Green New Deal Reveals The Naked Truth Of Agenda 21

For decades, Tom and I have been ridiculed for exposing Agenda 21, but now that it is exposed in its full dis-glory and radical un-splendor, thanks to AOC and the Green New Deal, the shoe is now on the other foot. ⁃ TN Editor

Sometimes if you fight hard enough and refuse to back down, no matter the odds, your truth is vindicated and prevails!

For twenty years I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist, scaremonger, extremist, dangerous, nut case. I’ve been denied access to stages, major news programs, and awarded tin foil hats. All because I have worked to expose Agenda 21 and its policy of sustainable development as a danger to our property rights, economic system, and culture of freedom.

From its inception in 1992 at the United Nation’s Earth Summit, 50,000 delegates, heads of state, diplomats and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) hailed Agenda 21 as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 350-page, 40 chapter, Agenda 21 document was quite detailed and explicit in its purpose and goals.  They warned us that the reorganization would be dictated through all-encompassing policies affecting every aspect of our lives, using environmental protection simply as the excuse to pull at our emotions and get us to voluntarily surrender our liberties.

Section I details “Social and Economic Dimensions” of the plan, including redistribution of wealth to eradicate poverty, maintain health through vaccinations and modern medicine, and population control.

To introduce the plan, the Earth Summit Chairman, Maurice Strong boldly proclaimed, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” Of course, according to the plan, if it’s not “sustainable” it must be stopped.

In support of the plan, David Brower of the Sierra Club (one of the NGO authors of the agenda) said, “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.” Leading environmental groups advocated that the Earth could only support a maximum of one billion people, leading famed Dr. Jacques Cousteau to declare, “In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Section II provides the “Conservation and Management of Resources for Development” by outlining how environmental protection was to be the main weapon, including global protection of the atmosphere, land, mountains, oceans, and fresh waters – all under the control of the United Nations.

To achieve such global control to save the planet, it is necessary to eliminate national sovereignty and independent nations. Eliminating national borders quickly led to the excuse for openly allowing the “natural migration” of peoples. The UN Commission on Global Governance clearly outlined the goal for global control stating, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” That pretty much explains why the supporters of such a goal go a little off the rails when a presidential candidate makes his campaign slogan “Make America Great Again.”

The main weapon for the Agenda was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of man-made global warming, later to conveniently become “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in this scheme as actual global temperatures really are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any man-made affect on the climate. Truth hasn’t been important to the scare mongers. Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” To further drive home their complete lack of concern for truth, Paul Watson of Green Peace declared, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

So in their zealotry to enforce the grand agenda, social justice became the “moral force” over the rule of law as free enterprise, private property, rural communities and individual consumption habits became the targets, labeled as racist and a social injustice. Such established institutions and free market economics were seen as obstructions to the plan, as were traditional family units, religion, and those who were able to live independently in rural areas.

Finally, Agenda 21 was summed up in supporting documents this way: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced. It requires a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals, and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

Of course, such harsh terms had to be hidden from the American people if the plan was to be successfully imposed. They called it a “suggestion” for “voluntary” action –  just in case a nation or community wanted to do something positive for mankind! However, while using such innocent-sounding language, the Agenda 21 shock troops lost no time pushing it into government policy. In 1992, just after its introduction at the Earth Summit, Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan into Congress. It’s interesting to note that she boldly called it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” In 1993, new President, Bill Clinton ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land. Then the American Planning Association issued a newsletter in 1994, supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning. So much for a voluntary idea!

However, as we, the opponents started to gain some ground in exposing its true purpose and citizens began to storm city halls protesting local implementation, suddenly the once proud proponents lost their collective memories about Agenda 21. Never heard of it! “There are no blue-helmeted troops at city hall,” said one proponent, meaning policies being used to impose it were not UN driven, but just “local, local, local”. “Oh, you mean that innocuous 20 year-old document that has no enforcement capability? This isn’t that!” These were the excuses that rained down on us from the planners, NGOs and government agents as they scrambled to hide their true intentions.

I was attacked on the front page of the New York Times Sunday paper under the headline, “Activists Fight Green Projects, Seeing U.N. Plot.” The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) produced four separate reports on my efforts to stop it, calling our efforts an “Antigovernment Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory.” The Atlanticmagazine ran a story entitled, “Is the UN Using Bike Paths to Achieve World Domination?” Attack articles appeared in the Washington PostEsquire magazine, Wingnut WatchMother Jones,and Tree Hugger.com to name a few. All focused on labeling our opposition as tin-foil-hat-wearing nut jobs. Meanwhile, an alarmed American Planning Association (APA) created an “Agenda 21: Myths and Facts page on its web site to supposedly counter our claims. APA then organized a “Boot Camp” to retrain its planners to deal with us, using a “Glossary for the Public,” teaching them new ways to talk about planning. Said the opening line of the Glossary, “Given the heightened scrutiny of planners by some members of the public, what is said – or not said – is especially important in building support for planning.” The Glossary went on to list words not to use like “Public Visioning,” “Stakeholders,” “Density,” and “Smart Growth,” because such words make the “Critics see red”.

Local elected officials, backed by NGO groups and planners, began to deride local activists – sometimes denying them access to speak at public meetings, telling them that Agenda 21 conspiracy theory has “been debunked”. Most recently an irate city councilman answered a citizen who claimed local planning was part of Agenda 21 by saying “this is what’s “trending.” So, of course, if everyone is doing it is must be right!

Such has been our fight to stop this assault on our culture and Constitutional rights.

