If, in smaller nations, there is no one to fight it, the ‘world order’ will progress.

Read more.. Finance, partnerships and innovation: Large ocean states pave the way to the 2030 Agenda

Note: This information is from Tom DeWeese at American Policy Center. GSF(s) does not collect money, nor do we usually solicit for anyone else, but Tom does do a lot more nationally than we could possibly do, so if you are feeling generous this Christmas, consider gifting American Policy Center to help them defend these cattlemen.

“Meat consumption is devastating some of the world’s most valuable and vulnerable regions, due to the vast amount of land needed to produce animal feed.”

That quote is from a report issued by the radical World Wildlife Fund (WWF), one of the top three most influential environmental groups in the world.

For years the WWF has been working to force us to stop eating meat and replace it with Soy products.

So what you say? Empty threat? Not going to happen?

Then you had better listen to what I’m about to tell you.

The World Wildlife Fund has succeeded in taking over the American Cattle Industry!
They have created the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

It comes with an endless list of rules to control how cattlemen are to operate – and those rules increase costs, and make it nearly impossible for small farmers to operate.

They have succeeded in getting the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to endorse the Roundtable’s crazy rules.

And the Roundtable now controls the beef packing industry which in turn controls the entire beef retail market. Cattlemen either toe the WWF dictates or are cut out of the industry.

The Roundtable plans come with a strict set of “principles” that are right out of Agenda 21. The “principles must be considered in their entirety.”

The rules take away the farmer’s right to control his own property. Instead, the farmer is forced to deal with the introduction of predators like wolves and bears. The WWF calls that “biological diversity.”

The rules disallow farmers to use water that runs through their own land –yet demand that the cattle be well fed and watered.

The rules even demand that the farmer provide “thermal comfort” – housing – for herds of hundreds or even thousands of cattle.

These rules ignore that fact that American cattlemen have always produced the highest grade of beef in the world – just by using a process that has been used by their forefathers for generations.
The real result of these rules isn’t to produce a better beef product – but to destroy small producers and drive the industry to the massive corporate farms that can afford to play ball with the World Wildlife Fund.

The World Wildlife Fund has openly stated its opposition to beef production. They insist that to “Save the Earth it is demanded that we change human consumption habits away from beef.”

How in the world did this powerful anti-beef, anti-free enterprise, UN monster get control of our beef industry?

The short answer is that a vast majority of the beef producers in the nation, as represented by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association are merely ignorant of the threat from the Sustainable policy.

But there is a growing number of cattlemen who are starting to fight back. They know these policies are bad.

The trouble is they are a small minority fighting a powerful monster. The leaders of their own industry are working to crush their opposition. They need help.

I’m proud to say these desperate freedom fighter cattlemen have reached out to the American Policy Center and me to help them fight back.

Just a couple of months ago I spoke to their conference in Oklahoma to teach them the details they need to focus on to fight the radical World Wildlife Fund. I got a standing ovation. Now I am working to prepare articles to help get their story out to the nation. I want to help these people in every way I can!

Americans must learn the truth that our national food supply is being targeted!

Underneath the supposed altruism of pushes for things such as “new urbanism” lies a deeper motivation — that of regionalism, and regional government. As the righthand sidebar quotes explain, one cannot simply wave a magic wand and convert the United States into a network of global mega-cities under a central global authority in one fell swoop. It must be done incrementally with unelected regional councils.

We have previously noted that in other states, these regional councils have been given authority to approve grants and zoning applications. Thankfully New Hampshire has not yet come to this point. But it will happen eventually if “regionalism” by the unelected is not nipped in the bud.

So next time someone tells you it’s the government’s job to provide “complete streets” or “workforce housing”, look past the surface and any altruistic motives and see beyond to the bigger goal of changing the political landscape via “regional government”.

Read more about it here: Global Elite: Regionalism Is Only Path To New World Order

In this example of how livable communities promulgates ugly and wasteful projects that slow down the traffic, not expedite it, “new urbanism” often mirrors ugly communist art.

Here is a perfect example.

Direct link: https://youtu.be/f2ZpBzqZNQE

Interesting articles that proves the United Nations is behind the “human settlements” idea, of which “new urbanism” has a part in promoting.

