There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit. ― Ronald Reagan
George Rebane
Last Tuesday’s Nevada County Board of Supervisors meeting achieved its larger purpose that was promoted by a lot of mostly conservative attendees belonging to organizations like CABPRO and the local Tea Party. A memorandum of agreement regarding federal lands in Nevada County was tabled because the aforementioned people all testified their opposition to it. Background to the whole dust-up was covered here under ‘Agenda21 – Exhibit A on display locally’.
We were scheduled to leave Tuesday morning on a short RV trip to Graeagle with our neighbors. But both of us decided that this meeting was important enough to delay departure a bit so we could attend. Most RR readers know I am member of CABPRO and the Nevada County Tea Party. So we dutifully attended, waited for the MOA agenda item to come up, and I took a turn at the mike to give the Supes my prepared remarks on the issue as follows –
George Rebane
Last Tuesday’s Nevada County Board of Supervisors meeting achieved its larger purpose that was promoted by a lot of mostly conservative attendees belonging to organizations like CABPRO and the local Tea Party. A memorandum of agreement regarding federal lands in Nevada County was tabled because the aforementioned people all testified their opposition to it. Background to the whole dust-up was covered here under ‘Agenda21 – Exhibit A on display locally’.
We were scheduled to leave Tuesday morning on a short RV trip to Graeagle with our neighbors. But both of us decided that this meeting was important enough to delay departure a bit so we could attend. Most RR readers know I am member of CABPRO and the Nevada County Tea Party. So we dutifully attended, waited for the MOA agenda item to come up, and I took a turn at the mike to give the Supes my prepared remarks on the issue as follows –
This MOA with the feds has come to me, and I suspect many others in this room, as a bit of a surprise. We have had little or no mention of it in the usual news media, and suddenly there is a buzz that something major is coming down concerning use of public lands in Nevada County, all under the banner of regional planning by the feds for which they solicit our input.
My own position on regionalism is to consider all parts of such consolidations with a gimlet eye. Federal lands in Nevada County are a major and important part of our tourism assets and our economy, any further control of which should be relinquished, if at all, only after extended consideration and public input.
The current MOA with the BLM and the USFS does nothing to simplify any function of government. But it does promise to further diminish our county’s ability to determine areas and conditions of use, and access to our public lands. The history of regionalism in land use has always been to ratchet back the freedoms of the people to use their lands, all done in the name of the environment, conservation, sustainability, safety, preservation for future generations, …, the list goes on indefinitely. The MOA appears to be nothing more than cover for the feds to say that they duly considered local jurisdiction input before they did whatever they wanted to in the first place.
And what’s more puzzling is that this item is brought up by the BoS during a meeting for which the agenda and documentation is a hernia pack of 514 pages. And this item appears amid a blizzard of resolutions, contracts, amendments, agreements, etc buried on page 502.
If this MOA does not increase our ability to exercise local control, then there should be no reason to rush it through as if it were the Son of Obamacare with its obligatory proviso that ‘We have to adopt the MOA before we can find out how it will affect us.’ I don’t recall any public hearing or information session on this matter?
The bottom line is that the visible part of this iceberg does not save the county one penny in its budget. Instead, its staffing requirements to keep an eye on the feds, supply them with requested documentation, and attend extra meetings will cost the county additional money and staff hours. And there is nothing in the MOA that says if the county doesn’t like the next ruling, regulation, or restriction handed down to us, then we can veto or overrule it. The clear implication here is that our only permitted recourse in such a case is to go relieve ourselves on the windward side.
The Supes all wanted to hear the voluminous public input before voting on the disposition of the MOA. In their subsequent deliberations it turned out that Ted Owens (current chairman) and Nate Beason had been the spearchuckers on this agreement with the BLM and USFS, and were of course arguing its acceptance. Supes Hank Wesson and Ed Scofield had reservations. Neither of them saw a benefit to the county from such an agreement. Terry Lamphier, the lone declared liberal Supervisor indicated that he would support such an agreement since there was nothing obviously sinister in its wording, and therefore it must be the basis for yet another great relationship between the federal government and a local jurisdiction. No one expected anything else from Mr Lamphier.
But given the level of conspicuous opposition to the MOA, Supes Owens and Beason decided not to bring it to a vote. I guess it went instead into some arcane drawer to be brought up at more propitious time for such matters. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
After the break that followed this decision I went up to pay my respects to the Board members, and tell them I thought they had done a good piece of work in conducting the morning’s admittedly difficult meeting. Basically, I wanted to let all know that most of us in the audience saw this as a productive and responsive way for local government to work – if there were any hatchets in evidence on this MOA, my position was that they were properly buried during the course of the proceedings.
