NH House passes measure to ban Agenda 21 implementation.

[Anti Federalist]

Read past the HuffPo snark in this column.



Agenda 21, UN's Sustainability Measure Banned By New Hampshire House, Weighed By Senate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/un-agenda-21-new-hampshire-ban_n_1524285.html?ref=green&ir=Green

The Tea Party-controlled New Hampshire House of Representatives voted Wednesday afternoon to ban implementation of policies connected to the United Nations' Agenda 21, its program of recommended sustainability measures adopted in 1992.

The House voted 201 to 99 in favor of the ban, becoming the second state legislative body in less than a week to come out against the international compact. Agenda 21 has become a favorite program for conservatives to attack, with opponents saying it is aimed at weakening and undermining individual property rights. Agenda 21 has not been ratified by Congress and does not have the force of law in the United States.

"I know it is totally against our Constitution from reading the U.N. biodiversity assessment," Rep. Anne Cartwright (R-Alstead), the primary sponsor of the bill, told The Huffington Post. "It's through local initiative that it is being implemented in bits and pieces to erode our property rights."

The New Hampshire legislative measure would prevent local and county governments, as well as the state government, from joining the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, an international sustainability group trying to promote Agenda 21. Several New Hampshire communities, including the city of Portsmouth, are members of the group. Cartwright said her research shows that the international organization is trying to take away property rights through its agenda, which promotes land use planning, bike paths and parks.

"They are very slowly implementing rules and regulations that have not reached a high level yet," Cartwright told HuffPost. "They are implementing it through zoning, planning and regional planning things that impact our property rights."

Cartwright has been advocating the measure for months without success. She used a parliamentary maneuver to attach the proposal to a Senate-sponsored bill to create a new hiking trail on Mittersill Mountain so as to force its consideration by the full legislature.

This type of maneuver has beecome common in recent weeks in the New Hampshire legislature, including the placement of measure to implement a 24-hour waiting period for abortions on a bill about research-and- development tax credits. House GOP leaders have relied on this practice after moderate Senate Republicans have failed to bring up bills passed by the House, which is controlled by a Tea Party and libertarian GOP faction, according to Rep. Christopher Serlin (D-Portsmouth).

Cartwright expects the Senate on Thursday to take up the hiking trail bill, with its anti-Agenda 21 plank.

Serlin, who helped lead opposition to this anti-Agenda 21 bill in the House, noted that many of the bill's sponsors also pushed a measure to prohibit an international baccalaureate program in New Hampshire, saying that they had described it as an international takeover of schools. The Senate rejected that ban.

"Agenda 21 has become one of those issues that the far right has latched on to," Serlin told HuffPost. "It is real tinfoil hat material. It is scary people think this way."

Last week the Republican-controlled Kansas House passed a resolution condemning Agenda 21. During the debate, supporters described the international compact and the council as "trying to destroy the American way of life" by creating bike paths and parks.

Tennessee legislators passed an anti-Agenda 21 resolution, but Republican Gov. Bill Haslam declined to sign it this month.

In March the Republican-controlled Arizona House of Representatives rejected a ban similar to New Hampshire's that its state Senate had passed. Similar measures are pending in Louisiana and Alabama.

"You have legislatures taken over by radical Tea Party representatives," Serlin said. "There is a competition between the legislatures to see who can be the wackiest."

[donnay]

Yay!! It's great to be radical!!! Live Free or Die!!

[phill4paul]

Gunny is working on that for N.C. today. Go Gunny!

[Anti Federalist]

"Agenda 21 has become one of those issues that the far right has latched on to," Serlin told HuffPost. "It is real tinfoil hat material. It is scary people think this way."

See how that works.

20 years from now, when you will not be able to cut down a tree on your property without obtaining UN approval, you'll be told that it's "necessary and needed" after you were called a nut 20 years ago for opposing it and told that there "never was any such plan in the works".

That's how it works for the low level Apologists: deny the horror, then embrace the horror.

Remember this.

[Anti Federalist]

Gunny is working on that for N.C. today. Go Gunny!

Good luck Gunny!!!

[donnay]

Hey UN!!!

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i150/vmaquera/Humor/mickey_mouse_middle_finger_flipping.png

[BenIsForRon]

BIKE PATHS!!!!11!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS THE GUBBMIT WANTS US TO USE BIKE PATHS!!!!!111!!

[John F Kennedy III]

Yay!! It's great to be radical!!! Live Free or Die!!

Damn straight. A life in chains isn't a life worth living.

[John F Kennedy III]

One step at a time baby! Let's do this!

Bumping my Agenda 21 thread.

[Anti Federalist]

BIKE PATHS!!!!11!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS THE GUBBMIT WANTS US TO USE BIKE PATHS!!!!!111!!

See what I mean?

