A Simple and Short Explanation of How United Nation’s Agenda 21 Sustainable Development Has Slowly Taken Over American Cities

The best way to tell how United Nation’s Agenda 21 Sustainable Development is taking over our American cities is to give an example.   Let’s take a look at one American city: Garland, Texas.  An explanation given by a Garland citizen of over 30 years:

He starts his explanation by reminding us about the strong government push for DART years ago.   It might occur to you, as it has to some of us Garlandites, to think of such a massive amount of money being spent by Local, State and Federal entities to build a rail system which transports no one.  It goes from nowhere to nowhere.  If you watch the trains and the stations, you can immediately see that this is a system which must be heavily subsidized in order to run. It is not making money (typical Government entity).

So, why build such a system?  Good question.
This is where Agenda 21/ICLEI becomes relevant.  Because, the thrust of A21 is to move people into “high density” environments.  The ultimate goal is to bare most of the USA and have it to be off-limits to humans.  All in the name of “Saving the Planet”.

Now that Garland has heavily invested in a rail system but has no one to transport, it launches the next phase—the building of  government (translates
taxpayer) subsidized apartment complexes.  Garland has to get people to the train stations!

Garland has traditionally been a “bedroom community”.  I was first aware of Garland in 1957—it was where people lived but who worked elsewhere in the growing MetroPlex.  Eventually, Garland developed light and some heavy industries and gained fame as a place to purchase automobiles.

Enter the next phase—only in recent times, of course.  Get rid of automobile facilities—of all kinds—and cause people to become dependent upon
Dart!

The City Staff guided this operation.  It convinced the Council (which readily voted “yes”) to establish an “over-lay” on most of downtown, aimed specifically at all things automotive.  This meant, in simple terms, that if an automotive  concern closed its doors for just over 60 days, it could no longer open as an  automotive concern.  Or, if the business were sold, that property could no longer be used as an automotive concern.

Next, the same tactic was planned for  Garland Road and for Forest Lane.  Fortunately, by this time, there was enough concern raised that the Automotive Community arose in unified protest and nixed this over-lay plan.

But the City Staff was busy.  It discovered that it could by-pass any citizen implications by enacting TIFs, in order to collect taxes for continuing its program of pushing automotive and any other “objectionable” business out of these two areas.   By by-passing re-zoning, which would have brought people out to contest such action, the City was able to put into motion the machinery to eventually force businesses out of those areas which  it deems to be “The Gateways Into Garland”.

TIFs instantly inflate the value of properties within their boundaries.  No new taxes—understand!  Just increased “value” to those properties.  This means that those properties now will have to pay more taxes, which accrue to allow the City to proceed with its project of increasing high density ousing and other  features which will contribute to the DART system.

The more the values of the TIF enhanced properties increase, the more tax dollars accrue.  The more taxes those property owners  have to pay, the less viable their business and non-business  properties become.  Eventually, they will be forced to sell.   Hence…the City has achieved its goal of gaining access to  properties which further the Agenda 21 goals.

This tactic flies in the face of the Fundamental Right of USA citizens—To Have and To Enjoy THEIR Properties!

Since Garland built the “5th Street Crossing” (a Public-Private Partnership of high density mixed used apartments on top and shops on bottom), I have watched  persons who live there.  Garland has traditionally been a  family-oriented city.  The new apartments do not reflect this  value at all.  These are not stable families which are contributing to the health of Garland,  They are “commuter”
(transient) persons.

How is this helping the health of Residents and Business and Property Owners of Garland?

What will be the result of this high density push?

All of this was done going against free enterprise.   The market did not choose nor wanted to support these type of developments.   All of these projects had to be driven by government and paid for by high and/or unnecessary and/or hidden taxes.   Many of these projects have or are destroying small businesses and private property rights of the citizens and business owners of Garland.

One examples of these taxes are higher rates in electricity in Garland Power & Light to be siphoned off to a special fund called Economic Development Reserve created specifically to help facilitate growth within Garland.   17 million dollars to be exact to be used for one downtown project and given to a private company (Oaks, L.L.C) for capital to build mixed use apartments.  Mixed use apartments means residence apartments over ground floor retail shops.

Why does Garland electric ratepayers have to pay high dollar for electricity, so the government of Garland can use our over-payments to decide the winners and losers of development and what kind of develop in Garland?

Why the choice of mixed use?  We already have Garland homegrown retailers and restaurants downtown.   Why do we need to bring more competition to an already suffering market?   How will bringing in outside retailers/owners of major chains suppose to help the growth of Garland and Garland folks’ piggy banks?

2 Comments

Filed under Articles

21 Truths About Agenda 21 & Sustainable Development

This is a good posting by Darin Moser from American Alert - Exposing the truth behind Agenda 21, Globalism, and Sustainable Development

1) From the largest metropolitan  cities to the smallest towns of Main Street America, communities all across our  nation are being influenced with a new political philosophy known as  Sustainable Development and its primary framework for implementation called Agenda  21.
2) Agenda 21 is the global blueprint of implementation for Sustainable Development  devised by the United Nations and was signed by 178 world leaders at the Earth  Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.

3) Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 call for a complete  re-orientation of the world system of governance in every area in which human  impacts on the environment.

4) Sustainable Development, like Communism or Fascism, is a  doctrine or philosophy of governance complete with its own agenda, beliefs, and  goals.
5)  On June 29th, 1993 President  Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 creating The President’s Council on Sustainable Development.  This step began the full-scale implementation of  Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development within the United States of America.

6) Sustainable Development is entrenched  throughout our government at every level from federal, state and regional  agencies to county, city and community councils and planning boards.

7) Sustainable Development or “Sustainability”  is often promoted with the environmental message of “going green”, or “being a  good steward” but in reality there is actually a much, much deeper political  philosophy of control and governance at work.

8) Sustainable Development is a  political philosophy that is built upon three pillars.   These three pillars are known as the “3E’s”, or “the triple bottom line”.  The three pillars of sustainable development  are Ecological Integrity, Economic Prosperity and Social Equity.

9) Sustainable Development demands that  the perfect balance of the triple bottom line” be the deciding lens through which all community development,  growth, and decisions are viewed. All growth which fails to achieve this  perfect balance is considered unsustainable.

10) Communities are being drawn down  the path of Sustainable Development by the lure of numerous monetary grants and  incentives from state and federal government agencies as well as non-governmental  organizations.
11) Sustainable  Development views traditional capitalism and the American way of life as a failing  and inequitable system that must be replaced with a new governance system in  order to achieve sustainability and a just world.

