President Trump & Agenda 21 - The First 100 Days

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) (Click here for the .mp3 audio version)

United States President Donald Trump recently wrapped up his first 100 days in office and while many news outlets are reporting on his overall performance in the past 100 days, I want to specifically take a look at what Donald Trump has been doing to fight against the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21.  Of course, Agenda 21 is vast world plan and essentially encompasses every area of society (resources, transportation, population, etc.), pretty much everything the Federal government does can be considered as an action to promote or discourage the Agenda 21 sustainable development plan.  Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, I am only focusing on those actions involving the United Nations or climate change, which is the guise that is used to implement Agenda 21 nationwide.  I have compiled a list of some good, and some bad things that President Trump is doing affect the implementation of Agenda 21.

Let's start with the good:

• The State Department under President Trump has decided to halt funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) citing the organizations support of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization in China.  The UNFPA houses anti-family feminists like Dr. Nafis Sadik that propagate communist rhetoric about men being exploiters of their children and family.  The UNFPA also teams up with the Rockefeller Foundation to arrange "study tours" that bring politicians to poor countries to study population issues.  The less money going to them, the better.
• The Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump appointee Scott Pruitt has updated the EPA website, removing several pages that were propagating the global warming/climate change myth.  Responding to this action, a representative of the EPA is quoted in the Washington Post as saying "[a]s EPA renews its commitment to human health and clean air, land, and water, our website needs to reflect the views of the leadership of the agency."  If President Trump continues to view climate change hysteria as a hoax, as he once called it, this is a huge push back against the agenda for world government. 
• President Trump signed an executive order "promoting energy independence and economic growth" which seemingly is designed to reduce some of the Obama-era's focus on green energy, and reduce regulations to foster domestic energy production.  Whether these goals are actually going to be achieved with this executive order is a separate matter all together but in the least the rhetoric is in the right direction. 
• President Trump drew criticism because he didn't mention climate change in his Earth Day address.  Another good sign that the administration is moving the federal government's focus away from the green scam.   

The Bad:

• After running a presidential campaign that was very critical of the United Nations, even saying the organization was "not a friend to freedom", President Trump hosted a meeting of UN Security Council diplomats at the White House on April 24 where he sought to empower the UN and encourage the international organization to take action against North Korea.  President Trump stated at the meeting that he has "long felt the United Nations is an underperformer but has tremendous potential."  Stating that the UN has underperformed and should be more prominent would raise concern if it was coming from a globalist, but luckily Donald Trump describes himself as a nationalist, putting the interests of the American people before anything else, right?  Well, this leads us to our next Trump action in the 'bad' category...
• In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on April 27, President Trump responded to allegations of disputes in his cabinet between the 'globalist' faction and the 'nationalist' faction by saying "I’m a nationalist and a globalist...I’m both".   This is very different rhetoric than when he was on the campaign trail saying "we will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism".  
• In the same Wall Street Journal interview President Trump stated that he is now looking to "renegotiate" the NAFTA agreement, which he once called "the worst trade deal ever" as opposed to ending it.  NAFTA is an integral part of United Nations Agenda 21 as can be seen on the United Nations website where it describes how NAFTA came out of President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development which itself was "conceived to formulate recommendations for the implementation of Agenda 21".  I suppose a renegotiation of NAFTA can be better than what we currently have, but many had hoped it would just be repealed completely. 

That is a list that I have compiled so far but I am continuously compiling information that pertain to this topic so if you feel that there is something that should be added in future analyses, post it in the comment section.  

Related Reports:

• George Soros, The Ideal Globalist - March 13, 2017 (link)
• Trumps New EPA Pick Angers All The Right People In Connecticut - December 11, 2016 (link)
• Will President-Elect Donald Trump Put An End to Agenda 21? - November 19, 2016 (link)
• A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 1, 2013 (link)

Forced Recycling Is A Scam

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis)

I wanted to make this report on the problems of the bottle deposit program but I first must make this fact clear:  In Connecticut, and many other places that have this program, you do not earn five cents for returning a can, bottle, or glass, you REDEEM five cents.  This means that you, or whoever bought the drink, had to pay an extra five cents for each bottle at the register, at the time of purchase, and only when you bring back your bottle do you get that five cents back.  It seems as if this is something that shouldn't have to be explained but you would be surprised at how many people still do not understand how this works.

Moving on, earlier this year there were reports that the state of Connecticut wanted to raise the bottle deposit up from five cents to ten cents.  Also this year in relation to the bottle deposit, a bill was introduced in the state legislature that would drop the deposit of five cents and replace it with a non redeemable tax of four cents, as well as a bill that would require beverage distributors to pay a higher handling fee to bottle redemption centers.  Instead of going over the intricacies of these proposals, I think it would be much better to simply explain how the bottle deposit program is just another revenue generating scam by the state.

First it needs to be understood that empty cans, plastic, and glass bottles don't really have any value.  If it was cheaper to create new bottles out of recycled bottles than it was to create them from scratch, bottle manufacturers would be paying you for the empty bottles.  In other words, if you could actually make something of value out of your used bottles, at a profit, the state wouldn't need to force you to recycle, there would be a market for them, people would be offering you money for your empty bottles.  As an example of this, the state doesn't need to force people to recycle copper, or other forms of scrap metal because the cost of recycling these things is currently cheaper than the cost of manufacturing them from scratch.  Because of this people will come and take the metal from a garbage pile on your sidewalk for free, or go into your house uninvited to steal your copper pipes.

The time and money that it takes to collect recycled bottles, truck them to a location, sort them, clean them, and actually begin the recycling process is highly inefficient and cannot be done at a cost that would make this process profitable.  A representative from the Coca Cola Company testifying against one of the proposed bottle bills briefly describes the problem his company faces:

"Though our industry sells tens of millions of dollars in bottle bill scrap from Connecticut, the revenue does not come close to balancing the inherent expense our industry faces in fuel, energy and handling fees … nor does it compensate for the sub-optimization of our delivery routes and warehouse space, as a lot of time and space is required to handle containers for processing."

Of course this is all done under the guise of protecting the environment but when you factor in the fossil fuel used to move these recyclables around, the energy used at these recycle facilities, the water used to clean the empty bottles, and other aspects of the process, it could leave a person questioning whether this is really helping the environment at all.  And while many environmentalists support these forced recycling projects and any project that has the stated goal to conserve resources, they seem to neglect the most important resource of all, the one that we can't make more of; time.  Every moment of the process, from you bringing your bottles to the redemption center to the recycled plastic being turned into something is time lost that could have been used to do something more productive or preferential.

