President Trump & Agenda 21 - The First 100 Days

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

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

Let's start with the good:

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

The Bad:

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

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

Related Reports:

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connecting the Rockefellers to the United Nations

(The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection - This is a video presentation of the following analysis)

In this analysis, the direct connection between the Rockefellers and the creation of the United Nations organization will be made.

First, it should be noted that the organization that preceded the United Nations, the League of Nations, received a significant amount of support from Rockefeller related organizations.  In 1927, John D. Rockefeller Jr. provided the League of Nations with $2 million to "enhance its international relations library and promote peace through knowledge and understanding".  This Library of the League of Nations later became known as the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) when the league transferred its assets to the United Nations.  According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a statement praising the Rockefeller family's past and present support of international organizations, the interest from that original $2 million loan still provides approximately $150,000 every biennium to the United Nations.

The Rockefeller Foundation was also heavily involved with transition from the League of Nations to the United Nations as documented in the article "The Rockefeller Foundation and the Transition from the League of Nations to the UN" by Ludovic Tournes of the University of Geneva. Further connections could be drawn between the Rockefellers and the League of Nations but for the sake of brevity, we will move on to the United Nations.

It is no secret that the land that the United Nations is built upon today was purchased with money donated by the Rockefellers.  The official Rockefeller Archive Center has this to say on the matter:

"John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s deep interest in international relations was reflected by his many contributions directed to international causes. Perhaps most outstanding in this field was his gift of $8,515,000 in December, 1946, for the purchase of the land for the permanent home of the United Nations in New York."

This land where the United Nations Headquarters now sits in New York was originally owned by a prominent real estate developer named William "Bill" Zeckendorf.  As the story goes, Nelson Rockefeller, on behalf of the United Nations, went to Zeckendorf with an offer to buy the property, Zeckendorf agreed, and Nelson's father, John D Rockefeller, Jr., donated the money to the United Nations in order to finance the purchase of the land.  While this story is usually presented as just another selfless act of charity by the Rockefellers, there is some evidence to suggest that there were ulterior benefits associated with this donation.

Because the United Nations was set to transform the area, which was mostly old buildings and abandoned slaughterhouses, if someone were to own property in the area they would see a massive increase in value.  As luck would have it, David Rockefeller was one of those ownership interests that would benefit financially.  In his own autobiography titled "Memoirs", David Rockefeller describes how after becoming a board member of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace the Endowment bought the land across from where the U.N. building would be erected, and how they profited greatly.

"I turned to Bill Zeckendorf, and he offered us one of the building sites he had acquired on the west side of First Avenue, across from where the new U.N. building would be erected.  Although the area was still filled with abandoned slaughterhouses and decaying commercial buildings, Bill felt the U.N. and other related projects would permanently transform the area.  He recommended that we buy the parcel before land values skyrocketed and then put up our own building.

Several of the more conservative board members thought the plan far too risky and criticized spending the endowment's limited funds on a construction project in an unproven location.  The endowment's longtime treasurer opposed the project and resigned from the board, predicting it would bankrupt us.  However, a strong majority of the board backed the proposal, especially after I was able to persuade Winthrop Aldrich to open a Chase branch on the ground floor.  Once the building was completed, we rented much of the building to not-for-profits and easily handled the mortgage payments. As Bill Zeckendorf predicted, the area around the U.N. quickly became one of New York's prime neighborhoods and continues to be so to this day." (pg 150)

David Rockefeller conveniently leaves out of this passage that it was the same Bill Zeckendorf who sold the land to the United Nations, through the funding of David's father John D. Rockefeller Jr, that was selling the endowment the land near the United Nations off of his "prediction" that the land values would skyrocket.  I am not sure of the extent that insider information was involved in this deal, but, in the least, this proves that a Rockefeller did seemingly benefit financially from the creation of the United Nations in that location.

(Sidenote: Wikipedia also twice refers to the Rockefeller's owning land in another area around the United Nations known as Tudor City.  The sources for the information in those two entries seem to be of questionable origin so I cannot yet present that information as fact.)

