The dance with the dragon is a complex geopolitical relationship between two large economies. China’s view within the dynamic is shaped by their own internal ideology and outlook. The panda mask dynamic was/is strategic and has served them well for decades; but now President Trump -while engaging a structural confrontation- has used the panda strategy against Beiing’s interests. China is flummoxed.
Each of President Trump’s trade team members have a specific role; each member also has a specific opponent within the dance:
♦Peter Navarro is the blue-collar hawk. He focuses on the the administration’s Wall Street adversaries; and the U.S. multinationals -American companies- who have aligned their interests with Beijing. Navarro’s focus is internal to U.S. interests. Navarro confronts U.S. corporations, Wall Street interests, who are working against Main Street.
♦Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin carries the economic financial weapons (represents the dollar), and he faces toward global adversaries (IMF, World Bank, European Central Bank etc.) who have also aligned their interests with Beijing and the status quo.
♦Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, coordinates the punitive actions that keep Beijing in a position of compromise. Ross reviews prior agreements, trade legal specifics, searches through contractual obligations and ultimately controls the tariffs, if/when triggered by President Trump. Secretary Ross faces down the World Trade Organization (WTO).
♦U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is the contract writer; the primary negotiator; and he is at the center of the trade group where the details are constructed. Lighthizer writes the terms based on the objectives of President Trump. Only POTUS approves the new agreements.
♦White House Economic Council Chairman Larry Kudlow is the explainer, the trade diplomat. The communication bridge between what is happening in the big picture and what the subsequent consequences mean. Chairman Kudlow is to remain affable, optimistic and approachable by any interests who have concerns. The PR guy.
“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones”
Navarro, Mnuchin, Ross and Lighthizer bear the economic teeth. After all, their job is serious… they have all the confrontational challenges… they face those who want to stop President Trump’s global trade reset. Their goal is to ‘change the status-quo‘ toward greater reciprocity for the U.S. and to stop the one-sided nature from decades of trade agreements which eroded the U.S. middle-class. Because their objective is change, they face the adversaries head-on. Their tasks make them targets. This group are hard men.
Kudlow is the soft-one. That’s his job. Be approachable by those who don’t like confrontation. Kudlow calms nerves and keeps the nellies‘ less nervous.
Within this dance, there is an important place where East/West negotiations require respect. The panda mask is part of the dynamic, perhaps the cunning and positioning part, but beyond the mask actual terms need respect from both parties.
Beijing violated that central component of respect in May, 2019, when they rebuked the terms of an agreement that were 80 percent negotiated and accepted by their own emissary. China is paying the price for that violation now. They likely did not anticipate the severity of punishment, now they are living with consequences.
President Trump has delivered punishment but continued to praise the opponent in hopes of encouraging Chairman Xi to rethink the dragon position.
There are many U.S. hawks celebrating the pain within China; and some of those same voices are calling for continued policy that will lead to the collapse of the central Chinese communist government. That ain’t going to happen.
If there are going to be terms, there needs to be a middle position. President Trump has always expressed hope that terms can be reached; however, he has also expressed pragmatically that successful terms likely involve too much loss for Beijing to accept.
President Trump has done all he can to encourage U.S. multinationals to think about the impossibility of structural change in Beijing against the severity of their own experiences. In essence President Trump has warned U.S. companies to plan for the worst, and get out.
The complaints from U.S. and allied interests about Chinese trade practices are not likely be fixed; the issue is structural. China will not change the structure of their totalitarian controlled economic model. They are communists.
However, that said, within this ongoing dance there needs to be panda dialogue – because the global downsides are severe…. Enter Michael Pillsbury:
Today President Trump will be recognizing a career of accomplishment by presenting the Presidential Medal of Freedom to former New York Yankee Hall of Fame pitcher Mariano Rivera. The anticipated start time is 2:00pm EDT.
