Category Archives: State

Stop HUD’s Agenda 21-related AFFH Rule

Stop HUD’s Agenda 21-related AFFH Rule
by Tom DeWeese

I have been in the fight against Agenda 21 since the beginning – even before its introduction in 1992. For most of these years Americans have ignored the issue, as they didn’t see it affecting them personally. That apathy is now changing. The fight against Agenda 21 is heating up in cities across the nation, beyond anything experienced before. One new twist in the enforcement of Agenda 21 policy is the new Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ruling called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

hudaffhmapmilwaukee

AFFH requires communities that apply for HUD grants to strip-search every neighborhood, detailing income level, religion, race, and national origin of every single person living there. HUD has created specific guidelines dictating specific numbers of each for a proper “balance.” If there are any shortages in any of the categories, then the neighborhood is deemed to be “out of balance.” HUD then requires that the community correct the situation. That “correction” requires communities to unnecessarily spend millions of tax dollars. (See graphic at left for an example of HUD’s online mapping tools for local jurisdictions to implement AFFH; this is a map of the Milwaukee area with “Housing Burden” shown by shades of gray and “National Origin” shown by color-coded dots with one dot equal to 75 people.)

To impose AFFH, HUD has changed tactics that are catching unaware local officials by surprise. In spite of our warnings that HUD grants came with severe strings attached, local officials have routinely sought and accepted HUD grants, declaring them as “free” money for local development. There was at least a pretense of local control. No more. HUD is now employing a stronger legal enforcement mechanism seldom used before to strictly enforce those attached and hidden strings. The result is social engineering that is leading to the destruction of property values and property rights of neighborhoods. In addition, any local governing body that takes a HUD grant now finds that their ability to govern the community as they were elected to do is basically gone, as HUD bureaucrats dictate policy.

HUD has already filed legal actions against communities such as Westchester County, New York, and Marin County, California, for attempting to stand up to the HUD rules. Meanwhile, Baltimore, Maryland, has been forced to spend $30 million over the next 10 years to build 1,000 low-income homes in affluent neighborhoods. Such threats are growing across the nation.

Meanwhile, in Congress, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) have been trying to add amendments to legislation to defund AFFH. Twice they have presented such amendments, and twice they have been betrayed by Republican leadership. In one case such an amendment by Lee was tabled after it was basically sabotaged by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine). However, in 2015 Rep. Gosar had already introduced H.R. 1995, a bill to prohibit HUD from implementing the AFFH rule. This bill has 25 cosponsors and is in a pending status, but needs a lot more support in order to be passed. In the meantime, Lee and Gosar are continuing their attempts to add amendments to various bills to defund AFFH.

There is good news in the AFFH fight for Agenda 21 opponents. Some local elected officials are finally starting to understand the dangers of these rules and the massive overreach by the federal government to enforce them. Now many are seeking ways to fight back and are beginning to reach out to those of us who have led the fight against Agenda 21. They seek help in stopping these policies. This has been a rare occurrence until now.

You should take action by pressuring your local officials to reject calls for new HUD grants. Explain that HUD has changed the rules with the new AFFH rule and that acceptance of such grants will bring an army of federal regulators to the community.

You should also call and email your senators (202-224-3121) and representative (202-225-3121) and demand they support the efforts of Representative Gosar and Senator Lee to prohibit implementation of the AFFH rule with H.R. 1995 or to defund it with amendments to other bills.

H/T JBS

Americans Should Have the Right to Farm

Michigan Loses ‘Right To Farm’ This Week: A Farewell To Backyard Chickens and Beekeepers

Michigan residents lost their “right to farm” this week thanks to a new ruling by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Gail Philburn of the Michigan Sierra Club told Michigan Live, the news changes “effectively remove Right to Farm Act protection for many urban and suburban backyard farmers raising small numbers of animals.”

Backyard and urban farming were previously protected by Michigan’s Right to Farm Act. The Commission ruled that the Right to Farm Act protections no longer apply to many homeowners who keep small numbers of livestock.

And who knew the WHO would be involved? Once again, those surveys you think are innocent are feeding the data to the international government about who is doing what when it’s none of their business.

