The Observation Deck

Does anyone know if Lakewood, Cuyahoga County or any if the surrounding communities are actively participating or collaborating with the United Nations' Agenda 21 action plan?

Based on what I've read, it looks like yes, we are, but I am curious what information the rest of you might have.

Obama is using mind control to advance the UN takeover of America!
Glenn Beck wrote a book about it, so we know it must be true.

Here is a 52 minute session that the GOP leadership of Georgia held last month.

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider- ... agenda-21/

Don't know the answer to your question but here's an interesting article related to the issue:

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/i_got_d ... lenn_beck/

Jeff

Great article! Thanks.

The truth shall set you free.

I didn't really think many of you would look at this terribly seriously. I hoped maybe one or two people might take interest, but most of you I figured would just po-po and mock my question.

"The American system of justice must be changed to conform to that of the rest of the world, and there must be a shift in attitudes. Individual wants, needs and desires are to be conformed to the views and dictates of government planners. In the process of implementing Sustainable Development, individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective."
--Harvey Ruvin, Miami-Dade County Clerk of Courts and member of ICLEI’s Advisory Group

The policies of Agenda 21 are being used in Oregon to trump property rights. Land is being taken from private citizens (with no compensation) to satisfy rainwater-related environmental concerns.
In Texas and Florida, smart meters are being installed which are so precise in their electrical usage reading that they can tell how many people live in your house, how many are how at any particular time, when they get up, when they go to sleep. They (the electric company) will be in a position to "suggest" you to do your laundry at a certain time. These new meters, since they are hooked into a network, can be hacked and this information can be stolen.

If you want to sacrifice your personal freedom and rights to bureaucratic dictates, it makes me wonder if you have any concept of what being American is about.

I've been interested in politics since, well, before my college days. I received a cum laude degree in Political Science in 1973.

One thing that I've been very careful to do as a teacher over the years is to try to keep the balance, both in the classroom, and with my own thinking. I also have tried to avoid swallowing any political position hook, line, and sinker. I often find certain points of virtually all sides of a discussion to be agreeable, while at the same time, I would generally not be in full agreement with any of them.

The United Nations does much good in the world. At the same time, national interests can feel threatened when international policies are discussed there, and then recommended to member nations. Conservatives and others have often had long term suspicions with one-world international governmental style guidelines of any sort, as being a potential incursion into the self-determination of nations...

...and yes, there have, at times, been proposals that have been at odds with commonly held American beliefs.

There are VERY deeply held fears in certain areas of our country about ANY possible or potential relinquishment of our sovereignty to an international body.

In our country, involvement with United Nations Agenda 21 objectives remains a purely voluntary exercise on the part of those who wish to participate.

Back to the banjo...

So after only 12hrs of being posted you came to the conclusion that no one was taking this seriously? And you believe yourself to be mocked because one of three replies was sarcastic? These types of policy battles have been going on forever and certainly before Agenda 21. Do you have any references to these cases you seem to suggest are directly related to the U.N. recommendations? (And preferably something independent/reputable.)

Gary, as always I find you to me measured and reasonable sounding in your response. I have one real question for you:

In our country, involvement with United Nations Agenda 21 objectives remains a purely voluntary exercise on the part of those who wish to participate.

Who is it voluntary for?

Jeff, I wish I could tell you I found direct references to Agenda 21 on the websites of numerous cities/ counties/ states, but I haven't. Here's the rub...the people working on this know that if the average citizen knew what was going on, the vast majority of them would be against it. It is masked with innocuous terms like "sustainable development", "new urbanism", "healthy eating active living", International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives", "walkable communities".
Of course, the political officials involved could also just be as clueless as we are, sucked into the buzzwords.

Hi Roy,

Happy Past Thanksgiving.

In re-reading my thoughts here, I'm afraid that perhaps I sounded a bit more academic, (read know-it-all?) than perhaps I wanted to, but that's the problem with being a teacher, albeit retired.

I'm a Libra, and some people who are into the astrology thing seem to feel that Libras are always trying to find the balance, the compromise, the middle way. In my case, perhaps they're right.

In the span of my life, at times I've held VERY conservative views, and likewise VERY liberal ones, depending on the topic on the table. I've always tried to avoid labeling myself with those terms however.

I've always insisted on my God-given right to think things out for m'self and arrive at my own conclusions.

As for Agenda 21, as well as so many of the other positions that the U. N. takes from time to time? As you are aware, our country is a sovereign nation, as all countries are. We have never relinquished that sovereignty, although we do at times make international treaties and agreements.

There are those who feel that eventually all countries will need to cooperate more and more in order for this world to survive. It should be self-evident that ultra-nationalism, too much greed, and excessive self-interest have been root causes of much of the world's woes in the past century. At the same time, as I'm sure you are also well aware, there lies a potentially equal and opposite tyranny with respect to excessively collective mindsets as well, and 20th Century history is also filled with disasters resulting from going too far in that direction.

To me, the answers to local and international issues will always will lie with discussion, compromise, and the implementation of conflict-resolution skills. The problem seems to me that national, political or ideological interests often conspire to undermine human attempts at reconciliation and problem-solving.

So in a roundabout way, I suppose that I can answer your question in this way...There are people and even communities willing to appreciate, and wishing to embrace UN resolutions in our country, and there are people and communities not willing to do so.

In my mind, it is that ability to embrace the dynamic of debate and discussion that will hopefully eventually lead to better quality-of-life solutions for all of us.

