Replies

Did you ever read the Gulag Archipelago? If you did, how long was it before you realized that it was not just one case of massive injustice that was the point of the book, but the sheer enormity of it?

The Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development makes a farce of representative democracy. It has no place in a constitutional republic, but you are getting it anyway, unless you do something about it very soon.

"Changing Consumption Patterns" is about changing yours. "Programs for Women" and "Demographic Dynamics and Sustainability" are ways to take control of reproduction through healthcare. They want the children first, with their School-to-Work programs and Outcome-Based Education programmes. They want to control unions to control votes. They will use the claims of "indigenous peoples" as a lever for taking land, even though nobody knows who that really is much less the legitimate extent of their claims.

The civil servants will love Sustainable Development because they get to regulate what is or isn't "sustainable" to suit their purposes. They'll have mass-transit and bicycles. They'll have low-income housing, rent control, overcrowded schools, and the social problems that come with them. They'll mix those used-to-be middle class kids with children of immigrant workers raised on a steady media and public school diet of class warfare. They'll produce an ample supply of customers for the criminal justice system and those Psych Majors at the University.

This is Agenda 21. The UN intends to control your life, through incremental mandates instituted by your local government bureaucracy. You will never see it. You will never vote on it. No matter which path they use, the agencies can pen the new regulations under "threat" of lawsuit and down the pipe it comes: enforceable administrative rules without legislation.

This book has chronicled but a few of the early manifestations of the Agenda 21 in Santa Cruz County (logging, septic, and the listing of coho). Each time there has been a public protest or threat of a lawsuit, the agency formed a TAC to accept public "input." Each time the TAC convened, it was either advisory in nature (Timber-TAC under the control of the Planning Department or coho under CDFG) or manned by a majority of civil servants (Septic-TAC). Consensus, as defined by any normal human being, did not exist. It is fortunate that in California such public meetings are subject to the much-abused Brown Act, which requires that minutes of the meetings be available. T-TAC meetings were taped instead, just try to get a transcript. You would pay thousands of dollars to get one.

Congress? The Constitution? Public takings of private property? You just don't understand. These problems are about transformation products in Global Commons. Those trees on your property make oxygen for the rest of the planet and consume CO2 for the poor in China. Shell wants to trade the carbon credits that should have been yours to sell. You middleclass consumers, on the other hand, are producers of that noxious poison, and you use more of those Global Commons than your share. Have you no compassion?

48 posted on 06/01/2003 6:00 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (California: Where government is pornography, every day!)

46 posted on 06/20/2003 4:44 PM PDT by Ethan_Allen
One More Month to Block Rejoining UNESCO!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/930480/posts?page=1