The ruling comes within days of a report by The World Health Organization that stated the world is currently in grave danger of entering a post-antibiotic era. The WHO’s director-general Dr. Margaret Chan argued that the antibiotic use in our industrialized food supply is the worst offender adding to the global crisis.

Read more…

How HUD’s AFFH Rule Jeopardizes Local Control

Public officials across the nation are discovering that HUD’s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule jeopardizes local zoning control.

HUD is scrambling to deny this with befuddling information.

– The Federal Register says, “[AFFH] does not impose any land use or zoning laws on any government.”

– A recent article in Urbanland, the magazine of the Urban Land Institute, defends AFFH. Its author quotes HUD’s Gustavo Velasquez…

“…opponents of AFFH “keep making this zoning argument that AFFH is about rezoning or imposing zoning provisions on local jurisdictions,”

– HUD contends they leave planning and zoning to local communities. AFFH is merely a “planned framework” that provides “nationwide uniformity and consistency for fair housing.”
In spite of this absurdly contradictory statement, many local officials, hesitant to forego HUD grants, find the lines tempting.

How can HUD deny they control local zoning when the evidence proves the opposite?

Easy. At first glance, the Federal Register appears definitive. The “agency does not impose any land use or zoning laws…” But, that all changes later in the ruling…

“It is important to note, however, that while zoning and land use are generally local matters, when local zoning or land use practices violate the Fair Housing Act, they become a Federal concern…” Federal Register July 16, 2015

The ‘catch’ for communities is that HUD places no clear limits on what constitutes violations of the Fair Housing Act.

Today a fair housing violation can be anything from a “concentrated area of poverty” to refusal to “economically integrate” upscale neighborhoods, regardless of the number of affordable homes built.

Even HUD’s definitions of “discrimination” and “exclusionary zoning” are moving targets as we learned from Westchester County.

The New York community has become the on-going incubator for HUD’s anti-local zoning campaign. Initially, HUD tried and failed to prove the jurisdiction guilty of discrimination.

Undeterred, they then accused the county of “restrictive zoning” practices. But, two independent legal studies showed otherwise. Westchester based their zoning on safety and constructed homes by virtue of economics, not people. Anyone can buy a home anywhere in the county as long as they can afford the payments. In fact, studies proved the county one of the most diversified in the state.

When that failed, HUD re-defined “restrictive zoning” to include economic considerations. This time they successfully argued the county failed to “economically integrate” their towns. As Stanley Kurtz proves in a recent article, economic integration has no legal basis in the Fair Housing Act.

That did not stop HUD. “Economic integration,” a policy that forces communities to build affordable housing in affluent areas or face discrimination charges, is now fundamental to HUD’s “planned framework” of uniformity and consistency.

In Velasquez’ words, opposition to AFFH is based on a…

“misconstrued, misguided argument that is not really what the rule is attempting to do.”

Yet agency letters to Westchester show that HUD can consider “size of lots, size of a development and the number of bedrooms” restrictive zoning practices

There is no “misconstruing” what HUD has already done to zoning in communities like Westchester County, NY and Marin County, CA. Local zoning control may not be what the agency “is attempting to do,” but it is precisely what it accomplishes.

Here is how the agency controls local zoning:
– First, HUD requires each applicant for CDBG and other grants, to complete an Assessment of Fair Housing, to identify all “contributing factors” to discrimination.
– Next, the applicant submits a plan to HUD detailing how they will eliminate the “contributing factors” and foster integrated, balanced lifestyles.
– Then, HUD can accept the plan, ask for modifications or reject it. If accepted, the jurisdiction receives funding and begins plan implementation.

This sounds straightforward. But, there is a ‘catch.’

– AFFH requires that civil rights groups, affordable housing developers and/or other civic activist organizations participate in creating the plan that defines and resolves potential areas of discrimination.
– The applicant also signs an agreement to take no actions “materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.”

If the community receives the grant money and decides to ignore one potential area of discrimination because of current zoning restrictions or voters’ choices, and instead focus on another, they are now vulnerable to lawsuits for failure meet their obligation to AFFH.

