Agenda 21, ICLEI, and Regional Planners - Response to Granite State Progress

Agenda 21, ICLEI, and Regional Planners - Response to Granite State Progress
How international entities are influencing NH policies in cities and towns

In the last installment ("William Ayers Comes to New Hampshire") we broke the incredible story of how PR firms such as "NH Listens" — corporate front groups employed by the Regional Planning Commissions to promote "sustainability" schemes in the towns of NH — are now employing radical education industry operatives to come facilitate meetings on how the NH schools must teach.

GSP's  HOLLOW "CONSPIRACY THEORY" CHARGE

Today's article is in response to "Extreme NH State Reps Push ‘Agenda 21’ Conspiracy Theories" published in Patch on February 9, 2013 by a Soros-funded organization known as Granite State Progress. (The Soros-funded "Center for American Progress" is a DC group that controls much of Obama's policy) In the article GSP accuses legislators who oppose town and city participation in unapproved "sustainability" programs of being "conspiracy theorists". (Ironically, a copy of the UN's 300-page book 'Earth Summit - Agenda 21 - The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio', is pictured smack dab at the top of the article.) Although the United Nations is currently in the process of scrubbing the phrase "Agenda 21" from its "programme of action" for sustainability from thousands of  website pages, there is no question that ICLEI is an NGO that was established in 1990 at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, at the United Nations in New York. (WORLD CONGRESS of Local Governments... an oxymoron if there ever was...)

ICLEI: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=about

NH's Regional Planning Commissions (formed in the 1960s to manage shared systems) now pumped up with the promise of EPA/HUD/DOT money have taken on the task of implementing the goals of UN's Agenda 21 using the American Planning Association's (another NGO dedicated to global sustainability ideas) handbooks and legislative guidelines, most often without voter approval.

As an aside, perhaps you have heard the APA's voice ads on the radio, promoting "compact cities"? Here is an interesting presentation that connects Agenda 21/ICLEI/APA and even has photos of people attending Delphi sessions, complete with yellow sticky notes often used to gather input.

http://www.planning.org/aicp/symposium/2009/pdf/schilling.pdf

Activists have spent many hours studying RPC documents that reveal their goals. Therefore, to dismiss this as "conspiracy theory" at this point in time is ludicrous. GSP characterizes this supposed "conspiracy theory about United Nations Agenda 21" as a "non-binding plan for sustainable development endorsed by four U.S. Presidents."  It does not matter at this point whether the UN itself considers its plans binding or not — the very idea that there are agencies in this country who are pushing the plans from the top down is enough to cause concern. The UN does keep track of which countries are  implementing their ideas. At the same time claiming these plans as voluntary, GSP seems to be giving Agenda 21 a stamp of approval by mentioning that it was after all, "endorsed by four U.S. Presidents". In other words, as is typical, their attitude seems to be "it doesn't exist but since we like what they are doing we will do or say anything, no matter how outrageous, to insure that it continues..."

An Example of an Agenda 21 Implementation Report (where the words have not yet been scrubbed):
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=466&type=504&menu=139

Notice they are "preparing to take part in several international activities that are proposed for 2002, including children-targeted initiatives. It will use the coming year as a catalyst for a wide range of activities, targeted at every segment of the population..." It's international.

Why would the UN waste literally thousands of pages on its own website on detailed ways to implement plans for every country, aimed at every segment of the population? 

Interestingly enough, GSP never responds to charges of extremist legislation currently coming from "progressive" legislators such as recent ridiculous efforts to try to outlaw your wood stove, and a myriad of other attempts to curtail your parental, voting, and educational rights, while raising taxes on the poor and promoting collectivist ideas.


And so, the question we continue to ask our readers is, did you as a taxpayer get to vote on these  plans or were they promoted and carried out by a layer of government that bypassed the voters and your town officials? GSP's piece went on to say "Agenda 21 helps promote sustainability, climate protection, and clean energy initiatives for towns, cities and counties who choose to join. HB 144 sought to prohibit communities from participating in the program". But the complaint is that some town managers have been the ones doing the "choosing" signing onto programs and groups without the knowledge of the locals or elected boards.
 

In Salem for example, there was a question of whether the selectmen knew the town manager had signed the MOU to "Granite State Future", a program promoted by the Regional Planners. After several people viewed a recent copy of Salem's Municipal Partnership Agreements from the Granite State Future, they concluded that "the document lists Salem as “Committed to sign the MOU” (memorandum of understanding). Signing this MOU and/or the subsequent ‘agreement’ will remove all local control from the board of selectmen and place all land resource management into the hands of Federal agencies such as US-DOT, HUD, and the EPA. These agreements, although couched in the terms of ‘local control’ and ‘stakeholders’ are not at all in the under control of the local selectmen but manipulated through central planning at the Federal level with grants to the Regional Planning Commissions. As we understand it in NH, all federal grants monies are sent to the Nashua RPC (NRPC) which distributes the money in smaller amounts to the other RPCs in the state to facilitate the such ‘planning’. This money has federal strings attached, accepting this money, even through a simple MOU, may legally bind Salem to the ‘regional plan’." This was seen as very dangerous for property rights, and Salem was urged  to be very cautious before  proceeding with either the MOU or the ‘agreement’.

Fortunately for the taxpayers of Salem, the RPC scheme (GSF) was voted down.
http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2013/01/15/salem-rejects-granite-state-future-program/

Unfortunately, on February 6, 2013 our NH State legislature voted to kill HB 144 (by a vote of 211 to 141) which would have outright prohibited “the state, counties, towns, and cities from implementing programs of expending money for, receiving funding from, or contracting with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.”


MIND CONTROL OR MANIPULATED OUTCOMES?

As usual, the GSP is short on facts but long on name-calling, going on to describe proponents of the bill to stop the use of our tax dollars to fund local government membership in ICLEI,  "the NH Tin Foil Hat Caucus". They accused the legislators of opposing the use of "mind control".

Rosa Koire is a liberal Democrat who has studied the phenomenon of regional government. She wrote the book "Behind the Green Mask" and is a  much  sought-after lecturer. She is the founder of the Post Sustainability Institute

http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/

and Democrats Against UN Agenda 21.

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

She recently spoke to the residents of Wolfeboro and while she did use the words "mind control" she was likely referring to the Delphi Technique, a MANIPULATION method used to divide and conquer those who might disagree with the pre-determined outcomes of bogus "listening" sessions, of the type currently being held all over NH. It's a process with which this writer is intimately familiar. These PR firms do not set out with the intention of "listening" ; their goal is to make it look like their ideas are coming from the community. Indeed, Action Media, one of the PR firms employed by the RPCs brags about how it will train facilitators to "neutralize the opposition", as stated on their website: "Our clients’ work is about power: how are resources used, and who gets to decide? Our work is about the power of communications to shift the advantage, to mobilize support and neutralize opposition."  ~ http://actionmedia.org/ourWork.html

For example, in a recent "NH Listens" session about education, the participants were as usual, divided into groups at separate tables, each group led by a "facilitator" (Delphi) but the principal of the school was not allowed to speak.
 
Winnisquam:
http://mathwizards.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/nh-listens-in-winnesquam-or-do-they-manipulate-in-winnesquam/

You will hear a lot of double-speak about how these efforts are "local", "community-based", or talk of the capacity to be "self-governing" but it is  a smokescreen. Chances are if you are among the minuscule number of people who actually find out about these meetings you will find yourself outnumbered by facilitators and 'green' contractors.


Rosa Koire speaks in Wolfeboro NH
http://youtu.be/ztl3uRtzoyg

ICLEI - WHY PAY TO BELONG?

ICLEI is in fact, Local Agenda 21.

http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=687

ICLEI is a powerful lobby in this state, and it is being paid for with your own tax dollars. Towns and cities sign onto it usually without the knowledge of the taxpayers.

The town of Wolfeboro pays $1,200 year for dues, money that comes from Wolfeboro's citizens.  it is unknown at this time whether ICLEI dues were enumerated in the 2008 budget. In 2012 NH's Planners working in conjunction with ICLEI, lobbied Senator Bradley to oppose SB 217 (similar to HB 144) which would have stopped towns from joining ICLEI with our tax dollars. If ICLEI is advisory, it is also a lobbying firm at the very least. To use YOUR tax dollars to pay dues to a lobbyist group — is this even legal? You can see all the other bills they lobbied against here:

http://www.nhplanners.org/testimony.htm

REGIONAL PLANNERS

Regional Planning Commissions were set up in an "advisory-only" position. Considering they claim to have no authority, they  are well-funded by your taxes by way of local "dues" and other tax kickbacks from the federal government. Why does a group that is "advisory-only" get this much money to spend on convincing town officials to do certain things?  Why was lobbying for legislation included in their 2012 agenda? Take a look at the breakdown of their budget for 2011-2012 — it was just under $1.5Million!


Regional Protectors or Watermelons?
http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2012/07/20/regional-protectors-or-watermelons/

Wolfeboro's (member of ICLEI) town manager David Owens objected to Senate Bill 217 (2012) and sent Senator Bradley a note which said in part: "The Town of Wolfeboro joined ICLEI a few years ago at the urging of the Town's Energy Committee, as part of its efforts to make the Town a more sustainable community. Since joining ICLEI, the Town's Department of Public Works and Planning Department have had occasion to call upon and use the expertise and informational resources of ICLEI in developing energy efficiency projects for the Town. This has resulted in the Town having undertaken energy efficiency improvements at many of the Town's facilities, including those funded through an Energy Conservation Block Grant and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)." (a carbon tax)


Selectmen Object to anti-ICLEI Measures:
http://www.newhampshirelakesandmountains.com/Articles-c-2012-05-23-156350.113119-Selectmen-object-to-adding-ICLEI-ban-to-Senate-bill.html

Once again, is public money is being used to lobby for private corporate goals?

Energy Committee Plans to Expand Activities:
http://www.newhampshirelakesandmountains.com/Articles-c-2010-04-28-151084.113119_Energy_committee_plans_to_expand_activities.html

As in many articles written about the challenge to these projects, it's a comedy of contradictions when officials claim that ICLEI doesn't exist even while holding titles such as "ICLEI communications director" and praising the initiatives that come from it. For example, we read: "The city pays about $1,200 in annual dues for an ICLEI membership, which provides them with a worldwide network of peers, resources and technical guidance to work on clean energy and environmental projects" which seems in direct conflict with this statement, found in the very same article:  “As far as I’m concerned, (ICLEI) has nothing to do with the initiatives that are taking place.”

ICLEI is a creation of the UN:
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/953166-196/john-birch-society-wants-un-agenda-out.html

As we mentioned Regional planners have a long list of legislative goals for both the state and the towns, meet regularly with local planning and zoning boards, and conducting phony "listening" sessions facilitated by PR firms, with limited numbers of the community in attendance. These "community organizers" are injecting their global ideology on us  at the local level when it comes to decision making about "...public health, transportation, economic development, infrastructure, housing, land use, energy, cultural, historic, and natural resources, and more!"  (per the Granite State Future (GSF)  program - http://www.granitestatefuture.org)
 

Epping's residents were not happy with their town's association with ICLEI. Apparently a scheme implemented to enforce a new ordinance to "green" building  ended up costing the town MORE, not less:
http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2012/08/06/epping-joins-un-global-environmental-group-creates-new-ordinance/

This ordinance and the resulting project is still documented on ICLEI's website as a "success".
http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/CaseStudy_EppingNH.pdf


Granite State Progress calls itself a "strong, credible voice in advancing progressive solutions to critical community problems." However, because of its past record of false accusations, name calling, and self-contradiction, it can never again be taken seriously.

When the process of decision making has drifted this from far the taxpayers, well, what could go wrong?