One month after the establishment of the United Nations, UNESCO was created by its first director, Julian Huxley. UNESCO’s first task was to teach the world’s school teachers how to indoctrinate their students to become citizens of the world. Judging by the amount of global citizenship preparedness advertised by colleges and universities in the U.S. today, UNESCO has been highly successful. Their materials on the topic of “Toward World Understanding” brainwashed many generations in schools around the globe that “nationalism was bad and had to replaced with the idea of world citizenship.” (UNESCO Publication 356)
The effort to transform our children into global citizens mutated into the International Baccalaureate Program, an expensive and highly secretive curriculum from Switzerland, supported and paid for by local taxpayers. Parents thought that it was a superior education to our public schools when in reality it is just another attempt to indoctrinate them into global citizens—devoid of national pride and American history, and turning them into full supporters of global governance.
The relentless global governance promoters are convinced that their social engineering philosophy of collectivism is far superior to our free market capitalism. They are not dissuaded by the monumental failures of Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Eastern European countries, and other nations forced to survive on the idea of ‘daddy government knows best.’
With its final goal of a “global neighborhood” (Our Global Neighborhood, 1995), the government-managed society rejects the idea of private property and does not think that controlling the use of private property constitutes taking, despite the existence of our 5th Amendment which requires that government justly compensate owners for the taking of their private property.
The final barrier in the United Nations completion of this global neighborhood is the voluntary funding for the United Nations. The ideas of creating a global tax and a global currency have been introduced numerous times. In 2010, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revealed its plan to create a global currency.
“International rules, institutions, and practices that limit the behavior of people in the United States come from international entities such as the UN, UNESCO, UNEP, UNDP, WTO, ISO, and other alphabet bureaucracies,” which creep into domestic policy via non-governmental organization (NGOs) lobbyists who advocate for global governance, politicians, federal employees, and delegates to U.N. meetings. Most in Congress support and promote the principle of global governance, but their constituents have no idea what that means.
Why is global governance bad? Our system of freedom and self-governance cannot co-exist in a world governed by the United Nations’ tin pot dictatorships. They believe that “government is the source of individual rights, and can give or deny those rights to individuals or organizations as the government deems necessary,” in the interest of the collective.
American self-governance believes that the Creator is the “source of unalienable individual rights,” including the right to form a government and limit its power to the consent of the governed.
We are at the crossroads of global governance, enabled by the voluntary participation of developed nations, particularly the United States, who has dragged its citizens into agreements, initiatives, and partnerships, whereby the voters were never consulted about such partnerships and initiatives, they were only subjected to the Vision of the globalists, pushed forward by elected politicians’ voluntary membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).
Our current government is pushing the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) which is slim on trade and heavy on controlling what is left of our manufacturing sector, our economy, and our sovereignty. If it is so good for America, why were the proceedings secret? TPP is modeled on the failed European Union system that deprived 28 nations of their sovereignty while seeking to create a huge empire with all the powers of a single nation but masquerading as a trade organization. The recent Brexit of the U.K. from this EU union was painfully obvious that the Brits have had enough of the political and economic control from the technocrats in Brussels.
Plans that erode our individual freedoms and national sovereignty start at the local level with promises and euphemisms that are relevant to a particular locality and sound benign enough to the busy American, preoccupied with making a living and supporting his/her family.
The visioning process starts at the local level by a local planning agency (an NGO) or ICLEI itself with a federal grant attached to it. ICLEI was created in 1990 “to advance the concept of sustainable development,” the lynchpin of U.N. Agenda 21 of 1992 and now U.N. Agenda 2030.
Once the grant is in place, a facilitator is appointed to lead the visioning process of the local community. Participants are initially chosen carefully in order to support the plan. One local elected official is also included while the community knows nothing about until the end of the process. The group may call itself “Yourtown 2030” and will put forth their pre-planned ideas of what your town should look like in 2030 in order to have a “sustainable community” and “smart development.” Anything else is catastrophic for the community.
Any objections are eliminated by advertising a “consensus.” The goals chosen by this visioning are usually recommendations taken from U.N. Agenda 21 or the President’s Council on Sustainable Development documents.
Next comes the plan of action which includes: bike paths; walkways; greenbelts; conservation areas; high-density areas; mixed-use housing; five-minute walk or bike to work, shopping, and play; urban boundary zones; and other buzz-words from the sustainable development vocabulary.
