Soros Influencing CT Affordable Housing Laws

(This is a video of the following analysis.)

The state of Connecticut has a statute (8-30g) that requires at least 10 percent of a town or city's housing stock to be considered "affordable".  If a town in Connecticut does not meet this standard, as most do not, a developer looking to build high density housing that gets denied by the towns zoning and planning commission, can appeal to the state and essentially override the local towns decision.  This battle has taken place and is taking place across Connecticut, including in Simsbury where the local planning commission recently denied a proposal for a high-density affordable housing subdivision.  The developer is appealing the decision with the state citing the 8-30g statute.

There are two bills proposed in the state legislature this year (HB 6880 & HB 7057) that, according to supporters of affordable housing who are opposing these bills, would weaken the 8-30g statute. Without getting into all of the details of the proposed legislation, the bills would seemingly make it harder for developers to override local planning and zoning commissions using the 8-30g statute.

By examining the testimony of the groups that oppose this legislation we can learn a lot about the motivations behind the push for "affordable housing".

One group's testimony that I found particularly interesting was that of the Open Communities Alliance, which is "a non-profit civil rights organization that focuses on ensuring that low-income families of color have access to the wealth of opportunities in our state through a balanced approach to affordable housing creation."  In the testimony of Erin Boggs, executive director of Open Communities Alliance, she says that municipal zoning has "exclusionary roots" meant to keep non-whites out of white neighborhoods.  Boggs says that "[w]e as a state and a country still struggle with the historical legacy of [that] kind of racist sentiment" therefore supports the state using 8-30g to override a town or cities decision on development:

"It is the concern of many communities that CGS Sec. 8-30g takes away local control over zoning. It does, when reasonable affordable housing development proposals are rejected by towns that do not have sufficient levels of affordable units. There is a way to address this – proactively work to generate suitable housing within your town to reach a moratorium or surpass the 10% threshold."

In other words, communities can make their own decisions as long as they do what they are told by people not in the community.

The Open Communities Alliance not only lobbies for changes in legislation but organizes coalitions, produces "research" to support their policies, engages in public outreach, and more.  One example of their work to subvert local sovereignty can be seen in a case in Westport last year where a developer, Richard K. Freedman, submitted a proposal for a 48-unit, 30 percent affordable housing project but was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).  Freedman, citing the 8-30g statute, said he will file a lawsuit against the town because it has a pattern of denying affordable housing.  In his proposal, Freedman submitted a letter from the Open Communities Alliance supporting the development using what seems to be veiled legal threats and dubious racial statistics.  One part of the letter states "Westport is a high opportunity area, meaning that it is thriving with high-performing schools, access to jobs, and safe neighborhoods. Unfortunately, Westport does not reflect the racial, ethnic or economic demographics of its geographic region or state as a whole" and goes on to say that Westport lacks 'people of color' and single parents, proportionally speaking.  To an outsider it may seem that this lack of "diversity" could possibly be a reason why Wesport has high-performing schools, access to jobs, and safe neighborhoods but anyone capable of making that connection would never dare as they know it would surely lead to them being derided as a racist, misogynist, or some other form of ad hominem attack.

Anyway, I decided to look a little bit further into this Open Communities Alliance, and after seeing who funds the organization, the propagation of racial conflicts and attacks on local sovereignty all made sense.  They receive money from the Ford Foundation, an organization that I previously written about in regards to their push for world government, population control, and other policies that align with United Nations Agenda 21.  They also receive money from Open Society Foundations, an organization founded by the infamous billionaire George Soros.  In a previous video I showed how Soros money was being used to fund other groups in Connecticut causing racial and political conflict.

Another organization that submitted testimony against the bills currently in the state legislature regarding statute 8-30g is the Regional Plan Association.  The Regional Plan Association is another tax-free organization funded by the Ford Foundation, as well as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, two foundations that I have written extensively on in the past in regards to their subversion of local sovereignty, among other topics.

