Darrell Cody

November 9, 2012

There is so much post election analysis going on, as a break, let's talk about he good things in our lives. This post is inspired by Carlos' on another message board.

November 7, 2012

Time for you to get active in the Tea Party, http://www.teapartypatriots.org/local/, to write articles, to talk to people, to do all you can, so that in 2016, we have the good guy win.

Fight hard.

Darrell Cody

November 6, 2012

I encourage everyone to take a look at Brad Harrington's post on Agenda 21.

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=13839

On Agenda 21: The United Nations' Plan For Collectivization And Enslavement, And On How It Is Being Implemented On A Local Level Right Here In Cheyenne, Wyoming

By Bradley Harrington

This commentary was first published in the October 30, 2012 issue of Liberty’s Torch.

Before proceeding to demonstrate the connections between the United Nations's Agenda 21 and Cheyenne's local regulations, the new Unified Development Code (UDC) in particular, there’s an ancillary issue that needs to be dealt with first, namely, the claim that whether or not such a connection exists is really even a “Tea Party” issue - i.e., that the “Tea Party” should, as a political movement, stay focused on the issues of fiscal responsibility and the promotion of private property rights. That we should, as one proponent of this idea recently put it to me, “stay on message” and “lose the tin foil hats.”

Well, I’m not nearly as sure that those two sets of issues are as mutually exclusive as such claimants would have us believe.

Consider a couple of groups of observations, for instance:

(1) It bears remembering that the original Boston Tea Party, from which we “Tea Party” types derive our name, was... “A political protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, a city in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the tax policy of the British government and the East India Company that controlled all the tea imported into the colonies. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it.” (Wikipedia Entry for the “Boston Tea Party.”)

The “Sons of Liberty,” in turn, was... “A group consisting of American patriots that originated in the pre-independence North American British colonies. The group, started by Samuel Adams, was formed to protect the rights of the colonists and to take to the streets against the taxes from the usurpations by the British government after 1766. They are best known for undertaking the Boston Tea Party in 1773, which led to the Intolerable Acts (an intense crackdown by the British government), and a counter-mobilization by the Patriots that led directly to the American Revolutionary War in 1775.” (Wikipedia Entry for the “Sons of Liberty.”)

So, with that history in mind, would it be safe to say that the Boston Tea Party and the Sons of Liberty were events and movements dedicated to the promotion of freedom, fiscal responsibility, property rights and national sovereignty? I would think so.

(2) Now let’s turn out attention to the United Nations for our second set of observations.

“The United Nations... Is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.”

(Wikipedia Entry for the “United Nations.”)

And more, from the U.N. Charter itself:

“WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED -

- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind -

- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person...

- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”

Now, I have a few questions and comments on this - observations which will not only bear on whether connecting Agenda 21 to local UDC codes constitutes wearing a “tin foil hat” or not, but also on the larger issue of that connection itself.

( a ) “To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”? And the method the U.N. used to attempt to achieve this goal? The establishment of the Security Council, which contained, as permanent members, the two bloodiest and most brutal dictatorships in all of man’s history, i.e., Soviet Russia and Red China. This was a guaranteed recipe for failure.

Consider: “Wars,” as the philosopher Ayn Rand once noted, “are the second-greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.” (From “The Wreckage of the Consensus.”) As evidence of this thesis, Rand points out that “World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.” (From “The Roots of War.”) Remember that these two wars, started by statist dictatorships, were the very two wars mentioned in the U.N. Charter as the “scourge” to be avoided.

From the same essay, Rand concludes: “If men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. So long as they hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged ‘good’ can justify it - there can be no peace within a nation and no peace amongnations.”

Yet, with an “anti-war” Security Council packed with statist dictatorships, what could one rationally expect but a continuation of war? “What would you expect from a crime-fighting committee whose board of directors included the leading gangsters of the community?” (Rand, “The Anatomy of Compromise.”)

It also bears noting, in follow-up, that the political opinions of most of the so-called “anti-war” advocates are decidedly to the Left on the political spectrum - to say nothing of the actual membership of the U.N. itself, independent of the stupidities surrounding the Security Council. So much for the so-called claim of seeking to eliminate the “scourge of war” - and the U.N.-stamped enslavement of 300 million citizens of Eastern Europe for nearly half a century by Commie Russia slams that point home for anyone with half a brain to see.

( b ) “Fundamental human rights”? “The dignity and worth of the human person”? Such concepts are meaningless without first being defined as, and couched in terms of, individual rights - and individual rights cannot be practiced without property rights. Observe, however, the complete absence of both in the U.N. charter. What possibility can ever exist, therefore, of any action which could ever lead to the “promotion of social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”? “Social progress” and “freedom” are not the by-products of any sort of collectivist system but functions of capitalism and individual liberty instead. Any nation that seeks to obtain those results, therefore, that employs political policies based on the former instead of the latter, is as doomed to failure as is the attempt to end war by placing despots in charge of anti-war efforts.