Over the years, since the introduction of Agenda 21 in 1992, the United Nations has created several companion updates to the original documents. This practice serves two purposes. One is to provide more detail on how the plan is to be implemented. The second is to excite its global activists with a new rallying cry. In 2000, the UN held the Millennium Summit, launching the Millennium Project featuring eight goals for global sustainability to be reached by 2015. Then, when those goals were not achieved, the UN held another summit in New York City in September of 2015, this time outlining 17 goals to be reached by 2030. This document became known as the 2030 Agenda, containing the exact same goals as were first outlined in Agenda 21in 1992, and then again in 2000, only with each new incarnation offering more explicit direction for completion.

Enter the Green New Deal, representing the boldest tactic yet. The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal couldn’t be more transparent. The forces behind Agenda 21 and its goal of reorganizing human society have become both impatient and scared. Impatient that 27 years after Agenda 21 was introduced, and after hundreds of meetings, planning sessions, massive propaganda, and billions of dollars spent, the plan still is not fully in place. Scared because people around the world are starting to learn its true purpose and opposition is beginning to grow.

So the forces behind the Agenda have boldly thrown off their cloaking devices and their innocent sounding arguments that they just want to protect the environment and make a better life for us all. Instead, they are now openly revealing that their goal is socialism and global control, just as I’ve been warning about for these past twenty years. Now they are determined to take congressional action to finally make it the law of the land.

Take a good look, those of you who have heard my warnings about Agenda 21 over the years. Do you see the plan I have warned about being fully in place in this Green New Deal?

  • I warned that Agenda 21 would control every aspect of our lives, including how and were we live, the jobs we have, the mode of transportation available to us, and even what we eat. The Green New Deal is a tax on everything we do, make, wear, eat, drink, drive, import, export and even breathe.
  • In opposing Smart Growth plans in your local community, I said the main goal was to eliminate cars, to be replaced with bikes, walking, and light rail trains. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of the internal combustion engine. Stay alert. The next step will be to put a ban on the sale of new combustion engines by a specific date and then limiting the number of new vehicles to be sold. Bans on commercial truck shipping will follow. Then they will turn to airplanes, reducing their use. Always higher and higher taxes will be used to get the public to “voluntarily” reduce their use of such personal transportation choices. That’s how it works, slowly but steadily towards the goal.
  • I warned that under Smart Growth programs now taking over every city in the nation that single-family homes are a target for elimination, to be replaced by high-rise stack and pack apartments in the name of reducing energy use. That will include curfews on carbon heating systems, mandating they be turned off during certain hours. Heating oil devises will become illegal. Gradually, energy use of any kind will be continually reduced. The Green New Deal calls for government control of every single home, office and factory to tear down or retrofit them to comply with massive environmental energy regulations.
  • I warned that Agenda 21 Sustainable policy sought to drive those in rural areas off the farms and into the cities where they could be better controlled. Those in the cities will be ordered to convert their gardens into food producers. Most recently I warned that the beef industry is a direct target for elimination. It will start with mandatory decreases in meat consumption until it disappears form our daily diet. The consumption of dairy will follow. Since the revelation of the Green New Deal the national debate is now over cattle emissions of methane and the drive to eliminate them from the planet. Controlling what we eat is a major part of the Green New Deal.
  • I warned that part of the plan for Agenda 2030 was “Zero Economic Growth.” The Green New Deal calls for a massive welfare plan where no one earns more than anyone else. Incentive to get ahead is dead. New inventions would disrupt their plan for a well-organized, controlled society. So, where will jobs come from after we have banned most manufacturing, shut down most stores, stopped single-family home construction, closed the airline industry, and severely regulated farms and the entire food industry? This is their answer to the hated free markets and individual choice.

The Green New Deal will destroy the very concept of our Constitutional Republic, eliminating private property, locally elected representative government, free markets and individual freedom. All decisions in our lives will be made for us by the government – just to protect the environment of course. They haven’t forgotten how well that scheme works to keep the masses under control.

Though the label “Green New Deal” has been passing around globalist circles for a while, it’s interesting that its leaders have now handed it to a naïve, inexperienced little girl from New York who suddenly found herself rise from bartending to a national media sensation, almost over night. That doesn’t just happen and there is no miracle here. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a created product. They probably needed her inexperienced enthusiasm to deliver the Green New Deal because no established politician would touch it. Now that it’s been introduced and she is set up to take the heat, the gates have swung open allowing forty-five members of Congress to co-sponsor it in the House of Representatives as established Senator Ed. Markey (D-MA) has sponsored it in the Senate. That doesn’t just happen either. Nothing has been left to chance.

Behind the sudden excitement and rush to support it are three radical groups each having direct ties to George Soros, including the Sunrise Movement – which markets itself as an “army of young people” seeking to make climate change a major priority.   Justice Democrats – which finds and recruits progressive candidates, and New Consensus – organized to change how we think about issues. Leaders of these groups have connections with other Soros-backed movements including Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street. According to The New Yorker magazine, the plan was written over a single weekend in December, 2018. Ocasio-Cortez was included in the effort, chosen to introduce it. This may be the single reason why she was able to appear out of nowhere to become the new darling of the radical left.

So there you have it — Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030, the Green New Deal. Progress in the world of Progressives! They warned us from the beginning that their plan was the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”. And so it is to be the total destruction of our way of life.

To all of those elected officials, local, state and federal, who have smirked at we who have tried to sound the alarm, look around you now, hot shots! You have denied, ignored, and yet, helped put these very plans into place. Are you prepared to accept what you have done? Will you allow your own homes and offices to be torn down – or will you be exempt as part of the elite or just useful idiots? Will you have to give up your car and ride your bike to work? Or is that just for we peasants?

Over these years you have listened to the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ICLEI, the American Planning Association, and many more, as they assured you their plans were just environmental protection, just good policy for future generations. They have been lying to you to fulfill their own agenda!  Well, now the truth is right in front of you. There is no question of who and what is behind this. And no doubt as to what the final result will be.