While I do not pretend to understand all of the intricacies involved in the proposed legislation, and rarely ever endorse bills, judging strictly by who is against these bills, I would venture to say that these are genuinely good pieces of legislation, in the sense that they would increase local decision making power.

Related Stories:

• George Soros, The Ideal Globalist - March 13, 2017 (link)
• What They Didn't Tell You About The Protests In New Haven, Connecticut - Thursday, February 9, 2017 (link)
• 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)

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)

Trumps New EPA Pick Angers All The Right People In Connecticut

 

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

President-Elect Donald Trump has apparently picked Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency.  In a previous video I discussed how Trump had Myron Ebell, a well known "climate change skeptic", lead the EPA transition team, and speculated how this might reverse some of the disastrous climate change policies that have been propagated by the federal government.  Trump's pick of Pruitt is another good sign that there might actually be some change in the EPA's overreaching policies.  Pruitt hasn't fallen for the global warming scam saying that the climate debate is "far from settled", and even joined a coalition of state attorneys general that sued the EPA over their restrictive policies.    

Another good sign of this Pruitt pick is the group of people in Connecticut that this upsets.  All of the people and groups that for one reason or the other have been pushing this concept of smart growth, sustainable development, the anti-car agenda, etc., are all outraged over the new head of the EPA.

Governor Malloy put out a press release calling the Pruit pick "deeply unsettling", saying the pick raises many questions about whether the EPA will continue to support the climate change policies that Malloy has been instrumental in implementing in the state.

Even the Rockefeller-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that push the anti-car agenda in the state like the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) are worried, putting Pruitt in the "losers" section of their blog saying that he is "someone who has spent his career fighting environmental regulations for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry".

Another Rockefeller connected NGO pushing similar policies, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, called for the Senate to firmly reject Pruitt's nomination saying "[t]his isn’t just letting the fox into the henhouse, it’s handing the fox the architectural blueprints and a stick of dynamite."

The founder of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment is Fred Krupp.  Krupp is a very interesting character that deserves his own analysis, as he was actually on President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development which was conceived in order to formulate recommendations for the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 in the United States.  Krupp is still very much active in the environmental movement as the President of the highly influential Environmental Defense Fund, and called Trump's pick of Pruitt to head the EPA "deeply troubling".

As I said in the previous video on this topic, while all of this seems promising, we have to wait and see.  The Trump presidency could just be getting rid of the whole climate change , green energy scam, and replacing it with a new scam.  I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open, and documenting as much as I can.  Thanks for watching, subscribe to the channel, and watch the related videos for more information.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations

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

(download .mp3 here)

An important point that needs to be made when discussing Connecticut climate change policy is that it was not some grass roots movement that began pushing for climate change legislation in Connecticut but instead the push comes from the international level at the United Nations.  This fact can be easily documented by reading through the various Connecticut climate change papers and viewing the numerous citations to the United Nations and related organizations.

One early example of th e United Nations direction into Connecticut climate change policy can be seen in the agreement made in 2001 between the Governors of New England and the Premiers of Eastern Canada known as the "2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan".  In the action plan it is stated that "The ultimate goal [of greenhouse gas emission] mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  The UNFCCC would then go on to be cited multiple times in the Connecticut climate change papers .

Signatories of the 1992 UNFCCC have agreed to adopt policies that help fight "climate change", encourage the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere", and "promote sustainable development." (To get a better understanding of the UNFCCC read A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).) 

It should also be noted that at the 1992 United Nations conference in Rio where the UNFCCC was presented , another important UN document, Agenda 21, was also presented and accepted by President George Bush on behalf of the United States.  Even though, to my knowledge, Agenda 21 is not directly referenced in Connecticut Climate change documents, it is important to note because being a much larger and more detailed plan than the UNFCCC, it lays out a more specific agenda on how "sustainab le development" is to be carried out.  It is highly recommended to any interested reader on this subject to read A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action.

 The 2001 New England Governors agreement would go on to form the foundation of Connecticut climate change policy, and as just explained, its goal mirrored that of the United Nations.