Who Wants Toll Roads In Connecticut? Answer: The Rockefellers

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

For those out here that are unaware, the state of Connecticut is contemplating creating a system of congestion pricing, a newer version of toll roads, on some of the states roads.  If you are a Connecticut resident you might be thinking 'Who in their right mind would support an increase in taxes in a state that already taxes its residents at exorbitant rates and has a problem managing their already enormous budget?'  The short answer: The Rockefellers.

Before explaining what I mean by that, let us take a look at all of the testimony submitted for one of the proposed bills 'H.B. No. 6058 AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRONIC TOLLS'.  There are over two hundred people that have submitted testimony for this bill, and the vast, vast majority are in opposition to it.  Randomly clicking on any of the names of the people that submitted testimony will very likely lead to a testimony submitted AGAINST the bill like CT resident Pat Belote who said "enough already, how much more can you squeeze out of the citizens of CT?" or Steve MacDonald who said in all caps "SAY NO TO TOLLS!!!!!!!"

But I knew that if I kept on looking I would find testimony submitted in favor of the bill coming from one or more of the many tax-free foundations that are constantly lobbying the state to lower our standard of living under the guise of fighting climate change.  I was right.

I have written multiple times in the past on the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC), which is a "non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to reducing car dependency in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut" that brags on their website about using their influence to do things like "halting highway widenings".  In the past the TSTC has lobbied for red light cameras to be installed on intersections across the state, tolls roads to be installed, as well as other tactics that would create a heavier financial burden on operators of motor vehicles.

So it was no surprise when I came across the testimony of Joseph Cutrufo, a director at the TSTC.  Cutrufo is speaking on behalf of the TSTC in his testimony in support of toll roads in the state, explaining how this policy can be used to get people out of their cars and onto public transportation.

Another tax free organization that I have written about in the past, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, also submitted testimony in favor of electronic toll roads, using the same justification as the TSTC, that tolls will lower the amount of cars on the roads, therefore reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Now let us get to how the Rockefellers fit into all of this.  Regular viewers of this channel are already aware of the nefarious influence that tax free foundations are playing in society today.  I often recommend the book "Foundations: Their Power and Influence" by Rene Wormser which discusses the 1950's congressional investigations into tax free foundations.  Before high level forces in government began to sabotage the committee's research and findings, the investigations were uncovering a subversive network of highly powerful and influential tax free foundations.  The Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund were two foundations mentioned in the book and the Rockefeller family subversive influence through foundations continues to this day.

The previously mentioned Tri-State Transporation Campaign which constantly lobbies the state to implement anti-car policies shows a list of supporting foundations that give grant money to their organization on their website.  Many of the organizations can be traced back to Rockefeller money.  For example, they receive money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a fund started by the five Rockefeller brothers.  Another foundation listed as a supporter, the Energy Foundation, also gets money from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was actually formed by the Rockefeller Foundation.  The Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation is also listed, and the letter "R" in Geraldine R. Dodge, stands for Rockefeller.  I can continue with the Rockefeller-TSTC connections, but you get the point.

Now looking at the other organization mentioned that gave testimony in favor of tolls, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, we see similar connections.  The Connecticut Fund for the Environment has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the One Region Fund, which has gotten it's money in part from the Rockefeller Foundation.

In their testimony in support of tolls in Connecticut, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment cites studies from organizations that are themselves connected to Rockefeller money.  When declaring that greenhouse gas emissions have risen in the state as a result of increased vehicle use, the Acadia Center is used as a source.  The Acadia Center gets grant money from the Energy Foundation, which was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, as previously mentioned.  In another instance a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council is quoted lauding the benefits of tolls.  The Natural Resources Defense Council has received money from both the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation.

You can see what is happening here.  The average person is not a supporter of toll roads.  These policies are not happening from a grassroots level as we are made to think.  The well funded foundations are behind the push for these anti-car policies like toll roads.  The same foundations are all funding and citing reports from each other.    Watch my related videos to understand more about the influence of foundations, and more specifically the Rockefeller influence on global politics.

Related Stories:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation - January 29, 2015 (link)
• Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 26, 2014 (link)

"Why Have I Never Heard of Agenda 21?"

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

Every once in a while when I am attempting to inform someone of the sustainable development Agenda 21 plan that is being implemented across the state, country, and world, I get the response, "why have I never heard of that before?"  It is a fair question.  How can such a vast and influential plan for the world, that affects everyone, be being implemented everywhere, and yet most people have never heard of it?  This is my somewhat brief answer to that question.

Speaking specifically on the United Nations Agenda 21 Program of Action, it is important to understand that the specific terms used in Agenda 21 like "human settlement", and "Local Agenda 21 (LA21)", are usually not used by organizations pushing Agenda 21 in your local communities.  This change in terminology is because of the negative publicity the plan has received since its conception.  We know the promoters of Agenda 21 have had to use different terminology, from what J. Gary Lawrence has written.  J. Gary Lawrence has served as an adviser, under President Bill Clinton, on the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), as well as being a Director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington, and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle.  Lawrence gave a presentation in London, England, June 29, 1998, titled, "The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium", where he explained how the terminology of Agenda 21 must be changed, when attempting to influence local legislation, to prevent conspiracy theories about a UN takeover, or a one-world government, from arising:

"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."

That is why you have never heard of Agenda 21, the proponents of new world order globalism intentionally try to hide their plans and goals.  The idea that powerful elite groups of people meet and secretly make plans to increase their influence though is not exclusive to the creators of Agenda 21.  For most of recorded human history there have been tales of people meeting covertly to share information, make plans, and gain power.  In Plato's Republic written around 380 BCE it discusses how men could hide their vices and greed and "remain undiscovered" by forming "secret societies and political clubs".

More recently a world system of finance was secretly set up in the early part of the twentieth century, the culmination of which being the Bank for International Settlements.  Former Georgetown Professor, historian, and mentor to President Bill Clinton, Carrol Quigley discusses the secretive creation of this global banking system in his copious book Tragedy and Hope:

"[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations." (pg. 324)

Another professor George C. Lodge, this time from Harvard Business School, also reveals in his 1995 book Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence how certain people are able to covertly organize and influence those with power without being publicized throughout the media:

"energetic and creative individuals in government, interest groups, and corporations are quietly assembling global arrangements to deal with crises and tensions.  For the most part, they work outside of legislatures and parliaments and are screened from the glare of the media in order to find common interests, shape a consensus, and persuade those with power to change."