[Keith and stuff]

"I know it is totally against our Constitution from reading the U.N. biodiversity assessment," Rep. Anne Cartwright (R-Alstead), the primary sponsor of the bill, told The Huffington Post. "It's through local initiative that it is being implemented in bits and pieces to erode our property rights."

Those Ron Paul endorsing state reps are a crazy bunch :)

[John F Kennedy III]

BIKE PATHS!!!!11!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS THE GUBBMIT WANTS US TO USE BIKE PATHS!!!!!111!!

Lol troll.

[BenIsForRon]

Here's what you guys see when you think of zero government involvment in land use:

http://www.montpelierfarmersmarket.com/wp-content/gallery/vendors/applecheek-farm-548.jpg

Here's the reality:

http://www.ecosphericblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mountaintopmining.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

The bottom will have the funds and political protection in place to move forward no matter what.

The top will not.

Freedom will be lost, and property rights as well.


Here's what you guys see when you think of zero government involvment in land use:

http://www.montpelierfarmersmarket.com/wp-content/gallery/vendors/applecheek-farm-548.jpg

Here's the reality:

http://www.ecosphericblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mountaintopmining.jpg

[pcosmar]

Here's the reality:

http://www.ecosphericblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mountaintopmining.jpg

Wealth?
Employment?
Jobs?
Opportunity?

[BenIsForRon]

Wealth?
Employment?
Jobs?
Opportunity?

Wealth for the coal companies.
Employment for 9 or 10 people.
Zero opportunity for the next generation to appreciate nature.

[pcosmar]

Wealth for the coal companies.
Employment for 9 or 10 people.
Zero opportunity for the next generation to appreciate nature.

Bullshit.
I see employment for a whole city in that one pic.
here is the reality you are pushing.
Death of Another Industry
http://www.coppercountryexplorer.com/2011/10/death-of-another-industry/


This is the Smurfit-Stone Container Corp’s corrugated paper mill in Ontonagon, or at least what’s left of it. At its peak the mill employed nearly 200 people and manufactured over 800 daily tons of the box-making material, but today the large complex is in the process of being dismantled and scrapped, the last economic throes of an industry gasping its last breath. After nearly a century of existence (a mill was first built here in the 1920′s) both the mill and its collection of jobs are gone, and the neighboring village of Ontonagon – a town that has had the misfortune of loosing not one but three industries during its existence – will soon find itself facing a future without an industry to support it.

Oh,, and there is a wealth of nature to be appreciated throughout Copper Country,, and was all through the years that it was thriving.

[osan]

See how that works.

20 years from now, when you will not be able to cut down a tree on your property without obtaining UN approval

The long-standing prototype of this can be found in Carmel, CA. I remember 40+ years ago when my then navy-wife sister (RIP) was living in Monterey. We'd go to Carmel and you'd find large oak trees growing out the middle of the roadways, untouchable. It was pretty cool, actually and I have no problem with such policies on the commons, but in Carmel if you so much as cut down a sapling, BIG fines and possible jail time if you managed to piss the local authority off sufficiently. In order to be able to legally take a tree you would, as I recall (and I was about 12 when I first encountered this, so please pardon any error in memory), have to apply for permission and demonstrate need, such as the tree is rotten and is about to destroy my $9MM house. Even then, as I recall, you could be denied and ordered to find another way such as paying some "expert" to reinforce the tree so it would not wreck your home. I am not sure I am recalling this bit correctly, but I have a vague memory that if a tree suddenly died on your property that the police would actually investigate to make sure you did not kill it intentionally so that you could then cut it down without permission. I'm sure I probably have that part not quite right, but I am sure it was along those general lines because for awhile people were doing just that because they wanted a given tree gone and the trespass upon their rights was greatly resented even by flaky Californians. You know its bad when the nuts and twigs crowd is skirting the law in order to exercise their basic human rights.

[BenIsForRon]

Bullshit.
I see employment for a whole city in that one pic.
here is the reality you are pushing.
Death of Another Industry
http://www.coppercountryexplorer.com/2011/10/death-of-another-industry/

It really takes a small crew of about 10 to operate the machinery involved in mountaintop removal. Very few jobs, and at a high cost to future generations. You certainly won't be able to plant any apple trees on that land.

And I'm pretty sure that copper mill went out of business because of foreign competition, not environmental regulations

[John F Kennedy III]

Wealth for the coal companies.
Employment for 9 or 10 people.
Zero opportunity for the next generation to appreciate nature.

Something like 50% of land on Earth is still forest (I heard that somewhere recently), but anyway, the point is there is PLENTY of nature left to appreciate.

[John F Kennedy III]

It really takes a small crew of about 10 to operate the machinery involved in mountaintop removal. Very few jobs, and at a high cost to future generations. You certainly won't be able to plant any apple trees on that land.