The following year, 2002, the Connecticut Governor's Steering Committee met to further discuss the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as agreed to in the 2001 New England Governors meeting.  Important to note about this 2002 meeting is that it was held 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.  The Rockefellers have multiple connections to the United Nations, including donating the money for the land on which the U.N. stands today.  (For a more comprehensive analysis of the United Nations - Rockefeller connection check out the 4th part in this series titled The Rockefeller Connection, as well as the presentation titled The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection.)

In the paper which derived from that 2002 meeting, and several times after that, the organization ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Enviornmental Initiatives, is cited as a group working in Connecticut to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed, several cities across the state have become members of ICLEI at one time or another.  ICLEI, today known as Local Governments for Sustainability, is a major non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been highly influential in spreading the concept of "sustainable development", and other United Nations programs, across the world.  ICLEI was founded at the United Nations and is cited in the United Nations program of action, Agenda 21, as one of three non-governmental organizations active in the field of propagating sustainable development policy.

Finally, we get to the "scientific" body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  State officials rely heavily on information put out by the IPCC to justify their "climate change" programs, citing their reports throughout the Connecticut Climate Change papers.  And of course, the IPCC was established by the United Nations.

Further connections could be presented, but the point is made.  Connecticut Climate Change policy is being influenced and ultimately directed by international organizations, specifically the United Nations.

Related Reports:

• 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)

The Fallacy of the Minimum Wage and CT Governor Dan Malloy

Transcript:

After reviewing a 2014 news conference concerning an increase in the minimum wage, I am completely convinced that Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy does not have the least bit understanding of economics.

"Today I am proud to announce one more piece of legislation that I will be submitting which is to increase the state minimum wage to $10.10 over the next three years"

That some people can think government is able to make our lives better by setting a minimum wage baffles me.  Forget the fact that everything government does is inefficient by nature, or that for government to help one person it must hurt another.

Let us just logically take a look at the idea of minimum wage.  Advocates of the minimum wage range from wanting a federally mandated $15/hour minimum wage to over $20/hour but regardless of the number requested I always have the same question; why stop there?  If you think the government could set a minimum and make everyone's life better, why only $20/hour?  Why not $50/hour? or $100/hour? or maybe the government can pass a law that mandates a $1000/hour minimum wage, so that way we can all be rich, live in mansions, and drive Lamborghini.

Obviously this is absurd, as there are not many businesses that will be able to pay the increased wages, and would be forced to either drastically raise prices, lay off employees, or close.  Well this concept applies to any increase in the required wage.  There are many small businesses that are struggling to stay open and pay their employees at the current required wage, and if it were to increase by just a dollar or two, the business would not be able to pay the extra hundreds or thousands a month and be forced to raise prices, lay off employees, or close.  Now that employee that you were trying to make have a better life, has no job.

As shown by the next clip, Governor Malloy at least somewhat understands this concept but shows further ignorance of economics by brushing the increased prices away as no big deal, and makes the absurd statement that most businesses that pay the minimum wage are forced to stay in an area and can't leave regardless of the increased labor cost.

Reporter:  "Governor, no business has ever passed an exorbitant tax or an increase, its passed onto the consumer [sic].  Don't you feel that you just increased the cost of living in the state?"
Governor Malloy: "Well I think to some extent that may be reflected in costs but if you look at the nature of the businesses that are largely paying the minimum wage, they are businesses that can't leave the state.  They're here, they're providing services and products to the people of the state of Connecticut."