Update: Video Added
(White House) Today, President Donald J. Trump will present the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mariano Rivera. During his 19 seasons in Major League Baseball, Mariano Rivera established himself as the greatest relief pitcher of all time. Signed by the New York Yankees in 1990, Mr. Rivera would become a 13-time All-Star and 5-time World Series champion. He was the first player in the history of the sport to be elected unanimously into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Off the field, through the Mariano Rivera Foundation, he has provided education and inspiration to children from low socioeconomic backgrounds, empowering them to achieve better futures. The United States proudly honors Mariano Rivera for being a legend of the game of baseball and for his commitment to improving America’s communities.
QUESTION: I assume you have seen the news how Florida has 53,000 dead people voting. Do you have a solution to the voter fraud?
JS
ANSWER: It is very simple. Voting should be done online, and voters should use their Social Security number which is required for just about everything these days. You cannot get on a plane without proving who you are. Why does the same not apply to voting?
If we voted online more people would vote, and you could easily check if the person is still alive or not. For the poor who have no computer, they could go to the local center or library and login there. They still have a Social Security number.
Aliens who live in the USA with green cards have a Social Security number. My view is if you are here legally and paying taxes, then you are subject to US laws and should be entitled to vote. If you are an alien and rob a store, you still enjoy the Constitutional rights. Those rights should apply to voting since it would be taxation without representation.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss several ongoing political issues.
In the first two-thirds of the interview Leader McCarthy discusses Iran attacking the Saudi oil facility, and the ramifications therein. Speaker Nancy Pelosi holding back the USMCA hoping to get past the Canadian election; and the current field of 2020 democrat candidates. McCarthy holds the opinion that Elizabeth Warren will be the Democrat candidate for President.
In the last third of the interview (@11:15) McCarthy discusses the upcoming IG report on FISA abuse. McCarthy believes: Andrew McCabe will be indicted; the IG report will identify culpability for James Comey, and the construct of a soft coup will be highlighted.
Counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway appears on Fox News Sunday for an interview. Bill Hemmer is filling in for Chris Wallace. The recent Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia oil production is the top issue covered.
Additionally, Ms. Conway discusses John Bolton’s replacement as National Security Adviser, current WH positions on legislation to restrict firearm ownership, the ongoing negotiations with China on trade, the impeachment nonsense and the democrat 2020 race.
This is funny in so many ways; especially for CTH readers who have a far better-than-ordinary understanding of the big picture Trump goals around China.
(1) CNBC tweeted this story last night (note the date/time). (2) It is written exclusively from the perspective of the Goldman Sachs analysts who represent the U.S. multinational position. (3) However, the article was actually written on May 12, 13, 2019.
What is funny about CNBC pushing this story, NOW, is how the claims within the CNBC story can be fact checked; and their predictions are, well, absurd (especially in hindsight). Keep in mind this was written in May, and tweeted last night for some reason:
(Via CNBC) “Goldman Sachs said the cost of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump last year against Chinese goods has fallen “entirely” on American businesses and households, with a greater impact on consumer prices than previously expected.
The bank said in a note that consumer prices are higher partly because Chinese exporters have not lowered their prices to better compete in the US market.” (link)
This Goldman Sach’s claim –made in May– can now be reviewed for accuracy by actual results on import pricing assembled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in September:
As you can see, four months after the Goldman Sach’s claim, the results are entirely false. The price of imported goods has decreased; additionally, China has further devalued their currency since May, creating an even a larger price offset.
Further in the Goldman Sach’s claims:
“Goldman also said the risk of a final round of tariffs on the roughly $300 billion of remaining imports from China has now risen to 30%.”
In their May 2019 analysis, Goldman put the odds of President Trump following through on more tariffs at 30 percent. They really just don’t believe President Trump is committed to the China confrontation. From their analytical perspective, no U.S. President would ever go into a full economic confrontation with China. Remember, Goldman Sachs represents the majority opinion of the Wall Street ‘multinational’ community.
This analysis from Goldman Sachs underwrites the majority of their multinational investment planning and loans to multinational Wall Street corporations. Laughably, we know the end result is that Trump did execute more Chinese tariffs and the Goldman Sachs analysis was/is 100 percent wrong.
And here’s the kicker:
“Our baseline expectation is that the U.S. and China will strike a deal later this year. We think this would come in the form of a gradual, staggered reduction in tariffs on a last-in, first-out schedule,” the bank said.
“There is, however, a risk of further escalation,” Goldman said. (link)
Again for emphasis, Goldman Sachs controls the investment direction for tens-of-billions for U.S. multinational corporations. The quotes and opinions above represent their outlook, their actual belief, and what they were selling their clients in May 2019.
They were wrong about price impacts.
They were wrong about Trump following through on additional tariffs.
And it’s almost certain they are wrong about a pending deal before the end of this year. (It’s now mid September).
What’s the takeaway? Well first, Goldman Sachs controls hundreds-of-billions. Goldman is the predominant voice that all of the other Wall Street multinationals’ look toward. Goldman is the incubator for almost all of the financial experts at the Fed. Goldman is also the baseline for all of the main Wall Street pundits….
Goldman is also 100% demonstrably wrong.
If you wonder why the Federal Reserve looks like they are running around with one foot nailed to the floorboard… well, look no further than Goldman Sach’s analysis.
Second, think about what will happen when these multinationals finally realize that President Trump is serious; and there will be no U.S-China trade deal that retains any semblance of the current trade relationship (if at all).
As soon as these Wall Street knuckleheads wake up to reality (likely dragging, kicking and screaming will be involved), they will have to shift their investment planning and strategic advice to those who want loans and investment. When that happens a much larger portion of the “multinational” money starts flowing back into the United States, and is no longer “multinational”.
From the first moment when he announced his intent to run for President of the United States in 2015, Donald Trump was very clear on one specific aspect to his view of why people would vote for him. As a candidate, he repeated it often:
So the reporter said to me the other day, “But, Mr. Trump, you’re not a nice person. How can you get people to vote for you?”
I said, “I don’t know.” I said, “I think that number one, I am a nice person. I give a lot of money away to charities and other things. I think I’m actually a very nice person.”
But, I said, “This is going to be an election that’s based on competence, because people are tired of these nice people. And they’re tired of being ripped off by everybody in the world.”
It’s funny, from time-to-time people ask “how is CTH consistently able to predict what Donald Trump will do about a complex issue”? In reality the answer is simple, go back and re-read his hour long campaign kick-off speech. [See Here]
Donald Trump, now President Trump, is one of the most consistent people in history when it comes to his big picture views; and also his big picture solutions. There are small shifts, and slight changes in the direction toward the solution, but ultimately the big picture destination is consistent.
Specifically because President Trump works on optimal solutions toward the goal destination, his objective, the non-politician takes a different approach than would be expected from a typical politician. Ultimately this is how Trump is able to accomplish so much more in a similar amount of time; he’s not poll-testing the route.
Each big goal, each major objective, has a series of way-points. The process for reaching those way-points is independent and entirely based on the goal itself. Politicians look at this approach and think of it as inconsistent, because the travel is not subject to a specific map that is always followed.
Because President Trump’s search for ‘optimal travel’ is not based on a prior path – but based on each unique destination, the goal is more predictably reached. In many ways it is just common sense.
Competence in policy is not measured by endless planning, discussion and debate… it is measured by results. Achieving results requires action. Start the journey and head to the way-point; reach the initial objective – evaluate, and immediately measure the next way-point; repeat until you reach the destination.
[…] So we need people— I’m a free trader. But the problem with free trade is you need really talented people to negotiate for you. If you don’t have talented people, if you don’t have great leadership, if you don’t have people that know business, not just a political hack that got the job because he made a contribution to a campaign, which is the way all jobs, just about, are gotten, free trade terrible.
Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people, but we have people that are stupid. We have people that aren’t smart. And we have people that are controlled by special interests. And it’s just not going to work.
[…] I love China. The biggest bank in the world is from China. You know where their United States headquarters is located? In this building, in Trump Tower. I love China. People say, “Oh, you don’t like China?”