The articles cover topics that do not always feature prominently when discussing SDG implementation, such as disarmament and sexual violence. Pramila Patten, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, highlights gender-based violence, which she describes as the “missing dimension” of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Patten links sexual violence to a human rights-based approach and the “leave no one behind” principle. She notes that “when war erupts, and the threat of rape at gunpoint becomes a pervasive terror,” women are unable to access fields, marketplaces and water points, and that girls are unable to attend school. Patten further highlights the disproportionate economic and health impacts of war on women, connecting to the majority of the SDGs. She also flags the importance of time: whereas men can invest hours in work, education or civic engagement, women—especially in developing countries—are often burdened with unpaid labor such as cooking, cleaning and childcare. Patten closes by calling on countries to legislate gender equality not only as a moral and social justice imperative, but also a smart economic choice.

Additional articles cover sexual health and reproductive rights, rule of law and sustainable human settlements, among other topics.

Full article: UN Officials Highlight Hidden Aspects of 2030 Agenda

Rosa Koire, author of “Behind the Green Mask”, is interviewed in Denmark in 2013.

Listen to understand how “new urbanism” fits into the fascist (by their own admission) new order being brought about by Agenda21/2030.

As she sums it up, it used to be the US, the States, the Counties, and then the Towns, but Agenda21/2030 seeks to change the political order as “Globalism, Regionalism, Cities”.

Direct link: https://youtu.be/Zpw7Zhu3KiI

In this article about a section near Los Angeles, CA. there is the suggestion that their regional planners have authority to approve high density developments.

“The last remaining road blocks barring construction of more than 500 homes between Shadow Pines and Agua Dulce were removed Thursday by regional planners.

The Spring Canyon Project faces one final hurdle next month when it goes to the hearing officer of the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, paving the way for construction to begin.”

In NH, Regional Planning Commissions have NO governing authority. This could change however. The problem with NH’s RPCs is that they continue to bring in other unaccountable and unelected private and non-governmental groups to inject their agendas in your town government.

Read more…

It’s happening everywhere. Regionalism is taking precedence over local control.

Taxpayers find themselves at the mercy of a supposedly “advisory only regional planning commission” who then engages NGOs and other private entities to influence the elected governing bodies, who then shape and plan the area with complete disregard for what the local taxpayers would do, and how they would do it.

Here are just some examples that show NH is not alone… with excerpts that should sound very familiar. After reading these examples, one may get a better feel for what “regionalism” is all about. As Andrés Duany claims, cities and regions are more important government-wise, than states and towns.

Wind-farm rule revisions won’t see a vote by planning commission

“Under the Illinois Counties Code, a regional planning commission is responsible for making “a plan” for the region to “best promote health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, efficiency and economy in the process of development and the general welfare of said region.” The commission is described as a “fact-finding body” for the “planning and development” of the region.

The law does not say anything about the commission being allowed to make changes or recommend changes to ordinances.”

And, this from Vermont. Does “infill development” make sense with the title of the article?

Town plan focuses on energy, wildlife

“From the chapter on future land use: “The over-arching goal of the Land Use Plan is to guide growth and development by reinforcing Waterbury’s traditional pattern of concentrated settlement surrounded by rural countryside. This can be achieved by directing growth into areas most appropriate for development. The objective is not to prevent growth but rather to encourage ‘infill’ development within currently developed areas and to support additional development in areas identified as ‘Growth Centers.’”

Does this sound familiar?
Tahoe Regional Planning Association’s Shoreline Plan nears approval

“The proposed Shoreline Plan puts a cap on shoreline development imposing a limited number of new shoreline structures such as piers, buoys and public boat ramps. With the new regulations, new shoreline programs will be put in place aimed at addressing the environmental effects of shoreline activity and will be paid for through fees on moorings, boat stickers and boat rental concessions.”

Notice in the above article, the ‘advisory’ RPC suggests to the governing board that new taxes and fees be imposed, which is usually the end result of these unelected bureaucrats basically making the decisions for the voters.

