A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action

To some people, Agenda 21 is an evil plan for the further creation, and control, of a world government, by the non-elected bureaucrats at the United Nations. To other people, Agenda 21 is a just well-meaning, harmless, non-binding set of recommendations, created by a group of men, and women, at the United Nations, that care about the preservation of the world's environment.

Before debating the true intentions, or effects, of Agenda 21, we must first understand the details of this document.

In can be difficult, and confusing, for the average person who hears about Agenda 21, to really understand it, through a simple search.  The program is hundreds of pages, and not too many people will take the time to read all of it.  An internet search of UN Agenda 21 will lead to a lot of information, but much of it is without reference to the actual document, thus seemingly just an opinion.  I have took the time to read the document myself, and will chronicle my findings, and thoughts, here.

(It should be noted that I am not going into this examination completely ignorant of Agenda 21.  I have, in the past, written critically about events taking place in my local community, that are connected to United Nations Agenda 21.)

The full document 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, such as the Healthy Cities Programme of WHO, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and many more.  I have yet to read all of these other resolutions, conventions, and programs, but as I do, I will document, and update, my research, at TheGoodmanChronicle.com.  For now, I will just examine the text of this specific document, which can be viewed, in full, online here.

Let us start with the front cover of the hard copy version of Agenda 21 (picture below), which reads:

"EARTH SUMMIT - AGENDA 21 - THE UNITED NATIONS PROGRAMME OF ACTION FROM RIO".  

Agenda 21, Front Cover

By using the words "programme of action", the creators of this document are informing the reader that this is a plan, or program, that they intend to have performed, or put into action, and not just some ideas that they hope for people to consider.

Agenda 21 is broken up into forty chapters, divided into three sections, and nearly every part of this document revolves around the idea of creating, what they refer to as, "a new global partnership for sustainable development." (Chapter 1, Section 1).  Though the adjective "sustainable" is used numerous times, and in conjunction with various other pleasant sounding nouns, to create ideas like "sustainable livelihood" (Ch. 3, Sec. 4-a), and "sustainable city networks" (Ch. 7, Sec. 20-d), throughout Agenda 21, what is meant by "sustainable" is never really made clear, or specifically defined.

The opening preamble of Agenda 21 alludes to the idea that the term "sustainable development" means an "integration of environment and development concerns", which, according to the United Nations, will lead to "the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future." (Ch. 1, Sec. 1)  This sounds nice, but again, is not specific, and could mean anything.

As the reader progresses through the document, a more sinister, controlling, agenda seems to emerge, that is ingrained in this plan, but it is masked with nice sounding phrases, and friendly language.  The United Nations claims to want to create a sort-of utopia, where the environment is clean, nobody is hungry, everyone has a home, etc., but to do this, they need to have the power to create laws, or recommendations, that effect changes in your local community.

Wake UP! Photos September 2013

This is a collection of photos that I have found through my daily travels of the internet, in the month of September.  I upload the latest collections every month or so.

Criminal Police Violate Constitution at DUI Check Point; Use Lies and Fear As Intimidation Tactic

My intention was never to bash cops everyday. I just wanted to learn about the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But once you begin to learn about these principles, you understand the magnitude of how "anti-freedom" our system really is. You then realize that we can never achieve anything truly revolutionary while we have these men in costumes, driving around everywhere, or having check points, with the ability to violate your most basic human rights, and receive no reprimand for it.

This video is ESSENTIAL to watch, to understand how the criminal police operate. This young man pulls up to a DUI spot check (these are unconstitutional), and attempts to assert his rights. In a disgusting display of immorality, the police then lie, intimidate, false-detain, threaten, and more, in an attempt to strike fear into this man. They even bring the police dogs, TO SCRATCH UP THE GUYS CAR!  Do you understand the level of gangster that police operate at?  They are gang members, gangsters, thugs, criminals, etc. Would your grandparents have stood for this?  Can you imagine what it will be like when your children grow up?  It will only get worse, until we say enough is enough.

While I give massive props to this dude for his effort, I feel he was too soft from the beginning. All that "yes sir" "no sir" bullshit gotta go. These are tyrants, and we need to treat them as such.  I believe he should have asked "Am I being detained?, Am I free to go?" from the beginning, and stood firm, but that is easy for me to say, sitting here watching it, after the fact.  If I have the unfortunate pleasure of going through one of these unconstitutional check points, which I'm sure I will since America is becoming more of a police state everyday, I will surely record the event, because I will resist, and we will see what happens!