Important to note, Professor Lodge is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations as well as a trustee of the Carnegie Endowment, two organizations that deserve their own critical analysis for the vital roles that they have played in the creation and propagation of the Agenda 21 program of action.

Finally, bringing it all back to UN Agenda 21, I have made multiple videos discussing the Rockefeller connection to the global program of action, and have before used this incredible quote by David Rockefeller from his book Memoirs which discusses his involvement with a secret group looking to create a one world system of governance:

"Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - One World, if you will.  If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it" (pg. 405)

There you have it.  That is why you haven't heard of Agenda 21.  It is purposely being hidden from you.  While I can give multiple other examples of proof that people with power devise secretive schemes to gain more power, I think the point is made.  Just keep these quotes in mind next time you hear something and think "if that was true, I surely would have heard about it".

Related Reports:

• A Brief Examination of "Our Common Future": The Report That Gave Birth To Agenda 21 - November 19, 2014 (link)
• In Response To Michael Nicastro's Criticism of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theorists - October 15, 2014 (link)
• Go To Work and Give The Government Your Children: The Feminist UN Agenda 21 Plan To "Empower" Women - August 22, 2014 (link)
• Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 26, 2014 (link)
• A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 01, 2013 (link)
• Agenda 21 in Connecticut: The Tri-State Transportation Campaign - August 22, 2013 (link)

What They Didn't Tell You About The Protests In New Haven, Connecticut

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

On February 4, 2017 dozens of people blocked a roadway in New Haven, CT, allegedly delaying an ambulance that was on the road and forcing workers to perform an emergency medical procedure on a patient.  These protesters were apparently demonstrating against President Donald Trump's immigration policies.  I say apparently because that is how the local news channel describe the protest, but when I look at the footage from the event it is clear that immigration reform was not the only idea being propagated.  Some of the signs used were anti-capitalist, pro-socialist propaganda, like one that read "Trump is the symptom, Capitalism is the disease, Revolution is the cure."  The so-called "leader" of the roadway protest was Norman Clement, who on his Facebook page can be seen promoting Gloria La Riva, a socialist candidate for President in 2016.

I am always suspicious of these mass protests because I know how difficult it is to organize even ten people to show up to a demonstration.  The average person has a lot of things to do during the day with work, family matters, and other personal issues.  Therefore, when I see over one hundred people show up in New Haven to protest, red flags go up for me.  One of the sure signs that an event is more than just grassroots is the uniformity of the posters and signs.  While this event definitely had home made signs, the expensive, professionally made signs were also present.  Zooming in on some of these signs you can see the website AnswerCoalition.org at the bottom.  It is difficult to find who exactly is funding the Answer Coalition but there are many clear ties to Socialist and Marxist organizations.

And then comes the George Soros connections.  For those that do not know George Soros, he is a man of immense wealth who uses his money to support opposition movements and the overthrow of governments throughout the world, and just so happen to financially support Hillary Clinton for President in the 2016 race.  It appears that Soros may be using his regime-changing tactics in the United States, funding groups to protest, riot, and possibly create mass civil unrest.  One sign that was present at the New Haven protest read "No! This Fascist Regime Must Be Stopped Before It Starts", and while the news station did not show the bottom of the sign, performing a google search of this poster slogan will bring you to the website "Refuse Fascism", which appear to be the creators of this meme.  Refuse Fascism reportedly received $50,000 from a George Soros funded organization.  Refuse Fascism has been accused of being one of the groups behind the violent protests that happened in Berkley last week.  Antifa was another group accused of being behind the violence at Berkley, and they also had a presence at the New Haven protest.

News Channel 8 said that the New Haven protest was organized by an organization named "Unidad Latina en Accion".  Unidad Latina is a member of a group called The Immigration Strategic Funders Collaborative for Connecticut, or simply "The Collaborative."  The Collaborative received a $100,000 grant from George Soros' Open Society Foundations in 2015.

I would go into more depth, or create a separate analysis just on George Soros, and his tactics of influencing politics throughout the world, but there is already so much written on it that any interested reader could do a simple Google search and have unlimited number of pages of information.

That is all that I have found so far in regards to this New Haven situation, but these "grassroots" protests are something that we really need to keep our eye on, more specifically who is funding them.  Things don't just happen, everything takes money.  Trying to figure out where the money is coming from is usually more important than whatever story is being pushed.

The Problems With Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 6: They Want Us Poor

After reading as many state climate change documents as I have there's one conclusion that can definitely be drawn:  these people want us poor.  I realize that this sounds dramatic but you kind of understand their position.  I don't agree with it, but it makes sense, if you think like them.  If you truly believe that pretty much all of human technological progress (cars, airplanes, air conditioners, farming equipment, etc.) is causing irreversible damage to the planet, then it would make sense that policies should be pursued and enforced that ensure humans are using less of these innovations.  Policies that discourage the use of technological innovations, though, have a direct effect in lowering our standard of living.

The fact that these climate change policies have a negative effect on our overall standard of living is not lost on the social engineers designing this system. The document titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000" published in 2003 details how the United States did not agree to an international plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, "citing concerns about the economic impact of reducing GHG emissions on the time scale required under the agreement."  This is a clear indication that there's an understanding among government officials that these Greenhouse Gas Emission reducing policies can have negative effects on the economy, and yet many of these policies are still pursued.

One easy way to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions is to charge people more money for things like gas and electricity, so that they use less.  In a 2007 state progress report on Climate Change the topic of gasoline consuming motor vehicles causing greenhouse gas emission is discussed and it's stated that "elevated consumer gasoline prices of mid-2006 indicate that increased fuel prices may act to restrain consumption".  They also attribute a 3.7% increase in bus ridership to this increase in gas prices.  See high gas prices are good for their agenda because high gas prices will reduce the amount of gas used,even causing some people to give up their car and use the bus.  Actually, increasing the cost of driving in general is good for their agenda.  As documented in part three of this series The War On Cars, they want us out of our cars and onto public transportation.

Even our ability to keep our house cool is under attack by the social engineers of this system.  A 2006 report bemoans the fact that "[t]oday, most homes are air-conditioned", saying "[t]he increased use of residential air conditioning adds considerable demand during daytime peak periods" and that "[t]hese peak periods coincide with unhealthy air quality days in the summer."  Suggested solutions to this problem include having your air conditioner connected to a "smart grid" that allows an outside grid operator to control your output.  The topic of the smart grid and smart meters deserves, and will receive, its own analysis in the near future.