And observe that the historical results of such a misguided attempt bear that out: Decades of U.N appeasement concerning the destruction of the individual property rights of the citizens of such nations as Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq and Iran - while most Security Council condemnations are reserved for the relatively free societies of the world, such as the United States, England and Israel. Destroy individual property rights and you destroy all liberty and individualism right at their root - and the so-called vehicle for promoting “social progress” becomes a hearse by which the rights of the citizens of nation after nation are delivered into the hands of despots, tyrants and dictators everywhere.

( c ) In view of such realities, therefore, how is the “Tea Party” type of person, oriented in liberty, to judge any attempt to implement the following portion of the U.N. Charter?: “To employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples”?

In the absence of individual property rights, this is nothing less than a call for the international implementation of a level of slavery never before seen on Planet Earth - with cute, warm and fuzzy buzz-words such as “rights,” “dignity,” “justice,” “respect,” “progress” and “freedom” serving as the window-dressing by which we, the United States, as a nation, willvoluntarily seek to tyrannize ourselves and obliterate our own national sovereignty. What will the end result of such a policy be? One national neck ready for one international leash.

And, just to prove that stupidity and moral cowardice are not monopolies of the U.N., observe that the United States herself played a major role in the U.N.’s inception and continues to promote and support this destructive organization today - both economically and philosophically.

So, to summarize: If the Boston Tea Party and the Sons of Liberty were about promoting freedom, fiscal responsibility, property rights and national sovereignty, and the United Nations is organized around collectivist coercion, budgetary insanity, the destruction of property rights and the abolition of national sovereignty - what issue could possibly be better suited to our modern-day “Tea Party” cause? Aren’t these the very issues the original Boston Tea Party was thrown over???

And, indeed, it has long been a legitimate Rightist position to end our involvement with the United Nations: To quit funding it, to kick it off our shores, and - most importantly - to quit granting it a philosophical legitimacy it does not deserve and has not earned.

From where, then, creeps the notion that opponents of U.N. enslavement wear “tin foil hats”?

(1) First of all, unfortunately, a large number of the opponents of this international idiocy also choose to immerse themselves in all manner of conspiracy hypotheses as an explanation for how we arrived at this state of affairs - such as the involvement of the Illuminati, or the Zionist Jews, or the Rockefellers and their banking empire. Such “explanations” are truly unnecessary: All that is needed to explain and understand our current international state is to recognize the power of principles and the role they play in human affairs. As Ayn Rand once stated in “Philosophy: Who Needs It”: “Politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas.” No hypotheses concerning conspiracies of men are needed when a “conspiracy of principles” adequately explains our state of affairs - but observe that it is the promulgation of the former that gives rise to the “tin foil hat” syndrome of which we speak.

(2) Again, unfortunately, many of the individuals who recognize the socio-politico-economic connections between U.N. enslavement policy and local UDC-style codes do not do a good job of demonstrating those connections - which cannot properly be done without establishing the philosophical underpinnings first - and, in the absence of such a demonstration, such proponents merely appear as babblers and entrench the rule of the collectivist planners.

Which is not to say that I disagree with the notion that local, state and national issues involving liberty, fiscal responsibility and property rights shouldn’t take precedence, because Ido. We also need to recognize, however, the grave threat being posed to us from outside those spheres of influence as well - and the claim that we don’t need to specify the particular sources of where these sundry and various property-rights violations originate, but merely need to focus on fighting them when they show up, is erroneous at best. If you’re in a war and taking enemy fire, would it not be of interest to know where the bullets were coming from? As opposed to just “focusing” on them when they’re about to splatter you in the face?

So, let’s establish those connections... And the starting point for that, of course, is the Agenda 21 document itself.

We’ve already seen how the U.N. Charter promotes and facilitates slow international enslavement, all the while in the name of “rights” and “freedom” - and this policy of adopting the target’s words, concepts and principles in name only, while violating anything and everything those ideas are based upon, is both a strategy and a tactic carried forward with Agenda 21. The key to understanding the thrust and intent of Agenda 21 lies in recognizing that it is the extension and implementation of the U.N. Charter itself; that Charter is the source, the seed, from which Agenda 21 springs.

“Agenda 21,” short for the U.N.’s “Agenda for the 21st Century,” was created at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro in June of 1992. This document can be found on the U.N. website under the “Division for Sustainable Development” section.

What perceived international threats, you might ask, served as the justification for the creation of this document? From the Agenda 21 Preamble, Section 1.1: “Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can - in a global partnership for sustainable development.”

Observe the tacit assumptions - that ( a ) current methods of development are unsustainable; and ( b ) that the listed social ills can be successfully addressed through collectivist U.N policies as opposed to implementing more capitalism and freedom.

