UN Agenda 21 Still Advancing Worldwide

UN Agenda 21 Still Advancing Worldwide

“We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order — a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful — and we will be — we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.” – G.H.W. Bush Speaking at start of first Gulf War, 1991

What is Agenda 21? — Quoting from the UN website: “Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”(sic)

equity-environment-economy-350Many have said that Agenda 21 is now outdated policy that’s fallen into neglect. This is far from true. For example, among many other things, the slow-motion train wreck of our ongoing world economic collapse supports UN Agenda 21, and the UN conference on “Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda” coming this September is a clear reiteration. Apologists say that Agenda 21 is only “Soft Law,” a policy that has no teeth. But they’re lying. In 20 years, through stealth implementation, this plan has become embedded in local policies all over the United States. It’s called Sustainable Development. Wherever you see it you’ll find “The 3 E’s:” ecology, economy, equity. In the upcoming UN conference, where the Jesuit Pope Francis will be appearing to promote his recent encyclical, they’re being called “People, Planet and Prosperity.”

Agenda 21 emerged full-blown from the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) aka The Rio Summit, in 1992. 16 to 17 thousand “delegates,” who were somehow given official status as officers of the UN, travelled from all over the world to take part in an 11 day party in Rio De Janeiro, where they were presented with Agenda 21, The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, a more than 300 page document that they were asked to approve, though it seems unlikely that many of them could have had time to even read it. Unsurprisingly, they voted to accept it, and it was suddenly official United Nations policy for the world.

I recently spoke with a delegate to Rio from Santa Cruz, who took exception to the way I’ve characterized the Rio Summit above. After more than 20 years, she entirely believes that the document was created by agreement at Rio, that its ideas and principles are unimpeachable, and that it has only been improved on since then. This is the genius behind the ways this program of worldwide social engineering has been rolled out, as well-meaning people are enrolled as supporters through poetic-sounding but fuzzy phrases, pledges of concern for the masses of humanity, and clever misdirection.

In fact, the Agenda 21 document was largely a creation of Maurice Strong, a mysterious man with a double-tracked career as both a high official at the UN, and as a billionaire financial insider extracting the Earth’s resources in the petroleum and mining industries. Strong first took the world stage prominently as “Secretary General,” a title the UN, for whatever reasons, adopted directly from communist and socialist organizations, of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972.

Strong’s very scant bio on Wikipedia says that he “met a leading UN official in 1947 (when Strong was just 18) who arranged for him…to serve as a junior security officer at the UN headquarters in Lake Success, New York” (before the new UN building was built on land donated by the Rockefellers in Manhattan). Just one year later, Strong became a trainee in a high-powered brokerage in Canada, “where he took an interest in the oil business,” and was transferred to an office in “the Alberta oil patch.” There he was quickly hired as an assistant to an oil-industry leader, Jack Gallagher — All while maintaining his connections at the UN.

In 1971, before the conference in Stockholm, Strong commissioned a report on the state of the planet, entitled “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet”. The report summarized the findings of 152 leading experts from 58 countries in preparation for that first UN meeting on the environment. This was the world’s first “state of the environment” report. Following the Conference, Strong became the Chairman of the new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), until 1975, and served as a member of the Brundtland Commission (below).

The 1972 conference was followed by several other major conferences as well as sets of meetings all over the world laying out the shape of this emerging globalist agenda. Despite the elusive nature of this long process and the ways it’s remained under the radar of the mainstream media, it has somehow remained on track with constant reiterations. In 1976 there was the UN Conference on Human Settlements which produced a Declaration containing 26 principles concerning the environment and development, an Action Plan with 109 recommendations, and a Resolution.

Here is an excerpt from the Conference Preamble: “Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.  Private land ownership is also the principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, and therefore, contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes

This preamble is followed by 65 pages of very specific land use recommendations. Among the many recommendations are: A-1) Redistribute population in accord with resources, D-1) Government must control the use of land to achieve equitable distribution of resources, D-2) Control land use through zoning & land-use planning, D-3) Excessive profits from land use must be recaptured by government, D-4) Public ownership of land should be used to exercise urban and rural land reform, and D-5) Owner rights should be separated from development rights which should be held by a public authority.

Then, in the fall of 1983, the 38th Session of the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to create a commission “to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development to the year 2000 and beyond” (emphasis added). Gro Harlem Brundtland, former (and later) Prime Minister of Norway and Vice President of the Socialist International (sometimes called “the cradle of globalism”) was appointed to chair the commission. In her forward to Our Common Future, the 400 page report from what would become known as The Brundtland Commission, she wrote, ” ‘ A global agenda for change’ – this was what the World Commission on Environment and Development was asked to formulate. It was an urgent call by the General Assembly of the United Nations…” With this conference, the term “sustainable development” first appeared.

It’s from this long-term plan which emerged 20 years before the 1992 Rio Summit, that the many seemingly friendly terms such as Sustainability, Smart Growth, Resilient and Walkable Communities, and High Density Urban Mixed-Use Development come. It seems like no one had never heard these phrases 10 years ago but that now they’re everywhere we look. Among other key terms are: Equity, Affordable housing, Consensus, Social Justice, Human Settlements, Watershed, Facilitator, Best Management Practices, Outcome Based Education. Habitat Restoration, Quality of life, Benefit of all, Public/Private Partnerships, Common good, Collaborative, Inter-disciplinary, Stakeholder, School to Work, Visioning, and the all-important Regional. If you see these terms, particularly in combinations, you can be sure you’re looking at language dedicated to implementing this agenda.

In 1992, 172 governments attended the Rio Summit, with 116 sending heads of state. There were also 2,400 people from UN-connected NGO’s. Then President George HW Bush was there on Prince Charles’ yacht, where he signed the Agenda 21 document with absolutely no legal standing to do so.

In 1993, shortly after Bill Clinton took office, Nancy Pelosi helped, with 33 original cosponsors, to introduce legislation “to implement Agenda 21.” The bill passed the house, but was stopped in the Senate. But with clearly international pressure to advance the program, in June 1993 Democrat Clinton created The President’s Council on Sustainable Development which has placed Sustainability Officers in every federal department and agency since then. This has resulted in administrative regulations enforcing Agenda 21 policies as (possibly fraudulent) hard law, and in huge distortions in federal funding that have forced States to adhere to federal dictates.

biodiversity_wildlands_map-capture

An international treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), was also presented at the Rio Summit for signing, and was eventually brought to the U.S. Senate for ratification in 1994. At first, it looked like it would pass, but at the last hour, text from a book Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), which was not to be published for another year and a half, was leaked to staff of Senators, along with the now well-known Biodiversity Wildlands Map, which showed graphically the plan to move Americans off the land and into dense “human settlement zones.” The Convention wasn’t ratified, while the MSM reported that the GBA book did not exist. Congress has, so far, refused to implement Agenda 21 as policy for the United States of America. But it has been advanced by Presidential edicts.