The way that we heat our home is also being manipulated, creating an extra financial burden.  In a 2013 document put out by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) it discusses the topic of people who use oil or propane to heat their home, and laments the fact that oil and propane home delivery services are not regulated by the state.  The DEEP recommends that policymakers consider a "dedicated fund supported by fuel oil and propane customers to provide robust efficiency programs" and that "oil and propane heating customers will need to be assessed higher co-pays for use of the State‘s electric efficiency programs."   In other words, tax you more money under the guise of "efficiency".

Being poor is also good for reducing solid waste generation.  In a 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health"  it is stated that "Connecticut currently is at or has surpassed the capacity to manage its own solid waste ".  It follows with the statement that "while the economic downturn has been positive for solid waste generation because people produce less solid waste per capita when the economy is poor, the eventual economic improvements will continue to strain capacity in future years."  Therefore, when people don't have money, they don't produce as much trash, and this is good for the environment, but if the economy improves, and people have more money, they will produce more trash, and this is bad.

Knowing that poor people are good for the climate change agenda, it makes sense that in 2014 when the state celebrated meeting their initial green house gas reduction goal, they credited "the economic downturn" as one of the instrumental factors in reaching that goal.

If we follow the path that these policy makers are creating to its logical conclusion, the majority of the world will be living in destitute conditions, with little to no technological innovations, similar to what we are told is the living conditions of the average citizen of North Korea.  Surely not everyone involved with propagating these climate change policies understands the disastrous consequences of such policies however that doesn't make the disastrous consequences any less likely to occur.  As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Will President-Elect Donald Trump Put An End to Agenda 21?

(This is a video version of the following analysis.)

Under the guise of fighting man made climate change and reducing carbon emissions, the United Nations Agenda 21 program of sustainable development seeks to lower the standard of living of Americans.  These sustainable development policies have been, and are being, slowly enacted across the United States, including in the state of Connecticut, as documented by previous reports.  While the continuous march of this Agenda 21 program seemed to have no slow down in sight, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States may prove to be the ultimate hurdle for the success of Agenda 21.

Trump has been a big critic of the idea of man-made climate change saying he is not a "big believer", even calling it a "hoax" on multiple occasions.  This is huge as the whole Agenda 21 program revolves around the idea that the planet's climate is being severely affected by everyday human activity like driving cars or eating meat.

To further show that Trump is serious about putting a stop to the climate change hysteria, he reportedly appointed Myron Ebell to run the EPA transition team.  Ebell is a well known skeptic of the theory of man made climate change.  He has spoke in favor of Congress prohibiting any funding for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and once labeled the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an "organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response."

Even better than that, Trump has shown signs of shunning the UN altogether.  At a campaign speech at an AIPAC conference in 2016, Trump criticized the UN for its "weakness", "incompetenece", even saying that the UN is "not a friend of freedom".

While all of this seems promising, we can't start counting our chickens just yet.  Trump has a history of flip-flopping.  On the global warming issue, Trump and three of his children put their name to an advertisement in the New York Times in 2009 urging President Obama and Congress to take action on climate change.  Furthermore, contrary to his recent remarks about the United Nations, Trump testified in front of Congress in 2005 and said that he is a "big fan of the United Nations and what it stands for", though he then goes on to rebuke the United Nations for its incompetence.

Some would brush off Trump's past public positions as nothing more than a business man saying and doing what he has to in order to play the game.  While others would say that Trump is an opportunist with no real principles.  We are going to have to wait and see.

A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Seeing as how the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is referenced multiple times throughout the various Connecticut climate change documents, I felt the need to take the time out and read the original treaty, from 1992, myself.  Having read several United Nations documents in the past, I pretty much knew what I was in for; there is a global problem that cannot be fixed by any one nation therefore all nations need to come together, come up with a comprehensive global plan, go back home, and implement it.  Instead of offering a comprehensive analysis as I have done with other United Nations documents, I will just present a few quotes from the document with my brief opinion.

The first part of the UNFCCC that should be noted is their definition of climate change.

“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods." [emphasis added]

By defining "climate change" as something that may or may not be caused by human activity they are able to avoid the debate over whether climate change is caused by humans when putting forth ideas in fighting climate change.  It may seem ridiculous to take action on a problem that you are unsure is even a problem but that is exactly what the UNFCCC proposes:

"The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost." [emphasis added]

Therefore, even when the science is not clear on an issue, it is recommended that governments take action anyway.  A similar view would eventually go on to be used in the Connecticut climate change documents.  In part 1 of a series titled "The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy" the inconclusiveness of man made climate change is discussed and can be found being presented in state documents.  Quite similarly, in Part 2 of the same series, the inaccuracy of the data being used by the state to propagate climate change policy is also revealed and discussed.

There are other sections of the UNFCCC that have come to pass in the state such as the idea to create "inventories of anthropogenic emissions".  Developing an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions would eventually become the first step taken by Connecticut as recommended in the 2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan.

Another principle of the UNFCCC that would go on to be adopted by the state of Connecticut is the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission (GHG) to a level that equals the GHG emission of the previous decades.  From the UNFCCC document:

"These policies and measures will demonstrate that developed countries are taking the lead in modifying longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of the Convention, recognizing that the return by the end of the present decade to earlier levels of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol would contribute to such modification" 

Quite similarly, the state, in 2014, announced that "Connecticut has met its initial GHG emission reduction goal of returning to 1990 levels by 2010".

Important to mention is that the UNFCCC recommends referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for "objective scientific and technical advice".  The IPCC operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and has come under heavy scrutiny in the past, as there have been many documented errors with information put out by the organization.  The IPCC is cited several times throughout the Connecticut climate change papers .

Also important to mention is that the UNFCCC was presented at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the same Earth Summit that brought us United Nations Agenda 21, a much larger and detailed global plan designed to fight climate change.  Agenda 21 is relevant because, being 300 plus pages, it gives a more detailed explanation of how the articles of the UNFCCC, a much smaller document, will be carried out.  The entire Agenda 21 plan revolves around the concept of sustainable development and Article 3, Principle 4 of the UNFCCC says "The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development."  (To get a better understanding of sustainable development and Agenda 21, it is highly recommended to any interested reader to read "A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action")  Both Agenda 21 and the UNFCCC were agreed to by the President of the United States at the time, George Bush.

Finally, the UNFCCC reveals the United Nations goal of creating a "supportive and open international economic system".  This new global economic system that is being set up by the United Nations and related organizations deserves its own in depth analysis but the work of Patrick Wood, specifically his book "Technocracy Rising" has done the best work that I have come across explaining and documenting this system.