No, I love them. But their leaders are much smarter than our leaders, and we can’t sustain ourself with that. There’s too much— it’s like— it’s like take the New England Patriots and Tom Brady and have them play your high school football team. That’s the difference between China’s leaders and our leaders.
They are ripping us. We are rebuilding China. We’re rebuilding many countries. China, you go there now, roads, bridges, schools, you never saw anything like it. They have bridges that make the George Washington Bridge look like small potatoes. And they’re all over the place.
We have all the cards, but we don’t know how to use them.
We don’t even know that we have the cards, because our leaders don’t understand the game.
We could turn off that spigot by charging them tax until they behave properly. (Cont…)
A basic primer on UN Agenda 21 aka Sustainable Development
This image is of Petsche’s world with him in the shining city and the rest of us in poverty. Brecksville has been targeted for take over and we must resist. Agenda 21 in all of its various flavors is nothing more than a clever means of implementing communism in America.
In One Easy Lesson
Awareness of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development was started by Bill Clinton in 1993, 26 years ago and its US implementation is now at the local level across the nation. Bike paths are a key part of the program. Some citizens in community after community are learning what their city planners are actually up to. As awareness grows many complain that elected officials just won’t read detailed reports or watch long videos.
So here is some help. A starter kit of information on Agenda 21 that can be used to get started. A word of caution, use this as a starter kit, but do not allow it to be your only knowledge of this very complex subject. To kill it you have to know the facts. Research, know your details; discover the NGO players in your community; identify who is victimized by the policies and recruit them to your fight; and then kill Agenda 21. That’s how it must be done. The information below is only your first step. Happy hunting.
What is Sustainable Development?
According to its authors, the objective of sustainable development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity. Sustainablists insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
Social Equity (Social injustice)
Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” Redistribution of wealth. Private property is a social injustice since not everyone can build wealth from it. National sovereignty is a social injustice. Universal health care is a social injustice. All part of Agenda 21 policy.
Economic Prosperity
Public Private Partnerships (PPP). Special dealings between government and certain, chosen corporations which get tax breaks, grants and the government’s power of
Eminent Domain to implement sustainable policy. Government-sanctioned monopolies.
Local Sustainable Development policies
Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR Sustainable Communities, Green jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.
Who is behind it?
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formally, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). Communities pay ICLEI dues to provide “local” community plans, software, training, etc. Additional groups include American Planning Association, The Renaissance Planning Group, International City/ County Management Group, aided by US Mayors Conference, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, National Association of County Administrators and many more private organizations and official government agencies. Foundation and government grants drive the process.
Where did it originate?
The term Sustainable Development was first introduced to the world in the pages of a 1987 report (Our Common Future) produced by the United Nations World Commission on Environmental and Development, authored by Gro Harlem Brundtland, VP of the World Socialist Party. The term was first offered as official UN policy in 1992, in a document called UN Sustainable Development Agenda 21, issued at the UN’s Earth Summit, today referred to simply as Agenda 21.
What gives Agenda 21 Ruling Authority?
More than 178 nations adopted Agenda 21 as official policy during a signing ceremony at the Earth Summit. US president George H.W. Bush signed the document for the US. In signing, each nation pledge to adopt the goals of Agenda 21. In 1993, President Bill Clinton, in compliance with Agenda 21, signed Executive Order #12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to “harmonize” US environmental policy with UN directives as outlined in Agenda 21. The EO directed all agencies of the Federal Government to work with state and local community governments in a joint effort “reinvent” government using the guidelines outlined in Agenda 21. As a result, with the assistance of groups like ICLEI, Sustainable Development is now emerging as government policy in every town, county and state in the nation.
Revealing Quotes From the Planners
“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced… ” Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993). Emphases – DR
Urgent to implement – but we don’t know what it is!
“The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as we know it cannot be sustained…Sustainable development, therefore is a program of action for local and global economic reform – a program that has yet to be fully defined.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
“No one fully understands how or even, if, sustainable development can be achieved; however, there is growing consensus that it must be accomplished at the local level if it is ever to be achieved on a global basis.” The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, published by ICLEI, 1996.