All supes were in cordial agreement except my own Supervisor Nate Beason, who was not at all happy – I think he wanted to bury the hatchet in my head. He told me in no uncertain terms how irritated he was with my input, especially the part citing how it was brought up. One of Nate’s hot buttons is Agenda21, with which he sees no connection with the goings on in Nevada County. He has repeatedly let everyone know that people who are concerned about Agenda21 are conspiracy theorists, and he doesn’t hold with such conspiracy theories. It isn’t clear to me, but Ed Scofield may have that same attitude re Agenda21.
However, what vexes me is how politicians wrap themselves in hubris concerning what they claim to know about an issue or their constituents’ attitude toward it. Painting all of us with the broad conspiracy theory brush is a convenient ruse that they think must make them look to the liberal and middle roaders as epitomes of calm reason standing up to a bunch of lathered up rednecks.
The truth of the matter is that there is NOTHING about Agenda21 and its ICLEIs - the implementing local organizations - that can be construed as a conspiracy. And no one that I am aware of has argued that it is a conspiracy – if so, I’d like to have a word with them on the matter. Agenda21 (covered thoroughly in these pages within its own designated category) is an openly promoted, ongoing globalization program of the United Nations. It has an extensive literature that includes a manifesto, and counts most countries in the world as signatories and adherents to its principles. President George HW Bush signed us up in 1992 before he left office. (You can read the entire UN Agenda21 document here.)
Internationally, the local ICLEIs are implementing Agenda21 by any and all means possible under the politically correct banner of ‘Sustainable Development’. As such, Agenda21 is plowing fertile ground that already has millions of leftwing adherents in the green movement whose myriads of supporting organizations are natural proxies for the ICLEIs. There is no conspiracy here, nor any needed – the implementation is done out in the open bit by piece.
(The point is that the globalizing elite are smart enough to let well enough alone when corresponding and corroborating green initiatives by other names are doing the work of Agenda21. There are countless ways that these parallel efforts can be encouraged and supported without waving the Agenday21 or ICLEI banners. And this is good because it fools the easily fooled who might otherwise become opponents. The spread of communism in post-WW1 Europe is an everlasting exemplar of how successful such an approach is. We recall how Ronald Reagan, among others, succinctly summarized this approach.)
One of the powerful notions of Agenda21 is ‘regionalization’ – where things like resource management - husbanding, organization, and distribution - can more reasonably be done within natural regions like drainage basins of a river, than in the context of local political jurisdictions with arbitrarily drawn boundaries. What’s more reasonable than foregoing a little jurisdictional power here, and a little more there, all for the greater good (‘social justice’?) of taking care of the earth and making sure there’s something left for future generations. None of that has ever been a conspiracy – the wisdom of regionalism is openly taught in schools to our youngest citizens.
But for some reason, there are politicians who will not educate themselves so that they can connect the dots. Globalization is a large octopus with many tentacles working in every conceivable area of human activity. We are being integrated and homogenized on a grand scale all over the world. When was the last time you heard or witnessed the larger and higher jurisdictions devolving their reach, assets, and/or power to lower level jurisdictions?
The leviathan is what the leviathan does. Politicians who are in tune with this should fess up and tell their constituents the benefits of big and bigger. Politicians who claim the opposite should not reject the biggest and best organized initiatives that are openly working against local control. Since Agenda21 provides the simplest guiding principle here, what profit is there to deny its obvious existence and effect when fighting the good fight for liberty and local control?
[17oct12 update] The local ('Golden Empire') chapter of the United Nations Association will be happy to acquaint you with the objectives and advent of Agenda21 right here at our own Briar Patch natural foods and social justice outlet. Does this look like a conspiracy? But please don't draw any unwarranted connections here (especially if you're one of our electeds), just move along.
The following is from an email this week -
From: Shera Banbury <[email protected]>
Subject: Save the dates: Sat, Oct. 27 and Tues, Nov. 6
Two important events are coming up that are sponsored by our local United Nations Association.
1. UNA: Focus on Women - (The First Tuesday of Every Month) - Tues., Nov. 6, 2012 - 6:30-8:30 p.m. BriarPatch Community Room
You've heard of Malala? Think about your daughter and her education. Can you imagine your outrage if she were shot by an unknown gunman because she spoke publicly saying that she had a right to be educated. Come to our think tank UNA: Focus on Women and learn more about what's happening to young girls and women everywhere. Let's talk about what action we might take to participate in making a better world. and learn more about what's happening that we need to be aware of, and what action we might take to participate in making a better world.
Also:
2. Come to Setting the Record Straight. Join Human Rights Fellow, Ryan Kaminski, and celebrate UN Day. Learn about the U.S. Interests in UN Reform, Agenda 21, Syria, Refugees, Free Burma, and the recent outcomes of the Human Rights Council session. Kaminski is a world class speaker you can relate to and get answers.
