|
Understanding
Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) - A Guide for Public Officials . 2004 Prepared by Freedom 21
Santa Cruz Introduction
Many public officials
do not fully understand Sustainable Development or its implications upon
their communities, and may be unaware of the part they are playing in
its implementation. In order to ensure that public officials everywhere
have a better understanding of such a critical issue, it is vital that a
brief overview of Sustainable Development’s origin, structure and
implementation be made available to you. This document will not
cover every aspect of Sustainable Development Agenda 21, but it will
offer a broad sketch of Sustainable Development -- enough for you to be
able to understand the goals and specific programs as they surface in
local, regional, state and federal government practices. If you received this
document while serving as a public official, you are being presented
with a unique opportunity to learn more about Sustainable Development.
Please consider these things in light of your oath to the Constitution.
You can make a difference in your community by opposing present and
future actions that threaten the rights and well being of your fellow
citizens. More information on the
nature and application of Sustainable Development is available from many
sources, including Freedom 21 Santa Cruz. What Is
Sustainable Development? The most common
definition of Sustainable Development given by its proponents is a
statement found in the Bruntland Report, Our Common Future, released
during the 1987 United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development: "[Meeting] the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs." Historical
Development and Origins It would be foolish to
argue with the word "sustainable." After all, who (in their
right mind) wants a degenerated future? You cannot always judge a book
by its cover. In reality, Sustainable Development has become a
"buzz" term that refers to a political agenda, rather than an
objectively sustainable form of development. Specifically, it refers to
an initiative of the United Nations (UN) called the UN Sustainable
Development Agenda 21, the most comprehensive statement of a political
ideology that is being progressively infused into every level of
government in America. Known around the world
simply as Agenda 21, this initiative is "a comprehensive plan of
action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of
the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area
in which human impacts (sic) on the environment." [1] Agenda 21 was unveiled
in 1992 during the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED), commonly known as the Rio Earth Summit, where more
than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 and pledged to evaluate progress made
in implementing the plan every five years thereafter. President George H.W.
Bush was the signatory for the United States. Although Congress never
authorized the implementation of Agenda 21 (as a soft-law policy
recommendation [2] -- not a treaty -- it needs no ratification), in 1993
President Bill Clinton established by executive order the President's
Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) for the purpose of
implementing Agenda 21 in the United States. The PCSD operated through
1999, but its actions to promote Sustainable Development have taken root
and now exert an increasing influence in International
organizations such as the UN and its accredited Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) generally consider Sustainable Development and
Agenda 21 to be synonymous. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion and
equivocation, Sustainable Development will be the term used throughout
this document to refer to both. Agenda 21 will only be used to refer to
the actual document from the Rio Earth Summit. At times, the political
agenda embodied in Sustainable Development is implemented under other
names for purposes of political expediency. J. Gary Lawrence, a planner
for the city of Seattle and advisor to the President's Council on
Sustainable Development, said that, in 1998, that "Participating in
a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who
would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local
Agenda 21. So we call our process something else, such as
"comprehensive planning", "growth management" or
"smart growth."[3] The
Antithetical Foundations of Liberty and Sustainable Development
"Property must be
secured, or liberty cannot exist." · John Adams It has long been known
that liberty is tied to the institution of private property. The
Decalogue codified private property in four words: "Thou shalt not
steal." "Private property
and freedom are inseparable." · George Washington These intuitions were
understood by those who participated in the American experiment [4] and
were consequently included in the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. [5] The right to property as
outlined in those documents is premised on an owner's determination of
its use, provided that such use does not disturb the equal rights of
another. "…all Men…are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." · The
Declaration of Independence In contrast to the
unalienable rights found in America's founding documents, the United
Nations Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights are based on a very
different idea: rights are granted and rescinded by men. The Sustainable
Development political agenda originates in the founding documents of the
United Nations. This isn't surprising, since the myriad countries
represented in the drafting of Agenda 21 have widely divergent forms of
government and must have a point of agreement (a "least common
denominator") to rally around -- and the UN Charter provides that
point. However, for progress to be made in implementing Sustainable
Development in the United States, unalienable rights such as the right
to property must be eroded, attacked and struck down altogether. [6] [7]
Implementing
Sustainable Development Sustainable
Development The authors of Agenda
21 have said it will affect every area of life, and its policies can be
grouped according to three objectives: Equity, Economy, and Environment
(known commonly as "the 3 E's"). By defining these terms
vaguely, a litany of abuse has resulted. Furthermore, by rubberstamping
pre-conceived plans, using manipulative "visioning" sessions
to garner the appearance of public buy-in, and acquiring grants from
sources with questionable motives, the entire process of implementing
Sustainable Development policies is suspect. Equity: using
the law to restructure human nature The authors of the
Sustainable Development action plan recognized that their environmental
and economic objectives and the corresponding transformation of the
American system of justice are radically divergent from the views and
objectives of the average person. Therefore, in order to achieve their
objectives, they call for a shift in attitudes, which can be seen in the
educational programs developed by its proponents. This is the premise of
Sustainable Development: that individual human wants, needs, and desires
are to be conformed to the views and dictates of planners. Harvey Ruvin,
Vice Chair of the International Council on Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI) and Clerk of the Circuit and County Court in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, has said that "individual rights will
have to take a back seat to the collective" in the process of
implementing Sustainable Development. [8] Economy: the
international redistribution of wealth and the creation of
public-private Partnerships "...current
lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -
involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and
work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable." -
Maurice Strong, Secretary General UN Conference on Environment and
Development, 1992 (also known as the Rio Earth Summit, where Agenda 21
was unveiled) According to its
preamble, "The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda
21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial
resources to developing countries." Language throughout
Agenda 21 erroneously assumes that life is a zero-sum game (the wealth
of the world was made at the expense of the poor, making them even
poorer). This critique of economic ills denies the ingenuity of private
action, individual determination and free market innovation, and leads
inevitably to the conclusion that if the conditions of the poor are to
be improved, wealth must be taken from the rich.
Sustainable Development embodies this unjust redistribution of wealth
both in theory and in implementation, effectively lowering the standard
of living in America to that of the rest of the world. The Draft
Covenant on Environment and Development states in Article 8:
"…equity will be achieved through implementation of the
international economic order… and through transfers of resources to
developing countries…" In addition to its
appeal for the international redistribution of wealth, Sustainable
Development is actually restructuring the economy, molding it not on
private enterprise, but on public-private partnerships. Public-private
partnerships bring businesses desiring the protection offered by
government's legalized force together with government agents that want
the power that comes with economic control. The power of economics and
the force of government must serve as a check and balance on each other;
combining the two will ultimately result in tyranny. Free enterprise is
lost amid subsidies, incentives, tax-breaks, and insider privilege, and
with it goes the notion that the customer is the final determiner of how
resources are allocated in production. The Sustainable Development
"partnerships" involve some corporations -- domestic and
multinational -- some tax-exempt family foundations, select individuals,
and collectivist politicians and their administrations. Of these
participants, only elected politicians are accountable to the public for
their actions. Environment:
nature above man Americans support laws
and regulations that are designated to effectively prevent pollution of
the air, water, or property of another. Yet it is increasingly clear
that Sustainable Development uses the environment simply as the means to
promote a political agenda. For example, Al Gore says that Sustainable
Development will bring about "a wrenching transformation" of
American society. [9] Sustainable Development
is ostensibly concerned with the environment; it is more concerned with
restructuring the governmental system of the world's nations so that all
the people of the world will be the subjects of a global collective.
Many of its proposed implementation strategies require the surrender of
unalienable rights. This fact alone casts a
serious shadow of doubt on the motives of Sustainable Development
planners who would discard the unalienable rights to life, liberty and
property in order to pursue dubious programs. [10] When Sustainable
Development is implemented, ordinary people will be left unprotected
from de facto decrees placing nature above man while relegating man to
the status of a "biological resource". [11] Educating the
Youth to Mold the Minds of Tomorrow "All who have
meditated on the art of governing mankind have been convinced that the
fate of empires depends on the education of youth." - Aristotle One means that
Sustainable Developers have to ensure continuing support of their
antihuman programs is through molding the minds of the next generation.
Chapter 25 of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21 calls for the
need to "enlist and empower children and youth in reaching for
sustainability'." Even a cursory look at
the federally mandated curriculum being taught in classrooms in every
government school in America would show that the doctrines of
Sustainable Development are finding their way into every subject. French
classes are used to teach students to "save the earth";
economics classes feature lectures discouraging individual initiative in
the marketplace and decrying private ownership; history classes obscure
the importance of America's founding documents; mandatory
"service-learning" programs enlist students to work for
government-approved Sustainable Development partner organizations. The
list goes on and on. While taxpayers foot
the bill for the increasing costs of government education, parents are
increasingly shut out of decisions crucial to the molding of their
child's mind. Controversial programs designed for "values
clarification" are being performed in government schools that
employ "powerful behavior control techniques and peer pressure to
make [a] developing child question his or her individual worth and
values", and are designed to disrupt parental oversight in the
upbringing of their children, according to Professor of Organizational
Behavior Brent Duncan. [12] Stakeholder
Councils – Restructuring American Government I believe there are
more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by
gradual silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and
sudden usurpations. - James Madison The way that
Sustainable Development is carried out in local communities around the
world is particularly alarming, especially to those who seek
accountability in government. Operating within a system of stakeholder
councils, organized to give community members a "stake" in the
control over property in their neighborhood, proponents of Sustainable
Development systematically promote their own ideas and marginalize any
local opposition, particularly those individuals who advocate the
freedom to use and enjoy private property. The product of a
stakeholder council, often called a "consensus statement" or a
"vision statement", is typically approved by local governments
without question, requiring citizens to submit to the questionable
conclusions of a non-elected regional authority that is not accountable
to the voters. Stakeholder council
meetings are typically arranged under the auspices of soliciting input
from community members on a project. This project may be initiated by
local public officials, a local non-profit organization, a national or
regional non-profit organization or an NGO. [13] It is very rare
for community members to instigate the stakeholder "visioning"
process. A typical stakeholder
council meeting is run by a trained facilitator. [14] It is not
the facilitator's job to make sure that all views are entered into the
record. His job, instead, is to guide the group to arrive at a consensus
on the project. The consensus process has no mechanism for recording
minority views. Since he is being paid by the organization responsible
for the project, it is in his interest to arrive at a consensus
sympathetic to the desired outcome of the project. Tactics vary between
the facilitators, but consensus generally is reached by using subtle
means to marginalize opposition, such as recording only the
"good" ideas and allowing criticism only for the
"bad" ideas. A recent Sustainable
Development stakeholder meeting in Greenville, South Carolina, was
adjourned with a frank admission by the paid facilitator that they had
not reached the consensus that he needed to support the predetermined
plans.[15] His implicit confession was printed in the local
paper, along with a description of the group manipulation tactics used. Why all the effort to
gain support for programs that few citizens want? The answer to this
question lies in the origin of each specific project. Sustainable
Development projects are often initiated at the directive of NGOs or
non-profit organizations that have -- or create -- fear over problems
that are portrayed as a crisis: development near a riparian corridor,
poor water management infrastructure, or too many cars on the freeway
are common examples. ICLEI:
Providing Boilerplate Sustainable Development Plans Once a problem has been
identified, every NGO, non-profit and local government body has a vast
stock of Sustainable Development solutions at hand, provided by the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).
Indeed, ICLEI has a veritable treasure trove of boilerplate solutions
for change agents, enabling them to "identify" problems with
the goal of implementing predetermined outcomes that advance Sustainable
Development policies. [16] ICLEI, launched in 1990
at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, is
based in Toronto, Canada, but has offices around the globe, including
Berkeley, California. Its stated mission is to provide policy
recommendations to assist local governments in the implementation of
Sustainable Development. ICLEI was instrumental
in the development of Agenda 21, having drafted Chapter 28 in 1991 in
preparation for the upcoming summit. In a recent document, ICLEI
confirmed its dedication to the UN mandate: "Local Action 21
strategies [i.e. those formulated at the 2002 Earth Summit in
Johannesburg, South Africa] will ensure the unwavering, systematic
implementation of local action plans over the next decade." [17] Essentially,
Sustainable Development claims knowledge of all sustainability issues
and has stock solutions that can be applied in Stockholm, Boulder, Santa
Cruz -- indeed, anywhere. Around the world, ICLEI is responsible for
communicating with local special interests to translate international
policy objectives into local and regional legislation. [18] Every
county in America now has Sustainable Development directives
guided by federal agencies, NGOs and/or ICLEI. Funding Sources
The list of money
sources for the implementation of Sustainable Development is impressive.