This is such an absurd conclusion that I don't know where to begin to dispute it.  When mentioning businesses that can't leave, I am assuming Malloy is referring to minimum wage jobs like restaurants that are very location focused, that have built their business through satisfying the local population, and can't just get up and relocate.  While it is true that these businesses can't just get up and relocate to another state, there is nothing that prevents them from just shutting down.  If they can't afford to pay their employees, or lose customers due to the increased prices that are a result of the increased salary paid to their employees, then the businesses will just close down.  The first businesses to close will be the single small family owned restaurants as they do not have the resources that big chain restaurants have, to deal with costly government regulation.  A restaurant like McDonalds has the resources to invest in automated order taking machines as a substitute for the newly increased cost of having an actual human employee.  But even a restaurant like McDonalds isn't REQUIRED to stay in a city and lose money.  If government regulations become so taxing that even a big chain store can't make a profit, then they will eventually just close or leave as well.

The next thing Governor Malloy says is really ridiculous, in my opinion.  He essentially says that people want to pay their workers more but I guess are just not smart enough to pay their workers what they feel they deserve and that is why we need government to force them to pay their workers more through minimum wage laws:

 "...I think when you ask people of the state of Connecticut whether they believe that the people who wait on them, who care for them, who take care of their children, should receive a $10.10 salary , I think you are going to find overwhelmingly that the people of Connecticut do agree."

So, according to the Governor's logic, there are people in Connecticut who are paying someone the minimum wage to watch their children, who feel that the babysitter deserves more than the minimum wage, but just aren't paying the babysitter more because there isn't a law requiring them to do so?  Why wouldn't they just pay the babysitter more themselves?

This same concept applies to the other group that Dan Malloy mentioned, waiters.  If Connecticut residents truly feel that the people who wait on them at restaurants deserve more pay, there is nothing from stopping those people from leaving a bigger tip.  It is obvious that Governor Malloy, with his push for an increase in the minimum wage, is just appealing to the low income, low information voter that doesn't understand the impact of government wage laws.

To conclude, more laws and bigger government are not the solution to the countries economic problems, but in actuality the cause of them.  Instead of asking for a government mandated "livable wage", we should be asking why the current non-livable wage of $10/hour, would be an extremely great wage just fifty years ago.  $10 in 1966 would be the equivalent of about $74 today.  This devaluing of the dollar is caused by inflation, or more money being "printed" into circulation resulting in increased prices.  This crippling power that the Federal Government, working in conjunction with The Federal Reserve has, needs to be the main topic of any discussion involving government involvement in wages and prices.  Other than that there is not much Dan Malloy or any Connecticut politician can do to help the economy other than to get out of the way and let the free market operate.

Related analyses:

• Is United States Senator Chris Murphy The Answer To The European Terrorist Problem? - March 25, 2016 (link)
• Are We In A Depression? President Obama Says No; CT Governor Dan Malloy Says Yes. - March 16, 2016 (link)
• Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition - March 9, 2016 (link)
• CT Governor Dan Malloy's New Message For 2016 - February 28, 2016 (link)

Peter Schiff Was Right - Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy Edition

As discussed in my most recent video, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy is delivering a new message to the people of Connecticut about how there will be no recovery from the recession and we should not expect to have as much as previous generations.  Malloy says that he, along with "economists across the world" had predicted a normal recovery from the recession, but have now come to find that this is not, and will not be the case, as the Great Recession is looking more like the Great Depression.

"It's clear that the Great Recession had a long lasting impact on the American economy.  We had all hoped, economists across the country, across the world, had predicted that although it might be a little bit slower, it would be, in essence, a normal recovery from the Great Recession.  That's not true. The Great Recession is more like the Great Depression in its long term impact on the economy." - Dan Malloy on WNPR, 02/18/16

While it is true that the Governor had been telling everyone for years that the economy was recovering and improving from the recession, it should be noted that there were some economists who predicted this lack of growth, and were saying exactly what Dan Malloy is now saying.  One particular economist is Peter Schiff, who most famously predicted the 2007-2008 crash.

For example, when Dan Malloy in 2012 was saying that "things are coming back" and in 2014 saying "the economy is improving", Peter Schiff was saying, in 2012, "we've been in a depression since the end of 2007", and in 2013 saying "wait until you see how bad it's going to get during the Obama recession".