Buying into the false notion that the world’s ills center around the need for “greater equity in income distribution” (“Combating Poverty,” 3.1), “global environmental problems” (“Preamble,” 1.4) and achieving “a more efficient and equitable world economy” (“International Cooperation to Accelerate Sustainable Development in Developing Countries,” 2.1), the Agenda 21 document is, literally, a detailed blueprint for total, top-down control of all property as it relates to urban development, “planned” communities, resource-allocation, environmental controls, monetary stability, energy development and consumption, land use and transportation; no major stone of a modern industrial society is left unturned.

As such, Agenda 21 flows out of the same socio-politico-economic errors as the U.N. Charter itself, and is nothing less than a systematic, comprehensive and all-inclusive call for the international institutionalization of a command economy with the surface of the entire planet constituting its geographical boundaries.

And the purpose of this document? How does Agenda 21 intend on addressing these perceived ills? From the Preamble, Section 1.3: “Agenda 21 addresses the pressing problems of today and also aims at preparing the world for the challenges of the next century. It reflects a global consensus and political commitment at the highest level on development and environment cooperation. Its successful implementation is first and foremost the responsibility of Governments.”

Remember that guff out of the U.N. Charter about employing “international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples”? Here you have it, in the flesh - a recipe for the enslavement of the American citizen to the dictates of the half-fascist, half-socialist, 100-percent-collectivst U.N.

And if you think that’s just paranoia on my part, that this whole thing wasn’t written to slowly bleed us dry, you’d better wake up and read on. In “Strengthening the Role of Business and Industry,” 33.10, for instance, we are told that “The implementation of the huge sustainable development programs of Agenda 21 will require the provision to developing countries of substantial new and additional financial resources. Grant or concessional financing should be provided according to sound and equitable criteria and indicators.”

What kinds of “sound and equitable criteria” are possible with a scheme that calls for the sacrifice of the wealth of the “haves” to the demands of the collectivist “have-nots” (“...the provision to developing countries of substantial new and additional financial resources”)? The criteria of the “haves” handing over their wealth to the “have-nots” a piece at a time.

One question will suffice to reveal the hidden enslavements intended by such a policy: To be provided by whom? YOU - the taxpayer, whether you like it or not. That’s right, your hard-earned money is now going to be taken from you at the point of a gun and handed out to the savages of Africa. Why? Because they NEED it. Never mind your economic development - that’s now taking a back seat to the economic and environmental concerns of all the “have-nots” of the entire planet. Your mission, as the producing slave, is to merely keep producing. So much for freedom, capitalism, private property rights and the true social progress all of those mechanisms create. And all of this in the name of love and concern for man. Anyone truly interested in solving the world’s social ills would have discovered capitalism long ago. Those who buy into it, have it coming.

So, what is the plan here? How do the collectivist slavers intend to pull this heist off? How, precisely, are we to be fooled into implementing such policies?

From “Financial Resources and Mechanisms,” 33.8: “All countries should assess how to translate Agenda 21 into national policies and programs through a process that will integrate environment and development considerations. National and local priorities should be established by means that include public participation and community involvement...” (The blather about “public participation” and “community involvement,” of course, is just a red herring; in reality, you’ll have no say in the process whatsoever.)

Here in the United States, we began implementing such policy on a national level with Bill Clinton’s “President’s Council on Sustainable Development” (PCSD), established in 1993 and active until 1999 - which, from their website, sought to “Advise President Clinton on sustainable development” and “bold new approaches to achieve economic, environmental, and equity goals.” (Italics mine.)

Sound familiar? The now-infamous “3-E’s,” straight out of Agenda 21. And if you think that qualifies me for a “tin foil hat,” you’d better wake the Hell up. From a PCSD meeting on June 19, 1998: “The concept of sustainable development was first proposed in 1972 at the United Nation's Conference on the Human Environment, yet it was not until 1987 that sustainable development became a policy goal... The 1992 Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro refined the concept. Agenda 21 claimed that countries must ‘seek the mutual goals of economic development and environmental protection for the purpose of fulfilling the basic needs for all.’”

With thanks to the PCSD, it didn’t take long for Agenda 21 policy to gain implementation in all sorts of federal bureaucracies. Through the establishment of the PCSD’s “Task Forces” on “Climate Change,” “Environmental Management,” “International Leadership” and “Metropolitan and Rural Strategies,” the Agenda-21-promoting federal alphabet soup included: The Dept. of Energy; the EPA; HUD; FEMA; the Dept. of Commerce; the Small Business Administration; the Dept. of the Interior; the Dept. of Commerce; the USDA; the Dept. of Education; and the Dept. of Transportation, just to name a few.

With the PCSD’s Task Forces as the motive power and these and other agencies as the vehicles of transmission, the word quickly went out: All grants to states and localities were henceforth to be given on the basis of preconditions adhering to the concepts of “sustainable development,” “environmental quality” and “smart growth.” Via such grants, Agenda 21 policy has, from the top down through hundreds of thousands of grants, slowly but insidiously made itself felt in every state and nearly every city in America.

Consider, as an example of this, the HUD “Community Development Block Grant” (CDBG), governed by CFR Title 24, Section 91, where the “Overall Goal” (Section 91.1) of HUD community planning and development programs are defined as: “To develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities principally for low- and moderate-income persons.” Straight out of Agenda 21, “Human Settlement Objective,” 7.4: “The overall human settlement objective is to improve the social, economic and environmental quality of human settlements and the living and working environments of all people, in particular the urban and rural poor.”

Recognizing early on that the top-down approach wasn’t all that was needed, however, the United Nations sought to sock it to us all from the bottom-up, local level as well - and this approach culminated in the establishment of the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI). ICLEI was founded at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, a U.N. conference held at the U.N. in 1990. And ICLEI’s goals?

“ICLEI promotes local action for global sustainability and supports cities to become sustainable, resilient, resource-efficient, biodiverse, low-carbon; to build a smart infrastructure; and to develop an inclusive, green urban economy... We have developed stable, long-term programs to support local-level sustainability and continue to develop innovative new programs to respond to issues of international concern.” (From the ICLEI website.)

Indeed, in Agenda 21’s “Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement Development,” 7.21, ICLEI’s role is directly addressed: “Cities of all countries should reinforce cooperation among themselves and cities of the developed countries, under the aegis of non-governmental organizations active in this field, such as the International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and the World Federation of Twin Cities.” ICLEI, as the local implementation arm of Agenda 21, and as of the date of this writing, presently has 526 United States counties and municipalities on its membership rolls.

Within the last 20 years, the two-pronged approach established by Agenda 21 advocates - the top-down approach of national mandates and grants coupled with the bottom-up approach of snaring local governments in ICLEI-style “sustainability” nonsense - has had a tremendous impact on building and zoning codes throughout the United States, as well as right here in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Consider the International Codes of the International Code Council (ICC), for instance, an organization founded in 1994 and “Dedicated to helping the building safety community and construction industry provide safe, sustainable and affordable construction through the development of codes and standards used in the design, build and compliance process.” (ICC website.)

Agenda 21 7.60 promotes a “culture of safety,” and the ICC has dutifully leapt in to fill that void with its Agenda-21-based “International” codes. Need proof? Earlier this year, the ICC teamed up, in a Webinar Series promoting its Building Energy Code, with none other than our bottom-up, Local-Agenda-21-promoting, United Nations organization ICLEI. One of the topics for discussion? “An introduction to building codes as a policy tool conducted by ICLEI and targeted to primary staff liaisons and code officials.”

A partial listing of the International Codes developed by the ICC and pushed by both the ICC and ICLEI with their “sustainable” goals in mind would include: The International Building Code; the International Residential Code; the International Fire Code; the International Mechanical Code; the International Plumbing Code; the International Fuel Gas Code; the International Electric Code; and the International Energy Conservation Code.

Now, keep in mind that our Cheyenne Governing Body members - Patrick Collins in particular - love to ask us “tin foil hat” types for proof of the connections between City codes and Agenda 21. Very well: In the “Plan Review Information” section” of the City’s Building and Safety Dept. page, under the heading of “Code Information,” you will find all of the above codes listed as in place and practiced by the City of Cheyenne. So much for the claim that Agenda 21 hasn’t arrived, safe and sound, in Cheyenne.

Nor are the presence of Agenda 21 tentacles here in Cheyenne limited to ICC codes: Consider those HUD CDBGs we were speaking of earlier, for instance... And also consider that the City of Cheyenne’s website has a special CDBG section reserved solely for a discussion of its adherence to the policies, procedures and standards involving such grants.

Next, consider that in Fiscal Year 2011, the City of Cheyenne received over $7 million in federal grants from not only HUD ($686,880), but also from several other federal agencies tasked by the PCSD Task Forces to establish their grant-allocations on the basis of an adherence to Agenda 21 principles and that hand out hundreds of billions of grants every year in order to accomplish the Agenda 21 objective.

Need more proof of the insidious manner in which Agenda 21 has infiltrated our local government? Then one need look no further than the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) “Plan Cheyenne” documents, all of which are shot through with Agenda-21-style references to “smart growth,” “sustainability,” “development vision,” ad nauseam.

Consider: In 2005, the EPA, as one of its PCSD-based, Agenda-21-style grant programs geared towards implementing Agenda 21 on the local level, kicked off its “Smart Growth Implementation Assistance Program,” a funding grant for communities “That want to incorporate smart growth techniques into their future development.” The collectivist planners at the Cheyenne MPO took the bait, and - according to the “Smart Growth Plan Cheyenne” document - from that point forward, “City officials discussed project goals and objectives with the EPA” in “identifying options that would implement ‘Plan Cheyenne’ and formulate a development plan... To reflect smart growth principles and Cheyenne’s growth vision.”