12) An  overwhelming number of businesses and corporations have began shifting to a Sustainable  Development operational model and in so doing have rejected the traditional  “bottom line” of American Capitalism replacing it with the “triple bottom line”  of United Nations Sustainable Development.
13) Almost  every College and University in the nation has become indoctrinated with the  philosophy of Sustainable Development. From campus infrastructure and  administration to student life and the curriculum America’s Colleges and Universities  are awash in this radical, collectivist philosophy.
14) The philosophy  of Sustainable Development calls for a complete change in the lifestyle of the  average American citizen. Numerous aspects of normal American life are subject  to intense scrutiny under this radical new philosophy. Where and how we build  our homes, what products we use, which foods we eat, what and how much we  consume, and which methods of transportation we choose, are just a few examples  of American life that United Nations Sustainable Development seeks to bring  under its controlling grasp.
15) Sustainable  Development and Agenda 21 promote a paradigm shift in attitudes away from the  norm of national borders and individual nation-states toward a globalist,  collective, one-world, interdependent, and interconnected planetary mindset.
16)  Sustainable Development philosophy teaches that mankind is living beyond the  “carrying capacity” of the Earth and that we are in the midst of multiple  crises that are converging to create conditions that are not livable unless  they are halted by a rapid global transition to a sustainable development  system. Some of these perceived crises include overpopulation, global poverty  and wealth inequality, manmade global climate change, and rampant environmental  destruction.
17) Across  our nation numerous communities of all sizes are putting into place the radical  policies of Sustainable Development and United Nations Agenda 21.  From new comprehensive land use plans, to  smart growth, and sustainable community planning, the ideas and infrastructure  of Sustainable Development are being implemented and added to daily.
18) The  policies of sustainable development and Agenda 21 seek to change the way people  live and build their cities and towns. Sustainable Development promotes high  density, urban, pedestrian oriented, low carbon, walkable communities and  discourages traditional American automobile usage, suburban lifestyles and  development.
19) The Sustainable  Development philosophy perceives the automobile and the ongoing use of fossil  fuels as unsustainable.
20) In  addition to the high level efforts within the United Nations and other similar  globalist organizations, much of the work in promotion of Agenda 21 and  Sustainable Development is being carried out by a massive network of Non  Governmental Organizations (NGOs). These organizations have been fully consumed  by this radical collectivist philosophy and are working overwhelmingly to  advance the Sustainable Development Agenda.
21)  Sustainable Development and the implementation of Agenda 21 are not some far off  future possibility.  In fact, America and the  world are in the midst of what the sustainable development movement calls “the  great transition” to a sustainable new model of living.

 

“If we are to stop the transition toward  this impossible utopian world we must first awaken and face the reality and  seriousness of the situation our nation and the world are in so that we may  rise to the occasion, raise the banner of faith and freedom high and stand  firmly against the onrushing darkness at hand.”  -Darin Moser

2 Comments

Filed under Articles

Your Church and Envrionmental Justice?

And what exactly is Environmental Justice, please do tell us? Wikipedia definition

The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines EJ as follows:

“Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful  involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or  income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement  of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for  all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved  when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental  and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to  have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.”[5]

The United States Department of Transportation defines three fundamental EJ principles for the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration as follows:

“1) To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and  adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and  economic effects, on minority populations and low-income populations. 2)  To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected  communities in the transportation decision-making process. 3) To prevent  the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of  benefits by minority and low-income populations.”[6]

Suddenly we have government agencies redefining the guarantees already given in our Constitution.  The EPA and DOT have weighed in with their versions.  A funny thing though, our Constitution already gives citizens of the U.S. equal protection, so why are these agencies defining something called Environmental Justice?  Why don’t we have “Clothing Justice?”  Well then, why don’t we have “Food Justice?” Oh, wait, they are working on those, too.  But I digress.
So as I was researching some other unrelated topic the other day, up popped a site called National Religious Partnerships for the Environment  Seems Environmental Justice is now something our religious organizations have joined.  Hmmm…that’s funny, because Environmentalism is already a religion.
As I looked further into this phenom, I found out that this has been inching its way into American religious life for some years now.  Interestingly enough, the founding of this organization coincides with the UN doctrine of Agenda 21.  It appears to have cropped up just the same year that Bill Clinton established the “President’s Council on Sustainable Development.  Isn’t that a coincidence?  Seems churches have figured out a way to glom onto the most trendy fashion of the day which requires Sustainability according to the UN’s Agenda 21, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, the Obama administration, the Sierra Club, Smart Growth, the American Planning Association, the EPA, DOT, HUD, multiple government agencies, and countless other non-profit and for-profit groups, ad infinitum.
So what’s my problem, you might ask.  Two problems, actually.
The first is the confluence of the church with political exploitation.  I was raised a Methodist and have also been a member of the Presbyterian Church at one time.  During my Christian education I was not taught to trash the earth, but in the contrary, to respect the God’s creations and do my best to take care of them.  I was also taught these lessons from my parents.  In all of my life it never occurs to me to do anything but respect nature.  If I kill a copperhead, I am doing it with all due respect to the damage it can do to me and my family.  If I shelter an injured bird or usher a box turtle across the road, I do it because I respect nature and appreciate what is good.  If I pull a weed I am trying to protect the useful plants that weed would choke to death.
The churches I attended were concerned about getting across the word of God, not the word of the UN or the Sierra Club.  Now, apparently, the word of God is not enough.  The churches have decided they will use the environmentalists to interpret the word of God into a political message.  And vice versa.  Environmentalists are using the churches to advocate a political theology.  And this political theology is not the word of God, but a modern usurpation of the word of God to suit a political agenda.
The second is the idea of turning religion into a control mechanism for our government.  Which may seem a conundrum because I do believe our laws are based on Mosaic law and that is fine with me.  And further, I am completely against putting Sharia law into our society.  So how do I resolve that?  Here’s how:  free will.  There is nothing about Sustainable Development that allows for free will.  There is nothing about environmental justice that actually works under the word of God which gives us free will. Why?  Because environmental justice is about theft and about control.  It is, as B. Obama says, “spreading the wealth around,” albeit by government fiat. It is about Marxism under the trendy name of environmental justice.  This is, as I understand the word of God, the antithesis of free will and individual salvation.
I would also add that the word “justice” heretofore in America referred to our actual legal system.  Now the word is abominated to mean that churches are involved in acting out “justice,” along with the EPA, DOT, HUD, and all the above mentioned depts. and orgs.  So everyone involved is thinking they are implementing “justice?”  Doesn’t that just massage the egos of people who wish to control other people.  (rhetorical statement, not a question.) Excuse me?  (Suddenly I am reminded of an old Laugh In routine by Sammy Davis Jr.  called, “Here come da judge!”)  Ooh, aren’t we all so sanctimonious these days?
HERE you will find a list of churches under the heading of ECO Justice Partners  Maybe you’ll find your church affiliation there.  If so, what does that say about the church you attend?  Is environmental justice your reason for going to that church?  Is Sustainable Development your idea of the word of God?  I wonder if you might ask yourself just where is your tithe going and did you mean for your church to be a tool of the UN, the Federal government, or what?  I’ll bet lots of you are the ones who yell and holler about the separation of church and state.
Great Article at Conservatives On Fire explaining Agenda 21 and Sustainability!!!  Be sure to watch the video….you will understand the threat!