And here is an example of the town creating a ‘cultural district’… as in, circus on every corner… This is not something most bedroom communities aspire to, but it is part of the “social engineering” present in most Master Plans.

Great Barrington prepares to celebrate its new cultural district

“The town pursued a cultural district designation as a result of its 2013 Master Plan. Arts organizations, nonprofits and businesses were convened to provide input. The selectboard then applied to the Massachusetts Cultural Council for the downtown area to be designated as a cultural district, and the application was unanimously approved by the council in August.”

And this town gave the county planning commission the boot, as should all towns and cities in NH.

Michigan county that’s tourist mecca nixes planning group

Here is proof that sustainablists don’t mind uglying up miles of natural landscape for the purpose of their failed alternative energy schemes… Notice the supporters gathered in force and wore similar shirts to show their positions?

Wind energy firm files for DeWitt County special-use permit. Here’s what’s next.

Granite State Future(s) will continue to present examples such as this in an attempt to monitor what goes on in other towns, cities and states to be able to make the public in New Hampshire aware of what could happen to their own state if “regionalism” is not dealt with in a timely fashion.

Forget the promise to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, for as we’ve seen, the agenda of “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) rages locally. Currently, towns and cities in NH and across America are grappling with a new threat called “New Urbanism”.

In addition, despite the fact that the US is fully committed to Agenda 2030, they could not agree on the full document as they refused to oppose human rights abuses of a terrorist country (item 12, subject for another website).

Here is how the US voted on a High-Level Political Forum Ministerial Declaration at the United Nations

Ambassador Kelley Currie
U.S. Representative for Economic and Social Affairs
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
July 18, 2018

Explanation of Vote on a High-Level Political Forum Ministerial Declaration

AS DELIVERED

Good afternoon. I want to thank the ECOSOC President Ambassador Chatardova for organizing the High Level Political Forum and the co-facilitators of the HLPF Ministerial Declaration, Ambassador Gillian Bird and Ambassador Masud Bin Momen, for their efforts throughout the negotiations.

We regret that we were unable to join consensus on this document, as the United States remains firmly committed to its role as a leader in promoting sustainable development.

Throughout this process, we have made our issues with this text well known. We offered numerous constructive amendments in the spirit of compromise. Therefore, it was with regret that the United States had to call a vote and vote no on the Ministerial Declaration due to inappropriate language on foreign occupation and trade, as well as the elevation of an inappropriate development model and the domestic policy rhetoric of a single Member State.

The HLPF was created for the international community to provide updates on how countries are implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Regrettably, we have seen countries deliberately and repeatedly insert non-consensual language into this Ministerial Declaration, largely for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with sustainable development or poverty alleviation. Including this language detracts from the opportunity to collectively report on and advance progress toward sustainable development. We urge those Member States and groupings that insist on the inclusion of this divisive and derivative language to reflect upon the damage they are doing to the efforts to implement the SDGs. This continued, relentless politicization of this declaration should force all Member States to question whether the resources we have all devoted, in staff time, travel, and negotiations, on this Ministerial Declaration would not have been better spent actually promoting SDG implementation on the ground.

Let me be clear: the United States’ commitment to sustainable international development is enshrined in President Trump’s National Security Strategy. Our commitment to financing development is demonstrated in everything we do, as the largest donor to and a significant private sector investor in developing countries. We remain the largest provider of Official Development Assistance, and we are focusing more of our ODA on catalyzing both domestic revenues and private investment in partner countries most in need as they progress on their journey toward self-reliance and sustainability. The United States supports the spirit of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as a framework for development and will continue to be a global leader in sustainable development through our policies, partnerships, innovations, and calls to action.

The United States joined Israel in voting against Paragraph 12, which contains an unacceptable reference to “foreign occupation.” Given our strong support for conflict prevention, human rights promotion and good governance, we are very disappointed that we were unable to reach a common position on this paragraph with our partners and that, yet once again, certain Member States have sought to politicize development issues at the UN by including “foreign occupation” language in this declaration.

