Tom DeWeese to Address Agenda 21 and PlanMD at Harford Campaign for Liberty Meeting

From Harford Campaign for Liberty:

Tom DeWeese to address Harford Campaign for Liberty
February 26, 2013
7 pm
Knights of Columbus Hall
23 Newport Drive
Forest Hill, Maryland 21050

Mr. DeWeese is president and founder of The American Policy Center (www.AmericanPolicy.org ), an organization devoted to the advancement of policies that uphold individual liberty, private ownership of property, free markets, and American sovereignty. He is a prolific writer and widely sought national speaker. His grassroots activism has brought public and political attention to the dangers of Agenda 21 and its evil twin, PlanMD. He will outline specific strategies for fighting against the policies that seek to subjugate our American value of private ownership to a global agenda. Please join us for this important and informative event.

Visit our website www.harfordliberty.org for more information.

Comments

  1. LindaWeeks says

    Another screwball on the loose!
    http://americanpolicy.org/2009/10/23/environmental-facts-the-greens-will-never-mention/
    …and this fellow is quite the popular speaker, for all those conspiracy theorists. I can’t believe how gullible the public is. The new CFL light bulbs are not dangerous even if there is a minute amount of mercury involved. I’ve already broken a few, and look! I’m still alive!
    Evil Twin, hmm? This guy wear the tin foil hat too? Wake up and smell the coffee, people, this guy is a wingnut, and if you support this bizarre character, you are too! Other than that, I’m sure you’re fine. For Pete’s sake! Support the effort to limit waste, improve quality of life, act responsibly on the environment. Your government IS You! We all can impact the policies of our government, and do. The Agenda 21 is not mandatory, it is voluntary, and the agencies who wrote it are interested only in maintaining our world in the best shape possible, for as long as possible. fini.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 11
    • Liberty Lover says

      Hey Linda, did you regurgitate that ‘wingnut’ phrasing straight from the Daily Kos? Mr. DeWeese is a knowledgeable speaker, he’s spoken at respected colleges, and he’s more published than you’ll ever hope to be. Don’t be so naive to blast others’ research, not everything can be learned from the freecycle network. Go hug a windmill. I’d bet this grassroots group does more to impact government policies than your recycyling bin.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
  2. erichschmitt says

    PlanMD is very simply “taking without compensation” which is expressly forbidden by the Fifth Amendment to the US constitution and Article III, Section 40 of the Maryland Constitution. If you don’t believe so, ask any rural landowner who has spent generations working his land and has seen the value of said land severely diminished by this draconian action. PlanMD was enacted by an executive order by Gov. O’Malley who was apparently afraid that it wouldn’t survive debate in the legislature. The euphemism “the tail is wagging the dog”, tail being the green lobby & dog being maryland citizens, seams appropriate.

    Well-loved. Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5
  3. says

    Dear Linda, There is so much inaccuracy in your post that I barely know where to begin. First of all, the link that you provided can hardly be disputed. If anything it helps to support the credibility of Mr. DeWeese. The light bulbs you speak of do contain a small amount of mercury, a highly toxic element. It is particularly harmful to young children and fetuses. A single broken bulb requires a 15 minute evacuation of the area/room of all people and pets and a shutting down of your ventilation system to minimize spread of mercury vapor. Even if this procedure is followed, the poison can harbor in carpets and hang in the air. Can you imagine if there was a shattering of a full carton. I know that I usually buy things in bulk so I can economize.

    Now I know that folks like to hurl hurtful names like “wingnut”, “tinfoil hat”, etc. Even more so when the facts may not be on their side. It is so much more effective to win an argument with those pesky little things called facts, so let me provide some.

    You are correct. Agenda 21 is indeed a soft treaty. Fairly toothless until the force of law is applied to stiffen its effect. And that is just what has happened. The President’s Council on Sustainability quickly went to work in the Clinton administration to see to it that the policies and recommendations of Agenda 21 were codified into law in every little village and hamlet in the country. Their actions were very effective. This is why so many communities, no matter how dissimilar, have nearly identical land use programs. One of the key players on the council (Gary Lawrence) urged that the term “Local Agenda 21″ be purged from discussions of their policies so that people would not make the connection. At least not right away. He suggested that the programs be called “comprehensive planning” or, are you ready—–”Smart Growth”. You see, they knew that they were promoting policies that would be very unpopular with us plain folk. So they went about their work as deceptively as possible. When people try to hide their motives it makes me VERY nervous.