And I'm pretty sure that copper mill went out of business because of foreign competition, not environmental regulations

High cost to future generations?

[Anti Federalist]

It really takes a small crew of about 10 to operate the machinery involved in mountaintop removal. Very few jobs, and at a high cost to future generations. You certainly won't be able to plant any apple trees on that land.

And I'm pretty sure that copper mill went out of business because of foreign competition, not environmental regulations

Foreign competition that receives dispensation under Agenda 21 as a 'developing nation" that does not have to comply with burdensome regulations.

And tell me, who do I vote for on the UN board that is writing these regulations?

Where is my representation?

Who do I vote out or complain to?

[Anti Federalist]

You know its bad when the nuts and twigs crowd is skirting the law in order to exercise their basic human rights.

The major difference between then and now is that 40 years ago you didn't have drones, satellites and police helicopters surveilling your property 24/7.

Compliance now will be total.

[pcosmar]

It really takes a small crew of about 10 to operate the machinery involved in mountaintop removal. Very few jobs, and at a high cost to future generations.

Bullshit again. If you don't have any idea what the fuck you are talking about you should really STFU.
Every vehicle or piece of equipment takes a crew to maintain. it takes food to feed them and Fuel brought in and product shipped out.

There are far more than 10 vehicles in that pic. I would guess several hundred employees on that job site,, plus the thousand or more in related and supporting business.
Not to mention restaurants, entertainment and housing.

[osan]

While I agree that mountaintop mining is ugly and possibly detrimental in some manner and scope, banning it is immoral.

That said, because our rights end at the noses of our fellows, so to speak, I have no problem at all in applying force to keep such mining in check insofar as the propagated effects of those activities upon the properties of others are harmful. For example, the poisoning of creeks from mine tailings and the utter destruction of others from the filling in of the hollows as the mines evolve over time is big trouble for those whose properties are effected by this consequence. If your activity stands to ruin MY property, I have every right to use force to stop you. In this, proper governance is eminently well suited and those so offending the rights of others should be held strictly accountable for what they have done or plan on doing.

Any activity taken by corporate entities should be within the sphere of human monitoring. When those activities threaten the property of others, they should be FORCED to stop, buy out those effected, or make amends in accord with a rational standard of restitution. For those ready to burst an artery at this suggestion, remember that NOBODY holds greater rights than anyone else, nor are rights additive in nature. Therefore, just because a group of 10 or 10 millions of people become part owners in a "corporation", i.e., a fictional legal construct that exists for the practical purposes of conducting business over super-humanly long time periods (among other purposes), it does not follow that the effective super-organism holds rights any greater than those of a homeless alcoholic vomiting and crapping on himself somewhere on lower Lexington Ave. in Manhattan on a hot July evening.

Being an effective super-organism by virtue of the often enormous material resources at its disposal, corporations must perforce become prime targets for monitoring of certain sorts. Barring such subordination to third party eyes holding the authority of governance under very specific and perhaps narrowly defined conditions, corporate bodies would in some proportion be too sorely tempted to engage in actions that would cause individuals to be violated in their rights. The "take them to court" remedy as it currently exists cannot begin to properly function pursuant to its ostensible role as protector of the rights of the individual. The system would have to be dry-docked and stripped to the keel or simply scrapped in favor of something new. No average individual is likely to be able to withstand the years and countless dollars required to take on an army of corporate lawyers and other bullshit artists in such fights as these. Most simply fold in no time after being bombarded with the first 3.5 million pages of documentation during the first wave of discovery. The reality is completely untenable for individuals fighting what amounts to legal monsters.

If everyone shares equal rights then they must be defended equally. When the operations of a corporation impact me adversely, I should be able to hold them accountable for what they have done, stop them from doing it further, be restored from harm, and not be required to bankrupt myself or run decades past retirement age to see justice, nor should the process be the crap-shoot that it is today. If my neighbor poisons my drinking water, I can hold him accountable. Why is it so much greater an ordeal to do so with a corporate entity? There should be no difference.

[BenIsForRon]

Once the site has been dynamited and the infrastructure has been set up, the mining process becomes completely mechanized, meaning few employees are needed to move large amounts of coal. 10 may be a low number but I doubt hundreds of people are working at that site. Overall, money from coal mining doesn't make it to the community.

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/115/284917378_c38dddfa5e_o.jpg

[BenIsForRon]

Where is my representation?

Who do I vote out or complain to?

Your local government.

We've had bike lanes far longer than we've had Agenda 21. They're mutually exclusive

[John F Kennedy III]

Bullshit again. If you don't have any idea what the fuck you are talking about you should really STFU.
Every vehicle or piece of equipment takes a crew to maintain. it takes food to feed them and Fuel brought in and product shipped out.