Guest writer: Cheryl Pass

Visit Cheryl’s blog at My Tea Party Chronicle – many great articles to read!

2 Comments

Filed under Articles

Sustainable? Not So Much

Please read: Sustinable Trouble; The Attempt to Transfer the Vision of America by Michael Shaw

Click here to go to article: Sustainable Trouble; The Attempt to Transform the Vision of America

The above article is one of the most comprehensive descriptions of what the UN Agenda 21 and Global Government is doing to undermine the principles of liberty and to take down America.  Right now there are so many operatives of this agenda in our government that I am not at all sure what it will take to rid ourselves of them.  Nothing that is happening is a coincidence.  Crises are being orchestrated and manipulated to hand over more power to the Social engineers of Globalism.  (Climate Change?  Look for Smart Meters at your house soon.)

Local politicians in America are being sucked into the “Smart Growth” policies of the UN.  Looking for handouts of Federal money has become the mantra of mayors and city councils.  Those handouts come with strings attached.  It’s called “control.”  Our local politicians are throwing away our rights and our autonomy, granted to us by God and in the U.S. Constitution.  They are doing it to get money for stupid things.  A NASCAR Museum.  A Teapot Museum.  A Whitewater Park.   Greenways.  Parks.  Facades on Main Streets for failing businesses.  Meanwhile crying about not enough money for roads, bridges, schools, etc.  Let them eat cake?  Roman circuses?

The riots in Greece are a harbinger of what is coming to America.  Immigrants with no allegiance to our country looking for handouts and free everything….happened in Greece.  Unfunded social programs that are bankrupting the country…happened in Greece.  Labor Unions demanding Social Justice….happened in Greece.  Devaluation of the currency….coming soon here, happened in Greece.  (i.e. the Euro)  Cap and Trade and the VAT tax….happened in Greece.

What is so undeniably insane is that this socialist model has been proven to fail every time it has been tried.  Tyrants don’t care about history or truth.  All they care about is control of the masses to enrich themselves.  It is a recipe for disaster.   People’s lives are already  ruined by Agenda 21, and the EPA’s implementation of  “biodiversity” projects therein.  Note the San Joaquin Valley in California where farms have been shut down and farmers are out of work, packers and truckers are out of work.  That is just one example of many.  The Kelo decision which annihilates private property rights is another example.

Americans who are duped into thinking they are voting out corporate and government corruption and voting in socialist “feel good” projects to help the poor, are not educating themselves to see the lies behind the politicians’ rhetorical nonsense.  It is Americans who are committing national suicide by stupidity.  Convinced by charlatans of some misplaced undeserved guilt for the plight of poorer nations, Americans with large hearts are not using their heads, and getting sucked down the tubes.  And that is what alarms me the most.  That is the train coming smack at us that I can’t seem to stop.  Organizations that started out as charity, such as Hospice, and Habitat for Humanity, are now co-opted by government grants with strings attached.  NGO’s, Non-profits, and all things that used to be voluntary are being twisted into government obligations.  Public schools that used to be operated by states and local communities are now seeped in  Federal indoctrination and union led teachers.  Youth are being indoctrinated to take up the Obama socialist vision for America.  And all of this is being driven by a globalist view for world wide tyranny run by the likes of Al Gore, Maurice Strong, George Soros, all of the usual suspects.

America….helloooooo…..wake up out there.

Guest writer: Cheryl Pass

Visit Cheryl’s blog at My Tea Party Chronicle

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

How Collectivists Create Their Own Opposition

How Collectivists Create Their Own Opposition by Tom A Hawk – Thank you Tom for sharing!   Go to the original post on American Resistance Movement

Most of us find it difficult to believe that there are others who want to deceive us. We can accept that there may be a few crooks and sociopaths at the outer edge of society, but surely no one high in politics or finance or the media would ever do such a thing. The reality, however, is that many leaders in these fields follow an agenda which they believe is so important that deception is a reasonable price for its advancement. That agenda is a New World Order based on the model of collectivism.

One of the most common deceptions in our time is the offering of false leadership; in other words, leading one’s own opposition. Collectivist trategists realize that, as the New World Order unfolds, there will be public opposition to many of their programs. They reason that it would be stupid to wait for this to spring from natural forces, because then it might become too powerful to overcome. Instead, they anticipate this turn of events and create their own opposition so they can control it at every step of the way. They put forth leaders who are covertly loyal to their own camp or they support useful public figures who are susceptible to flattery, blackmail, and financial reward to insure that they follow the party line. In either case, these people must behave as genuine opposition leaders. They must be bold in stance and vigorous in activity. Their facts must be accurate, and their complaints must be valid. Otherwise, they will not appear as leaders, and no one will follow. But they will never offer real solutions and they will never win the contest. It is rigged boxing match. The winner is always selected by those who pay the loser.