As the plan is near completion, the group starts feeding information to the press in the local media. Public events are held that gloat over the righteous sustainable development and sustainable communities. The elected official on board with the visioning plan is “expected to convince the majority of the governing board to adopt the plan of action.”
Glossies will be printed and mailed out to the population, convincing the community that their visioning plan will make the community better in the 21st century if they protect the environment by reducing their carbon footprint, their commute, their car use, their suburban living, and other activities that make life fun and free, but, the world will be a better place for all.
The elements of the plan are never really publicly debated before elected officials, and, it is too late to oppose it once it is so heavily publicized. The private landowners are usually never consulted, nor are the taxpayers. Many times, once the plan has been adopted and implementation has begun, the community starts feeling the pain of the visioning plan. Local comprehensive land use plans are often so restrictive, the farmers can no longer use their pastures, their lakes, their land, their water to grow food, or plant crops.
This brings me to my own backyard where Supervisor Frank Principi has embarked on the plan of “Smart Development for a More Connected Community.” His flier describes the “Smart Development in New Woodbridge,” as connectivity.
In this type of development, communities are designed to be more compact, easily and safely transversed by foot or bicycle. Great thought is given to how “people will live, work and play in their neighborhoods.”
In his and Agenda 2030’s idea, Smart Development will be mixed housing, townhomes, single family homes, stack and pack apartments, with:
employment opportunities in close proximity to these homes, which in turn are conveniently located to amenities such as schools, parks, entertainment, mass transit, churches, and shopping.
He is concerned about your quality of life, “fostering a sense of community, (supporting the local community because you won’t be able to go very far), reducing commute times, promoting walking and biking and lessening environmental impact.” He is proposing a “50-mile pedestrian and bicycle network” as well as eliminating “sidewalks to nowhere.” You just can’t walk every which way you want, you must be on approved paths. These are specific goals listed in U.N.’s Agenda 2030.
Supervisor Principi states that funding to “build our network” (who is we) will come from “developer proffers, state and regional grants, and local tax dollars.”
I’ve lived in the area for eight years, I am a very well-informed citizen, yet I’ve never heard specifics on Supervisor Principi’s plan until now. However, in this brochure, he is announcing a town hall series on transportation, education, and development. The plans are already in place, now he has to inform us about them.
The first town hall is entitled “Get Woodbridge Moving.”
“New Woodbridge: Vision & Economic Impact” is advertised for November 10, 2016. “Classroom Overcrowding: Rethinking School Development” will be addressed on December 8, 2016.
Prince William County is overrun with illegal aliens that comprise most of the 40 percent population growth as published in the last census. Additionally, unaccompanied minors of school age have overcrowded our schools and drained the budget for special teachers who speak the obscure languages of some of these children.
Frank Principi talks about the “Region’s Global Reach” and the “Global Cities Initiative Report,” all elements of the globalist U.N. Agenda 2030.
Describing the area’s longest commute among its peer regions, Principe stated:
Strengthening infrastructure connections globally while improving connectivity regionally could facilitate increased global trade and investment.
If you are scratching your head with that statement, you are not alone.
Principi encapsulates this region’s visioning plan:
The central pillars of the vision for a New Woodbridge—Smart Development, Better Transportation and Strong Neighborhoods—reflect the top concerns and goals that community members express for our neighborhoods.
In most neighborhoods people don’t even know their closest neighbors, apartments are built all over the place to handle the influx of newcomers (legal and illegal), roads are inadequate, there are no alternate routes to major highways, and congestion is the norm. Would walking and bicycling, more government control, and “strong neighborhoods” resolve these issues?
The American Planning Association, one of the main vectors of sustainable development change in this country has a host of definitions and requirements for any inhabited place in the country as to how the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) should be implemented according to a specific blueprint designed years ago by the U.N. Agenda 21 planners in Rio.
The neighborhoods must “promote or protect air and water quality, protect groundwater resources, and respond to the growing threat of climate change,” a threat that is not real. “Green infrastructure” must be used, such as “local tree cover mitigating heat gain.” Communities must “utilize measures or practices to protect or enhance local biodiversity and the environment.”
At the end of the day, none of these plans are really about improving the lives of the people; they are about herding humans into small areas where they are more easily controlled by the government.
Every human wants their community to thrive, to be safe, and to have clean air and water, but at what cost are we going to reorganize and socially engineer our cities, towns, communities, and way of life in order to fit a master plan designed by people who are only interested in saving the planet from an imaginary global warming and by controlling the population that they deem to be a threat to our planet.