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

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

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

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

Terminology

Important to understand is that the specific terms used in Agenda 21 like "human settlement", and "Local Agenda 21 (LA21)", are usually not used by organizations pushing Agenda 21 in your local communities.  This change in terminology is because of the negative publicity the plan has received since its conception.  We know the promoters of Agenda 21 have had to use different terminology, from what J. Gary Lawrence has written.  J. Gary Lawrence has served as an adviser, under President Bill Clinton, on the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), as well as being a Director of the Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of Washington, and Chief Planner in the City of Seattle.  Lawrence gave a presentation in London, England, June 29, 1998, titled, "The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium", where he explained how the terminology of Agenda 21 must be changed, when attempting to influence local legislation, to prevent conspiracy theories about a UN takeover, or a one-world government, from arising:

"Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."

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

The Fight To Oppose Mandatory Vaccinations Has Been A Continuous Battle For Centuries

( A poster advertising a demonstration in Andover Town Hall in support of a Mrs. Blanchard on her release from imprisonment for refusing to allow her children to be vaccinated (date unknown). (Photo courtesy of MicroBiology Today).

I was under the false impression that controversy over vaccinations was a new phenomena, however as I was reading a biography on Thomas Jefferson, titled "A Strange Case of Mistaken Identity" by Alf Mapp Jr., I came across a passage concerning Thomas Jefferson receiving the smallpox inoculation, and the controversy surrounding this medical procedure, at the time:

"Fatalities were so numerous that doctors debated whether the disease or the supposed preventative was the greater menace...it was generally believed that inoculated persons spread smallpox to others...Inoculation was forbidden by law in New York and had excited mob action in Boston."

After doing a little research to get more information regarding this topic, I found that, in actuality, opposition to vaccination has existed as long as vaccination itself!

Even before vaccinations, it was common knowledge that survivors of smallpox became immune to the disease, so doctors were practicing a procedure called variolation, which is when a person was purposefully infected with smallpox (Variola), in a controlled manner, so as to minimize the severity of the infection, and also to induce immunity against further infection.  This procedure came under heavy criticism.

The origins of the practice of variolation, or inoculation, are hard to trace, however, we know that under the guidance of Rev. Cotton Mather, and Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, variolation became quite popular in the American colonies.  Mather went around advocating the need for immediate variolation, however, he persuaded only Dr. Boylston, and not many others.  Still, with Mather's support, Dr. Boylston immediately started a variolation program and inoculated many volunteers, despite much opposition in both the public and the medical community in Boston. As the disease spread, so did the controversy around Mather and Boylston.  At the height of the epidemic, some in opposition to the variolation procedure were urging the authorities to arrest Dr. Boylston for murder, and a grenade was even thrown into the house of Reverend Cotton Mather!

According to Thomas Jefferson biographer, Alf J. Mapp, Jr.:

"On the eve of the [American] Revolution, debate over the practice [of variolation] would further exacerbate differences between Norfolk's rebels and tories.  At the climax rebels would smash the windows of a tory mayor's residence and march the inoculated women and children of his family to the Pest House, last home of those suffering contagious terminal illnesses."

Edward Jenner

Then came a physician/scientist named Edward Jenner.  For many years, Jenner had heard the tales that dairymaids, which are women who work milking cows, making butter, and cheese, on a farm, were protected from smallpox naturally, after having suffered from cowpox.  Using this information, Jenner concluded that cowpox not only protected against smallpox, but also could be transmitted from one person to another as a deliberate mechanism of protection.  On May 14, 1796, using matter from the cowpox lesions of a dairymaid, he inoculated an 8-year-old boy, James Phipps. Afterward, the boy developed mild fever, and discomfort in the axillae, or armpit. Nine days after the procedure he felt cold and had lost his appetite, but on the next day he was much better. Jenner inoculated the boy again, this time with matter from a fresh smallpox lesion. No disease developed, and Jenner concluded that protection was complete.

The Latin word for cow is vacca, and cowpox is vaccinia; Jenner decided to call this new procedure vaccination.

Ohio Judge Calls Red-Light Camera Operation A "Scam That Motorists Can't Win"

A judge in Hamilton, Ohio, called the red-light-camera operation being run in the village of Elmwood Place a "scam that motorists can't win", comparing the system to a "high-tech game of 3-card Monty."