Now, our elected leaders have to ask real questions. As the Green New Deal is implemented, and all energy except worthless, unworkable wind and solar are put into place, are you ready for the energy curfews that you will be forced to impose, perhaps each night as the sun fades, forcing factories, restaurants, hospitals, and stores to close at dusk? How about all those folks forced to live in the stack and pack high-rises when the elevators don’t operate? What if they have an emergency?

How much energy will it take to rebuild those buildings that must be destroyed or retrofitted to maker them environmentally correct for your brave new world? Where will it come from after you have banned and destroyed all the workable sources of real energy? What are you counting on to provide you with food, shelter, and the ability to travel so you can continue to push this poison? Because – this is what’s trending — now! And how is it going to be financed when the entire economy crashes under its weight? Is it really the future you want for you, your family, and your constituents who elected you?

Every industry under attack by this lunacy should now join our efforts to stop it.  Cattlemen, farmers, airlines, the auto industry, realtors, tourist industry, and many more, all will be put out of business – all should now take bold action to immediately kill this plan before it kills your industry. Stomp it so deeply into the ground that no politician will ever dare think about resurrecting it.

For years I’ve watched politicians smirk, roll their eyes, and sigh whenever the words Agenda 21 were uttered. As George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those who speak it”. Today I stand vindicated in my warnings of where Agenda 21 was truly headed, because it’s not longer me having to reveal the threat. They are telling you themselves. Here’s the naked truth – Socialism is for the stupid. The Green New Deal is pure Socialism. How far its perpetrators get in enforcing it depends entirely on how hard you are willing to fight for freedom. Kill it now or watch it die.

Read full story here…




Green Tech Expert: ‘Car Ownership Is Nonsense’

The UN’s Agenda 21 and 2030 Agenda are personified by this propaganda: “walking comes first, bicycles and scooters second and public transport third. Cars should only come in fourth place.” That’s right, you can walk wherever you need to go. ⁃ TN Editor

The sharing economy can kill two birds with one stone by lowering the cost of green technologies and reducing polluting emissions, cleantech expert Radoslav Mizera told EURACTIV Slovakia.

Radoslav Mizera is vice-president and Chief Innovation Officer at Solved, a cleantech advisory service connecting green firms and smart city experts with governments and companies.

Last year, EU institutions agreed on new CO2 emission standards for cars and vans, and discussions are ongoing about limits for heavy-duty vehicles. The EU’s Energy Union Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič says the new rules will force the car industry to modernise and become more competitive on the world market. But others doubt the ability of carmakers to adapt. What do you think?

I agree with Mr Šefčovič. It can be done. The Croatian company Rimac Automobili founded by Mate Rimac is a good example. He is extremely innovative. He is considered a technological leader in his field. He focuses exclusively on sports cars, but his technologies can impact other industries as well. And they are spreading thanks to cooperation with other carmakers.

This example shows us, that even countries like Croatia can make the difference on a global level. It is very important to have leaders like this in Slovakia as well.

Will strict emission limits help the car industry’s competitiveness?

Yes, because they can pave the way for alternative producers that are coming to the market with innovations.

During the past ten years, China strongly supported “new energy vehicles”. Now, China is on the verge of becoming the global leader in this field. That is the so-called global competition that is threating our own industries.

If we do not realise this, Chinese carmakers will outcompete ours. In the next ten years, we will see massive development of e-mobility.

If we do not adapt, will we end up buying Chinese e-vehicles in Europe?

It’s possible, yes. One reason for modernising car manufacturing is boosting local production. Another is global competitiveness. The third and possibly most important reason is the ongoing shift in business models. It is not about cars as such anymore. It is about the charging infrastructure having an important position in the energy sector, because it is part of smart grids.

More importantly, we will see a transition to the shared economy. In the future, we will not own cars. Judged by efficiency, it is nonsense. Up to ten people can share one vehicle. The car industry argues that car making is expensive and difficult, that they don’t have enough production inputs for such a high number of cars. But why would they need to produce so many of them?

Are consumers ready to accept that car ownership doesn’t make sense?

Maybe they will naturally come to that conclusion on their own. They will find out that not owning an automobile is more comfortable and cheaper. It will be a rational consumer decision. It just doesn’t make sense to pay ten times more for transport just because I want to own a car.

In the future, car ownership could end up being only reserved for super-luxury vehicles and super-rich people. But considering efficiency, it is definitely not the way to go. Transport networks will be optimised, emissions will be cut down. Sharing will allow cheaper and less time-consuming transport. Shared costs will make the way for new technologies.

Yet cities should allow mobility solutions, in which walking comes first, bicycles and scooters second and public transport third. Cars should only come in fourth place.

Read full story here…




The UN Wants To Be Our World Government By 2030

The U.N. is the solo driver for planetary Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. As a totally managed economic system run by science and engineering, it will be a Scientific Dictatorship and that will be the governance. Government as we know it will not be necessary. ⁃ TN Editor

In the 1960s, an informed but naïve undergraduate, I was walking across the campus of the University of Pennsylvania with the Chairman of the Chemistry Department, Prof. Charles C. Price. He told me that he was president of the United World Federalists, and asked if I knew what that organization was. When I said that I did not, he replied that they believed in a one-world government that would grow out of the United Nations. I was nonplussed as I had never heard anyone suggest that idea before. To me, the United Nations was a benevolent organization dedicated to pressuring the world community in the direction of peace, and to operating charitable programs to help the struggling, impoverished peoples of the world. I imagined the UN as a kind of United Way on a worldwide scale.