The concerns of the United States about the existence of a “right to development,” also referenced in paragraph 12, are long-standing and well known. While we recognize that development facilitates the enjoyment of human rights, the “right to development” does not have an agreed international meaning. Furthermore, we continue to face serious challenges to make any such “right” consistent with fundamental human rights, which the international community recognizes as universal rights held and enjoyed by individuals and which every individual may demand respect for from his or her own government‎.

The United States believes that all development, including sustainable development, needs to be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with human rights. The United States underscores that there are no circumstances under which development goals permit countries to deviate from their human rights obligations and commitments. Therefore, we continually encourage all states to implement their human rights obligations and commitments, regardless of level of development.

With respect to references to the Paris Agreement, we note that the United States announced that it intends to withdraw as soon as it is eligible to do so, consistent with the terms of the Agreement, unless suitable terms for re-engagement are identified. We recognize that climate change is a complex global challenge, and affirm our support for promoting economic growth and improving energy security while protecting the environment.

Regarding language in paragraphs 24 and 28, to the extent that it encourages financial assistance to the Technology Bank and characterizes technology transfer that is not clearly indicated to be both voluntary and on mutually agreed terms, the United States reiterates its long standing objections. For the United States, any such language will have no standing in future negotiations. The United States continues to oppose language that we believe undermines intellectual property rights.

In paragraph 28, the United States reiterates its objections to the reference to “mutually beneficial cooperation.” The terms “win-win cooperation” and “mutually beneficial cooperation” have been promoted interchangeably by a single Member State to insert its domestic policy agenda in UN contexts. As a result, these terms have come to be synonymous with a model of development that is dangerous to the future of sustainable development and the Sustainable Development Goals. None of us should support incorporating language targeting a domestic political audience into multilateral documents. This is especially true, as the term “mutually beneficial cooperation” increasingly appears to refer to a model of development cooperation that comes at the cost of well-established development best practices.

The United States also objects to the trade language in paragraph 28. The United States does not view the UN as the appropriate body to opine on the WTO and does not support references to WTO issues in UN documents. Further, we do not find it acceptable for UN Member States to attempt to prescribe the appropriate characteristics of an international organization that is independent of the UN system, or to comment on the membership of that international organization.

With regard to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the United States applauds the call for shared responsibility, including the emphasis on national responsibility, in the 2030 Agenda and emphasize that all countries have a role to play in achieving its vision. However, the 2030 Agenda recognizes that each country must work toward implementation in accordance with its own national policies and priorities.

We also underscore that paragraph 18 of the 2030 Agenda calls for countries to implement the Agenda in a manner that is consistent with the rights and obligations of States under international law. We highlight our mutual recognition in paragraph 58 that 2030 Agenda implementation must respect and be without prejudice to the independent mandates of other processes and institutions, including negotiations, and does not prejudge or serve as precedent for decisions and actions underway in other forums. For example, this Agenda does not represent a commitment to provide new market access for goods or services. This Agenda also does not interpret or alter any WTO agreement or decision, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property.

With regard to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, AAAA, we note that much of the trade-related language in the AAAA outcome document has been overtaken by events since July 2015; therefore, it is immaterial, and our reaffirmation of the outcome document has no standing for ongoing work and negotiations that involve trade.

Finally, the United States reiterates our views on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction set forth in the U.S. Explanation of Position delivered in Sendai in March 2015. We have been a strong supporter of disaster risk-reduction initiatives designed to reduce loss of life and the social and economic impacts of disasters. This assistance helps recipients build a culture of preparedness, promote greater resilience, and achieve self-reliance.

Finally, we take this opportunity to underscore that this non-binging (sic – non-binding) document does not create or affect rights or obligations under international law, nor does it give rise to financial commitments.

Thank you.

Original link: Explanation of Vote on a High-Level Political Forum Ministerial Declaration

It appears that this article is under a NEW LINK.

Sometimes, the only way to stop what is being promoted via unaccountable, illegal regional governments is to opt out of them completely. That is exactly what sensible people did in Hesperia, California.

Watch the video.

Direct link: https://youtu.be/UxAE5mlPEK4

Each state is different as to the procedure, but in New Hampshire, getting items on the ballot at town meeting time can accomplish this. Regional government and governance by influence of many unelected private groups is currently out of control in NH.