Consider: Further referenced in the appendices of “Smart Growth Plan Cheyenne,” as integral resource stepping stones to the resultant document, are:

( a ) The American Planning Association’s (APA) publication, “Model Smart Growth Codes.” And the APA’s source of funding for the development of its “Smart Growth” balderdash? From the APA’s website: “In 2003, the American Planning Association's Research Department received funding from the EPA to develop a guidebook on smart land-development regulations... Promoting the U.S. EPA Smart Growth Principles.” Said principles which were passed down straight from the PCSD... Which were passed down straight from Agenda 21.

( b ) The Local Government Commission’s (LGC) “Smart Growth Zoning Codes: A Resource Guide.” And the LGC’s mission? To assist “local governments in establishing and nurturing the key elements of livable communities: A healthier human and natural environment; a more sustainable economy; an actively engaged populace; and an equitable society.” (LGC’s website.) An explicit declaration of support for Agenda 21’s “3E’s” of “environment, economy and equity.”

( c ) The Mountain View, Calif., “Downtown Precise Plan.” Mountain View, as a survey of ICLEI’s membership rolls will reveal, is a member of ICLEI and - with its “Council Environmental Sustainability Committee” and “Environmental Planning Commission,” functions as a model of Agenda-21 based whacko environmentalism.

THESE sources, ladies and gentlemen, are what produced “Plan Cheyenne.” I could go on demonstrating the connections between Agenda 21 and the rest of “Plan Cheyenne’s” sources, but at this point, that would be beating a dead horse.

And then, finally, as the explicitly-declared political implementation of “Plan Cheyenne,” we have... Cheyenne’s new “Unified Development Code” (UDC), a 282-page listing of orders and demands, voted in by our Governing Body and in effect as of April 30.

Like Agenda 21 and “Plan Cheyenne” themselves, the UDC is a detailed blueprint for total, absolute government control over private property, with regulations covering everything from signs (“Alterations of existing signs that replace more than 50% of the surface area of the existing sign shall require full compliance with all standards in this Section,” 6.5.2) to building construction (“Building types are regulated by T-Zone as listed in Table 7-4,” 7.3.1) to sidewalks (“Sidewalk width will be as specified in Article 4 of this Code,” Appendix E) to the “percentage of living materials” required to be present upon your property (“Any required landscape area... Shall consist of a minimum 75% ground cover by living grass or other plant materials based on mature size of vegetation,” 6.3.7) to anything and everything in between.

With thanks to the UDC, you are no longer a property owner, but a property holder instead, with all the responsibilities but none of the advantages - similar to the King’s serfs in feudalistic times, and just exactly what the dictates of Agenda 21 call for. Take the dictates of Agenda 21, localize them for the particulars of Cheyenne, and what pops out of the collectivist planner pot is “Plan Cheyenne” and the UDC. One local neck ready for one international leash.

Non-“tin-foil-hat” types love to tell the rest of us, who are rightly and greatly disturbed by these Agenda 21 influences, that Agenda 21 isn’t a binding resolution anyway - but Cheyenne’s new UDC, with the full force of law, certainly is. Break it at your own peril, with real fines and real jail-time as your reward.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. I simply do not have the time or space to further document the hundreds of other links between Agenda 21 and City codes, the UDC in particular. Not that they are needed: We already have enough smoking guns lying around to cinch the case - to say nothing of being able to start the next war. Nor have I even touched upon the many words of the many contractors I’ve spoken with over the last few months who have told me of the business-killing, jobs-destroying, production-plundering destructiveness flowing forth as a result of these command-style collectivist plans.

Now, please do not misunderstand me: I am certainly not attempting to claim that every assault on our freedoms comes from the U.N. To the contrary; most of it originates with the “normal,” run-of-the-mill, philosophically-bankrupt collectivist principles that have been clogging our intellectual arteries for decades - and of which the formation of the U.N. itself was but one deadly result. Still, those assaults have international sources as well, and we’d do well to be aware of them - and to reject them when found. “Liberty,” as Thomas Jefferson once remarked, “requires eternal vigilance.”

Nor am I making the claim that the particular individuals involved with our local planning process are all closet United Nations internationalists deliberately seeking to enslave us. To the contrary, I’d be surprised if any of them have even the glimmering of a clue as to the nature of the destructiveness they’ve succeeding in wreaking. And that, perhaps, is far worse: Bereft of any true philosophical understanding of the principles of freedom, individualism, capitalism and private property rights, such people blissfully absorb the intellectualstatus quo without further thought on the matter. But the intellectual status quo is... Collectivist enslavement.

So, in summary: ALL property-rights violations, on whatever horizon they appear, must be challenged and defeated if we are to retain our liberties - but, most importantly, a solid definition and understanding of just what property rights are is absolutely crucial: “The right to property” is the right to peaceful use and disposal. ANY city code, whether it be the UDC or even the former building, traffic and zoning codes which the UDC supplanted, needs to be abolished outright. No compromise and no “halfway-points” are possible, folks; you either have your individual property rights or you don’t. Which do you prefer?

Bradley Harrington is the Publisher of Liberty’s Torch; his email is [email protected].

November 6, 2012

Why would voting Romney-Ryan produce freedom?