How would Prof. Price’s vision of a new world government emerge? Although there was a socialistic thread in its founding document, the United Nations was formed based on a vision of human rights presented in the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (UDHR) which placed the concept of rights at the forefront for the progress of the world body. And rights are the mainstay for uplifting human freedom and the dignity of the individual. The UDHR document followed many amazing documents that presented rights as the central concept of the post-feudal world: the English Declaration (or Bill) of Rights of 1689, the U.S. Declaration of Independence with its important and forceful assertion of inalienable natural rights, the powerful U.S. Bill of Rights enacted in 1791, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789).

The word “rights” appears in almost every sentence of the 1869-word UN document. The document is literally obsessed with rights, and one must assume they are likewise obsessed with the rights successes as manifested in the United Kingdom, the U.S., and France. However, there are some deviations from the rights usage we are all familiar with. In Article 3, Instead of the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” found in our Declaration of Independence, the UN declares everyone’s right to “life, liberty and security of person.” Are they implying that security will bring happiness? Or are they implying that happiness is too ephemeral a value, and too Western? Perhaps more mundane survival goals are needed by most of the world.

We see a reprise of items from our Bill of Rights such as condemnation of cruel and unusual punishment (Article 5), due process (Articles 6,7,8,9, 10, 11, 14, 17), illegal search and seizure (Article 12), and freedom of speech and assembly (Articles 19,20). But there are new rights introduced which, as early as 1945, were pointing the way towards intervention by the UN in the daily lives of people throughout the world. Throughout the document, they assert the right to food, clothing, medical care, social services, unemployment and disability benefits, child care, and free education, plus the right to “full development of the personality,” (imagine, the UN says I have the right to be me) and the “right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community… and to enjoy the arts” (we each have the right to enjoy a painting or a movie). However, they do not state the right to appear on the “Tonight Show” or “Saturday Night Live”, so there were limits to their largesse.

In 2015, seventy years after their original rights-based document, the UN took a giant step towards the global government that was only hinted at in their first organizing document. They issued a document entitled “Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This document has 91 numbered sections of the UN’s program for world government. The UDHR is only referenced once in the entire document in Article 19. Unlike the original “mother document” that was under 1900 words, this document is 14,883 words. The 91 items are addressing issues under the five headings of People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership. Additionally, the document provides 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve life on the planet.

What is meant by the term “sustainable?” The most often quoted definition comes from the UN World Commission on Environment and Development: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The earlier ideas and ideals of rights, freedom, equality, and justice are subsumed under meeting of needs and an explicit environmentalism which emphasizes preventing the depletion of scarce planetary resources. Of course, the takeoff is the Marxist axiom that society should be organized around the idea of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” Thus, Marxism is implicit in sustainability, but is nuanced by its alliance with seemingly scientific adjustments and goals related to environmentalism. A technical jargon is welded to Marxist intentionality to produce a sense of fittingness and modern progress.

The entire “Transforming Our World” document is cast in a stream of consciousness of pious platitudes for a utopian future. It is an outsize utopian dream. Five of the 17 items pertain to the environment. There are goals for the cities, for women, for the poor, and even for life under the water. Absolutely no sphere of human activity is exempt from control by the UN. The key word of course is no longer “rights” except the oblique reference in Article 19. In fact, this writer did not see the word rights even once in this document even though that word appeared in practically every sentence of the original UN document.

Read full story here…




Emergency Room Visits From E-Scooter Accidents Soar 160 Percent

Electric bicycle and scooter rentals are the latest craze to give urban dwellers ‘alternative transportation’  to eliminate carbon. Scooters in particular have caused a pandemic of injured riders. Residents in San Francisco detest these sidewalk intruders, and are moving to have them banned. ⁃ TN Editor

As injured electric scooter riders pour into emergency departments around the country, doctors have scrambled to document a trend that many view as a growing public safety crisis.

A detailed statistical portrait of that crisis won’t be available for another year, emergency physicians say, but some early samples are beginning to emerge.

In Salt Lake City — where dockless e-scooters have been on city streets since June — one hospital says it has seen a 161 percent increase in the number of visits involving scooters after comparing its latest statistics with the same three-month period a year earlier.

Between June and September 2017, physicians at University of Utah Health’s emergency room treated eight patients injured by scooters, though each of those were likely people’s personal devices and not the electric fleet vehicles owned by companies like Bird, Lime and Skip.

During the same period this year, that number had climbed to 21, according to Dr. Troy Madsen, who practices at the University of Utah Health’s Emergency Department.

“Most of the patients with these injuries specifically reported that they were riding an e-scooter or a rental scooter,” Madsen said, noting that they ranged in age from 20 to 50 years old and were often injured attempting to catch themselves in a fall. “Interestingly, more than 80 percent of the injuries this year happened between Aug. 15 and Sept. 15, which would correspond with the increasing popularity and availability of the e-scooters.”

“It’s worth noting that these were only emergency department visits,” he added. “Patients with more minor injuries may have gone to an urgent care, and the patients we saw were likely those with more significant injuries who required a higher level of care in an emergency department.”

Already a failed experiment?

The hospital reported that nearly half of this year’s injuries were fractures and dislocations of ankles, wrists, elbows and shoulders, as well as several cases of sprains and lacerations. Emergency physicians also treated several head injuries, and multiple patients told doctors they were intoxicated when they were injured and not wearing a helmet.

Emergency physicians noted that their statistics may represent a fraction of Salt Lake City’s e-scooter injuries. University of Utah Health’s Utah emergency department is “fairly close to the downtown area,” where most rentable scooters are located, but there are other emergency departments even closer, Madsen said.

Emergency physicians in a dozen cities around the country have told The Post that they are seeing a spike in scooter accidents. In seven cities, those physicians are regularly seeing “severe” injuries – including head traumas – that were sustained from scooters malfunctioning or flipping over on uneven surfaces as well as riders being hit by cars or colliding with pedestrians.