Agenda 21 and Private Property
“Land…cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.” From the report from the 1976 UN’s Habitat I Conference.
“Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in several ecological and aesthetic consequences…The key to overcoming it is through public policy…” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, page 112.
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.” Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
Reinvention of Government
“We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural and financial resources in achieving our goals.” Report from the President’s Council on Sustainable Development
“Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chairman, ICLEI. The Wildlands Project
“We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres or presently settled land.” Dave Foreman, Earth First.
What is not sustainable?
Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment.” UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report.
Hide Agenda 21’s UN roots from the people
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy- fixated groups and individuals in our society… This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21. So we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.” J. Gary Lawrence, advisor to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development.
“False Choice” – How Sustainable Development is Transforming Property Rights *NEW!*
U.S. House of Representatives Approves Participation in Agenda 21
In this October 2, 1992 session, the House of Representatives passed HC 353, a resolution calling for the U.S. to assume a strong leadership role in implementing the sustainable development recommendations of the Rio Earth Summit including Agenda 21. Hear sponsors E. Engel (D-NY), N. Pelosi (D-CA) and W. Bloomfield (R-MI).
How Agenda 21 Affects Your Property Rights:
Explanation of The Wildlands Project:
Downloadable Documents
(Scroll down to see the categories below)
Understanding Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
Tracing the History of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
Legislation Addressing the Threat of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
Taking Action to Expose Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
Examples of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development’s Impact on Property Rights
Links to United Nations Websites
Sources for Further Information
1. Understanding Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
This single sheet makes the step by step connection between UN Agenda 21, sustainable development, Smart Growth and local planning activities. It includes sources so you can do your own checking.
Citizens can present the following two page document to their public officials. It contains suggestions for how to protect the rights of property owners and still keep the environment safe.
While conservation easements are widely praised as a way to save the environment and keep property rights, in fact, in the long term they often do neither. The article, “Big Meadows, Big Mistake” tells the “rest of the story” on Conservation Easements.
This conference created the baseline for the UN’s viewpoint and future actions regarding individual property rights. See pdf page 2 [document page 28] under, Land – Preamble, for their stance on private property. This position is reflected in policies being enacted across the U.S. today.
This definition easily identifies UN Agenda 21 related initiatives as it traversed from various reports to the U.S and into our federal agencies. The full report can be found here.
In this candid 1997 interview, ICLEI founder explains how he was tapped to create an organization to “make sure this agreement [Agenda 21/sustainable development] among nations actually will get implemented…”
The Rio Declaration outlines the framework of Agenda 21. It was agreed to by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, thereby establishing official recognition of Agenda 21 by the U.S.. The complete 40 chapter United Nation’s Agenda 21 report can be found here.
President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 in 1993, which created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Here is a copy of that Executive Order.
This article in the Millennium Papers describes how the name Agenda 21 was replaced with terms such as Smart Growth, Growth Management and Comprehensive Planning to prevent Americans from recognizing the connection to the United Nations. See highlighted page 5.
These pages from the Federal Register clearly indicate that the EPA’s Challenge Grant Program was created for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the U.S.. See the highlighted section on page 2.
This scientific document shows, under the highlighted section,s how the EPA today still follows the basic definitions of sustainable development as defined by the UN’s Brundtland Commission, in their newest decision making process.
In 2009, these three federal agencies partnered using ‘livability’ principles to gain greater involvement in local planning and regulations. Read the ‘Livability Principles” and the “Partnership Agreement.” Notice the affect the federal government can have on your community. See more below.
This HUD Notice of Funds Available clearly shows that along with the grant money come mandates and requirements for social engineering in the form of social equity.
Pres. Obama signed this EO in June of 2011 giving each of the Federal agencies authority over the “food, fiber and energy” for all of rural America or 16% of the US. Control of resources is a key requirement of sustainable development as it enables the governing authority the power to manage their useage more efficiently than individuals and communites.
In March 2012, Pres. Obama signed this EO giving HUD the authority to engage in city, community and regional planning to “augment their vision for stability and economic growth…” This EO insures that “Federal assistance is more efficiently provided and used.” HUD now has the ability to create regulations to enforce that local and regional planning the government feels is beneficial to the fiscal stability of the US.