The best way to understand this strategy is to observe it in operation, and a good place to begin is with the Federal Reserve System. For those who are familiar with the creation of the Fed, it will be remembered that the Federal Reserve Act was an outgrowth of a public outcry to “break the grip of the money trust.” The financiers who constituted the money trust did not wait for a genuine grassroots movement to take hold. Instead, they covertly led the crusade against themselves and drafted their own so-called reform legislation. They created an institution that was offered to the public as a overnment agency to break the grip of the money trust but which actually consolidated their power and expanded it. This was a classic example of ffering false leadership and leading one’s own opposition.
SWAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW TO THWART THEM
by G. Edward Griffin
In the 1960s, I came across a small training manual distributed by the Communist Party that showed how a small group of people – as few as four – could dominate a much larger group and sway the outcome of any action taken by that group. It was called the Diamond Technique. The principle is based on the fact that people in groups tend to be effected by mass psychology. They derive comfort and security from being aligned with the majority,
especially if controversy or conflict is involved. Even if they do not like what the majority is doing, if they believe they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent and resigned to the fact that the majority should rule. This being the case, the Diamond Techniques is designed to convince the group that as few as four people represent the majority. Here is the strategy:
1. Plan ahead of time what action you want the group to take: nominate or oppose a candidate, support or oppose an issue, heckle a speaker, or whatever. Everyone on your team must know exactly what they are going to do, including contingency plans.
2. Team members should arrive at the meeting separately and never congregate together.
3. Team players should arrive early enough to take seats around the outside of the assembly area, roughly in the shape of a diamond. They must not sit together.
4. The object of the tactic is place your people around the perimeter of the audience so that, when they begin to take action, those in the center will have to do a lot of head turning to see them – to the right, then the left, then the rear of the room, then the front, etc. The more they turn their heads, he greater the illusion of being surrounded by people in agreement with each other, and the more they will be convinced that these people represent the majority opinion.
I have seen this tactic used by collectivists at numerous public meetings over the years, and I have participated in it myself on several occasions when confronting collectivists in their own tightly held organizations. It works. The only way to thwart the Diamond Tactic is to always be prepared to match it with your own team. Never take a meeting for granted, especially if something important is scheduled to transpire, such as nomination of officers. Even a simple gathering to hear an important speaker can turn into a nightmare if opponents send in hecklers. So, always plan for the worst and be prepared to spring into action with comments from the floor such as: “I want to make it clear that these people do not speak for me. I am in total opposition to what they stand for. In fact, I would like to ask them to identify themselves. Who are you? Why did you come to this meeting? What is your agenda?” If comments such as this are heard from three or four people around the outside of the room, the meeting will be very exciting, but
the tactic will be defused.
Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation
The Delphi Technique and consensus building are both founded in the same principle – the Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, with synthesis becoming the new thesis. The goal is a continual evolution to “oneness of mind” (consensus means solidarity of belief) -the collective mind, the wholistic society, the wholistic earth, etc. In thesis and antithesis, opinions or views are presented on a subject to establish views and opposing views. In synthesis, opposites are brought together to form the new thesis. All participants in the process are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their views to align with the new thesis. Through a continual process of evolution, “oneness of mind” will supposedly occur.