So, while HUD does not directly control local zoning, acceptance of the grant money obligates local officials to take whatever actions are necessary to meet HUD’s demands, including ignoring or changing their own zoning laws.

– Once accepting the money, any one of these activist groups can sue the community for failure to affirmatively further fair housing. When the Westchester case settled, a 2-person civil rights group that sued received $7.5 million.

In other words, there is a perverse financial incentive for citizens to sue local communities that do not, where necessary, modify zoning and land use to accommodate HUD’s erratic and continually expanding definitions of discrimination, segregation and Fair Housing.

As Michael Allen of the law firm of Relman, Dane and Colfax, one of the nation’s leading experts on AFFH explains, “it [AFFH] does provide a foundation on which civil rights advocates can build anti-segregation campaigns at the local level.” He goes on to say this will require “organizing by the national fair housing advocacy organizations…; and lawyers prepared to bring enforcement actions.” This trigger of lawsuits is the key that makes AFFH work.

Until the Westchester case, HUD had no efficient method to enforce their regulations nationwide. Now that they do, the agency is increasing their demands on communities well beyond any obligations set forth in the Fair Housing Act.

If you accept HUD grants, and fail to obey the agency, no matter how extreme their demands may be, your community is exposed to withdrawal of the grant funds or massive lawsuits. That is how HUD controls local zoning.

The above information courtesy of John Anthony, Founder of Property Value Defense

Battle Rages as GOP Saves Obama Plot to Diversify Neighborhoods

Both of New Hampshire’s US Senators Ayotte and Shaheen voted to allow this. Why?

Battle Rages as GOP Saves Obama Plot to Diversify Neighborhoods

After some grandstanding to placate outraged constituents, establishment Republicans in Congress quietly voted to fund Obama’s unconstitutional plan to fundamentally transform your neighborhood by bringing in more federally funded “diversity.” In short, if Big Brother’s race-obsessed data-gathering machine determines that there are not enough poor or minority residents on welfare living in your city, town, zip code, or neighborhood, Obama wants to change that using your tax dollars. The scheme also sidelines states and borders by considering “regions” instead, a key element of the agenda to break down the traditional United States and its federalist system of government.

Read more…

Federal Government Threatens: “A Gigantic Grab of All Water Rights in the United States”

The CKST Water Compact gives the Indian Tribes the water rights to all surface and subsurface water in almost all of Western Montana, to include Flathead Lake. The problem: these water rights are all off-reservation. The Democratic-controlled State Senate, House of Representatives, and Governor of Montana voted into law a bill that would require everyone to have a water meter placed on their wells. All revenues will go to “the Tribes” as stipulated by HHS, to be managed by the Bureau of Indian affairs, and enforced by the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).

Senator Jon Tester, D-MT is the culprit pushing the Tribes to ratify the Montana Law at the Federal level.

Read more…

Invasive Surveys? Now You Know How They’re Used

When the census taker came to our door, we told them how many adults of voting age lived in the home, period. They then had the nerve to send someone back to pry us for more information, and our hotline was flooded with calls from people who claimed they were being threatened with fines for not answering.

The number of adults of voting age is the only legal purpose for taking a census. We ignored any follow up questionnaires, such as the invasive “American Community Survey” which arrived later, and landed straight in the trash. Others, fearful of being fined or even jailed, filled them out.

The American Community Survey wanted to know things like race, employment, miles driven to work each day, food grown on the property and what was done with it, how many bedrooms the home contained and what they were used for.

None of this is any of the government’s business, mind you.

A friend was asked to fill out a government-sponsored survey regarding women in business. It sounded voluntary and promised confidentiality, but then claimed there would be a $500 fine for anyone who refused. We also noted in the fine print that the results would be shared with private “groups” that were not even legitimate government entities, but “advocacy groups”.

Small farmers in NH have also told us the number of surveys they have been asked to fill out has increased dramatically.

In case you have not figured it out by now, these surveys from the feds are part of a system used to justify government overreach and control over your local affairs. In keeping with the global agenda, the “data” collections are used to back support for one new rule or another. These sources of are often cited within many master plans we have seen, plans that are cooked up by regionalists in order to impose the federal government’s will on your town.

The latest laughable item on the list of things the United Nations wants to control is your happiness. That’s right, how are you feeling?

Author James Bovard might be surprised to know that the United Arab Emirates has already set up a Minister of Happiness. The UN has lately been measuring the world’s happiness, and had even put out this report in 2015.

Don’t believe it? Don’t take our word for it, NPR has written up a story about the UAE’s new apointee for a job which sounds like it came straight out of Orwell’s 1984.

If you are a reader of this website you are aware that we have been calling attention HUD’s new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act which hopes to engage in the process of promoting and funding with federal money, the integration of neighborhoods viewed as too homogeneous or too wealthy, by virtue of new zoning rules.

Once you arrive at this AFFH tool, you can set the parameters to give your own area a look. We did, and we were shocked to discover that when we zoomed in on our area, we could see the blue dot representing a black family that lives nearby. (For the record this writer’s neighborhood is very diverse, with immigrants from Ireland, Pakistan, Germany, Poland, Korea and Japan living nearby. Like us, they worked for what they have, no government entity had to forcibly include them.)

Stanley Kurtz has a website dedicated to AFFH issues…

AFFH.net: How HUD Hustles Communities
http://affh.net/2016/02/01/how-obamas-hud-hustles-dubuque-and-other-virgin-communities/

This is not just a USA problem, but is happening everywhere. This came from Australia:
https://www.freedomadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ASIO-UN-Complaint.pdf

Next time the census comes knocking or you receive that 28-page survey in the mail, think twice about giving out too much information.

Our friend John Anthony from Sustainable Freedom Lab and Property Value Defense had this to say about HUD grants:

Many communities are so used to routinely receiving HUD grants, they miss the severe dangers under the new AFFH rules.  In this issue PVD dispells three common myths about why it is still ok to accept HUD grants.

Busting 3 Myths of Accepting HUD Grants

Q. In your presentation, you mentioned HUD took legal action against Westchester and Marin Counties because they did not affirmatively further fair housing. You also mentioned several other HUD enforcement actions against fund recipients.  I do not see how any of this applies to us.  We are not a wealthy community like those mentioned and we have always been in compliance with HUD. 



A. Failure to affirmatively further fair housing refers to disparities between classes of people in all communities, not just the very wealthy.  For example, fund recipients are required to take “meaningful actions” that “address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”

 Consider what it now means to “be in compliance” with HUD’s above definition. Your community must abide by the federal agency’s demands in return for the grant funds.  Typically, this would seem reasonable.  But, AFFH is not typical.  HUD uses broad terms and never clearly defines what they mean by “affirmatively furthering fair housing.”  What happens if HUD requires your town council to pass zoning regulations your community members overwhelmingly oppose?  This happened in Rockford, IL. Some jurisdictions were forced to market in nearby communities to “import” minorities against the will of the current residents. The results are often community members pitted against one another amid lawsuits and legal threats. 

In past years, HUD grant demands were less of an issue. There was less rigid enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, and communities had greater leeway to honor local concerns.  Under AFFH, there are three key changes:

• One, HUD now has a legal enforcement mechanism they seldom used before.
• Two, the HUD secretary warned recipient communities that the agency will strictly enforce requirements.
• Three, HUD continues to expand their role into entire community social areas and “adult outcomes” that are well beyond affordable housing.

To apply for HUD grants today, believing it will be ‘business as usual’ could be a catastrophic mistake. HUD engaged in more legal actions in 2011 than in the entire preceding decade. And they are accelerating.  With the agency’s hazy definitions and aggressive legal actions, communities can be compelled to alter voters’ decisions, change zoning and land use rules and join a region, all against their community’s wishes.



Q. I have checked HUD’s interactive maps and we do not have concentrated areas of poverty in our jurisdiction.  Should we still be concerned about accepting a HUD CDBG grant?



A. Yes, you should.  While eliminating R/E CAPs is important and laudable, HUD’s new rule requires communities to go further. They must take “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” 

It is no longer sufficient to avoid actions that lead to discrimination.  All fund recipients are required to take actions to stop discrimination.



Q. Isn’t our town better to keep doing as we always have, rather than reject HUD funds and raise red flags?  Sometimes it is better to fly under the radar rather than rock the boat. 


A. There is no way to “fly under the radar” with the AFFH rule. Grassroots and legal advocates enforce HUD’s compliance at the local level.  For example, one of the grant application requirements is to invite civil rights groups and grassroots organizations to participate in defining potential areas of discrimination.
 In addition to the normal legal vulnerabilities, easy wealth provides a perverse incentive for participants to bring lawsuits against communities that apply for AFFH funds. 

In the Westchester vs HUD case, a small non-profit operated by a husband and wife team, Greg and Lori Gurian charged the NY county with falsely stating they were affirmatively furthering fair housing.  Westchester lost the case and the Gurians walked off with $7.5 million for their trouble.  In Baltimore, HUD complainants received $150,000 for reporting possible AFFH violations to the agency.

 According to civil rights attorney Michael Allen, AFFH “provides a foundation on which civil rights and [legal] advocates can build anti-segregation campaigns at the local level.”  AFFH works best in communities “where grassroots and legal advocates mobilize and create their own enforcement strategies.” 

If you receive AFFH covered funds, you defy HUD at your community’s peril.

Property Value Defense helps your community understand the severe consequences accompanying AFFH.  If you know of any community members, officials or municipal attorneys interested in joining our group, please feel free to forward this update.)

So we have to ask, in addition to dictating who can live where and how, will the census bureau help the government to round up homeschoolers, patriots, gun owners, gardeners, or others they see as dangerous to the state when push comes to shove?

We shall see.
 

Pull Your Children from Public Schools

If it happened in Portland, other cities, towns, and states may be next.

In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools.

“It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” said Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux in board testimony. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”

The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and staff to develop an implementation plan for “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice in all Portland Public Schools.”

Read more…

Ayotte and Shaheen Vote to Stop Anti-AFFH Amendment

WASHINGTON — A proposed amendment aimed at defunding a controversial Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulation related to Section 8 Housing was tabled in the upper chamber Thursday.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee proposed an amendment to the Senate Transportation and HUD appropriations bill that would have defunded a regulation stopping the implementation of the HUD regulation known as Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

Here is the roll call showing that both NH Senators Ayotte and Shaheen voted YES to table the amendment. Rand Paul voted correctly with a NO.

Read more… Senate GOP And Democrats Save HUD Regulation From Defunding Measure

Read about what HUD can do to your local control…

We Don’t Need a National Zoning Board

Stop U.S. Implementation of the UN’s Paris Climate Deal

Stop U.S. Implementation of the UN’s Paris Climate Deal – H/T JBS

In Paris last December, representatives of 196 nations participated in the Conference of the Parties 21 (COP21), the annual gathering convened by the United Nations for the past 21 years. The delegates expressed unanimous agreement about the need for a comprehensive accord to deal with their highly questionable claims about rapidly rising temperatures threatening the Earth and all of mankind.

Four months later, leaders of 175 countries met at UN headquarters in New York, where they signed the accord reached in Paris. Secretary of State John Kerry participated and signed the agreement on behalf of the United States. Even though this agreement is actually a treaty that should be submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification, the UN negotiators, knowing full well the political reality that the Senate as presently constituted would not ratify, maintain that it is “binding,” while not subject to Senate ratification. Therefore, President Obama will have to implement the Paris agreement via executive orders and EPA regulations.

The delegates at this UN meeting committed their countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a minimum of approximately 25 percent from 2005 levels, and to accomplish such a goal by the year 2025. One profoundly important fact never addressed is that their targeted enemy, carbon dioxide, is correctly known to be the “gas of life.” Plants ingest carbon dioxide, and without this gaseous substance, plants would not even exist.

In the face of all the condemnations of carbon dioxide, there are numerous highly placed and credible individuals who openly claim that the real goal of this decades-long campaign has far less to do with environmentalism and much more to do with gaining control of mankind through a UN super government. For instance, while she was serving the UN as its designated climate chief, Costa Rica’s Christiana Figueres openly stated on February 3, 2015: “[W]e are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years….”