This partnership is changing the landscape of rural America. Once allowed into your community, the HUD-DOT-EPA partnership defines what qualities your “liveable” locality must include. More transportation choices invariably means more light rail transit and bicycles. The government defines the character, context and needs of each community with token input from citizens. Social enguineering is inherent in what the government calls, “equitable housing, sustainable strategies and value communities.” Most of the plans look appealing in slide presentations, but, once implemented, local citizens are stuck with regulations imposed by the government that offer little future variation and minimal if any opportunity to return to a way of living you may find more desirable. As one planner said, “You will be able to live in a rural area if you want to…but it will cost you.”
Here, in friendly sounding terms, the Secretaries of HUD, DOT and the EPA make it clear the federal government intends to manage your commuunity design, make it livable and environmentally green, all according to their needs and definitions. Each of the projects and grants, though verbally and graphically enticing, precisely echo the Vancouver Plan of Action. The results are exactly as defined in Vancouver in 1976.
In January of 2012, the EPA changed their decision making process to embrace sustainable development as defined in the UN’s 1987 Brundtland Report. In April 2012, the agency created plans to incorporate civil rights regulations in their environmental policy to establish a basis for environmental justice.
3. Legislation Addressing the Threat of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
In January, 2012, the Republican National Committee unanimously approved an historic resolution exposing the dangers of United Nations Agenda 21, ICLEI and the loss of private property ownership, single family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices and privately owned farms under the banner of “sustainable development” and Smart Growth.
For the first time, the leadership of one of the two major American political parties acknowledged that so-called “social justice” is robbing our society and the environment and replacing our sovereignty with a socialist/communist wealth redistribution scheme. Please read this document carefully and share it freely.
New Hampshire’s bill prevent the state, counties, cities and towns from contracting with or accepting money from ICLEI, a large non-governmental orgnaization[NGO] implementing Agenda 21 throughout the U.S.
The Property Rights Council provides a committee to review planning documents and agreements prior to acceptance to assure that property owner’s rights are not exploited by planners or governmental agencies. For further information, go here.
The EPA, under the Clean Water Act, expanded its control over citizen’s private property by redefining navigable waters to include certain artificially irrigated areas, artificial lakes and ponds used for irrigation, non-navigable tributaries to navigable waters, wetlands abutting relatively permanent waters and more. This bill defines “navigable” waters as those that are actually “navigable.”
This bill prohibits Alabama and its political subdivisions from adopting environmental and developmental policies that, without due process, infringe or restrirct private property rights of property owners. Further, it prohibits policies that are traceable to “Agenda 21″ as adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development.
This Florida bill protects all state subdivisions from adopting any developmental policies that, without due process, infringe or restrict the private property rights of the property owner. It specifically mentions any policy recommendations traceable to Agenda 21 as adopted by the UN at the 1992 Conference on Environment and Development. This would include those policies recommended by Non-Governmental Organizations and Federal Agency regulations that are Agenda 21 related.
4. Taking Action to Expose Agenda 21/Sustainable Development
The Coordination Strategy can slow or stop planning processes that may endanger individual property rights. Most federal agencies are required by law to coordinate their plans that will impact the local community with local governments. Often this does not happen as most local governmens are not aware of this requirement, or do not know how to implement the process. When local governments assert coordination authority, the federal agencies must respond.
Recently, the American Planning Association circulated a fact sheet titled, Agenda 21: Myths and Facts. The APA is a large and highly respected planning organization, that often does exemplary work. But their “fact” sheet is rife with distortions, misconceptions and inaccuracies. This document provides information to respond to the APA’s errors.
The American Planning Association, rather than address critics’ concerns for private property rights, chose to re-brand their information by creating a new vocabulary. This transparent attempt to confuse the public while making it easier to implement their own chosen plans sidesteps citizens’ genuine concern for individual rights.