Another family connection to the founding of the United Nations is David's brother Nelson Rockefeller being a member of the U.S. delegation at the gathering that marked the founding of the United Nations, the 1945 Conference on International Organization.  Nelson would also go on to fund The United Nations World magazine in an effort to promote the UN.

It should be noted, the designers of the United Nations Headquarters were working out of an office in Rockefeller Center.  The chief architect of the project was Wallace K. Harrison, a man with interesting Rockefeller connections himself.   Charlene Mires, author of the book "Capital of the World: The Race to Host the United Nations", describes Harrison as "one of the designers of Rockefeller Center, a Rockefeller relation by marriage, a confidant of Nelson Rockefeller, and a member of the booster committee that had been working to bring the UN to New York."

This Rockefeller support of the United Nations continued after the creation of the UN and continues to this day.  It would be too much to list all of the ways that Rockefeller-related organizations contribute to the United Nations today but their influence can be seen through examples like the Rockefeller Foundation providing grants to the United Nations, or the Rockefellers Brothers Fund funding the United Nations Foundation.

More important, though, than the motive to make some money off of a land deal was the Rockefeller vision of a one-world government as revealed on pg. 405 of David Rockefeller's autobiography Memoirs.  It is in this passage that David reveals his family's ultimate goal:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. b

The United Nations fits well into the Rockefeller family goal "to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world".  Through United Nations programs such as Agenda 21, local decision making power is being eroded and being replaced by regional governments that continue to become more centralized.  In the analysis titled "The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection", the connections between Agenda 21, the Rockefellers, and current events taking place in Connecticut are detailed.  Through these connections a pattern emerges of a system being created that is designed to reduce the decision making power of individual towns, cities, and states, transferring that power over to large, centralized, non-elected bureaucracies.


Related Analyses:

• Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 24, 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Analyses:

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

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

Charles Gill, former Litchfield District Superior Court Judge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Government 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Westman, author
of Licensing Parents

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

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

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.

A Critical Summary of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women

(Editors Note: This summary is meant to act as supplemental reading to the main article Go To Work and Give The Government Your Children: The Feminist UN Agenda 21 Plan To "Empower" Women, an analysis that must be read to understand how the ideas conveyed in the Nairobi conference are being implemented throughout the world.)

In the year 1985, the United Nations held a World Conference on Women, in Nairobi, Kenya, the purpose of which, according to the UN, was to set "strategic objectives and actions for the advancement of women and the achievement of gender equality".  This specific meeting in Nairobi was just one of several conferences, and meetings, that have been sponsored by the United Nations, aimed at the promotion of these gender based ideals.  The meetings, and the objectives that were reached, in Nairobi, in '85, were the culmination of the previous conferences, and discussions, held on the subject, and served as a foundation to future meetings.

In an attempt to keep this summary focused, only the agenda, and objectives, specifically mentioned at the Nairobi conference will be discussed.  (To view the full text of the Nairobi report, click here.)  However, readers should understand that this conference, along with the objectives discussed, are part of the much larger UN action plan for 21st century, Agenda 21.  The Nairobi conference is recommended for implementation in Chapter 24, Section 2, part a, of the Agenda 21 document, which can be viewed in it's entirety here.  If you are unfamiliar with the United Nations Agenda 21 plan to control every resource in the world, including humans, I highly recommend reading the analysis, A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action.

Children's Edition of United Nations Agenda 21: Blatant Anti-Human Propaganda

Children are the future; the course of humanity is ultimately dependent on what the little human beings of the world are taught today.  The United Nations understands this, and this is why they publish materials attempting to influence the attitudes, and beliefs, of children, often presenting only one side of an argument, with a goal of having these children's beliefs, and attitudes, be more aligned with the future goals of the United Nations.  This is called propaganda, and the children's book, promoted by the UN, Rescue Mission: Planet Earth: A children's edition of Agenda 21, published in 1994, is definitely propaganda.  (Side note: To view a scanned .pdf version of this book, in full, click here.)