In his decision, Judge Robert Ruehlman decided that the operation failed to provide due process.  The judge also exposed the many corrupt practices involved with the red light camera operation, being run by the for-profit company Optotraffic, in the village of Elmwood Place.  Judge Ruehlman noted that the cameras are calibrated only once per year, as well as criticizing the administrative hearing process involved with the operation, when a person wants to challenge the allegation made by the camera.  "If the owner of the vehicle wants to contest the liability, he or she must pay $25.00 to the Village of Elmwood and request a hearing before a hearing officer and there is no assurance that the fee will be returned if the appeal is successful.  However, the hearing is nothing more than a sham!", says Judge Robert Ruehlman.

Also discussed in the judge's decision was the effect that the red-light-cameras had on the community. "Businesses have lost customers who now refuse to drive through Elmwood.  Churches have lost members who are frightened to come to Elmwood and individuals who have received notices were harmed because they were unable to defend themselves against the charges brought against them."

Optotraffic, like most of these red-light-camera operators, has come under heavy criticism for their role in this highly profitable scheme.  In the case of Elmwood Place, which is capable of collecting over 2 million dollars, in a period of six months, Optotraffic receives 40 percent of that revenue.  In the state of Maryland, there have been reports that Optotraffic cameras have shown to be inaccurate, as well as a class action lawsuit involving Optotraffic and the town of River Park, challenging the town to refund citations bearing the forged signature of a police officer.  Also in Maryland, a representative of AAA, Lon Anderson, said he believes that the red-light-camera operation being run is "not being used primarily for safety" but instead is "about making money for the city and camera producer Optotraffic."

There are legislators in the state of Connecticut that are attempting to change the law to allow red-light-cameras to go up, throughout the state.  I have written about this push for red-light cameras in Connecticut involving corruption, United Nations Agenda 21, and the Rockefellers Brothers Fund, and I will continue to document, and expose, this scam, and do my best to prevent it from taking hold in Connecticut.

Related Stories:

• Red Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers - March 01, 2013 (link)

CT State Senator Steve Cassano Wants Traffic Enforcement "Photographers" Taking Pictures Of You In Your Car

CT State Senator Steve Cassano

Connecticut State Senator, and former mayor of Manchester, Steve Cassano (D-4th) believes there should be "photographers", taking pictures of people inside of their cars, to make sure they are not using mobile telephones, or other electronic devices.

Senator Cassano introduced Senate Bill 637, "AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PHOTOGRAPHERS TO RECORD THE ILLEGAL USE OF MOBILE TELEPHONES BY MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS", in this years session of the Connecticut legislature.  Cassano believes this bill will "reduce occurrences of distracted driving and any associated deaths and injuries".

I have not found any example, or definition, of what a "traffic enforcement photographer" is.  Though the definition of a "photographer" is a PERSON who takes photographs, I would assume that Senator Cassano is referring to some-sort of electronically controlled camera, similar to the red-light-cameras that have been proposed for use in Connecticut this year, which Senator Cassano was in support of last year, and not some government agent on the side of the road, taking pictures of you, inside of your vehicle.

Based on my quick analysis of available information regarding Senator Cassano, he does not seem to be a friend of liberty.  Aside from this Orwellian traffic enforcement photographer bill, Cassano has "experience and leadership in Regionalization" through his membership in many organizations including, the Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG), the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, the National League of Cities Advisory Council, and the National Association of Regional Councils. According to the Manchester Democratic Town Committee, the Senator would have been "valuable in consolidating services and regional planning", if, as they wished, Cassano was elected Lieutenant Governor last election.

In my experiences, "consolidating services", and "regional planning" are other ways of saying that Cassano is working to get rid of the decision-making power of local residents, and replace it with another layer, a "regional" layer, of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.  Rosa Koire, author of "Behind The Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21", describes her experiences with "regionalization":

"Regionalization.  If you don't know what it is, you will soon.  It's the interim step on the road to globalization.  The creation of another layer of government, unelected, unaccountable.  A conglomeration of municipalites who are making new laws and goals that supercede their local laws---then they'll go back to the local community and say that they are required to bring their local laws into line.  A manipulation."

