Concerned Citizens of Middle Peninsula
The purpose of Concerned Citizens of Middle Peninsula (CCMP) is to oppose all laws infringing on individual property rights under any government policy.
This goal of CCMP is to educate all citizens of the creeping destruction of our property rights under the Agenda 21 initiative and repeal all such destructive state or federal laws, edicts or executive orders. We want legislation at all levels of government that will restore property rights of the people and abolish any that don’t.
To get one of the best rebuttals regarding Agenda 21 and its influence at the local level.
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions." --James Madison, National Gazette Essay, 1792
Agenda 21 is a plan of action initiated under the guise of combating the flawed theory of Global Warming. that came out of the Untied Nations’ Rio Summit in 1992. The first President Bush signed on for Agenda 21.
Later the United Nations’ Kyoto Treaty was formed which calls for total government control over land, forests, minerals, water, energy, transportation et. al. The treaty was put before our Senate but they failed to pass it.
President Clinton formed a commission by executive order whose purpose is to implement the failed treaty proposal. This commission customized Agenda 21 to fit America and passed it down to the states by way of various government agencies using bribes such as government grants to gain state approvals. Virginia welcomed the grant money.
In rebutal to skeptics, as quoted from Dr. Ileana Johnson Pauagh in The Canada Free Press:
"Agenda 21 is an agenda in name only, environmentalists say.” If UN Agenda 21 is a “conspiracy theory,” environmentalists are spending vast fortunes and UN resources trying to implement it across the globe, with conferences in Rio attended by 179 countries and thousands of delegates both in 1992 and in June 2012.
If UN Agenda 21 is a figment of the Agenders’ imagination, why did President Clinton sign Executive Order 12852, creating the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to translate UN Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government? Why did the President’s Council create the first “Sustainable America” with 16 ‘we believe’ statements with the end goal to abolish private property, control education, control and reduce population, and control the economy?"
From the "horses mouth." “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’ … through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ ... 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.
Other Patriotic Groups :
Essex Tea Party
Campaign for Liberty
REGIONAL PATRIOT GROUPS
Lively, VA TEA Party 99TEAparty@gmail.com
Central VA TEA Party MaGreene714@aol.com
How Important Is Local Government by DeWitt Edwards
I think if most people were asked this question they would respond, “not nearly as important as state
and federal government”. They could not be more wrong, for local government was created to have the
most power because it is the government closest to the people. This is of utmost importance because
local government understands the concerns of local citizens and cares more about their security and
general welfare than do either state or federal governments.
Each of our Mathews Board of Supervisors took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
They are charged with the health, security and general welfare of the citizens they represent. I have
known most of the current board members for many years and I believe each one entered the office
fully intending to do that. That is why I cannot understand why they completely ignore the voices of
some of us who have tried to inform and educate them on great threats to our personal freedoms and
property rights. Those threats are incorporated in our county's comprehensive plan approved by them in
On the surface the comprehensive plan sounds like a grandiose path to what is called Smart Growth
and Sustainable Development. Who would not agree with these things? But when the truth is revealed it
is nothing more than a plan patterned after the blueprint of Agenda 21, a United Nations document
developed by Socialist/Marxist to strip away our property rights and freedom in order to move us into the
New World Order (One World Government). This year the National Republican Party passed a
resolution condemning UN Agenda 21 for what it is.
Those of us who opposed the adoption of the comprehensive plan were told that it was only a wish list
and had no power. That is not true because once adopted by the board it carries with it the power of
law. In a recent discussion at a Planning Commission meeting one member rightly noted that the
Comprehensive Plan is the bible they use in making many of their decisions. I was told by two
supervisors that local citizens developed the plan. Even the chair of the planning board told the Gazette
Journal that in an interview. I knew that was not true because I had written Hill Studios asking them
about their assistance in writing the Mathew Comprehensive Plan and asking if they could provide the
names of other counties and cities, which they had assisted.
My purpose for doing that was to show the similarities between the various county plans. I did not reveal
the information I had about outside assistance at that time because I felt that the members really did not
understand how they had been duped. It does seem though that they would have questioned the
taxpayer money paid to Hill Studios. Additional outside assistance for the plan came from the Virginia
Network for the Education of Municipal Officials (NEMO). Funding for their assistance came from the
NOAA Coastal Zone Management Program administered through the Virginia Dept. of Environmental
Quality through a grant to the Virginia Dept. of Conservation and Recreation. Additional support came
from Jonathan Doherty of the National Park Service. After over a year and a half of attempting to
inform them and providing loads of information which included booklets by authorities on the subject,
they still do not acknowledge their mistake. There is no way now that they cannot know. Rejection of
citizen efforts to rescind the comprehensive plan and remove all things related to Agenda 21 tells me
they are either complicit with those things or are simply trying to save face.
Choose Freedom, Stop Agenda 21
Victory in the Garden State
The Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders of New Jersey has adopted a resolution stating its opposition to Agenda 21. Adopted on February 15, the resolution comes months after local JBS members raised awareness on the United Nations Agenda 21.
The Ocean County JBS Chapter exhibited at the six day Ocean County Fair in July of last year, distributing hundreds of Agenda 21 flyers, reprints and booklets.
Two months later, the chapter followed up with a major speaking event on Agenda 21 that drew nearly 100 people, including four area mayors and the local tea party group. Further follow-up occurred with a JBS video presentation on the United Nations.
Members met with Freeholders and town council members and educated them using the available Agenda 21 tools.
JBS Coordinator Kip Webster reports that Chapter Leader Joseph Lypowy and his members did a great job in bringing this issue to the public eye in Ocean County. He added, "I believe that this effort worked well, because we followed all the guidelines as established in the JBS Bulletin."
Congratulations on a job well done!
Regarding Agedna 21 as reported by The Canada Free Press:
Few people understand that it is standard operating procedure for the U.N. to issue a massive non-binding policy document to test the water and make adjustments to its plans before introducing the real, legally-binding treaty. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a “soft-law” instrument, was the precursor to the two 1966 U.N. Covenants on Human Rights. The 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change called for “voluntary” compliance. But at the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, the group agreed to create a Kyoto Protocol to the Convention that would set legally-binding targets for all member nations.
President Obama is on the Agenda 21 bandwagon. In addition to challenge grants offered by federal agencies to entice local communities to create comprehensive land use plans, he, like Bill Clinton, has issued Executive Orders to advance the agenda without interference from Congress. Obama issued an Executive Order to create the White House Rural Council last year. On March 15, he issued another Executive order creating the White House Council on Strong Cities, Strong Communities. The next day, another Executive Order, National Defense Rersources Preparedness, vastly expanded the President’s power to control virtually all resources in times of emergency.
and regarding the Draft Covenant :
Since this Draft Covenant has a Preamble and 79 articles, it is obviously intended to be a world constitution for global governance, an onerous way to control population growth, re-distribute wealth, force social and “economic equity and justice,” economic control, consumption control, land and water use control, and re-settlement control as a form of social engineering.
The Draft Covenant is a blueprint “to create an agreed single set of fundamental principles like a ‘code of conduct’ used in many civil law, socialist, and theocratic traditions, which may guide States, intergovernmental organizations, and individuals.”
The writers describe the Covenant as a “living document,” a blueprint that will be adopted by all members of the United Nations. They say that global partnership is necessary in order to achieve Sustainable Development, by focusing on “social and economic pillars.” The writers are very careful to avoid the phrase, “one world government.” Proper governance is necessary on all levels, “from the local to the global.” (p.36)
The Covenant underwent four writings, in 1995, 2000, 2004, and 2010, influenced by the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, by ideas of development control and social engineering by the United Nations, “leveling the playing field for international trade, and having a common basis of future lawmaking.”
Article 3 proposes that the entire globe should be under “the protection of international law.”
Article 11 discusses “equity” and “equitable manner” which are code words for communism.
Article 16 requires that all member nations must adopt environmental conservation into all national decisions.
Article 20 requires that all nations must “mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.” If we ratify this document, we must thus fight a non-existent man-made climate change.
Article 31 requires the eradication of poverty by spreading the wealth from developed nations to developing countries.
Article 32 requires recycling.
Article 33 demands that countries calculate “the size of the human population their environment is capable of supporting and to implement measures that prevent the population from exceeding that level.”
Article 33 delineates long-term resettlement and estimating the “carrying capacity of the environment.”
Article 34 demands the maintenance of an open and non-discriminatory international trading system in which “prices of commodities and raw materials reflect the full direct and indirect social and environmental costs of their extraction, production, transport, marketing, and where appropriate, ultimate disposal.” The capitalist model of supply and demand pricing does not matter.
Article 36 describes military and hostile activities.
Article 39 decides management plans and quotas for permissible taking or “harvesting transboundary biological resources.”
Article 41 requires integrated planning systems, irrespective of administrative boundaries within a country, and is based on Paragraph 10.5 of Agenda 21, which seeks to “facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.” The impact assessment procedure is developed by the World Bank.
“Aquifers, drainage basins, coastal, marine areas, and any areas called ecological units must be taken into account when allocating land for municipal, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and other uses.” Agricultural subsidies are discouraged, as well as subsidizing private enterprises.
“Physical planning must follow an integrated approach to land use – infrastructure, highways, railways, waterways, dams, and harbors. Town and country planning must include land use plans elaborated at all levels of government.”
Article 48 demands that biotechnology from research and development and royalties be shared; free access and transfer of technology is also required.
Article 51 reveals that we will have to pay for these repressive new requirements while Article 52 shows that we must pay 0.7 percent of GDP for Official Development Assistance. This reaffirms the political commitment made in Paragraph 33.13 of Agenda 21 in 1992.
Article 69 deals with settlement of disputes by an arbitrary tribunal such as the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the International Court of Justice, or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Article 71 describes the amendment process, which is submitted to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. UN Secretary-General would review the implementation of this document every five years.
Writers of the Draft Covenant are the UN Secretariat, international lawyers, and U.S. professors from Cornell, Princeton, Pace University, Middlebury College, George Washington University Law School, Bucknell University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, Meadville Theological School, University of the Pacific, two General Counsel Representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, and two attorneys in private practice.