5. Examples of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development’s Impact on Property Rights
Form-based codes are a programmed method for replacing existing zoning regulations with boilerplate zoning and development code models. They make it easier to implement Agenda 21 type plan enforcement. Form-based codes often replace the need for local zoning ordinances and reduce the role of public officials. Once installed, form-based codes become the new laws governing a wide range of activities in your community.
Here is the introduction to a book describing form-based codes. When promoting this method of codification, promoters often show audiences live PowerPoint presentations of their current community followed by dazzling pictures of what their town can become. Most citizens are so impressed with the stunning design work, they overlook the draconian regulations and potential loss of rights that accompany the plans. Notice the fifth paragraph on page 14 in which Peter Katz, Pres. of the Form-Based Codes Institute, describes how to use the “charette” process to manipulate public responses.
President Trump’s punitive tariffs on China lead to $30 billion in new farm bailouts, with no end in sight for these growing subsidies. Will Congress expand funding when the agriculture subsidies hit the legal ceiling this fall? What’s the end game for the president’s trade negotiations? Is it better to have American farmers dependent upon China or upon U.S. taxpayers? Has massive borrowing made the U.S. the richest/poorest country in the world? Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott brings time-tested principles face-to-face with daily news, five times each week, thanks to the Members who fund these productions. If you value civil dialogue and reasoned thought, consider joining the team that makes this show, and dozens of others, each month. Join now at https://BillWhittle.com/register/
The recession-hoping pundits took more blows to their remaining credibility today when both the Commerce Department and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) deliver excellent economic results from August that continue to exceed MSM expectations.
The Commerce Dept. announced that retail sales climbed by 0.4 percent in August, twice as high as the 0.2 percent analysts had predicted. The result highlights retail sales strength of more than 4 percent year-over-year. These excellent results come on the heels of blowout data in July, when households boosted purchases of cars and clothing.
The better-than-expected number stemmed largely from a 1.8 percent jump in spending vehicles. Online sales, meanwhile, also continued to climb, rising 1.6 percent. That’s similar to July, when Amazon held its two-day, blowout Prime Day sale. (link)
(Via Reuters) Retail sales rose 0.4% last month, lifted by spending on motor vehicles, building materials, healthcare and hobbies. Data for August was revised slightly up to show retail sales increasing 0.8% instead of 0.7% as previously reported.
Economists polled by Reuters had forecast retail sales would gain 0.2% in August. Compared to August last year, retail sales advanced 4.1%. Retail sales have increased for six straight months, the longest such stretch since June 2017. (more)
Doesn’t look like middle-class America is overly concerned about the noise coming from the pundits. Likely that’s because wages are higher, inflation is lower, and consumer confidence is strong…. MAGAnomics is working.
Additionally, remember all those MSM hours and newspaper column inches where the professional financial pundits were claiming Trump’s tariffs were going to cause massive increases in prices of consumer goods?
Well, exactly the opposite is happening [BLS report] Import prices continue to drop:
This is a really interesting dynamic that no-one in the professional punditry will dare explain. Trump’s tariffs are targeted to specific sectors of imported products. [Steel, Aluminum, and a host of smaller sectors etc.] However, when the EU and China respond by devaluing their currency, that approach hits all products imported, not just the tariff goods.
Because the EU and China are driving up the value of the dollar, everything we are importing has become cheaper. Not just imports from Europe and China, but actually imports from everywhere. All imports are entering the U.S. at substantially lower prices.
This means when we import products we are also importing deflation.
This price result is exactly the opposite of what the pundits were predicted back in 2017 and 2018 when they were pushing the rapid price increase narrative.
Because all the export dependent economies are reacting with such urgency to retain their access to the U.S. market, aggregate import prices are actually lower now than they were when the Trump tariffs began:
[…] Prices for imports from China edged down 0.1 percent in August following decreases of 0.2 percent in both July and June. Import prices from China have not advanced on a monthly basis since ticking up 0.1 percent in May 2018. The price index for imports from China fell 1.6 percent for the year ended in August.
[…] Import prices from the European Union fell 0.2 percent in August and 0.3 percent over the past 12 months.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