Prior to the dangerous nonsense coming from Ms. Figueres, world government promoters at the influential Club of Rome likewise condemned the capitalist system. As far back as 1991, the globalists in this club admitted that they were “searching for a new enemy that would unite us.” They decided that “the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” As reported by The New American’s Alex Newman, the Club of Rome’s 1991 report entitled The First Global Revolution concluded that the dangers facing us “are caused by human intervention…. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” Reducing the world’s population then became the goal of many.

A more explicit conclusion than the Club of Rome’s offering came from famed oceanographer Jacques Cousteau. His explicit claim of the need to depopulate the earth appeared in an interview [English edition] in the November 1991 UNESCO Courier published in France. The seemingly kind and lovable Frenchman said:

The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics – it is equal to the degree of development. [The single country] America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes… This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.

Cousteau’s desire to “eliminate” most of humanity drew little notice from the unreliable world media, but it is a major goal of many who promote the global warming scare. Who opposes this dangerous cabal and its designs? One prominent voice seeking to set the record straight is 60-year veteran meteorologist and founder of TV’s Weather Channel John Coleman. Calling the claim that mankind is causing global warming “the greatest scam in history,” he pointed to the goals of Ms. Figueres and to the welcome conclusion reached by Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, who rightly noted that the UN’s policy is “to redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, remains a staunch opponent of these environmental claims. He will stand in the way of moves to have the Senate approve the Paris accord. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) labeled the pact “unattainable” and will also oppose its approval. Calls to their offices to thank them are certainly in order.

As the end of the Obama era looms, the soon-to-be ex-president will push hard to implement the Paris accord as part of his legacy. As mentioned above, since the Senate won’t ratify it as a treaty, he’ll seek to implement its provisions through executive orders and regulations. Congress has the to power to stop much or all of this. There is a need, therefore, for generating resistance.

Please call or email the offices of your two senators and your representative to help stave off this extremely dangerous drive by the Obama administration to use the UN’s Paris Climate Deal to control population, destroy jobs, and bring about world government under the United Nations.

Senator Kelly Ayotte
http://ayotte.senate.gov/
Sen. Kelly Ayotte
(202) 224-3324

Senator Jeanne Shaheen
http://shaheen.senate.gov/
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
(202) 224-2841

Congressman Frank Guinta – District 1
http://guinta.house.gov/
(202) 225-5456

Congresswoman Annie Kuster – District 2
http://kuster.house.gov/
(202) 225-5206

Ultimately, the end goal of all who cherish freedom will require complete withdrawal from the United Nations.

Six Issues That Are Agenda 21

H/T to Tom DeWeese of The DeWeese Report

Every day, in meetings at all levels of government, representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), planning groups, and federal agents surround elected representatives and insist that their policies have nothing to do with international agendas. They regularly publish reports and rail against anyone even mentioning the names Agenda 21 or the new Agenda 2030. “No, no, no,” they insist. “Those people are just crazy conspiracy theorists. Ours is just a local plan for our community.”

Issue 1: Global Warming/Climate Change
Issue 2: Fear of over population
Issue 3: The destruction of the free market system
Issue 4: Cheap Energy is the enemy of the Earth
Issue 5: Common Core
Issue 6: Healthcare

These are the issues that are not usually discussed or connected to Agenda 21. Yet they are being implemented, step by step, by local planners in policies that are approved by befuddled elected representatives. It’s all driven through pressure from private NGO groups and funded by federal grants. That’s how it’s done, constantly driven a little bit with each innocent sounding idea. Then, without warning, Frankenstein rises from behind the smokescreen, toe bones and anklebones fully operational.

Americans must understand and connect these dots to everyday issues so they can clearly see the root and long term goals of these policies that are affecting our personal lives. Elected representatives at every level of government must come to understand that legislative actions have consequences far beyond their understanding. Agenda 21 is the “common core” and it has already invaded every level of our society. Our battle cry must be to stop this monster or watch freedom perish.

Read the full article here…