Does the United Nations’ ‘Agenda 21′ threaten Iowa?
Related Stories
Some state lawmakers are concerned that an international effort promoting sustainable development might some day infringe on Iowans’ private property rights.
To make sure that doesn’t happen, Republicans on a House subcommittee Tuesday approved a measure that would prohibit state and local government officials from implementing or financially supporting elements of the United Nations’ Agenda 21 international environmental action plan for sustainable development if the action would restrict or tread on private property rights.
Rep. Ralph Watts, R-Adel, conceded that 98 out of 100 Iowans probably would not know what Agenda 21 is if you asked them, but he said there is a movement under way that operates under the premise that humanity would be better off living in densely populated centers rather than spacious rural areas. That philosophy poses a threat to Americans’ right to live where they choose versus where government wants them to live.
“I realize it won’t be very clear exactly what Agenda 21 means in all communities. But it’s here, alive and well in Iowa and in our country,” Watts told a subcommittee meeting. “There are some signals out there that we have to be concerned about. It’s very real. They literally want to see people move off of rural areas and into communities, kind of like the collectivism that the Soviet Union has had.”
The product of the 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil, Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan to sustainable development.
Do you see any threat to Iowa in the United Nations’ “Agenda 21”?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
The UN should be renamed…the new world order…NWO/ Bilderberg group….
Nothing they do is good for private citizens….
Rep. Ralph Watts thinks a non-bind voluntary program of the United Nations is cause for concern? It might help if he actually took a look at it and figure out what it is rather than take Alex Jone’s word for it.
This is about as laughable an item of GOP “lawmaking” as the efforts elsewhere to legislate bans on sharia law in the USA. It is engineered to alarm the pooorly educated, misled, and misinformed for purposes of political theater.
What next: a GOP-authored state law exempting Iowa from complying with the UN ban on land mines- because it might infringe on Iowans’ future ability to own and use deadly antipersonnel devices, should they ever be made legal here?
If the Legislature were truly behind this piece of legislation, it would adopt a Resolution stating its position and move on. Trying to get this idiocy into the Iowa Code is a cynical affront to all thinking Iowans. Fortunately, in the unlikely event this measure makes it though the House without being laughed off the floor, it will be DOA in the Senate, which serves as the final filter for stupid ideas generated in the House.
Rep. Watts seems to have faulty knowledge of what “soviet collectivism” was. It had absolutely nothing to do with forcing people into population centers: in fact, it was quite the opposite, being a program to strip all landowners of personal real-property and make rural folk paid farmhands/tenants on giant publicly-owned farms. The state of soviet agriculture at the time was such that it was extremely labor intensive, and depopulating the rural areas would have been the last thing the soviet central planners would have wanted to see happen, since it would have destroyed their nation’s food production capability.
Collectivism was a failed experiment from which valuable lessons can be still taken: but forced rural depopulation is not one of those lessons.
Will Watts “man up” and admit that he was wrong on this point, or will he stay silent and by doing so tacitly admit that he was misrepresenting historical fact to manipulate the credulous among us?
No the idea of urbanizing the population is just crazy talk, no one would advocate that
http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/what-039-s-driving-china-039-s-new-push-to-move-millions-of-rural-families-into-cities/housing-reform-urbanization-urban-zhang-ping/c3s10503/
The UN has no purpose. Codfying the rejection of the insane ‘agenda 21′ meme is only a good thing.
If you’re going to use that article as a basis for your point, Then yes, it is crazy talk. Codifying the rejection of agenda 21 is a waste of time and money.
Codifying nonsense only validates said nonsense. Where should the GOP stand on the matter of legally codifying its opposition to evil spirits?
Williamson,
Did you read the article you linked to?
The Chinese government is not forcing rural people to move into cities. They’re already moving into cities because that’s where the jobs are. China has a registration system that controls internal migration. The government is simply changing the system to make it easier for people to register themselves and their families where they actually live.
I did read the article, it is plain you did not.
Sure Ms Bell, Thats why entire brand new cities are sitting empty, The Chinese govt has no intentions of forcing its population to do anything.
