was making
to implement Agenda 21.
In 1998, the Federal Register
issued a report on the EPA’s Challenge Grant Program. That report says, “The
EPA’s Challenge Grant Program is also implementation of Agenda 21.”
In 2011, the EPA issued a
revised report entitled “History of Sustainability.” It details how EPA policy
on Sustainability was developed. The Fifth item on that report is Agenda 21,
calling it a “comprehensive process of
planning and action to attain sustainability.”
Since its
introduction in 1992, Agenda 21 policies and ideas have worked their way
through federal, state and local governments. These are pushed by hundreds of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which helped write Agenda 21 at the
international level. They then helped the federal government create a series of
grant programs to fuel the policies. ‘
State governments were pressured to
pass legislation to force nearly every community and county to create
comprehensive development plans. The grants were offered in the classic
carrot/stick situation.
This brings to local communities an
invasion of NGO (Stakeholder) groups, federal and state agents and planners
like the American Planning Association. All armed with identical plans to
control development, energy and water use, and much more, all using the excuse
of environmental protection.
Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
policy attacks the community through three basic directions. 1. The destruction
of private property rights and control. 2. The creation of non-elected regional
governments and councils, taking government further from the people who have no
control over these non-elected entities. 3. The grant programs to fuel it all.
The result of these planning
policies is that local communities have lost their independence as the grants
force them to comply with strict federal regulations. Agenda 21 is changing the
U.S. system of government, creating massive control over every aspect of our
lives, resulting in higher taxes, diminished individual life decisions, a choke
hold on the ability of private business to exist, and growing corruption in
local and state government.
Finally, the logo used most often
to depict Agenda 21/Sustainable Development policy shows three connecting
circles. Each labeled. One is labeled Economic Prosperity. The second, Social
Equity. The third, Ecology. These are referred to as the 3 E’s. And they
clearly show that Agenda 21 is truly meant to control every aspect of our
lives.
Economic Prosperity is basically
Public/Private Partnerships. These are not free enterprise, but a very
dangerous merging of government and selected private businesses. The government gets to hide behind the
independence of the private business so that its policies look acceptable and
voluntary to the community. Meanwhile, the specially selected businesses
(usually huge corporations) get the power of government – sometimes given the
power of eminent domain for projects other businesses would never be allowed to
perform. They also get special tax breaks, granted ideal locations for their
stores, etc.
Social Equity is the key to
understanding Agenda 21. The other term for it is Social Justice. This simply means redistribution of wealth,
and that is what Agenda 21 is really about. Most recently the Obama
Administration has issued an Executive Order through HUD to social engineer our
neighborhoods to enforce specific diversity requirements. This is Agenda 21.
And the Environment – that’s just
the easy, popular excuse to hide the real purpose – reorganizing human society.
So, this is a very brief
explanation of a very complex, very detailed Agenda to change our society. But
it is all necessary to understand why the American Fork plan is dangerous to
the life of your community.
So here goes:
The first sentence tells exactly where this plan has come from. “Environmental,
Economic and Social…” The Three E’s of Agenda 21. Ask yourselves, what “social” justice issues
are there in the situation the document is trying to address? The inclusion of
the word Social is a warning that this effort isn’t simply about a concern for
protecting the Canyon. The plan, once implemented, will affect every single
resident, their homes, and perhaps even their jobs.
The second sentence talks vaguely about establishing “best practices
and policies” for the management of the plan. Details are purposely left out.
This task will be dictated by any grants taken for the project. The grants, and
the necessary federal agent overseers that come with them, will decide. Local
opinions will only count if they agree with the federal policies. Before implementing
this plan local officials had better ask some very hard questions and research
the details of any grants they apply for.
The third sentence talks about “watershed” protection and the quality
of water. This language is straight out of EPA Sustainable policies that say it
controls all of the water in the U.S. What is the watershed? How far back to
the source of the water does this plan intend to take it to “protect” water?
