UN Agenda 21 meeting in Moultonborough tonight

[tis]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

I believe the House rejected UN Agenda 21 back in May. I hadn't looked that up before my original post. If they did in fact reject it I wonder why they even had a meeting about it in Sept though? Like Vinny Barbarino used to say........
I'm zohoooooo confuuuuuused.

I gotta do more digging when I have time. Gotta get my new well in fast.

That's what I wondered too-why have the meeting in Sept. in Rochester if the state passed a bill banning it. The person I heard talking about it last night mentioned that places in NC, CA, and Rochester, NH had all rejected it. When she said Rochester it really got my attention.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by tis

That's what I wondered too-why have the meeting in Sept. in Rochester if the state passed a bill banning it. The person I heard talking about it last night mentioned that places in NC, CA, and Rochester, NH had all rejected it. When she said Rochester it really got my attention.

NH didn't pass a Bill to ban UN Agenda 21. As TMI Guy said: The Bill is an "act to establish a committee to study procedures to prevent the implementation of UN Agenda 21".
The Bill has been sitting in the House with not action taken since early this year.

[RailroadJoe]

Why study it? Just reject it. What happened to Live Free or Die. The government tells us too much of what we can do now. I think it is time to "get the US out of the UN".

[Grandpa Redneck]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

Why study it? Just reject it. What happened to Live Free or Die. The government tells us too much of what we can do now. I think it is time to "get the US out of the UN".

And while we are at it get the UN out of the US!

[tis]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

Why study it? Just reject it. What happened to Live Free or Die. The government tells us too much of what we can do now. I think it is time to "get the US out of the UN".

Exactly, the state should reject it! That's the way I read what was posted that it was a study. I thought maybe someone knew something more recent.

And yes, get the US out of the UN and as Granpa said, get the UN out of the US.

Did anyone go to the Moultonboro meeting. BTW, what is the now correct spelling of Moultonborough-Moultonboro? Is it orough now?

[P-3 Guy]

It sounds like a lot of people who are against Agenda 21 are getting their knickers in a wad simply because they've heard that the UN is "imposing" a radical anti-American agenda on local governments, when nothing could be further from the truth. There are certain parts of Agenda 21 that clearly go against traditional American values and that probably even violate the federal and state constitutions and will never be implemented in the United States. There are other parts of Agenda 21 that are fairly main stream and are being used in many American communities without controversy. Most of Agenda 21 lies somewhere between those two extremes.

The United Nations has zero ability to impose anything on any government in the United States. Governing bodies may consider recommendations that are part of a UN report, but anything that's implemented must comply with both federal and state constitutions and presumably, must have popular support lest elected representatives find themselves out of a job after the next election.

[Lakesrider]

George Bush's quote on Agenda 21...

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American People will henceforth pledge their allegiance."

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

George Bush's quote on Agenda 21...

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American People will henceforth pledge their allegiance."

Context is important, as I'm sure that you know. How about providing a link to the whole speech, or quoting the whole paragraph that contains this sentence as well as the paragraphs before and after?

That quote is 20 years old. Have we been pledging our allegiance to the principles in the UN charter since then? Do you even know what the principles in the UN charter are?

Edited later to add: I don't think that George H.W. Bush ever said this. I spent a few minutes doing an internet search, and the only place that I could find these words was on wacko conspiracy theory web sites, plus a web site that lists false Bush quotes. Presidential speeches and statements are scrupulously recorded and archived. If Bush really said these words in public at the UN, or anywhere else, there would be an easily located and verifiable record of it. I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time), but I don't think so.

[Lakesrider]

Well. I guess we can all just sit back in our lazy boy chairs and take a wait and see attitude then. I mean Government certainly hasn't messed up this country so far right? So why should it in the future? If everyone has the view that nothing is wrong out there, the future is looking very bleak for the next generations.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

Well. I guess we can all just sit back in our lazy boy chairs and take a wait and see attitude then. I mean Government certainly hasn't messed up this country so far right? So why should it in the future? If everyone has the view that nothing is wrong out there, the future is looking very bleak for the next generations.

I'm not saying that nothing's wrong with our government; in fact, I think there's quite a lot that's wrong. And I wish that everyone had an opinion on what the government does and how they do it; that would make for a much more involved electorate, which is something that we definitely need.

BUT- as a famous politician once said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts (or something like that). Using false information in the political process, or any other process, is harmful in the long run.

UN Agenda 21 "is is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regards to sustainable development." All or any part of it cannot be and will not be implemented against the wishes of elected governments in the United States, never mind the fact that some of its provisions are likely unconstitutional.

George H.W. Bush never said "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American People will henceforth pledge their allegiance." The quote was likely made up as a scare tactic to advance a theory that there are certain interests in this country that want to see a "New World Order" with a unified world government which would mean the end of national sovereignty.

