What’s the Reality with Agenda 21? Part 3

June 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM 6 comments

Okay, let’s try to finish up this series of articles on Agenda 21. We first looked at basic meanings and origins. We then looked at how things could work themselves out in society.

Let’s consider a few concerns related to Agenda 21. There are plenty of naysayers out there so it took me a while to find something of substance. I was able to find comments like these quite easily:

  • The RNC’s Anti-Agenda 21 resolution will be considered for inclusion in the GOP’s official 2012 platform at the party’s national convention in August. Welcome to crazytown! Terrifying, isn’t it?
  • Arizona’s Nutty Republicans Star in Anti-Agenda 21 Hearing: The Highlight Reel
  • It’s been more or less a comedy show watching the wingnuts explain what’s so bad about this declaration, and Agenda 21, because it’s painfully obvious that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

There are plenty of comments like this, but trying to get to the real issues is difficult. One individual wrote, “In truth, Agenda 21 is the sort of nonbinding, suggestion-filled ‘action plan’ the United Nations generates whenever it holds any kind of major international summit.” Not really.

I think the biggest problem with Agenda 21 is how broad in scope it is. It’s like hearing Obama say “Change is Coming!” and everyone applies their own meaning to his words. What did he actually mean though? We’re seeing it, but is this what people thought Obama meant originally? I don’t think so. It’s a nice catch phrase, isn’t it? “Change is coming!” Yep. Change came.

Columnist Rachel Alexander makes her own observations about Agenda 21. “Agenda 21 promotes European socialist goals that will erode our freedoms and liberties. Most of its vague, lofty sounding phrases cause the average personโ€™s eyes to glaze over, making it easier to sneak into our communities. The environmentalist goals include atmospheric protection, combating pollution, protecting fragile environments, and conserving biological diversity. Agenda 21 goes well beyond environmentalism. Other broad goals include combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, and reducing private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, and privately owned farms. It seeks to cram people into small livable areas and institute population control. There is a plan for ‘social justice’ that will redistribute wealth.”

I’m all for taking care of the environment, but God also put humanity here to use it. Extreme environmentalism seeks to place plants and animals above humanity.

Now, in its extreme, Agenda 21 appears to point to a way that population will be distributed throughout the United States with many areas that are now used and populated by people becoming off-limits. Agenda 21 also seems to promote a drastic reduction in manufacturing and grazing of livestock. Naturally, some who do not believe Agenda 21 is anything to worry about question how this would even be done. To me, the fact that it is there in some form in the document is cause for concern. But could Agenda 21 in its most extreme interpretation be realized? I really don’t know.

The idea of our government simply rounding people up, taking away our homes and property is a bit unbelievable. Seriously, how could we arrive to a point where our government would be able to corral millions of people into “stack and pack” housing units? How could society get to that point?

I believe this: in order for Agenda 21 to take place in that most extreme form, something truly catastrophic would need to occur in America before that could be accomplished. Either that, or it would take an incredible length of time to get the overall populace to that point. Two choices: something terribly and monstrously catastrophic would need to occur or it would be accomplished over multiple generations.

One individual asked the question on a forum that if the government is really intent on eliminating grazing land and cutting back on food sources, etc., how would people be fed? The trouble is that built into Agenda 21 are ways to reduce and stabilize the population as well.

Here’s what I find troubling more than anything. Why does the UN need to create a document that can be interpreted at the extreme all by itself? Moreover, why does the United States need to sign onto it?

Bush signed it. Clinton proceeded ahead with it, bypassing Congress. In 2011, Obama signed EO 13575, which ultimately created a “White House Rural Council” (in keeping with Agenda 21 dictates). The upshot is that this executive order (like many) ends up spending a ton of money that America does not have in order to “entice local communities into adopting Agenda 21 programs by providing them millions of dollars in grants.”

But the vagueness and broadness of the order is the problem. As one individual notes, “it establishes unchecked federal control into rural America in education, food supply, land use, water use, recreation, property, energy, and the lives of 16% of the U.S. population.”

Why does the government do this? Just about every time it creates something, it is so broad in scope and seemingly over-reactive that it winds up creating more problems than it solves. It’s maddening and a complete waste of valuable resources and money.

There are even groups of Democrats that stand opposed to Agenda 21. It’s not just “right-wing nutjobs” as some have claimed.

In truth, there appear to be some outlandish things in Agenda 21. If it’s all a best case scenario, well that’s one thing. But things in America have seemingly moved along in step with the dictates of Agenda 21 for some time. Why?

Just considering Monsanto, they are creating super foods that require very little water or soil to grow. The problem though is that most Monsanto seeds have built-in pesticides. These pesticides are harmful to animals and humans. That’s already been proven in the lab.

Was the huge housing bust that America is still trying recover from part of the plan to reduce home ownership? Now, banks and essentially the government own thousands upon thousands of homes throughout America. Some are being resold, but in numerous cases, entire neighborhoods are boarded up and closed off.

I think anything our government does should give us reason for concern, especially considering the growing corruption that we’ve witnessed in our government over the past number of decades.

If we are stupid enough to ignore Agenda 21, we may be doing that to our own peril.

Entry filed under: Political Correctness, Politically Correct, Politics, Religious - Christian - Theology. Tags: , , , , .

What’s the Reality with Agenda 21? Part 2 Monsanto, GMO, and Biotechnology

6 Comments

  • 1. Nelson  |  June 5, 2013 at 10:18 PM

    I do not see anything stopping any of this and why would it? We are a nation that has known God better than any other than Israel and yet we are falling away from God as an alarming rate. God has apparently allowed this to come to pass as a judgment on this nation. I do not see anything in the Bible that would indicate that God would turn back the clock and strengthen this nation and us repent of our collective sins to once again fear him. He has hardened the collective heart of the U.S.A as he did with Pharaoh. I see the Rapture happening very soon and sooner than even most of the Church has any clue. This will throw the world into complete anarchy and the A/C coming on the scene and using Agenda 21 in it’s most extreme form.

    • 2. modres  |  June 6, 2013 at 8:31 AM

      I agree with you Nelson. But I also believe that as Christians, we have an obligation to fight for what is right wherever we find wrong. To not fight against it means to give into the political correctness of the age.

      In dealing with Israel during Ezekiel’s day, I find it fascinating that God told the prophet that he was obligated to stand up for right and to point out error to Israel “whether they listened or not,” (Ezekiel 2:5, 7; 3:11, 27, etc.). The clear implication is that even though Ezekiel did not know how things would turn out, he was still obligated to tell them.

      I believe we have the same obligation. We have the truth and we need to share it. Yes, that refers to salvation and spreading the gospel, but it also includes pointing out error when we see it. Whether anyone listens or not is besides the point.

      Whether this nation ever turns back to God or not is also besides the point. I believe that even if that does not happen (which it won’t) God is still actively seeking individuals who will turn to Him.

      Like Ezekiel, we have an obligation to continue to support, live, and tell the truth in all areas. We do this whether anyone listens or not because it glorifies God, period. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • 3. Sherry  |  June 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM

    Great series, modres! When I read about this Agenda 21 I also think about the End-Times judgements (and vice-versa). Its the judgements on Egypt’s gods on a global scale and this time its against the global elitists’ puppets, the environmentalists’, and their worship of the earth, aka, Mother Nature, and their desire to play God with fellow human beings. ๐Ÿ˜•

    • 4. modres  |  June 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM

      There’s so much more to say about Agenda 21. Maybe I’ll revisit again, but hopefully, it will create the desire for people to do their research.

      I think you’re right about God judging too.

      • 5. Sherry  |  June 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM

        I was going to ask if you would do more posts on this subject. I’m kind of new to it. I’ve been putting off researching it for quite some time but your posts have piqued my interest in it now. God bless you~

      • 6. modres  |  June 5, 2013 at 6:09 AM

        Probably a good idea ๐Ÿ˜‰


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,213 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 724,527 hits

%d bloggers like this: