Wednesday, July 27, 2011

This Group Is Part Of Agenda 21

Florida Local Environmental Resource Agencies.

It is holding its convention this week from Wednesday through Friday

at the Hyatt in Sarasota. Tea Party groups from across Florida are

planning on picketing this event, holding sign wavings in front of the Hyatt.

The conference is going full time for all three days.

Planned protest times are as follows:


Wednesday, July 27

8:30AM-12:30

5:15PM-6:30PM

Thursday, July 28

7:30AM-8:30AM

5:15PM-5:45PM

Friday, July 29

7:30AM-8:30AM

11:00AM-12 Noon

COUNTY OFFICIALS WILL BE DRIVING PAST US ON THEIR WAY TO

THE FLERA CONVENTION.

WHAT IS FLERA?

Florida Local Environmental Resource Agencies - FLERA.

FLERA IS A PARTNER OF ICLEI USING OUR TAX DOLLARS , GRANTS

AND NON PROFITS TO LIMIT PRODUCTIVE LAND USE.

ICLEI is the Local UN AGENDA 21.

FLERA

Supports legislation that empowers Local Governments to

RAISE FEES AT WILL to fund environmental programs.

THEY DO THIS UNDER THE GUISE of CONSERVATION~

PRESERVATION and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

Flera wants to control our local governments and destroy the free markets

with their green market initiatives and partners.

THEY LOBBY AND ARE DEDICATED TO

"HELPING" OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TAKE OUR PROPERTY,

OUR RIGHTS AND OUR MONEY.

THIS CONVENTION INVITES "OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS"

@ $400/PP TO INDOCTRINATE THEM INTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL

SCHEMES WITH MONEY AND STRINGS ATTACHED FOR THEIR

FUTURE "SMART GROWTH COMMUNITIES".

(Our future human habitat Villages.)

The conference is focusing this year on how and why local governments can

assess (TAX) and reduce GHG emissions (CAP AND TRADE ) and water

(LIMITATION AND INCREASING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND

MAINTENANCE AT AN INCREASE IN FEES AND TAXES).



http://www.flera.org/index.html

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Military pay guarantee stalled in debt crisis

POLITICO

By: 

Charles Hoskinson

July 14, 2011 

Lawmakers who want the federal government to guarantee the
military gets paid during a debt crisis are accusing the Obama
administration and others in Congress of using the issue as
leverage in advance of any deal making on the debt.



 Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and fellow Texas Republican Rep.
Louie Gohmert said Thursday at a news conference that leaders
of both chambers were holding up the legislation, which first
surfaced in late March as the threat of a government shutdown
loomed. Gohmert said he would file a discharge petition to force
House consideration of his measure, which has 197 co-sponsors
of both parties.

Hutchison’s bill – filed this week to replace an earlier measure —
would require that military pay and federal debt obligations be paid
first out of Treasury revenues in the event Congress does not act or
refuses to raise the debt limit, taking those concerns off the table in
now-stalled talks between the White House and congressional leaders.

It has 80 co-sponsors – more than enough to guarantee floor
consideration if all of them vote to move the bill to the floor.

Gohmert’s bill, filed March 31, is aimed strictly at guaranteeing pay
in the event of a shutdown, but he said he would offer an amendment
to incorporate Hutchison’s language on the debt limit.

“If we can ever get these bills to the floor I think there will be no 
question that they will become law,” Hutchison said.

“It’s clear that they don’t want this,” she added, referring to
congressional leaders and the Obama administration.

The two lawmakers’ efforts in the spring to move the legislation
met similar roadblocks, as both GOP and Democratic leaders
focused on getting a comprehensive deal on fiscal 2011 spending —
which they eventually achieved.

But Gohmert said service members should not be pawns in the
battle over reducing the $14.3 trillion federal debt.
“We need to make sure the military — people in harm’s way that 
are dodging bullets – never have to have it cross their minds that 
they won’t get a paycheck,” he said. “We’re taking that off the table.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said the debt limit must
be raised by Aug. 2 or the Treasury would have trouble paying all
its bills.

An analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center think-tank projects that
if the debt-limit is not raised by that date, the Treasury would have
$172.4 billion to pay its bills through Aug. 31 — $134.3 billion less
than expected obligations.
Military pay represents $2.9 billion of those obligations, and interest
on Treasury securities another $29 billion.