The Yankee Institute, who I do not fully endorse but do acknowledge does some good, reviewed 10 of the most contentious bills during the 2011-2012 CT legislative session, to identify pro-free market, limited government legislators.  The list of bills in this analysis included Obamacare for Connecticut, the governors tax hikes, the governors crony capitalism: First Five & the October Jobs Bill, and more.

Each member of the Connecticut General Assembly receives a score from 0 to 10 based on how he or she voted in ten key votes. The Institute selects key votes which "reveal the differences between those legislators that would harness the power of individual liberty and the market to improve lives, and those that prefer a centrally-planned approach." A legislator with a 10 voted in agreement with the Yankee Institute on all 10 votes, while a legislator with a 0 voted against the Yankee Institute's views or was absent for all 10 votes.

Cassano received a score of 0 on the Yankee Institute's Voter Guide for 2011-12, tied with 15 others for the lowest score among the 36 scored members of the Connecticut Senate.  He voted YES across the board. 

Related Stories:

-  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)

-  Legislators Pushing Forced Medication In Wake of CT School Shooting - December 22, 2012 (link)

Where is Hillary Clinton?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was due to testify before Congress on December 20th about the investigation into the deaths of four Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11th, 2012.  Five days before she was scheduled to testify, it was reported that Clinton fainted, suffered a concussion, and then was admitted to a New York hospital after the discovery of a blood clot stemming from the concussion.  As a result of this injury, the Secretary of State did not testify as scheduled at the congressional hearings.

Hillary Clinton has gotten criticized and mocked in the media, as some believe she is faking her illness to avoid testifying.  Fox News is receiving backlash over the various segments they aired downplaying the seriousness of Clinton's reported injuries.  Even John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador under President George W. Bush, suggested that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fabricated a "diplomatic illness" in order to dodge the scheduled testimony.

It doesn't seem as if Hillary Clinton is attempting to avoid the hearing, nor does she seem to have a reason to be intimidated by a congressional hearing, nothing much seems to come from them anyway.  Another member of the Obama administration, Eric Holder, recently came under scrutiny by congress after the Fast and Furious gun running operation was revealed.  Many people were sure there would be repercussions brought out against Holder, but a justice department report concluded that there was no evidence to link Eric Holder to the botched gun running scheme.  A similar result is likely in the Benghazi investigation of Hillary Clinton, as the Secretary of State says she still plans to testify, though no date has been set.  (Sidenote:  On December 31, 2012, the Senate investigation into Benghazi slammed the State Department for lack of security that lead to the Benghazi murders).

So what is Hillary Clinton really up to?

One thing is for sure, Hillary Clinton is expected to be the front-runner in the 2016 Democratic Presidential race, and the globalist propaganda machine is hard at work to make that happen.  It was revealed this week that a new screenplay based on Hillary Clinton is reportedly in development in Hollywood.

Following along this path of Hillary Clinton's hopeful presidential bid, the folks at the No Agenda Show have their own interesting theory.  They believe that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is faking this injury, not to avoid the Benghazi testimony, but because she needs the time away from the public spotlight to heal from plastic surgery.  Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak, of the No Agenda Podcast, believe Hillary will be getting major plastic surgery done in the near future, to increase her public appeal as she makes her run for the presidency.

To give some credit to this theory is a CBS report about Hillary Clinton making "her first public appearance in three weeks as she walked out of the Harkness Eye Institute".  If you visit the official website of the Edward S. Harkness Eye Institute, the front page lists "Eye Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery" as one of their services, and includes rejuvenative and restorative facial procedures.  Also, in the only photo released of this public appearance, Hillary Clinton has big dark sunglasses, but neither her husband, daughter, or secret service agent, have on any eye-wear.

We are sure to see a couple appearances by Hillary Clinton in the near future, as she is scheduled to testify in a hearing on Benghazi, as well as announce her retirement from the position of Secretary of State.  Clinton is even back to work today, with 12 meetings scheduled this week, just four weeks after a blood clot on the brain. (Sidenote: President Barack Obama has chosen Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to succeed her.)

If she makes these appearances, goes back into hiding, and then begins hitting the national scene with a 'new look', the folks at No Agenda may have been correct.

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?