According to the book's introduction, the purpose of publishing Rescue Mission was to condense the massive United Nations plan for the 21st century, "Agenda 21", "into a language that ordinary people can understand." (pg 7)  A critical thinker, at this point, may ask, why was not the original plan written in a language that ordinary people can understand?  I have took the time to read, and analyze, the original plan, Agenda 21, and my guess as to why it was not written in a language that ordinary people can understand is, the average person may more easily come to the same conclusion that I came to, that Agenda 21 is 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, collectivized, and controlled by a group of non-elected bureaucrats at the UN, working in conjunction with big corporations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's).

Interesting to note, also in the introduction of Rescue Mission, there is an opening quote by the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, about needing to "save the planet from destruction."  The fact that Gorbachev is a communist, and openly being promoted in UN literature, should not come as a surprise, as the United Nations is an organization with a collectivist philosophy, as well as having many specific connections to Communism.  In an effort not to stray away from this specific critique of Rescue Mission, I will not detail the history of the United Nations, and their connection with communists/collectivism, in this examination, but intend to do so in the future.

Among the many controversial ideas discussed, or maybe, pushed through propaganda, is a better way to put it, in Rescue Mission, are:

• Humans are bad for, and ruining, the Earth.
• There is an urgent need to reduce population, including through abortions.
• A lowering of the standard of living is required for inhabitants of first world countries.
• A world government is needed to fix the problems of the globe.

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.

Ten Documentaries about Undercover Police, the Rockefellers, 9/11 Truth, the United Nations, Scientology, Money, and more

A random collection of ten documentaries, with my description of each.  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 3.

9/11 - Press for Truth  (added 10/20/13)

It is always a good idea to, every once in a while, watch one, of the many, documentaries that examine the events of September 11, 2001.  There are many inconsistencies with the official story, and "9/11 - Press for Truth" exposes more of them.  This film follows six women who had their loves ones killed in the attacks, and the fight they have lead to try to get the complete truth of what really happened on that day.  "9/11 - Press for Truth" is a well put together documentary, with news clips, and source material to corroborate the information discussed.  Recommended.

(Backup Link 1) (Backup Link 2)

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.

Know Your Reps! CT State Senator Joe Markley Wants Fluoride Out Of The Water, and A Ban On Mandatory Flu Shots

State Senator Joe Markley

Representing the communities of Cheshire, Southington, Wolcott, and Waterbury, State Senator Joe Markley (R-16th) has, in my opinion, one of the best records of any representative in Hartford.  Markley has a history of supporting liberty, even helping to organize a protest against the creation of the state income tax in 1991, that drew 40,000 people to the State Capitol.

Elected in 2010, winning re-election in 2012, and having served one term in the mid 80's, Markley is currently in his third term as a State Senator.  The Tea Party movement is credited with helping Markley get back into office.  The CTMirror lists Markley's occupation as a writer, and reports, "When recruited by Tea Party activists, Markley said, he was living cheaply at a friend's apartment in western Massachusetts, working on a novel "about what I think is wrong with society."

Senator Markley has stood in opposition to many of the, in my opinion, tyrannical, anti-liberty actions being undertaken by the state.  For instance, he has been one of the strongest critics of the New Britain-Hartford busway, also known as the CTFastrak, which I have written about, connecting the busway to United Nations Agenda 21, a plan to lower the standard of living in America.

Markley has also criticized Senator Gary Lebeau for his constant advocacy for big government, as well as Lebeau's involvement in the state income tax, and Lebeau's helping "push through the largest tax increase in state history."  I have also criticized Senator Gary Lebeau, in the past, for his involvement in trying to bring red light cameras to the state, as well as his overall belief that he has a "significant role", as a legislator, to "change the culture" of people, and their belief about things like guns, or the way they care for their children.

When Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy announced, last month, his list of five proposals, in regards to gun control, he was criticized for trying to exploit the school shooting in Newtown, to push his own agenda.  Senator Markley was among those critical of the governor. "There’s no reason to rush proposals unless there was an intent to push stricter gun control legislation from the start", Markley said, as well as implying the governor rushed his proposals because he felt the support for gun control was waning.