The naivete is stagering
Williamson,
This is from the article to which you linked:
“Dubbed hukou, the household registration system dates back to the Mao era, and prevents rural people who move to cities from getting access to local benefits such as health care, pensions and public education.
Vice Premier Li Keqiang said that the global economic slowdown requires China to create domestic demand, as it can no longer rely on exports. Urbanization of the rural population would create a large domestic demand and be a driver of growth. For that to happen, China needs to relax the household registration system so that rural migrant workers can become official urban residents”
There is nothing in the article about the UN or Agenda 21 or forced relocation. Nor does it mintion brand new cities sitting empty. The article is about the millions of rural migrant workers who have already moved to cities but are, under current Chinese law, illegal residents. The purpose of the proposed change is to legalize the status of these people. It has nothing nothing nothing to do with forcing them to move to places where they already live.
Governor Bobby Jindal said that the Republican party should stop being the stupid party. I guess Ralph Watts didn’t hear or understand that.
The U.N. has no authority over the U.S. or the state of Iowa. It can only offer proposals and suggestions that countries may, or may not, voluntarily comply with. If the U.S. ever agreed to comply with a U.N. proposal, it would be done at the federal level. State laws cannot override a federal mandate.
This is just a paranoia induced waste of time.
It makes me wonder from what wellspring legislative proposals like this originate. Rep. Wells doesn’t appear to have the acumen to have come up with this gem of nonsense on his own. Maybe he wasn’t perceived as being enough of a “good soldier”, and his own party’s hatchet men suggested that he get behind this item in order to set him up for ridicule.
Rep. Wells, enlighten us all: who planted the seed of this bill in your mind?
The proponents of this measure are likely graduates of a conservative talk radio course ( which likely includes a class on UN Black Helicopter descriptions and identification ) on the “UN Threat”.
As a professional in the field of planning I’ve always found this agenda 21 stuff to be a good sign that somebody is either incredibly ignorant to how planning works or just a conspiracy theory nutcase. You’d have to be completely insane to believe it’s anything more than a feel good waste of paper that someone might use as an example in a grant application. The only reason there are similarities to existing plans are because sustainability is common sense. somehow these loonies have turned it into a dirty word, as though they want to keep building roads and utilities with no means or resources to maintain them. Sustainability is at least as much about economics as it is some perceived hippy nonsense about the environment.
Chances are there was a former planner working for the UN who thought it would be neat to get them to pass something saying they like sustainable development. It was a meaningless gesture, much like most of what the UN does. To say it is anything sinister is conspiracy terrorist nonsense. Up until a couple years ago no planners had ever really heard of it.
I’d say the U.S.A. should seperate from the U.N.! The U.N. stands for things we Americans dont!
Yes, like decent government, disease prevention, environmentalism, sustainable economies, and the prevention of war. Values which are diametrioally opposed to those of the USA. (sarcasm mode .. partially off)
Specifically just what are those “things” “we Americans” ( We? Just whom are you speaking for besides yourself ?) don’t stand for ?
LIKE THE NEW WORLD ORDER, A CARBON TAX ON EVERYONE, ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, TOTAL GUN CONTROL ETC. GOOGLE IT YOU’LL LEARN SOME THINGS!
Why don’t you tell us about a credible source for the claims you make. There all sorts of kooks out there that you can find by googling. That does not make them credible.
All caps is text shouting. Oh sure, of course ! I can google “flat Earth”, “hollow Earth”, “Holocaust hoax”, “911 conspiracy”, “Big Foot found”, “Atlantis found”, “Moon landing hoax”, “alien abductions”, and on and on and “learn something”. Will what I learn be most likely fact or fiction ?
Dont you just love it…RIGHT DOWN PARTY LINES AGAIN….go ahead keep your heads in the sand….sheep…we’re surrounded by sheep…
The U.N. soldiers are the ones that are supposed to come into the country to take our guns when our military wont do it! This supposidly will transpire when Oblama passes a total Gun Ban in the near future! People wont easily give up there guns and lot of U.N. soldiers could end up 6 feet under!
LOLOLOLOL. You wingnut paranoiacs are so cute.