The UNFCCC is just one small piece of an enormous puzzle that we are trying to put together here at TheGoodmanChronicle.com.  Read the related work and stay tuned for more.

Related Analyses:

• A Critical Summary of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women - August 22, 2014 (link)
• Children's Edition of United Nations Agenda 21: Blatant Anti-Human Propaganda - February 02, 2014 (link)
• Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights" - December 28, 2013 (link)
• A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 01, 2013 (link)

CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016

To open the legislative session for 2016 the governor of Connecticut Dan Malloy has a new message: get used to a lowering of your standard of living because the pre-recession prosperity of your parents days, where wages and home prices went up, is not coming back.

"Really what the overall message today is that Connecticut's and the nations economy was changed by the Great Recession.  We all thought that, you know, that we'd get back to what was an old normal.  Well quite frankly, we're in the new normal.  And I think government has to catch up to where the people are and understand that the people have already made that adjustment.  They're not counting on an economy that their parents and their grandparents counted on where wages and home values went up steadily every single year." - Governor Malloy, opening day round-table discussion

"We live in changing times, you don't have to take my word for it, you hear it from your constituents everyday.  A visceral feeling that our country and our state are not going back to how things were before the great recession.  Families are budgeting differently. Their expectations are changing. They know that they can't rely on the same economy their parents and grandparents did, where wages and home values steadily increased." - Governor Malloy's Opening Day Address to the General Assembly 

What the governor does not tell you is that many policy makers view the economic downturn and the lowering of our standard of living as a good thing because it means we use less energy, thus saving the planet from greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

As an example, in 2014 the state announced that it had met its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and credited "the economic downturn" as one of the major factors involved with helping to reach that goal.  Director of Policy for the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection, Jessie Stratton, was working for, and speaking on behalf of the Environment Northeast Organization back in 2010 when she also credited the economic downturn for "reduced electricity consumption."

To better understand this concept of a reduction in energy consumption being a good thing we have to go back to at least 2001 when the state had announced its goal of reducing green house gas emission in the state by up to 85%.  This means a reduction in energy use, which means a reduction in the use of products that require energy to be made, which means a reduction in pretty much everything.  As an example of the vast level of green house gas reduction looking to be imposed by the state, a 2008 state document said that "Connecticut will need to decrease GHG emissions by more than one million metric tons per year for over 40 years"  which they say is "equivalent to the emissions from electricity used by over 137,000 homes each year or the emissions from over 190,000 passenger vehicles each year."

This idea that single family homes and private motor vehicles are bad for the environment is being used by the state and federal government to implement a program of "Smart Growth".  Smart Growth occurs when government attempts to reduce private motor vehicle and single family home ownership by using taxes, laws, and regulations to focus high-density development around a transit line.  An example of this is occurring in the capital city of Hartford where over a thousand apartment units have been or are being constructed in the downtown area along the newly built CTFastrak bus line.  These construction projects have received millions of tax-payer dollars in loans, grants, and other forms of financial assistance.

Policy makers like to tout the benefits of living in an apartment, next to a bus line, and not needing to own a car or maintain property, but they leave out the many benefits of home and car ownership.  For example, your options as to where you would like to live, work, grocery shop, or seek entertainment are vastly increased when you have a personal motor vehicle.  Without a personal motor vehicle your options on where to live, work, shop, and play are limited to what is on your bus or train route.  There are a number of benefits of personal home ownership as well, not the least of which being privacy, and not having to be around people that you do not want to be around.  When our buying options are limited in such a way by these state-sponsored energy-reduction Smart Growth policies designed to restrict private motor vehicle ownership and single-family home ownership this directly results in a lowering of our standard of living.

This policy of Smart Growth was not created at the state level though, it is a top down policy that extends up through the federal government all the way up to the international government level with the United Nations.  Evidence of this can be found in the various Connecticut climate change papers where various organizations affiliated with the United Nations, like the IPCC, are cited, but most specifically in the 2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan where the topic of greenhouse gas emission is discussed, it is stated: "The ultimate goal mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  This is relevant because the United Nations is more explicit in their desire to lower the standard of living of industrialized nations like the United States, all in the name of fighting "climate change".  In the United Nations Agenda 21 Program of Action, an action plan presented at the same 1992 Earth summit in Rio that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was presented, it states that "the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries."  This sentiment is even more explicitly expressed , and quite coincidentally in almost the same terms that Governor Dan Malloy is using, in the children's edition of Agenda 21.  Rachel Kyte, the Vice President of the World Bank Group at the time of the publishing of the childrens edition of Agenda 21 is quoted as saying that children should not expect as much as their parents.  The actual quote is this:

"You can't bring up a new generation of people telling them they can have everything we have and more."

An interested person researching climate change and the United Nations will continue to come across this concept of a lowering in the standard of living of industrialized nations being a necessity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  At TheGoodmanChronicle.com we attempt to document how this agenda is directly affecting residents of Connecticut.

To conclude, we need to look at this recent revelation by Governor Malloy in its proper context.  The state government, along with the federal government, have been adopting policies in order to get the people to use less energy and reduce consumption.  This is why the economic changes brought with the recession are being embraced.  When we have less money, we consume less.  As we progress further in this agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emission we can expect further economic, as well as social and cultural changes, all in an apparent effort to fight "climate change".  Only an informed and vigilant citizenry can get in the way of these changes from taking place.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.  Click here for an .mp3 audio version)

In this part of the series of 'The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy' we are going to take a look at many of the groups behind CT climate change policy, and their curious connection to the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which will be referred to as RBF from this point on.  We are going to start by following the timeline of the implementation of Connecticut climate change policy.

The first action taken by the state in regards to "global warming" was in 1990 with the passing of Public Act 90-219 "An Act Concerning Global Warming", but we will start this analysis in the year 2000 as that is when the state's focus on climate change and global warming began in earnest and significant action began to be taken.

In the year 2000 an alliance of New England Governors met with Premiers from Eastern Canada to adopt "Resolution 25-9 concerning global warming and its environmental impacts."  These New England Governors were brought together through a forum named CONEG, or the Coalition of North Eastern Governors. According to their website, "CONEG works with the governors and their staff and policy advisors to examine current and emerging regional issues, develop effective solutions, and undertake cooperative actions that benefit the individual state and the region."  CONEG polices are identified, formulated, and carried out by their staff at the CONEG Policy Research Center Inc.  Various official documents from the RBF show that they were funding CONEG Policy Research Center Inc. from its inception in the mid-1970's through the 1980's.  Therefore the RBF has had an influential connection to Connecticut climate change policy from its inception.