Even more promising are the list of bills proposed by Senator Markley for the 2013 session of the Connecticut legislature.  Among them include:

• Getting fluoride out of the water supply - Senate Bill 131 - AN ACT ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT TO ADD FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES.
• Making sure employers can't require employees receive a flu shot - Senate Bill 55 - AN ACT PROHIBITING EMPLOYERS FROM REQUIRING EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE MANDATORY FLU SHOTS.
• Stopping banks from charging a fee for check cashing - Senate Bill 107 - AN ACT PROHIBITING BANKS FROM CHARGING A FEE FOR CHECK CASHING.
• Eliminating government agencies/Reducing the size of government - Senate Bill 113 & Senate Bill 258 - AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF A CENTRALIZED OFFICE OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION & AN ACT ELIMINATING THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES.

The issue of marijuana legalization, and ending the war on drugs, is an important aspect for many in the fight for liberty, including myself, however I do not believe Senator Joe Markley feels the same.  Last year he voted "NAY" against a medical marijuana bill,  AN ACT CONCERNING THE PALLIATIVE USE OF MARIJUANA, that was eventually passed and signed by the governor.  I have not seen, or heard, any comments from Joe Markley, regarding marijuana, or the war on drugs, so I can't make any definitive statements on his views towards these subjects, however it would be disappointing if we found out that Senator Markley only embraces liberty in select areas, and not in its entirety.

Here is an interview of State Senator Joe Markley, conducted last month, by the good folks at We Are Change CT, concerning Markleys proposed bill dealing with the elimination of water fluoridation in the state.

Let us hope that Senator Markley continues to be a voice for liberty, pushing for less government.  We have to support people that share our beliefs, in hopes that it will encourage more people to come out, and speak up.  Either way, I'll be watching, and reporting.

Related Stories:

• CT State Senator Steve Cassano Wants Traffic Enforcement "Photographers" Taking Pictures Of You In Your Car - March 06, 2013 (link)
• CT State Representative Stripped of Title After Lewd Comment To 17-Year-Old Girl, During Committee Meeting - March 02, 2013 (link)
• Red Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers - March 01, 2013 (link)
• No Guns for Marijuana Users; Connecticut Governor's Gun Violence Prevention Plan - February 23, 2013 (link)
• Connecticut: New Controversial Bill Proposing Mandatory Periodic Inspections for Cars Over 100,000 miles - February 22, 2013 (link)
• U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty Gets Cold, Un-Welcoming Reception At Her First Town Hall Meeting, Addressing Gun Control - February 21, 2013 (link)
• Do NOT Use Water with Added-Fluoride For Your Baby - January 20, 2013 (link)
• Legislators Pushing Forced Medication In Wake of CT School Shooting - December 22, 2012 (link)

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.

United Nations Agenda 21 In Connecticut; New Britain-Hartford Busway, CTfastrak

The availability of having your own personal form of transportation, like a car, is a great asset to add to a persons life.  I don't believe people would sacrifice their car for the seemingly cheaper form of getting around, public transportation, or else they would have done it already.  Many people, that I know, that do take the bus, do so because they can't afford, or are saving up for, a car.  Despite the significant benefit one receives from owning a vehicle, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy, and a number of other Connecticut elected 'officials', are determined to get you taking the bus, even if it means making it harder for you to own your own personal vehicle.

Why would public officials have a policy of forcing people off the road and into public transportation?  The short answer is United Nations Agenda 21.  For a few decades now, many nations, including the United States, have been adopting and implementing various policies that have been directly, and indirectly, handed down from the unelected bureaucrats at the United Nations.  Agenda 21 is the plan for the world, by the United Nations, for the 21st century.  United Nations Agenda 21 is so vast, and covers nearly every thing, and every place on this planet, it deserves its own level of deep research.  There have been many documentaries, some books, and other resources on Agenda 21, you should definitely check out.  In this article I will just focus on Connecticut and the New Britain-Hartford Busway, also known as CTfastrak, in relation to United Nations Agenda 21, but it is important for the reader to understand that this busway is just a small part of a fairly secretive, broader, global plan.