The community may find its ability to do normal things with water are now greatly
limited. Industry may find it is no longer able to operate because of strict
rules on waster use. That will damage the economy and cost jobs and higher
prices for good and services.
The fourth sentence, historic preservation. Of course we all want to
preserve historic places. As yourselves, aren’t such important places already
preserved? What danger are they in? I imagine that this plans lays down
boundaries around such historic sites. Beware of those boundaries. Grants may
be issued from the National Park Service, for example, into the hands of
special interest groups that begin to pressure the local community to disallow
certain activity on private property, or to curtail certain businesses as a
danger to the historic site. Boundaries have consequences. And so does federal
money. Loss of control for the local community and for property owners is the
usual result.
Sentences five and six are major warning signs to recreational
users of the Canyon. They may soon find that they have no ability to use the
areas for recreational purposes as pressure groups move in to protect bugs and
critters no one ever knew existed there. If you haven’t guessed yet, the true
purpose of this plan (even if not the intention of the city government) is to
lock this area away from human use. How is it possible that the intention and
focus could be changed? This plan was not written by city councilmen. They were
certainly “mentored” by Non Governmental Organizations that claim to be
“Stakeholders.”
“The native ecosystems and the collective needs of non-human species
must take precedence over the needs of humans.” Reed Noss (a creator of the
Wildlands Project)
Sentence seven is the most outrageous of all. It attempts to use
fear mongering to set an image of out of control capitalism bent on destroying
everything in its path. Local elected leaders must ask themselves, is this
public land or private land? The document says it is public land. If so, no
private business can do a thing on it without permission. Attacks on the free
market are the hallmark of Agenda 21 proponents.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.
De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities
of ecology and the world resources situation.” Paul Ehrlich (Professor of
Population Studies, Stanford University.)
Sentence nine is straight out
of Agenda 21 as it indicates locking away land use for future generations. It’s
interesting that the sentences talks about how early settlers toiled in the
Canyon to provide for their families, yet most of the items called for in this
document would, today, make such activity impossible.
Sentence ten. Throughout the document is the use of words like
reasonable, best practice and local. One must ask, according to whom? What is a
reasonable practice? These are questions that ever resident must ask. How will
these policies affect them personally? Is it reasonable for them?
As for the solutions called for in the document – again, the language contains
the continued use of best practices without defining what they are. Experience
tells that these are dictated by planners, NGO’s government agents and fueled
by grant programs with specific strings attached.
Of great concern is the call for
conservation easements. These are sold as a positive way to gain tax advantages
for farmers and protect private lands. In fact, they are many times used to take
control away from the property owner and place it in the hands of a land trust
in “perpetuity.” In addition, the easements take land off the county tax rolls
and that means other property owners will feel the effects as they are forced
to make up tax shortages. It can devastate a county.
And finally, the sentence that
calls for cooperation of civic leaders and cities is a direct call for the
establishment of some sort of non-elected regional councils that will most
likely be manned by NGOs and other private interests.
“Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of
governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up
through they United Nations itself.” UN Commission on Global
Governance.
In conclusion, there is nothing
local about this plan. It is boilerplate for such policy being enforced around
the nation, all designed to sound compassionate and “reasonable” for local
control. The result of this plan will be the invasion of an army of planners,
government agents, and NGOs (calling themselves “Stakeholders”), armed with
rules and regulations to control every aspect of living in the community. There
will be higher taxes, reduction in energy and water use, controls on private
property, in short a reduction in the standard of living in the community --
the exact opposite of what the document claims it is trying to accomplish.
The best way to counter or to at
least balance such a plan is to demand that the private property rights of the
owners be protected at all costs.
Here is a definition of property
rights issued by Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders as
his court sought to deal with such land control programs.
“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and
possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal.
Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent,
destroys the property itself. The Substantial value of property lies in its
use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated
and ownership is rendered a barren right.”
This definition is based on James
Madison’s dissertation on private property. It should be used as a guideline in
determining any proposed restrictions on private property and, thereby, keep
any such land use proposal “reasonable.”