My own position on regionalism is to consider all parts of such consolidations with a gimlet eye. Federal lands in Nevada County are a major and important part of our tourism assets and our economy, any further control of which should be relinquished, if at all, only after extended consideration and public input.
The current MOA with the BLM and the USFS does nothing to simplify any function of government. But it does promise to further diminish our county’s ability to determine areas and conditions of use, and access to our public lands. The history of regionalism in land use has always been to ratchet back the freedoms of the people to use their lands, all done in the name of the environment, conservation, sustainability, safety, preservation for future generations, …, the list goes on indefinitely. The MOA appears to be nothing more than cover for the feds to say that they duly considered local jurisdiction input before they did whatever they wanted to in the first place.
And what’s more puzzling is that this item is brought up by the BoS during a meeting for which the agenda and documentation is a hernia pack of 514 pages. And this item appears amid a blizzard of resolutions, contracts, amendments, agreements, etc buried on page 502.
If this MOA does not increase our ability to exercise local control, then there should be no reason to rush it through as if it were the Son of Obamacare with its obligatory proviso that ‘We have to adopt the MOA before we can find out how it will affect us.’ I don’t recall any public hearing or information session on this matter?
The bottom line is that the visible part of this iceberg does not save the county one penny in its budget. Instead, its staffing requirements to keep an eye on the feds, supply them with requested documentation, and attend extra meetings will cost the county additional money and staff hours. And there is nothing in the MOA that says if the county doesn’t like the next ruling, regulation, or restriction handed down to us, then we can veto or overrule it. The clear implication here is that our only permitted recourse in such a case is to go relieve ourselves on the windward side.
The Supes all wanted to hear the voluminous public input before voting on the disposition of the MOA. In their subsequent deliberations it turned out that Ted Owens (current chairman) and Nate Beason had been the spearchuckers on this agreement with the BLM and USFS, and were of course arguing its acceptance. Supes Hank Wesson and Ed Scofield had reservations. Neither of them saw a benefit to the county from such an agreement. Terry Lamphier, the lone declared liberal Supervisor indicated that he would support such an agreement since there was nothing obviously sinister in its wording, and therefore it must be the basis for yet another great relationship between the federal government and a local jurisdiction. No one expected anything else from Mr Lamphier.
But given the level of conspicuous opposition to the MOA, Supes Owens and Beason decided not to bring it to a vote. I guess it went instead into some arcane drawer to be brought up at more propitious time for such matters. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
After the break that followed this decision I went up to pay my respects to the Board members, and tell them I thought they had done a good piece of work in conducting the morning’s admittedly difficult meeting. Basically, I wanted to let all know that most of us in the audience saw this as a productive and responsive way for local government to work – if there were any hatchets in evidence on this MOA, my position was that they were properly buried during the course of the proceedings.
All supes were in cordial agreement except my own Supervisor Nate Beason, who was not at all happy – I think he wanted to bury the hatchet in my head. He told me in no uncertain terms how irritated he was with my input, especially the part citing how it was brought up. One of Nate’s hot buttons is Agenda21, with which he sees no connection with the goings on in Nevada County. He has repeatedly let everyone know that people who are concerned about Agenda21 are conspiracy theorists, and he doesn’t hold with such conspiracy theories. It isn’t clear to me, but Ed Scofield may have that same attitude re Agenda21.
However, what vexes me is how politicians wrap themselves in hubris concerning what they claim to know about an issue or their constituents’ attitude toward it. Painting all of us with the broad conspiracy theory brush is a convenient ruse that they think must make them look to the liberal and middle roaders as epitomes of calm reason standing up to a bunch of lathered up rednecks.
The truth of the matter is that there is NOTHING about Agenda21 and its ICLEIs - the implementing local organizations - that can be construed as a conspiracy. And no one that I am aware of has argued that it is a conspiracy – if so, I’d like to have a word with them on the matter. Agenda21 (covered thoroughly in these pages within its own designated category) is an openly promoted, ongoing globalization program of the United Nations. It has an extensive literature that includes a manifesto, and counts most countries in the world as signatories and adherents to its principles. President George HW Bush signed us up in 1992 before he left office. (You can read the entire UN Agenda21 document here.)
Internationally, the local ICLEIs are implementing Agenda21 by any and all means possible under the politically correct banner of ‘Sustainable Development’. As such, Agenda21 is plowing fertile ground that already has millions of leftwing adherents in the green movement whose myriads of supporting organizations are natural proxies for the ICLEIs. There is no conspiracy here, nor any needed – the implementation is done out in the open bit by piece.