In group settings, the Delphi Technique is an unethical method of achieving consensus on controversial topics. It requires well-trained professionals, known as “facilitators” or “change agents,” who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against another to make a preordained viewpoint appear “sensible,” while making opposing views appear ridiculous.
In her book Educating for the New World Order, author and educator Beverly Eakman makes numerous references to the need of those in power to preserve the illusion that there is “community participation in decision-making processes, while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out.”
The setting or type of group is immaterial for the success of the technique. The point is that, when people are in groups that tend to share a particular knowledge base, they display certain identifiable characteristics, known as group dynamics, which allows the facilitator to apply the basic strategy.
The facilitators or change agents encourage each person in a group to express concerns about the programs, projects, or policies in question. They listen attentively, elicit input from group members, form “task forces,” urge participants to make lists, and in going through these motions, learn about each member of a group. They are trained to identify the “leaders,” the “loud mouths,” the “weak or non-committal members,” and those who are apt to change sides frequently during an argument.
Suddenly, the amiable facilitators become professional agitators and “devil’s advocates.” Using the “divide and conquer” principle, they manipulate one opinion against another, making those who are out of step appear “ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic.” They attempt to anger certain participants, thereby accelerating tensions. The facilitators are well trained in psychological manipulation. They are able to predict the reactions of each member in a group. Individuals in opposition to the desired policy or program will be shut out.
The Delphi Technique works. It is very effective with parents, teachers, school children, and community groups. The “targets” rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated. If they do suspect what is happening, they do not know how to end the process. The facilitator seeks to polarize the group in order to become an accepted member of the group and of the process. The desired idea is then placed on the table and individual opinions are sought during discussion. Soon, associates from the divided group begin to adopt the idea as if it were their own, and they pressure the entire group to accept their proposition.
How the Delphi Technique Works
Consistent use of this technique to control public participation in our political system is causing alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our Founding Fathers. Efforts in education and other areas have brought the emerging picture into focus.
In the not-too-distant past, the city of Spokane, in Washington state, hired a consultant to the tune of $47,000 to facilitate the direction of city government. This development brought a hue and cry from the local population. The ensuing course of action holds an eerie similarity to what is happening in education reform. A newspaper editorial described how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to “discuss” what they felt needed to be changed at the local government level. A compilation of the outcomes of those “discussions” influenced the writing of the city/county charter.
That sounds innocuous. But what actually happened in Spokane is happening in communities and school districts all across the country. Let’s review the process that occurs in these meetings.
First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgmental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion.
The facilitator begins by working the crowd to establish a good-guy-bad-guy scenario. Anyone disagreeing with the facilitator must be made to appear as the bad guy, with the facilitator appearing as the good guy. To accomplish this, the facilitator seeks out those who disagree and makes them look foolish, inept, or aggressive, which sends a clear message to the rest of the audience that, if they don’t want the same treatment, they must keep quiet. When the opposition has been identified and alienated, the facilitator becomes the good guy – a friend – and the agenda and direction of the meeting are established without the audience ever realizing what has happened.
Next, the attendees are broken up into smaller groups of seven or eight people. Each group has its own facilitator. The group facilitators steer participants to discuss preset issues, employing the same tactics as the lead facilitator.
Participants are encouraged to put their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later. Who does the compiling? If you ask participants, you typically hear: “Those running the meeting compiled the results.” Oh-h! The next question is: “How do you know that what you wrote on your sheet of paper was incorporated into the final outcome?” The typical answer is: “Well, I’ve wondered about that, because what I wrote doesn’t seem to be reflected. I guess my views were in the minority.”
That is the crux of the situation. If 50 people write down their ideas individually, to be compiled later into a final outcome, no one knows what anyone else has written. That the final outcome of such a meeting reflects anyone’s input at all is highly questionable, and the same holds true when the facilitator records the group’s comments on paper. But participants in these types of meetings usually don’t question the process.
Why hold such meetings at all if the outcomes are already established? The answer is because it is imperative for the acceptance of the School-to-Work agenda, or the environmental agenda, or whatever the agenda, that ordinary people assume ownership of the preset outcomes. If people believe an idea is theirs, they’ll support it. If they believe an idea is being forced on them, they’ll resist.
The Delphi Technique is being used very effectively to change our government from a representative form in which elected individuals represent the people, to a “participatory democracy” in which citizens selected at large are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes. These citizens believe that their input is important to the result, whereas the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the participants.
How to Diffuse the Delphi Technique
Three steps can diffuse the Delphi Technique as facilitators attempt to steer a meeting in a specific direction.
Always be charming, courteous, and pleasant. Smile. Moderate your voice so as not to come across as belligerent or aggressive.
Stay focused. If possible, jot down your thoughts or questions. When facilitators are asked questions they don’t want to answer, they often digress from the issue that was raised and try instead to put the questioner on the defensive. Do not fall for this tactic. Courteously bring the facilitator back to your original question. If he rephrases it so that it becomes an accusatory statement (a popular tactic), simply say, “That is not what I asked. What I asked was . . .” and repeat your question.
Be persistent. If putting you on the defensive doesn’t work, facilitators often resort to long monologues that drag on for several minutes. During that time, the group usually forgets the question that was asked, which is the intent. Let the facilitator finish. Then with polite persistence state: “But you didn’t answer my question. My question was . . .” and repeat your question.
Never become angry under any circumstances. Anger directed at the facilitator will immediately make the facilitator the victim. This defeats the purpose. The goal of facilitators is to make the majority of the group members like them, and to alienate anyone who might pose a threat to the realization of their agenda. People with firm, fixed beliefs, who are not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, are obvious threats. If a participant becomes a victim, the facilitator loses face and favor with the crowd. This is why crowds are broken up into groups of seven or eight, and why objections are written on paper rather than voiced aloud where they can be open to public discussion and debate. It’s called crowd control.
At a meeting, have two or three people who know the Delphi Technique dispersed through the crowd so that, when the facilitator digresses from a question, they can stand up and politely say: “But you didn’t answer that lady/gentleman’s question.” Even if the facilitator suspects certain group members are working together, he will not want to alienate the crowd by making accusations. Occasionally, it takes only one incident of this type for the crowd to figure out what’s going on.
Establish a plan of action before a meeting. Everyone on your team should know his part. Later, analyze what went right, what went wrong and why, and what needs to happen the next time. Never strategize during a meeting.
A popular tactic of facilitators, if a session is meeting with resistance, is to call a recess. During the recess, the facilitator and his spotters (people who observe the crowd during the course of a meeting) watch the crowd to see who congregates where, especially those who have offered resistance. If the resistors congregate in one place, a spotter will gravitate to that group and join in the conversation, reporting what was said to the facilitator. When the meeting resumes, the facilitator will steer clear of the resistors. Do not congregate. Instead gravitate to where the facilitators or spotters are. Stay away from your team members.
This strategy also works in a face-to-face, one-on-one meeting with anyone trained to use the Delphi Technique.
More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get “input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.
<[[iframe]] scrolling=”no” width=”160″ frameborder=”0″ src=”http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/sk4848a.cgi/4960/zgFFFFFFx000000l000000000000k000000/RETURN-CODE&#8221; marginheight=”0″ height=”600″ id=”BURST”>..
You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings. Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly. Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.
The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war. However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a pre-determined end.
How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined. First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likeable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize with. It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as “bad guys” while the facilitator is perceived as the “good guy.” Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience. The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.
At this point, the audience is generally broken up into “discussion groups” of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator. Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints. Generally, participants are asked to write down their ideas and disagreements with the papers to be turned in and “compiled” for general discussion after the general meeting is re-convened.
THIS is the weak link in the chain which you are not supposed to recognize. WHO compiles the various notes into the final agenda for discussion? AHHHH! Well, it is those who are running the meeting. How do you know that the ideas on YOUR notes were included in the final result. You DON’T! You may realize that your idea was NOT included and come to the conclusion that you were probably in the minority. Recognize that every OTHER citizen member of this meeting has written his or her likes or dislikes on a similar sheet of paper and they, too, have no idea whether THEIR ideas were “compiled” into the final result! You don’t even know if ANYONE’S ideas are part of the final “conclusions” presented to the re-assembled group as the “consensus” of public opinion. Rarely, does anyone challenge the process since each concludes that he or she was in the minority and different from all the others. So, now, those who organized the meeting in the first place are able to tell the participants AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY that the conclusions, reached at the meeting, are the result of public participation. Actually, the desired conclusions had been established, in the back room, long before the meeting ever took place. There are variations in the technique to fit special situations but, in general, the procedure outlined above takes place.
The natural question to ask here is: If the outcome was preordained BEFORE the meeting took place, WHY have the meeting? Herein lies the genius of this Delphi Technique. It is imperative that the general public believe that this program is THEIRS! They thought it up! They took part in its development! Their input was recognized! If people believe that the program is theirs, they will support it. If they get the slightest hint that the program is being imposed upon them, they will resist.
This VERY effective technique is being used, over and over and over, to change our form of government from the representative republic, intended by the Founding Fathers, into a “participatory democracy.” Now, citizens chosen at large, are manipulated into accepting preset outcomes while they believe that the input they provided produced the outcomes which are now THEIRS! The reality is that the final outcome was already determined long before any public meetings took place, determined by individuals unknown to the public. Can you say “Conspiracy?”
These “Change Agents” or “Facilitators” CAN be beaten! They may be beaten using their own methods against them. Because it is SO important, I will repeat the suggestions I gave in the last previous column.
ONE: Never, NEVER lose your temper! Lose your temper and lose the battle, it is that simple! Smile, if it kills you to do so. Be courteous at all times. Speak in a normal tone of voice.
TWO: Stay focused! Always write your question or statement down in advance to help you remember the exact manner in which your question or statement was made. These agents are trained to twist things to make anyone not acceding to THEIR agenda look silly or aggressive. Smile, wait till the change agent gets done speaking and then bring them back to your question. If they distort what you said, simply remind those in the group that what he or she is saying is NOT what you asked or said and then repeat, verbatim, from your notes the original objection.
THREE: Be persistent! Wait through any harangues and then repeat the original question. (Go back and re-read the previous column.)
FOUR: (I wish to thank a reader of the previous column for some EXCELLENT suggestions.) DON’T go alone! Get as many friends or relatives who think as you do, to go along with you to the meeting. Have each person “armed” with questions or statements which all generally support your central viewpoint. DON’T sit together as a group! Spread out through the audience so that your group does not seem to be a group.
When the facilitator or change agent avoids answering YOUR question and insists that he must move on so everyone may have a chance to speak, your own agents in the audience can then ask questions, worded differently, but still with the same meaning as yours. They can bring the discussion back to your original point. They could even point out, in a friendly manner, that the agent did NOT really answer your question. The more the agent avoids your question, and the more your friends bring that to the attention of the group, the more the audience will shift in your favor.
To quote my informant: “Turn the technique back on them and isolate the change agent as the kook. I’ve done it and seen steam come out of the ears of those power brokers in the wings who are trying to shove something down the citizen’s throats. And it’s so much fun to watch the moderator squirm and lose his cool, all while trying to keep a smile on his face.”
Now that you understand how meetings are manipulated, let’s show them up for the charlatans which they are.

1 Comment

Filed under Articles

Tom DeWeese Speaking on Agenda 21 in Dallas

Please JOIN Tom DeWeese, President of American Policy Center and expert on Agenda 21, for a presentation on Sustainable Development and the United Nations’ Agenda 21.

 

Saturday, May 19, 2012

9:00Am to NOON

Westin Park Central Hotel

Hotel Parking

12720 Merit Drive

Dallas, TX 75251

Tickets $10.00

For more Information Call: 972-808-0876

or email

JBSWSC@Yahoo.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Articles

DICED is the United Nation’s Environmental Constitution for the World

SOURCE: “Agenda 21 on Steroids” by Debbie Coffey with this link –  http://ppjg.me/2012/03/14/agenda-21-on-steroids/

DICED is the UN’s Environmental Constitution for the World

by Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh – Wednesday March 21, 2012 – Canada Free Press

Thank you Dr. Paugh for writing such a great article!  Posted below or click on link above to read it from the source at Canada Free Press.

I am sure there are many Americans who have no idea nor care what “The Draft International Covenant on Environment and Development” (DICED) is. They should. Some call the Draft Covenant “Agenda 21 on steroids” while others see it as the “Environmental Constitution of global governance.”

The first version of the Covenant was presented to the United Nations in 1995 on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. It was hoped that it would become a negotiating document for a global treaty on environmental conservation and sustainable development.

The fourth version of the Covenant, issued on September 22, 2010, was written to control all development tied to the environment, “the highest form of law for all human activity.’

The Covenant’s 79 articles, described in great detail in 242 pages, take Sustainable Development principles described in Agenda 21 and transform them into global law, which supersedes all constitutions including the U.S. Constitution.

All signatory nations, including the U.S., would become centrally planned, socialist countries in which all decisions would be made within the framework of Sustainable Development.

In collaboration with Earth Charter and Elizabeth Haub Foundation for Environmental Policy and Law from Canada, the Covenant was issued by the International Council on Environmental Law (ICEL) in Bonn, Germany, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with offices in Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Federal agencies that are members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) include U.S. Department of State, Commerce, Agriculture (Forest Service), Interior (Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The same agencies are members of the White House Rural Council and the newly established White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities (Executive Order, March 15, 2012).

The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”

The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations.  They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)

The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”

  • Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”
  • Article 11 discusses “equity” and “equitable manner” which are code words for communism.
  • Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.
  • Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we ratify this document, we must thus fight a non-existent man-made climate change.
  • Article 31 requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.
  • Article 32 requires recycling.
  • Article 33 demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.”
  • Article 33 delineates long-term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity of the environment.”
  • Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.
  • Article 36 describes military and hostile activities.
  • Article 39 decides management plans and quotas for permissible taking or “harvesting transboundary biological resources.”
  • Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank. “Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises. “Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”
  • Article 48 demands that biotechnology from research and development and royalties be shared; free access and transfer of technology is also required.
  • Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.
  • Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by an arbitrary tribunal such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
  • Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.

Writers of the Draft Covenant are the UN Secretariat, international lawyers, and U.S. professors from Cornell, Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, University of the Pacific, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, and two attorneys in private practice.

Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a world constitution for global governance, an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Most recent columns

  “Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh ( Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative), author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. Visit her website, ileanajohnson.com.

Dr. Johnson can be reached at: ileana@canadafreepress.com

4 Comments

Filed under Articles

An Update from Garland Texas on Their Fight Against Agenda 21

Here is an update from the folks in Garland, Texas and their fight against ‘Envision Garland’/ United Nations Agenda 21:

 

The question is when. The City of Garland, posted that Garland’s City Council would vote on Envision Garland at the council meeting on February 7, 2012. Then a notice went out that Envision Garland was pushed off the agenda for the time being and without notice of when it will be up again for a vote.

 

The buzz around Garland as to whyEnvision Garland was pushed back, was due to city council members wanting more time to research this new comprehensive development plan.

 

Just in case you haven’t been following, many citizens of Garland are concerned about this new comprehensive plan named Envision Garland. Many went to City Hall and spoke out during Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings. You can view these meetings online in the recorded meeting section – just look for agendas including Envision Garland.

 

Envision Garland aligns with the principles of an United Nation’s vision called Agenda 21, as well as containing vocabulary, goals, as well as city modeling designated by ICLEI a non-government organization of the United Nations, that our city has spent taxpayer dollars to become a member of.  Our city council informed us that they had no idea they were a member of ICLEI, even though they paid a sum of approximately $2,000 in membership fees and received software ‘tools’ to help develop the Envision Garland plan as well as ‘help’, i.e. coaching on how to request Federal Funding for projects.  One of the many downsides of such funding is that it has very specific requirements attached that usually require additional financial commitments from the taxpayers (and of course have expensive mandates attached).

 

Currently Envision Garland, if adopted, will do the following: Craft new UNC (United Development Codes) – these new codes are new regulations and procedures including but not limited to; zoning and subdivision codes, site and building designs, administrative and hearing procedures, in essence a new set of laws! The funding of this new plan will come from CIP (assuming CIP  is Capital Investment Plan – CIP is not clearly identified in Envision Garland) Funding – debt issuance, like the over $200,000,000 (that’s two hundred million) BOND the city approved in 2004! WOW! Go back and look at how the money is to be used in this BOND and you will see that Envision Garland is just a part of a process already motion. The BOND money of 2004 includes plans for redistribution of wealth – For Example: $11.2 million for enhancement in the city’s downtown and transportation corridors, along with funding for neighborhood vitality projects and $1.0 million for neighborhood vitality grants (this information is found on the Garland City website in a Jan 18, 2005 letter concerning the adopted 2005 CIP for the City of Garland -). Humm, what are neighborhood vitality projects/grants?   Let me show you.   On October 22, 2011, the city of Garland held the 2011 Garland Neighborhood Summit at Granville arts Center complex owned and operated by the City of Garland, downtown area.  One of the key speakers was Jon Edmonds, CEO of Frazier Revitalization, Inc., in his speech of how to get connected with ‘community leaders’ in your area, he states and outlines that he is promoting redistribution of wealth.  To me Jon Edmonds’ presentation was a rehash of Saul Alinsky’s beliefs and tactics to move society towards socialism.  As we all know, part of the socialist/communist ideals are equal distribution of wealth of the people.  Is Garland deciding that wealth needs to be redistributed?  Are we to all move up or all move down?  Well, In a break out session, Garland city staff members: Felisa Conner and Chasidy Allen presented Community Asset Mapping.  This is strategy for a Vital Neighborhood or better explained as a process that in the end leads to the Neighborhood Vitality Grant (a ‘matching’ money grant – Garland will match the funds you raise for your neighborhood project you develop through this Community Asset Mapping process).   So, basically this session was teaching citizens to think of a project they want in their neighborhood, seek out other folks/businesses that want the same, decide what this will cost (all areas of cost: skills, money, property, opposition etc.), collect the capital including filing for the Neighborhood Vitality Grant.  In other words, the city is ‘training’  folks to look around and think of ways to spend your and your fellow neighbors’ tax money!   I believe most folks would rather have lower taxes and be able to decide for themselves what they want to purchase with their hard earned money!   Of course, the big question is: where is Garland getting the money for this grant?  This question was raised in the session and Felisa Conner replied that the money comes from the Bond of 2004.

 

These ‘enhancements’ are vague and therefore demand much more transparency for $11.2 million dollars of debt the citizens of Garland will be held liable for. Envision Garland will also have the city participating in the Consolidated Plan (these type plans are popping up all over America click here to see one similar to our in New York – a plan that is required (mandated) in order to receive federal housing and community development funding – a collaboration with CPD, HUD, CDBG, ESG(previously the Emergency Shelter Grants now Emergency Solutions Grants – I assume the name change is due to the scandals that occurred when Shelter was used), HOME, HOPWA, CHAS. Which in essence doesn’t sound so bad until you research all of these organizations and follow the money then the corruption starts to spill out.  To see the multiple layers of corruption in all of these organizations just click on the name acronym to go to websites that cover the reports of lawsuits against these organizations or convicted offenders within these organizations.  Typing the words ‘lawsuit against’ or the word ‘corruption’ along with the name of these organizations into your internet searches will provide you with an abundant of articles and pdf files of accusations, convictions and filings of corruption against these organizations.

 

The whole point to this is, we need to build Garland on sound money choices and freedom. We do not need to borrow huge amounts of money throwing Garland it to a debt that future generations will suffer from.  We don’t need to close the door to the free market only allowing these public private partnerships or ‘regulated’ i.e.  ‘ government approved’ companies a monopoly in our markets.  And for sure we don’t need to open the door to corrupted organizations.

 

Get involved! Start participating. Go to your city council meetings, ask questions, research, we need to watch what is going on. There is more to this story, it is up to us the citizens to find out. Our council is asleep at the wheel or lying to us – they don’t even know what organizations they are a member of or what organizations they are sending our tax dollars to. That is unacceptable.  I demand better!    We must get engaged.  Turn of the TV and instead do a little research, go to your city council meetings.  Choosing apathy is choosing complacency!   If we don’t act now, then we will get what they want us to have.   And I have news for you, we are getting nothing.   Worse than nothing, we are getting ‘taken to the cleaners’.

1 Comment

Filed under Articles

SMART METERS – What You Need to Know!

What is all the fuss about SMART METERS?   Those of you doing your best to pay attention have heard bits and pieces here and there.   Some of you might not have even heard of a SMART METER.  Then of course there are people out there like Cindy who have been researching, studying and speaking out about the indubitably serious concerns of Smart Meters.  Part of Cindy’s ethical and scrutinizing work on Smart Meters is visible in her document below.

SMART METERS –

What you NEED to know!

Brought to you by the creators of http://www.BanTexasSmartMeters.com

Invasion of Privacy • Overbilling • Damaged Appliances • Failed Security Tests

Remote A/C Power down • Fires upon Installation • Not Tested for Bio-Effects

Smart Meters have been approved by Federal and State law. However, they are NOT mandatory.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 section 3.1.1, very clearly establishes an OPTIONAL standard by which utilities are to offer “UPON REQUEST net metering service to any electric consumer”.

Why is it then, that Oncor’s spokespersons, Catherine Cuellar and Chris Schein, have both stated publicly that if a customer refuses to accept a smart meter, then Oncor would remove the analog meter, and the customer would effectively be disconnected? This policy, allowed by the PUC, is also practiced by the installation techs in the field. It is a blatant example of Oncor’s abrupt treatment of customers if they show any concern or resistance. I have heard many reports from customers who have been coerced with threat of illegal immediate service disconnection by field techs if customers refuse the new meter. This is clearly a violation of the TX PUC Substantive Rules Ch. 25requiring a written Disconnection Notice! If this has happened to you, please contact the PUC immediately!

Smart Meters Not Ready for Prime-Time

Smart Meters are Not Secure .

    Why did our Legislature and PUC allow the Utility Co’s to “Leap first, Look later?”

●     Why was this very important step ignored?

    Did you know that there are no established standards for the security of these smart meters?

The reliability of the new meter’s security has been left up to the Utility Companies and manufacturers, and as a result they fall frighteningly short. Now that upwards of 8 million meters have been installed in Texas alone, TDU’s like Oncor have decided NOW it is time to test the meters for security. *One such company that was employed to test 3 different Utility Company’s meters’ security was ‘InGuardian’. Senior security analyst Joshua Wright, said his firm found “egregious” errors, such as flaws in the meters and the technologies that utilities use to manage data from meters. “Even though these protocols were designed recently, they exhibit security failures we’ve known about for the past 10 years!” Wright said. Even though, the meters scramble the data, they ‘put the keys to it right by the door’, according to Mr. Wright. [*Source – Mar. 2010, NBC-DFW, AP]  If we can’t believe Oncor when they claim the meters are “secure”, how can we possibly rely upon other claims?