Nevada man sues DMV over rejection of ‘GOPALIN’ license plate

Published Monday, July 18, 2011

A Nevada man has filed a lawsuit against the state’s

Department of Motor Vehicles alleging his rights were

violated when he says the state denied his requests for

personalized license plates with conservative political themes.

James Linlor, a Douglas County resident, filed the complaint

July 15 in U.S. District Court in Nevada.

The complaint alleges Linlor requested a personalized license

plate of “GOPALIN” in 2009 and 2010, but the DMV denied his

applications, stating the request was "vulgar or obscene or

expressing superiority of political affiliation."

Linlor says he tried again in June 2010 —

this time requesting “PALIN,” “PALIN12” or “PALIN16.”

The DMV’s Special Plates Committee, which reviews applications,

again denied his requests, deeming them inappropriate because

they were “political,” according to the complaint.

According to the Nevada Administrative Code, the DMV rejects

personalized license plates with any combination of letters, numbers

or spaces that “express contempt, ridicule or superiority of ...

political affiliation.” It can also deny plates it deems “inappropriate.”

After a hearing before an administrative law judge, the lawsuit claims

the judge reversed the DMV’s denial of Linlor’s requests for plates with

“PALIN,” “PALIN12” and “PALIN16.”

The judge determined the DMV wasn't authorized to deny requests

simply because they were “political,” according to the complaint.

Despite the judge’s decision, the complaint alleges the DMV again

denied Linlor’s request for a “GOPALIN” plate. Meanwhile, Linlor

discovered the DMV had issued other politics-related license plates,

including “GOGREEN,” “DMOCRAT,” “AL GORE,” “KERRY,” “EDWARDS,”

“DEAN,” “HILLARY” and “RONPAUL,” while rejecting requests for

“REPBLCN” and “BUSH,” the complaint alleges.

When Linlor applied for a “GO OBAMA” plate, the DMV approved it,

he alleges.

“The actions of the DMV in selectively granting some ‘political’ license

plate requests while denying others are unconstitutional on grounds of

content and viewpoint discrimination, and should be enjoined as a violation

of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,”

according to the complaint.

Bruce Breslow, director of the Nevada DMV, said Monday he’s not sure why

Linlor brought a lawsuit this month because the “GOPALIN” plate was issued

Dec. 30, 2010.

The DMV, however, is reviewing its policy about personalized license plates

and likely will have the director or a deputy director make decisions about

whether to approve such requests in the future, he said.

“I would not have denied it,” Breslow said, referring to the “GOPALIN” plate.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief from the DMV as well as the cost of

attorneys’ fees.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Real Threat?




By Rachel Alexander
7/2/2011
Americans are so focused on Congress and Obama at the federal
level of government right now that most are overlooking the socialism
creeping in at the local level through Agenda 21.
It is easy to overlook local government since people are saturated
with too much information in the internet age. Compounding this is
the fact that Agenda 21 is a dull topic, and it becomes understandable
how it has been able to fly mostly under the radar since 1992, slowly
working its way into our cities and counties.

Agenda 21, which reportedly means an agenda for the 21st century,
is a United Nations program launched in 1992 for the vague purpose
of achieving global "sustainable development."
Congress never approved Agenda 21, although Presidents Obama,
Clinton and George H.W. Bush have all signed Executive Orders
implementing it. 178 other world leaders agreed to it in 1992 at the
Rio Summit. Since then, the U.N. has mostly bypassed national
governments, using Agenda 21’s International Council of Local
Environmental Initiatives (“ICLEI”) to make agreements directly with
local governments. ICLEI's U.S. presence has grown to include
agreements with over 600 cities, towns and counties here, which
are now copying the land use plans prescribed in Agenda 21.
Some conservatives are trying to attract attention to Agenda 21 by
labeling it a secret conspiracy to create a one world government.
While that will wake some people up, it will turn off others.
It does not matter whether it is a conspiracy or not.
There are people on the left side of the political spectrum - who
may even believe they have good intentions - working together to
spread their vision for society worldwide. Whether they meet in
dark rooms or openly in public meetings is irrelevant; they are having
great success convincing local governments in the U.S. to adopt their
socialist and extreme environmentalist programs under the guise of
feel-good buzz words. Left wing billionaire George Soros's Open Society
has provided $2,147,415 to ICLEI. Van Jones' Green for All and the
Tides Foundations’ Apollo Alliance are also reportedly ICLEI contributors.

Agenda 21 ostensibly seeks to promote "sustainability" (the latest
revisionist word for "environmentalism," since Americans have learned too
many negative things about environmentalism). "Sustainability" is an
amorphous concept that can be interpreted to an extreme degree that
would regulate and restrict many parts of our lives.
When will the level of carbon emissions be low enough?
How much must we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels?
Preserving the environment is a dubious science, and what steps are
really necessary to protect the environment are anyone's guess.
Agenda 21 promotes European socialist goals that will erode our freedoms
and liberties. Most of its vague, lofty sounding phrases cause the average
person’s eyes to glaze over, making it easier to sneak into our communities.
The environmentalist goals include atmospheric protection, combating pollution,
protecting fragile environments, and conserving biological diversity.
Agenda 21 goes well beyond environmentalism. Other broad goals include
combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, and
reducing private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership,
and privately owned farms. It seeks to cram people into small livable areas and
institute population control.
There is a plan for “social justice” that will redistribute wealth.

Once these vague, overly broad goals are adopted, they are being interpreted
to allow massive amounts of new, overreaching regulations.
Joyce Morrison from Eco-logic Powerhouse says Agenda 21 is so broad it will
affect the way we "live, eat, learn and communicate."
Berit Kjos, author of Brave New Schools, warns that Agenda 21 "regulation would
severely limit water, electricity, and transportation - even deny human access to
our most treasured wilderness areas, it would monitor all lands and people.
No one would be free from the watchful eye of the new global tracking and
information system." Even one of the authors of Agenda 21 has admitted that it "…
calls for specific changes in the activities of all people…"
These steps are already being enacted little by little at the local levels.

Since the U.S. is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and uses more energy
than any other country, it stands to lose the most from environmental regulations.
The goal of "sustainability," which comes down to using government to heavy-
handedly accomplish vague goals of caring for the earth, goes contrary to our
free market capitalism. Even more unfair, struggling third world countries and
communist countries that cannot financially afford to comply with the onerous
environmental regulations will continue their high levels of fossil fuel consumption,
and the U.S. will be forced by U.N. regulators to conserve even more to make up
for those countries.

Obama signed Executive Order 13575 earlier this month, establishing a
"White House Rural Council" prescribed by Agenda 21. The amount of
government Obama has directed to administer this is staggering.
Obama committed thousands of federal employees in 25 federal agencies
to promote sustainability in rural areas, completely bypassing Congressional
approval. Some of these agencies are unrelated to rural areas. The agencies
will entice local communities into adopting Agenda 21 programs by providing
them millions of dollars in grants.
Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh writing for Canada Free Press analyzed the order
and wrote, "it establishes unchecked federal control into rural America in
education, food supply, land use, water use, recreation, property, energy,
and the lives of 16% of the U.S. population."

Tea party groups, talk show host Glenn Beck, and organizations like
Freedom Advocates, Catholic Investigative Agency and Sovereignty International
are working hard to expose Agenda 21, but there is only so much a few can do.
Some local governments have become aware of what Agenda 21 is really about
and dropped out of ICLEI this year. The Carroll County Board of Commissioners,
Montgomery County in Pennsylvania and the city of Edmond, Oklahoma have
all withdrawn their participation.

It will be difficult to defeat Agenda 21 because it requires changing the attitudes
of over 600 separate localities across the U.S. Ideally, a conservative president
could roll back the executive orders implementing it, but considering Republican
President H.W. Bush was a disappointment in this area that may be too much
to hope for. If Republicans take over Congress they could challenge the huge
power grab Obama made with Executive Order 13575 and ban Agenda 21
in the U.S. For now, local activists must champion this issue, much like
Texans for Accountable Government has done, educating local boards and
commissions and serving on them. Agenda 21 is a tedious and overwhelming
topic, and until it can be explained in an easy-to-understand way that interests
the average American, it will be tough to beat back.





Rachel Alexander is the editor of the Intellectual Conservative.