Some safety experts have raised questions about the gig economy workforce companies like Bird rely on to maintain their growing fleets. The company has posted ads on Craigslist seeking mechanics that say experience is not necessary in addition to providing training for new hires via YouTube videos. Videos posted online show Bird scooters with accelerators stuck in place and with wobbly handlebars and loose brakes.

“I just signed up to be a Bird mechanic,” one mechanic says on camera. “I realized there are a very large amount of scooters with problems.”

Last week, The Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office revealed that a 24-year-old man who fell of a Lime scooter on his way home for work this month was killed by blunt force injuries to the head.

Read full story here…




The Two Faces Of Seattle: ‘We’re The Greenest’ vs. ‘No, We’re Still Brown’

Seattle has long-claimed the mantle of leadership for any leftist, eco-friendly, Agenda 21 supporting policies that comes down the pike, and yet its practice falls far from matching its rhetoric, and likely never will. Such policies do nothing but increase prices, stifle property rights and saddle businesses with ridiculous rules and regulations.  ⁃ TN Editor

For more than 15 years, leaders of the Emerald City have been promising that Seattle will lead the nation in fighting climate change.

But the lofty words have been matched by continuing clouds of carbon emissions: Seattle dumps as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the sky today as it did 25 years ago.

After a while, the pronouncements start to sound like a broken record – beginning in 2001 with Mayor Paul Schell and continuing with every mayor since then.

“We set a new standard of trying to be the national leader on a lot of fronts,” Schell recalled in 2001 as he was leaving office. “I think our citizens expect that from our city.”

Schell committed the city to cut emissions 7 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2010.

In 2005, Mayor Greg Nickels made the same 7-percent commitment and started a national coalition of mayors dedicated to it.

“I asked the people of Seattle to work with me to take local action to meet the reductions called for in the Kyoto protocol,” Nickels said in 2006 at a press conference at which former Vice President Al Gore thanked Nickels and the people of Seattle for “lead[ing] the U.S. on this great moral challenge.”

The Seattle City Council and Mayor Mike McGinn promised in 2011 that the city would cut emissions 58 percent by 2030 and eliminate them entirely 20 years later. Seattle’s 2013 climate action plan spelled out the commitments in detail.

“Carbon neutrality by 2050, it means you have to do a lot in the near term,” McGinn told Science Friday’s Ira Flatow at a show recorded at Seattle’s Pacific Science Center in 2013.

“Donald Trump doesn’t want us to lead, but Seattle will lead,” Mayor Ed Murray said after President Trump announced he would abandon the Paris climate accords, an agreement signed by every nation on earth. “We are standing by our commitment to be 100 percent renewable by the year 2050.”

“We will not just lead the nation. We may lead the world,” candidate Jenny Durkan told KUOW during her campaign last year. She repeated the claim the day after her swearing-in.

But the city’s results have not matched its rhetoric.

“We are not reducing pollution fast enough to meet our very ambitious 2050 goals,” said Jessica Finn Coven, head of Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and Environment under mayors Murray and Durkan.

Coven said she takes climate change very seriously.

“As a lifelong climate activist, I always think we need to be doing more. I am aware constantly of this problem,” she said. “I have a 4- and a 7-year-old. This is their future that we’re all working for. So I take it really seriously.”

Seattle’s biggest sources of carbon pollution are the vehicles that move us and the buildings that shelter us.

The city has tried to rein in pollution from cars and trucks under various mayors, but our rising population and traffic have swamped those efforts.

Read full story here…




Secretary Of The Interior Orders First-Ever National Survey Of Critical Minerals

In keeping with Public-Private Partnerships, Secretary Zinke has ordered an inventory of all mineral resources on public and private land in the U.S. When he states “Other nations are far ahead of us with mapping of their mineral resources, leading to private sector investment overseas rather than right here at home”, note that his eye is on private sector investment. This is a setup to give precious American resources to selected global corporations. ⁃ TN Editor

Today, following President Donald J. Trump’s executive order to break America’s dependence on foreign minerals, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke signed a secretarial order directing the initial steps to producing the first nationwide geological and topographical survey of the United States in modern history. The order also directs Interior bureaus to begin work on identifying immediate domestic sources for critical minerals.

“Right now the United States is almost completely reliant on foreign adversaries and competitors for many of the minerals that are deemed critical for our national and economic security. As both a former military commander and geologist, I know the risk this presents to our nation,” said Secretary Ryan Zinke. “The problem is we can’t fix the problem if we don’t know where the minerals are within our own boarders. Other nations are far ahead of us with mapping of their mineral resources, leading to private sector investment overseas rather than right here at home. Drafting a complete topographical and geographic survey of the United States is exactly the kind of task the USGS was created to do.”

“Our nation’s growing dependence on foreign minerals is a distinct threat to our economy, our national defense, and our international competitiveness,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said. “We need to improve all aspects of the supply chain – from geologic surveying to permitting reform – so that our nation produces more of the minerals that are fundamental to energy, health care, manufacturing, and other technologies. I welcome Secretary Zinke’s determination to strengthen our nation’s mineral security, and will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to ensure we complement these efforts with legislative action.”

“A country blessed with abundant mineral resources shouldn’t be mineral-dependent and vulnerable,” said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT). “This is an economic and security threat that’s festered across administrations for too long. I look forward to continuing our work with the Trump administration to unlock our domestic mineral potential and reverse this disturbing trend.”

The United States is heavily reliant on imports of certain mineral commodities that are vital to our national security and economic prosperity. This dependency on foreign sources creates a strategic vulnerability to U.S. industry and the military if supplies of these key minerals were disrupted by foreign government action, natural disasters, or other events.