In 2001, this coalition of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers came together once again to create a Climate Change Action Plan for the region.  This plan called for each state to create their own climate change plans, programs, and policies.  As a result, the governor of Connecticut at the time, John Rowland, in 2002, created a Steering Committee "to coordinate Connecticut’s actions on climate change."

The same year that Governor Rowland created the Steering Committee, the Commitee met at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

At this meeting it was stated that one of the first steps that Connecticut needs to do to address climate change is to have an inventory of "greenhouse gas" in the state.  It was announced that Connecticut had approached the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) to develop this greenhouse gas inventory for the state, and in 2003 NESCAUM released their report titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000".

NESCAUM is an organization cited throughout the state documents in relation to climate change.  The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given multiple grants to NESCAUM, funding various studies put out by the organization.

In the 2003 report on Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory, written by agents of NESCAUM, the origins of the concern over "greenhouse gases" is detailed, and they cite the starting point when "[i]n 1992, the United States joined more than 160 other countries in signing and ratifying the [United Nations] Framework Convention on Climate Change. [UNFCCC]"

As detailed in the report Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut, the UNFCCC was a specific aspiration of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as they admittedly "organized and funded some of the earliest meetings of advocates addressing climate change."  One of those early advocate organizations that has played, and continues to play, a leading role in the climate change debate is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The IPCC operates under the auspices of the United Nations, and has been a highly influential organization propagating the belief that man-made global warming is a real and serious threat.  The IPCC is known as an "internationally accepted authority on climate change."  IPCC reports are cited  throughout the many Connecticut official documents relating to climate change policy.  The IPCC was co-funded into existence by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)
(Click here for an .mp3 download of this presentation)

In the first two parts of this series we discussed the fallacy that man-made global warming is a fact, as well as how the methodologies that the state is using to calculate its supposed effects are not accurate.  We are now going to examine one of the proposals that is constantly offered by state officials as a combative action towards fighting man-made global warming; the reduction of private motor vehicles.

Regular readers of The Goodman Chronicle are already aware that the state of Connecticut has a policy of reducing private motor vehicle usage.  A recent example of this happened on December 3, 2014, when Connecticut state officials met with "transportation advocates" to discuss the future of transportation in Connecticut.  The discussion mainly focused on ways to further restrict private motor vehicle ownership, and usage, through measures such as an increase in the gasoline tax, toll roads, and more.

This analysis will show, using Connecticut climate change documents, how this anti-car philosophy in the state is derived from the idea that man-made global warming is a real and pressing issue in our society.

(It should be pointed out in the beginning of this analysis that this desire to reduce the amount of private motor vehicles is only one part of a much larger plan to concentrate people into highly regulated, dense neighborhoods, with public transportation being the main form of transportation.  This type of centralized planning is known as "smart growth", and will receive its own analysis in a later section of this multi-series report.)

The state believes that they need to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) by one million metric tons per year, over the next forty years.  According to their calculations this is equivalent to the emissions from over 190,000 passenger vehicles each year.

One option that the state has considered to deal with the GHG coming out of vehicles is to increase the taxes on cars that emit high levels of GHG, and offer tax breaks to consumers who purchased low GHG emitting vehicles.  This is known as a feebate program.  As a result of this policy, governments hope to encourage auto manufacturers to produce cars with less GHG emission.  Connecticut has yet to pursue this policy, however the federal government does have a similar program that offers tax incentives to consumers of "eco-friendly" cars.

Encouraging car manufacturers to make cars with less GHG emission is an option that the state continues to pursue, however they admit that this will not be enough to reach their target goal, in terms of passenger vehicle GHG emission:

"Connecticut’s increasingly cleaner cars will be overshadowed by the fact that we continue to drive more"

Because making cars "cleaner" will not be enough to reduce GHG emission to the level that the state would like, they pursue a policy of forcing people out of their cars and onto public transportation.  This is done by increasing the cost of driving:

"Implement a tax on driving (gasoline, toll, or mileage-based insurance) that would be channeled in its entirety to a dedicated fund to subsidize mass transit, walking, and bicycling."

Throughout the Connecticut climate change documents, there are various tactics recommended to state agencies in an effort to discourage the use of private motor vehicles.  One of these tactics includes adding tolls to roads.  Formulas have been developed to calculate how much of an increase in the cost of driving is needed to reduce private motor vehicle trips, as can be seen by this excerpt taken from a 2004 state document pertaining to climate change:

"A recent Connecticut report completed an analysis of travel demand mode shifts that would result from a value-pricing toll of $0.20 per mile in the southwest Connecticut corridor.  ConnDOT’s travel-demand model predicted that this pricing measure alone would create a 6 percent reduction in drive-alone trips, an increase in new rail trips of 72 percent, and an increase in bus use of 25 percent. The results are consistent with the results of the 1994 COMSIS Transportation Control Measure study, which indicated that a highway value toll of $0.10 per mile was expected to reduce VMT by 3.5 percent." 

The 2005 Connecticut Climate Change Action Plan states that getting us out of our cars will not only be good for the environment, but it will also improve our health as a society.  The idea seems to be that if the state can get people to use their bicycle or walk instead of taking their car, this will have health improvements for the individual.

"Health benefits from increased mobility. Auto­centric development patterns have  decreased mobility among adults and children, reducing opportunities for walking and  bike riding. The Surface Transportation Policy Project released a report this year  demonstrating a statistically significant correlation between sprawl, obesity, and  hypertension. Research suggests that people in compact, mixed­use areas reap benefits from increased opportunities to integrate walking and biking into their everyday  routines.  Smart growth seeks to encourage centralized, mixed­use communities with well­ developed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Given the myriad health costs associated with inactivity, creating opportunities for increased mobility through smart  growth has a clear (although unquantified in this analysis) economic value."

Of course taking your bicycle, or walking, to the park, on a nice sunny day, instead of using your car sounds like a nice idea, but when it is raining, cold, or snowing, and you have to get work, school, appointments, etc., waiting around for public transportation would be a terrible scenario, and in many cases, unfeasible.  The many positive benefits of having your own private motor vehicle is never stressed in these documents.

The possible list of quotes and citations from these Connecticut climate change documents pertaining to the reduction of private motor vehicles is nearly endless.  We could go on, but you get the point.  The state of Connecticut has taken the position that the Earth is warming, humans are causing the warming, and reducing the number of cars on the road will help stop the warming.

In the next analysis we will take an inquisitive look into the groups behind the creation of these policies and their curious connection with Rockefeller family-related organizations.