(CTfastrak Rapid Transit Virtual Tour)

CTfastrak is a bus rapid transit line currently under construction between Union Station in Hartford and downtown New Britain, in central Connecticut.  The CTfastrak is promoted on it's official website as "the beginning of a new era of transportation in Connecticut, combining the fast, traffic-free advantages of a train with the frequent, direct and flexible benefit of a bus. With express and feeder routes that will use a new dedicated roadway to avoid traffic congestion on local streets and on I-84, CTfastrak will benefit a large geographic area and provide a one-seat, no transfer ride to regional employment, shopping, cultural, educational and healthcare destinations."  The estimated cost of this project is now $569 million.  A Yankee Institute poll found that 60 percent of 500 likely voters believe the busway is “bad” use of taxpayer money.

The remainder of this article will be dedicated to showing the true nature of CTfastrak.  At best, the New Britain to Hartford busway is a colossal waste of tax payer money, at worst, it is part of a wider, much more broad United Nations program designed to remove the sovereignty of local governments, and lower the standard of living of Americans.

How Does U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice Have $23 - $43 Million Dollars?

Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, has been getting a lot of attention in the media lately.  She was criticized after she came on television and told a fictional tale about what happened in the Benghazi, Libya attack, that killed US Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.  President Obama has been going out of his way to defend Susan Rice against critical attacks, some say, because she is Obama's top pick for Secretary of State.

Susan Rice is most recently receiving media attention because of her portfolio, which includes investments of hundreds of thousands of dollars in several energy companies known for doing business with Iran, which would be an obvious conflict of interest, when as Secretary of State, Rice would oversee the review of the Keystone XL pipeline project.  Financial disclosures reveal that Rice has had $50,001-$100,000 in Royal Dutch Shell, a longtime purchaser of Iranian crude oil.

But one question that I do not see being asked by most media is:  Where does a 47-year-old US Ambassador get $23 million to invest?

United Nations Official Trying To Influence American Government To Keep Marijuana Illegal In Colorado and Washington

Raymond Yans

This is Raymond Yans, the head of the United Nations' International Narcotics Control Board, the UN "watchdog" agency urging U.S. federal officials to challenge ballot measures in Colorado and Washington that decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults 21 and over.
Raymond Yans says the approvals send "a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad."

Yans told The Associated Press on Tuesday he hopes Attorney General Eric Holder "will take all the necessary measures" to ensure that marijuana possession and use remains illegal throughout the U.S.

How does some guy from Belgium, representing a foreign government, feel he has the right to influence the repeal of a decision that was voted in, democratically, by the sovereign citizens of the states of Colorado and Washington? My guess would be that he is a psychopath.

The Fraud of FEMA, Disaster Relief, and Big Charity

I do NOT donate any money to any big organization, voluntarily. (Of course, the government takes money out of my check, involuntarily, to pay for their big, corrupt organization.)  I have learned that any organization with a huge budget, lets say over a million dollars, cannot be trusted to distribute the money fairly, and in the manner that is expected of it.  With money, comes power, and with power, comes psychopaths that want that power.

Pink Ribbon - Breast Cancer "Research"

Let us examine the logic behind charity organizations that are set up to "fight" certain diseases, like the various "pink ribbon" charities set up to fight breast cancer.  These charities always stress the importance of finding a "cure", instead of finding a "cause".  If you are the head of one of these big "charities", you are probably flying around on private jets, living in a nice home, driving a nice car, and have a good salary.  But what happens if a cure for breast cancer is found?  Then you no longer have the jets, home, car, and salary.  There are doctors who claim to have the cure for cancer already, like Dr. Burzynski, and patients who have claimed to have been healed, but these doctors are never given any light, or any funding from these pink ribbon charities.  There is an incentive NOT to find a cure for these diseases.   There is a documentary that touches on what the writer calls "Pink Ribbons Inc.", the origins of this pink ribbon craze, and the hypocrisy of the corporations that make money off of it.  You can watch the eye-opening documentary here: