Agenda 21 is a two decade old plan for global “Sustainable Development” put forth by the United Nations. Two U.S. Presidents, one from each political party, adopted the measure via Executive Order and effectively removed any Congressional review. The simple explanation of Agenda 21 is: Central planners from the UN to the Federal Government, to the State governments and even local municipal planners will be used to transform development as they decide is appropriate. As defined by the UN, 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 (sic) on the environment.” This massive government central planner control scheme threatens to impact private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices and privately owned farms. In fact, the UN describes individuals owning land as follows:
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 a principal 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. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.
Furthermore, billionaire Atheist and George Soros, a known currency destroyer and a vocal supporter of globally controlled central planning has given the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (who oversees the implementation of Agenda 21) more than $2.1 million through his Open Society Institute. However, before you consider this a partisan issue, consider that even Liberal Democrat’s are arguing against ICLEI and Agenda 21. Over 600 cities and towns currently are members of ICLEI (including Lewes, Delaware). Do you support your local government agreeing to rules and regulations set up by a IN-based organization what wants private property transferred to government control?
Think your business is safe? Agenda 21 is a disaster for private business as it prefers Private Public Partnerships where government decides which companies will receive tax breaks and are allowed to stay in business. Need some evidence? Consider the cozy relationship that GE (a company which paid NO TAX in 2010) has with the current administration and then consider the stance that the White House took in efforts to tell Boeing which state it could do business in. Again, this is an issue that concerns both parties and individuals across the ideological spectrum. Check out this website from a group of Democrats who stand in opposition to Agenda 21 to see even more information.
So why bring this up now? Well, as some of you may know, I am running for the 11th District State Senate seat formerly held by Senator Tony DeLuca who was beaten in the primary by Bryan Townsend. Bryan is an up and coming progressive in the Delaware Democrat Party and he was recently asked about his thoughts on Agenda 21 and here is how he answered, in his own words:
- Bryan Townsend
Rachel: Agenda 21 is an important effort to address global challenges. It also is an example of how difficult it can be to forge multinational agreements. I applaud the efforts, though I worry the framework is not achieving results quickly enough. (I was in Johanessburg for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, and I'm not certain there has been significant improvement in the past 10 years.)
so any questions thats kinds deals with agenda 21, do you think we as a country should or should not pull out of the UN? Its been on the board for so long im not sure where to stand. cause i know the UN is there for great reasons, but also in the same breath i worry for my country and my state if we stay apart of the UN........
- Bryan Townsend
The US should lead by example, which I believe ultimately must include trying to use global institutions to overcome global challenges. There are reasonable concerns with the UN (for example, Security Council vetoes, and the relative financial contributions of different countries). Given its long history and laudable ideals, I'd like to think we can preserve the UN even if we need to modify some elements of it.
I would like to take a moment to answer Rachael’s question myself. Agenda 21 is nothing short of a disaster for everything from family farms to private property rights and even business ownership. It allows massive government central planners to control the most basic of individual rights. While my opponent believes that the results are not being achieved fast enough, I believe that the very results it seeks to achieve conflict with America’s core values of freedom and individual liberty. I do not believe that America should cede its sovereignty to a global body of central planners whose stated goals are to destroy private property rights as a means to redistribute wealth. As to the question of the UN and whether we should pull out of the group of nations. My answer is an unequivocal YES. The UN’s basic philosophy conflicts with America’s own basic fundamental values. While our Declaration of Independence proclaims the “self-evident” truth that individuals “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, the UN’s Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implies that it grants rights and claims the power “as provided by law” to restrict rights as fundamental as the freedom of speech, religion, the right to bear arms, freedom of the press and even the freedom of movement. Next, the credibility of the entire organization is at best in question and at worst completely gone when you consider that the U.S. was voted out of the Human Rights Commission while Libya and Sudan were voted in. The usefulness of the UN is in serious doubt as it has been surprisingly unsuccessful at adhering to its grand commitment to end threats to human security, such as interstate war, genocide, famine, internal war, disease and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The UN seeks to become the authority in the world, forsaking the sovereignty of all other nations and resides in New York practically for free. In fact, a new UN building is being built and the U.S. taxpayers are footing 22% of the costs! Not to mention the fact that the U.S. is the largest donor to UN causes by far. Why should U.S. taxpayers be forced to pay for buildings, contribute to causes and support agendas that harm American sovereignty?
This issue illustrates the differences and the importance of the 11th District Senate race. On the one side you have Bryan Townsend, a progressive Democrat who supports central planning, global control and Agenda 21. He is a young man who has spent the bulk of his life in various educational pursuits and still resides at home with his parents and who is shaped by the agenda of the liberal progressive professors that have surrounded him for the last decade. On the other hand I am a former Marine who served in the Iraq War, a tireless advocate of America’s founding principles and an opponent of those big government schemes promoted by the UN and ICLEI through Agenda 21. I’m a father of 4 children who has spent the last 12 years serving my country, raising a family and making a living in the private sector. If you want to stop Agenda 21, you want to make sure that Bryan Townsend does not make it into the Delaware General Assembly. Help put me in Dover so that I can make sure that Delaware doesn’t cow to the whims of global planners.
Candidate for Delaware State Senate 11th District
Candidate for Delaware State Senate 11th District