American taxes fund the federal agencies' present focus: implementing
Sustainable Development. Over two thousand NGOs are accredited by
the United Nations for the purpose of implementing Sustainable
Development in America and are given massive tax advantages by the
I.R.S. Some of these NGOs are the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club,
the National Audubon Society, the American Planning Association and the
National Teachers Association. The third
"leg" of the Sustainable Development financial insiders --
after government and non-profit funding schemes -- is a group of
tax-exempt family foundations. These include the Rockefeller Foundation,
Pew Charitable Trusts, the Turner Foundation, the David and Lucille
Packard Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, the Carnegie
Foundation, the McArthur Foundation, and Community Foundations. Political
Support When George H.W. Bush
signed the Rio Accords at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, he
pledged the United States' support for Agenda 21. A year later, when
Bill Clinton created the President's Council for Sustainable Development
by Executive Order, he laid the foundation for a proliferation of
intermediate and local "stakeholder" councils that would set
out to reinvent the structure of United States' government. As Sustainable
Development policies permeate every county in America, it has become
apparent that the conflict is not a dynamic of Republican vs. Democrat,
liberal vs. conservative or left vs. right. In fact, the implementation
of Sustainable Development is occurring on a non-partisan basis. Sustainable
Development Programs Sustainable Development
is a global land control program, a global education program and a
population control program. The land use element of Sustainable
Development calls for the implementation of two action plans designed to
eliminate private property: the Wildlands Project and Smart Growth. Upon
implementation of these plans, all human action is subject to control. Since all things
ultimately come from natural resources on rural lands, the transfer of
the landscape from citizen control to government control will make it
easy for government and its partners -- NGOs, certain foundations and
certain corporations -- to control what we have, what we do and where we
go. The transformation of free societies into collectivized societies
through Sustainable Development ensures the presence of a ruling elite,
which, by definition, ultimately excludes all but a very select few. The Wildlands
Project The Wildlands Project
is the plan to eliminate human presence on "at least" 50
percent of the American landscape [19] and to heavily control human
activity on most of the rest of American land. Examples of the
piece-by-piece implementation of the Wildlands Project include road
closings, the policy of breaching dams undertaken by the Clinton
administration, and the adoption of United Nations World Heritage Sites
-- which are systematically being closed to recreational use.
"Conservation biologists now agree that protecting isolated pockets
of habitat isn't enough to protect our bears, jaguars, beavers, birds
and other wildlife -- the only way to protect them is to practice
conservation on a continental scale," announced Wildlands Project
Executive Director Leanne Klyza Linck at the Society of Environmental
Journalists Conference on September 12, 2003. The most significant
tool of the Wildlands Project is the rapidly expanding imposition of
habitat "protection" provisions of the Endangered Species Act
and various "conservation easements" and direct land
acquisitions from battered "willing sellers." The Wildlands Project
seeks to collectivize all natural resources (e.g. water) and centralize
all use decisions under government direction, often implemented through
public-private partnerships entered into with government insiders. Smart Growth
The rural land-use plan
embodied in the Wildlands Project is inextricably tied to its urban
counterpart, Smart Growth. As human beings are barred from rural land,
there will be a concentration of human activity in urban areas. Through
Smart Growth, the infrastructure is being created for a post-private
property era in which human action is subject to centralized government
control. With the combined implementation of Smart Growth and the
Wildlands Project, humans will be caged and the animals will run free. Sometimes called
"comprehensive planning" or "growth management"[20],
Smart Growth is the centralized control of every aspect of urban life:
energy and water use, housing stock and allocation, population growth
and control, public health and dietary regimens, resources and
recycling, social justice and education, toxic technology and waste
management, transportation modes and air quality, business and economic
activity. Smart Growth
policies include: transportation plans
that reduce the freedom of mobility, forcing people to live near where
they work and transforming communities into heavily-regulated but
"self-sufficient" feudalistic "transit villages". plans to herd citizens