In my opinion, Dan Malloy's solutions to the economic problems, such as increasing the minimum wage, will only make things worse.  In future videos I will be further critiquing Dan Malloy's views on the minimum wage, and overall economic policy.  To be sure to catch the latest uploads, subscribe to our channel on YouTube or click 'like' on The Goodman Chronicle Facebook page.

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 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

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

(click here to download an .mp3 audio of this analysis)

The issue of man made climate change is affecting everyone, in ways most people do not understand.  I am not speaking in terms of the changes in the weather that may or may not be occurring, but the actions being taken by governments in response to what they believe is happening with the climate.  The state of Connecticut has been planning for, and implementing changes in response to, "global warming" since the year 2000.  These planned changes have been slowly transforming most areas of society including transportation, construction, and agriculture.

This is the first part in a multi-part series examining the various reports, action plans, and other official documents from the state of Connecticut, in relation to "global warming", or "climate change".  The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has a list of "several significant documents" that chronicle the agency's efforts to take action on climate change.  These documents will be cited throughout this multi-part series examining Connecticut Climate Change policy.

The first aspect of this conversation that should be examined is the idea that humans are having an effect on the climate by engaging in activities that increase carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.  The state of Connecticut has taken the position that "Connecticut residents have accepted climate change as undebatable" and that "[d]ue to the overwhelming supporting evidence [of climate change]...we have chosen not to revisit the validity of climate change debate."  Therefore, even when there are multiple critics of climate change science in the state, as evidenced by the public comment section of this 2010 Connecticut Climate Change report, the state has chosen not to even entertain debate on the issue.

State officials rely heavily on information put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to justify their "climate change" programs.  The IPCC has come under heavy scrutiny in the past, as there have been many documented errors with information put out by the organization.  Furthermore, the IPCC information cited by the Connecticut Governors Steering Committee in 2007 indirectly states that man made climate change is not 100% conclusive.  Quoting from that document:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Fourth Assessment report, stating that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations.” [emphasis added]

If the topic of man made global warming is truly "undebatable" with "overwhelming supporting evidence", then why did the IPCC use the phrase "very likely", and not "definitely" or "factually"?

The truth is that man-made climate change is not as factual as many people, and organizations, purport it to be.  There are many scientists, including "climate scientists", who do not agree with the notion that human activity is causing warming.  A popular meme that goes around regarding this topic is that "97% of scientists agree that global warming is real and man made", but this number has been shown to be false by various independent researchers and organizations.  Even if the 97% number was real, should it really matter how many people agree on something?  Isn't science based on reproducible results, facts, and not on consensus?

While this analysis may seem logical, many people are hesitant to take the scientific opinion from someone who is not a scientist, such as myself.  Therefore, when it comes to the topic of man made global warming, people should not only listen to the scientists constantly cited by mainstream sources who are perpetuating the idea that global warming is caused by human activity, but also seek out, find, and listen to, the scientists that hold a different view.  One such scientist, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has been very public in his disbelief in the prevailing "climate science".  Coleman made a presentation titled "There Is No Significant Global Warming", which presents many convincing arguments in his favor, that should be watched by interested persons. (video below)

Now that we have established that man-made climate change is not a "fact", in the second part in this series we will analyze the different Connecticut climate change documents, and examine the various admissions made as to the lack of accuracy in their calculations.  Stay tuned!

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.

In Response To Michael Nicastro's Criticism of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theorists

On August 1, 2014, former President of the Central Connecticut Chamber of Commerce, Michael Nicastro, wrote an article in the Bristol Observer where he criticized those residents, and elected officials, of the city of Bristol who are calling for a referendum, or a public vote, on the Renaissance proposal for the redevelopment of the downtown area.  As a Bristol resident, I have my own views on referendums, as well as what I would like to see happen in the downtown area, however, I would like to use this posting to address another issue that Nicastro brought up in his article: United Nations Agenda 21.