You can find lots of crazy stuff on the internet; that's easy. Separating the wheat from the chaff takes a little more effort. Nobody said democracy was easy.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

Well. I guess we can all just sit back in our lazy boy chairs and take a wait and see attitude then. I mean Government certainly hasn't messed up this country so far right? So why should it in the future? If everyone has the view that nothing is wrong out there, the future is looking very bleak for the next generations.

That's the problem. Too many of us sit back and think everything will be ok. Thank goodness some people in Rochester were smart enough to get out and fight for their freedoms. We need to make sure we do that in the Lakes Region too. I really wish someone here had gone to that meeting in Moultonboro to see what was said.

TMI Guy said it will not be implimented against the wishes of elected officials, but many of our elected officials don't understand what they are voting for sometimes. A lot of those on the Council in Rochester voted for Agenda 21. You CAN find anything on the internet and we had better well pay attention or we might find ourselves in big trouble. The UN would like nothing better than to destroy our country. Of course they don't realize that would also destroy themselves.

[Puck]

Agenda 21 is a voluntary strategy that Nations can endorse or not. There are no ramifications for participating or not. There was no transfer of authority nor granting of any interest or right to another nation or politcal body when the US endorsed this document. Many of the ideas related to planning, development strategies, and environmental issues were already common in the US 20 years before Agenda 21 was drafted. And yet somehow now these same ideas on infrastructure planning and development and environmental issues have come to be seen as the insidious means of some UN plan to take over the US. Now evidently planning ahead and using forethought about the way we as a nation use our resources is seen as an evil, un-American idea. That's right, don't think or plan for the future, it's un-American. The UN does need to take this country over... between shooting ourselves in the feet and cutting off our noses to spite our faces we'll simply bleed out and be no more.

What is going to happen when people realize that the UN also supports the concept of democracy, women's rights, and the education of children?

[surfnsnow]

maybe when we can vote in a free election there

[Acrossamerica]

Originally Posted by Puck

Agenda 21 is a voluntary strategy that Nations can endorse or not. There are no ramifications for participating or not. There was no transfer of authority nor granting of any interest or right to another nation or politcal body when the US endorsed this document. Many of the ideas related to planning, development strategies, and environmental issues were already common in the US 20 years before Agenda 21 was drafted. And yet somehow now these same ideas on infrastructure planning and development and environmental issues have come to be seen as the insidious means of some UN plan to take over the US. Now evidently planning ahead and using forethought about the way we as a nation use our resources is seen as an evil, un-American idea. That's right, don't think or plan for the future, it's un-American. The UN does need to take this country over... between shooting ourselves in the feet and cutting off our noses to spite our faces we'll simply bleed out and be no more.

What is going to happen when people realize that the UN also supports the concept of democracy, women's rights, and the education of children?

Wow, I have not seen that level of communistic thought here in NH ever. I could understand perhaps coming from some areas of MA, NJ or NYC or possibly of course CA but NH the live free or die state. I am very disheartened that you would even think the UN cares about anything other than being able to take large sums of money from one, skim off a fairly high precentage for in house largess and give the rest out to dictators who care not a whit for their own people. If that is what you wish for the United states, pelase start as far away from NH as you can get. I am thinkning maybe Nancy Pelosi's district in SF. She seems more in line with your thinking.

[Puck]

Born and raised here as part of a family that has been here since the mid 1700's. Maintaining a healthy level of skeptism, thinking for ourselves, doing those things that need to be done to keep NH good for us and our business, understanding that those things meant a certain level of government was actually necessary, and staying out of our neighbor's personal lives used to be NH values. Not considering options that are good for us as a state, things that could help businesses here, because we buy into conspiracy theories propagated on the internet is not grounded in NH values. What you may think the UN wants is beside the point. They have no legal authority here.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by tis

A lot of those on the Council in Rochester voted for Agenda 21.

The council vote in Rochester wasn't a vote for or against Agenda 21; from what I understand it was a vote on whether or not to accept a federal "sustainable community initiative grant," which some people apparently thought was part of an insidious plot to turn the good city of Rochester over to UN control. So, the city council said "no thanks" to the federal money. I guess some other community will get it.

tis, what specific part of Agenda 21 do you find most disagreeable?

Are there any parts of Agenda 21 that you are OK with? Maybe the part that says governments, "in cooperation with relevant international organizations, where appropriate, should promote proper planning, including environmental impact assessment where appropriate, of safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive waste, including emergency procedures, storage, transportation and disposal, prior to and after activities that generate such waste." I don't know, that sounds to me like a common sense thing to do. I can't imagine anyone who would be against that, except maybe for someone who owned a business that cleaned up after a radiological accident.

