Someone is planning your future (United Nations)

What could Marion County, Ind., and Lincoln County, N.M., possibly have in common? In Marion County, nearly a million people are packed into 403 square miles, with a density of 2,172 people per square mile. Lincoln County stretches over 4,831square miles, and on a good day, can muster only 19,411 people – that's four people per square mile.

Nevertheless, both counties – as is the county where you live – are targets for transformation into "sustainable communities," as defined in the United Nations' "Agenda 21." Neither Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson, nor Lincoln County Planning Technician Curt Temple will admit that their efforts to transform their communities have anything to do with "Agenda 21." They probably don't even know that it does.

"Agenda 21" is a policy document adopted at the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, by more than 170 nations in 1992. It was implemented in the United States by President Clinton's Commission on Sustainable Development, created by Executive Order, with no congressional debate or involvement. The agencies of government set out to implement the recommendations of "Agenda 21" by rule, and by economic "incentives and disincentives." This means, simply, that grants are available to states and communities that do what the feds want, and penalties and fund withdrawals await those communities that resist.

Throughout the 1990s, communities everywhere began to create "visioning councils," with special grants from the feds. These visioning councils set out to transform local communities, and protect them from environmental and social disaster by adopting "smart growth" policies – directly out of "Agenda 21."

One of the high-priority recommendations of "Agenda 21" and the President's Commission on Sustainable Development is to create a "new decision process." This means take the policy-making process out of the hands of elected officials, and put it in the hands of professionals.

This is exactly what Mayor Bart Peterson is trying to do. Indianapolis-Marion County, Ind., already has a consolidated government of sorts. Four communities, and the sheriff, and a few other elected positions remain outside the mayor's control. The mayor wants to further consolidate his government by eliminating these elected decision-makers, and appointing their replacements.

The sales pitch is always the same: more efficient government, reduce the cost of duplicated services, and on, and on. Lost in the argument is the idea that government is most responsive to the people governed when the decision-makers are accountable to the people who are governed. Government officials who are appointed – whether appointed by Bart Peterson, or Fidel Castro – are responsive to the people who sign their paychecks, not to the people they govern.

Another high-priority recommendation of "Agenda 21" is to get people to live within "growth boundaries" instead of wherever they want to live. Despite the fact that Lincoln County's population has declined steadily since 1980, Curt Temple believes 600,000 people will invade his county by 2025, and therefore, the county must plan now to prevent "urban sprawl." He, and his planning commission are deciding where these people may, and may not live.

Curt Temple says: "There is broad consensus in our society that land use and development should be controlled." If that consensus exists, it exists only among planners and bureaucrats. In the West, and elsewhere, there is a broad and growing consensus among Americans that government should get out of the way and leave people alone. In America – the land of the free – people should be able to live wherever they choose and can afford to live.

For government to tell a person, "No, you cannot build a home here," because a planner drew an "urban boundary line" on a map, is ridiculous – especially in a place like Lincoln County, N.M.

The planning craze afflicts virtually every community. The so-called problems these plans are supposed to prevent often become problems that future generations have to correct. The first wave of planning in the late 1960s and 1970s produced high-density housing for low-income families. These high-rise, low-cost apartments became the slums and gang headquarters in Chicago, and other cities, which ultimately had to be destroyed.

Planners have no sacred wisdom, they only have authority. Every time government attempts to engineer society by shaping and molding market forces, the result is failure. Nothing shapes the future as efficiently as a free market.

Elected officials in Lincoln, Marion and all other counties would do well to listen to the people who elected them – not to the professional planners and agency personnel whose first obligation is to justify their own existence. Many Americans are content to plan their own future and don't appreciate being told what they can and cannot do by government bureaucrats.

At the United Nations, laws are fashioned by faceless bureaucrats and adopted by the consensus of appointed delegates, who have little interest in, and no accountability to, the people who are governed by their laws. The people who are governed have no recourse.

For example, the people who live near Yellowstone National Park are governed by international law to which they never had the opportunity to give their consent. The park is a U.N. Biosphere Reserve and a U.N. World Heritage site. The U.S. Senate ratified the World Heritage Treaty, but had no debate nor oversight of the Convention's "Operational Guidelines." When UNESCO declared the park to be "in danger," the designation triggered an "international obligation" to protect the park, even beyond the park's boundary. This "protection" resulted in substantial losses to private citizens from unconsensual "international law."

Neither Congress, nor any state legislature, has ever voted to approve any of the 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States. The management policy for the millions of acres covered by these reserves is crafted by international committees of bureaucrats, none of whom is elected. To comply with "international obligations," the United States conforms its management policy and, in some cases, its law to accommodate the wishes of bureaucrats that are completely unknown to the people who are governed by the policies.

This reality is but a hint of what is in store for those governed by the rule of international law. Massive documents, such as the 1140-page "Global Biodiversity Assessment," the 300-page "Agenda 21" and the 410-page "Our Global Neighborhood," all paint a picture of the international law that is being devised to govern the world in the 21st century.

Supreme Court citing more foreign cases Scalia: Only U.S. views are relevant
By Joan Biskupic
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's reference to foreign law in a ruling last month that overturned state anti-sodomy statutes stood out as if it were in bold print and capital letters.