Despite the presence of significant mineral deposits of some of these materials across the United States, our miners and producers are currently limited by a lack of comprehensive, machine-readable data concerning topographical, geological, and geophysical surveys; permitting delays; and the potential for extended litigation when permits are issued.

Western Caucus and House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals Chairman Paul Gosar said, “Our reliance on foreign nations of questionable stability and demonstrated hostile intentions towards the United States for critical minerals constitutes a serious national security problem. This situation has come about even though the United States could readily procure the vast majority of the 23 minerals identified in the USGS Report domestically and sustainably, were we only to choose to greenlight development of our bounty of mineral resources. At a recent hearing of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee which I chair, I emphasized the extent to which arbitrary mineral withdrawals and a federal bureaucracy loathe to authorize mineral projects have brought us to this precarious juncture. But there is a way forward. I applaud President Trump and Secretary Zinke for taking action to advance American energy dominance and strengthen our national security.”

The SecretarialOrder directs the following action:

  1. Direct the United States Geological Survey to:
    • Identify new sources of critical minerals;
    • Ensure that our miners and producers have electronic access to the most advanced topographic, geologic, and geophysical data, with appropriate limitations to protect critical infrastructure data such as those related to national security areas
  2. Direct the Bureau of Land Management and USGS to within 30 days provide a list of minerals defined as “critical minerals” to the Secretary of the Interior. Within 30 days after receiving the list of critical minerals from the BLM and USGS, the Secretary will coordinate with the Department of Defense and consult with the heads of other relevant agencies and departments to establish the final list.
  3. Within 60 days of the completion of the critical minerals list, provide a plan to the Secretary to improve the topographic, geological, and geophysical mapping of the United States, and make the resulting data and metadata electronically accessible to support private sector mineral exploration of critical minerals.
  4. Within 60 days of the signing of the Executive Order, each bureau head with land management responsibilities shall submit to the Secretary a list of recommendations to streamline permitting and review processes related to developing leases, accessing critical mineral resources, and increasing critical mineral discovery, production, and domestic refining.
  5. Within 60 days of the signing of the Executive Order, each bureau head with land management responsibilities shall submit to the Secretary a list of recommended options for improving access and developing critical minerals.

“I applaud Secretary Zinke for initiating a review of the outdated, job-crushing policies that inhibit our ability to utilize our own mineral resources,” said Senator Dean Heller (R-NV). “Nevada is one of the most mineral rich locations on earth, and hard rock mining contributes to thousands of jobs in ourstate. In order to harness our nation’s true mineral potential and end our reliance on foreign production, we need to streamline and update these policies, and that’s why I authored legislation that would do just that. I thank Secretary Zinke for his leadership on this issue and his work to help allow Nevada and this country to enact a strategy to fully maximize our nation’s mineral potential.”

“I commend Secretary Zinke for his work to support our miners, streamline the permitting and review process, and enhance our national defense with this important order today,” said Congressman Tom Emmer (R-MN). “Minnesota, like so many states across this great nation, is fully prepared to step up and help unleash America’s full mining potential which will improve national security, add jobs, bring economic prosperity and enhance the lives of every American. Additionally, our current environmental regulations ensure that we can secure critical minerals like copper and aluminum, while protecting our nation’s vast, beautiful landscape. I am glad that this administration agrees sound economic, environmental, and security policy can and should coexist.”

“I applaud Secretary Zinke’s efforts to end our reliance on foreign countries for minerals that are critically important to our economy and national defense. American companies need access to these minerals to remain competitive globally and the Department of Defense needs access to these minerals to defend our country,” said Senator James E. Risch (R-ID).

“This report highlights a critical problem that has gotten far less attention than it deserves,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force. “Many of our most important—and common—electronic devices require rare-earth metals such as yttrium, lanthanum, and gadolinium to function properly. Television sets, computer processors, and iPhones all incorporate these scarce elements, and the fact that the United States relies so heavily on other countries for so many of them makes our supply chain exceedingly vulnerable. We need a concerted effort here at home to boost recycling and, as appropriate, production of rare-earth minerals so that we have better control over crucial components of our supply chain.”

“Secretary Zinke has taken a critical step by highlighting how our national security is tied to our need to develop rare earth resources. This is an important issue, and one our office has been leading on in Congress. West Virginia University has been leading in this effort by conducting research on recovering rare earth elements from coal mine drainage,” said Congressman David B. McKinley (R-WV). “As they continue to refine this process, it has the potential to have a significant impact on West Virginia’s economy, and help reduce environmental impacts. I applaud Secretary Zinke’s leadership and look forward to working with him on this issue.”

Read full story here…




Secretary Of The Interior: Public-Private Partnerships Will Blanket All Public Lands

In 2016, the UN convened the Third International Conference on Financing for Development and stated “both public and private investment have key roles to play in infrastructure financing, including through public private partnerships”. It is now clear that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is playing directly into the hands of the United Nations. ⁃ TN Editor

Today, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announced the establishment of the “Made in America” Recreation Advisory Committee. The Committee will advise the Secretary of the Interior on public-private partnerships across all public lands, with the goal of expanding access to and improving infrastructure on public lands and waterways.

“The spirit of American innovation and ingenuity is what built our country, and the Interior Department wants that same spirit and energy to resonate within the realm of outdoor recreation on our public lands,” said Secretary Zinke. “By forming this committee, I look forward to hearing from the best and the brightest in our private sector on how to improve the public experience on our federal lands and waters by expanding access for all Americans. We already have thousands of private partners who operate on federal lands. Whether it’s the iconic Jammers in Glacier National Park, the historic El Tovar lodge at the Grand Canyon, or the kayaks that you can rent on the Potomac River, American workers are at the heart of helping American families experience our great outdoors.”