In the article, Nicastro denounces an unnamed group of Bristol residents, who are opposed to the Renaissance proposal, calling them "conspiracy theorists", for their concern about Agenda 21:

"One of the more vocal anti-investment in downtown groups is born out (and now tries to downplay or hide) of the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists.  You know the ones where the government of the world (code the UN) is trying to steal our homes, force us all to live in dense urban environments, take away our cars, and mandate that we all use public transportation"

Nicastro suggests that this group "seriously find a different hobby", "stay off the internet", and concludes by calling Agenda 21 "bunk", or nonsense, saying "it has no place in the discussion about our downtown".

It is important to point out why Agenda 21, and its associated programs, and organizations, do have a place in the discussion of major redevelopment projects taking place across the state of Connecticut, including Bristol's downtown.

Go To Work and Give The Government Your Children: The Feminist UN Agenda 21 Plan To "Empower" Women

The original intention in writing this analysis was simply to discover the reason that the role of women seemed to be such a vital part of United Nations Agenda 21.  As one connection led to another, I found myself with a massive amount of information, all of which important, and necessary, to explain what is happening in terms of the manipulation of women in today's society.  This is my attempt to condense all of that information into a reasonably short overview.  The reader should understand that there is much more to this story, and can follow any of the many links, and sources, provided in this analysis, if they want to learn more.

Upon my first complete reading of United Nations Agenda 21, the UN's plan for the world for the 21 century,  I noticed how nearly every chapter of the Agenda curiously emphasized the necessary role of women in the implementation of the plan.  Of course, implying that women play a major role in society is not, in itself, odd in any way, however the manner in which these ideas are presented, I did find questionable.  Aside from recommending governments implement strategies to increase the amount of women in positions of "decision makers, planners, managers, scientists and technical advisers", the agenda also wants to have influence in people's lives at home by looking to "promote the reduction of the heavy workload of women and girl children at home", and, somehow, influence "the sharing of household tasks by men and women on an equal basis."  Reducing the number of children that women have was another concept continuously discussed as a matter of importance in the Agenda.  (Sidenote:  For more information on the actual Agenda 21 document, I highly recommend reading my article A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action)

At first, I just kept the Agenda's emphasis on women as a mental note, as there were seemingly more important aspects of Agenda 21 to discuss, and analyze.  However, as I began to read more UN books, and documents, an anti-men/pro-women agenda seemed to emerge.  For example, in the children's version of Agenda 21, Rescue Mission: Planet Earth , a book promoted by the United Nations, former executive of the United Nations Population Fund, Dr. Nafis Sadik, is asked the question "There's a lot in Agenda 21 about women playing a critical role in population, but aren't men usually the problem?", and her response was:

"Yes - there's a lot of male authority but not much male responsibility in relation to child bearing.  Men are not burdened with the problem of giving birth, they tend to exploit children -sending them to work instead of investing in their education. What can children do? They should challenge their parents not to have any more children until they can look after them properly." [emphasis added]

Aside from the blatant, and in my opinion, unjustified, attack on men, the idea that children are being exploited by their family reminded me of a quote from the Communist Manifesto:

"Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents?  To this crime we plead guilty" - The Communist Manifesto 

These type of quotes, and concepts, compelled me to re-examine Agenda 21, and find a possible origin to these ideas.  The full Agenda 21 document, in book form, is 351 pages, however Agenda 21 is much more complex than just what is written in this action plan, due to the fact that there are numerous other resolutions referenced, and recommended, for further implementation.  One such resolution that is recommended for implementation is the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women report.  When I decided to look into, and read, this report from Nairobi, I discovered a feminist agenda, with dubious objectives.  (For a greater understanding of the objectives discussed in the Nairobi report, read my article A Critical Summary of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women)

In the following examination, I will be making connections with this Agenda 21-related report, and current events that are taking place, as well as the people, and organizations, causing these events to take place.

Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut

According to many "experts", such as the World Health Organization, and the United Nations, 70% of the world's population will be living in cities, by 2050.  Usually left out of the reporting of this statistic, are the determining factors that will be causing people to move off of rural land, and into the crowded cities.  What would make so many people leave their quiet, rural community, to go and live in a city, that is becoming evermore crowded, or what would stop someone that is living in a crowded city, from moving to a more quiet, rural community?  Surely more than 30% of the people in the world will want to have their own piece of land, with a house, away from the city, in 2050.

What these organizations are not telling you is that a massive shift of the population into cities is not a random projection, but a planned goal of many of the world's top "leaders", and leading organizations.  By causing an increase in the cost of owning, and living on, property in rural areas (property tax, car tax, utilities, etc.), governments will cause a shift of population from rural communities to the city.  This is one of the goals of United Nations Agenda 21.  Agenda 21 is a massive plan, or program of action, for the 21st century, developed by the United Nations, and connected organizations, that would require every resource in the world, including humans, to be collectivized, and controlled.  If you have never heard of, or are looking to become more familiar with, UN Agenda 21, I have read, and analyzed, the document, and have written a report titled, A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action, which I highly recommend.

In the following report I will be attempting to convey to the reader, the reality that Agenda 21 has made its way into our local communities, pushed using friendly-sounding terms like "livable communities", "complete streets", and "resilient cities", and is being used to cause a demographic shift, away from rural communities, and into cities, as envisioned, and planned, by the United Nations.

Terminology

Important to understand is 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."

Now that we understand that the people implementing Agenda 21 do not necessarily use the same terminology as the actual document when looking to push their Agenda in your local community, we can more easily begin making connections to things occurring in our local community, with Agenda 21, and the organizations behind it.

Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights"

The United Nations wants to give your children "rights".  You may think your child already has "rights", but the kind of "rights" that the UN wants to legally provide children are the kind that would bring a government agent to your house if you decide to home school your children, bring them to a religious function, or even punish them.  This agent would decide if your actions are, or were, appropriate, and in line with the child's "rights".

The plan to give all of the children of the world the same "rights", is known as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, or CRC).  It is important to understand that this plan is actually part of a much larger United Nations plan called "Agenda 21."  I have previously written on Agenda 21, and found the document to be a plan by the United Nations to gain more decision making power, or sovereignty, from countries, and create a world in which every resource, water, animals, food, etc., even human resources, and population size, is tracked, and controlled, by a group of non-elected bureaucrats at the UN, working in conjunction with big corporations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's).  In Article 25, Section 14 of Agenda 21, governments are required to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In this analysis, I will detail a brief history of "child rights", explore the actual text of this document, the effect this convention has had on countries that have ratified it, and trace its attempted ratification in the United States, down to our own Connecticut state legislature.

History of the CRC

Decades before the UN held a convention on the rights of the child, there were various declarations made, in regards to giving children special rights, even dating back as far as 1924, adopted by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations.  In 1989, The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature.  It came into force in 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations.

In the United States, under the administration of Bill Clinton, the CRC was signed, but the treaty was never submitted for Senate approval, due to opposition from some members of the Senate.  More recently, in 2009, the Obama administration revived efforts to have the United States sign onto the CRC, according to former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.  The following year, thirty-one Republican senators cosponsored a resolution opposing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The United States is only one of a few countries yet to ratify the treaty.

Important to note, potential future Presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty.

In Their Own Words

Let us examine the actual text of the treaty.  This "Convention on the Rights of the Child" treaty is 15 pages, consisting of 54 Articles, detailing the assertion that children have special rights, and the ways to implement the bureaucracy that is needed to insure that governments are "protecting" these children's rights.

When dealing with the United Nations, as with any government organization, it is important to critically examine the grammar used, see past the happy, positive sounding rhetoric, and be able to understand the actual details of a plan.  The CRC opens with a preamble that emphasizes the importance of "the protection and harmonious development of the child".  Again, this sounds nice, but we must remember, this could mean anything, and is coming from an organization that calls their violent military army, "peace keeping" troops.

Homeland Security Is The Reason Local Police Cars Are Converting To Black & White

The Berlin, CT Police Dept. unveiled a "new style" of police car last year.