No one is paying you to be an advocate for any one position in life Roy. Just keep an eye on the buffet and take what you can digest, while trying to keep a good sense of humor about all of it.

Remember this: (If I might mix my metaphors here) Few of us are delighted about the way we looked in our high school yearbooks.

That's because the choices we made then would not be the choices we make today. What seems obviously to be right to us today, we may realize years later to have been wrong, just as we presently reflect on our own past sartorial choices in life.

It just pays to try to keep an open mind and that good sense of humor about things, while at the same time retaining the core values that are important to us.

(The older I get, the more I appreciate a good sense of humor!)

Hmmm.....Sorry, I guess I'm still acting like a teacher.

Back to the banjo...

Gary,
You didn't exactly answer my question. Who is it voluntary for?

Such an action cannot work on a volunteer basis at the individual level. For the most part, its what we have now in the United States. Each person participating in their own self-determined environmental or economic policy, so to speak. This status quo is not acceptable otherwise the UN would have had no reason to create Agenda 21 in the first place.

Is it voluntary for the community leaders? Sure, but in the event a mayor or council chooses to implement all or part or the plan, are they doing so with the consent of the people?

What about unelected groups, organizations and agencies? The trouble is there's a lot coming to us from these groups and we have no recourse to change what is imposed upon us.

::Some other stuff about Agenda 21::

A 1978 predecessor to Agenda 21 comes out of Vancouver UN conference and contains the following language:

“Land … cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.

“Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.

“The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.”

So, in other words, in order to effect global wealth redistribution, there must be an end to private property. Land is owned by the state to be used only for the greater good of society as a whole.

This, straight from the UN's website:

The overall human settlement objective is to improve the social, economic and environmental quality of human settlements and the living and working environments of all people, in particular the urban and rural poor. Such improvement should be based on technical cooperation activities, partnerships among the public, private and community sectors and participation in the decision-making process by community groups and special interest groups such as women, indigenous people, the elderly and the disabled. These approaches should form the core principles of national settlement strategies. In developing these strategies, countries will need to set priorities among the eight programme areas in this chapter in accordance with their national plans and objectives, taking fully into account their social and cultural capabilities. Furthermore, countries should make appropriate provision to monitor the impact of their strategies on marginalized and disenfranchised groups, with particular reference to the needs of women.

7.5. The programme areas included in this chapter are:

(a) Providing adequate shelter for all;

(b) Improving human settlement management;

(c) Promoting sustainable land-use planning and management;

(d) Promoting the integrated provision of environmental infrastructure: water, sanitation, drainage and solid-waste management;

(e) Promoting sustainable energy and transport systems in human settlements;

(f) Promoting human settlement planning and management in disaster-prone areas;

(g) Promoting sustainable construction industry activities;

(h) Promoting human resource development and capacity-building for human settlement development.

Gee Roy, I thought I'd answered your question.

Look, I think that I am seeing where you are going with this. If you think that there are parts of this Agenda 21 that alarm you, there are also quite likely many other areas of U.N. concern that bother other Americans too. I'm thinking, for example, of news stories not too long ago regarding outdoor sportsmen and women, and what the U.N. would reportedly like to see happen with the private ownership of guns.

What the U.N. would like to SEE, however, and what's DONE in this country are two different things entirely.

Other countries may have SUBJECTS, but we are CITIZENS. That makes a HUGE difference.

There are indeed private organizations and individuals in our country lending wholehearted support to some of these U.N. positions. There are also others who seriously oppose those same positions. There is strength in numbers. Many people through our right of private association in this country seek out those groups with which they can agree, and support positions favorable to their thinking and beliefs.

Obviously, you have a concern about Agenda 21 and its possible relationship to Ohio, and to Lakewood.

It is well that you are expressing those concerns. Obviously, parts of these proposals can make it into American law at various times and places. I would suggest that you directly contact your legislators with your concerns, and of course, consider affiliation with those groups that you feel would support your interests.

Back to the banjo...

Gary, I don't believe I can argue with anything you're saying, however, to properly argue for or against any issue a populace must be aware of issue, if not educated on it.

My initial question was if anyone was aware of any Lakewood/Cuyahoga county involvement with Agenda 21. Given the reaction I've seen, I'd say, no, people aren't aware of it.

People need to be aware of it.

I better get my guns and head out to the country'

I will be the first one to say that I am not aware of anything related to Agenda 21 in Cuyahoga County and/or it's involvement with it.

That said, that does not mean I am not aware of Agenda 21.

But, if you have some link to anything related to Agenda 21 and Cuyahoga County's involvement, I would be more than happy to read it and learn.

So far, I haven't seen that but might have missed it. Thanks!

Matthew,

In regards to Lakewood and Cuyahoga county, all I've seen are references to NOACA (Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency) on the websites of anti-Agenda 21 groups. NOACA is a multi-county transportation planning group.
If true, the mayors of numerous communities, including Lakewood, are listed as board members.
Initially, I wasn't sure. However, upon further investigation, I found this:
http://www.noaca.org/connectgoals.html

While the reference to "sustainable development" concerned me a little, I found something else that grabbed my attention.

Goal 3: Preserve and improve the efficiency and safety of the existing transportation system, prioritize elements of the system identified as significant and ensure the system serves homeland security.

Nothing says 1984-style government like Janet "Big Sister" Napalitano.