Violation of our 4th Amendment Rights

Invasion of Privacy

It is a well known fact that the purpose of the Smart Meter is to ‘monitor’ your electricity consumption, providing data to Oncor and/or your Electricity Provider. This data is not merely a usage total for the month, (which is really ALL the information needed to bill you), but it is recorded virtually in real time. Then it sends your data wirelessly every 15 minutes to a collection point. This consumption data, however, holds within it the imprint of a ‘digital fingerprint’ of every electricity-using device used in the home. Even though the utility company says they do not look at such ‘granular data’, nevertheless, it is retrieved. Consumers were never given the opportunity to consent to the collection of that data. In Texas, your data belongs to you. That begs the question, if it is MY data, then why have I not been asked permission by the PUC, Oncor or the Electric Co. to collect MY data? Do they think they are above the law? Why does the PUC allow them to get away with this? This violation of privacy is happening all over Texas, as well as everywhere smart meters are installed. Is there any wonder why there is a vast market emerging of corporations competing to get a hold of this private information with the intent on mining the data for profit that comes from these meters?

Is this ‘data collection’ or ‘monitoring’ actually surveillance?I believe it is, and here’s evidence as to why. The utilities industry documentation states that the purpose of the smart meter is to monitor consumers in order to change (control) consumer’s habits or usage patterns. In fact, without such changes, no real savings would be realized. So, I found it interesting that the Oxford English Dictionary defines “Surveillance” this way: “it is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting.” This makes the point clear that the monitoring of the smart meters is surveillance, thus violating our 4th Amendment rights, i.e. the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…”

Overbilling – Fact or Fiction?

In 2010, public outcry about outrageously high bills (2-3X and sometimes more), reached a fever pitch in the Dallas area where about a million smart meters had recently been installed. As a result, the PUC directed Oncor to test the meters for accuracy. Oncor contracted with Navigant Consulting for the testing. However, the PUC displayed their lack of concern for the consumer by allowing the continuation of the meter installation during the testing, despite public pressure to the contrary. Although, the Navigant Report found malfunctioning meters as well as other problems, Oncor spokespersons continue to simply state that the Navigant Report shows that the “new meters are extremely accurate”. How can that be a true statement when a number of meters were found to be in error, and were usually running faster than they should, resulting in overbilling? One particular type of meter was showing an event code of 2118, and at least 439 of these were quietly removed from service. I did not find evidence showing that Oncor remedied any overbilling. Additionally, the Navigant Report revealed Oncor’s lack of a proactive response, as they scolded Oncorsaying that if Oncor had responded promptly to the event codes when they first appeared, the problems that resulted could have been avoided. Oncor’s unacceptable conduct seems to be in keeping with behavior typical of the monopolies of the 19th century, showing very little concern for their customers’ abundant complaints. Despite testing, many customers are still experiencing extraordinarily high bills, and yet are just told their extremely high bills are due to weather.

What about Health Effects?Oncor’s stance is “We follow all the FCC guidelines.”

Side effects reported by people in our community:

●   Ringing in the ears when trying to sleep in their bedroom which has the wall with the ‘smart meter’.

●   Heart palpitations started when their neighbor got a smart meter.

●   Brain-fog, agitated sleep.

●   Started having insomnia.

It is no coincidence that all of the symptoms named fall into the category of symptoms of those who have EHS, which means that they may be electromagnetically (EMF) sensitive. Many studies point to the negative effects of EMF, and the potential negative long term effects! The FCC guidelines in over 10 years and do not take into account non-thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation. We need to demand that the FCC update EMF exposure guidelines! The meters, to my knowledge, have not been tested for how often or how much RF they produce within their mesh environment , which would likely have different results than the tests done on one meter inside the lab. Tell the PUC you want this kind of testing, as well as security testing before they install any more meters! Go to http://www.puc.state.tx.us and start with an informal complaint.

FOR MORE DETAILS, F R E E DOWNLOADABLE 100+ PAGE BOOK, AND TEXAS SPECIFIC INFORMATION on how to Preserve your Rights and Join the Fight!

VISIT US AT http://www.BanTexasSmartMeters.com, or email me at Cindy@BanTexasSmartMeters.com

5 Comments

Filed under Articles

Gaston County and the State of New Hampshire Are Pushing Back Against the United Nations Agenda 21

Recently there are two reports of our nation’s response to the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development Scam, both responses are to rid America of such condemnation.

One report is from The Gaspee Gazette in Gaston County, North Carolina, Commissioners meeting on January 27, 2012 passed unanimously, the anti-Agenda 21 resolution for Gaston County.   As stated by Cheryl Pass of the Gaston Tea Party and eye witness of the event, ” There were no dramatics.  No arguments against it.  The deed is done.  The Gaston County Resolution against Agenda 21 is heading to the NC State House for recording.”  The news is out in North Carolina and other commissions will be considering doing the same.   Cheryl Pass also went on to say, “The   of weeding Sustainable Development and Smart Growth, aka Agenda 21 out of our live is just beginning.  Don’t give up!  Cheers to all of you!”

The second report comes from the Legislature of the State of New Hampshire.   House Bill #1634 announced in January 2012, an ACT prohibiting the state, counties, towns and cities from implementing programs of, expending money for, receiving funding from, or contracting with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).   ICLEI is a non-government organization founded, oddly enough before the United Nations Agenda 21 Programme in 1992, in 1990 at the United Nations in New York.  The main purpose of ICLEI is to promote sustainable development and implement the United Nations Agenda 21.

Best action to take from this,  is to inform your local government representatives of these reports and encourage them to remove your city from ICLEI and all of the technical consulting, training, information, services to build capacity, and support in the implementation of sustainable development at the local level.  To find out if your city is a member of ICLEI go to the ICLEI website at www.iclei.org and click on Members then click on the 1200 cities and towns to view list of members.   As a member of ICLEI you must pay the membership fee of roughly $2,000 of your taxpayers money and you as a taxpayer have absolutely no representation in this non-government agency setting policy in your local area.   Join the rest of the resistance and send this important information to your local representatives now!

3 Comments

Filed under Articles