The members of the Committee will be selected for their diverse backgrounds and their experiences with the recreational industry. Prospective members will have knowledge utilizing public-private partnerships, providing recreational visitor experiences, developing and deploying infrastructure improvements, or a thorough understanding of recreational equipment.

“America’s abundance and beauty is something to be both preserved and admired,” said Representative Dennis A. Ross. “As an RV enthusiast, I have been able to experience firsthand the glorious landscape of our great nation, and am thankful for those American entrepreneurs and innovators who think of new ways to experience what our country has to offer. I hope that with their guidance, more Americans will be able to witness the vast bounty of our land, from sea to shining sea.”

“Northern Indiana is the RV Capital of the World, so Hoosiers know outdoor recreation plays a critical role in growing our nation’s economy and creating American manufacturing jobs,” said Representative Jackie Walorski. “I’m pleased Secretary Zinke is launching the “Made in America” Recreation Advisory Committee to help achieve the important goals of increasing access to our nation’s public lands, boosting investment in outdoor tourism, and building more American-made products like RVs and boats.”

The duties of the Committee are strictly advisory and will consist of, but not be limited to, providing recommendations including:

Policies and programs that:

  • Expand and improve visitor infrastructure developed through public-private partnerships;
  • Implement sustainable operations embracing fair, efficient and convenient fee collection and strategic use of the collected fees;
  • Improve interpretation using technology;
  • Create better tools and/or opportunities for Americans to discover their lands and waters.

You may submit comments and/or nominations by any of the following methods:

  • Mail or hand-carry nominations to Teri Austin, Associate Director for Business Services, National Park Service, Office of Business Services, 1849 C Street, NW, MS 2717, Washington, DC 20240; or email nominations to: teresa_austin@nps.gov

The Committee will meet approximately two times annually, and at such time as designated by the Designated Federal Officer. The Committee will terminate two years from the date the Charter is filed, unless, prior to that date, it is renewed in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

The Committee will not meet or take any action without a valid current Charter. The Committee is established by authority of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 100906, and is regulated by the FACA, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

Read full story here…




UN Using Federal ‘Public-Private-Partnerships’ As Trojan Horse For Global Policies

The UN’s agenda for America rolls on without respect to which party is elected to office, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, appointed by President Trump is no exception as he implements PPP throughout the nation’s land holdings.  TN Editor

The article, Recreation Advisory Committee for Public Lands, shed a positive light on Sec. Zinke’s promotion of public-private-partnerships (PPP), giving the “motorized recreation industry a voice in the creation of public lands policy… that involve roads, trails and waterways on federally-controlled lands”.  Sec. Zinke plans to accomplish this through his newly established Recreation Advisory Committee (RAC).  But there is a far greater, and more dangerous agenda with  Zinke’s plan for corporate involvement in public land.

In 2014, the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources (BRP) was created by Bass Pro shop founder John Morris, and former Wyoming governor Dave Freudenthal. BRP “represents the outdoor recreation retail and manufacturing sector, the energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, conservation organizations, sportsmen’s groups and state fish and wildlife agencies.” One of their goals is “recommending a new funding mechanism to support state fish and wildlife conservation to ensure the sustainability of all fish and wildlife for current and future generations.”  “The Blue Ribbon Panel includes 26 business and conservation leaders” and “was convened to evaluate and recommend a more sustainable funding approach to avert a fish and wildlife conservation crisis.” Panel members include United Nations (UN) business partners (ToyotaShell), UN non-governmental organizations (NGO) (NWFASNSSF), and other groups funded by UN partners.

Corporations are not just interested in managing public land, they want to conserve land as well.  Their involvement garnered another piece of legislation, H.R. 3400, called the Recreation Not Red-Tape Act. Among other things this bill would create a system of National Recreation Areas (RMA) managed specifically for recreation. A National Recreation Area is the counterpart to a designated wilderness area or national monument, an identified protected area for recreation. The Outdoor Industry Association and NGOs love this as it benefits corporate greed and NGO agendas to lock up and control land.  The Wilderness Society spells out just exactly what a recreation management area is, with all the restrictions, using the BLM as an example. Recreation Resource Management is already providing these types of services.  What better way for businesses to incorporate their conservation goals into public land use than to be handed the keys for tourism?  They will design where access will be, when, who, and how it can be used, just like an amusement park.  The article, Will Zinke’s privatization plan improve national parks condition, accessibility?, leads one to believe that privatization could lead to improvement of our national parks and our access to them.  But what it really does is give corporate power to “design” our public land use, according to UN dictates, that land use must be “sustainable”, which means conserved and protected as much as possible.

PPPs are nothing more than an advancement of both Agenda 21 and 2030.    Expanding on their tourism goals in the 2002 Johannesburg Plan of Implementation of Sustainable Development, in true technocratic fashion, the UN has broken tourism down into four categoriesecotourismnaturesustainable, and responsible tourism.  UN business partners will force this UN ideology on us and Sec. Zinke has given the keys to his committee to do it.  Using just one of his RAC members as an example, the American Recreation Coalition (ARC) has international members, an Agenda 21 requirement for international involvement.  Another member, AccessParks, will bring Wi-Fi to our parks which accomplishes Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9.c, “provide universal and affordable access to the Internet”.

The UN places great faith in PPPs for recreation and tourism as outlined on page 14 in this UN World Tourism Organization booklet, even going so far to claim that “eventually the government must rely on the private sector to deliver services to tourists.”  Looks like Zinke is making it happen.

