UN Agenda 21 meeting in Moultonborough tonight

[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.

[Boater]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

I would be curious as to the amount and scope of executive orders issued by the current president as compared to his predecessors

Others to FDR - NONE
FDR - 11 in 16 years
Truman - 5 in 7 years
Ike - 2 in 8 years
Kennedy - 4 in 3 years
LBJ - 4 in 5 years
Nixon - 1 in 6 years
Ford - 3 in 2 years
Carter - 3 in 4 years
Reagan - 5 in 8 years
Bush - 3 in 4 years
Clinton - 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush - 62 in 8 years
Obama - 923 in 3 1/2 years!

Many of the over 900 Executive Orders give the President control over EVERY aspect of our lives (power, water, transportation, communications, energy, etc.) and set it up so that pesky Congress won't be needed to take control. If you rely on the liberal media for your information you probably aren't aware of what he's quietly doing.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Boater

Others to FDR - NONE
FDR - 11 in 16 years
Truman - 5 in 7 years
Ike - 2 in 8 years
Kennedy - 4 in 3 years
LBJ - 4 in 5 years
Nixon - 1 in 6 years
Ford - 3 in 2 years
Carter - 3 in 4 years
Reagan - 5 in 8 years
Bush - 3 in 4 years
Clinton - 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush - 62 in 8 years
Obama - 923 in 3 1/2 years!

Many of the over 900 Executive Orders give the President control over EVERY aspect of our lives (power, water, transportation, communications, energy, etc.) and set it up so that pesky Congress won't be needed to take control. If you rely on the liberal media for your information you probably aren't aware of what he's quietly doing.

Interesting; thank you for sharing. Can you please provide a link to your source for this information?

[LakeSnake]

New taxes - just look at the Affordable Helathcare Act - something like 20+ hidden taxes that got ram rodded through the legislature (most of whom did not read it).

Our country is being systematically dismantled.

[Rusty]

President Obama has signed 143 executive orders as of Sept. 28, 2012.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-r...ecutive-orders

Here is what Snopes has to say about it: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...tiveorders.asp

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Boater

Others to FDR - NONE
FDR - 11 in 16 years
Truman - 5 in 7 years
Ike - 2 in 8 years
Kennedy - 4 in 3 years
LBJ - 4 in 5 years
Nixon - 1 in 6 years
Ford - 3 in 2 years
Carter - 3 in 4 years
Reagan - 5 in 8 years
Bush - 3 in 4 years
Clinton - 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush - 62 in 8 years
Obama - 923 in 3 1/2 years!

Many of the over 900 Executive Orders give the President control over EVERY aspect of our lives (power, water, transportation, communications, energy, etc.) and set it up so that pesky Congress won't be needed to take control. If you rely on the liberal media for your information you probably aren't aware of what he's quietly doing.

A quick Google search turns up some very different information. Here's a link to the Federal Register section of the National Archives:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html

It shows that through August 10, 2012, Obama has signed 135 Executive Orders, broken down as follows:

2009 - 39
2010 - 35
2011 - 34
2012 - 27 (through 8/10/2012)

I doubt that he has signed an additional 788 Executive Orders between August 10th and today, buy maybe you know something that I don't.

Here is how Obama compares to past presidents for numbers of Executive Orders signed (again, according to the National Archives link above):

Obama - 135
G.W. Bush - 291
Clinton - 364
G.H.W. Bush - 166
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320
Ford - 169
Nixon - 346
Johnson - 324
Kennedy - 214
Eisenhower - 482
Truman - 894
F.D. Roosevelt - 3,467
Hoover - 996

If the number of Executive Orders signed is indeed an indication that the president is taking control over every aspect of our lives, than we're too late, because that happened over 70 years ago with FDR.

I'm not trying to argue for the political left or the political right; I'm trying to argue that you shouldn't accept every "fact," especially the ones that are being used to push a political agenda, without doing your own research first. The truth is out there, folks, and most of the time it's not too hard to find.