The End of Natural Property Rights — UN policy on “land” has been clear since the 1976 Conference on Human Settlements. Its preamble on land quoted above continues:

“Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

“Public control of land use is therefore indispensable to its protection as an asset and the achievement of the long-term objectives of human settlement policies and strategies.”

This makes obvious the position of the UN policy makers that private property is now to be considered as a social asset to be controlled by “the public.” The exact nature of this public is, however, not clear. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution says, “No person shall… be deprived of… property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” But the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 Sec 2 says, “Property shall not be arbitrarily taken.” This is a crucial difference. Somehow “the public” can take private property from you, as long as it’s not done “arbitrarily.”

Santa Cruz County seems to have been targeted for early implementation of Agenda 21. Two years before Agenda 21 was unveiled in 1992, the voters of the County passed Measure C, “The Decade of the Environment ” containing many of the key tenets of the UN Program, and which has been reaffirmed every ten years by the Board of Supervisors, and is reported on regularly by the Planning Department.

Cover-SC_County-Local_A21-bThe Supervisors also fell into step with the Agenda in 1993-94 when they “officially approved the process” of the “Sustainable Santa Cruz: Local Agenda 21” 100-page planning guide created by Action-Santa Cruz County and the Santa Cruz Chapter of the United Nations Association. This type of document was directly called for in Agenda 21 itself — In Chapter 28, “Local Authorities Initiatives,” the first objective listed is “(a) By 1996, most local authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on ‘a local Agenda 2I’ for the community…” Of course, this directive was unknown in most of the rest of the U.S.

In our society the direct taking of peoples’ properties is, so far, unacceptable to most people. What has happened instead, certainly in Santa Cruz, is the use of permitting processes, zoning and taxation, including the infamous “Red Tags,” to gradually take away the productive use of their land from property owners without compensation. Though a relatively small county, Santa Cruz has, after LA County, the second-largest planning department in the State. There are currently thousands of red tags on record here, and, according to some counts, hundreds of owners have been forced off their properties, which have, in many cases, been transferred to insider “Private Partners” through practices many say are corrupt. Frequently, after the new owner appears, zoning is changed or permits are issued for new uses.

It is getting increasingly hard to get permits for single family homes, while permitting is easier to get for “High Density, Mixed Use” (typically floors of small apartments above retail spaces of questionable utility – AKA “Stack n’ Pack” housing). The Santa Cruz Supervisors are in the process of creating a new tax to fund this high-density “Low Income” housing through an “Affordable Housing Assessment” on all new construction, including additions, in the County. This will raise the cost of building a house by perhaps tens-of-thousands of dollars.

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives — or ICLEI (pronounced Ick-ly) is a UN NGO that had it’s founding meeting in 1990 in the General Assembly chamber at the UN building in Manhattan. ICLEI staff wrote one of the chapters of the Agenda 21 document, under the direction of Maurice Strong. Santa Cruz City and County have both been members of ICLEI since its inception, though this has been made as obscure as possible by local officials over time. ICLEI works to bring top-down policies from the UN globalist agenda to local communities under the guise of being guided by its membership.

ICLEI was directly involved in the creation of California bills AB 32 and SB 375, mandating severe ongoing restrictions on our “greenhouse gas emissions” in the name of the heavily-pushed and yet highly questionable theory of “global warming” caused by CO2. ICLEI was then hired by hundreds of cities and counties in California to help them draft the “Climate Action Plans” mandated to help reach the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals set in AB 32. This is a serious conflict of interest violation by this formal arm of the UN.

Regionalism — Regional “governance” is a concept that has been advancing in the U.S. since World War II. Regionalism has been extended across America primarily through executive presidential action, including Nixon’s creation of multi-state Federal Regions, and through confusing provisions of Congressional “Acts” which require the action of Regional Planning Agencies or Councils of Government (COG’s) in order to secure the more and more essential federal funding needed for major public works. Regional Agencies are composed of appointed officials from all levels of local government, and are not subject to direct input by voters. Our local COG is the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), founded in 1968, two years after the U.S. Model Cities Act set up the framework for AMBAG to be a funding conduit.

The COG for the nine Bay Area Counties is ABAG, the Association of Bay Area Governments. ABAG, is working with ICLEI to create the “One Bay Area” program. One Bay Area is a major initiative to promote the top-down plan to implement Agenda 21 around the San Francisco Bay. This plan for a region containing 7.5 million people, is designed to entirely remake the region in the image of Smart Growth, high-density housing and government transportation planning.

Over the next 20 years 630,000 new residential units are projected by ABAG. ALL residential construction specified by the plan is be multi-family housing. 80% of this housing must be within ½ mile of the plan’s designated “transit corridors” (permits will not be granted outside these zones). One corridor, the El Camino Real, running from San Jose to San Francisco, will be transformed into a series of government controlled Stack ‘n Pack smart growth developments. The plan is that all private vehicles will be banned from what is to then be called “The Grand Boulevard.” Through the ABAG COG, the federal government has committed more than 300 billion, mostly highway tax dollars to this “Plan Bay Area.”

Locally, something similar but more modest is being proposed under the newly rechristened “Sustainable Santa Cruz County” Regional Transportation Plan, where the eventual centerpiece will be a widened “Soquel Drive Corridor” from Dominican Hospital to Aptos, where hundreds of units of Stack n’ Pack housing will be built, close to planned public transit to include the much ballyhooed “Rail Trail” and possible train service. As part of enrolling us into this planned “sustainable” development, public “consensus” meetings have been held regularly by the Planning Department and Sustainable Santa Cruz County for the last few years.

Recent Advances in the Globalist Programs for Sustainable Development — In 2015 we are seeing two major events to promote and re-energize global population control, and a very curious confluence of globalist social engineering and the Roman Papacy. From Sept. 25 to 27 the UN will be holding its “Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda” conference at its New York headquarters, accompanied by an appearance of Pope Francis doing a formal presentation of his monumental ecologist encyclical “Laudato Si” (praised be). This conference is a clear extension of the Millennium Summit in 2000. Instead of the 8 “Millennium Development Goals” set there to be realized by 2015 (none have been), we are being given 17 this time, to be done by 2030. I will only share Goal 17 – “Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.” Suffice it to say that The Agenda for the 21st Century slogs on.

Then, from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11 in Paris, France, will come the massive propaganda onslaught of COP21, billed as “The UN Climate Conference.” Actually, COP stands for Conference of the Parties of the Kyoto Accords, so it’s interesting to see the event subsumed under the UN. While even the 2014 IPCC report, in its section on the real climate science, admitted that there has been no significant warming of the planet for the last 15 years or so (despite the desperate pleas of upcoming disaster contained in the report’s “summary for decision makers”), we are now being lobbied relentlessly about “climate change” by the corporate media (and NPR) to prepare us for a draconian “carbon suppression regime” they hope to create at this conference. Any “carbon” taxes arising at this 12-day event are rumored to be, for the first time, going directly to the UN (“a credible United Nations”).

I’ll briefly touch upon the apparent synchronicity of Pope Francis’ encyclical with the huge world effort to push the United Nations. While it’s easy to see why many people find some of the ideas expressed in it to be moving, even poetic, to me they seem rather diffuse and confusing. More than that, the Pope’s focus on pushing the need to respond immediately to a posited “climate crisis” and to problems eerily like those driving UN sustainable development, is quite striking. Some in the “climate reality” community are elated that the spiritual force of the Pope’s message may put their quest for a serious solution to carbon “pollution” over the top. If so, it will have been very convenient.

Bruce Tanner is a researcher, writer and videographer on deep politics, deep history and the structural nature of the (non-existent) ego. He and his wife Cynthia live in Santa Cruz, California, where they organized the local THRIVE Solutions Group. This article was originally published in Connection Magazine, Santa Cruz.

 

 

 

Is Pope Francis’ encyclical really about protecting “the planet and the poor?”

Email reply to a friend after being emailed links to an article by David Suzuki raving about Pope Francis’ encyclical “Laudato Si” and a link to the encyclical itself, which was described as “a rare mix of poetic beauty and the appropriate use of intelligent thought”:

Hi (name withheld),

I would urge you to do more research into what’s going on here. Suzuki has been pushing the AGW meme for quite some time now, in the face of, and without commenting on, peer-reviewed scientific papers that show that the temperature on Earth is driven primarily by the Sun’s magnetic field.

A French scientist, Philippe de Larminat, characterized by the MSM as a “climate doubter” (better than “denier” I guess) was barred from appearing in Rome at the April climate summit sponsored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences in preparation for the recent encyclical. As far as the proponents of AGW theory are concerned, there is no need to even look at evidence that suggests that it might be a major mistake to talk about taking the life-giving power of fuels containing carbon molecules away from people in the developing world, who desperately need them for survival.

I think I previously gave you a DVD with the documentary on the work of Henrik Svensmark, The Cloud Mystery, which covers the difficulties he had back in 2005-2006 publishing his peer-reviewed paper proving the energetic and chemical pathways by which cosmic rays create showers of particles called muons which cause the formation of microscopic nuclei for low-altitude clouds, which have the effect of cooling the Earth. An article I wrote on this back in 2010 can be found at https://berealtruth.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-cloud-mystery/. In that, I lay out the information in the documentary that shows persuasive evidence that the Earth has remained in regular cycles of heating and cooling for hundreds of millions of years, and has been cool within the parameters of these cycles even at times when there was more than 10 times the amount of CO2 presently in our atmosphere. You can read about Svensmark’s work and its implications in more detail in a book he co-authored with the great science author Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars.

Even Al Gore has admitted that the correlations between atmospheric temperatures and CO2 that he stressed in An Inconvenient Truth, show that the rise in CO2 lags behind the rises in temperature by a matter of years. You can also see the current work of retired NASA scientists to present information contesting the AGW theories at http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/. Another factor in the current rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is the dramatic uptick in volcanic activity we’re having worldwide, which greatly increases the amount of gasses being emitted.

The papal encyclical largely implies that there is a moral imperative to, in protecting our Earth Mother, do what we can to prevent climate disaster. He says this is particularly necessary to protect the impoverished of the world, without mentioning the potential disaster for them of any kind of “carbon” rationing regime. Also, if there is an imperative to protect the Earth and its people, why is there no mention of the ongoing geoengineering agenda which Dane Wigington has documented is now killing the forests of the world (not to mention poison us all with a cocktail of toxic heavy metals)?

Why has the Pope weighed in on this issue at this time, even going so far as to appear at the U.N. in concert with the upcoming conference on “the Post-2015 Sustainability Agenda” (i.e. an updated iteration of Agenda 21)? Could it be to provide momentum in preparation for the COP21 conference in Paris in Nov. and Dec.? Can it be that the global elite agenda needs to bring in a “carbon” suppression program rapidly now, before it becomes utterly obvious that the Earth, due to the drastic reduction in the solar magnetic field that’s been underway since the mid-1990’s, indicated by the very weak solar maximum last year, is most likely leading to a longer term cooling trend? This has been shown by the infamous “hiatus” that NOAA recently got caught cooking data in an attempt to try to deny is even happening. Even the 2014 IPCC report, which had a powerfully propagandistic “Summary for Decision Makers,” admitted that there has been no warming for 15 years in the scientific part of the report. Given that the IPCC has been pushing for draconian measures against the world population for nearly 2 decades, why would they include that information if it were not true?

I’m suggesting that there are reasons other than “settled science” and a need to protect the population of the world for what’s going on now. It doesn’t make sense to give the Vatican unquestioned moral leeway as somehow representing unimpeachable ethics, in the face of Rome’s history of controlling people over the centuries, including recent decades, and in particular, playing games with scientific knowledge. If the science were “settled,” why would people on the AGW bandwagon be rejoicing that this encyclical is the element that can push their efforts for control of the world population over the top? Shouldn’t the truth do that?

In Lak’ech,
Bruce

A Reply to a Question on “Chemtrail Debunking”

This is a response to a volunteer for the Coalition to End Toxic Aerosols (CETA) campaign. She was having a discussion by email with a friend, and her friend started sending her articles that, in her friend’s opinion, showed that Geoengineering is the product of the imaginations of that flaky and excitable species known as “Conspiracy Theorists.” One of the links she sent me to look at is: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/what-are-chemtrails.htm – My reply is below:


The article on How Stuff Works (such a cozy name for a website – simply some homey common sense…) is a professionally created propaganda piece. These types of articles are deliberately created to give people who don’t want to see what’s happening over their heads and consider its implications, because understanding the information would be devastating to their worldviews, an excuse to defer to the debunkers as experts. People then will present this propaganda to their friends that are just trying to tell them about real programs that are affecting the lives of them and their loved ones, to continue to fend off the bad news – news that calls into question the nature and trustworthiness of the government and the health systems, among other things. These types of articles generally never actually look at the data that people exposing the geoengineering agenda present. They give people pat answers that seem to make sense on the surface, but that don’t hold up on examination. I will list some of the data points that contradict this kind of thinking below:

1) The article is careful to stress that the people who say that something is being sprayed in the sky are Conspiracy Theorists. This should be a big clue to anyone reading this. The term was created by the CIA in the wake of the Warren Commission Report on the Kennedy assassination to scare people away from looking at the severe inconsistencies and implausibilities of that cover up.

2) Contrails have always been made of ice particles, appearing at high altitudes where the air is very cold. There is a formula for calculating how long they will linger based on altitude, barometric pressure, temperature and humidity. The laws of physics have not changed suddenly at the end of the 1990’s. Contrails do not linger for hours from horizon to horizon and spread out to create dead-looking scummy clouds that often have strange rainbow hues in them where they refract the sun.

3) The materials from the geoengineering spray have been observed to precipitate to the ground and can be observed as major flurries of powders, tiny fibers, or even web-like strands that can cover large areas of ground. These materials have been gathered and tested and they contain the usual suspects: Aluminum oxide and salts, Barium and Strontium salts and other heavy metals, as well as other man-made substances.

4) People have gotten very sick and died after heavy spraying in some places. In Britain in the early 2000’s there was a wave of spraying that jammed the emergency rooms, and so many people died that they needed to bring in refrigerated trucks to use as temporary morgues.

5) Modern High-Bypass Fan Jet Engines are almost incapable of leaving contrails except under the most extreme conditions – The turbo fans that are the main drivers of the engines force massive volumes of non-combusted air around the center combustion chamber, which dry out the exhaust and cool it down, inhibiting the formation of ice particles.

6) Engines have always left other particulates and chemicals in their exhausts. Why did they start appearing differently around 1996 or so? Some analysts have said that more modern engines actually burn cleaner. Again, the laws of physics did not change.

7) People in many locations have tracked the air traffic of the planes leaving geoengineering plumes. Most of them do not appear in logs of commercial traffic. Many of them are flying in prohibited military airspace. The planes also leave their aerosols in obvious weather formations where parallel or grid patterns will appear in concentrated areas that have demonstrated potential to affect weather systems. I have personally seen massive sets of parallel plumes sprayed over Death Valley, the high Sierras, and Baja California, where clear skies in the mornings were completely whited out by the afternoons in areas where there was no logical reason for commercial air traffic.

8) The ingredients of the aerosol plumes have been found in air, on surfaces, in running and standing water, in snow and in the soil. In the soil, aluminum and barium have been found around structures, but not in the soil beneath them. It raises the ph level in soil. In Shasta County, Francis Mangels has found that the soil has generally gone from around 5.8 ph to 6.7 – he’s found much high alkalinity in some places. This raised alkalinity is inhibiting the ability of plants to absorb nutrients and shrubs and trees are dying even where water is plentiful around creeks, etc. The materials have been found in newly created ponds at very high levels. In streams around Shasta the aquatic insect life has been reduced 90 percent or more and fish are starving. Mangels also found aluminum at 61,000 parts per billion in snow on Mt. Shasta. This is not a form of aluminum that occurs in nature, it’s been refined and processed.

9) There are many patents for doing geoengineering that call for precisely the materials that are being found in the wake of the spraying. The patents call for nano-particulates (in some patents smaller than 10 microns) which will float in the sky as long as possible. Nano-particulates have special chemical properties. They are immediately absorbed by the capillaries in the lungs and enter the bloodstream, where they cross the blood-brain barrier without interference. These materials are found in peoples’ blood and hair samples. Nano-particulates are also explosively flammable, which gives an explanation for the much hotter and more dangerous wildfires that have been observed and commented on by fire-fighters in many places.

10) Kristen Meghan, who was an Air Force Base Bio-Environmental Engineer, is a whistle blower who has come forward at great risk to her own safety. She saw the inventory manifests of the geoengineering materials that were coming onto her base, as well as the biological tests on the Air Men and Women on the base that showed the presence of these materials in their bodies.

11) There are dozens of photographs of different kinds of spraying equipment installed inside what appear to be passenger-type jets. Some show patent numbers on the tanks which correspond to patents on environmental aerosol processes.

12) One of the features of the “Polar Vortex” in the Eastern U.S. and other freak storms is the fall of what’s sometimes called “wet snow” that doesn’t melt in a normal way, when the temperatures are above freezing, even up into the low 50’s. People have noticed that this snow often has a chemical smell.

People don’t seem to remember what natural weather looks like anymore. Many younger people have never seen it during their lifetimes. Many don’t want to look at the sky now. How to help people realize what’s going on directly over their heads is a great challenge for us. For instance, I don’t recommend forwarding this email to your friend. You possibly need to spend time with your friends and find out what their core concerns are before trying to present them with specific information. It’s likely that they have fears about issues that stand in the way of being able to listen to ideas that trigger them. Listening is something that needs to go both ways. If you can master deep listening you will likely find the dynamics of your conversations shifting.

It’s important to understand that programs with these kinds of massive impacts will pervade all social institutions. The people who are doing this know that their actions are wrong. It only makes sense to speculate that they’ll use all of the resources at their disposal to keep people from knowing what’s happening or from interfering with their strategies.

And here is a link to a talk by Geoengineering whistle blower Kristen Meghan, in which she comments on the “debunking” sites Metabunk and Contrail Science. Those sites are part of a network of sites all put up by one man who many believe is a government disinfo operative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA&spfreload=10

Learning to share controversial information is an art.

There is No “Government”

This is a comment that I put up on Foster Gamble’s recent blog post: PEOPLE STANDING FOR JUSTICE
(http://www.thrivemovement.com/people-standing-justice.blog)

If we look at it carefully, there is actually no such “thing” as government. What we call government is an organized structure composed of people using the concept of government as an organizational principle under their direction. Under this principle, the preservation and actualization of the imaginary structure of government itself is the preeminent imperative. The constantly propagandized need for this structure is the multifaceted and mind-numbing justification for the use of whatever means are necessary to protect and preserve, not the people who are supposedly subjects of the government, but the government structure itself. Whatever means necessary include the use of lethal force. History shows that the levels of lethal force used are limited only by the technological tools at the disposal of government actors and their ability to control the reactions and consciences of the governed. The latter is sometimes called manufacturing consent.

While the population can work, often at the cost of extreme suffering and sacrifice, to limit the irrationality and violence of the structures to which they’re subject, we see that over time people taking the role of government officials always tend to enlarge the scope of their powers, as well as the power of the technology and systems they control. The nature of the government concept inevitably attracts people without ethics against the misuse of power into pursuing power in its structure. In fact, the only way to succeed in rising to power is to abandon ethical considerations and, again, to use the means necessary to prevail over other state officials. As John Trudell said, “Their violence works. It hardly ever fails.”

A simple analytic for the validity and legitimacy of human behavior is to see if it involves violence or aggression toward other people or toward living systems. If it does, then we must be called by clear realization to not support it, whatever the rationale or justifications. As people seem to be realizing very rapidly now, it is impossible for us, however lofty our notions or rhetoric, to reach an ethical result through unethical or aggressive behaviors. This is not a matter of compiling a complicated set of rules, but by a clear seeing of what’s going on under our noses. Adopting such a simple ethic is certainly not the easiest course for our egos to take. It can be very rigorous and demanding. On the other hand, if we really want to transcend the cycles of violence and increasing suffering and destruction in which we’re now embedded, this ethical consistency and determination will be more easy than any other alternative

My Comment on Chuck Norris’ article arguing against “allowing” Americans to use cannabis

Cannabis_Saddhu

Posted at: http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/chuck-norris-smokes-marijuana-debate/

Cannabis has more than 60 phytocannabinoids, molecules that dock with receptors in every organ system in the human body and tend to contribute to our health in many ways. No other plant on Earth has been found to contain more than one of these substances. Cannabis has been used as a medicine and psychotropic REMEDY and sacrament by cultures all over Asia, Europe and Africa for thousands of years. The Constitution clearly says that the U.S. Government only has the limited powers specifically granted to it in the document, which do not include controlling what people use for their health, physical or psychological.

People who use cannabis tend to see things outside of the boxes that Americans tend to be forced into mentally by our, arguably pathological and dominating, culture. Many of the positive aspects of the 60’s youth culture were no doubt due to this effect. When cannabis was (Unconstitutionally) “outlawed,” under the influence of industries that competed with non-psychoactive industrial hemp, 30% of the medicines sold in pharmacies in the U.S. contained cannabis. What is the true explanation of why it was suppressed? What possible legitimate justification or jurisdiction is there for people who disagree with its use, to dominate users through lethal force, imprisonment, property theft or other social sanctions?

Thanks-God-for-Cannabis

Michael Hastings demise was no accident – his car was BOMBED

Car-morningAfter

Please, this was not “a suspicious car accident.”

The photo above clearly shows that Michael Hastings car was bombed. The entire front of the driver’s side of the car has been blown away.

The video linked HERE, from LoudLabs News, shows clearly that Hastings’ car hood was not crumpled from striking the palm tree, but blown away from the drivers side of the car and did not even hit the tree. MORE THAN THAT it also shows that the driver’s side front quarter of the car WAS GONE, and not even touching the tree (no serious impact damage to the palm).

The video and the photo above show that the front of the car up to the drivers side door wasn’t there. Moreover, his engine and transmission were blown 60 yards down the road, not in the direction of his car supposedly striking the tree. They landed on the far curb of the 4-lane road with no skid marks. His front right wheel was also down the road in the direction the car was traveling when “something happened.” See diagram of crash scene HERE

The tranny of the car extended well back into the passenger compartment, implying that the powerful explosive was likely placed below the passenger compartment, in order to provide the momentum to blow the drive train 60 yards forward and to clear the firewall upward doing it.

It’s time to stop pussy-footing around about this event. Hastings was assassinated.

The Multiple Prongs of Agenda 21 (slight return)

Agenda_21_Cover-500px

The Multiple Prongs of Agenda 21 (slight return)

Agenda 21 is an action plan or blueprint for a future desired by its creators. This desired future is shrouded in feel good environmentally protective development and innovation, otherwise referred to as green, green movement, and/or environmentalism. Sadly, Agenda 21 is an utter ruse for representing, to many activists and activist groups, a darkly dystopian future as being utopian. There is a larger picture to Agenda 21 that many people either refuse to acknowledge or are determined to deny.

Agenda 21 is one of several pincers in a concerted program. Most people don’t realize precisely what Agenda 21 does, and many don’t acknowledge that it will be a nightmare for the vast majority of humanity. Unless you’re a Bureaucrat, Technocrat, Bismarkianist or member of the elites, as well as a psychopath/sociopath, Agenda 21 is nowhere near a utopia. Its principle underlying tenet is rigid control, with the destruction of rights, liberties and freedoms and their transformation into mere privileges at the discretion of those in control.

Unfortunately, Agenda 21 is much more sophisticated, as it is coupled with multiple prongs that implement its active development. The first is Bismarkianism; this is a three-stage process using a bait and switch to manipulate people into tolerating and accepting expansion of centralized control through globalized governance.

The first stage is socialism, as this creates incentives for the populace to support implementation of public-private partnerships, rewarding fiefdoms, and granting benefits that pacify the populace. Once this stage is in place, public relations or propaganda is used to shift into national socialism that entails making many of these public-private partnerships into permanent parts of the state apparatus.

It isn’t much of a stretch to speculate that after the next economic crisis strikes the United States, public-private partnerships will start becoming fully merged. It looks like the first solid official merger will be of government with banking, through the Federal Reserve. With this centralized public-private government-banking partnership, established in 1913, and with the addition of the corrupt and unprosecuted fraud of designating banks as Too Big To Fail, the result will be a private banking authority with official state power. Public-Private mergers can then repeat this Progressive meme to enable the acceptance of the official establishment of totalitarianism, the creation of an invisible oligarchy with absolute authority.

Some readers may be skeptical about this. However, this will facilitate the approaching “democracy” movement. Masses will be manipulated into denying the rights of various minorities. Congress will become little more than a rubber-stamp under the President’s authority, no longer a separate Constitutional body with checks and balances separating it from the “Unitary Executive.” Centralization will be able to further entrench itself through welfare and warfare aka bribes and “security.” This is perhaps the main mechanism driving Agenda 21, as it combines welfare, interstate commerce, re-interpretation of the supremacy clause, and national security.

The next prong is the Malthusian and Eugenicist merger and re-imaging of Eugenics through Neo-Malthusianism and women’s health/reproductive health. The Neo-Malthusianism prong is perhaps the most hidden of the prongs, though with more visible components such as women’s health/reproductive rights and transhumanism. These prongs would not be complete without the supranational/universalist movements. This is where Agenda 21 operates as a supranational action plan to be coordinated through local implementation, completely altering the Constitutional relationships of local, state and national governments to become regional government “stewards” or soviets of the supranational body. In this particular case, the supranational body and its subsidiaries will be evolved from the United Nations.

These make up a non-exhaustive list of the prongs of Agenda 21 and what they are designed to do. This is to consolidate and expand power behind a centralized authority under the control of the global elites.

Agenda 21 is not compatible with inherent individual rights and freedoms. It is a Collectivist movement. One of humanity’s oldest struggles is between individualism and Collectivism under elite control.

The difference between a collective and a community is that: In a community a group of individuals live in proximity to one another and people work together through cooperation for mutual benefit, protection, and livelihood. Collectives operate under mandates for each individual to accept “rights and responsibilities” dictated by the governing body, which creates separate categories of individuals with different statuses in order to promote its control. This is divide and rule, like a hive or ant colony, not a community. Every individual’s benefit to the Collective is really his or her benefit to the governing regime; the individual is of little to no inherent value in such a system.

In the movie Swordfish, the John Travolta character asks “If you could cure cancer but had to kill one child, could you kill that child?” The Collectivist answer is not only a resounding ‘YES!’ it also dictates that the child should gladly be willing to die, even in great pain “for the greater good.” Why is this relevant? Agenda 21 strips individuals of their unalienable rights, liberties, and freedoms and instead grants them privileges and responsibilities at the governing regime’s discretion. This is slavery. The whole march of the United States toward the despotism, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism of a Police State, and the erosion of the Constitution, which supposedly exists to protect natural rights, is driven by Agenda 21, with its Neo-Malthusianism and planned full merging of public-private partnerships under state authority. In fact, Agenda 21 names every human being in the world, as well as everything in Nature, as only a piece of capital and a resource to be inventoried and allocated. This is an enslavement designed to force people to love, yearn for, and even insist on the servitude of all, the ultimate triumph of Collectivism.

Agenda 21 is an action plan that is being implemented at the local level but is derived from the supranational institution of the United Nations; it is a plan or blueprint designed to turn us all into collective capital and resources. We are to be enslaved with privileges that can be revoked in an instant at the whim of any bureaucrat placed over us by the elite consensus, and with the forced responsibility to do their bidding. Agenda 21 is shrouded in feel good activism from the environmental/green movement; its implementation can only be halted through informing ourselves about what Agenda 21 is and refusing to comply with its implementation.

Agenda 21 operates under the rubric of sustainable development that plans for environmental accounting of human, land and resources in the interests of the Collective. It mandates that every human project needs to be given permission by the soviet control apparatus. Every one of us is to be only a resource under the control and allocation of sustainable development. Bill Gates once announced that the only way to bring down CO2 emissions will be to bring population, consumption and production down to near zero. Sustainable Development effectively means suppressing class mobility, consumption, freedom and, ultimately, population. These policies will result in widespread starvation, war, poisoning and despair. This means that Agenda 21 is an action plan hiding its true intentions behind a smokescreen of feel good activism to enable its full tyrannical implementation in the name of environmental welfare.

 Adapted with liberties from: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/the-multiple-prongs-of-agenda-21.html

What is Voluntaryism?

Poster_Board-e-700

What is Voluntaryism?

“The thought of how much the human race would have advanced without government simply staggers the imagination.”  Doug Casey, 1979

Voluntaryism is a name for a new model of human organization that can revolutionize world society to release people’s untapped and suppressed potentials.

Introduction from Voluntaryist.com: “Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people’s ideas about the State. The Voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end.”

The converse of Voluntaryism is often called Statism, or the idea there can exist a collective authority that supersedes the authority of individuals.

This Statist ideology pervades our culture and our world. This situation is often accepted by us as simply being “the way it is.” If we look at this carefully and clearly however, we’ll see that “the State” can only ever be a conceptual fiction under which individual humans act using this imagined collective authority. This has developed and has been perpetuated over thousands of years by rulers and their minions, who were under the erroneous and delusional impression that it created advantages for them that made their lives easier and more prestigious.

  • It seems reasonable to speculate that over these many generations of living under governments, there have been intelligent yet psychopathic members of the power elite who have recognized the utility of more social control – of enhancing the hypnotic power of the imaginary institutions they command through psychological manipulation of the populations, the bureaucratic minions and enforcers, and even of those believing themselves the nobility or legitimate leaders.

Because most of us have accepted that this collective power is The Way It Is, we are conditioned to shy away from the consideration that it is never legitimate for us to give this imaginary State invasive privileges that we can’t exercise as individuals.

If people are to be responsible for providing their own abundance, then it is arguably in our own best interest that those around us are as strong and capable as possible, so society can flourish as a whole. Harming others’ abilities to perceive life with clarity and think critically about what they see would therefor only be hurting ourselves. Another corollary to this is the idea that when we attack others, we also feel attacked ourselves at a subconscious level. What goes around, comes around. We then live in a world of fear. This fear is increased if we face irrational, authoritarian, defensive and psychopathic behaviors by “Leaders,” “Representatives,” or officers invested with a belief in their power over us.

  What we now experience as the “educational system” is a highly sophisticated product of many generations of psychological enhancement that operates directly counter to what common sense will tell us will build a strong society.

To truly come into my own power, I must first accept others coming into theirs without any conditions or personal preferences.

  In our current model, we are hypnotically addicted to the idea that we must attain preeminence over others.

  • If I want to promote this unspoken necessity for power, a set of hidden strategies tends to be constantly generated and updated in my mindspace.
  • I tend to see people not as the unknowable mysteries they are, but only as resources for getting advantages prioritized in my hidden strategies. If I don’t see them as having value for gaining preeminence, they have no interest or value for me.
  • Crucially, to advance in rank in society, one needs to serve the interests of people above oneself in the pecking order. This begs the question of just what is being served when one rises to the top of an institution.

In order to open the flow of energies (goods and services) from others – and from Source – I need to open my inner source, for energies to flow outward, producing value that is under demand by my fellow beings.

  Because of the repressive strategies used by people operating “under color” of authority – Typically as “governments” or government-privileged institutions, i.e. corporations – we are now impeded from offering many kinds of essential goods or services that can potentially solve critical issues we now face.

  • Governments generally claim monopoly power to represent the interests of people, often called “citizens,” within the conceptual area – i.e. “State” – over which they claim to have “jurisdiction” – or control. Marc Stevens teaches that “the State” claims legitimacy as a “body politic” which has jurisdiction over citizens: “persons” who make a pledge of allegiance in return for the State’s duty of protection. However, within the U.S. no court has ever ruled that government has incurred any liability for failure to protect its citizens.

One area in which people such as Marc Stevens are producing value for others is in teaching them to protect themselves from invasion and usurpation of their time and energies by people trying to use others to gain illegitimate advantages for themselves. Ultimately, these kinds of services can develop into voluntarily accessed alternatives for many of the functions of “governments.”

  This is highly inconvenient to the purveyors of the worldwide system of control by violence. The system is now coming under the unprecedented threat of the awakening of populations the elite ruling consensus depend on to provide the skills and energy to maintain their hegemony.

  It seems that now, in the early 21st Century, the control agenda has become so developed and pervasive that it is threatened by the arising of any human capabilities not under direct control of the elites. In particular, new ideas in the areas of energy, health, agriculture, social organization and human development directly menace the interlocking institutions of repression.

  • As new technologies emerge to empower the “peasant classes” to transcend their dependence on entrenched systems, Statist cabals will be driven to choose between escalating their use of violence, or acquiescing to change.

The idea of political power is that any means necessary must be employed to enroll the levels of agreement and compliance in the population to attain desired political goals. This amounts to coerced control; war by other means. Once a political process has secured the impression of agreement, or “manufactured consensus,” then State violence is employed in enforcing “democratic” policy. In this sense, political methods violate the basic principles of Voluntaryism.

  As to how we can “get there from here,” the specific pathways are not yet clear. However, if we commit ourselves and adhere to the principles of Voluntaryism, this clarity is certain to emerge. If we steadfastly refrain from violation of others’ lives, are faithful to voluntary agreements we make, and are always open to feedback, criticism, and correction of mistakes, methods of development and social organization we’re not yet aware of will be found. If we lose our resolution and cut corners, we will return to the descending course of our increasingly dangerous fall into corruption.

The transition to an all-voluntary society is the paradigm shift that most of humankind now intuits is coming. The idea is radical: going to the root of the delusions and illusory goals that have plagued us throughout history. Yet at the same time, it is very simple. As we go on, we will feel and intuit more easily those times when thoughts arise of acting in violation of the Sacred Space of others. Avoiding those mistakes, we will gradually feel more free, and more unencumbered with troubled consciences and fears. As these skills begin to become realized, we’ll be on the verge of entering a new world.

What is Voluntaryism? Click to download a PDF version of this article.

Are You a Voluntaryist? Click to download an 8 1/2″ x 11″ PDF of the flyer above the article.

in Order to form a more perfect union… (a discussion)

In_Order_to_form
This is a discussion that we had on a local activist email list in June:


(list member 1):
As I understand it, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the law of the land, it is our form of government. It is not a partisan issue. It is said to be at the balanced center of govt control and none.
Of course they make it a party issue, and those wanting less control or more will not cease to push it in their desired direction.
LM1
___
(my reply):
What does “the law of the land” mean? Is that a legal term? What IS the United States of America? It can’t be “the land,” because that was obviously here a while before 1776.

If The Constitution for the United States of America is “our form of government,” how did we become party to it? Is it a contract that is binding on us, and if so, what is the evidence that we are parties to it? As I understand it, when it was created, of the 42 delegates remaining at the time of the document’s adoption, 35 were trained as attorneys. It’s generally stated by people writing about the drafting that the document was signed by 39 of the drafters, who, if so, would then be actual contractual parties to a formal agreement. However, if you look at the bottom of the signed parchment, it clearly says “In Witness (HUGE LETTERS) whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names”- So, the “signers,” almost 90% of whom were trained as attorneys and well aware of the legal significance of their signatures, were witnesses, not bound by the document.

The 14 states that ratified it did that through simple majority votes of state conventions that, like the populations that elected them, were exclusively white, male property owners. How, exactly, did the incredibly small (the state conventions ran from 26 to 271 delegates each) portion of the populations of the states they “represented,” derive the lawful authority to bind the entire population that happened to live on a patch of land that preexisted the formation of the “body politic” that actually composed “the state” to The Constitution? And, even if you think that a binding contractual agreement was, somehow, thereby created at that time, what is the evidence proving the agreement, made by men who are now dead well over 150 years, now binds us to that contract? Why should anyone have ANY control over anyone else other than to be able to stay them from violating their lives?

What exactly is this “state?” Where does it derive it’s “just powers,” and are those powers created only by a voluntary agreement of all parties?

Taking a rigid position that now, faced with unprecedented social, practical and environmental stessors, we need to return to a legal structure created under wildly different circumstances and with a very different population than we have today, may not be wise. The government supposedly “limited” by The Constitution has certainly not been stopped short of extreme invasions of lives, both of “foreigners” and of “citizens.” The point seems to me to be to focus merely on preventing violations against others lives rather than on “governing.” In particular, it seems that knowledge of the crucial nature of learning how to have a society governed solely through voluntary agreements, always by all parties to such contracts, is what should guide us now to a truly balanced center.

Bottom line: Does such a thing as a “government” really exist at all? If your answer is yes, how do you defend its legitimacy?

These are the questions facing us in this time,
Bruce
___
(list member 1):
Down the rabbit hole we go. You bring up excellent questions. What to do now is the big elephant question in the room, and certainly learning from the past is part of it.
Webster’s 1828 + 1913 dictionary defines government as:

Gov”ern*ment (?), n. [F. gouvernement. See Govern.]

1. The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation; as, civil, church, or family government.

2. The mode of governing; the system of polity in a state; the established form of law.

I suppose it all (the Constitution) came about by the guys that jumped on it and there were many bystanders or just unrepresented parties not participating in the process. So it happened. If it can all be disqualified from the onset or some time around the Constitutional Convention, we still need to figure out what to do now.
LM1
___
(list member 2):
The way I see it, the Constitution a way of saying “we recognize the rights all are born with, and will protect them”. The constitution does not represent our rights, it’s really more like an oath.
Personally, the work I do is to preserve and protect those unalienable rights- and while the Constitution is an excellent document proclaiming protection of those rights it’s still only that- a document. It’s the spirit behind that document that makes it more than “just a piece of paper”.
That spirit is, I believe, the key to it all. That spirit is love, honor, bravery, and integrity.

Note: It’s rather interesting that the word “government” can be broken down into 2 parts, “Govern” which in Latin means to control, and “Ment” which in Latin means mind…. This of course is being hotly debated, could it really be just a coincidence??
LM2
___
(my second reply):
I would prefer not to be questioning the ideas of people for whom The Constitution symbolizes cherished values, but I think it’s time to look at these things with the rose colored glasses off.