Previous reports on Connecticut climate change:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real?
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data

Connecticut Judge Charles Gill Thinks People Should Be Forced To Get A License To Have Children

Charles Gill, former Litchfield District Superior Court Judge

There are people in high positions of power, in the United States, that believe people should be forced to become "licensed" before they are allowed to have children.  One of these people is former judge for the Litchfield District Superior Court in Connecticut, Charles D. Gill.  Judge Gill wrote the foreword to a book called Licensing Parents, and says that this was the book that convinced him that parents should be licensed.  For an in-depth analysis on the extraordinary details and suggestions propagated in Licensing Parents, read the report A Critical Examination of the Book and Concept of "Licensing Parents".

The influence of Charles Gill in Connecticut law and politics was briefly described in an analysis titled "Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights".  In the analysis it was discussed how Judge Gill was attempting to make United States law consistent with United Nations resolutions, more specifically The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).  The UNCRC would drastically reduce the rights of parents over their children, by increasing government involvement into the lives of children, in the name of "protecting" them.  Judge Gill has been quoted as admitting that the UNCRC makes the state directly responsible for the child:

"The (UN) convention makes a total break from previous approaches to children's rights. Previous 'rights' were paternalistic, whereas the convention makes the state directly responsible to the child."

Gill wrote an article for the The School Superintendents Association (AASA) where he promoted the UNCRC, as well as discussing, among other things, a trip he took in 1972 to the Soviet Union as part of a "special education tour" with American and Soviet educators.  In the article Gill shows admiration for the way the Soviet Union viewed children as "national treasures", and bemoans his belief that Americans don't share the same view of their children.  Gill also displays an, in my opinion, radical view of the purpose of "public school leaders", suggesting that they should put "dangerous" knowledge into the minds of children to effect political change:

"Because of your experience, position, and leadership, you have the capacity to become "armed and dangerous" on behalf of our national treasure—our children. You are "armed" with knowledge and "dangerous" because you can put that knowledge to work in the political arena."

One excerpt from the article seemingly shows Gill's true feelings towards the parent/child relationship, implying that parents are detrimental in the development of children.  Writing about the need to "develop children", Gill says:

"An outstanding elementary school principal from Butte, Mont., Kate Stetzner, makes the point with perhaps more clarity. She subscribes to something she calls "the bathtub theory." Children come to school each day as empty bathtubs. Caring teachers and administrators dutifully fill that tub with nurturing, values, inspiration, and information, then the children go home ... and somebody pulls out the plug."

Connecting the Ford Foundation to the Implementation of Agenda 21 in Connecticut

Much has been written on the Ford Foundation, and its influence, past, and present, on American society.  References to various literature on the Ford Foundation will be listed throughout this analysis, and readers should follow those references if interested in gaining a greater understanding of the foundation.  The purpose of this analysis is to focus specifically on the Ford Foundation's connections to UN Agenda 21, and its implementation in the state of Connecticut.

As detailed in the report A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action, Agenda 21 is a collectivist plan for world government, based on the concept of "sustainable development".  The concept of sustainability and sustainable development was brought into the public debate in 1987 with the publication of the Our Common Future report.  This report lists The Ford Foundation as a significant financial contributor. (For a more detailed explanation of the Our Common Future report, and how it relates to United Nations Agenda 21, read A Brief Examination of "Our Common Future": The Report That Gave Birth To Agenda 21)

Another direct connection of Agenda 21 to the Ford Foundation comes from the Foundation's open support of civil society organizations (CSO's) that advance "the sustainable development conventions associated with the 1992 Earth Summit", the event where Agenda 21 was introduced.

In an effort to make this analysis easy to follow, various aspects of Agenda 21 will be broken down into categories, the connection to the Ford Foundation of each of these categories will be discussed, and later a description will be given of how it is being implemented in the state of Connecticut.

World Government 

Long before Agenda 21 was introduced, plans for world government have been discussed by various people, and organizations.  In relation to the Ford Foundation, the idea of a world government was propagated by former associate director of the Ford Foundation, Robert Hutchins.

The views and influence of Robert Hutchins deserve their own in-depth analysis, especially when discussing the Ford Foundation connection to United Nations Agenda 21, but for the sake of brevity we will just briefly discuss his legacy.  Robert Hutchins served in various influential positions in American society including President of the University of Chicago, associate director of the Ford Foundation, and chairman of the Fund for the Republic.  Hutchins was a proponent of world government, and while serving as President of the University of Chicago, was the head of the Committee to Frame a World Constitution.  This is how the Chicago Tribune, in 1948, described Hutchin's World Constitution:

"The 'declaration of duties and rights' of this world constitution, which is not called a 'bill of rights,' does not even mention freedom of speech or of the press, guaranteed in the 1st amendment to the United States Constitution, nor does it enumerate more than two of the 22 specific items of freedom, or limitations upon government, established in the first ten amendments which make up the American Bill of Rights.

Along with the 'duties,' which limit the 'rights' in the Hutchins committee's draft, is the declaration that all property, including private property, 'is the common property of the human race,' and that private property shall be subordinated to "the common good," which is to be established by the new 'world government'."

In the book The Ford Foundation: The Men and the Millions, author Dwight MacDonald discusses how some Americans threatened to boycott Ford cars because they considered the Ford Foundation to have a "liberalistic flavor", and viewed Robert Hutchins, and former President of the Ford Foundation, Paul Hoffman, as "wild-eyed One Worlders".  MacDonald also discusses how some of the Ford Foundation trustees found various decisions by Hoffman to be objectionable:

"Some of the trustees are also said to have objected to Hoffman's "controversial" personal activities, such as his enthusiasm for the United Nations and UNESCO, his support of ex-Senator Benton when the latter was sued by Senator McCarthy, and his politicking to win the Republican nomination for Eisenhower. " (pg. 149)

A Critical Examination of the Book and Concept of "Licensing Parents"

Jack Westman, author
of Licensing Parents

Licensing Parents is a book written by a professor of psychiatry named Jack Westman, which attempts to convince the reader that if the government required parents to be "licensed" before they were allowed to have children, it would result in fewer cases of child abuse and neglect.  Exploring and analyzing the concepts put forth in this book are important as there are people in positions of power that take this book, and concept, seriously.  One of those people is former judge for the Litchfield District Superior Court in Connecticut, Charles D. Gill.  Gill wrote the foreword to Licensing Parents, and says that this was the book that convinced him that parents should be licensed.  The influence of Judge Charles Gill in Connecticut law and politics was briefly explored in the article Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights".  This influence of Judge Gill deserves a more in-depth critical analysis, but for the sake of brevity, we will just focus on the concepts presented in Licensing Parents by it's author, Jack Westman.

