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)

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 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.

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)

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.

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.

Ten Documentaries about Hitler, Nazi Germany, Concentration Camps, WWII, etc.

This is a random collection of ten documentaries, with my description of each.  These ten films happen to be centered around Hitler, Nazi Germany, WWII, etc.  I post a different documentary, every time I watch a new one.  To prevent my documentary page from taking an extremely long time to load, I create separate pages for older documentaries.  This is page 5.

Mein Kampf - The Story of Adolf Hitler (added 01/23/14)

This is a quick, 45-minute, documentary on the rise of Adolf Hitler, before he ultimately became Germany's leader.  This film tries to explain the reason for Hitler's views and the situation in Germany that allowed the rise of Hitler.  Incredible footage of post-WWI Germany is shown, where the allies are disarming the German population, destroying weapons, blowing up German submarines, and helicopters.  Footage of French troops in Germany, disrespecting its citizens is also shown.  Interestingly, clothing designer Hugo Boss is discussed, in relation to his being a Nazi party member, and him designing many of the Nazi uniforms.

(Backup Link 1)

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.