    A simple Google search on Agenda 21 will deliver up all kinds of worrisome remarks from folks that are aligned with the thinking behind this document. For instance

    “The Earth Summit (conference that produced Agenda 21) will play an important role in reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” Maurice Strong, chairperson Earth Summit as quoted in National Review.
    Here is another.
    “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective.” Harvey Ruvin, Vice Chair ICLEI (organization that works with UN and other NGOs to promote Agenda 21 at the local level)
    And another
    ” Private land use decisions are often driven by strong economic incentives that result in severe ecologic and aesthetic consequences. The key to overcoming this is through public policy.” pg 112 Report from The President’s Council on Sustainability.

    I could provide many similar examples of why I am skeptical of the motives of those that promote Agenda 21 but I think you get the point. For more, please visit http://www.harfordliberty.org, wwwdemocratsagainstagenda21.org, and http://www.freedomadvocates.org. You will find all the credible literature you need to explain why many have problems with a green agenda that focuses on the environment to the exclusion of the human element.

    There are many large and influential organizations that have caught on to the growing menace that is Agenda 21. PLANMD is merely a mini-model. I do not presume to know your politics but the RNC at its 2012 Winter conference adopted an anti-Agenda 21/anti ICLEI resolution, calling Agenda 21 an extreme plan of social engineering and environmentalism not consistent with American principles of private property ownership. You may not be a fan of the RNC but you can hardly call it a crazy fringe group. There are many of us that find them far too mainstream. The MDGOP adopted a similar resolution. Numerous states and counties have drafted and presented legislation that condemns Agenda 21 and with-holds financing from projects that are tied to it. Many of these legislative efforts have been successful and they are becoming more common. Many counties are sending ICLEI packing. Com. Rothschilds from Carrol County was one of the first to do so and has been at the forefront of the movement to expose Agenda 21.

    We are not “wingnuts”. We are your neighbors and coworkers. We are the farmers that provide you with local produce. We sit next to you in church and we serve with you on the PTA. We own property and cherish our freedoms and we don’t want to see them trampled and taken from us. I am a huge fan of responsible environmental stewardship and have been for many years. But much of this is not about the environment. It is more about control.

    I invite you to join our group on the 26th. Give the information a fair hearing and I will see to it that you are able to ask any questions that you like.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6
    • The Money Tree says

      You can’t be both a “huge fan of responsible environmental stewardwhip” and absolute property rights at the same time unless you trust every land owner to always do the right thing…and that includes ignoring Mr. Developer when he shows up your door right after you bury Grandad Farmer. That would be akin to all regulation being on the honor system – including regulations as they pertain to pollution, banking, your childrens’ education, manufacturing safety standards, etc. You can’t have sustainable land use policies dependent on honor system restrictions as it relates to out of control development.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
      • Peggysue says

        There are very strict laws concerning land development. You should read them and stop assuming how things work.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
        • The Money Tree says

          Sure there are…and those laws might preclude you from doing any number of things with your land. Those would be restrictions…with all due respect that’s kinda “duh.” Clearly my vision and yours do not agree. I look to the future and see given the rate of change a world without healthy ecosystems. Harford County is a beautiful place w/ fertile soil superior for farming…makes no sense to load townhouses on fertile, moist soil here and farm on arid, dry land in Texas or California that needs to be flooded with water from the fresh water sources more appropriate for fish than crops. Once you destroy it it’s very difficult to bring it back. There’s a much bigger long term picture here than you’re (and I only mean you for descriptive purposes) selfish want to derive windfall from the backs of previous generations hand work and diligence.

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
        • The Money Tree says

          Sure there are…and those laws might preclude you from doing any number of things with your land. Those would be restrictions…with all due respect that’s kinda “duh.” Clearly my vision and yours do not agree. I look to the future and see given the rate of change a world without healthy ecosystems. Harford County is a beautiful place w/ fertile soil superior for farming…makes no sense to load townhouses on fertile, moist soil here and farm on arid, dry land in Texas or California that needs to be flooded with water from the fresh water sources more appropriate for fish than crops. Once you destroy it it’s very difficult to bring it back. There’s a much bigger long term picture here than your (and I only mean you for descriptive purposes) selfish want to derive windfall from the backs of previous generations hard work and diligence.

          Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  4. Chris says

    I’ve been a fan of Mr. DeWeese for some time now, I’d love to hear his take on Plan Maryland. Personally, I agree with Councilman McMahan, forcing counties to submit to tier maps is no better than thievery straight from Annapolis.