There is great deal of information presented in this nearly 300 page book, a lot of which is easy to agree with.  For example, it does not take a trained psychiatrist to see that there are problems in society, and that many of the functions that are supposedly set up to fix these problems, are not working.  Westman begins his book mentioning some of these issues such as "widespread crime", "the abduction of children", and an increase in suicide among teens.  It is not so much Westman's diagnosis of society's problems that deserve scrutiny, but his radical solutions to these problems.  Before exploring Westman's proposed solutions, though, it is important to understand what he believes to be the causes of societies ills.

Toll Roads, Gas Tax Increase, and Other Schemes That Connecticut Is Mulling Over To Force You Onto Public Transportation

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

Connecticut state officials met with "transportation advocates" on December 3rd, 2014 for the “Getting to Work:  Transportation and Jobs Access for the 21st Century” event, to discuss the future of transportation in Connecticut.  (Click here to watch the full three hour forum.)

Regular readers of The Goodman Chronicle already know that the future of transportation in Connecticut, if the tax free foundations get their way, is to revolve around increased restrictions on private motor vehicle use, and a focus on public transportation.  Coincidentally (or not), some of the foundations advocating a reduction in private motor vehicle use in the state, were key coordinators for this meeting.  These foundations include the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and the Regional Plan Association, both of which, as pointed out in previous articles, have received funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, an organization advocating a much larger agenda, one aspect of which is the reduction of private motor vehicles.

The forum opened up with a quick introduction by CT Governor Dan Malloy, discussing various aspects of the transportation situation in the state.  Along with public transportation goals, Malloy briefly mentions widening certain roads/highways in Connecticut in an effort to provide a better experience for private motor vehicle drivers.  After Governor Malloy gives his four minute introduction speech, the topic of making transportation easier for private motor vehicle drivers is barely mentioned again, by any of the presenters, for the rest of the three hour forum.  The focus of the entire forum becomes about designing communities around, and increasing the ridership of, public transportation.

The majority of people living in Connecticut have no idea that this transformation of society is occurring, as Governor Dan Malloy admits in his introduction talk:

"We've actually not told people the true size and the cost of what needs to be done if CT is to be able to compete in the next 50 years."

The key-note speaker for this forum was Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution.  Puentes discusses the increasing poverty in Connecticut, as well as the fact that people are driving less, and attributes these situations to the economic recession.  The solution however, according to Puentes, is not to try to restore the old economy, with the same jobs, and have people driving again, but to "subscribe to a brand new growth model", and "restructure the economy" in a way that focuses on creating development, and jobs, around public transportation.


The recommendations of Puentes favoring public transportation, not only ignores drivers of personal motor vehicles, but actually make it more difficult to own, and operate, a private motor vehicle.  Like many of the "transportation advocates" in the state, Puentes' pro-public transportation advocacy is actually an anti-car philosophy.  Some of these recommendations include a gas tax increase, toll roads, and more.

Let us take a more in depth examination of some of the policies of this "brand new growth model" recommended by Puentes.

A Brief Examination of "Our Common Future": The Report That Gave Birth To Agenda 21

To understand the complexity of the United Nations Agenda 21 Program of Action, a serious study needs to be conducted not only of the Agenda 21 plan itself, but also of the various reports, conventions, treaties, etc., that are referenced throughout Agenda 21 literature.  The World Commission on Environment and Development, also referred to as the Brundtland Report, or "Our Common Future", is one of the essential reports, related to the Agenda, that needs to be read, to further develop an understanding of the ideas, and goals, of the planners, who are implementing this massive agenda for the world.  (To view the 300-page online .pdf version of Our Common Future, off of the United Nations website, click here.)

According to the description on the back cover of the hard copy version of "Our Common Future":

"The World Commission on Environment and Development, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, was set up as an independent body in 1983 by the United Nations.  Its brief was to re-examine the critical environment and development problems on the planet and to formulate realistic proposals to solve them, and to ensure that human progress will be sustained through development without bankrupting the resources of future generations"

We know this report played a key role in the creation of Agenda 21, from references to it, in various Agenda 21 affiliated literature.  For example, in the Introduction section of the children's version of Agenda 21, Rescue Mission: Planet Earth, the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, is credited with "set[ting] out the idea of Sustainable Development."  Of course the term 'sustainable development' is key, as nearly every chapter of the Agenda 21 Program revolves around the idea of creating, what they refer to as, "a new global partnership for sustainable development."

Another example to show this report's connection to Agenda 21 comes from a newsletter released by a highly-influential organization in the area of regional planning, the American Planning Association (APA).  In an article titled, How Sustainable Is Our Planning?, land use planner Robert Odland, discusses the origins of the term 'sustainable development', how it is being used more frequently by planners, and it's connection to Agenda 21.

"[A] new family of terms is appearing more frequently in planning : sustainable development, sustainable cities, and sustainable growth.  What do these terms mean and what are the implications for planners?   The concept of sustainability and sustainable development came into the public debate with the publication of the World Commission on Environment and Development report, Our Common Future, (often known as the Brundtland Report).  This report defined sustainable development as the ability to meet the needs of the current population without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

Continuing with the article written by Robert Odland in the APA newsletter, Odland goes on to explain the connections with sustainability and Agenda 21:

"Vice President Gore’s book, Earth in the Balance addressed many of the general issues of sustainability. Within the past year, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development has been organized to develop recommendations for incorporating sustainability into the federal government. Also, various groups have been formed to implement Agenda 21, a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable development that was adopted at the recent UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro (the ‘Earth Summit.’).”

Providing a full, detailed analysis of Our Common Future, would be a futile task, as nearly every concept proposed in this report, is also proposed in Agenda 21, and the report A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action does a sufficient job of describing, and analyzing, those key concepts.  It is important, though, to highlight certain excerpts, and details of the Brundtland report, that may help in providing a greater understanding of the overall Agenda.

There were 21 members on this commission, all representing different countries, including such prominent figures as the previously mentioned former Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, former EPA administrator and FBI director, William Ruckelshaus, and Canadian businessman Maurice Strong.  Another notable member of the Commission, representing Guyana, is Shridath S. Ramphal, who is quoted in the children's version of Agenda 21 promoting population control, and criticizing anti-abortion groups like the Catholic Church.  Separate, extensive studies should be conducted on the different members of the Commission, especially on Gro Brundtland and Maurice Strong, to find various interesting connections, but for the sake of brevity, we will move on from looking at the particular members of the commission.