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.

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.

Agenda 21 in Connecticut: The Tri-State Transportation Campaign

You have probably never heard of The Tri-State Transportation Campaign, but if you live in Connecticut, New York, or New Jersey, you should start doing your research.  This group states that their mission is to reduce car dependency in the tri-state, but upon deeper examination, we learn how this seemingly virtuous goal, and organization, is actually part of a much larger nefarious plan, which originated at the United Nations, known as Agenda 21.

Without diverging to far from our examination of The Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC), it is important for the reader to have an understanding of what Agenda 21 is.  There are many resources available online, and in print, to help a person become familiar with "United Nations Agenda 21", and I highly encourage everyone to do their own research.  In short, Agenda 21 can be described, as one expert has stated, as "the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world."

To control the world, which essentially is what the Agenda 21 plan is, the United Nations must first usurp the sovereignty, or decision making power, of each individual country, state, county, city, and town.  This is done slowly, and incrementally.  The United Nations agenda comes into your local area through various NGO's (Non Governmental Organizations) and non-profit organizations, like The Tri-State Campaign, each assigned with a task of implementing a small part of Agenda 21, by influencing legislators, and effecting changes in local law, rules, and regulations.

We will see how The Tri-State Transportation Campaign's mission to "reduce car dependency", is really Agenda 21's mission to, as Rosa Koire, author of "Behind The Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21", puts it, force people out of their private cars, and onto their bikes.

If the The Tri-State Transportation Campaign was just made up of a bunch of people that thought cars were ruining the earth, that people should be walking, or using a bicylce, more than they are right now, and the way they pushed their belief was to set an example, by walking, or biking, or attempting to educate the public, through pamphlets, videos, literature, etc., I would have no problem with this organization.  The problem with The Tri-State Transportation Campaign is that they believe we should be FORCED out of our vehicles, instead of persuaded.

The Tri-State Transportation Campaign is constantly lobbying the Connecticut state legislature, to implement rules, regulations, and programs, that would make it more difficult to own, and operate, a vehicle in the state. The Tri-State Campaign has lobbied the state to implement red-light cameras, a massive revenue generating operation, that one judge in Ohio called "a SCAM that motorists can't win".  The TSTC has also teamed up with the Connecticut Sierra Club, to push for tolls to be put up on "all Connecticut Interstate Highways and the Merrit Parkway."

The Push For Red-Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers

There are three bills proposed this year in the Connecticut legislator, that deal with installing red-light cameras throughout the state.  The three bills are as follows:

•  House Bill 6056 - AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF MUNICIPAL AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SAFETY DEVICES AT CERTAIN INTERSECTIONS --Introduced by Rep. Angel Arce
• House Bill 5554 - AN ACT ENABLING CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES TO INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS-- proposed by Rep. Roland J. Lemar, Rep. Juan R. Candelaria, Rep. Patricia A. Dillon, Rep. Toni E. Walker, Rep. Gary A. Holder-Winfield, Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp, Sen. Martin M. Looney
• Senate Bill 634 -  AN ACT ALLOWING MUNICIPALITIES TO OPERATE AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SAFETY DEVICES AT INTERSECTIONS --Introduced by Sen. Gary Lebeau

These three bills were discussed at a Transportation Committee Public Hearing this week.  Using information that I gathered from watching hours of testimony regarding red light cameras in the state, as well as other resources, I will show that this is just another tactic being used by government, to take more money from tax-payers, to make it more difficult to operate a vehicle, to lower the standard of living, and other effects, designed to make more people dependent on the state.