Originally Posted by tis

The UN would like nothing better than to destroy our country.

I'm curious as to where you get this idea. I know that there are some UN member states that would like to see the United States destroyed, but they are a very small number when compared to the UN membership as a whole, and they have little to no influence on the overall organization. The US position as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council gives us veto power over any Security Council resolution. Therefore, the best thing is for the United States to remain in the UN, so when that inevitable resolution calling for the destruction of our country is introduced, we can veto it!

[tis]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

The council vote in Rochester wasn't a vote for or against Agenda 21; from what I understand it was a vote on whether or not to accept a federal "sustainable community initiative grant," which some people apparently thought was part of an insidious plot to turn the good city of Rochester over to UN control. So, the city council said "no thanks" to the federal money. I guess some other community will get it.

tis, what specific part of Agenda 21 do you find most disagreeable?

Are there any parts of Agenda 21 that you are OK with? Maybe the part that says governments, "in cooperation with relevant international organizations, where appropriate, should promote proper planning, including environmental impact assessment where appropriate, of safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive waste, including emergency procedures, storage, transportation and disposal, prior to and after activities that generate such waste." I don't know, that sounds to me like a common sense thing to do. I can't imagine anyone who would be against that, except maybe for someone who owned a business that cleaned up after a radiological accident.



I'm curious as to where you get this idea. I know that there are some UN member states that would like to see the United States destroyed, but they are a very small number when compared to the UN membership as a whole, and they have little to no influence on the overall organization. The US position as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council gives us veto power over any Security Council resolution. Therefore, the best thing is for the United States to remain in the UN, so when that inevitable resolution calling for the destruction of our country is introduced, we can veto it!

You are right, the vote in Rochester was for a federal grant-I think from HUD. I think the whole thing leads to UN control and as I have said I don't think the UN has our best interest at heart at all. Many of them hate our country and want all our wealth to go to them. And it won't go to help their people, it will go to the dictators. They do want to tax the rich countries of the world to give to the poor. I am not at all confident that our members would vote in the best interest of our country.

[Lakesrider]

As they have consistently shown in the past.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Lakesrider

As they have consistently shown in the past.

I'm assuming that when tis refers to "our members," that means the U.S. representative to the U.N.

Which past votes by the U.S. representative do you feel have not been in the best interest of our country?

[AC2717]

for all who do not think this is an issue, read this

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...tax-americans/

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by AC2717

for all who do not think this is an issue, read this

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...tax-americans/

Please. This is an opinion piece. Look who wrote the article. It might as well have been written by Carl Rove. The president cannot unilaterally imopose any tax. It has to be passed by congress first. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you can find lots of crazy stuff on the internet. Just because it's been written by some national political pundit (from the right OR the left) doesn't mean that it's true.

[Grandpa Redneck]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

Please. This is an opinion piece. Look who wrote the article. It might as well have been written by Carl Rove. The president cannot unilaterally imopose any tax. It has to be passed by congress first. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you can find lots of crazy stuff on the internet. Just because it's been written by some national political pundit (from the right OR the left) doesn't mean that it's true.

Just because its "SUPPOSED" to be passed by congress first doesn't seem to mean anything lately, just look at all the executive orders that Obama has used to by-pass congress on many issues in this term. What makes you think he won't use executive orders even more in his second term????

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Grandpa Redneck

Just because its "SUPPOSED" to be passed by congress first doesn't seem to mean anything lately, just look at all the executive orders that Obama has used to by-pass congress on many issues in this term. What makes you think he won't use executive orders even more in his second term????

An executive order to implement a tax to be imposed on all Americans is so clearly unconstitutional as to be out of the realm of possibility for all but the heartiest of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.

I would be curious as to the amount and scope of executive orders issued by the current president as compared to his predecessors, not to mention the "signing statements" put out by his immediate predecessor.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by tis

That's what I wondered too-why have the meeting in Sept. in Rochester if the state passed a bill banning it. The person I heard talking about it last night mentioned that places in NC, CA, and Rochester, NH had all rejected it. When she said Rochester it really got my attention.

I don't think that the NH legislature "banned" anything. Local city and town councils and boards of selectmen still have the ability to regulate local land use as they (and their constituents) feel best, within extisting state law. That's good, right? From my brief look at it, the Rochester thing was a vote to reject a federal "sustainable community initiative grant," whatever that is. I guess that certain people think that such grants are some sort of communist/socialist/UN/new world order plot to subvert our American way of life.

One of the many web sites that talks about this says that American court rooms are controlled by Queen Elizabeth II of England. The proof is that the American flags in U.S. courtrooms have gold fringe around the edges, which is a symbol of maritime law, and England is a maritime nation. Really.