Writing for the majority in a landmark decision supporting gay civil rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that the European Court of Human Rights and other foreign courts have affirmed the ''rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct.''

Never before had the Supreme Court's majority cited a foreign legal precedent in such a big case. Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence vs. Texas, which was signed by four other justices, has ignited a debate among analysts over whether it was a signal that the justices will adopt foreign courts' views of individual liberties.

In theory, that could mean the currently conservative court someday might be influenced by other countries' opposition to the death penalty, their emphasis on foreign prisoners' rights and even their acceptance of same-sex marriages. (Last month, a court in Canada lifted a ban on such unions.)

But it is far from clear that the U.S. high court routinely will turn to foreign law, and the practice has its critics -- notably Justice Antonin Scalia. When the court interprets the Constitution, he has written, U.S. attitudes about what is decent and right -- not foreign ones -- are what should matter.

In Lawrence vs. Texas, the court relied most fundamentally on the U.S. Constitution's right of privacy to strike down laws prohibiting oral and anal sex between consenting adults of the same sex. But it also emphasized the ''values we share with a wider civilization'' and how privacy for gay men and lesbians ''has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.''

''It surprised me to see it in a majority opinion because there has been a debate among the justices over whether foreign law is relevant'' to rulings on U.S. law, says Yale law professor Drew Days, a former U.S. solicitor general.

Days is among those who saw the reference as a step forward. ''The justices are gaining the benefit of very sophisticated thinking by other foreign courts about privacy and equality,'' he says. ''Those terms are not unique to our Constitution and our society.''

Last year, Justice John Paul Stevens cited foreign law in a footnote when the majority banned executions of mentally retarded convicts. Stevens noted that ''within the world community, the . . . death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved.''

That drew a rebuke from Scalia, who said, ''The views of other nations, however enlightened the justices of this court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution.'' Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia in his dissent.

In the Texas case, Scalia -- joined once again by Rehnquist and Thomas -- wrote that ''the court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.'' (Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted with the Kennedy majority in the case but wrote a separate opinion.)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have been the most enthusiastic justices in giving consideration to foreign legal trends. In voting last month to uphold an affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan, Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, highlighted an international treaty that endorsed the use of race-conscious programs to help minorities.

But it was Kennedy's opinion striking down the anti-sodomy laws that set off debate among close observers of the court.

His opinion referred to a ''friend of the court'' brief that described liberty as a global concept and detailed how other countries protect the privacy of gay men and lesbians. It was submitted by Mary Robinson, former United Nations high commissioner for human rights, and others. Kennedy said there was no evidence that the USA has a ''more legitimate or urgent'' reason than other countries to ban homosexual sex.

The ruling in the Texas case came June 26, on the last day of the high court's annual term. Several justices were leaving for conferences overseas that also serve as reminders of how the justices increasingly are in touch with foreign legal issues.

This week, five of the nine justices -- O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg and Breyer -- will be in Florence, Italy, for a forum with foreign judges on a proposed new European constitution.

Americans (meaning citizens of these United States of America) are blind and deaf and dumb on this subject. oh for a million men such as Henry Lamb..

the language used in Watershed Projects, Wildlands Projects, National Monuments, etc... should be enough to make people aware that something stinks... the language is the same as that of Agenda 21 and a multitude of other gobbilty gook UN proposals, agreements, treaties.. etc. they are like the tower of Babel and have their own language - good luck in diciphering it too! it sure SOUNDS nice though.. !!
and these gvt agencies - from all levels - works great for the "never elect, always appoint" socialist crowd. and they all ready RUN this country. and people wonder why their elected officials act like their hands are tied... umm.. because they are.

thanks for posting.. now i'm going to check out your CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER link,,

The following is some background information about Executive Orders.

Executive Orders (EOs) are legally binding orders given by the President, acting as the head of the Executive Branch, to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies. However, in many instances they have been used to guide agencies in directions contrary to congressional intent.

Proclamations are a special type of Executive Order that are generally ceremonial or symbolic, such as when the President declares National Take Your Child To Work Day.

Another subset of Executive Orders are those concerned with national security or defense issues. These have generally been known as National Security Directives. Under the Clinton Administration, they have been termed "Presidential Decision Directives."

Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect but they have the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. The President's source of authority to issue Executive Orders can be found in the Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution which grants to the President the "executive Power." Section 3 of Article II further directs the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." To implement or execute the laws of the land, Presidents give direction and guidance to Executive Branch agencies and departments, often in the form of Executive Orders.

Executive Orders are controversial because they allow the President to make major decisions, even law, without the consent of Congress. This, of course, runs against the general logic of the Constitution -- that no one should have power to act unilaterally. Nevertheless, Congress often gives the President considerable leeway in implementing and administering federal law and programs. Sometimes, Congress cannot agree exactly how to implement a law or program. In effect, this leaves the decision to the federal agencies involved and the President that stands at their head. When Congress fails to spell out in detail how a law is to be executed, it leaves the door open for the President to provide those details in the form of Executive Orders.

Congressional Recourse - If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order. Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

"Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool."
Paul Begala, former Clinton advisor
The New York Times, July 5, 1998

"We've switched the rules of the game. We're not trying to do anything legislatively."
Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
The Washington Times, June 14, 1999

Source

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.