Have you been noticing the police vehicles in your local town, city, county, or state, switching over to a black and white color scheme?

This is a change that has been taking place in Connecticut, for some time now.  The newest style of police cars, in every town, or city, I drive through, seems to have the same look; black and white color scheme, the word "POLICE" in big letters, and the name of the city/town in small letters.

"Woodbury Police Department purchases two new cars." - WoodburyCT.org

There has been questions as to whether this is a coordinated effort, and if so, for what purpose.

Evidence seems to indicate that the Department of Homeland Security is behind this standardization of police cars.

In Santa Fe, New Mexico, where both the city police, and the Sheriff's office, have returned to traditional black-and-white markings on police squad cars and SUVs, the Police Chief, Ray Rael, said last year, when his department began phasing in the black-and-white color scheme, that the design was chosen because of a federal Department of Homeland Security recommendation to standardize police vehicles around the country.

Also in New Mexico, the Albuquerque Police Department switched to black and white police cars, and, in a news briefing, said they were "making the change in part due to recommendations from Homeland Security that all law enforcement go to black and white cars."  From this same briefing, it continues, "The Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department, the State Police and APS police all have black and white cars."

(Update: 11/09/13:  The City of Albuquerque has since taken this story off of its official website, and is seemingly unavailable anywhere else online.  When attempting to find this news briefing, a Google search of "Albuquerque Police Homeland Security" only revealed a recent story of Homeland Security raiding, and searching, the home of an Albuquerque Police Officer.)

Recent testimony given by Retired Marine Col. Pete Martino, at a public meeting in the city of Concord, New Hampshire, may be able to help us further understand why Homeland Security would be standardizing our local police.  (video below)

Col. Martino came to speak out against the city of Concord, purchasing an armored tank, funded by Homeland Security.  (In its grant application to the DHS, the police department stated that they need to protect against the threat from pro-liberty domestic groups, like the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire.)

Col. Martino warns:

"What's happening here is we're building a domestic military because it's unlawful and unconstitutional to use American troops on American soil. So what we're doing is building a military."

Martino also addresses the militarization, and standardization, of police, and police equipment:

"My best friend, who is a SWAT officer in Nashua (NH), came to Iraq with me to train the Iraqi police, sent me a picture of him in the media, on the streets of Watertown, MASS, wearing the exact same combat gear we had in Iraq, only was a different color."

The way we do things in the military is called "task organization." You take a command and then you attach units to it in order to accomplish the mission. What's happening is, Homeland Security is pre-staging gear, equipment. What they're trying to do is use standardized vehicles, standardized equipment.

I saw a picture in the Boston Globe during the Boston Marathon bombing, where there was a State police officer…actually there were two officers, they both had identical helmets, flak jackets, weapons, everything I wore in Iraq, only it was all blue. The officer on one side had a big patch that said Massachusetts State Police…the other officer next to him…his patch said Boston Police."

I have heard that there may also be a psychological effect to the police using the color black, but I have yet to further explore that topic.

In related news, the Department of Homeland Security has also begun funding a program, beginning with the state of Massachusetts, that standardizes law enforcement ID cards, issued to every sworn officer in the state.

(Above: A video report on the influence of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the change to black and white patrol cars, in local police departments.) 

Related Stories:

• Criminal Police Violate Constitution at DUI Check Point; Use Lies and Fear As Intimidation Tactic - July 5, 2013 (link)
• Orwellian Talking Surveillance Cameras Become Reality In Mount Vernon, NY - May 28, 2013 (link)
• Connecticut Military Veteran Forcefully Disarmed By Police After Refusing Psychiatric Evaluation - April 03, 2013 (link)
• Local: Waterbury Reverend Works With The FBI, Possibly Part of FEMA Clergy Response Team - December 10, 2012 (link)
• Connecticut State Trooper Steals Money And Jewelry From Dead Victim Of Motorcycle Accident - December 1, 2012 (link)