Follow by Email

Friday, October 4, 2013

Agenda 21

While you weren't looking, Obama was doing something that you may not know about.
 
UN invented and Obama funded, Agenda 21 is coming to an urban area near you.
 
Again, at the advice of the UN, and funded by federal tax dollars, unelected people are deciding how land, water, and infrastructure will be used in the future, right here in America.  The major evil that this group of "do-gooders" is fighting?  Humans.
 
I went to a meeting regarding Agenda 21 in my urban area.  As I drove from my home in the hood, to this meeting in a different hood, I noticed something.  This hood had a beautiful, brand new: school building, library building and public transportation building.  No wonder people think that the government has unlimited funds!  There was basically government grandeur amidst urban squalor.

The meeting took place in a bank in this depressed area.  We were told the building was a $25 million dollar complex.  I hoped that the $25 million came from profit-making capitalism, but I honestly don't know if it was from government bailouts.  So, I entered the building with skepticism.

I immediately knew that I was in a room full of liberals.  Fresh-faced liberals in new suits, old hippie liberals in Hawaiian shirts and Birkenstocks.  It was all liberals.  No one was concerned with taxes.  Instead, everyone was concerned with wide open spaces, bike paths and the dangers of urban sprawl.
 
So, we got down to business and I was really interested to know what all the hubbub was about.  The group in charge laid out a "gloom and doom" scenario.  They had "found" that if we continue with "business as usual" in our urban area, we will "hit an iceberg" and "go over a cliff".  I thought, "Wow!"  I want to see those findings.  I looked, I squinted, I held the paper up real close.  There weren't any significant changes in our area from the last 20 years and there isn't going to be much of a change going forward.  Their findings showed a modest decline in urban population and a modest increase in suburban population.
 
The necessary response that they proposed?  "Regionalism is our only answer". Then, a bogus survey was taken and the room was all full of liberals so everyone agreed that we should take money from wealthier suburbs and "invest" that money in urban areas.  I kept pushing no, no, no.  But, somehow my vote wasn't really being considered.
 
Then, when prompted everyone agreed that the health of other neighborhoods affected their own livelihood.  Which is a bunch of crap, of course, what they mean is that if someone has more money in their neighborhood, some of that money should be allocated to their neighborhood.

It was classic communism.

Finally, we had an activity in which young liberals and old hippies took money that didn't belong to them and moved it from wealthier suburbs to urban areas that are being abandoned, kinda like the one we were sitting in right then.

We're playing our "game" of redistributing wealth and I asked whose money is was.  Nobody knew, but I did get some major stink eye.  I explained that lowering taxes would promote the influx of businesses and therefore capital into the urban regions.  That was called "political" and "ideological" and was accompanied by a LOT of stink eye.  Using Chicago and Minneapolis as examples, they said that this model (our redistribution of wealth model) was wonderful. I mentioned that Chicago has the highest crime rate in the country and also a high cost of living, people flee those regions in order to escape high taxes.  If we want more people to come to the area, we need to lower taxes, period.

DOUBLE MAJOR STINK EYE

They also wanted more trains and bicycle paths.  I asked if anyone had ever lived in Europe and explained that people there can't afford cars because of the high taxes and the high cost of trains.  No one had ever lived in Europe.  (Please see my previous post, "A Little Bit About Socialism")  Someone in our little socialist utopia was an executive at our local transit authority.  He even said that trains were too expensive, the extra tax burden would cripple our economy.

Why am I getting all the stink eye?

So, in the end, these idealist, young liberals and liberal politicians decided that making more money and moving out to the suburbs was a bad thing.  They want to punish those people with higher taxes so that they will "repopulate abandoned areas."

Look it up, this is coming to a major urban area near you!  They typically use the otherwise benign word "sustainability" but the way they use it, it means, "get rid of all the people, they are using too much stuff."