“Supposed to” and “supposedly will”. And who is saying the “supposeds” (to coin a word), the infamous “they” as in “they say” perhaps ? Some really good solid information we can take to the bank ! ( Consider yourself still in training for writing satire, Perry. You may have potential but don’t quit your day job (or any job, if you have one)!). PS: The “UN soldiers” would be lucky if they could take Cedar County. let alone the US.
I agree with you Cedric! U.N. soldiers wouldnt have a chance. But im not writing this as fact! Im sharing some things that are out there! You can belive them or you dont have too! Its interesting reading though and gets the conversation going! But Im probably the only one on here with a job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And according to Miss Bell im a killer with a gun!
“. . . believe them or or you don’t have (to)!” Something people who tend to be “believers” don’t understand: For people who think critically and look for facts and evidence it’s not a matter of belief but rather a matter of accepting something as factual only to extent it is supported by credible evidence/demonstrable facts. And typically such people don’t “share . . . things” (nor find them interesting) that appear to be nothing more than beliefs, speculation, rumor, hearsay . . . Sharing just spreads it.
There’s only one worthy response to that: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
On 2nd thought, after reading responses, perhaps you should go into comedy writing, Perry. ( But not everyone is laughing. Sen. Grassley voted against ratifying the UN Treaty on persons with disabilities because he had concerns it threatened US sovereignty.)
The very thought that people who think the way Perry Hagen thinks and who believe the way Perry Hagen believes can have, under current law, virtually unlimited access to as many firearms of whatever type he wants is terrifying. So he can do what? Shoot and kill UN soldiers coming to get his guns?
Roberta Bell, I never said these were my opinions and I am only sharing things ive read! I dont appreciate you saying im going to go buy guns and kill soldiers! I never said anything of the sort. I only said if these things were true, things could get ugly! I expect a full apology! You are one for assumptions and you know what that does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn’t read into your comments that you were saying you were “going to go buy guns . . . ” either. But the whole issue is moot. The UN has no army, air force, or navy. “UN troops” are simply troops from countries that agree to participate in actions agreed to by UN members under the “UN banner”. The UN has no enforcement control in the US. In fact the US has withheld payment of its UN dues several times in the past and the UN had no way to force the US to comply. One should worry more about Boy Scouts arriving at one’s door to collect guns than “UN Troops”.
Mr Smith, back during the Vietnam War I hung around with members of the Weather Underground. It didn’t take me very long to decide that these people were completely nuts.
They were also very dangerous. You can do a google on Cathy Wilkerson. It’s an interesting story
But cut to the chase, I don’t take the things Mr Hagen has posted lightly
Mr Hagen, you need to be careful about how you share what you read. If your statements about the UN and seizing guns and UN soldiers ending up six feet under weren’t your opinions, why did you post them.
Given the NRA’s insistence that it isn’t the guns, it’s the crazy people who own them (Wayne LaPierre’s oft repeated insistence that background checks include access to a complete list of America’s mentally ill. Has he walked that one back yet?), it’s only a matter of time before “mentally ill” morphs into “ostensibly sane people who say crazy things”.
Posting things on line that make it sound as if you were planning a David Koresh is not exactly smart
Im simply relaying certain things Ive read online! Not saying its my opinion or not! But keep an open mind!
“Simply relaying certain things (you’ve) read on line.” What does that do to promote the circulation of credible and factual information versus hearsay, claims, speculation, myth . . . ? I binged “UN Agenda 21″ and got 3,260,000 hits. Which ones did you relay ?
Why don’t you identify a credible source for what you say? There are lots of kooks you can google. They are not credible.
Not sure how many UN policies have been adapted by the US but I would not be so trusting as to think it’s not possible or noticeably visible. Considering the far reaches of the federal govt. I applaud someone for wanting to protect personal property rights. I wonder if the loss of the family farm in favor of the well subsidized corporate farms is brought to you by central planning???
On a personal note, I’m hardly a left wing loon but have recently taken on a semi- active role in a sustainable living project. We are basically starting off with fish tanks and gardens, but most importantly, NO govt. grants.
We might consider some left over solar panels from Solyndra if they have not been shipped to China yet.
Al Gore is a perfect example of why people are skeptical. He doesn’t practice what he preaches and uses questionable science to lead his blind followers. The economical benefits sure worked for him.