Do you think that saying “we recognize the rights all are born with, and will protect them” was the intention of the trained attorneys drafting the Constitution? If that’s the case, why was the Supreme Court then made into a monopoly gatekeeper on a court system that has consistently ruled that the government has no responsibility to protect anyone?

What is this idea of “rights” in the first place? The first principles of natural law are to do no harm to others and honor your agreements with them, essentially meaning don’t use aggression or deceit. Don’t these two principles embody ALL of the so-called rights? Putting a handful of cases in enigmatic legalese into a Bill of Rights simply further muddied the waters. Under a truly effective system of law (what Common Law could be), there should be a remedy for all harms done. This is impossible under a thicket of statutes that provide ample room for all kinds of chicanery and evasion, to the point where major violators are given retroactive “immunity” from having to redress the damage they’ve done, etc.

Warm and fuzzy feelings about our noble founders good intentions (gone bad) will not go to the heart of the matters we face. A structure of government is created by people whose intent is to govern, or as you point out, control, society (i.e. the peasants, us). The spirit we need now, in my opinion, is one of unequivocally honoring the integrity of others, recognizing that when we don’t the person most harmed by the omissions is ourselves. If we have such a spirit (and volumes can – and probably will – be written about it’s meanings and implications) a “special piece of paper,” the meanings of which are stretched, ignored and disputed in order to gain illusory advantages by invading others’ lives, becomes a distraction from the truth of the immediate situation right now.

The obfuscation of the present moment is what has lead to a situation where a battle to “control of the minds” of the population of the world is proceeding apace. People must know in their bones that being invaded is not acceptable, and be allowed to see when that’s happening to themselves or others. When that spirit emerges and pervades society, the sanguine honoring of sacred documents will become irrelevant. In order for that to happen, we first must, each, stop pushing anyone else into circumstances or agreements they don’t enter into voluntarily, with full disclosure.

Just possibly, though I’m highly skeptical, The Framers were trying to do the best they could in 1787. However, quite evidently, it didn’t work. They created a document that merely masqueraded as a social contract. What we need now is some kind of social contract that people can become members to voluntarily (or not) and leave at their will if they find it has been misrepresented or changed behind their backs. This would be a free market, providing services to members that are not compulsory. It is not clear how we can do this, yet from my perspective this is the mission we must choose to accept.

Bruce

Gun Violence and the Spell Cast by Santa Cruz “Government”

Graphic for blogOn Tuesday, Feb. 26, the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors met to deliberate on the second phase of John Leopold’s initiative to, as he claims, protect the people of his County from the dangers presented by gun stores. While there was a storm of interest in the Jan. 15th initial unanimous passage of Leopold’s proposed Moratorium on gun store permits, on Tuesday by the time the Supervisors had conducted a lengthy County Workers’ Awards ceremony and a presentation on solid waste management, along with a lunch break, there were only a handful of people left to observe the vetting of the proposed new ordinance.

The ordinance had been brought to the Board by County Counsel Dana McRae on a tight timeline to meet with the deadline on the soon-to-expire 45-day Moratorium. Along with the Supervisors’ approval for moving forward on the new ordinance, they also approved an extension on the Moratorium. This will essentially end the hopes of the applicants who’d applied for a permit to open their gun store in Live Oak.

The ordinance text from McRae includes many provisions culled from other counties’ gun-safety ordinances, most of which are common-sense and general standard practice for gun stores. However, it also includes mandatory “set-backs” requiring that stores be sited varying distances from Schools, Day-care Centers and Parks. A map on the wall of the Chambers showed the impact that these set-backs would have on available locations for new gun businesses in Live Oak. These showed that approximately half of the area would be off-limits under the proposed ordinance.

When comments were allowed from the very few remaining onlookers, I pointed out that the set-back provisions had no reasonable effect on public safety, and merely interfered with their constituents’ freedom to govern their own lives. However, as if to underscore the Supervisors’ power to control peoples’ “land-use,” when instructing Counsel on the language to bring back to the Supervisors the next week for a first-reading of the new ordinance, John Leopold asked that an additional set-back of 300 feet from any areas zoned as residential be added to the ordinance. I suspect that this will not leave much of Live Oak available for siting gun stores.

What (or who) is benefitted by these provisions of the proposed ordinance related specifically to places associated with children? The primary effect I see is that guns are again associated in the public mind with a need to “protect the children” from “gun violence.” The Supervisors deny that this initiative by them has anything to do with the anti-gun hysteria sweeping America. The upshot is a continuing amplification of a push from a nationally Federalized governmental administrative structure (including the corporate media) to manage the American people using duplicity, public relations and fear.

It’s highly synchronous that this meeting took place on the same day that Santa Cruz had both an anti-gun demonstration at the Town Clock (at which Supervisor Leopold spoke) and the brutal murders of two police officers by gun-fire. The dramatic shootings, unlike the many recent incidents in which women, men and even young people have defended their lives and families with guns, became national news, adding to a general perceived urgency to “do something NOW to end gun-violence.” While such feelings are understandable, there doesn’t seem to be much, if any, informed discussion of the situation around our Constitutional possession of arms, particularly in the context of a Federal government which uses its military might to murder children around the world for political expedience. The policies recently announced by Sec. of State John Kerry, among others, to directly provide weapons to the “rebels” in Syria who are murdering Syrian civilians wholesale, are one example of the ongoing hypocrisy which is not mentioned. Most people who seem unconcerned about the possibility of malfeasance by a government that purports itself to be responsible for protecting us, are not aware of the concerted effects of encroaching surveillance, militarization of our police under Federal command, and “laws” like the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, the NDAA and Barack Obama’s 1,000 over-reaching Executive Orders which seem to outline the structures of something that resembles a dictatorship.

It’s perhaps also synchronous that the Feb. 26 Supervisors meeting also included the unanimous approval by them of the Santa Cruz County Climate Action Plan, a 158 page document that will cause unknown impacts on Santa Cruzans’ way of life for years to come. The origins of this plan are shrouded in obscurity, while County planners claim that it is in response to California mandates designed to take action on “climate change.” They say the science is not subject to debate. As the Supes voted to make this unwieldy document County policy, Board Chairman Neal Coonerty said something to the effect that “Even if the (climate) premises of this are wrong, it’s better to err on the side of caution” – even if the well-being of the people they purport to represent is violently compromised.

In the cases of the upcoming gun store ordinance and of the Climate Action Plan, we have been given almost no information about what is being done in our names. If you choose to take a half a day out of your busy life to attend a semi-weekly Tuesday morning meeting, you may be given three minutes to respond to the business of “your” county government. Almost no one was there to do that this week when these important measures were rubber-stamped.