into tax-subsidized, government controlled, mixed-use developments [21],
called "human settlements". These settlements are sometimes
distinguished from one another by how productive or useful the citizens
are for society. [22] heavy restrictions on
development in most areas and the promotion of extremely dense
development, constructed and managed by government "partners",
in other selected areas. rations on public
services, such as health care, drinking water, [23] and energy resources
(and sources). A typical day in the
Orwellian society created by Smart Growth would consist of an individual
waking up in his government-provided housing unit, eating a ration of
government subsidized foods purchased at a government-sanctioned grocery
store, walking his children (if he has any) to the government-run child
care center, boarding government-subsidized public transit to go to his
government job, then returning home later that evening. What Can You
Do? "Once again a
majority of this court has proved that 'If enough people get together
and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it.' ... But
theft is still theft. Theft is theft even when the government approves
of the thievery... Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not
enhance the stature of the thieves; it only diminishes the legitimacy of
the government." - Justice Janice Brown dissenting opinion, San
Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco [24] Sustainable Development
is restructuring our lives and is targeting our children through an
educational regime that seeks to develop collectivist attitudes, values,
and beliefs. Sustainable Development documents expressly call for the
elimination of private property [25] and the freedom that private
property supports. It supplants long-standing State laws, and causes
irreparable harm to our economy and our society. If individual members
of our society do nothing, the continuing loss of liberty will result in
increasing social confusion and discord, rising resource shortages,
financial decay, and a dimming future for us and our posterity. The looming battle of
ideas should be recognized as a classic -- and perhaps ultimate –
battle between Liberty and Tyranny. The social, economic, and political
transformations Sustainable Development requires will mean the
suppression of unalienable rights for all people. [26] If Americans, with your
help, come to a timely understanding of the threat and face the
challenge squarely, the deceptive fraud of Sustainable Development will
quickly come to light. Together, we will rise to restore Liberty
through an orderly transition directed by reason and respect for the
dignity of individual determination. The future of the freedom once
taken for granted in America depends on us recognizing and countering
the threats of Sustainable Development. 3 Practical
Steps You Can Take to Restore and Enhance Liberty Refuse federal money
for new Sustainable Development programs that breach the American system
of federalism. Transition out of established Sustainable Development
programs. 1. Avoid partnerships
with the federal government, NGOs, foundations and corporations that
advance the anti-liberty Sustainable Development agenda. Do not
surrender your constituents to the insider privilege of Sustainable
Developers and their moneyed interests. 2. Understand your role
in the community as a public official: to administer government in a
manner that protects individual liberty and ensures equal justice. 3. Know, understand and
apply the Constitution to which you swore an oath, with particular
attention to Article 1, Section 8, the Commerce Clause and the 9th, 10th
and 14th Amendments, which address the limitations on federal power. More information on the
nature and application of Sustainable Development is available from many
sources, including Freedom 21 Santa Cruz. [1] http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
[2] Soft law"
policy is not binding. This is a common procedure in the U.N.'s policy
development strategy. "Soft law" documents are quite often
followed by treaties or covenants, which are binding international law;
alternately, soft law can find immediate application through local
legislation without an internationally binding agreement. The Declaration on
Human Rights, for example, is a non-binding, "soft law"
document, from which flowed two International Covenants that are legally
binding. At the time Agenda 21 was adopted, the UN had already prepared
a draft of a "Covenant on Environment and Development," which
would make most of Agenda 21 legally binding. [3] Lawrence, J. Gary,
The Future of Local Agenda 21 in the New Millennium, The Millennium
Papers, UNED-UK, Issue 2, (1998), 3.\ [4] Soapes, Emily
Williams. "The American Experiment: Living with the
Constitution". Prologue: Journal of the National Archives 19, no.3
(Fall 1987): 185-189. [5] See also Machan,
Tibor, Private Rights & Public Illusions, Transaction Publishers,
New Brunswick (1995). [6] Nullification of
the right to the reasonable use of one’s property affects by extension
the right to private action and the freedom of expression. [7] Heywood, V.H.