That said, it doesn’t take a govt. program or a heavy hand to start a sustainable living venture.
“That said, it doesn’t take a govt. program or a heavy hand to start a sustainable living venture.”
No, but it DOES require a personal committment of time and capital on an individual’s part. The long-standing conservative assault on (ironically enough) “conservation” has left many people with the impression that such activities are futile. Where government can help is to provide a “leg up” to embryonic conservation-oriented businesses such as green energy though grants, tax incentives for producers, and tax breaks for users. Some of these nurtured businesses will pan out, but many won’t. Doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be tried out. Unfortunately, in most cases that requires (1) a policy committment and (2) bribing individuals to try them.
http://speechthetruth.com/confirmed-un-treaty-allows-foreign-troops-to-confiscate-guns-american/
I’m glad this subject came up. It helps me understand how my Republican lawmakers are wasting my tax money.
Near as I can figure, Agenda 21 is one of those utopian ideas that falls under the general heading of Futurism.
The UN, unlike, for example, the IMF, has virtually no enforcement authority. It cannot send in jackbooted anything to round up people and force them into cities.
Fact is that more and more people are moving out of rural areas into cities and that has been the trend for the last three hundred years. The US hit the 50/50 mark ninety years ago and is currently at around 90/10. Iowa is around 80/20
We live in a state in a country in a world where the overwhelming vast majority of people live in cities. We have been living with zoning boards telling private citizens what they can do with their private property since the 1920s. Deal with it.
Agenda 21 has several objectives but I believe that the principal motivator for the UN to promote it is its Section II, which seeks to slow the rate at which people are encroaching on rainforest/jungle areas (for the purpose of logging or creating small farming freeholds) by providing a a better opportunity for a higher quality of life in urban centers. The other Sections seem to exist to facilitate this “objective”.
From an environmental standpoint, this is well-meaning (increasing deforestation means ever-less CO2 that can be removed from the atmosphere) but is probably doomed to failure: the desire to own land and exploit for personal gain it is powerful among all cultures, and changing that is likely to be a pipe dream for a very long time. That doesn’t mean that the intent of Section II is a sinister one, although with the mass of climate-change deniers in this country, it gives the anti-science/CCD crowd another reason to completely misrepresent Agenda 21 as a UN master plan for world domination. Add the CCD’ers to the UN-haters, right-wing paranoids, general evil-conspiracy-lovers, and the various talking heads who exploit them, and you have a sizeable number of people decrying Agenda 21, all for their individual reasons, all of which are baseless.
Jack if your anylisis is correct,(save the rain forests) why is Agenda 21 in the conversation in Iowa?
Agenda 21 is harmless
ALEC is evil and must be abolished
Good to see the liberal double standard is in play..still.
Test post, test for “java script error” message.
Why did you bring up the ALEC other than to throw in a “red herring” and muddy the conversation? ( If you don’t know what a “red herring” is look it up. ) The ALEC has nothing to do with the subject — you could have just as well used the NRA (nothing to do with the subject). Agenda 21 appears to be aimed at fostering sustainable development. What’s wrong with that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
It’s in the “conversation in Iowa” because a greenhorn GOP state lawmaker was duped into trying to turn it into a political issue. Much like the pointless sharia law bans pending or enacted elsewhere in the country (and also promoted by the GOP): it is feelgood legislation for the kneejerk-idiot contingent of that party and as such has no business being in the Iowa Code. It is reminiscent of the move many years ago by Kansas to declare the State Bird of Iowa, the goldfinch, a pest after Iowa declared Kansas’ State Flower, the sunflower, to be a noxious weed. It is stupid politics and we deserve better than that from our legislators.
Williamson,
I was under the impression that ALEC was a lobbying group the mission of which was to advance Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty. I had no idea that it was a claque of anti-science, climate change denying, UN hating, right wing paranoid evil conspiracty lovers, and the talking heads who exploit them.
Thank you for enlightening us and alerting us to the fact that ALEC is at least as evil as the UN
Wrong again! Re-figure!
Wrong, how? It’s hard to argue with cold, hard facts… especially when they are independently verifiable and not a figment of some wingnut’s imagination.
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/7179