As of July 26, President Barack Obama has issued 133 executive orders. The definition of the executive order (EO) is: “noun. (often initial capital letters) an order having the force of law issued by the President of the U.S. to the army, navy, or other part of the executive branch of the government.” Some of the 133 EOs relate to, or aim at, the implementation of Agenda 21.
Per Wikipedia: “Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regards to sustainable development. It is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. The ‘21’ in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st century. It has been affirmed and modified at subsequent UN conferences.”
President George H.W. Bush signed the agreement in 1992; the total number of signers was 178. In 1995, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12858 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development in order to harmonize U.S. environmental policy with U.N. directives as outlined in Agenda 21.
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. Sustainability advocates 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 justice) is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.”
The objectives are lofty. At the first reading, the titles of the different chapters and subsections are appealing. But there is a Constitutional problem. According to eco-logic, “Agenda 21 has never been debated or adopted by the Congress of the United States. Nevertheless, it is being vigorously implemented by the administrative agencies of the federal government, and by other nations around the world. More than 150 nations, including the United States of America, are participants in the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). America’s participation is not the result of an international treaty, ratified by Congress. America’s participation is the result of George Bush  signing Agenda 21 at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio [de Janeiro].”
JR Nyquist quotes Wikipedia as stating: “Within the executive branch of the U.S. government, President H.W. Bush, President Clinton, and President Obama have all signed executive orders that broadly support the tenets of Agenda 21 but do not make reference to Agenda 21 by name.”
Some of the objectives of the Agenda 21 are against American traditions and even laws. Redistribution of wealth, if it is forced from above, violates the principle of protection of private property. Another tenet is the need to substantially reduce the world population; one overzealous estimate mentions by 85 percent. Those two requirements aim at “enhancing” the sustainability and equitable sharing the global wealth among all nations.
The obvious questions are:
- Who will decide what is an equitable share for a resident in the United States versus one in Bangladesh or Sweden?
- Who is going to decide how many people each country must abort or exterminate to reach their allotment of the world population quota?
- How will progress toward these goals be assured?
The experiences of my childhood and youth spent in Nazi and Communist dictatorships have taught me that Agenda 21 is not achievable, short of a harsh dictatorship. For example, even repeating the Holocaust by killing another 6 million people would reduce the present global population by less than 0.1 percent. Redistribution of wealth is equal to make all equally poor.
The paths leading to Agenda 21 are the economy, the environment and education. The pursuit of each has produced some recent detrimental results, like turning down the Keystone pipeline project, refusing to implement the economic recommendations of the bipartisan “supercommittee” and the continuous dumbing down of the educational requirements.
The objectives of Agenda 21 appear to first promote local (national) dictatorships, culminating in a global dictatorship.
In human history many rulers have tried the latter, from the Chinese emperors and the pharaohs to the various 20th century dictators. Not one was able to establish a lasting legacy. Agenda 21, just like the Communist nirvana, is totally incompatible with human nature.