    Well-loved. Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
  5. Mike Perrone Jr. says

    Land use matters should always be dealt with at the most local level of government possible. The State would have no business assuming planning & zoning authority even if Plan MD had arisen out of the legislature. The fact that it was created via executive order makes it that much more unjust and inappropriate.

    Well-loved. Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
  6. The Money Tree says

    This is nothing more than a public policy interference in the relationship between farmers and developers by which those that inherit sell dad’s farm and the farm becomes another series of tract homes. As much as I abhor federal or state government interference in anything in this case it is absolutely necessary for preservation and conservation. The fact that Harford County has gone from rural to suburban and in some cases nearly urban in 2 generations ought to help explain why some brakes must be applied. People do not belong on 5 acre plots in every spec of this county all the way to the PA border. Smart land use says that populations should be more concentrated where services can be most efficiently provided. Good and careful planning makes for a more livable place for everyone and it helps preserve open space for continued farming, woodlands and open meadows. We can’t use it all up in 1 generation. Nobody has absolute right to do whatever they want with thier property – you can’t open a check cashing store in the basement of your house because it’s inappropriate and it brings down the neighborhood. This isn’t really all that different. If you have farmland nobody is stopping you from farming.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 12
    • Peggysue says

      Perhaps you should take up farming I hear you can literally make 100′s of dollars doing it.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
      • The Money Tree says

        Brad makes more than 100′s as do most farmers…but it’s hard work no doubt, much harder work that most people particularly today are willing to do. God love a farmer for doing what they do; I think they deserve tremendous respect for both providing sustenance for the rest of us but also helping to preserve open space. Most are much better stewards of the land than some yodel from DC that only want 5000 sq. ft. of living space and an enormous lawn that will never be used.

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  7. Monster says

    Moneytree, you do not have the right to say that a farmer or the children of the farmer do not have the right to sell farmland for purposes other than farming. Who are you?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
    • The Money Tree says

      Nope; saying the farmer doesn’t have an absolute right to sell the farm and parcel it out to developers. If you don’t want to farm, sell the land or transfer it for conservation purposes. There are plenty of townhomes and such in town, closer to the services you may want. If you don’t want to farm you have no business sitting on 5 acres N. or Pylesville in yet another cookie cutter mcMansion. We need to come to our senses and realize open space is becoming a limited resource – humans must behave more responsibly or whatever green spaces we have will be gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot is now.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
      • Peggysue says

        You would have loved the USSR before it was dissolved. They had exactly your same ideas.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6
        • The Money Tree says

          Very extreme knee-jerk reaction on your part. Do you not see the issue here? Absolute free property rights might have been possible when we had 10,000 people in the county but you can’t have every piece of land being sold to the highest bidder with the population that we have and that’s only projected to grow exponentially unless your tremendously selfish. Do we have no responsibility to provide for the next generations access to fresh water, open spaces, trees, woodland and yes, farms. It can’t be all about us with no concern for anyone else…that’s the same thinking that excuses endless government spending. I find it amusing that conservatives typically demand the government stop spending; quit spending thier grandchildrens wealth but don’t get the responsibility to temper our voracious appetite construction – the creation of sprawl. Why do you think the word conservation has as it’s base “conserv”. Conservatives ought to the be the first ones to demand we use our resources wisely including land.

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
  8. Monster says

    Moneytree, I don’t know what planet you come from, but here in the US we believe land ownership to be a fundamental right. Part of that right is that I will sell my land to whom I wish for legal purposes. If it wasn’t for people such as yourself being born we wouldn’t have to worry about overdevelopment, there would be plenty of open space. Does that mean we should get rid of you? That is about the logic of your argument. Unless of course, you are advocating communism. Is that it? Come on, man, get real.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
  9. LindaWeeks says

    owning property is a complicated issue. you do have some rights regarding the disposition of your land, but your neighbors also have the right to say No, we don’t want that property used in a certain manner. Your property is yours, but your property lies within an area/town which has rights, within a county that has rights, within a state that has rights as well. We all impact one another with choices made, and so those fundamental rights are not absolute, wingnut.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
  10. LindaWeeks says

    the whole argument, that government is evil, or that Agenda 21 is bad is crazy talk. You ARE the government. We need and desire government to do what individuals can’t do by themselves; to take the long look ahead, to work towards a better future, as a government – and keep our mutual interests close to watch. Stop working against the only agency you have to protect you from business and industry which can, and will, work towards its own benefit, at any cost. That is what we need to watch!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • says

      Try thinking of big government as another big business which can and will work towards its own benefit at any cost. And once again you resort to name calling. It only detracts from your argument and cause. Try to use facts, they work much better.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1