(ed.). Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment
Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995): 767, 782. This
document likewise condemns “inappropriate social structures” (p
763), golf courses (p 970), and the attitudes toward nature found in
“Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions” (pp 766, 838). [8] Peros, Joan,
unpublished report, UNCED Rio+10 Summit -- Johannesburg, South Africa
(2002). [9] "Minor shifts
in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate
improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of
genuine change -- these are all forms of appeasement, designed to
satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a
wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." Gore,
Al, Earth in the Balance. Plume (1993): 274. [10] cf. Taylor, Jerry,
Sustainable Development: A Dubious Solution in Search of a Problem, Cato
Institute (2002). [11] Bureau of Land
Management, Internal Working Document for ecosystem management, (March
1994). [12] Duncan, Brent,
Watch what walls are coming down, Letters To The Editor, Santa Cruz
Sentinel, April 23, 2002. [13] Recall that many
Non-Governmental Organizations are accredited by the UN, making them
international or multinational in their political purpose. In this
sense, they might be more appropriately called "Global Governance
Organizations". [14] Professional
facilitators are frequently paid thousands of dollars for only a few
hours of work. [15] Dill, Bob, Land
Use Leaders Declare Defeat; Wrong Consensus Reached, Meetings Cancelled,
Times-Examiner, Greenville, South Carolina. Steven Lipe, the meeting
organizer, announced that "the consensus is that we don't have
enough people to make change. As far as I am concerned, our meeting is
done." [16] cf. Taylor, Jerry,
op cit. [17] Otto-Zimmerman,
Konrad, Local Action 21: Motto, Mandate, Movement, International Council
for Local Environmental Initiatives, Toronto (2003): 2. See ICLEI’s
website for more information: http://www.iclei.org.
[18] Note that ICLEI's
objectives presuppose the notion that the goal of improving the
conditions of the world can only be achieved through legislation,
denigrating the intelligence and ingenuity of individuals in facing
their particular circumstances and placing them under the increasing
oversight of government planners. [19] Reed Noss, who
made this assertion in 1992, reiterated his commitment in a recent
interview: "Fifty percent is an estimate I made years ago of the
proportion of an average region that would need to be managed for
conservation in order to meet well-accepted conservation goals ... [It]
turns out I was pretty much on the mark ..." (Range Magazine, Fall
2003, p42) Noss is currently the Science Editor for Wild Earth, the
quarterly publication of the Wildlands Project. [20] "...we call
our [UN advocated planning] processes something else, such as
comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth."
Lawrence, J. Gary, op cit. [21] The lure of paying
as little as $150 per year in taxes on properties valued at $1.5 million
has led to high occupancy in some developments in Portland, Oregon, for
example. [22] The Smart Growth
plan for Richland County, South Carolina, for example, distinguishes
between "employment-based villages" and
"non-employment-based villages", with special gated
communities set aside for the wealthy individuals responsible for the
plan. Most of the "non-employment-based villages" are slated
to be built in areas currently populated by the descendants of liberated
slaves. [23] Reasonable access
to water in urban areas is defined as “the availability of 20 litres
per capita per day at a distance no longer than 1,000 metres”. Global
Water Supply and Assessment Report 2000. [24] No. S091757.,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 27 Cal. 4th 643; 41 P.3d 87, March 8, 2002 [25] Heywood, V.H.
(ed.). op cit. [26] For a more
comprehensive discussion of this topic, see the Freedom 21 Draft
Alternative to the U.N.'s "Agenda 21" Program for Sustainable
Development. www.freedom21.org/alternative/
----- Comments: Freedom 21 Santa Cruz
has invested years of research in this Guide. It exudes documented truth
and provides a road to follow that leads straight to freedom and what
made America great. I will be sharing it with county commissioners
nationwide as well as in my own local communities; it will soon be
posted at www.PropertyRightsResearch.org
- Julie Kay Smithson, London, Ohio. 8-13-2004 I would like to suggest
that you send this to your County Commissioners, County Supervisors,
Mayors -- in fact; every public official you can find in your community.
- Barb Hall, Klamath Falls, Oregon. 8-12-2004 This will be a valuable tool to teach our Public Officials about Agenda 21, Smart Growth, etc., and what its doing to our country. Lets use it. - Ronnie Merritt, Yeso, New Mexico. 8-11-2004 |