Agenda 2030 will have business partners use their 5Ps “as guiding themes…a frame of reference to design tourism in such a way that it can contribute to sustainable development.”  One theme includes “Sustainable tourism…to reduce negative impacts on the environment, contribute to the conservation of biological diversity, actively protect terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and integrate climate protection.”  This means corporations, to advance UN goals, will take over how you recreate on public lands.  Sure, it will more accessible, but only in ways that will be sustainable.  Your favorite, out of the way, camping spot will most likely be banned because it doesn’t conserve the biological diversity.

Chapter 7.20(e) of Agenda 21 promotes sound and culturally sensitive tourism programs, even writing about it in 1997. In Agenda 2030, Sustainable Development Goals (SDG8.9 and 12.B, are targeted to “devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products”. Given UN business partnerships are driving us towards corporatism, this is the direction our government is taking us, placing the governance of public land into private business hands which will promote “sustainable” recreation while creating jobs and products, all in support of the UN SDGs. We are being robbed of our God-given right to use our land as we want to use it.  It will be dictated to us.  The federal government was designed by our Founding Fathers to represent “We the People”.  Instead, the UN has made sure that all forms of our representation are removed, and we now have a government that turns representation over to UN cronies, corporations and NGOs.

PPP is one method being used to destroy the foundation of the United States with many other methodologies being implemented.  It took some time but now the UN will have their hands on our public land use.  It will only be a matter of time before you will see how using our public land will be transformed into an amusement park business where you will buy a ticket and be told what “sustainable services” will be available to you.  There will be no more freedom to choose how you use public land, only what they decide to let you use, and how you use it.

Read full story here…




Collapse Of China’s Massive Agenda21-Esque Bike-Sharing Scheme

China morphed into an autocratic Technocracy by the late 1990s and adopted Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development. Converting urban transportation into bicycles has been an original goal of Agenda 21. ⁃ TN Editor

During its first six months of existence, Bluegogo, China’s third-largest bike-sharing firm, dumped 600,000 bicycles into Chinese cities. Twenty million people signed up to use them; investors showered the company with $58 million in funds. But with rental rates as low as $0.07 per half-hour, Bluegogo’s days were numbered and last week the company folded. In an apologetic letter, its CEO conceded that he had been “filled with arrogance.”

He’s not the only one. In the space of 18 months, dockless bike-sharing has become one of the hottest investment trends in China, with the two biggest players each having raised over $1 billion in venture funds, respectively. That money has funded a revolution on the traffic-choked streets of Chinese cities, giving urbanites a low-cost, carbon-free means to get around quickly. What it hasn’t produced is a viable business model. A little over a year into China’s bike-sharing boom, the industry’s future looks precarious.

Barely two years ago, the idea that bicycles would return to China’s cities in a significant way would have seemed absurd. Bicycle commuting, commonplace in large Chinese cities as recently as the late 1990s, was viewed as pre-modern, down-market and a nuisance. Cities had been redesigned to facilitate automobiles, not bikes or pedestrians. For those who couldn’t or wouldn’t buy a car, China embarked on the biggest mass transit build-out in history.

Yet even cities like Shanghai with excellent public transportation faced a knotty problem: the “last mile” issue. Most people are willing to walk less than a mile to a train or bus (in the U.S., it’s a quarter mile). Otherwise they’ll resort to another form of transportation, usually motorized. The problem has long resisted simple solutions, especially in China, where air pollution leaves people even less eager to stroll around outside.

Traditional bike-sharing, in which users rent a bike from a station or rack (preferably close to a transit stop) and return it to another one (preferably close to home), are a favorite last-mile solution in parts of the U.S. and Europe. With government support, they even bloomed in a few parts of China in the late 2000s. As recently as 2016, Hangzhou was home to the world’s biggest bike-sharing network, with 3,572 stations, 84,100 bikes and an average of 310,000 users per day.

As successful as that may sound, at least one study showed that many commuters weren’t using the bikes because they couldn’t access a station conveniently. Dockless bike-sharing seemed like the answer. Bikes are enabled with GPS and users locate and rent them via an app. When they’re done riding, users simply leave them to be found by another renter.

The concept works best when there are lots of bikes lying around for customers to access. China’s bike-sharing companies did not disappoint. As of August, there were 1.5 million shared bikes available in Shanghai alone and Chinese were taking millions of rides per day. Mountains of shared bikes piled up outside subway stations in China’s biggest cities.

Read full story here…




Bike-Crazy Oregon Riders Enraged Over First Bicycle Tax In Nation

Driving people out of their cars and onto bicycles has been an Agenda 21 plank that Oregon has fully embraced since 1992 . Now its the bikers who are getting a look at the other side of the knife blade as a new excise tax will ding every new purchaser, and they are livid. They are too used to having their cake and eating it too.  TN Editor

In Oregon, a state known for its avid bicycling culture, the state Legislature’s approval of the first bike tax in the nation has fallen flat with riders.

Democratic Gov. Kate Brown is expected to sign the sweeping $5.3 billion transportation package, which includes a $15 excise tax on the sale of bicycles costing more than $200 with a wheel diameter of at least 26 inches.

Even though the funding has been earmarked for improvements that will benefit cyclists, the tax has managed to irk both anti-tax Republicans and environmentally conscious bikers.

BikePortland publisher Jonathan Maus called it “an unprecedented step in the wrong direction.”

“We are taxing the healthiest, most inexpensive, most environmentally friendly, most efficient and most economically sustainable form of transportation ever devised by the human species,” Mr. Maus said.

Oregon Republican Party Chairman Bill Currier blasted what he described as Ms. Brown’s “endless obsession with finding new and innovative ways to take money out of the pockets of Oregon taxpayers.”

“She just continues to view the people of her state as nothing more than a piggy bank to fund her efforts to impose job-killing policies,” said Mr. Currier in a statement. “Now add anti-healthy, environmentally-unfriendly policies to that list.”

Read full story here…