There are far more than 10 vehicles in that pic. I would guess several hundred employees on that job site,, plus the thousand or more in related and supporting business.
Not to mention restaurants, entertainment and housing.

Just this alone tells me we need to keep that site open. Alot of people depend on it for jobs so they can support their family. Not to mention the people that benefit from the coal that is mined.

[John F Kennedy III]

Once the site has been dynamited and the infrastructure has been set up, the mining process becomes completely mechanized, meaning few employees are needed to move large amounts of coal. 10 may be a low number but I doubt hundreds of people are working at that site. Overall, money from coal mining doesn't make it to the community.

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/115/284917378_c38dddfa5e_o.jpg

Why only answer part of his post?

[BenIsForRon]

Why only answer part of his post?

My point is that destroying mountain ecosystems isn't as good for the economy as other forms of developing, as clearly demonstrated on the map.

[pcosmar]

Benis,, we have had this discussion before, despite what your college professor tells you.
Get out of the classroom and into the real world.

BTW,, the agenda has been around a lot longer than agenda 21.
It is the agenda of Total control.. and the eco-bullshit is just the selling point for the gullible masses.

[osan]

10 may be a low number but I doubt hundreds of people are working at that site.


Know any miners? Most of my neighbors here in WV are miners and there are hundreds of people at any given site, subsurface or otherwise.



Overall, money from coal mining doesn't make it to the community.

The point being... what, precisely? The mines are typically on private property, are operated by private entities and are therefore not obligated to put any of their monies into the local "community" beyond that which the tax man steals away from them. That aside, your assertion is plainly wrong. Miners live mostly in the local communities and are most certainly not commuting from CA every day to dig coal. They mostly receive UNION wages and benefits. My neighbor Paul works at a non-union mine as an electrician and does about $100K per year. Union miners make even more and have even better benefit packages. How is that impoverished? We're in WV. Miners make VERY good money. That money comes from MINING operations and not work as doctors, lawyers, or rocket surgeons. Saying "mine" money does not make it to the community is readily demonstrated as false.

You need to stow the baloney as this will send your credibility rapidly into the toilet. You made a valid point that mountaintop mining is ugly and nasty. You should have shut it there, but do as you please, of course.

[osan]

BIKE PATHS!!!!11!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS THE GUBBMIT WANTS US TO USE BIKE PATHS!!!!!111!!

Well, I guess that pretty much naile the lid shut on your credibility. Agenda 21 has NOTHING to do with this, so either you lack the knowledge and/or intellectual sophistication to dope this out for youself or you're plodding an unpublished agenda. Either way, PLONK.

You have a nice day.

[Anti Federalist]

Your local government.

We've had bike lanes far longer than we've had Agenda 21. They're mutually exclusive

This isn't about bike lanes.

That's the cover story.

This is about ceding property rights and local control to a global agenda of "sustainability".

Defined by unrepresentative bureaucrats, thousands of miles away.

So we in NH, did what you suggest, took local action to stop it.

But you're complaining about that also.

My little town has bike paths all over it, one of the nicest ones in the state, runs along an old railbed about a mile from the backside of my property.

We didn't need Agenda 21 for that.

[LibForestPaul]

See what I mean?
Maybe he is just volunteering his living room for a bike path.

[BenIsForRon]

Well, I guess that pretty much naile the lid shut on your credibility. Agenda 21 has NOTHING to do with this, so either you lack the knowledge and/or intellectual sophistication to dope this out for youself or you're plodding an unpublished agenda. Either way, PLONK.

You have a nice day.

But it seems that this legislation aims to ban any of the sort of local action that coincides with things in Agenda 21. So if a town in NH wants to reconfigure it's downtown with bike lanes and a two lane road instead of a four lane road, then they can't, because it's something mentioned in Agenda 21. That is pretty screwed up in my mind.

I've seen this sort of thing in other states, just not under the excuse to stop Agenda 21. It seems to me that a lot of the opposition to things like bike lanes comes from businesses and corporations that benefit from the automobile based transportation system.


The point being... what, precisely? The mines are typically on private property, are operated by private entities and are therefore not obligated to put any of their monies into the local "community" beyond that which the tax man steals away from them. That aside, your assertion is plainly wrong. Miners live mostly in the local communities and are most certainly not commuting from CA every day to dig coal. They mostly receive UNION wages and benefits. My neighbor Paul works at a non-union mine as an electrician and does about $100K per year. Union miners make even more and have even better benefit packages. How is that impoverished? We're in WV. Miners make VERY good money. That money comes from MINING operations and not work as doctors, lawyers, or rocket surgeons. Saying "mine" money does not make it to the community is readily demonstrated as false.

It seems that not enough of it is coming into the towns to get them out of 25% poverty.

So yeah, that just adds to the terribleness that is surface mining. Not worth fucking over the future homes of your grandchildren.