(The point is that the globalizing elite are smart enough to let well enough alone when corresponding and corroborating green initiatives by other names are doing the work of Agenda21. There are countless ways that these parallel efforts can be encouraged and supported without waving the Agenday21 or ICLEI banners. And this is good because it fools the easily fooled who might otherwise become opponents. The spread of communism in post-WW1 Europe is an everlasting exemplar of how successful such an approach is. We recall how Ronald Reagan, among others, succinctly summarized this approach.)
One of the powerful notions of Agenda21 is ‘regionalization’ – where things like resource management - husbanding, organization, and distribution - can more reasonably be done within natural regions like drainage basins of a river, than in the context of local political jurisdictions with arbitrarily drawn boundaries. What’s more reasonable than foregoing a little jurisdictional power here, and a little more there, all for the greater good (‘social justice’?) of taking care of the earth and making sure there’s something left for future generations. None of that has ever been a conspiracy – the wisdom of regionalism is openly taught in schools to our youngest citizens.
But for some reason, there are politicians who will not educate themselves so that they can connect the dots. Globalization is a large octopus with many tentacles working in every conceivable area of human activity. We are being integrated and homogenized on a grand scale all over the world. When was the last time you heard or witnessed the larger and higher jurisdictions devolving their reach, assets, and/or power to lower level jurisdictions?
The leviathan is what the leviathan does. Politicians who are in tune with this should fess up and tell their constituents the benefits of big and bigger. Politicians who claim the opposite should not reject the biggest and best organized initiatives that are openly working against local control. Since Agenda21 provides the simplest guiding principle here, what profit is there to deny its obvious existence and effect when fighting the good fight for liberty and local control?
[17oct12 update] The local ('Golden Empire') chapter of the United Nations Association will be happy to acquaint you with the objectives and advent of Agenda21 right here at our own Briar Patch natural foods and social justice outlet. Does this look like a conspiracy? But please don't draw any unwarranted connections here (especially if you're one of our electeds), just move along.
The following is from an email this week -
From: Shera Banbury <[email protected]>
Subject: Save the dates: Sat, Oct. 27 and Tues, Nov. 6
Two important events are coming up that are sponsored by our local United Nations Association.
1. UNA: Focus on Women - (The First Tuesday of Every Month) - Tues., Nov. 6, 2012 - 6:30-8:30 p.m. BriarPatch Community Room
You've heard of Malala? Think about your daughter and her education. Can you imagine your outrage if she were shot by an unknown gunman because she spoke publicly saying that she had a right to be educated. Come to our think tank UNA: Focus on Women and learn more about what's happening to young girls and women everywhere. Let's talk about what action we might take to participate in making a better world. and learn more about what's happening that we need to be aware of, and what action we might take to participate in making a better world.
Also:
2. Come to Setting the Record Straight. Join Human Rights Fellow, Ryan Kaminski, and celebrate UN Day. Learn about the U.S. Interests in UN Reform, Agenda 21, Syria, Refugees, Free Burma, and the recent outcomes of the Human Rights Council session. Kaminski is a world class speaker you can relate to and get answers.
Tea Party declares the MOA is a BOA and not the feathery kind...
Posted by: Tbetterman | 13 October 2012 at 12:55 PM
And I guess George cannot see that his statement that, "The point is that the globalizing elite are smart enough to let well enough alone when corresponding and corroborating green initiatives by other names are doing the work of Agenda21." is contradictory to his point that it is not a conspiracy? Which is it George, are they organized and "smart enough to let well enough alone", or are people advocating for what they think is right and you just call it a conspiracy when you are at the Board of Supervisors meetings? What a bunch of hogwash. People want livable communities because they are nicer to live in. They simply have a different set of values than you do. But you insist on tying it to the UN. It has nothing to do with the UN. It has to do with millions of people wanting a better life.
Posted by: Steven Frisch | 14 October 2012 at 11:13 PM
SteveF 1113pm - I think you are confused again; please reread the post.
For openers, it is not I but Nate Beason et al who accuse others of believing that Agenda21 is a "conspiracy" in its most pejorative connotation. I make a big point here that Agenda21 is not a conspiracy.
A conspiracy exists when people seek to conspire, which is defined as - "to agree together, especially secretly, to do something wrong, evil, or illegal: They conspired to kill the king."
If you understand the definition, then you have a chance of understanding that the globalizing elite I describe have no need to conspire per se. They don't have to form some secret cabal, and communicate seditiously re the ongoing ancillary 'green initiatives' that support and comport with Agenda21. It's not that difficult, capice?
And I love your concluding with the tautology "People want livable communities because they are nicer to live in." - as if there was a uniform and unique definition of a 'livable community'. There is nothing today that prevents you and yours from building your livable communities and living in them without violating my property rights and liberties. It's only when you want to use the government gun to make me and mine to succumb to your 'livable community' that we enter the realm of Agenda21.
Posted by: George Rebane | 15 October 2012 at 09:55 AM