Related Links:

• Connecticut Military Veteran Forcefully Disarmed By Police After Refusing Psychiatric Evaluation - April 03, 2013 (link)
• Connecticut State Trooper Steals Money And Jewelry From Dead Victim Of Motorcycle Accident - December 01, 2012 (link)
• Former NYPD Officer Secretly Records Supervisors Angrily Telling Officers That They Need More Arrests, Revealing Quota System - December 03, 2012 (link)
• Corruption, Insider Deals & Shakedowns -- Just Another Day As A NYPD Officer - November 12, 2012 (link)
• Police Officer Tasers Ten Year Old Boy After Child Refuses To Clean The Officers Car - November 12, 2012 (link)
• Former Waterbury Police Seargent Only Gets Three Years Probation After Several of His Guns Were Used In Various Street Crimes - October 28, 2012 (link)

Connecticut Politicians Try To Get Around Freedom of Information Act, with Secret Meetings

This year in the Connecticut General Assembly, a still anonymous CT law maker submitted a piece of legislation that would enable certain law makers to meet in private to discuss public affairs, without notifying the public, keep no notes, and even bar the public from attending.  No individual representative sponsored this bill, nor did any representative speak in favor of it, at the March 25th Government Administration & Elections Committee public hearing (video link). (Testimony on the bill begins at 3 hours and 56 minutes into the hearing.)

The actual bill, Senate Bill 1148, titled "An Act Redefining "Meeting" For Purposes of the Freedom of Information Act", changes the definition of "meeting", in regards to the Freedom of Information Act.

The stated purpose of the bill is to "exempt certain negotiations between the leaders of political parties from being considered a meeting for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act."

The bill immediately received opposition from groups in Connecticut, that advocate on the behalf of transparency in government.  James Smith, President of the CT Council on Freedom of Information, testified in opposition to this bill, saying it "flies in the face of well established law on what constitutes a meeting of a public agency", and it is "fundamentally contrary to the precepts of the government transparency laws."

Colleen M. Murphy, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Freedom of Information Commission, also testified in opposition to Senate Bill 1148, saying "If passed, this bill would be a huge blow to open government in Connecticut".

Despite the negative testimonies, the bill was voted on, and passed through the committee with a 10-4 vote.

Now, according to writer Angel Carella, of the Stamford Advocate, who has been following SB 1148, the bill has mysteriously died, after several media inquiries concerning the legislation were made to lawmakers in Hartford.  Carella made several phone calls, to different legislators, to find out more information on the bill, including who sponsored the bill, but did not receive any useful response.

Carella did eventually get a response from Senator Anthony Musto, who said Senate leaders decided not to go forward with the bill.

Senator Musto cited testimony against the bill by James Smith, and Colleen Murphy, as part of the reason for not going through with the legislation, however Musto, and nine other legislators, heard the testimony against the bill, before voting, and still voted in favor of it.

Interesting to note, in what town officials called a rare instance of involving themselves in the discussion of state legislation, the Wallingford Town Council passed a resolution opposing Senate Bill 1148.  The resolution was sent to the state legislature. It states that the bill “has the potential to make local government less accountable to the citizens.”  State Rep. Mary M. Mushinsky of Wallingford said that politicians in Wallingford might not have to worry about the proposed bill, because according to a reliable source in the legislature, Mushinsky said, the bill is close to dead.

This issue should still cause worry, due to the fact that there are legislatures who thought this would be a good idea, currently serving in the legislature, who decided to remain anonymous, when sponsoring this bill.  

Here is a list of the Representatives/Senators that voted in favor of the bill:

• Senator Anthony Musto*, Democrat representing Bridgeport, Monroe & Trumbull
• Senator Edward Meyer*, Democrat representing Branford, Durham, Guilford, Killingworth, Madison & North Branford
• Representative Ed Jutila*, Democrat representing East Lyme & Salem
• Representative Mathew Lesser, Democrat representing Middletown
• Representative Theresa Conroy, Democrat representing Derby, Seymour, & Beacon Falls
• Representative Mike D'Agostino*, Democrat representing Hamden
• Representative Roland Lemar, Democrat representing New Haven & East Haven
• Representative Patricia Billie Miller, Democrat representing Stamford
• Representative Mike Molgano, Republican representing Stamford
• Representative Brian Sear, Democrat representing Hampton, Chaplin, Scotland, Canterbury, Franklin and Sprague, and parts of Lebanon, Lisbon and Norwich.

The names with a '*' next to it, indicate those legislators that are also LAWYERS.

Wake UP! Photos - April 2013

'Best Of' Obama Skeet Shooting Photoshopped Pics

On Saturday, the White House released a photograph (above) of President Barack Obama skeet shooting at Camp David last August after some Republicans expressed doubts that the Democratic president had engaged in the activity.  Interestingly, along with the picture, the White House added a warning label that warned people not to manipulate, aka photoshop, the image.  Naturally, this lead to many photoshopped images of the President skeet shooting to go viral.  There are reports that Obama is 'furious' over the skeet shooting photoshopped pics, but I don't believe that.  Did Obama really not know people were going to photoshop the pic, after he told them not to?  There is some reason, that I have yet to discover, as to why the White House really released this picture.  Anyway, a funny/interesting critique of the way Obama handles his weapon can be read at Lame Cherry, other than that, here is a collection of the best photoshopped pictures of Obama skeet shooting, that I have come across: