What do you know about Agenda 21? II (New York, billion, amendment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're putting the cart before the horse here. None of this has happened yet, you folks are screaming stuff that may or more than likely may not happen.
You're putting the cart before the horse here. None of this has happened yet, you folks are screaming stuff that may or more than likely may not happen.
None of that has happened yet? You might find this interesting for starters:
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Taking of Private Property for Public Use Solely to Further
Economic Development: Kelo v. City of New London
On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London1 that the expected gains
in new jobs and tax revenue flowing from a municipality’s economic revitalization plan established a
‘‘public use’’ within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s takings clause. The
takings clause, which states ‘‘nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,’’
has been read to restrict eminent domain condemnations to those that effect a ‘‘public use.’’ While
the court has held in the past that ‘‘public use’’ should be understood broadly to encompass various public
benefits, in Kelo the court for the first time considered the constitutionality of condemnations justified
solely on the grounds of economic development.
O’Connor criticized the majority decision, stating that the court abandoned a ‘‘long-held, basic limitation on government power,’’ making all private property ‘‘vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner,’’ all ‘‘under the banner of economic development.’’ O’Connor urged that ‘‘[a]n external, judicial check on how the public use requirement is interpreted, however limited, is necessary.’’ Acknowledging that property had been taken permissibly in the past for private use, she distinguished those situations as targeting property inflicting an ‘‘affirmative harm on society’’ (a blighted neighborhood in one, ownership of most of the land in the hands of a wealthy few in another) as determined by the respective legislatures. ‘‘In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use . . . . Today nearly all real property is susceptible to condemnation on the Court’s theory.’’
Last edited by swbtoo; 11-29-2012 at 05:39 PM..
Reason: formatting
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Taking of Private Property for Public Use Solely to Further
Economic Development: Kelo v. City of New London
On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London1 that the expected gains
in new jobs and tax revenue flowing from a municipality’s economic revitalization plan established a
‘‘public use’’ within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s takings clause. The
takings clause, which states ‘‘nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,’’
has been read to restrict eminent domain condemnations to those that effect a ‘‘public use.’’ While
the court has held in the past that ‘‘public use’’ should be understood broadly to encompass various public
benefits, in Kelo the court for the first time considered the constitutionality of condemnations justified
solely on the grounds of economic development.
O’Connor criticized the majority decision, stating that the court abandoned a ‘‘long-held, basic limitation on government power,’’ making all private property ‘‘vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner,’’ all ‘‘under the banner of economic development.’’ O’Connor urged that ‘‘[a]n external, judicial check on how the public use requirement is interpreted, however limited, is necessary.’’ Acknowledging that property had been taken permissibly in the past for private use, she distinguished those situations as targeting property inflicting an ‘‘affirmative harm on society’’ (a blighted neighborhood in one, ownership of most of the land in the hands of a wealthy few in another) as determined by the respective legislatures. ‘‘In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use . . . . Today nearly all real property is susceptible to condemnation on the Court’s theory.’’
I don't think that many of those you are trying to convince have read anything from Agenda 21.org or they would open their eyes. Most of them are too lazy or to afraid to look.
U.S. Supreme Court Allows Taking of Private Property for Public Use Solely to Further Economic Development: Kelo v. City of New London
On June 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kelo v. City of New London1 that the expected gains in new jobs and tax revenue flowing from a municipality’s economic revitalization plan established a ‘‘public use’’ within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s takings clause. The takings clause, which states ‘‘nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,’’ has been read to restrict eminent domain condemnations to those that effect a ‘‘public use.’’ While the court has held in the past that ‘‘public use’’ should be understood broadly to encompass various public benefits, in Kelo the court for the first time considered the constitutionality of condemnations justified solely on the grounds of economic development.
O’Connor criticized the majority decision, stating that the court abandoned a ‘‘long-held, basic limitation on government power,’’ making all private property ‘‘vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner,’’ all ‘‘under the banner of economic development.’’ O’Connor urged that ‘‘[a]n external, judicial check on how the public use requirement is interpreted, however limited, is necessary.’’ Acknowledging that property had been taken permissibly in the past for private use, she distinguished those situations as targeting property inflicting an ‘‘affirmative harm on society’’ (a blighted neighborhood in one, ownership of most of the land in the hands of a wealthy few in another) as determined by the respective legislatures. ‘‘In moving away from our decisions sanctioning the condemnation of harmful property use, the Court today significantly expands the meaning of public use . . . . Today nearly all real property is susceptible to condemnation on the Court’s theory.’’
I've read about Agenda 21. Thanks for bringing attention to it. Sounds like the same tactics which are forced onto the Chinese people.
Oh,wait. That would be Communism. Good luck, America.
toodie
Article 25 of the CRPD also MANDATES that "State Parties" provide access to "population-based public health programmes...." And just what is a "population-based public health" program?
One example that may already be familiar to you is something called "Agenda 21."
A good, hard, look at Barack Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John P. Holdren, should more accurately solidify what is meant by "population-based public health programmes" in your mind.
As it turns out, Van Jones wasn't the only "nut" in Obama's inner-circle, and what is probably even more startling is that the United States Senate actually confirmed Holdren.
In 1997, Holdren co-authored a textbook entitled "Ecoscience," which advocated mass sterilization, compulsory abortion, one-world government and the establishment of a global police force to enforce these population control measures... errrr... "rights."
Here are several more of the "greatest hits" from Holdren's tome:
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution [he's talking about the United States Constitution] if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” - Page 837
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.” - Page 917
“... a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable... the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade... including all food on the international market.” - Pages 942 and 943
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” - Pages 942 and 943
I was in the wholesale club yesterday and saw Glenn Becks book "Agenda 21". Lo and behold, some right wing regurgitator is on here pushing the same BS.
That pretty much sums up who the people are who buy this garbage: losers who follow quacky clowns like Glenn Beck.
I was in the wholesale club yesterday and saw Glenn Becks book "Agenda 21". Lo and behold, some right wing regurgitator is on here pushing the same BS.
That pretty much sums up who the people are who buy this garbage: losers who follow quacky clowns like Glenn Beck.
Get out and do something productive.
Agenda 21 precedes Beck.
He didn't invent Agenda 21. He's simply helping to bring it to light. You don't have to buy his book to become informed about Agenda 21 from the UN, local community sources and all that is on the internet.
Agenda 21 is real and you should at least know about it before you go calling people names.
He didn't invent Agenda 21. He's simply helping to bring it to light. You don't have to buy his book to become informed about Agenda 21 from the UN, local community sources and all that is on the internet.
Agenda 21 is real and you should at least know about it before you go calling people names.
Actually, I think it is unfortunate that Beck released a fiction book called Agenda 21. Yes, he railed against Holdren back in 2009, but he failed to connect Holdren and Agenda 21 back then. By releasing this book now, it gives the Left ammunition to ignore the very real threat within the Obama regime to adopt this UN scheme. Imho, Beck is part of the NWO controlled opposition.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Population control is part of Agenda 21
