Agenda 21’s role in financial meltdown

By Henry Lamb

For more than 20 years now, the most powerful word in advertising has been “sustainable.” This term sells everything from toilet paper to spark plugs. This same term is even more powerful when applied to public policies such as: “sustainable” energy, transportation, agriculture, development, housing and almost every other policy considered by government. When the term “sustainable” is used to sell a product, the product will be more expensive and less efficient than it has to be. When the term “sustainable” is used to sell a public policy, the policy will not only be more expensive and less efficient, it will be controlled by the government – and it will ultimately fail.

Before 1990, the term “sustainable” was rarely heard. Today, the term saturates all media every day. Everyone knows the term; few people know what sustainable development is, the effect it is having on communities, the ultimate goal of its proponents, or how it gets into public policy.

Agenda 21 is a document adopted by 179 nations at the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Its 40 chapters contain specific recommendations, which, when adopted and implemented by governments, will result in sustainable development, according to its proponents. Since 1993, the United States federal government has been promoting and funding the implementation of Agenda 21 recommendations throughout the country.

The Obama administration has picked up where the Clinton administration left off, advancing the implementation of Agenda 21. The U.S. State Department has been preparing to support the U.N.’s effort to convert the non-binding Agenda 21 into a legally binding Covenant on Environment and Development, enforceable by the International Criminal Court. There will be a flurry of activity leading up to, and after the Rio+20 conference scheduled for June. The U.S. State Department began leading this campaign last year. Read about their involvement and promotion here and here.

With the presidential campaign gaining more attention, it will be increasingly difficult to get elected officials, or anyone else, to pay attention to what is happening at the international level. The Obama administration has already made its commitments to the U.N. and will seek every opportunity to make good on as many of those commitments as possible – before the election. Should he be re-elected, the only hope of stopping this march toward global governance is for Republicans to capture control of the Senate. Obama has said he will bring the Convention on the Law of the Sea to the Senate for ratification. Secretary Clinton has already endorsed the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Both of these treaties will have to be ratified by the Senate. These are just a few of the events that, should Obama prevail, will extinguish national sovereignty and transform the United States into just another administrative unit of global governance. If he is not re-elected, there is a much better chance of shutting down the U.N.’s power grab and salvaging our national sovereignty.

In six months, America will choose to continue down the current path toward global governance or unseat the current administration in favor of returning to the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of government.

Obama and his colleagues are quick to claim that a vote for a Republican is a vote to return to the same old “Bush” policies that resulted in the worst recession since the Roosevelt era. Do not be misguided by this statement. Here is a little history, shared by Ken Freeman, president of the Alliance for Citizens Rights, that the media and the Obama administration don’t want people to remember:

The day the Democrats took over was not Jan. 20, 2009; it was actually Jan. 3, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress, in 1995.

The day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

  • The Dow Jones closed at 12,621.77;
  • The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5 percent;
  • The unemployment rate was 4.6 percent.

It was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? That’s right, it was banking and financial services, caused by trillions of dollars of toxic loans (sub-prime mortgages) from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascoes.

Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie, starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy. The Democrats said no.

And who took the third-highest pay-off from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Obama.

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? It was Obama and the Democrat Congress.

The term “Agenda 21” did not come up during the congressional hearings. It is no coincidence, however, that the very first element of Chapter 7, “Promoting sustainable human settlement development,” is:

7.5. (a) Providing adequate shelter for all.

President Clinton revised the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 to help achieve this goal.

For a quarter-century, sustainable development as defined in Agenda 21 has been at the root of America’s financial problems. This fact is denied and ridiculed by many who know it is true. Far too many others are completely unaware of Agenda 21 and do not want to learn the real reasons for the nation’s plight. The next election will determine the future of the next several generations, who may never know what freedom was.

Leave a Comment