One Bay Area…….California’s adoption of UN Agenda 21 regionalism and the attempts to neutralize County Sheriff’s
March 6, 2012 by ppjg
Marti Oakley copyright 2012
Labeled as “tin foil” conspiracy theorists, called crazy and lambasted for the inclusion of Tea Party property rights activists and repeatedly told that they were imagining things, California property rights advocates may not be so crazy after all. The continual maligning of opponents who have exposed the ongoing implementation of Agenda 21 sustainability, smart growth, ICLEI, stack & pack housing, non-human habitat zoning and the effective end to property rights, are and have been right all along.
Conspiracy [theories] are theories only so long as you have no facts, only assumptions. Having facts to back up your suspicions does not lessen the conspiratorial act. It simply affirms the fact that the conspiracy does exist and this group of activists has that proof.
In the case of the attempts by UN Agenda 21 supporters and promoters who had for years successfully painted anyone who opposed their intentions to surrender portions of California (and the entire US) to UN Agenda 21 stack & pack housing and the ending of rural property rights, these characterizations mentioned above were quite successful. Those who opposed handing any portion of the state over to UN controlled regionalism were [tin foil hat conspiracy theorists]. They were simply right-wing extremists, violent liberals (depending on which side of the political spectrum was under fire at the moment), wing nuts, and a host of other commonly used metaphors to describe anyone who does not voluntarily submit and comply to the United Nations plan to deconstruct the United States.
According to promoters of Agenda 21, the 1992 agreement signed by Bush 1, did not mean anything. These same promoters claimed that Agenda 21 was an [old] obscure document and that efforts to highlight the link between this insidious agreement and the current trend of forcing rural/agricultural property owners off their land, particularly in Northern California was simply not true.
Heather Gass did a little searching of her own and came across this curious tax return for the 510c3 non-profit for ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). Not only did she locate the 1997 ABAG tax returns but also policy statements from 1997 showing a Federal grant in the amount of 1,704,537 funneled into UN Agenda 21, ICLEI planning and initiatives and this has been in effect and carried forward since that year. And, with this funded initiative has come the continual attacks against property rights hidden behind ridiculous arguments over salmon populations, wild lands and biodiversity programs and other so-called [environmental] concerns. The UN hides its most despised programs behind contrived environmental concerns.
The attacks on property rights are facilitated by dangerous changes to land use codes and zoning, rending many property owners unable to enjoy the full use of the land they are paying taxes on. The object is to make land ownership so untenable, so useless to the individual, that the idea of property ownership will be out of the question.
According to Heather Gass: The ICLEI Tax return (1997) clearly states on page two that it is involved with Local Agenda 21 and specifies the budget for it. I also included a copy of the ICLEI Local Agenda21 Planning guide front cover.
The ABAG joined the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development in 1997. This doc is off of their websitehttp://www.bayareaalliance.org/compact.pdf It states that this Alliance and it’s members adopted the UN’s definition of Sustainable Development. This all happened in 1997. Why do they keep lying to us and telling us that One Bay Area and all of this is NOT part of the UN, ICLEI, Agenda 21 and that this plan is a result of a law from 2008 SB375?
And lie they do! Even when confronted with the facts, proponents of Agenda 21 and their non-stop efforts to end property rights continue to deny any connection to this unconstitutional agreement. Sustainability, Smart growth, Smart Cities, Biodiversity, non-human habitat zones, land use codes, Going Green, and other assorted buzzwords and catch phrases all come from UN Agenda 21 and are used liberally by those who are promoting this overthrow of private and individual land ownership and control. Consider it a form of conditioning to facilitate peaceful compliance to the surrender of all US land to control of the United Nations.
These claims that opponents are tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are a bit harder to maintain in light of this CSPAN video documentation of the 1992 meeting of the US House of Representatives c-spanvideo.org, found by another of those tin foil hat wearing activists:
Make sure and slide the player control to the 11:43:30 mark and watch until the 11:51:48 mark…H.C.Res. 353: A bill expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should assume a strong leadership role in implementing the decisions made at the Earth Summit by developing a national strategy to implement Agenda Twenty-One and other Earth Summit agreements through domestic policy and foreign policy, by cooperating with all countries to identify and initiate further agreements to protect the global environment, and by supporting and participating in a high-level United Nations Sustainable Development Commission. (CSPAN video located by Darin Moser)
The plan for One Bay Area is ground zero for the implementation of the first United Nations Region within the United States. The UN divided the country into 10 mega regions under Bush 1, and our own government under Obama, established the Council of Governors by Executive Order.
This Council is intended to eventually supersede local and state governments although it currently is supposed to be only the conduit for Homeland Security interference within the states.
Key to all of the efforts to render privately owned rural lands as unusable by the current owners, is the interference, harassment and intimidation of ranchers and farmers by the US Forestry Service the BLM, the EPA, and even NOAA. The focus of their efforts is to make rural land ownership so untenable that farmers and ranchers will leave voluntarily after many have been deprived of the full use of their own land by restrictive land use codes, arbitrary Federal regulations and rules and the intentional destruction of the rural economy.
Neutralizing the power of the Sheriff’s offices
Before any federal agency/agent can conduct any investigation or trespass onto private property, coordination with the county sheriff’s office must be conducted. The sheriff has the power and authority to deny the federal agency access. In most states and in most cases the sheriffs fail to act to protect property owners from federal harassment. In fact, most sheriffs across the nation willfully ignore the rights of their county residents and pander to the federal agencies.
In California……….not so much!
There can be no doubt the recent public statements from Sheriff Jon Lopey, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, Sheriff Palmer (southern Oregon) and five other sheriffs, to the effect that they would defend the Constitutions, both state and federal, and by extension, the rights of property owners in their counties, upset the federal apple cart. So use to violating property rights without interference and so accustomed to having it presumed they were the highest and final authority when they showed up, it must have come as a shock to see these sheriffs honoring their oaths. After all, how many public officials do that these days?
In an effort to neutralize the authority and power of the county sheriffs, this MOU/MOA is being quietly schlepped around behind the scenes in California counties and communities. Reading this [agreement], you would never know these communities had a sheriff’s office or that the sheriff already has the power and authority to coordinate with federal agencies. In fact, the sheriff is never mentioned or even acknowledged.
From the DRAFT:
It is agreed that with the implementation of this MOA;
A. The governing body of each county that chooses to participate in this MOA shall
designate a county contact for the USFS and BLM. This contact can be a
“position” such as “County Planner,” rather than a specific individual.
This agreement is only in effect for counties that choose to participate by officially
designating a county contact.
[The counties already have a contact “person”.......they call him [sheriff]!]
B. For each participating county, the USFS Regional Forester shall designate a USFS contact from each forest that contains land within that county. Thiscontact can be a “position” rather than a specific individual.
[This is an obvious attempt to make sure that whomever this [contact person] is, will be some hack carefully placed into position to throw the doors wide open to the feds.]
C. For each participating county, the BLM State Director shall designate a BLM contact from each field office that contains land within that county. This contact can be a “position” rather than a specific individual.
Again…….they already have a person of contact…the sheriff. This document is an attempt to coerce counties into dis-empowering the sheriff, the rightful and lawful agent to engage in coordination with federal agencies, and to give that authority to a carefully selected and appointed individual or office. This is nothing more than an unlawful attempt override the authority of the elected office of sheriff.
There is no doubt northern California, along with parts of Oregon and other western states are under attack from foreign agents. The United Nations is a foreign agent that is attempting to sequester and hold off-limits major portions of valuable lands, much of which is privately owned at this time and they are being helped and facilitated by federal agencies and politicians. It is unfortunate that not only are residents and activists having to fight the plans of the UN, but more so that they are faced with battling other US citizens who have aligned themselves with dangerous and malicious federal agencies and who work against their own communities in efforts to implement these unconstitutional plans.
In my opinion, any community leader, commissioner, planner or whatever title an individual holds, that signs onto this agreement should be removed from office immediately. Secondly, consider revoking any corporate contracts with federal agencies and then proceed to take your land back under eminent domain.
The federal government has no business owning, managing or controlling lands within the geographical boundaries of any state. It is time the states took back what rightfully belongs to them.