Because it would be better than Obama. See the article on Peikoff's site for the full logic's statement.

http://www.peikoff.com/election/

He - lo and behold - explicitly advised AR fans to vote Romney-Ryan too.

November 6, 2012

The short answer: No. Objectivism is not naive. It is honest.

November 6, 2012

Freedom Forever!

November 6, 2012

Vote Romney-Ryan tomorrow!

softwareNerd · November 6, 2012

Hi - I'm starting a thread for anything about the *BIG* event. Say anything!

What I say: No matter what the outcome of tomorrow's election, the fight for what is right continues. Agreed?

November 5, 2012

Vote Romney. Four years of being less angry than you would at Obama. QED.

October 30, 2012

I agree with Dr. Peikoff. Romney winning would get us more time to teach people Objectivism.

October 30, 2012

This came quick.

Well said by Yaron Brook.

Thanks for posting this.

October 26, 2012

Thanks for posting that

http://www.rollingst...20121025?page=3

Have you ever read Ayn Rand?

Sure.

What do you think Paul Ryan's obsession with her work would mean if he were vice president?

Well, you'd have to ask Paul Ryan what that means to him. Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity - that that's a pretty narrow vision. It's not one that, I think, describes what's best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a "you're on your own" society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party.

Thanks for posting that. It shows with such clarity that Obama is in disagreement with the people who are right.

October 23, 2012

I think Romney did real good.

October 20, 2012

Darrell, I'm extending to you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you understand Agenda 21 is not law. Are there other laws or treaties or international agreements that you are concerned about? If so, what are they and why?

Thank you for the good reasoning and common sense used there, FeatherFall, yes, indeed, I know Agenda 21 is not bonafide law, I was using the term 'law' in the most general term's sense, and to express that passing vague laws/regulations/rules/directives/articles/executive orders/agendas is the tactic used by these people to get their wrongs justified by loose wording of (general term) "nefarious non-objective law".

Agenda 21 is an example of that machinating behavior.

Thank you for asking that question about other laws, treaties, etc that are cause for concern; I have not had the opportunity to study other international laws or treaties or agreements; so, I can't say what others might be problems. Obamacare, compulsory income tax, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, should all be repealed because they all violate individual rights in their compulsion-based collectivist obvious ways. For more, read Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

I can say however that America borrowing a penny from China is as ill an idea as an industrialist borrowing money from a mafia, and for the same reason. Same goes for Putin's Russia. But we owe both billions. Being a member of the UN with Russia, is, as Ayn Rand said, a crazy idea, like joining a community watch group with members from the local mafia. But we are doing that too.

All this absurd nonsense needs to end. If it's irrational, it can't cause good, and our policy of borrowing money from people and nations that have collectivist ideologies has caused enough trouble already:

Look at China's human rights abuses. And to quote Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton: "How do you get tough with your banker?"

Keep telling people to read Atlas Shrugged! Work with your local Tea Party, and the ARI, etc!

Find your Tea Party here:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/local/

Thanks!

October 20, 2012

I heard about that, but can't watch it. I will have to buy it on DVD. Glad to hear it is good!

October 20, 2012

Last Social Before the Election!

For our last social/political action event before the election, we're putting the "active" back in "activism"! Our evening begins at 5:00 pm in Grand Central Terminal where GTP activists will pass out Wendy Long For Senate! palm cards until 7:00 pm.

Join in a massive GOTV effort for Wendy Long!

We'll then adjourn to our new venue for our regular program of lively speakers and fellowship beginning at 7:30 pm. Addressing us will be:

Pamela Geller - The blogger and activist known for her stance against radical Islam will report on her recent experience running ads calling for the support of the civilized man against the savage.
Yaron Brook - The son of Israeli socialists, the author of Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government, columnist for Forbes.com, and president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute has much to say about the stakes in this election.

DATE: Tuesday, October 30th (Note: NOT Monday, our usual day)

TIME: 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm - Pass out Wendy Long for Senate!

palm cards to commuters in Grand Central Terminal.

A GTP representative will stand near Grand Central's

Information booth to give you palm cards and direct you

to platforms where we'll work in pairs.

7:30 - 9:30 pm - program

VENUE: Note new venue!!!

Annie Moore's Pub

50 East 43th Street (btwn Vanderbilt & Madison)

Midtown Manhattan

COST: $10 in advance*; $15 at the door - Snacks included

Click to pre-pay:

http://gothamteaparty.com/sept-pae

Questions? Email [email protected]

___________________

* We cannot refund prepaid admissions.

Gotham Tea Party's mission: Help elect representatives who believe in our Founders' timeless principles of constitutional and limited government, fiscal responsibility, and free markets.

October 19, 2012

Can we have some specific provisions on how Agenda 21 "gives capacity to local governments to do what they want to people's property", please?

There are no specifics. Like the "Fair Share Law" in Atlas Shrugged, or the "Equalization Of Opportunity Act", the specifics will come when government officials *just do whatever they please*!!! That is the danger. Remember in Atlas Shrugged how Ayn Rans described the rubber words and half-expressed intentions, which Dagny felt like she could only see in her peripheral vision?

THAT is the tactic.

Vague laws, and then they do whatever they want later, for looting, claiming the rubber words justify it.

Do you get that now?

Don't look for facts from these people, they aren't going to say "we can take your property" all nice and Objectivist clearly stated. They lie, and are deceptive. They are VAGUE. Then, they pounce.

You have to recognize THAT fact and TACTIC.

And fight it, in advance, knowing that's what's coming.

Dealing with these people is LIKE THIS. You have to think.

October 19, 2012

A little background on me:

I was a 60's liberal, brought up by my parents that way, until the early 90's when some powerful personal events changed me and shocked my life. ( "crashed and burned" was more like it, at the time. )

I suddenly realized that government couldn't possibly guarantee me that life would be fair and easy, nor was it their purpose to.

I gradually evolved, rereading "Atlas Shrugged", which my parents had given me as a teen, but only appreciated as a novel back then. But this time the reading was seen differently.

I read some more of Rand's works, and by 2000, considered myself a Libertarian, then by about 2008, a full fledged Objectivist. And yes, I now realize the differences. Objectivism is the only philosophy I've found that has objective definitions. For example, a Republican can mean almost anything, from liberal to conservative, to Libertarian, as can "Libertarian". I even found a site years ago, for Libertarian Green Party Nazis.

It's like religion - it means anything anyone wants it to mean at the time.

At some point along the way, I also realized that forced-collectivism was in fact slavery, and I've always been against slavery. Only forced-collectivism doesn't enslave people based on race, nationality or religion, it enslaves people fairly equally, except of course for the rulers. The true "Road To Serfdom".

But Y'ron Brook made a statement along the lines of what I used in my subject line, and it's very true.

The big challenge politically is getting people to understand the principles and the philosophy of freedom and capitalism, which led me to write a little book about it, in late 2010. My forte has never been marketing though, and unfortunately it sits beneath 2.5 million some others, at Amazon.com. Some have told me that it might be a good manual for resetting things, after the coming Collapse, which Rand pretty much predicted as far back as the 50's.

But the biggest obstacle that I see is this:

"We have allowed our constitutional republic to deteriorate into a virtually unchecked direct democracy. Today's political process is nothing more than a street fight between various groups seeking to vote themselves other people's money. ( and freedoms? ) Individual voters tend to support the candidate that promises them the most federal loot in whatever form, rather than the candidate who will uphold the rule of law." --Rep. Ron Paul

Forced-collectivism involves people voting themselves the money and liberty of others, therefore it's immensely popular... at least until it collapses and people start seeing death camps and all that.

I think they figured that forced-collectivism ( they said "socialism", but I think that forced-collectivism is really a better term for it ) led to the deaths of at least 100 million people in the last century.

So it seems like getting from point A ( where things are now ) to point B ( a theoretically Objectivist capitalis free world ) involves education of the masses, something they're not really inclined to be receptive to, unless and until they reach the point of utter desperation, like the founders of this country did under the tyranny of England in their time.

So I greatly admire Y'ron Brook and the ARI, and all others like them, but what a herculean task we have before us, eh?

Melissa Brookstone

Author and Founder of "The Planetary Bill of Rights Project"

http://www.PlanetaryBillOfRights.org/

Well put!

October 18, 2012

This show might be presenting a good ideology in it's historical content:

Mankind The Story of All of Us - Series Premiere Tue., Nov. 13 at 9/8c

http://www.history.com/shows/mankind-the-story-of-all-of-us

Like This

October 17, 2012

Succinctly, Ayn Rand states here why we must fight tooth and claw for individual rights.

You should start by going to a meeting of your tea party, or writing essays and emailing them, or blogging them, or telling people about Atlas Shrugged,or telling your local tea party about Atlas Shrugged, discuss it with friends and family, get the word out, or forward this post and essay to everyone you know by email. It's perfect.

You can find your local tea party here:

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/local/

Write an article for your local paper, or school paper, blog about it, email everyone you know, print copies of this essay and put them out in libraries. Do all that, do something, but fight. Also the newspaper The Undercurrent is good. http://the-undercurrent.com/

The key action is:

Speak.

That is what you have to do.

******************************************

The Only Path To Tomorrow

"The Moral Basis of Individualism"

by Ayn Rand

Readers Digest, January 1944, pages 88 through 90

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called "the common good."

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing "the common good." Napoleon "served the common good" of France. Hitler is "serving the common good" of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by "altruists" who justify themselves by -- the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man's happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence -- in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men -- nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work -- from laying bricks to writing a symphony -- is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians' first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective -- of the government, of the state -- was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen's rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history -- by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage's whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the "New Order of Tomorrow." It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man –– the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.

October 17, 2012

Darrell, I'm not completely sure I do get the point. I recognize that Agenda 21 represents a culture of statist/Marxist/environmentalist cooperation, but beyond that I don't know what to say. I don't think the resolution is irrelevant (as Hairnet seems to think), because at the very least it set the bar for future "progress" for the green movement and represents the moment greens united globally. Sure, college students usually have to take sustainability classes, and the ICLEI is active in my own home state. But I don't know what fighting Agenda 21 will accomplish.

Alabama's law seems to be an exercise in redundancy. If a local government follows an ICLEI plan or hatches their own that is consistent with Agenda 21's ideals, then Alabama's state laws are already in effect, so due process was already guaranteed. I guess it raises awareness, but there are better ways to do that.

The first article to which you linked included two instances supporting the notion that people fighting the culture of Agenda 21 should probably avoid mentioning it. It has been stated that the resolution is non-binding. Fighting a toothless resolution is going to waste valuable time you have to expose the ideas that underlie it. My advice is to focus on specific local initiatives, explain why they are bad, and offer capitalist alternatives. Studying Agenda 21 (which I haven't read) seems like a neat history lesson in the green movement. It will help you better understand the ideology of ICLEI and the guys who write the latest college texts. But beyond that, it is a red herring. It would have been a good fight to take on 20 years ago, but the value in winning that fight has been lost.

Edit: On a second reading, Alabama's law explicitly blacklists organizations mentioned/linked to Agenda 21, including the ICLEI. So maybe it can do some good.

Everybody:

Ayn Rand stated that Totalitarian states - run by people seeking POWER - rise on the claim of benefiting "the common good", which they never define, and consists in practice of harnessing the productive, looting the productive and murdering dissenters. Things people would never do for personal benefit, theft and murder they do to benefit - "the common good". It is a rubber phrase that can be taken to mean whatever the looter government power quester wants it to means. Observe "the common good" is the opposite motive here of "individual good", since active individuals get sacrificed, to benefit the power questers.

The issue and danger of Agenda 21 IS what is puzzling to you - it's vagueness. Like the phrase "the common good", it's danger, it's lethal effectiveness is it's ambiguity. It says it promotes the undefinable, the amorphous, the things that any local government official can state are benefited or harmed, according to THEIR determination. Who in heck can say what will "benefit future generations" (a "common good" concept)? It certainly, though, should not be a local government elected official Who knows what resources "ought to be conserved" (conserved for who? By who? Until when?). This law can be enforced to mean anything anyone can want it to mean - and that is the usual method of the people seeking power, to be used as a positive sounding justification for theft. Like the income tax and the Obamacare Mandate. All these things violate individual rights for "collective benefit". And it is done by using these types of vague, puzzling tactics, that are hard to comprehend, unless you identify the real motive: POWER. It is the power they are after now, that is all.

It is the vaguely defined and initial feeler of power questers, looking to see what they can get away with, and it is being done by power quester people at the UN to coordinate with power quester type people in local governments. They are slowly trying to see how much they can get away with, just like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Income Tax, Obamacare, government infringement on liberties by not law but "regulations" all started small and grew into the huge evil it is today.

You must catch on to their tactics. THIS IS their tactics. They have done nothing major or tangible yet. This is the first step to get to do so. Agenda 21.

BUT THEY WILL.

They start with the small and vague and harmless or fake positive sounding that gives you undefined power, and then spring something on people in small and larger steps backed up by it, until you have control. And while people (like some here, with all due respect) are scratching their heads wondering what is the motive of this, and what are they up to, you are not identifying the big thing they are up to: Agenda 21 gives people at the UN potential power at the local level!

THAT is what they are up to. As Ellsworth Toohey said "Don't try to analyze the incomprehensible. Just look at what it accomplishes."

Agenda 21 accomplishes United Nations influence over you at the local government level, which is the start step for a world government dictatorship. THAT is what they are up to. Sounds paranoid? Read the introduction to Anthem, and the whole book: "We have a local council, a national council, even a world council. If these do not hold total power over all our lives, is it from lack of intent?" - Ayn Rand. This kind of step is what Ayn Rand warned us about.

So what do you do about it?

Speak.

That is what you do.

Ring the alarm bells, tell people about it, and what they are up to, EXPLAIN it to others, as I am explaining it to you, so people don't sit there like victims waiting for victimization because the enemy is devious enough to use the same vague positive sounding tactics they usually use. "Common good", "Conservation", "Sustainable development", "benefit future generations". Tell your local tea party about it, discuss it with friends and family, get the word out. It's a power quester's evil methods!

Write an article for your local paper, blog about it, email this post to everyone you know. Do all that, do something, but fight!!!

And read this essay by Ayn Rand. And start getting savvy to the methods of our enemies:

"The Moral Basis of Individualism"

by Ayn Rand

Readers Digest, January 1944, pages 88 through 90

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called "the common good."

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing "the common good." Napoleon "served the common good" of France. Hitler is "serving the common good" of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by "altruists" who justify themselves by -- the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.