Connect with us


UN Agenda 21 – Even Democrats Hate it



The United Nations, and especially its General Assembly, is chief instrument of globalism and international government today, and precursor of world government. (And zero population growth) The UN works against the sovereignty of nation-states.

UN Agenda 21 has worked its way into city and county plans for years. But now even some Democrats are sounding a very loud alarm against it.

Democrats Against UN Agenda 21

That is the title of a new website. Your editor discovered it by accident this morning. The site gives the same history of UN Agenda 21 that the UN’s own sources gives:

  1. The Earth Summit in 1992, where President George H. W. Bush signed on to it.
  2. How President William J. Clinton pushed the program further in his eight years.

It does not mention that President George W. Bush let the program grow unchecked during his eight years. But whoever put up this site does not want to reserve blame to one party or the other. They want to stop UN Agenda 21, no matter who propounds it.

Details of UN Agenda 21

The site richly describes the endgames of UN Agenda 21:

  • To abrogate completely the rights of landowners to do what they please with their own lands.
  • To subvert one man’s rights to those of “the community.” (They cite “communitarianism” as the governing philosophy of UN Agenda 21.)
  • To force people to live, dormitory-style, in dense city centers. The UN Agenda 21 documents give this stark title to these dormitory centers: “islands of human habitation.” Islands, that is, in a sea of United Nations-managed wilderness. Which brings us to:
  • The Wildlands Project, for managing these wilderness areas.

Precursors to UN Agenda 21

The United Nations, promulgator of UN Agenda 21

The flag of the United Nations. (Public domain as per UN policy.)

This program has its precursors, and has had them for years. Most of the lands of many Western states are Federal Wilderness Areas. No human may enter them, except on foot or perhaps on horseback or muleback. Before too long, even that will be unlawful.

The problem: UN Agenda 21 extends that rule to the town level. The International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is the means to that end. As of one week ago, ICLEI claims 1200 members. Its avowed mission: to encourage cities and towns to do things as the United Nations wants them to do them.


By way of example, the Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 site describes a new kind of zoning called “mixed use.” This typically means one building, or a complex of buildings, having retail stores on the ground floor and condominiums on the floors above. The idea is alluring: live directly above your favorite shops. So that you don’t have to drive!


But such projects do not happen by accident. Usually a Redevelopment Agency is behind it. Such an agency can float bonds, without voter approval, that taxpayers must pay off. And the bonds go toward projects of this kind. The aim is simple: to conflate the residential with the commercial, and lure people in to a high-class dorm.

[ezadsense midpost]

The problem is worse than that. The Redevelopment Agency puts up the funds. To get the land, the town simply condemns large tracts of residential or commercial land as “blighted.” The case of Kelo v. New London set the precedent that allows cities and towns to do this.

A neat racket, that. And the Housing Crisis makes it easier. Many houses are foreclosed, or about to be foreclosed. Their owners bought them with money they didn’t have, using loans they should never have taken. Those loans are now due. The simplest thing to do: cut off the utility and sewer lines, and build these high-class dingbat dorms for them to live in. And once they all live in the center of town, the authorities can control them.

Another part of the plan: bicycle riders agitating for special lanes. All this to make driving unnecessary. And what starts with making cars unnecessary, goes on with making cars unaffordable. And eventually illegal. First, the parking permit fees go through the roof. Then the city denies them to all but those who can somehow “prove” an “essential need.” Eventually the only persons who qualify are law-enforcement officers. So that, though a person might find everything he needs in town, he may not go out of town. He would have no way to go any farther than his town limits.


The First Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to peaceably assemble.” This is a direct and insidious violation of that right.


The webmasters of Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 keep a separate weblog, called “The Way We See It.” They also published this link to a small on-line bookstore with titles that they recommend. One title is especially relevant: “The Anti-Communitarian Manifesto.”

Their most important resource is this site, “The Post-Sustainability Institute.” That site goes into greater detail on how UN Agenda 21 might play out, and what people can do to stop it.

See the previous article on this subject.


[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]

[ezadsense leadout]

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] sovereignty and the liberties of the American people. For a refresher on what UN Agenda 21 is, see here and […]

Alex Wallenwein

Although no individual candidate can save us from this, Ron Paul is the one presidential contender who best understands individual rights, including property rights, and how to help them come back to the fore. If you want the UN out of the US (and Agenda 21 out of our cities and “communities” – you had better research him.

Betsy Ross

Ron Paul sounds authentic in this respect, but really isn’t. He has no problems with HOAs, which are actually the first step in this Agenda 21. Where Boards of Directors (another level of government) have power over your home and land and its use and upkeep. He defends it as “private contracts” and yet it is the city and local governments that mandate those contracts in their zoning decisions. So you need to really look at Ron Paul also. He has more Constitutional positions than most, but certainly NOT in this respect, nor in his understanding of just what those founders meant by “free trade” when it has to do with trade with foreign governments, or foreign suppliers. Free to do business, yes. But not untaxed as that is how the revenue to pay for the government was supposed to also come from, import and export taxes – which he definitely misses.


link to this is an exerpt on ron pauls thoughts on the UN…..

The Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.

The UN is neither wise nor neutral. All of the member nations have national interests that don’t simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall. Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism. Perhaps the time has finally come when more Americans will choose to rethink our participation.

[…] UN Agenda 21 – even Democrats hate it […]

[…] Even Democrats hate it […]

[…] Even Democrats hate it […]


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x