Agenda 21 is a two decade old plan for global “Sustainable
Development” put forth by the United Nations. Two U.S. Presidents, one
from each political party, adopted the measure via Executive Order and
effectively removed any Congressional review. The simple explanation of
Agenda 21 is: Central planners from the UN to the Federal Government, to the
State governments and even local municipal planners will be used to transform
development as they decide is appropriate. As defined by the UN, Agenda
21 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.”
This massive government central planner control scheme threatens to impact
private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership,
individual travel choices and privately owned farms. In fact, the UN describes
individuals owning land as follows:
Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by
individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the
market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of
accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social
injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and
implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and
healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the
interest of society as a whole.
Furthermore, billionaire
Atheist and George Soros, a known currency destroyer and a vocal supporter of
globally controlled central planning has given the
International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (who oversees the
implementation of Agenda 21) more than $2.1 million through his Open Society
Institute. However, before you consider this a partisan issue, consider
that even Liberal Democrat’s are arguing against ICLEI and Agenda 21.
Over 600 cities and towns currently are members of ICLEI (including Lewes,
Delaware). Do you support your local government agreeing to rules and
regulations set up by a IN-based organization what wants private property
transferred to government control?
Think your business is
safe? Agenda 21 is a disaster for private business as it prefers Private
Public Partnerships where government decides which companies will receive tax
breaks and are allowed to stay in business. Need some evidence?
Consider the cozy relationship that GE (a
company which paid NO TAX in 2010) has with the current administration and
then consider the stance that the White House took in efforts to tell
Boeing which state it could do business in. Again, this is an issue
that concerns both parties and individuals across the ideological
spectrum. Check out
this website from a group of Democrats who stand in opposition to Agenda 21
to see even more information.
So why bring this up now? Well, as some of you may
know, I am running for the 11th District State Senate seat formerly
held by Senator Tony DeLuca who was beaten in the primary by Bryan
Townsend. Bryan is an up and coming progressive in the Delaware Democrat
Party and he was recently asked about his thoughts on Agenda 21 and here is how
he answered, in his own words:
- Rachael
- Bryan Townsend
Rachel: Agenda 21 is an important effort to address global challenges. It also is an example of how difficult it can be to forge multinational agreements. I applaud the efforts, though I worry the framework is not achieving results quickly enough. (I was in Johanessburg for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, and I'm not certain there has been significant improvement in the past 10 years.) - Rachael
so any questions thats kinds deals with agenda 21, do you think we as a country should or should not pull out of the UN? Its been on the board for so long im not sure where to stand. cause i know the UN is there for great reasons, but also in the same breath i worry for my country and my state if we stay apart of the UN........ - Bryan Townsend
The US should lead by example, which I believe ultimately must include trying to use global institutions to overcome global challenges. There are reasonable concerns with the UN (for example, Security Council vetoes, and the relative financial contributions of different countries). Given its long history and laudable ideals, I'd like to think we can preserve the UN even if we need to modify some elements of it.
I would like to take a moment
to answer Rachael’s question myself. Agenda 21 is nothing short of a
disaster for everything from family farms to private property rights and even
business ownership. It allows massive government central planners to control
the most basic of individual rights. While my opponent believes that the
results are not being achieved fast enough, I believe that the very results it
seeks to achieve conflict with America’s core values of freedom and individual
liberty. I do not believe that America should cede its sovereignty to a global
body of central planners whose stated goals are to destroy private property
rights as a means to redistribute wealth. As to the question of the UN
and whether we should pull out of the group of nations. My answer is an
unequivocal YES. The UN’s basic philosophy conflicts with America’s own
basic fundamental values. While our Declaration of Independence proclaims
the “self-evident” truth that individuals “are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights”, the UN’s Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
implies that it grants rights and claims the power “as provided by law” to
restrict rights as fundamental as the freedom of speech, religion, the right to
bear arms, freedom of the press and even the freedom of movement. Next,
the credibility of the entire organization is at best in question and at worst
completely gone when you consider that the U.S. was voted out of the Human
Rights Commission while Libya and Sudan were voted in. The usefulness of
the UN is in serious doubt as it has been surprisingly unsuccessful at adhering
to its grand commitment to end threats to human security, such as interstate
war, genocide, famine, internal war, disease and the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. The UN seeks to become the authority in the world,
forsaking the sovereignty of all other nations and resides in New York
practically for free. In fact, a new UN building is being built and the
U.S. taxpayers are footing 22% of the costs! Not to mention the fact that
the U.S. is the largest donor to UN causes by far. Why should U.S. taxpayers
be forced to pay for buildings, contribute to causes and support agendas that
harm American sovereignty?
This issue illustrates the differences and the importance of
the 11th District Senate race. On the one side you have Bryan
Townsend, a progressive Democrat who supports central planning, global control
and Agenda 21. He is a young man who has spent the bulk of his life in
various educational pursuits and still resides at home with his parents and who
is shaped by the agenda of the liberal progressive professors that have
surrounded him for the last decade. On the other hand I am a former Marine who served in the Iraq War,
a tireless advocate of America’s founding principles and an opponent of those
big government schemes promoted by the UN and ICLEI through Agenda 21. I’m
a father of 4 children who has spent the last 12 years serving my country,
raising a family and making a living in the private sector. If you want
to stop Agenda 21, you want to make sure that Bryan Townsend does not make it
into the Delaware General Assembly. Help put me in Dover so that I can
make sure that Delaware doesn’t cow to the whims of global planners.
